Food Smelling Shampoo

I love Philosophy products, they always come up with some great food-smelling products. There were too many to choose from Sephora, lemon custard, pumpkin pie, vanilla birthday cake. I picked up a few realistic smelling body wash like lemonade and apple. More disappointing were the cocktail line (margarita, daiquri, mimosa) shampoo trio that I got.

This is one of my favorites, Cinnamon Bun. It smells like cinnamon ginger bread. What's great its a shampoo, bubble bath and body wash all in one. Good for travelling.

On the bottle, it gives you a recipe for creating your own cinnamon bun. Not tried it out yet. Let me know if it works out.

Philosophy's Cinnamon Buns Recipe

1/4 cup warm milk
1/2 cup sugar
1 teaspoon salt
1 portion dry yeast
1/4 warm water
2 1/2 cup flour
1 tablespoon cinnamon
4 tablespoon soften butter
2 eggs

  • Mix all ingredients except yeast, water, flour let it cool,
  • Stir and dissolve yeast in warm water
  • Add yeast to first mixtutre, beat until mixed
  • Add 1 1/2 cup flour, cover and let rise for 1 hour
  • Add remaining flour, blend well, knead until smooth.
  • Put dough in greased bowl, cover, let rise until double its size.
  • Punch down, shape rolls, let rise for 1 hour,
  • Bake at 400 degree F (204 degree C) for 8 mins.

I wanna get this!

Recipe : Hippo Soup

This delicious and healthy soup is both medicinal and cleansing. One of my personal favorites, it is sweet and naturally fragrant, requires no added salt or seasoning. The Hippocrates Soup is also used as soup stock for my other soups and as a base for other recipes. All ingredients are organic where possible. Always get organic potato and tomato for this soup as the pesticide levels for these produce tend to be much higher in non-organic ones.

The soup is always served every lunch and dinner as a starter soup for Gerson Therapy (GT) patients. Its a pre-requisite menu for GT patients. While much of GT is directed to liver cleansing, this special soup is designed to help cleanse the kidney and nourish the body. No salt or other condiments should be added for obvious reasons.

The main medicinal ingredients are leeks, celeriac (celery root), parsley root. Potatos are added for carbohydrates and tomatos, garlic onions are added for taste. Here in Singapore, parsley root is rare and hardly available in the shops so I omit it. You can find celeriac (seasonal) in gourmet supermarkets like Tanglin Supermarket, Jasons, Culina. If celeriac is unavailable, replace with celery stalks.

Recipe : Hippocrates Special Soup
Makes four portion for two days

Ingredients (use organic produce where possible)
400g medium celeriac
250g medium onions
250g celery stalk about 3-4 medium stalk
500g roma tomatos
500g potato
400g leeks
300g parsley root (if available)
3-4 cloves of garlic (as desired)
1 stalk parsley herb (condiment)
filtered water

1. Wash all the vegetables thoroughly, unpeeled, cut in small cubes.
2. Add just enough filtered water to cover the cut vegetables in non-aluminum based pot.
3. Cook all the ingredients under low heat 60-80 degrees Celsius for 1.5-2hours in firmly covered pot.
4. Remove tender and soft vegetables from heat, run through food mill/blender. Remove fibers or peels.
5. Blend still warm ingredients thoroughly till soup is thicky and creamy. Only blend the soup while its warm, otherwise the soup will form a sticky and starchy texture when cooled.
6. Allow soup to cool before storing in refrigerator
7. Make enough for about two days only.

Notes :
- You can vary the taste by adding semi-dried tomatos or roasted garlic to the soup.
- Portions of Leeks, celeriac, celery stalks, parsley root should remain as prescribed.
- The unblended version can be used as Vegetable Stock for other recipes.
- The soup should be cooked at low and slow heat to preserve its valuable nutrients and keep it easily digestible. In fast and high heat cooking, the cells burst and the minerals go out of their colloidal composition, it becomes more difficult to be absorbed.
- The soup pot must be non-aluminum and must have a closely tight heavy pot lid to prevent steam to escape.

Photo : To equal or not to equal

Not a big fan of artificial sweetners, however I do drink diet sodas just for their weird taste. When it comes to coffee, its a big no-no for me. I love my brown sugar in my kopi susu (milk coffee)

Recipe : Charlie Trotters Bleeding Heart Radish Ravioli

Another Charlie Trotter Recipe, this I have yet to attempt because of its complexity.
He's in Singapore for the Singapore Sun Festival Oct 2008. Details are here.

From Charlie Trotter's Book "Raw"

Bleeding Heart Radish Ravioli With Yellow Tomato Sauce

This dish is time consuming and take literally days to make.


40 very thin slices peeled bleeding heart radish, each at least 1 1/2 inches in diameter
2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
Celtic sea salt

1 1/4 cups Herb Cheese (see below)

2 large very ripe yellow tomatoes, seeded and cut into medium dice
2 1/2 tablespoons chopped fresh chives
1/2 cup extra virgin olive oil
1 teaspoon sherry wine vinegar
Celtic sea salt and freshly ground pepper
2 teaspoons fresh opal basil flowers or micro leaves

To Make the Herb Cheese:
Yield 1 1/4 cups

1 cup Cashew Cheese (see recipe below)
4 teaspoons filtered water
1 teaspoon minced shallot
1/4 teaspoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
1/2 teaspoon large flake nutritional yeast
1/4 teaspoon Celtic sea salt, or to taste
1 teaspoon chopped fresh basil
1 teaspoon chopped fresh thyme

Combine the Cashew Cheese, water, shallot, lemon juice, yeast, and 1/4 teaspoon salt in a bowl and stir until thoroughly mixed. Stir in the basil and thyme until evenly distributed. Taste and adjust with additional salt, if needed. Use immediately, or store in a covered container in the refrigerator for up to 3 days.

To make the ravioli: Use a 2-inch ring mold to cut each radish slice into a perfect round. Rub the radish slices with the olive oil and lemon juice and season with salt. Place 1 tablespoon of the cheese in the center of half of the radish slice. Carefully place a second radish slice on top of the spoonful of cheese and gently press the outer edges together to create a seal. Repeat to make 20 ravioli in all.

Combine the tomatoes, chives, olive oil, and vinegar in a bowl and mix gently. Season to taste with salt and pepper.

ASSEMBLY - Using a slotted spoon, spoon one-fourth of the tomato mixture into the center of each plate. Arrange 5 ravioli over the tomatoes, overlapping them slightly. Spoon some of the juices from the tomatoes on top. Sprinkle with the basil flowers.

WINE NOTES: There are a number of good possibilities here. Sanigovese springs to mind because it is one of the few red wines that is not flabby when paired with tomatoes. Isole e Olena Chianti is light-bodied, fruity red. During peak season, when tomatoes are at their sweetest and ripest, a Barbera from Vietti or Dolcetto d'Alba from Pio Cesare would be a good choice.

Charlie Trotter's Mango Coconut Curry

I can't afford to pay for the S$1000 dinner to Singapore Sun Festival Charlie Trotter event. Here's a Recipe from his book. The Event posted here

From Charlie Trotter's "Raw"

This is my favorite, its easy and quick. Not a fan of cashew milk, plus its difficult to get bland raw cashews. Most cashews in Singapore are roasted and salted and extremely expensive. I replace it with almonds or sometimes rice milk.
For substitutes I use normal lime instead of key lime.
Agave syrup instead of maple. I also add soaked mejol dates for a further sweet texture.

Mango, Coconut And Curry
Serves 2

1/4 cup chopped young Thai coconut meat
1/2 cup coconut water
1 mango, peeled, pitted and chopped
1/4 cup raw cashews, soaked for 8 hours in filtered water and drained
1/4 cup cashew milk
1 tablespoon freshly squeezed Key lime juice
1/4 cup freshly squeezed orange juice
1/4 cup maple sugar
1 1/2 cups crushed ice
1 teaspoon Indian Spice Mix or sweet curry powder, plush extra for garnish

Combine the coconut meat and coconut water in a high-speed blender and process until smooth. Remove half of the puree from the blender and reserve. Add the remaining ingredients to the coconut puree in the blender and process until smooth. Pour into chilled glasses and spoon an equal amount of the reserved coconut mixture on top of each glass. Sprinkle each serving with a pinch of spice mix.

Article : On Vitamin B12 and Vegans

Comments : As many strict vegan vegetarians struggle with the lack of Vitamin B12 in their diets, here's an article debating on the vitamin B12 issue. This is from my email archives.

Gabriel Cousins on Vitamin B12

The work at the Tree of Life and in all my nutrition books, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet, Conscious Eating and Rainbow Green Live Food Cuisine is to provide an optimal situation for everyone to be successful vegan and live food practitioners. To that end, we address every single issue that is connected with being successful. The B-12 issue is one that is critical to a successful and healthy vegan and live food way of life.

To understand the significance of this issue, we need to understand a little about the importance of B-12 in the diet. The average non-vegetarian stores between 2,000 and 3,000 picograms (pg., same as micrograms) of B-12 and loses about 3 pg. per day. About 60 percent of the total amount of the B-12 in the body is stored in the liver and 30 percent is stored in the muscle. The body has a special circulation pattern between the digestive tract and the liver. Through the bile, we secrete 1.4 pg. per day of B-12 into the small intestine, and healthy people reabsorb about 0.7 pg. Research suggests that if people have a low B-12 intake, the absorption increases to even draw more B-12 into the system. However, there is still a general potential for slow loss, depending on the variation in this special, what is known as enterohepatic circulation, before we develop the potential of B-12 deficiency symptoms.

