This is what we usually have in mind when we speak of the French paradox — the fact that a population that eats all sorts of unhealthful nutrients is in many ways healthier than we Americans are. So there is at least a question as to whether nutritionism is actually any good for you. Another potentially serious weakness of nutritionist ideology is that it has trouble discerning qualitative distinctions between foods. So fish, beef and chicken through the nutritionists lens become mere delivery systems for varying quantities of fats and proteins and whatever other nutrients are on their scope. Similarly, any qualitative distinctions between processed foods and whole foods disappear when your focus is on quantifying the nutrients they contain (or, more precisely, the known nutrients). This is a great boon for manufacturers of processed food, and it helps explain why they have been so happy to get with the nutritionism program. In the years following Mcgoverns capitulation and the 1982 National Academy report, the food industry set about re-engineering thousands of popular food products to contain more of the nutrients that science and government had deemed the good ones and less of the bad, and. The year of Eating Oat Bran — also known as 1988 — served as a kind of coming-out party for the food scientists, who succeeded in getting the material into nearly every processed food sold in America.
Fast food essay ielts
A reigning ideology is a little like the weather, all pervasive and virtually inescapable. Still, we can try. In the case of nutritionism, the widely shared but unexamined assumption is that the key to understanding food is indeed the nutrient. From this basic premise flow several others. Since nutrients, as compared with foods, are invisible essay and therefore slightly mysterious, it falls to the scientists (and to the journalists through whom the scientists speak) to explain the hidden reality of foods. To enter a world in which you dine on unseen nutrients, you need lots of expert help. But expert help to do what, exactly? This brings us to another unexamined assumption: that the whole point of eating is to maintain and promote bodily health. Hippocratess famous injunction to let food be thy medicine is ritually invoked to support this notion. Ill leave the premise alone for now, except to point out that it is not shared by all cultures and that the experience of these other cultures suggests that, paradoxically, viewing food as being about things other than bodily health — like pleasure, say,.
Organized nutrient by nutrient in a way guaranteed to offend no food group, it codified the official new dietary language. Industry and media followed suit, and terms like polyunsaturated, cholesterol, monounsaturated, carbohydrate, fiber, polyphenols, amino acids and carotenes soon colonized much of the cultural space previously occupied by the tangible substance formerly known as food. The Age of Nutritionism had arrived. The rise of nutritionism, the first thing to understand about nutritionism — i first encountered the term in the work of an Australian sociologist of science named gyorgy Scrinis — is that it is not quite the same as nutrition. As the ism suggests, it is not a scientific beauty subject but an ideology. Ideologies are ways of organizing large swaths of life and experience under a set of shared but unexamined assumptions. This quality makes an ideology particularly hard to see, at least while its exerting its hold on your culture.
Plain talk driver about food — the committee had advised Americans to actually reduce consumption of meat — was replaced by artful compromise: Choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated-fat intake. A subtle change in emphasis, you might say, but a world of difference just the same. First, the stark message to eat less of a particular food has been deep-sixed; dont look for it ever again in any official. Second, notice how distinctions between entities as different as fish and beef and chicken have collapsed; those three venerable foods, each representing an entirely different taxonomic class, are now lumped together as delivery systems for a single nutrient. Notice too how the new language exonerates the foods themselves; now the culprit is an obscure, invisible, tasteless — and politically unconnected — substance that may or may not lurk in them called saturated fat. The linguistic capitulation did nothing to rescue mcgovern from his blunder; the very next election, in 1980, the beef lobby helped rusticate the three-term senator, sending an unmistakable warning to anyone who would challenge the American diet, and in particular the big chunk of animal. Henceforth, government dietary guidelines would shun plain talk about whole foods, each of which has its trade association on Capitol Hill, and would instead arrive clothed in scientific euphemism and speaking of nutrients, entities that few Americans really understood but that lack powerful lobbies. This was precisely the tack taken by the national Academy of Sciences when it issued its landmark report on diet and cancer in 1982.
No single event marked the shift from eating food to eating nutrients, though in retrospect a little-noticed political dust-up in Washington in 1977 seems to have helped propel American food culture down this dimly lighted path. Responding to an alarming increase in chronic diseases linked to diet — including heart disease, cancer and diabetes — a senate select Committee on Nutrition, headed by george Mcgovern, held hearings on the problem and prepared what by all rights should have been an uncontroversial. The committee learned that while rates of coronary heart disease had soared in America since world War ii, other cultures that consumed traditional diets based largely on plants had strikingly low rates of chronic disease. Epidemiologists also had observed that in America during the war years, when meat and dairy products were strictly rationed, the rate of heart disease temporarily plummeted. Naively putting two and two together, the committee drafted a straightforward set of dietary guidelines calling on Americans to cut down on red meat and dairy products. Within weeks a firestorm, emanating from the red-meat and dairy industries, engulfed the committee, and Senator Mcgovern (who had a great many cattle ranchers among his south dakota constituents) was forced to beat a retreat. The committees recommendations were hastily rewritten.
Fast food essay, essay, writing Service
Where once the familiar names of recognizable comestibles — things like eggs or breakfast cereal or cookies — claimed pride of place on the brightly colored packages crowding the aisles, now new terms like fiber and statement cholesterol and saturated fat rose to large-type prominence. More important than mere foods, the presence or absence of these invisible substances was now generally believed to confer health benefits on their eaters. Foods by comparison were coarse, old-fashioned and decidedly unscientific things — who could say what was in them, really? But nutrients — those chemical compounds and minerals in foods that nutritionists have deemed important to health — gleamed with the promise of scientific certainty; eat more of the right ones, fewer of the wrong, and you would live longer and avoid chronic diseases. Nutrients themselves essay had been around, as a concept, since the early 19th century, when the English doctor and chemist William Prout identified what came to be called the macronutrients: protein, fat and carbohydrates.
