“Atlas Shrugged: Part I” opened this spring in the movie theaters, leading me to reread Ayn Rand’s epic novel and to think about all that’s being done to our food supply “for our own good.” Indeed we are already seeing disastrous effects on personal and planetary health from Big Brother’s wasteful and corrupt subsidies of corn, soy, wheat and Big Pfood; from the increasing control over independent farmers through orders, directives, restrictions and police actions; and even growing restrictions on what families can choose to eat.
Ayn Rand’s 1,168-page novel, first published in 1957, rarely mentions food directly. Indeed we might think her protagonist Dagny Taggert lives on coffee and cigarettes, except for a single incident in Part II when she eats the best “hamburger sandwich” she ever tasted, at a little diner located on the summit of a long, hard climb out of Cheyenne, Wyoming.
That hamburger, of course, was not just a burger, but a product of simple ingredients and of an unusual skill. It had been prepared with integrity, by a philosopher genius, no less, and was authentic and real with nothing ersatz, tricky or pretentious about it. In short, an über burger that represented Ayn Rand’s and Dagny Taggart’s highest values.
The food Rand chose to represent the lowest values was soy. In Part III the author introduces the flabby mystic Emma “Ma” Chambers, whose “progressive” dietary views led to the waste of millions of tax dollars on “Project Soybean.” Ma had been appointed the nation’s food czar out of pity, not intelligence or ability. With no objective evidence whatsoever, Ma felt soybeans would make “an excellent substitute for bread, meat, cereals and coffee” and that Americans not only needed to eat more like Asians but should be forced to do so for their own good. Ma’s feeling that soybeans were of a higher “moral value” than wheat, led to government orders to pull trains out of the midwest, loss of the nation’s wheat crop, economic collapse and widespread starvation. As for the soybean crop, it too was lost thanks to the rotters’ incompetence.
Given Hollywood’s current worship of veganism, I rather doubt “Project Soybean” will enliven “Atlas Shrugged” Part II or III, should those sequels ever be made. As for vegetarianism, it was a symbol of silliness, failure and poverty back in Rand’s day. To say that someone was a “vegetable” meant they were inactive and indeed nearly comatose. Those Ayn Rand admired not only had “meaty” ideas but the motive power to act decisively, effectively, appropriately and imaginatively on them.
—
SIDEBAR
The 2011 Soy Foods Market Report
“Soyfoods: The U.S. Market Report” has come out and and it reports a “protracted slide” in soy milk sales as well as “lackluster performance in sales of tofu and soy infant formula” in the year 2010.
The industry blames three factors: competition from almond, rice, coconut, hemp and other non dairy milks: “premium pricing” for many soy products; and “widely distributed information about the impact of soy on health.” That last factor makes me proud. Seems the decade-long campaign by the Weston A. Price Foundation is finally paying off. We’ve also been greatly helped in the past year by Dr. Joseph Mercola, who has reached millions through his website www.mercola.com, the world’s leading health and dietary website. Numerous other websites too have helped the message go viral. The soy controversy even aired on The Dr Oz Show on October 5 in a segment that featured Dr Oz, Dr Mark Hyman and me.
Despite growing concerns about modern, industrial soy processing techniques, meat analogue sales saw a four percent growth in 2010 compared to 2009. The largest growth was in the soy-protein energy bar category with a whopping 18 percent increase in just the one year of 2010. According to Joe Jordan, Content Director of Soyatech, “Marketers of soy-based foods have been finding success in developing delicious meat alternative products with sophisticated flavor profiles. In addition, 14 energy bar brands appeared among the top 50 soyfood brands in 2010, indicating that this broad market affords many opportunities for creative food manufacturers to reach their key target markets.”
What are the “current market drivers”? Soyatech thinks it’s fueled by three things: the consumer focus on convenience; widespread interest in meat-free foods; and new USDA food guidelines that “affect consumer understanding of—and interest in—the added value of foods made from the nutritious soybean.”
In short, the good news is that soy sales are slumping, and the bad news is they are not plummeting. And it’s very good news of course that soy infant formula sales may have finally peaked. Meanwhile, we at the WAPF will continue to do our best to alert people to the risks of “convenience” foods that sooner or later create inconvenient health problems, and the malnutrition and health risks associated with vegan diets and soy-based and other meat substitutes.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2011.
Hi Sieben. Have you not heard that the government’s low fat dietary guidelines are the major cause of obesity and disease in the USA? Check out http://www.westonaprice.org for more info on that.
Low fat diets are perfectly valid. So are high fat diets. There’s nothing in our system that artificially causes people to eat more and get fat. If anything, USDA raises food prices and makes it harder to eat lots of (junk) food.