B-12 has two functions: one, methylocobalamin is used by the enzyme methionine synthase to change homocysteine into methionine. When this enzyme is not working, we increase the homocysteine in our system, which recent research has associated with the increased potentiality of heart disease and deterioration of the arteries and nerves. When the homocysteine is high, it appears to be a nerve toxin, as well as a blood vessel toxin. The second function of B-12 is as a coenzyme is using 5'-deoxyadenosylcobalamin in the enzyme methyl malonyl-CoA mutase in the conversion of methyl malonyl-coA to succinyl-CoA.

Elevated homocysteine also happens with deficiencies in B-6 or folic acid. One of the major symptoms of B-12 or folic acid deficiency is macrocytic anemia. Folate, also called folic acid, is needed to turn the uracil into thymidine, an essential building block of DNA. This DNA is needed for production of new red blood cells and for red blood cell division. B-12 is involved because it is involved in the pathway that creates methyl cobalamin. This B-12 also produces a form of folate needed to make DNA. So, if there is no B-12, folate can become depleted and DNA production slows down.

Another little side part of the methyl malonyl-CoA to succinyl-CoA conversion is that when the B-12 is not available, the methyl malonyl-CoA levels increase and are converted to methyl malonic acid, which accumulates in the blood and urine. Since the B-12 is the only co-enzyme required in this pathway, methyl malonic acid levels are considered the gold standard as an indicator of B-12 deficiency. Other causes of high methyl malonic acid (MMA) are genetic defects, kidney failure, low blood volume, dysbiosis, pregnancy and hypothyroid. The MMA test is important because the progressive medical community no longer considers serum B-12 levels an accurate measurement of appropriate amounts of B-12. In other words, a normal serum B-12 may not mean that B-12 levels are healthy.

We need a urinary assay of methyl malonic acid to really determine that. This is an important point, because when I first wrote about this issue in Conscious Eating, the establishment of the methyl malonic acid assay as the gold standard had not taken place yet. I based some of my statements at that time on the world research, which was using serum B-12. A serum B-12 of 200 pg. or less was considered deficient. As a result of the new gold standard and what we know about MMA and homocysteine, the B-12 serum levels should be around 450 pg. to maintain a normal homocysteine level. Therefore, serum B-12 levels less than 450 pg. may be considered as indicating a B-12 deficiency.

There are a variety of symptoms of B-12 deficiency, which are important to vegans and live fooders. The first is actually low energy. It could be a reason why some people just don't feel well on these diets, besides not getting the right protein/carbohydrate/fat mix for their constitutional type.

There are specific neurological symptoms, often described as "subacute combined degeneration". Some of this damage can be almost irreversible, if it becomes chronic. This nerve system degeneration affects peripheral nerves and the spinal cord. Some of the typical neurological feelings include depression, numbness and tingling in the hands and feet, nervousness, paranoia, hyperactive reflexes, impaired memory and behavioral changes.

With a B-12 deficiency, one can also have diarrhea, fever, frequent upper respiratory infections, impotence, infertility, sore tongue, enlargement of the mucous membranes of the mouth, vagina, and stomach, macrocytic anemia, low platelets, increased bleeding, low white blood cell count.

Some of the causes of B-12 deficiency are low dietary intake of B-12 and/or poor absorption, which usually comes through loss of intrinsic factor and/or a lack of stomach acid.
Consistent research over the last decade has shown that vegans and live food people of all ages and sexes have a much higher risk of becoming B-12 deficient. This does not mean that everyone becomes B-12 deficient. This deficiency is particularly true with newborn babies, especially babies of vegan live-food nursing mothers who are not using B-12 supplementation.

In contrast to the average adult storage of 2,000-3,000 pg. of B-12, newborns of mothers with normal B-12 have about 25 pg. Studies have shown that the milk during the first week of life does contain large amounts of B-12. This means that the B-12 storage in infants at birth is normally adequate to last the first few weeks of life. Afterwards, they must get it from breast milk or other sources. If a vegan or live-food mother is already B-12 deficient during pregnancy, the baby may be born with seriously low B-12 levels and develop clinical signs of deficiency as soon as two weeks.

The general research suggests that even among non-vegetarians, B-12 can be insufficient in infants, and that perhaps all breastfeeding mothers should consider B-12 supplements for themselves and their infants during the time of breastfeeding. This lack of B-12 in the mother's diet during pregnancy has been associated with a lack of myelin production, which is the coating of the nerves. It takes somewhere between one to twelve months to develop, and manifests as failure to thrive and slow developmental progression. The babies are often lethargic, lose their ability to use muscle adequately, and even their sensory attunement decreases. They also have irregular macrocytic anemia.

The good news that one major study in the United Kingdom in 1988 showed, in studying 37 vegan children was that there was normal growth and development in children who were breastfed for 6 months at a minimum, when there was B-12 supplementation.

Young children and teenage children who were supplemented with B-12 were found to grow normally. Adults who were vegetarian without B-12 supplementation for greater than six years usually had a lower B-12 than non-vegetarian adults in the general research. In one study of adults in 1994, 81% of the vegan adults had a B-12 lower than 200 pg. That is approximately the percentage of adults on a live food diet who are low in B-12. In my clinical experience, meat eaters, vegans and live-fooders tend to have a fairly high percentage of B-12 deficiency, although meat eaters do have less incidence.

My experience is that cooked food vegans have a higher incidence of B-12 deficiency than live fooders, but there is still a significant occurance in live fooders. In vegetarians and vegans, there is also a high percentage under 200 pg., about 54%. A study in 1982 by Dunn and Scott of raw food vegans with 83 subjects from the Natural Hygiene Society showed that 92% of the vegans had a B-12 less than 200 pg., and in 53% it was less than 100 pg.

The World Health Organization (WHO) considers B-12 deficiency to be less than 200 pg. The percentages of B-12 deficiency tend to increase over time on a natural hygiene diet. Another study in Finland in 1995 that examined B-12 status of long-term 100% raw vegans found that 66% of the people had a B-12 lower than 200 pg. One study done in 2000 by Donaldson at Hallelujah Acres on primarily live food diet people, but with some B-12 supplementation via nutritional yeast, showed only about 15% of the people were less than 200, and none of them less than 160. The supplementation with nutritional yeast was 5 pg. of B-12 from one tablespoon of Red Star Vegetarian Support.

Up until this time, many of us have felt that additional supplementation for live fooders with sea vegetables or probiotic formulas was sufficient for protection against B-12 deficiency. This does not seem to be the case. In macrobiotics, who primarily cook their food, we see a very high percentage of children actually having growth retardation due to low B-12 intake. Many of us have felt that spirulina, Klamath Lake Algae, all the sea vegetables had enough active B-12 to avoid a B-12 deficiency. Although the research is not fully in, we do know that, as I pointed out in Conscious Eating, these substances do have human active B-12. The problem is they also have a significant amount of analog B-12 that competes with the human active B-12. This analog amount was not measured in my studies.

Using the methyl malonic acid reduction approach, which is now the gold standard, research showed that when people used dry and raw nori from Japan, the dried nori actually made the methyl malonic acid (MMA) status worse, which means it actually reduced the B-12 status. Therefore it could possibly worsen a B-12 deficiency. Raw nori seemed to keep the methyl malonic acid at the same level, meaning it did not harm the B-12 status, but the research showed it did not particularly help it either. No food in Europe or the U.S. has been tested for lowering methyl malonic acid. Research absolutely has to be done to answer this question fully.

There is one exception to this lack of vegetarian B-12 active food, which is that we do produce B-12 from bacteria in our large intestine, but since this B-12 is produced in the area below where B-12 is reabsorbed, it is really not available for absorption. Some people have argued that a lot of species of lower mammals do not need B-12. The reason why this is true is that a lot of species that are primarily vegetarian animals eat their feces.

Human research also has shown if you eat your feces, you will get enough B-12. Dr. Herbert sponsored research in England where vegan volunteers with a documented B-12 deficiency were fed B-12 extractions made from their own feces. It cured their B-12 deficiency. So, there is a natural vegan way to do it. It may not be the most tasteful way, however.

Some have theorized that organic foods, in various regions, would improve the B-12 tests by lowering the serum malonic acid, but again, the research has not shown that washed or unwashed organic food has made a difference. Many animals, aside from eating their own feces, will ingest a variety of eggs, insects, small vertebrates or soils. For example, gorillas, who are the closest to vegan of all the species, will eat insects and sometimes their feces. So there are ways to do this for vegans, but again, they may not be the most aesthetic or tasteful. I would love, at this point, to come up with an alternative to this, however it doesn't seem to be the case.

There are many ideas of vegan foods that have active B-12, but few are proving to actually raise B-12 or prevent its loss. The research has shown, for example, that tempeh does not supply human active B-12. Research in both the U.S. and the Netherlands has confirmed this. There was one paper that showed that tempeh from one particular source in Thailand did have some B-12, but what they basically found was that fermented soybean did not contain B-12. Other foods such as barley, malted syrup, sourdough bread, parsley, shitake mushrooms, tofu, and soybean paste, had some B-12 in them. Amazake rice, barley miso, miso, natto, rice miso, shoyu, tamari, umeboshi, and a variety of nuts, seeds and grains did not contain any elements or even any detectable B-12 analog.

My study using the earlier gold standard test for B-12 active bacteria did show indeed that arame, dulse, kelp, kombu and wakame had significant human active B-12. Other studies have shown that dulse did have a certain amount of B-12 analog per serving. Until research is done to see if it actually lowers the methyl malonic acid levels, the question has to be raised that we can't assume that because a food has human active B-12 it will help avoid a B-12 deficiency, because the actual non-human active analogs may be blocking the human active B-12.