It was thought that that was pretty much all there was going on in food, until doctors noticed that an adequate supply of the big three did not necessarily keep people nourished. At the end of the 19th century, british doctors were puzzled by the fact that Chinese laborers in the malay states were dying of a disease called beriberi, which didnt seem to afflict Tamils or native malays. The mystery was solved when someone pointed out that the Chinese ate polished, or white, rice, while the others ate rice that hadnt been mechanically milled. A few years later, casimir Funk, a polish chemist, discovered the essential nutrient in rice husks that protected against beriberi and called it a vitamine, the first micronutrient. Vitamins brought a kind of glamour to the science of nutrition, and though certain sectors of the population began to eat by its expert lights, it really wasnt until late in the 20th century that nutrients managed to push food aside in the popular imagination.
The year before we learned that dietary fiber might not, as we had been confidently told, help prevent colon cancer. Just last fall two prestigious studies on omega-3 fats published at the same time presented us with strikingly different conclusions. While the Institute of Medicine stated that it is uncertain how much these omega-3s contribute to improving health (and they might do the opposite if you get them from mercury-contaminated fish a harvard study declared that simply by eating a couple of servings of fish. Its no wonder that omega-3 fatty acids are poised to become the oat bran of 2007, as food scientists micro-encapsulate fish oil and algae oil and blast them into such formerly all-terrestrial foods as bread and tortillas, milk and yogurt and cheese, all of which. By now youre probably registering the cognitive dissonance of the supermarket shopper or science-section reader, as well as some nostalgia for the simplicity and solidity of the first few sentences of this essay.
Which Im still prepared to defend against the shifting winds of nutritional science and food-industry marketing. But before i do that, it might be useful to figure out how we arrived at our present state of nutritional confusion and anxiety. The story of how the most basic questions about what to eat ever got so complicated reveals a great deal about the institutional imperatives of the food industry, nutritional science and — ahem — journalism, three parties that stand to gain much from widespread confusion. Humans deciding what to eat without expert help — something they have been doing with notable success since coming down out of the trees — is seriously unprofitable if youre a food company, distinctly risky if youre a nutritionist and just plain boring if youre. (Or, for that matter, an eater. Who wants to hear, yet again, eat more fruits and vegetables?) And so, like a large gray fog, a great Conspiracy of Confusion has gathered around the simplest questions of nutrition — much to the advantage of everybody involved. Except perhaps the ostensible beneficiary of all this nutritional expertise and advice: us, and our health and happiness as eaters. From foods to nutrients, it was in the 1980s that food began disappearing from the American supermarket, gradually to be replaced by nutrients, which are not the same thing.
Essay, powerPoint Presentation - id:5095640
Thats what I mean by the recommendation to eat food. Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health vertebrae claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if youre concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that its not really food, and food is what you want to eat. Things are suddenly sounding a little more complicated, arent they? But thats how it goes as soon as you try to get to the bottom of the whole vexing question of food and health. Before long, a dense cloud bank of confusion moves. Sooner or later, everything solid you thought you knew about the links between diet and health gets blown away in the gust of the latest study. Last winter came the news that a low-fat diet, long believed to protect against breast cancer, may do no such thing — this from the monumental, federally financed Womens health Initiative, which has also found no link between a low-fat diet and rates of coronary.
sure that you have met all of the assignments rules and answered any questions that the reader may have about the topic within the composition. In conclusion, an academic essay is a form of writing that allows you to present your arguments within a set of standards. When you master this skill, you will allow readers to consume your reasoning without distractions from an unexpected format and chaotic analysis. Welcome to medical News Today, healthline media, inc. Would like to process and share personal data (e.g., mobile ad id) and data about your use of our site (e.g., content interests) with our third party partners (see a current list ) using cookies and similar automatic collection tools in order to a) personalize. Is based in and operates this site from the United States. Any data you provide will be primarily stored and processed in the United States, pursuant to the laws of the United States, which may provide lesser privacy protections than European Economic Area countries.
In this case, you have to display your understanding of procedures that establish the validity of an observation. As a result, your essay must contain your opinions of whether the existing results display a certain trend. However, when you process essay topics, you have only fulfilled the initial phase of writing. You now need to present your writing in a pre-defined essay format. An academic essay should present arguments in a structure that follows well-defined ilahi structures. This makes it easy for both you and the reader to know where to find particular sections of your reasoning. A well-formatted academic essay should generally have an introduction that contains your thesis statement; a body of paragraphs that presents your arguments according to the thesis and a conclusion section that sums up your stand and reviews the essays argument on the main topic. To format an academic essay also demands you to observe the pre-defined requirements of font style, indentations, and paper margins. By fulfilling these requirements, you gain the first point for credibility from the reader.
5 For And Against
An essay topic may use the key terms, compare, analyze, argue or evaluate to establish the type of arguments that the essay requires. When an essay topic contains the keyword compare, it requires you to offer arguments that clearly show similarities and differences between the required items. As a result, this type of essay demands you refer to established facts about the items in question. An essay topic that directs you to analyze a concept requires you to offer a detailed inspection. It demands arguments that display your deeper understanding of the facts behind the concept. As a result, you should write water out arguments that criticize the existing facts and establish connections with other concepts. A topic that contains the term argue requires your points of view, which either support or contest the validity of a concept. Consequently, your arguments must display a good grasp of the concept before presenting their position. An essay topic may also require you to evaluate a set of arguments, results, or data.