by Miriam Garvi
The other day I was surprised to read that fructose makes you fat. Only fruit doesn’t. However, fruit juices, soft drinks and jams are sweetened with so much more fructose than what is found in a natural package (meaning fruit). Even the dietary amateur can see how tempting yet detrimental it would be to put too much of the good stuff into our processed foods in order to «improve» on nature.
We live in a world where we are overwhelmed by images drawing us into consumption. The politician’s favored term is growth, and for that to happen, there must be a steady stream of more people willing to buy more goods. In its 2008 mid-year update of the World Economic Situation and Prospects, the U.N. expresses its concern over slowing global growth rates, and, as a response, urges richer countries such as Japan and Norway to boost consumer spending.
I recently learned that saccharine, the first artificial sweetener, was discovered by accident during a chemical experiment in the late 19th century. I wonder who felt the need to consume artificial sugar before such substances were marketed as ultra sweetening but non fattening - in other words, have all the benefits without the downsides.
But what kind of fulfillment is there when market demand is created in order for the industry to diffuse its products?
The consumption society looks to awaken an insatiable appetite for more, playing on our more primitive impulses. The instant gratification that is offered in a consumption world is no long-term satisfaction. Nor is such a way of life sustainable if we were to extend our level of consumption to the rest of the world population.
There’s a thought.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Was it a BBC or a NPR broadcast, I don’t remember. But a few weeks back, I heard about the story behind the use of antibiotics in cattle feed.
Shortly after WWII ended, it became known among New-Jersey anglers that the fish in the lower reaches of the Hudson River had grown significantly bigger than it used to, prior to the war. Analyzes where conducted that led researchers to the plant a pharmaceutical company managed on the river, further upstream.
In dire need for newly discovered antibiotics on its battle-fields of WWII, the US had farmed their mass-production out to the pharmaceutical industry. Once the fungi from which penicillin is extracted had been harvested, that precise company used to discard waste product in a dump located on their premises, close to the river. Penicillium-laced seepage out of that dump and into the river caused the fish to grow meaty.
“How did it come about that fish throve on penicillin?” asked the researchers. Answer: the fish used to fend off numerous unfriendly bacteria inside their own organism. Once the ingested penicillin had dealt with that burden, their organism was allowed to redirect the spared energy towards growing muscle mass.
The discovery did not go unnoticed and was soon put to good use by fish farms. And in turn, that success story called the attention of poultry farms, cattle owners, and of the meat industry. Tests soon revealed that cattle fed antibiotics grew 25% meatier than cattle of the same age fed antibiotics-free feed. And, the milk-yield of antibiotics-fed cows rising noticeably, it proved a bonanza for dairy farms, too.
Since we are the next link up the food chain, one feels entitled to wonder what impact the introduction of antibiotics in cattle feed for purpose of “growing meat on legs” might have had on the metabolism of post-war generations.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
@Jerome: Very interesting to read your comment on the story behind the use of antibiotics in cattle feed! So much of what is supposedly ‘natural’ has become industrial/artificial and I think it is high time that we become aware of this. As you say, who is to tell how this is affecting our health in the long run.
Recently, Swedish journalist Mats-Eric Nilsson did a thorough investigation of a number of common food products, revealing what chemicals lie behind seemingly ‘innocent’ names of ingredients, and pointing out substance labels of which one should be particularly aware. After his first book was published, he was bombarded with emails and sms:es from people who did not know what to buy anymore and so he felt compelled to write a second book where he suggests more natural alternatives. Unfortunately, it has not been translated into English. Judging from his blog, there are quite a few people these days who want to know more about what substances they are actually feeding their bodies.