The same question arises now with the aphanizomenon flos-aqua and spirulina, as well as chlorella. So, until we actually do the gold standard test of these, through the methyl malonic test, to see if it actually lowers the methyl malonic acid, I think it is reasonable to eat these foods, but not expect that they are actually going to raise your human active B-12. My serum B-12 of 600 pg. may have thrown off my conclusions when I wrote my summary in 1990. I may have been in that 20% of vegans and live food people that don't seem to be affected. But I am more concerned about the other 80% that are B-12 deficient and that 50% whose B-12 levels go down to less than 100 pg.

A study done in 1991 by Miller found that serum B-12 appeared to be unrelated to consumption of wakame, kombu, and other sea vegetables or tempeh in macrobiotic children. Other researchers feel that it is possible that raw nori, not dried nori, is a source of active B-12. Some of these conclusions are not finalized. This brings me to the next issue, which is, what is a normal level of B-12?

Now the next question really is, what is a healthy level of B-12 in the serum? The answer is that a serum level of 450 pg. keeps the homocysteine level within normal levels. Some might just say that dulse and raw nori and an algae called cocolithophorid algae, also known as pleurochritias cartera, may provide sufficient human active B-12. They have not been fully tested with the gold standard. The normal serum homocysteine level is 2.2 - 13.2 micromoles/liter. The normal adult urine MMA is .58 - 3.56 micromoles/mmol/cr. The normal level of B-12 for breast milk is 180 - 300 pg. per ml. The normal urine level for children is 820 - 11,200 micromoles/mmol/cr of MMA. The normal serum B-12 level of children is 160 - 1300 pg. per ml.

Using the methyl malonic acid study as the gold standard, elevated methyl malonic acid was found in subjects with a B-12 up to 486 pg. This is a really important statement, because up 'til this time, most of the studies in the world health basically say that 200 pg. and above is not considered deficient. That was somewhat how I based my ideas that B-12 in many vegans and raw foodists was low normal, but still within normal.

Using the gold standard methyl malonic acid test, studies show that without supplementing with B-12, vegans have higher homocysteine levels than lacto-ovo vegetarians and non-vegetarians, which means they are deficient in B-12. The good news, of course, is that B-12 supplementation will decrease these high homocysteine levels back to normal range. High homocysteine levels are connected with the potential for heart disease, arterial destruction and neurological pathologies. Other diseases associated with an elevated homocysteine are: Alzheimer's, age related hearing loss, neural tube defects, recurrent loss of pregnancy, increased mortality.

Many non-vegetarians also have a poor B-12 status because there are many factors that can cause B-12 deficiency. They include malabsorption or inadequate intake of protein or calories or B-12, radiation exposure, drugs, and a variety of toxins, paraminosalicylic acid, alcohol, pancreatic tumors, failure of the small intestine to contract and move food associated with bacterial overgrowth, oral contraceptives, fungal infections, liver and kidney disease, tobacco smoking and B-6 or iron deficiency.

The research conclusion is that: it is a reasonably safe bet that about 80% of the vegan and live food population, over time, runs the risk of a subclinical or clinical B-12 deficiency and increased homocysteine levels.

An even higher percentage of newborns run this risk. My suggestion, out of my concern for all of my clients, for my fellow live fooders and vegans is that it is well advised to supplement with an actual B-12 human active supplement. There are vegan B-12 supplements, which allow us to be totally successful vegan live fooders.

My general recommendation is that if you have symptoms of B-12 deficiency, you can even start with a 100 pg. injection, or according to the research, an oral administration of 1,000 pg. per day for two to four weeks is equal to repeated monthly injections. After about a month of the oral, the dose can be cut in half. One can even cut that in half again. I don't really recommend nutritional red star yeast, because of the fungal potential; I think that the safest and healthiest approach is via supplementation.

Some people eat according to their philosophy and belief of what is natural, and this may be an impediment. For example, the black Hebrews, a group of African-Americans who have migrated to Israel, have horrendously high levels of infant B-12 deficiency, as well as adult B-12 deficiency. They did not believe in taking supplements. Data in a 1982 study showed that of the infants who were breastfed for three months, and then were given diluted homemade soymilk for three months to one year, 25 of them (a significant percentage) had protein deficiency, iron and B-12 anemia, as well as zinc deficiency.

In the 1982 study, three of the infants were dead on arrival, five more died within a few hours of hospital admission, despite treatment. Serum levels were low in 9 of 15 cases and undetectable in three of them. I don't feel this is a very good example of what we want to show to the world in the way we want to treat our children. We can make those choices. We have a theory of natural, and we also have a theory of what it means to be healthy.

This is the first time in history that we can be completely successful live food vegans. What I mean by being successful is completely healthy, including no B-12 deficiency and no elevated homocysteine levels. It is my medical opinion, as a vegan since 1973 and live fooder since 1983, and as a person committed to supporting all those who choose to become healthy live food vegans, that it would be wise to incorporate some B-12 supplementation in your diet. I believe it is more natural to be healthy than it is to be anything less than that.

Gabriel Cousens, M.D., M.D.(H), Dip. Ayurveda

B12 UPDATE March 2004
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I was pleased by the general positive response to the B12 article. It was nice that so many people understood the integrity of my intent, which is to create the understanding and support for everyone to be successful on a live food diet. The ethics of live food lifestyle are wonderful, but we need to remember that we are still in the first few generations of a worldwide live food movement. We need to give honest feedback so we can attain the highest level of health and make this a truly successful worldwide movement.

Contrary to what a few people wanted to interpret from my article, there was more than one study that showed live food people were B12 deficient. There were at least three studies on adults and two on children. All five of these published live food studies showed the participants had serious deficiencies. These are no studies that show live food vegans do not get B12 deficient overtime. There are at least fifteen vegan studies on adults that have shown identical results. Cooked food and live food vegans show the same resultsÂ…approximately 80% of those who do not use B12 supplements or B12 fortified foods sooner or later develop symptoms of B12 deficiency. These may include physical symptoms such as the inability to walk, tremors, weakness, fatigue, diarrhea, fever, upper respiratory infections, impotence, infertility, anemia as well as neurological symptoms such as depression, anxiety, panic attacks, hyperactive reflexes, numbness and tingling in the hands and feet, impaired memory, and paranoid delusions. These appear in children as well, but in children if they are not caught in time, they often result in death. Sickness and death due to B12 deficiency do not support the expansion of the vegan live food movement. These symptoms are not just “a misunderstood healing crises or poorly functioning colon or a poor live food diet.”

Although bacteria in the colon do produce B12, it is not reabsorbed into the system. Published research has shown that if people eat an extract of their feces they will not get a B12 deficiency. Although this may be considered natural, it is not something that I recommend. There are far easier and tasteful ways to build the B12 such as taking a supplement or eating B12 fortified foods. Whether oneÂ’s colon is clean or not, B12 does not get absorbed from the colon. A reasonable dose is 10-100 micrograms per day. Research shows that a daily intake best approximates the natural intake pattern. Vegan tablets are available from a variety of companies; Twin Labs has gelatin in its tablet and therefore is not vegan. There are three forms of B12: cyanocobalamin, methylcobalamin, and hydroxycobalamin. Although all three forms work, but cyanocobalamin probably should not be used in people with kidney problems or who smoke. In some studies with people with severe B12 deficiencies oral doses of 1000 micrograms per day for two months worked as well as 1000 microgram injections repeatedly given.

A published report cites a man in his eighties who had been in excellent health as a vegan for 38 years, when suddenly he began to suffer from mental disturbances, developed confusion and sadness, lost bowel control, and lost motor control skill to the point where he could marginally stand up. After one shot of B12 his physical and mental health began to rapidly return and by one week many of his symptoms had disappeared. A personal communication with Nazariah Owen who developed weakness, fatigue and impaired motor and nervous system symptoms including the loss of the ability to walk following a seven year history of lacto-vegetarian diet followed by a five year history of a pure raw vegan diet tells of a too common story. His symptoms disappeared after starting B12 supplementation and eating B12 fortified foods. He found many people who had similar B12 deficiency symptoms, but who were afraid to share publicly. An additional health problem associated with a low B12 is elevated homocysteine which is associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks, neurological problems, neural tube defects in children especially if the folic acid is low, increased incidence of hearing loss with age. In one study women with higher homocysteine levels had 170% chance of two or more pregnancy losses in the first trimester.

If the live food movement is to mature, it requires that we do not suppress honest feedback so we can solve the problems that do arise in this young mass movement. YesÂ…there are 20% who may not get an immediate or even a deficiency after 20 years. There are one million four hundred thousand genetic variations in our DNA. Some people are going to get B12 deficient sooner than others or not at all because of their particular enzyme systems and metabolic patterns. For some it may be like the man in his eighties who took thirty-eight years before becoming deficient.
For those who do not want to risk the eighty percent chance of becoming deficient, oral supplementation is the simplest way to avoid a B12 deficiency and elevated homocysteine levels. The personal physical, moral and spiritual reasons for succeeding at live food vegan diet, the shift in world consciousness and healing of the planetary ecology brings is a far greater gift than the ego gratification of holding on to a concept of naturalness.

Cheese Cheese and more Cheese!

One of my greatest weaknesses are cheeses and happily one friday afternoon visited the cheese shop to get a couple of matured varieties. My favorites are stiltons and picodon.

Charlie Trotter at the Singapore Sun Festival October 2008

Singapore Sun Festival -
17 October - 26 October 2008

Once again the Singapore Sun festival returns in October 2008.

This time it has one of my favorite chefs, Charlie Trotter who transformed the once hippy raw food into a fine dining cuisine!

He is regarded as one of the pioneers of Raw Food Cuisine which many emulated in their restaurants. Ever inventing and transforming new cuisine, he has moved on from raw food to setting new standards of fine dining.

If you can afford it go for a Dinner date with Trotter on 20 October at the Fullerton Hotel, Singapore. It cost a whopping S$ 927. Featuring wines from Far Niente Winery in Napa Valley.

