Post by blackcrowheart on Dec 16, 2005 0:21:22 GMT -5
Food In Our Genes
If you advocate moving back to a diet based on products which have been
grown locally and are in perfect balance with their ecosystem, you are
often accused of facile utopianism. You are automatically assumed to be
trying to stop the inevitable march of globalization. It is supposed to
be utopian to oppose a system of food production and distribution that
provides goods from all over the world. It is supposed to be utopian if
you are against globalization and say it is more appropriate to
revitalize local products—starting by consuming local goods and
recreating as direct a link as possible with producers. Never mind the
accusations of excessive conservatism.
It is in fact difficult to shift our food supply back to local level,
even though it is increasingly urgent in view of the ecological state of
the planet and the imbalances, contradictions and problems afflicting
our agrifood system.
However, I firmly belief in the desirability of a move back to local
sourcing of our food needs, and am keen to work towards it because it
seems to provide better options for defending biodiversity, protecting
small-scale agriculture products, maintaining local cultures and also of
course, ensuring better diets that promote health and well-being.
I recently found outstanding support for this position from Professor
Gary P. Nabhan, Director of the Center for Sustainable Environments at
Northern Arizona University and author of Why Some Like It Hot, a
serious examination of the new field of evolutionary gastronomy. It is
based on the scholarly erudition of a geneticist but told with a
narrative verve that makes it accessible to all and a stimulating read.
I was pleased to find a professor dealing with gastronomy in a dignified
scientific way, opening the way for a new understanding of the links
between natural processes, locally-based food and diet. But I was even
more delighted by the book’s main thesis, which reveals new reasons why
we should oppose the standardization and downgrading of food around the
world, be it in rich or poor countries.
The author basically states that we are not only what we eat but also
what our ancestors ate, when globalization, or even trade over extended
distances, was unimaginable. Analyzing the huge array of food
intolerances afflicting almost four billion people on our planet, Nabhan
concludes that for simple evolutionary reasons, the diets we are best
adapted to are those that are deeply-rooted in the products from our
local areas or where our ancestors came from.
Our genetic make-up evolved as a result of the diets that were available
to our most distant ancestors. Obvious examples can be seen in the
intolerance to alcohol of some populations such as the Japanese or
American Indians, or to milk products for peoples who never practiced
animal husbandry.
Nabhan tells the story of a great friend of his, a native American who
died after considerable suffering because his genes would not tolerate
the food habits imposed by the US. Nabhan relates an amusing story of
being taken by his friend to the tribal village where milk powder
donated by the US government was being handed out. The author was amazed
to find that the Indians used it to mark the lines of the baseball
field: native Indians cannot digest milk and as it was a present, had to
find some way of using it.
Nabhan suggests that it is therefore dangerous to abandon traditional
food habits and that the increasing incidence of food-related health
problems—such as obesity, gluten intolerance, the spread of diabetes—may
also be a consequence of the incredible dietary melting pot which has
been introduced by globalization.
So we have a new voice speaking out in defense of local food traditions,
communicating scientifically rigorous evidence in good style. You might
not have the interest, desire or conviction to be involved with efforts
promoting a renewed focus on local food, but why don’t you read Nabhan
for yourself? He gave a fresh boost to us and his original approach
might prompt others to roll up their sleeves and reconsider the issue of
locally-sourced food.
First published in La Stampa on November 14 2005
If you advocate moving back to a diet based on products which have been
grown locally and are in perfect balance with their ecosystem, you are
often accused of facile utopianism. You are automatically assumed to be
trying to stop the inevitable march of globalization. It is supposed to
be utopian to oppose a system of food production and distribution that
provides goods from all over the world. It is supposed to be utopian if
you are against globalization and say it is more appropriate to
revitalize local products—starting by consuming local goods and
recreating as direct a link as possible with producers. Never mind the
accusations of excessive conservatism.
It is in fact difficult to shift our food supply back to local level,
even though it is increasingly urgent in view of the ecological state of
the planet and the imbalances, contradictions and problems afflicting
our agrifood system.
However, I firmly belief in the desirability of a move back to local
sourcing of our food needs, and am keen to work towards it because it
seems to provide better options for defending biodiversity, protecting
small-scale agriculture products, maintaining local cultures and also of
course, ensuring better diets that promote health and well-being.
I recently found outstanding support for this position from Professor
Gary P. Nabhan, Director of the Center for Sustainable Environments at
Northern Arizona University and author of Why Some Like It Hot, a
serious examination of the new field of evolutionary gastronomy. It is
based on the scholarly erudition of a geneticist but told with a
narrative verve that makes it accessible to all and a stimulating read.
I was pleased to find a professor dealing with gastronomy in a dignified
scientific way, opening the way for a new understanding of the links
between natural processes, locally-based food and diet. But I was even
more delighted by the book’s main thesis, which reveals new reasons why
we should oppose the standardization and downgrading of food around the
world, be it in rich or poor countries.
The author basically states that we are not only what we eat but also
what our ancestors ate, when globalization, or even trade over extended
distances, was unimaginable. Analyzing the huge array of food
intolerances afflicting almost four billion people on our planet, Nabhan
concludes that for simple evolutionary reasons, the diets we are best
adapted to are those that are deeply-rooted in the products from our
local areas or where our ancestors came from.
Our genetic make-up evolved as a result of the diets that were available
to our most distant ancestors. Obvious examples can be seen in the
intolerance to alcohol of some populations such as the Japanese or
American Indians, or to milk products for peoples who never practiced
animal husbandry.
Nabhan tells the story of a great friend of his, a native American who
died after considerable suffering because his genes would not tolerate
the food habits imposed by the US. Nabhan relates an amusing story of
being taken by his friend to the tribal village where milk powder
donated by the US government was being handed out. The author was amazed
to find that the Indians used it to mark the lines of the baseball
field: native Indians cannot digest milk and as it was a present, had to
find some way of using it.
Nabhan suggests that it is therefore dangerous to abandon traditional
food habits and that the increasing incidence of food-related health
problems—such as obesity, gluten intolerance, the spread of diabetes—may
also be a consequence of the incredible dietary melting pot which has
been introduced by globalization.
So we have a new voice speaking out in defense of local food traditions,
communicating scientifically rigorous evidence in good style. You might
not have the interest, desire or conviction to be involved with efforts
promoting a renewed focus on local food, but why don’t you read Nabhan
for yourself? He gave a fresh boost to us and his original approach
might prompt others to roll up their sleeves and reconsider the issue of
locally-sourced food.
First published in La Stampa on November 14 2005