My answer is: at least a little of both. There are all kinds of controversy and debate swirling around these approaches, particularly the organic foods question. When it comes to fairly big issues like animal cruelty, human health, world hunger, food shortages, sustainable food supplies, farm subsidies, crop yields, and corporate profits, to name some of the issues at least tangentially related to veganism and/or the organic food industry, passions can run pretty hot. There are very strong opinions, pro and con, for both of these diet models. The organic foods industry has become a $48 billion a year industry, globally. The indication is that people are becoming more and more concerned with what they shove down their pie holes, and that those who can afford to will shell out a few extra bucks for the peace of mind that comes with a USDA Certified Organic label.
There have been dozens of peer-reviewed studies comparing the nutritional value of organic vs. conventionally grown foods. For the most part, these studies show rather conclusively that there are no appreciable benefits to consuming organically grown foods as opposed to conventionally grown foods in terms of nutrient content. That distinction is important. It means that these studies are primarily comparing the relative amounts of nutrients between two sample populations. Huh, you say? What I mean is, well, let's compare apples to apples These studies are starting with the premise that there are either more, the same, or less measurable quantities of known nutrients (vitamins, minerals, enzymes) in organic apples than conventional apples. To find out, they cut samples of each and put them through centrifuges and spectral microscopy analysis and whatever else they do to measure how much Vitamin A, B-complex, C, D, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, potassium and other minerals and so on, are in each sample from the same species grown in the two ways mentioned.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are no significant differences between organically grown apples and conventionally grown apples when the differences are measured this way. We should probably not be surprised to find that apple O (for organic) and apple C (for conventional) have nearly identical nutrient profiles. We should expect them to have about the same amounts of Vitamin C or D or whatever nutrient you'd care to measure. However, what these studies do not reveal (or even approach) are the differences in pesticide content and genetic modification, nor any long term effects on the health of those who regularly consume genetically modified, pesticide-laden fruits and vegetables, and hormone-injected, antibiotic-fed chickens, pigs, and cattle. Factory farmed chickens no doubt have about the same amount of protein and other nutrients in their meat as cage-free chickens. To me, that whole "there's virtually no difference between the two" is a misleading argument because everyone agrees that there are differences: in one, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetic modification, hormones, and/or antibiotics were used, and in the other they were not used. Those are the differences. Any meaningful study must measure the long term effects on the human body after regular consumption of those compounds. It is not meaningful or convincing to say "See? They have the same amounts of niacin and potassium so there's no difference at all."
The debate over veganism vs. carnivorism or omnivorism is similarly contentious. For me the evidence is pretty convincing that a strict vegan diet is not as healthy for us as a mostly vegetarian diet that contains some lean animal protein. But the crux of my argument in support of a mostly organic and mostly vegetarian diet is not founded on any study claiming this or that. It is based on simple logic. Homo sapiens, like every other living species, is a current end-point along an unbroken evolutionary line going back to the origin of life on Earth (if you're a creationist or think that the jury is still out on evolution then don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out). Like all living species, we have managed to adapt well to our environment and be reproductively successful. What this means is that our bodies are tuned to the resources that nature provides. Organisms don't evolve in a vacuum; they evolve in concert with the biosphere in which they exist-- the foods available, the predators, the microbes, the weather, the topography, and all other environmental pressures. We are here today because our forebears avoided predation, developed resistance to deadly microbes, took shelter against the elements, and most relevant to our discussion, adapted to the food supply.
During 99% of our species' evolutionary history and development (i.e. from One Million B.C.E. to about 10,000 years ago) we lived off of the fruits and vegetables and some grains we could forage, and the wild fish and game we could catch or hunt. Those foods are what our bodies evolved with. This is the story of our success. For the time that we've existed as a species, we have co-existed and co-evolved with our biosphere. Our physiology is inextricably linked to the foods we were adapted to eat. This is related to an idea put forth by Jean Liedloff that she calls "The Continuum Concept," from her book of the same name. Her primary focus in that work, and since, has been on child-rearing. Her definition, in part, of this concept is as follows (from her website):
"According to Jean Liedloff, the continuum concept is the idea that in order to achieve optimal physical, mental and emotional development, human beings — especially babies — require the kind of experience to which our species adapted during the long process of our evolution."
"...[Determining what is good for us] has for many millions of years been managed by the infinitely more refined and knowledgeable areas of the mind called instinct. ... [The] unconscious can make any number of observations, calculations, syntheses, and executions simultaneously and correctly."
"...What is meant here by "correct" is that which is appropriate to the ancient continuum of our species inasmuch as it is suited to the tendencies and expectations with which we have evolved. Expectation, in this sense, is founded as deeply in man as his very design. His lungs not only have, but can be said to be, an expectation of air, his eyes are an expectation of light... [etc.]"
"...The human continuum can also be defined as the sequence of experience which corresponds to the expectations and tendencies of the human species in an environment consistent with that in which those expectations and tendencies were formed. It includes appropriate behavior in, and treatment by, other people as part of that environment."
http://www.continuum-concept.org/cc_defined.html
Again, her focus is on behavior and child-rearing, based on her experiences with indigenous people in the rainforests of South America, who to this day live almost certainly as all humans had for most of our development: in small familial bands, foraging for berries and root vegetables and leafy greens, and supplementing their diet with the occasional hunted animal. She observed that their infants never cried, and that virtually all of the adolescents and adults were perfectly contented and happy. Then she paid close attention to how they raise their babies from birth. Long story short, the babies are always with their mothers, in a sling on her body or in her arms, as she works, eats, sleeps, whatever, until the baby decides to explore its surroundings a little more (the other women, and the father, share in those duties). Ms. Liedloff concluded (correctly, in my estimation) that this must be how human babies were raised universally before the arrival of agriculture and civilization, and therefore, is how our species is adapted and how babies are supposed to be raised if they're to develop into well adjusted toddlers and adolescents. So the human Continuum is the natural arc of our physical and mental development, and to be in harmony with our Continuum is to keep our environment as close to the one in which we evolved as possible. The human psyche needs to develop in a social environment akin to the one in which it has evolved. The human body needs to be nourished with the same diet it is perfectly adapted to.