The menu looks interesting, but does it justify paying almost S$1000 dinner at the Fullerton?

Unfortunately I won't be around to attend it to answer that for you.

When there are people living in extreme poverty earning us$0.20 or less a day, wouldn't you feel guility?

Trotter's Menu at the Fullerton
- Kumomoto Oyster with Osetra Caviar and Sea Water
- Warm Terrine of Eel with Lemon Curd and Kumbo
- Spiced Globe Artichoke Soup with Spun Honey and Spearmint
- Roasted Squab Breast with Sweet and Sour Shallot and Venezuelan Chocolate
- Grilled Venison Loin with Porcini Mushrooms, Marrow and Ume Boshi
- Nigorizake Sorbet with Jasmine Rice and Thyme
- Mangosteen with Brioche and Arbequina Olive Oil Ice Cream

You can also go for his cooking demonstration at Prive, 2 Keppel Bay Vista Marina at Keppel Bay Singapore on Tuesday 21 Oct for a more affordable S$280+++.

Get his latest book autographed for me (hint : my birthday's in October)

Bookings/Enquiries: Call: (65) 6348 5555
Booking Website:

Check out Charlie Trotter's book "Raw" filled with rather complex recipes and gorgeous looking photos. I have not attempted all of his recipes as it is way too complicated to assemble unless you have massive time on your hands, not to mention those expensive kitchen equipments.

Will post some of his recipes up in a later date.

Photo Story : Snobbery of the cupcake

Let me eat cake

Let me eat cake

Let me eat cake

Let me eat cake

Location : Chin Mei Chin Confectionary, Katong, Singapore
Notes : This place does not welcome photography. The owner does not like cameras or any form of publicity. So blog photographers beware, be nice and say its just for your own collection.

Event : Raw Spirit Fest Sept 2008 Arizona

Here's an event I will sorely missed. It's held at Sedona, Arizona

Raw Spirit Fest 2008 September 12th - 14th , the largest raw vegan food festival where most of the popular raw food advocates will be presenting.

The festival's aim is to educate humanity on the health benefits of incorporating more fresh organic fruits and vegetables into one's diet.

"This is more than a raw vegan food festival. Our vision is to integrate Healthy Living, Eco-Sustainable Solutions and World Peace because together these comprise a comprehensive strategy for addressing current global challenges. We feel that our Raw Spirit Fest non-profit organization belongs to the entire ever-expanding, international community." - Happy Oasis director

Details are here :

Tart de fruite - Raw and Vegan

fruit tart

Here's a recipe I love and quite easy to make.

Its raw and vegan, the crust is made up with nuts

Tart Crust
2.5 cup almond
3/4 cup pitted medjool dates (you can get them from mustafa supermarket, singapore or health food stores)

In a blender, mix all the ingredients until it is coarse and combined in a doughy texture. Press the mixture into 3 inch tart crust. Refrigerate until firm (about 1-2 hours)

1 cup raw cashews (soaked 4 hours)
1 cup coconut meat
1/2 cup agave syrup
2 tablespoon vanilla extract

In blender, till smooth. Refrigerate to set (2 hours). It will form firm creamy texture.

For serving
Fill the cream filling to the tart shell, top with fresh fruits, serve immediately.

Article : Why am I a Vegetarian?

Comments : Although there are a few things I disagree with Dr Uday Lal Pai's views, his article makes interesting read. I'm not a vegetarian but I do consider myself a flexitarian who doesn't eat mammals.

Why Am I A Vegetarian?
by Dr Uday Lal Pai

The most difficult situation that I encounter during my travels is getting vegetarian food. In some parts of the world chefs don't even understand the meaning of vegetarianism. They would ask: "Vegetables? We would provide you veg salads with dressing on it…"

How can I explain that my diet is predominantly carbo-hydrate dominated? Nobody serves you Idly or Dosa in Western restaurants. Nobody knows about your Tali meals. So you will have to adjust with biscuits, no-egg cakes and coke.

That's OK.

The sad thing about being vegetarian is wherever I go, I become a serious head-ache for the host. Especially, during the US/European press conference and meetings. I become a problem man for them.

Some journalist friends ask me - why are you so adamant about being vegetarian?
Is it because you are born in a Brahmin family?

No. Normally Brahmins are vegetarian. To be precise, they were vegetarian. But the Brahmin segment that I was born in, traditionally eat fish (except in some parts of Kerala state).

But my ancestors were following strict vegetarian diet (at least, for traceable few centuries). So I cannot deny the influence of tradition in my childhood.

Now-a-days I hardly find any vegetarians in our community. And today's Brahmin boys and girls proudly acclaim that "we eat meat and fish." - As if they have achieved the biggest thing in the universe.

Why am I a vegetarian? The usual reasons for choosing vegetarianism may be related to moral, religious, cultural, ethical, aesthetic, environmental, social, economic, political, taste, or health concerns.

If you go further into it, there are three main reasons for this:

(1) the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) applied to animals ;

(2) the intention to offer only "pure" (vegetarian) food to a deity and then to receive it back as Prasad; and

(3) and the conviction that non-vegetarian food is detrimental for the mind and for spiritual development.

However, my first concern about non-veg food is that I can't bear the smell - decaying animal parts, whether in a freezer case or served in restaurants, can never be as aesthetically pleasing to the senses as the same foods made from wholesome vegetable sources.

The one and only reason I would like to present is that I would like to uphold non-violence. For me, non-vegetarian food is DEAD FLESH. The moment I see I can feel the vibration of violence there. It is a dead body of a poor creature and human beings are eating the dead-body. It
is an act of violence for me.

I hear your question - plant also has life.
Vegetarians do not consume plant parts that won't grow again. They are not killing the plant. What's more, by eating fruits and vegetables, you help plant to spread its seeds. You become part of ecological balance and cosmic creativity.

However, if you want to find reasons as to why people turn to vegetarianism, I have lot of answers that have been extracted from various references.

The Human anatomy is fit to be vegetarian only. Human beings are most similar to other herbivores, and drastically different from carnivores. Human characteristics are in every way like the fruit eaters, very similar to the grass- eater, and very unlike the meat eaters. The human digestive system, tooth and jaw structure, and bodily functions are completely different from carnivorous animals.

As in the case of the anthropoid ape, the human digestive system is twelve times the length of the body; our skin has millions of tiny pores to evaporate water and cool the body by sweating; we drink water by suction like all other vegetarian animals; our tooth and jaw structure is vegetarian; and our saliva is alkaline and contains ptyalin for predigesting of grains. Human beings clearly are not carnivores by physiology - our anatomy and digestive system show that
we must have evolved for millions of years living on fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables.

The animals do not chew their food. Instead, they slice off huge chunks of meat and swallow them whole. They do not have digestive enzymes in their saliva since flesh-digesting enzymes released in the unprotected mouth would quickly destroy the oral cavity. Their strongly acidic stomachs are huge storage vats that account for 60-70% of the total capacity of their GI tracts. Meat has no fiber and is, therefore, easily digested. Thus, their small intestines are very
short (only 3-6 times their body length) and are optimized for protein and fat absorption. Their large intestines are short straight and smooth and designed for evacuation purposes only.

We have a carbohydrate-digesting enzyme in our saliva called salivary amylase. The human esophagus does not handle poorly chewed food very well. Over 90% of the people who choke to death each year choke on meat. Human body length (head to tail bone) is typically 2.5 to 3
feet. Thus, at >25-30 feet in length, the human small intestine is clearly designed for digesting plant material. Only herbivores have an appendix. No matter how much fat and cholesterol you feed carnivores like dogs and cats, they NEVER develop coronary artery disease. In places where people eat a high fiber, whole food diet, appendicitis and diverticulosis areunknown.

Humans are physiologically better suited to a vegetarian.

Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? Humans were simply not designed to eat meat.
Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.

How can one practice true compassion that eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?

If you learn anthropology and human evolution, you would understand that early humans were largely vegetarian. Scientists and Nutritional experts believe that humans evolved into eating meat as a result of huge climatic changes that took place about three-four million years
ago, forests and jungles dried up and became open grasslands, thus opening up hunting and scavenging opportunities.

Scientists and naturalists, including the great Charles Darwin who gave the theory of evolution, agree that early humans were fruit and vegetable eaters and that throughout history our anatomy has not changed. The great Swedish scientist von Linné states: "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food."

There are Pathogenic Microorganisms - a host of bacteria and viruses, some quite dangerous, that are common to animals. When you eat meat, you eat the organisms in the meat. Micro-organisms are present in plant foods too, but their number and danger to human health is by no means comparable to that of those in meat.

Meat eating increases the risk of heart disease. It's the primary reason we get heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and every other major degenerative disease. (I contest this argument, as I have seen similar kind of diseases in vegetarians too.)

Studies in western countries have shown that on average, vegetarians have smarter children, suffer significantly lower rates of chronic disease, obesity and dementia, and live longer than their meat-eating counterparts. The more meat we eat, the sicker we get. (I am not sure
about this argument too).

It shows that meat is poison to us. If eating meat were natural, it wouldn't destroy our health.

Those health freaks say that vegetarians are better in physical performance: People have much better endurance when they don't eat meat - whether they're professional athletes or not.

There is no question that humans are capable of digesting meat. But just because we can digest animals does not mean we're supposed to, or that it will be good for us. We can digest cardboard. That does not mean we should.

There are religious reasons too - but that is not my argument to be a vegetarian. Various religions, including Christianity propagates Vegetarianism.

According to the Bible, in the beginning, humans and animals were vegetarian
(Genesis 1:29-30, "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, … and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat, and to every beast of the earth, … I have given every green herb for meat."

