Re: RE: food fads | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Racheli Gai (rachelisonoracohousing.com) | |
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:19:13 -0700 (PDT) |
Hi TR,I was attempting to write, in my previous post, in a way which didn't say: Wanting organic is "right", and not wanting organic is "wrong" (even though I didn't try to hide my own preference/bias). To reiterate, my point was that in close proximity pursuing certain way of life has consequences for those who want to do/live/be different - and that not all styles can coexist happily. I used to feel more like Lynn, in the sense that I felt that modeling my own way (and learning from modeling done by others) might be good enough, but I've come to question whether that's sufficient. If I want to have an organic back yard,
by one or more of my neighbors choose to spray, it affects me.I also, FYI, am not pushing anyone to eat organic, and never have. I was just saying that if there aren't enough who are interested, it affects my ability to participate without compromising principles which are important to me. As Lynn implied, it's really not a matter of having to have everyone do "organic", but rather a matter of a "critical mass". If among the cooks only a small number cares enough about organic to pursue cooking meals which are acceptable for me, then I end up not having enough meals to choose from, and it's not worth it for me to participate. It's absolutely not a matter of my wanting to force people to cook organic if they don't really want to do so. It's a matter of saying that my life in community would be richer if a larger number of people shared some of my basic
values.On the matter of science, and what's been shown to be healthy or not scientifically speaking - I very much disagree with your assessment that organic food has not been shown to be healthier. There is quite a lot of material out there which establishes this point, but of course it's up to every one of us to decide when they're "convinced", if ever... Since science isn't about a proof, but about corroborating evidence (and refutation), it's never the fact that *anything* is established beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the decision one makes is *not a scientific one*. It is based on values
regarding what kind of risks one wishes to take and why. Best, R. On Jun 5, 2005, at 9:24 AM, TR Ruddick wrote:
Now this is interesting:From: John Beutler <jbeutler [at] adelphia.net> I have a philosophical point I want to make about the drift of the discussion, and that is, I think we want to be careful to not make the cohousing movement an incubator for every [nutritional] fad that comesdownthe pike. I have no particular bone to pick with organic veggies, ortransfats or seafood contamination, but I think institutionalizing such pointsof view will marginalize the cohoousing movement.And I thought Racheli was going to voice my sentiments at first--From: Racheli Gai <racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com> It's interesting to me that you put "organic" and "low trans" in the same basket. They are, of course, comparable in a certain way, since they're both seen as connected to the wish (on the part of some) to eat healthy food. However, the issue of buying organic has a lot to do with a viewpoint which places high priority on creating a sustainable way of life. Is that a "fad"?From my perspective, many dietary trends are wrong-headed, as voiced byanother writer complaining about "vegetarians" who subside on white flourand refined sugar. But while the relative benefits of organic farming are still somewhat uncertain, avoiding trans-fat seems to be an absolute certainty, not a"fad"--yet you support ogranics and ignore the consumption of a substancethat's just one molucule removed from plastic.And isn't deciding what's "reasonable", as opposed to what is merely a "fad" as politically motivated as the decision to support organic/local/etc.?I'd have to side with the hard science. If you and your housing mates wantto follow a particular regimen for personal choice, that's to a certain extent political. But if members are, as cited, lactose intolerant or yeast-allergic, then those are objective situations, not personalpreferences. Avoiding trans-fat is scientific, not philosophical. Buyingorganic may one day be shown by hard science to be nutritionally superior--until then, it's a personal choice.On a more general level, I'm finding (after nearly 5 years in my cohousing community), that the idea that people of all ideologies can live side by side happily is truly NOT a viable one...It's like any other intercultural communication. You will co-exist and behappy together if that's a priority for those on both sides of the disagreement. Either party can scotch it.As regards food, I personally have grown increasingly short-tempered with those who trumpet diet trends. We've gone through avoiding starches, meat,red meat, fats, salt, carbs...and America in general is not fit and healthy. Vegetarians unintentionally consume animal protein daily. Releatively well-designed long-term dietary studies, based onanthropological data about what constitutes a natural diet for humans and how it can be adapted for contemporary life, have been conducted. Until I see lots of those, I'm concluding that we're functioning under a cloud ofdietary ignorance.Make the choice to be kosher or vegetarian or whatever if you please, but realize that it involves differentiating yourself from others, and that's divisive. Making others accommodate your personal choices really isn't theessence of community IMO. T R _________________________________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
-
RE: food fads TR Ruddick, June 5 2005
- Re: RE: food fads Racheli Gai, June 5 2005
- Re: RE: food fads Nancy B, June 5 2005
-
RE: food fads TR Ruddick, June 5 2005
- Re: RE: food fads Racheli Gai, June 5 2005
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.