In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, Michael Pollan

Michael Pollen's newest book has really changed my opinion about food. I think that I am someone who is more conscious of what I eat than the average person. Although I am not the healthiest person, nor do I consume only the best foods but I am someone who thinks about what I am going to consume and am generally aware of what I am eating. Even before reading this I have thought that the level of processing is a better indicator of a food's healthiness than how much of each of the macro nutrients it includes.
The first piece of advice that ever took to heart about being healthy was to shop only on the periphery of a supermarket; the produce, bakery, dairy, and meat sections of the store while avoiding the centre aisles. Although Michael Pollan argues this is a good starting point he warns that "You are what you eat, eats too". In this respect the meat that we consume is far less healthy than it was before. Now, like people, our cattle is living off of seeds. Most of the animals we husband (can you say that?) are now raised on a high calorie diet of grains instead of its natural diet of grasses slowly consumed over a day of grazing. The fact that our animals are now eating food with more calories and a less rich spread of micro nutrients and who knows what else, after all we do not yet know everything in our food that people actually use and what is turned into waste (I mean shit), means we cannot expect modern cattle to be has good for you as say the meat 50 years ago.
The other thing that is worrisome is what comprises our food. Have you looked at the ingredients label on something like yogurt or bread? These are foods that our species has been consuming for thousands of years with positive results. But now these products have all sorts of crazy things in it. This all comes from the repeal of an American law regarding food standards
The 1938 Imitation Rule (repealed in 1973) "There are certain traditional foods that everyone knows, such as bread, milk and cheese, and that when consumers buy these foods, they should get the foods they are expecting... if a food resembles a standardized food but does not comply with the standard, that food must be labeled as an 'imitation'." Reinstating this law would be a good step toward reducing obesity.
This is what worries me about eating now; even if you stick to what appears to be whole foods you are not necessarily consuming real food stuffs. Is it possible to avoid all of the chemicals?
What if you decide to try for the more natural approach of free range? "'Free range' doesn't necessarily mean the chicken has had access to grass; many egg and broiler producers offer their chickens little more than a dirt yard where nothing grows."
Michael Pollen finally summarizes our human condition by stating, "The human animal is adapted to, and apparently can thrive on, an extraordinary range of different diets, but the Western diet, however you define it, does not seem to be one of them"
A really easy and interesting read. As an added bonus, there are a lot of interesting resources available at the back and I recommend it to everyone.

Last Call

I recently returned to Canada to visit family and friends. While home I invariably went out to the bars and noticed something immediately: last call. Last call is something I have not had to deal with in Japan. I believe the intent of last call is to help monitor the behavior of Canadians. My guess is the assumption is this "if bars cannot serve alcohol after 2:00, people will drink less and go home earlier thereby reducing the harmful externalities of drinking". Now in reality I think the story goes more like this: People see they have a limited time to drink so they ply themselves with alcohol early to guarantee themselves a healthy glow by the end of the evening. The fact that they are drinking quickly means they almost certainly over consume because they do not give the alcohol time to work its magic before drinking even more. Then at 2:00 a whole slew of inebriated people are set loose at the same time where they can interact; causing damage to nearby property, inflicting pain on themselves and others, drive under the influence (surrounded by others doing the same), have (I am assuming) unprotected sex and eat a bunch of highly suspect street meat to the detriment of their GI tracts.
Whereas in Japan, if you want to go to a club until 6 or 7 (or 8 or 9), it is wise to be quite parsimonious with the alcohol to make sure you aren't the guy sleeping in the corner of the club. Not to mention you have no need to drink quickly so you almost always know when you have had enough. People filter out of the club evenly throughout the night so the streets are never overrun by the drunkards.
I ask you, which system is better?

Ben Stein

I recently watched Ben Stein's movie about intelligent design. I thought it would be entertaining to watch; mostly in an ironic way. That being said I went in with low expectations about its core arguments for intelligent design. But when I watched the teaser online, back when it was first being released, it was portrayed more as a documentary looking into why there isn't a debate between intelligent design and evolution as opposed to, what it turned out to be, an argument for intelligent design.
From the onset his arguments were weak at best and hypocritical at worse:
If you do not know exactly how life first came into existence doesn't it make sense that God (with emphasis on the singular form of the noun) create it? This of course ignores the further issue of how did said God come into existence?
I enjoyed the fact that the priests interviewed argued that religion should not supplant science and that the Catholic Church has reconciled itself with modern science; including evolution.
I will say Richard Dawkins is a douche. I am in possession of at least one of his books but am not really sure if I want to read it anymore.
Ben Stein's mocking tone of some of the theories about how life first came into being is hardly appropriate for a documentary and really puts him on par with Bill Maher; not a compliment.