Some Christian leaders, such as the Reverend Andrew Linzey, have supported the view that Jesus was a vegetarian. In fact, the Bible compares the killing of cows to murdering a man: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man." (Isaiah 66.3)

There are several Sanskrit sutra where Buddha instruct his followers to avoid meat. Mahayana Buddhism generally advises monks to be strictly vegetarian. Buddhist scripture, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, "The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion."

Most major paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal. Classical India was vegetarian, as was Japan up until a generation or two ago. "The purchaser of flesh performs violence by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does violence by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and
eats it all these are to be considered meat-eaters." (Mahabharat, Anu.115.40) All of these people will also incur the same karmic reactions for their participation in killing, distributing or eating
the flesh of animals.

The staple of Egyptian workers building the Pyramids was boiled onions. Pythagoras was a vegetarian, although he had a weird distaste for beans. Even the Roman army marched on its vegetarian stomach. It is clear that 90% of humanity have subsisted on a 90% vegetarian diet.
Modern carnivorous men and women are the exception not the rule.

The metaphor by Douglas Dunn is that if one gives a young child an apple and a live chicken, the child would instinctively play with the chicken and eat the apple, whereas if a cat were presented with the same choices, its natural impulse would be the opposite. In a similar assertion, Scott Adams once wrote humorously: "I point out that a live cow makes a lion salivate, whereas a human just wants to say "moo" and see if the cow responds".

'"You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever." (Yajur Veda 12.32.90)

-Uday Lal Pai

Event : Slow Food Nation 29 Aug - 1 Sept 2008

An event in the making for 5 years, have been following its slow inception since last year. Why doesn't Asia have something like this?

This event was first conceived by Alice Waters, food activist and local organic farming advocate, author and chef owner of Chez Panisse Restaurant in Berkeley, California. Read more about her in one of the article archives here.

If you happen to be in San Francisco during this time, go drop by.

Slow Food Nation takes place on 29th Aug to 1st Sept 2008 in San Francisco.

"It was created to unite the growing sustainable food movement and introduce thousands of people to food that is good, clean and fair. Creating a framework for deeper environmental connection to our food and aims to inspire and empower people to build a food system that is sustainable, healthy and delicious."

Article : Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

ED: I met Michael Pollan in California last March 2008 while he was having his talk and book signing at one of the largest Organic Expo in the West Coast. Fascinating and rather informative advocate in being more conscious of what you are eating.

Pollan's latest book released Jan 2008

Unhappy Meals

Article from the New York Times

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. I hate to give away the game right here at the beginning of a long essay, and I confess that I'm tempted to complicate matters in the interest of keeping things going for a few thousand more words.

I'll try to resist but will go ahead and add a couple more details to flesh out the advice. Like: A little meat won't kill you, though it's better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you're much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That's 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 claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you're concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it's not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

Uh-oh. Things are suddenly sounding a little more complicated, aren't they? Sorry. But that's 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 in. 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 Women's Health Initiative, which has also found no link between a low-fat diet and rates of coronary disease. 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 each week (or by downing enough fish oil), you could cut your risk of dying from a heart attack by more than a third — a stunningly hopeful piece of news. It's 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 will soon, you can be sure, sprout fishy new health claims. (Remember the rule?)

By now you're 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 I'm 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 surrounding what is, after all, the most elemental question an omnivore confronts. 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 you're a food company, distinctly risky if you're a nutritionist and just plain boring if you're a newspaper editor or journalist. (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.


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. 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 "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 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 didn't 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 hadn't 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 wasn't until late in the 20th century that nutrients managed to push food aside in the popular imagination of what it means to eat.

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 document called "Dietary Goals for the United States." 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.

Naïvely 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 committee's recommendations were hastily rewritten. Plain talk 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; don't look for it ever again in any official U.S. dietary pronouncement. 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 protein sitting in the middle of its plate. 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 in Washington. This was precisely the tack taken by the National Academy of Sciences when it issued its landmark report on diet and cancer in 1982. 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 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 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 it's exerting its hold on your culture. 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 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 us. 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. Hippocrates's famous injunction to "let food be thy medicine" is ritually invoked to support this notion. I'll 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, or socializing — makes people no less healthy; indeed, there's some reason to believe that it may make them more healthy. 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 McGovern's 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 by the late '80s a golden era of food science was upon us. 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. Oat bran's moment on the dietary stage didn't last long, but the pattern had been established, and every few years since then a new oat bran has taken its turn under the marketing lights. (Here comes omega-3!)

By comparison, the typical real food has more trouble competing under the rules of nutritionism, if only because something like a banana or an avocado can't easily change its nutritional stripes (though rest assured the genetic engineers are hard at work on the problem). So far, at least, you can't put oat bran in a banana. So depending on the reigning nutritional orthodoxy, the avocado might be either a high-fat food to be avoided (Old Think) or a food high in monounsaturated fat to be embraced (New Think). The fate of each whole food rises and falls with every change in the nutritional weather, while the processed foods are simply reformulated. That's why when the Atkins mania hit the food industry, bread and pasta were given a quick redesign (dialing back the carbs; boosting the protein), while the poor unreconstructed potatoes and carrots were left out in the cold.

Of course it's also a lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a potato or carrot, with the perverse result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in the produce section, silent as stroke victims, while a few aisles over, the Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming about their newfound whole-grain goodness.


So nutritionism is good for business. But is it good for us? You might think that a national fixation on nutrients would lead to measurable improvements in the public health. But for that to happen, the underlying nutritional science, as well as the policy recommendations (and the journalism) based on that science, would have to be sound. This has seldom been the case.

Consider what happened immediately after the 1977 "Dietary Goals" — McGovern's masterpiece of politico-nutritionist compromise. In the wake of the panel's recommendation that we cut down on saturated fat, a recommendation seconded by the 1982 National Academy report on cancer, Americans did indeed change their diets, endeavoring for a quarter-century to do what they had been told. Well, kind of. The industrial food supply was promptly reformulated to reflect the official advice, giving us low-fat pork, low-fat Snackwell's and all the low-fat pasta and high-fructose (yet low-fat!) corn syrup we could consume. Which turned out to be quite a lot. Oddly, America got really fat on its new low-fat diet — indeed, many date the current obesity and diabetes epidemic to the late 1970s, when Americans began binging on carbohydrates, ostensibly as a way to avoid the evils of fat.

This story has been told before, notably in these pages ("What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" by Gary Taubes, July 7, 2002), but it's a little more complicated than the official version suggests. In that version, which inspired the most recent Atkins craze, we were told that America got fat when, responding to bad scientific advice, it shifted its diet from fats to carbs, suggesting that a re-evaluation of the two nutrients is in order: fat doesn't make you fat; carbs do. (Why this should have come as news is a mystery: as long as people have been raising animals for food, they have fattened them on carbs.)

But there are a couple of problems with this revisionist picture. First, while it is true that Americans post-1977 did begin binging on carbs, and that fat as a percentage of total calories in the American diet declined, we never did in fact cut down on our consumption of fat. Meat consumption actually climbed. We just heaped a bunch more carbs onto our plates, obscuring perhaps, but not replacing, the expanding chunk of animal protein squatting in the center.

How did that happen? I would submit that the ideology of nutritionism deserves as much of the blame as the carbohydrates themselves do — that and human nature. By framing dietary advice in terms of good and bad nutrients, and by burying the recommendation that we should eat less of any particular food, it was easy for the take-home message of the 1977 and 1982 dietary guidelines to be simplified as follows: Eat more low-fat foods. And that is what we did. We're always happy to receive a dispensation to eat more of something (with the possible exception of oat bran), and one of the things nutritionism reliably gives us is some such dispensation: low-fat cookies then, low-carb beer now. It's hard to imagine the low-fat craze taking off as it did if McGovern's original food-based recommendations had stood: eat fewer meat and dairy products. For how do you get from that stark counsel to the idea that another case of Snackwell's is just what the doctor ordered?


But if nutritionism leads to a kind of false consciousness in the mind of the eater, the ideology can just as easily mislead the scientist. Most nutritional science involves studying one nutrient at a time, an approach that even nutritionists who do it will tell you is deeply flawed. "The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science," points out Marion Nestle, the New York University nutritionist, "is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle."

If nutritional scientists know this, why do they do it anyway? Because a nutrient bias is built into the way science is done: scientists need individual variables they can isolate. Yet even the simplest food is a hopelessly complex thing to study, a virtual wilderness of chemical compounds, many of which exist in complex and dynamic relation to one another, and all of which together are in the process of changing from one state to another. So if you're a nutritional scientist, you do the only thing you can do, given the tools at your disposal: break the thing down into its component parts and study those one by one, even if that means ignoring complex interactions and contexts, as well as the fact that the whole may be more than, or just different from, the sum of its parts. This is what we mean by reductionist science.

Scientific reductionism is an undeniably powerful tool, but it can mislead us too, especially when applied to something as complex as, on the one side, a food, and on the other, a human eater. It encourages us to take a mechanistic view of that transaction: put in this nutrient; get out that physiological result. Yet people differ in important ways. Some populations can metabolize sugars better than others; depending on your evolutionary heritage, you may or may not be able to digest the lactose in milk. The specific ecology of your intestines helps determine how efficiently you digest what you eat, so that the same input of 100 calories may yield more or less energy depending on the proportion of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes living in your gut. There is nothing very machinelike about the human eater, and so to think of food as simply fuel is wrong.