The old homespun saying is true, you are what you eat. We are designed, so to speak, to extract the nutrients we need from food, real food. Everything we ingest becomes part of our biochemistry, part of us. Certain foods trigger or inhibit the production of certain hormones which regulate our bodies-- hormones that tell our bodies to store or burn fat, that make us feel sleepy or stimulate our adrenal gland, and so on. Our bodies are not designed to process artificial sweeteners and colorants, so-called stabilizers, preservatives, genetically modified plants, animals that have been fed a diet of corn which they are not designed to metabolize, and many other artificial food-like ingredients. We are just beginning to understand the havoc wreaked by the modern western diet. Clearly, we are not meant to eat many of the things that have become staples in the modern American diet. I encourage you-- no, I beseech you-- please consider how your ancestors must have eaten (whole, natural foods, mostly raw fruits, nuts, and vegetables, and sparse animal products) and try to eat like that most of the time. It may add years to your life.
Next on SLAKED: Deep fried Twinkies and Spam casserole.
During 99% of our species' evolutionary history and development (i.e. from One Million B.C.E. to about 10,000 years ago) we lived off of the fruits and vegetables and some grains we could forage, and the wild fish and game we could catch or hunt. Those foods are what our bodies evolved with. This is the story of our success. For the time that we've existed as a species, we have co-existed and co-evolved with our biosphere. Our physiology is inextricably linked to the foods we were adapted to eat. This is related to an idea put forth by Jean Liedloff that she calls "The Continuum Concept," from her book of the same name. Her primary focus in that work, and since, has been on child-rearing. Her definition, in part, of this concept is as follows (from her website):
"According to Jean Liedloff, the continuum concept is the idea that in order to achieve optimal physical, mental and emotional development, human beings — especially babies — require the kind of experience to which our species adapted during the long process of our evolution."
"...[Determining what is good for us] has for many millions of years been managed by the infinitely more refined and knowledgeable areas of the mind called instinct. ... [The] unconscious can make any number of observations, calculations, syntheses, and executions simultaneously and correctly."
"...What is meant here by "correct" is that which is appropriate to the ancient continuum of our species inasmuch as it is suited to the tendencies and expectations with which we have evolved. Expectation, in this sense, is founded as deeply in man as his very design. His lungs not only have, but can be said to be, an expectation of air, his eyes are an expectation of light... [etc.]"
"...The human continuum can also be defined as the sequence of experience which corresponds to the expectations and tendencies of the human species in an environment consistent with that in which those expectations and tendencies were formed. It includes appropriate behavior in, and treatment by, other people as part of that environment."
http://www.continuum-concept.org/cc_defined.html
Again, her focus is on behavior and child-rearing, based on her experiences with indigenous people in the rainforests of South America, who to this day live almost certainly as all humans had for most of our development: in small familial bands, foraging for berries and root vegetables and leafy greens, and supplementing their diet with the occasional hunted animal. She observed that their infants never cried, and that virtually all of the adolescents and adults were perfectly contented and happy. Then she paid close attention to how they raise their babies from birth. Long story short, the babies are always with their mothers, in a sling on her body or in her arms, as she works, eats, sleeps, whatever, until the baby decides to explore its surroundings a little more (the other women, and the father, share in those duties). Ms. Liedloff concluded (correctly, in my estimation) that this must be how human babies were raised universally before the arrival of agriculture and civilization, and therefore, is how our species is adapted and how babies are supposed to be raised if they're to develop into well adjusted toddlers and adolescents. So the human Continuum is the natural arc of our physical and mental development, and to be in harmony with our Continuum is to keep our environment as close to the one in which we evolved as possible. The human psyche needs to develop in a social environment akin to the one in which it has evolved. The human body needs to be nourished with the same diet it is perfectly adapted to.
The old homespun saying is true, you are what you eat. We are designed, so to speak, to extract the nutrients we need from food, real food. Everything we ingest becomes part of our biochemistry, part of us. Certain foods trigger or inhibit the production of certain hormones which regulate our bodies-- hormones that tell our bodies to store or burn fat, that make us feel sleepy or stimulate our adrenal gland, and so on. Our bodies are not designed to process artificial sweeteners and colorants, so-called stabilizers, preservatives, genetically modified plants, animals that have been fed a diet of corn which they are not designed to metabolize, and many other artificial food-like ingredients. We are just beginning to understand the havoc wreaked by the modern western diet. Clearly, we are not meant to eat many of the things that have become staples in the modern American diet. I encourage you-- no, I beseech you-- please consider how your ancestors must have eaten (whole, natural foods, mostly raw fruits, nuts, and vegetables, and sparse animal products) and try to eat like that most of the time. It may add years to your life.
Next on SLAKED: Deep fried Twinkies and Spam casserole.
No comments:
Post a Comment