<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoreau&#8217;s Food Rules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.feedmeimcranky.com/2010/02/10/thoreaus-food-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.feedmeimcranky.com/2010/02/10/thoreaus-food-rules/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:50:24 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Annabel</title>
		<link>http://www.feedmeimcranky.com/2010/02/10/thoreaus-food-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-3164</link>
		<dc:creator>Annabel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:25:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feedmeimcranky.com/?p=3296#comment-3164</guid>
		<description>You know – that’s an excellent insight, but I really don’t think we’re over-thinking anything here. Maybe if we lived in a state of nature, hundreds of years ago, as a small population of people without industry/technology and capitalism – and we simply lived off the land and didn’t expend energy reflecting on life, then, sure, food would be simple and natural. 

We don’t live in a state of nature. We live in a world where food is an issue of capitalist self-interest, politics and the environment. Sure, we can tell people “food is meant to be simple and natural.” What does that mean? Truly, I ask you, because I have a hard time coming up with that definition myself and, as you can see, I do love to think about it. There are all sorts of issues embedded in the issue of food – like access to healthy foods (impoverished urban areas tend to have higher concentrations of fast food restaurants per mile than their wealthier counterparts), the fact that our processed foods are regulated by lobbyists and self-interest, the fact that food labels and companies lie to the public, the fact that people simply don’t know what is and is not healthy, the fact that kids are overwhelmed with food advertisements, the fact that food production is tied to the sustainability of our environment, etc. So, maybe food was meant to be simple and “natural” when it first came into existence (whatever that means) – but it’s not. That’s why I’m not sure there is any “point” except allowing people access to knowledge and debate on what “food” is in our society and what we’d like it to be. 

When it comes to whether “all good advice has already been given” – I cringe and actually worry about the prospects of that sentiment. I truly truly truly think philosophy on food, life and any subject is malleable, subject to change, and meant to evolve. Everything that could be written on food “philosophy” hasn’t been written already and definitely won’t ever all be said (or written) until we cease to exist. And while Thoreau might have been giving “good advice” (and I’d hesitate to preface anything with “good”), he wasn’t writing a diet book -- he was writing a book on society, the economy and environmental issues and what he thought needed to change. We have to remember that books like Pollan’s (and Thoreau’s) aren’t these food “philosophies” meant to exist like a Dear Abbey column -- they&#039;re meant to spark change. 

If we just closed off debates and said “all good advice has already been given,” I fear we’d be doing huge disservice to ourselves. Just think of some of the horrible things people have thought “good advice” in our history, and how if people hadn’t questioned it where we&#039;d still be right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know – that’s an excellent insight, but I really don’t think we’re over-thinking anything here. Maybe if we lived in a state of nature, hundreds of years ago, as a small population of people without industry/technology and capitalism – and we simply lived off the land and didn’t expend energy reflecting on life, then, sure, food would be simple and natural. </p>
<p>We don’t live in a state of nature. We live in a world where food is an issue of capitalist self-interest, politics and the environment. Sure, we can tell people “food is meant to be simple and natural.” What does that mean? Truly, I ask you, because I have a hard time coming up with that definition myself and, as you can see, I do love to think about it. There are all sorts of issues embedded in the issue of food – like access to healthy foods (impoverished urban areas tend to have higher concentrations of fast food restaurants per mile than their wealthier counterparts), the fact that our processed foods are regulated by lobbyists and self-interest, the fact that food labels and companies lie to the public, the fact that people simply don’t know what is and is not healthy, the fact that kids are overwhelmed with food advertisements, the fact that food production is tied to the sustainability of our environment, etc. So, maybe food was meant to be simple and “natural” when it first came into existence (whatever that means) – but it’s not. That’s why I’m not sure there is any “point” except allowing people access to knowledge and debate on what “food” is in our society and what we’d like it to be. </p>
<p>When it comes to whether “all good advice has already been given” – I cringe and actually worry about the prospects of that sentiment. I truly truly truly think philosophy on food, life and any subject is malleable, subject to change, and meant to evolve. Everything that could be written on food “philosophy” hasn’t been written already and definitely won’t ever all be said (or written) until we cease to exist. And while Thoreau might have been giving “good advice” (and I’d hesitate to preface anything with “good”), he wasn’t writing a diet book &#8212; he was writing a book on society, the economy and environmental issues and what he thought needed to change. We have to remember that books like Pollan’s (and Thoreau’s) aren’t these food “philosophies” meant to exist like a Dear Abbey column &#8212; they&#8217;re meant to spark change. </p>
<p>If we just closed off debates and said “all good advice has already been given,” I fear we’d be doing huge disservice to ourselves. Just think of some of the horrible things people have thought “good advice” in our history, and how if people hadn’t questioned it where we&#8217;d still be right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christine</title>
		<link>http://www.feedmeimcranky.com/2010/02/10/thoreaus-food-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-3163</link>
		<dc:creator>Christine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feedmeimcranky.com/?p=3296#comment-3163</guid>
		<description>Focus on food philosophies like this is definitely good, but sort if paradoxical. Isn&#039;t the point that food should be simple and natural? Yet the point is being overcomplicated and maybe overthought. It&#039;s also a great example of the fact that all good advice has usually been given already, whether it be about food, exercise, life, happiness, or anything else that should be easy but has become increasingly difficult.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Focus on food philosophies like this is definitely good, but sort if paradoxical. Isn&#8217;t the point that food should be simple and natural? Yet the point is being overcomplicated and maybe overthought. It&#8217;s also a great example of the fact that all good advice has usually been given already, whether it be about food, exercise, life, happiness, or anything else that should be easy but has become increasingly difficult.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