Also, people don't eat nutrients, they eat foods, and foods can behave very differently than the nutrients they contain. Researchers have long believed, based on epidemiological comparisons of different populations, that a diet high in fruits and vegetables confers some protection against cancer. So naturally they ask, What nutrients in those plant foods are responsible for that effect? One hypothesis is that the antioxidants in fresh produce — compounds like beta carotene, lycopene, vitamin E, etc. — are the X factor. It makes good sense: these molecules (which plants produce to protect themselves from the highly reactive oxygen atoms produced in photosynthesis) vanquish the free radicals in our bodies, which can damage DNA and initiate cancers. At least that's how it seems to work in the test tube. Yet as soon as you remove these useful molecules from the context of the whole foods they're found in, as we've done in creating antioxidant supplements, they don't work at all. Indeed, in the case of beta carotene ingested as a supplement, scientists have discovered that it actually increases the risk of certain cancers. Big oops.

What's going on here? We don't know. It could be the vagaries of human digestion. Maybe the fiber (or some other component) in a carrot protects the antioxidant molecules from destruction by stomach acids early in the digestive process. Or it could be that we isolated the wrong antioxidant. Beta is just one of a whole slew of carotenes found in common vegetables; maybe we focused on the wrong one. Or maybe beta carotene works as an antioxidant only in concert with some other plant chemical or process; under other circumstances, it may behave as a pro-oxidant.

Indeed, to look at the chemical composition of any common food plant is to realize just how much complexity lurks within it. Here's a list of just the antioxidants that have been identified in garden-variety thyme:

4-Terpineol, alanine, anethole, apigenin, ascorbic acid, beta carotene, caffeic acid, camphene, carvacrol, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol, eriodictyol, eugenol, ferulic acid, gallic acid, gamma-terpinene isochlorogenic acid, isoeugenol, isothymonin, kaempferol, labiatic acid, lauric acid, linalyl acetate, luteolin, methionine, myrcene, myristic acid, naringenin, oleanolic acid, p-coumoric acid, p-hydroxy-benzoic acid, palmitic acid, rosmarinic acid, selenium, tannin, thymol, tryptophan, ursolic acid, vanillic acid.

This is what you're ingesting when you eat food flavored with thyme. Some of these chemicals are broken down by your digestion, but others are going on to do undetermined things to your body: turning some gene's expression on or off, perhaps, or heading off a free radical before it disturbs a strand of DNA deep in some cell. It would be great to know how this all works, but in the meantime we can enjoy thyme in the knowledge that it probably doesn't do any harm (since people have been eating it forever) and that it may actually do some good (since people have been eating it forever) and that even if it does nothing, we like the way it tastes.

It's also important to remind ourselves that what reductive science can manage to perceive well enough to isolate and study is subject to change, and that we have a tendency to assume that what we can see is all there is to see. When William Prout isolated the big three macronutrients, scientists figured they now understood food and what the body needs from it; when the vitamins were isolated a few decades later, scientists thought, O.K., now we really understand food and what the body needs to be healthy; today it's the polyphenols and carotenoids that seem all-important. But who knows what the hell else is going on deep in the soul of a carrot?

The good news is that, to the carrot eater, it doesn't matter. That's the great thing about eating food as compared with nutrients: you don't need to fathom a carrot's complexity to reap its benefits.

The case of the antioxidants points up the dangers in taking a nutrient out of the context of food; as Nestle suggests, scientists make a second, related error when they study the food out of the context of the diet. We don't eat just one thing, and when we are eating any one thing, we're not eating another. We also eat foods in combinations and in orders that can affect how they're absorbed. Drink coffee with your steak, and your body won't be able to fully absorb the iron in the meat. The trace of limestone in the corn tortilla unlocks essential amino acids in the corn that would otherwise remain unavailable. Some of those compounds in that sprig of thyme may well affect my digestion of the dish I add it to, helping to break down one compound or possibly stimulate production of an enzyme to detoxify another. We have barely begun to understand the relationships among foods in a cuisine.

But we do understand some of the simplest relationships, like the zero-sum relationship: that if you eat a lot of meat you're probably not eating a lot of vegetables. This simple fact may explain why populations that eat diets high in meat have higher rates of coronary heart disease and cancer than those that don't. Yet nutritionism encourages us to look elsewhere for the explanation: deep within the meat itself, to the culpable nutrient, which scientists have long assumed to be the saturated fat. So they are baffled when large-population studies, like the Women's Health Initiative, fail to find that reducing fat intake significantly reduces the incidence of heart disease or cancer.

Of course thanks to the low-fat fad (inspired by the very same reductionist fat hypothesis), it is entirely possible to reduce your intake of saturated fat without significantly reducing your consumption of animal protein: just drink the low-fat milk and order the skinless chicken breast or the turkey bacon. So maybe the culprit nutrient in meat and dairy is the animal protein itself, as some researchers now hypothesize. (The Cornell nutritionist T. Colin Campbell argues as much in his recent book, "The China Study.") Or, as the Harvard epidemiologist Walter C. Willett suggests, it could be the steroid hormones typically present in the milk and meat; these hormones (which occur naturally in meat and milk but are often augmented in industrial production) are known to promote certain cancers.

But people worried about their health needn't wait for scientists to settle this question before deciding that it might be wise to eat more plants and less meat. This is of course precisely what the McGovern committee was trying to tell us.

Nestle also cautions against taking the diet out of the context of the lifestyle. The Mediterranean diet is widely believed to be one of the most healthful ways to eat, yet much of what we know about it is based on studies of people living on the island of Crete in the 1950s, who in many respects lived lives very different from our own. Yes, they ate lots of olive oil and little meat. But they also did more physical labor. They fasted regularly. They ate a lot of wild greens — weeds. And, perhaps most important, they consumed far fewer total calories than we do. Similarly, much of what we know about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet is based on studies of Seventh Day Adventists, who muddy the nutritional picture by drinking absolutely no alcohol and never smoking. These extraneous but unavoidable factors are called, aptly, "confounders." One last example: People who take supplements are healthier than the population at large, but their health probably has nothing whatsoever to do with the supplements they take — which recent studies have suggested are worthless. Supplement-takers are better-educated, more-affluent people who, almost by definition, take a greater-than-normal interest in personal health — confounding factors that probably account for their superior health.

But if confounding factors of lifestyle bedevil comparative studies of different populations, the supposedly more rigorous "prospective" studies of large American populations suffer from their own arguably even more disabling flaws. In these studies — of which the Women's Health Initiative is the best known — a large population is divided into two groups. The intervention group changes its diet in some prescribed manner, while the control group does not. The two groups are then tracked over many years to learn whether the intervention affects relative rates of chronic disease.

When it comes to studying nutrition, this sort of extensive, long-term clinical trial is supposed to be the gold standard. It certainly sounds sound. In the case of the Women's Health Initiative, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the eating habits and health outcomes of nearly 49,000 women (ages 50 to 79 at the beginning of the study) were tracked for eight years. One group of the women were told to reduce their consumption of fat to 20 percent of total calories. The results were announced early last year, producing front-page headlines of which the one in this newspaper was typical: "Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds." And the cloud of nutritional confusion over the country darkened.

But even a cursory analysis of the study's methods makes you wonder why anyone would take such a finding seriously, let alone order a Quarter Pounder With Cheese to celebrate it, as many newspaper readers no doubt promptly went out and did. Even the beginner student of nutritionism will immediately spot several flaws: the focus was on "fat," rather than on any particular food, like meat or dairy. So women could comply simply by switching to lower-fat animal products. Also, no distinctions were made between types of fat: women getting their allowable portion of fat from olive oil or fish were lumped together with woman getting their fat from low-fat cheese or chicken breasts or margarine. Why? Because when the study was designed 16 years ago, the whole notion of "good fats" was not yet on the scientific scope. Scientists study what scientists can see.

But perhaps the biggest flaw in this study, and other studies like it, is that we have no idea what these women were really eating because, like most people when asked about their diet, they lied about it. How do we know this? Deduction. Consider: When the study began, the average participant weighed in at 170 pounds and claimed to be eating 1,800 calories a day. It would take an unusual metabolism to maintain that weight on so little food. And it would take an even freakier metabolism to drop only one or two pounds after getting down to a diet of 1,400 to 1,500 calories a day — as the women on the "low-fat" regimen claimed to have done. Sorry, ladies, but I just don't buy it.

In fact, nobody buys it. Even the scientists who conduct this sort of research conduct it in the knowledge that people lie about their food intake all the time. They even have scientific figures for the magnitude of the lie. Dietary trials like the Women's Health Initiative rely on "food-frequency questionnaires," and studies suggest that people on average eat between a fifth and a third more than they claim to on the questionnaires. How do the researchers know that? By comparing what people report on questionnaires with interviews about their dietary intake over the previous 24 hours, thought to be somewhat more reliable. In fact, the magnitude of the lie could be much greater, judging by the huge disparity between the total number of food calories produced every day for each American (3,900 calories) and the average number of those calories Americans own up to chomping: 2,000. (Waste accounts for some of the disparity, but nowhere near all of it.) All we really know about how much people actually eat is that the real number lies somewhere between those two figures.

To try to fill out the food-frequency questionnaire used by the Women's Health Initiative, as I recently did, is to realize just how shaky the data on which such trials rely really are. The survey, which took about 45 minutes to complete, started off with some relatively easy questions: "Did you eat chicken or turkey during the last three months?" Having answered yes, I was then asked, "When you ate chicken or turkey, how often did you eat the skin?" But the survey soon became harder, as when it asked me to think back over the past three months to recall whether when I ate okra, squash or yams, they were fried, and if so, were they fried in stick margarine, tub margarine, butter, "shortening" (in which category they inexplicably lump together hydrogenated vegetable oil and lard), olive or canola oil or nonstick spray? I honestly didn't remember, and in the case of any okra eaten in a restaurant, even a hypnotist could not get out of me what sort of fat it was fried in. In the meat section, the portion sizes specified haven't been seen in America since the Hoover administration. If a four-ounce portion of steak is considered "medium," was I really going to admit that the steak I enjoyed on an unrecallable number of occasions during the past three months was probably the equivalent of two or three (or, in the case of a steakhouse steak, no less than four) of these portions? I think not. In fact, most of the "medium serving sizes" to which I was asked to compare my own consumption made me feel piggish enough to want to shave a few ounces here, a few there. (I mean, I wasn't under oath or anything, was I?)

This is the sort of data on which the largest questions of diet and health are being decided in America today.


In the end, the biggest, most ambitious and widely reported studies of diet and health leave more or less undisturbed the main features of the Western diet: lots of meat and processed foods, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything — except fruits, vegetables and whole grains. In keeping with the nutritionism paradigm and the limits of reductionist science, the researchers fiddle with single nutrients as best they can, but the populations they recruit and study are typical American eaters doing what typical American eaters do: trying to eat a little less of this nutrient, a little more of that, depending on the latest thinking. (One problem with the control groups in these studies is that they too are exposed to nutritional fads in the culture, so over time their eating habits come to more closely resemble the habits of the intervention group.) It should not surprise us that the findings of such research would be so equivocal and confusing.

But what about the elephant in the room — the Western diet? It might be useful, in the midst of our deepening confusion about nutrition, to review what we do know about diet and health. What we know is that people who eat the way we do in America today suffer much higher rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity than people eating more traditional diets. (Four of the 10 leading killers in America are linked to diet.) Further, we know that simply by moving to America, people from nations with low rates of these "diseases of affluence" will quickly acquire them. Nutritionism by and large takes the Western diet as a given, seeking to moderate its most deleterious effects by isolating the bad nutrients in it — things like fat, sugar, salt — and encouraging the public and the food industry to limit them. But after several decades of nutrient-based health advice, rates of cancer and heart disease in the U.S. have declined only slightly (mortality from heart disease is down since the '50s, but this is mainly because of improved treatment), and rates of obesity and diabetes have soared.

No one likes to admit that his or her best efforts at understanding and solving a problem have actually made the problem worse, but that's exactly what has happened in the case of nutritionism. Scientists operating with the best of intentions, using the best tools at their disposal, have taught us to look at food in a way that has diminished our pleasure in eating it while doing little or nothing to improve our health. Perhaps what we need now is a broader, less reductive view of what food is, one that is at once more ecological and cultural. What would happen, for example, if we were to start thinking about food as less of a thing and more of a relationship?

In nature, that is of course precisely what eating has always been: relationships among species in what we call food chains, or webs, that reach all the way down to the soil. Species co-evolve with the other species they eat, and very often a relationship of interdependence develops: I'll feed you if you spread around my genes. A gradual process of mutual adaptation transforms something like an apple or a squash into a nutritious and tasty food for a hungry animal. Over time and through trial and error, the plant becomes tastier (and often more conspicuous) in order to gratify the animal's needs and desires, while the animal gradually acquires whatever digestive tools (enzymes, etc.) are needed to make optimal use of the plant. Similarly, cow's milk did not start out as a nutritious food for humans; in fact, it made them sick until humans who lived around cows evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This development proved much to the advantage of both the milk drinkers and the cows.

"Health" is, among other things, the byproduct of being involved in these sorts of relationships in a food chain — involved in a great many of them, in the case of an omnivorous creature like us. Further, when the health of one link of the food chain is disturbed, it can affect all the creatures in it. When the soil is sick or in some way deficient, so will be the grasses that grow in that soil and the cattle that eat the grasses and the people who drink the milk. Or, as the English agronomist Sir Albert Howard put it in 1945 in "The Soil and Health" (a founding text of organic agriculture), we would do well to regard "the whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal and man as one great subject." Our personal health is inextricably bound up with the health of the entire food web.

In many cases, long familiarity between foods and their eaters leads to elaborate systems of communications up and down the food chain, so that a creature's senses come to recognize foods as suitable by taste and smell and color, and our bodies learn what to do with these foods after they pass the test of the senses, producing in anticipation the chemicals necessary to break them down. Health depends on knowing how to read these biological signals: this smells spoiled; this looks ripe; that's one good-looking cow. This is easier to do when a creature has long experience of a food, and much harder when a food has been designed expressly to deceive its senses — with artificial flavors, say, or synthetic sweeteners.

Note that these ecological relationships are between eaters and whole foods, not nutrients. Even though the foods in question eventually get broken down in our bodies into simple nutrients, as corn is reduced to simple sugars, the qualities of the whole food are not unimportant — they govern such things as the speed at which the sugars will be released and absorbed, which we're coming to see as critical to insulin metabolism. Put another way, our bodies have a longstanding and sustainable relationship to corn that we do not have to high-fructose corn syrup. Such a relationship with corn syrup might develop someday (as people evolve superhuman insulin systems to cope with regular floods of fructose and glucose), but for now the relationship leads to ill health because our bodies don't know how to handle these biological novelties. In much the same way, human bodies that can cope with chewing coca leaves — a longstanding relationship between native people and the coca plant in South America — cannot cope with cocaine or crack, even though the same "active ingredients" are present in all three. Reductionism as a way of understanding food or drugs may be harmless, even necessary, but reductionism in practice can lead to problems.

Looking at eating through this ecological lens opens a whole new perspective on exactly what the Western diet is: a radical and rapid change not just in our foodstuffs over the course of the 20th century but also in our food relationships, all the way from the soil to the meal. The ideology of nutritionism is itself part of that change. To get a firmer grip on the nature of those changes is to begin to know how we might make our relationships to food healthier. These changes have been numerous and far-reaching, but consider as a start these four large-scale ones:

From Whole Foods to Refined. The case of corn points up one of the key features of the modern diet: a shift toward increasingly refined foods, especially carbohydrates. Call it applied reductionism. Humans have been refining grains since at least the Industrial Revolution, favoring white flour (and white rice) even at the price of lost nutrients. Refining grains extends their shelf life (precisely because it renders them less nutritious to pests) and makes them easier to digest, by removing the fiber that ordinarily slows the release of their sugars. Much industrial food production involves an extension and intensification of this practice, as food processors find ways to deliver glucose — the brain's preferred fuel — ever more swiftly and efficiently. Sometimes this is precisely the point, as when corn is refined into corn syrup; other times it is an unfortunate byproduct of food processing, as when freezing food destroys the fiber that would slow sugar absorption.

So fast food is fast in this other sense too: it is to a considerable extent predigested, in effect, and therefore more readily absorbed by the body. But while the widespread acceleration of the Western diet offers us the instant gratification of sugar, in many people (and especially those newly exposed to it) the "speediness" of this food overwhelms the insulin response and leads to Type II diabetes. As one nutrition expert put it to me, we're in the middle of "a national experiment in mainlining glucose." To encounter such a diet for the first time, as when people accustomed to a more traditional diet come to America, or when fast food comes to their countries, delivers a shock to the system. Public-health experts call it "the nutrition transition," and it can be deadly.

From Complexity to Simplicity. If there is one word that covers nearly all the changes industrialization has made to the food chain, it would be simplification. Chemical fertilizers simplify the chemistry of the soil, which in turn appears to simplify the chemistry of the food grown in that soil. Since the widespread adoption of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in the 1950s, the nutritional quality of produce in America has, according to U.S.D.A. figures, declined significantly. Some researchers blame the quality of the soil for the decline; others cite the tendency of modern plant breeding to select for industrial qualities like yield rather than nutritional quality. Whichever it is, the trend toward simplification of our food continues on up the chain. Processing foods depletes them of many nutrients, a few of which are then added back in through "fortification": folic acid in refined flour, vitamins and minerals in breakfast cereal. But food scientists can add back only the nutrients food scientists recognize as important. What are they overlooking?

Simplification has occurred at the level of species diversity, too. The astounding variety of foods on offer in the modern supermarket obscures the fact that the actual number of species in the modern diet is shrinking. For reasons of economics, the food industry prefers to tease its myriad processed offerings from a tiny group of plant species, corn and soybeans chief among them. Today, a mere four crops account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. When you consider that humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species, and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use, this represents a radical simplification of the food web. Why should this matter? Because humans are omnivores, requiring somewhere between 50 and 100 different chemical compounds and elements to be healthy. It's hard to believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice.

From Leaves to Seeds. It's no coincidence that most of the plants we have come to rely on are grains; these crops are exceptionally efficient at transforming sunlight into macronutrients — carbs, fats and proteins. These macronutrients in turn can be profitably transformed into animal protein (by feeding them to animals) and processed foods of every description. Also, the fact that grains are durable seeds that can be stored for long periods means they can function as commodities as well as food, making these plants particularly well suited to the needs of industrial capitalism.

The needs of the human eater are another matter. An oversupply of macronutrients, as we now have, itself represents a serious threat to our health, as evidenced by soaring rates of obesity and diabetes. But the undersupply of micronutrients may constitute a threat just as serious. Put in the simplest terms, we're eating a lot more seeds and a lot fewer leaves, a tectonic dietary shift the full implications of which we are just beginning to glimpse. If I may borrow the nutritionist's reductionist vocabulary for a moment, there are a host of critical micronutrients that are harder to get from a diet of refined seeds than from a diet of leaves. There are the antioxidants and all the other newly discovered phytochemicals (remember that sprig of thyme?); there is the fiber, and then there are the healthy omega-3 fats found in leafy green plants, which may turn out to be most important benefit of all.

Most people associate omega-3 fatty acids with fish, but fish get them from green plants (specifically algae), which is where they all originate. Plant leaves produce these essential fatty acids ("essential" because our bodies can't produce them on their own) as part of photosynthesis. Seeds contain more of another essential fatty acid: omega-6. Without delving too deeply into the biochemistry, the two fats perform very different functions, in the plant as well as the plant eater. Omega-3s appear to play an important role in neurological development and processing, the permeability of cell walls, the metabolism of glucose and the calming of inflammation. Omega-6s are involved in fat storage (which is what they do for the plant), the rigidity of cell walls, clotting and the inflammation response. (Think of omega-3s as fleet and flexible, omega-6s as sturdy and slow.) Since the two lipids compete with each other for the attention of important enzymes, the ratio between omega-3s and omega-6s may matter more than the absolute quantity of either fat. Thus too much omega-6 may be just as much a problem as too little omega-3.

And that might well be a problem for people eating a Western diet. As we've shifted from leaves to seeds, the ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s in our bodies has shifted, too. At the same time, modern food-production practices have further diminished the omega-3s in our diet. Omega-3s, being less stable than omega-6s, spoil more readily, so we have selected for plants that produce fewer of them; further, when we partly hydrogenate oils to render them more stable, omega-3s are eliminated. Industrial meat, raised on seeds rather than leaves, has fewer omega-3s and more omega-6s than preindustrial meat used to have. And official dietary advice since the 1970s has promoted the consumption of polyunsaturated vegetable oils, most of which are high in omega-6s (corn and soy, especially). Thus, without realizing what we were doing, we significantly altered the ratio of these two essential fats in our diets and bodies, with the result that the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in the typical American today stands at more than 10 to 1; before the widespread introduction of seed oils at the turn of the last century, it was closer to 1 to 1.

The role of these lipids is not completely understood, but many researchers say that these historically low levels of omega-3 (or, conversely, high levels of omega-6) bear responsibility for many of the chronic diseases associated with the Western diet, especially heart disease and diabetes. (Some researchers implicate omega-3 deficiency in rising rates of depression and learning disabilities as well.) To remedy this deficiency, nutritionism classically argues for taking omega-3 supplements or fortifying food products, but because of the complex, competitive relationship between omega-3 and omega-6, adding more omega-3s to the diet may not do much good unless you also reduce your intake of omega-6.

From Food Culture to Food Science. The last important change wrought by the Western diet is not, strictly speaking, ecological. But the industrialization of our food that we call the Western diet is systematically destroying traditional food cultures. Before the modern food era — and before nutritionism — people relied for guidance about what to eat on their national or ethnic or regional cultures. We think of culture as a set of beliefs and practices to help mediate our relationship to other people, but of course culture (at least before the rise of science) has also played a critical role in helping mediate people's relationship to nature. Eating being a big part of that relationship, cultures have had a great deal to say about what and how and why and when and how much we should eat. Of course when it comes to food, culture is really just a fancy word for Mom, the figure who typically passes on the food ways of the group — food ways that, although they were never "designed" to optimize health (we have many reasons to eat the way we do), would not have endured if they did not keep eaters alive and well.

The sheer novelty and glamour of the Western diet, with its 17,000 new food products introduced every year, and the marketing muscle used to sell these products, has overwhelmed the force of tradition and left us where we now find ourselves: relying on science and journalism and marketing to help us decide questions about what to eat. Nutritionism, which arose to help us better deal with the problems of the Western diet, has largely been co-opted by it, used by the industry to sell more food and to undermine the authority of traditional ways of eating. You would not have read this far into this article if your food culture were intact and healthy; you would simply eat the way your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents taught you to eat. The question is, Are we better off with these new authorities than we were with the traditional authorities they supplanted? The answer by now should be clear.

It might be argued that, at this point in history, we should simply accept that fast food is our food culture. Over time, people will get used to eating this way and our health will improve. But for natural selection to help populations adapt to the Western diet, we'd have to be prepared to let those whom it sickens die. That's not what we're doing. Rather, we're turning to the health-care industry to help us "adapt." Medicine is learning how to keep alive the people whom the Western diet is making sick. It's gotten good at extending the lives of people with heart disease, and now it's working on obesity and diabetes. Capitalism is itself marvelously adaptive, able to turn the problems it creates into lucrative business opportunities: diet pills, heart-bypass operations, insulin pumps, bariatric surgery. But while fast food may be good business for the health-care industry, surely the cost to society — estimated at more than $200 billion a year in diet-related health-care costs — is unsustainable.


To medicalize the diet problem is of course perfectly consistent with nutritionism. So what might a more ecological or cultural approach to the problem recommend? How might we plot our escape from nutritionism and, in turn, from the deleterious effects of the modern diet? In theory nothing could be simpler — stop thinking and eating that way — but this is somewhat harder to do in practice, given the food environment we now inhabit and the loss of sharp cultural tools to guide us through it. Still, I do think escape is possible, to which end I can now revisit — and elaborate on, but just a little — the simple principles of healthy eating I proposed at the beginning of this essay, several thousand words ago. So try these few (flagrantly unscientific) rules of thumb, collected in the course of my nutritional odyssey, and see if they don't at least point us in the right direction.

1. Eat food. Though in our current state of confusion, this is much easier said than done. So try this: Don't eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. (Sorry, but at this point Moms are as confused as the rest of us, which is why we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of modern food products.) There are a great many foodlike items in the supermarket your ancestors wouldn't recognize as food (Go-Gurt? Breakfast-cereal bars? Nondairy creamer?); stay away from these.

2. Avoid even those food products that come bearing health claims. They're apt to be heavily processed, and the claims are often dubious at best. Don't forget that margarine, one of the first industrial foods to claim that it was more healthful than the traditional food it replaced, turned out to give people heart attacks. When Kellogg's can boast about its Healthy Heart Strawberry Vanilla cereal bars, health claims have become hopelessly compromised. (The American Heart Association charges food makers for their endorsement.) Don't take the silence of the yams as a sign that they have nothing valuable to say about health.

3. Especially avoid food products containing ingredients that are a) unfamiliar, b) unpronounceable c) more than five in number — or that contain high-fructose corn syrup.None of these characteristics are necessarily harmful in and of themselves, but all of them are reliable markers for foods that have been highly processed.

4. Get out of the supermarket whenever possible. You won't find any high-fructose corn syrup at the farmer's market; you also won't find food harvested long ago and far away. What you will find are fresh whole foods picked at the peak of nutritional quality. Precisely the kind of food your great-great-grandmother would have recognized as food.

5. Pay more, eat less. The American food system has for a century devoted its energies and policies to increasing quantity and reducing price, not to improving quality. There's no escaping the fact that better food — measured by taste or nutritional quality (which often correspond) — costs more, because it has been grown or raised less intensively and with more care. Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful, but most of us can: Americans spend, on average, less than 10 percent of their income on food, down from 24 percent in 1947, and less than the citizens of any other nation. And those of us who can afford to eat well should. Paying more for food well grown in good soils — whether certified organic or not — will contribute not only to your health (by reducing exposure to pesticides) but also to the health of others who might not themselves be able to afford that sort of food: the people who grow it and the people who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown.

"Eat less" is the most unwelcome advice of all, but in fact the scientific case for eating a lot less than we currently do is compelling. "Calorie restriction" has repeatedly been shown to slow aging in animals, and many researchers (including Walter Willett, the Harvard epidemiologist) believe it offers the single strongest link between diet and cancer prevention. Food abundance is a problem, but culture has helped here, too, by promoting the idea of moderation. Once one of the longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans practiced a principle they called "Hara Hachi Bu": eat until you are 80 percent full. To make the "eat less" message a bit more palatable, consider that quality may have a bearing on quantity: I don't know about you, but the better the quality of the food I eat, the less of it I need to feel satisfied. All tomatoes are not created equal.

6. Eat mostly plants, especially leaves. Scientists may disagree on what's so good about plants — the antioxidants? Fiber? Omega-3s? — but they do agree that they're probably really good for you and certainly can't hurt. Also, by eating a plant-based diet, you'll be consuming far fewer calories, since plant foods (except seeds) are typically less "energy dense" than the other things you might eat. Vegetarians are healthier than carnivores, but near vegetarians ("flexitarians") are as healthy as vegetarians. Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised treating meat more as a flavoring than a food.

7. Eat more like the French. Or the Japanese. Or the Italians. Or the Greeks. Confounding factors aside, people who eat according to the rules of a traditional food culture are generally healthier than we are. Any traditional diet will do: if it weren't a healthy diet, the people who follow it wouldn't still be around. True, food cultures are embedded in societies and economies and ecologies, and some of them travel better than others: Inuit not so well as Italian. In borrowing from a food culture, pay attention to how a culture eats, as well as to what it eats. In the case of the French paradox, it may not be the dietary nutrients that keep the French healthy (lots of saturated fat and alcohol?!) so much as the dietary habits: small portions, no seconds or snacking, communal meals — and the serious pleasure taken in eating. (Worrying about diet can't possibly be good for you.) Let culture be your guide, not science.

8. Cook. And if you can, plant a garden. To take part in the intricate and endlessly interesting processes of providing for our sustenance is the surest way to escape the culture of fast food and the values implicit in it: that food should be cheap and easy; that food is fuel and not communion. The culture of the kitchen, as embodied in those enduring traditions we call cuisines, contains more wisdom about diet and health than you are apt to find in any nutrition journal or journalism. Plus, the food you grow yourself contributes to your health long before you sit down to eat it. So you might want to think about putting down this article now and picking up a spatula or hoe.

9. Eat like an omnivore. Try to add new species, not just new foods, to your diet. The greater the diversity of species you eat, the more likely you are to cover all your nutritional bases. That of course is an argument from nutritionism, but there is a better one, one that takes a broader view of "health." Biodiversity in the diet means less monoculture in the fields. What does that have to do with your health? Everything. The vast monocultures that now feed us require tremendous amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep from collapsing. Diversifying those fields will mean fewer chemicals, healthier soils, healthier plants and animals and, in turn, healthier people. It's all connected, which is another way of saying that your health isn't bordered by your body and that what's good for the soil is probably good for you, too.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company