But there are pros and cons to the “fat scare” wave of the 80’s. On the one hand, we now have an array of low fat and fat free foods. Skim milk, fat free cheese (!!!), lean red meats are all fantastic because you can access their proteins and micronutrients in greater quantities (for the same calories). On the other hand, manufacturers have created many “low fat” snacks with higher carbs. The danger is if people think they can eat more because its “low fat”, they’ll overeat calories and get fat.
Specific to the saturated fat scare, I recall that oreos actually changed its recipe to contain less saturated fat and more trans fat. I recently saw a can of Crisco with “40% less saturated fat than butter”, but of course, the two primary ingredients were trans fats. The Atkins wave created a smilar (but less substantial) wave of low carb foods with similar pros and cons (see low carb tortillas - they’re magic!).
So there are pros and cons. If you’re smart, then its mostly pros. The only true criterion for “nutritional damage” is if they make it such that you can’t obtain macronutrients relatively seperately. For example, if they made low-fat dairy illegal, now I can’t get milk protein alone and I have to consume it with large amounts of fat. Fat isn’t objectively good or bad, its just that “more fat” might not fit into my diet.
What makes you wrong, is that the fat in, fat gained equasion does not work, simply because fat stimulates metabolism. Therefore, if you go for low fat products, you are less able to metabolise carbs and protein and, absent the fat soluble vitamins one cannot properly utilize the minerals. Therefore, whilst a low fat diet may have more protein and minerals, your body cannot utilize them. Hence, the need for a balanced diet, and a no fat diet is not balanced!
To understand the falacies of the obesity ideas promoted by government, see a video from our conference in London from Zoe Harcombe:
I’d be really keen to hear your reaction to these videos because I’ve spent lots of time and money making them available and am keen for Miseans to have access to them, because this is a key case study of what government does when they intervene in a free market. Government should not be in the business of telling us what to eat, and our videos explain the consequences.
Also, here is the Foundation’s critique of the USDA’s dietary guidelines:
Its calories in - calories out btw. And you’re going to need to give me a source on how fat stimulates metabolism. Preferably from Pubmed. I am not wasting hours of my time watching your little propoganda videos just because the person has a PhD. I can throw about a dozen PhDs at you too and waste your time, but I won’t do it.
No one is advocating a “no fat” diet. Its just that “low fat” foods still contain reasonable amounts of fat, and you wind up with 20-25% of your overall calories coming from fat. And I’m not even saying “eat low fat everything”. I am saying “some low fat foods are nice”. Almonds are also a nice but they are not low in fat. So… you know… you have to look at things in an overall context. You can’t just isolate one food and say “BAD!”
SOURCE.
Agreed. I’m an anarchist. But I don’t think nutrition would be very much better under a free market.
Sabein, you are a self confessed anarchist who believes that government intervention is necessary for good nutrition? Thomas Jefferson would dissagree:
“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson (1778)
And, when I discuss free markets, I am talking about sound money, which would favor small family farms, butchers, grocers and farmers markets. Monsanto and WalMart are funded via fractional reserve banking and do not represent free markets, they represent corporatism or, corporate fascism.
I joined this forum to discuss how free market mechanisms may encourage good nutrition, not to get into innane discussions with folk who clearly have never read any of the good material on mises.org, because if you had, you would understand that no good can come from goverment telling us what to eat.
It is clear that you have never read material from westonaprice.org, and are responding based on mainstream views. Please read some stuff from our site, watch our videos, and then critique the evidence we present, because believe me, lots of research has gone into the weston a price foundation’s point of view.
You’re confusing distribution with production. The production of all foods would get drastically cheaper under capitalism. If all foods cost approximately zero, people will probably eat the tastiest ones. They won’t waste their time home-cooking all their meals with au naturale organic beefs etc.
Lol. So if the government made everyone follow a low-calorie diet at gunpoint, do you think people would lose weight? Do you think their biochemistry would improve? I do not think this is DESIRABLE, but the government CAN do some things.
No. Controlled studies or bust. Don’t waste hours of my time with your silly little small town propoganda. I’ve been around the block SEVERAL times on the topic of nutrition. Again, controlled studies or GTFO. “Fat boosts your metabolism” my ass.
Dude she’s at at least 25% bodyfat. And she’s got B cups at best. So wtf. Also no muscle development. There’s this thing called “skinnyfat” where people look attractive in clothes, but are unnatractive out of clothes and to the touch.
Sieben, do you consider the Framingham study “small town propaganda”? I do understand Framingham is a small town so that might be confusing. Regardless of how much you like tasteless low-fat foods, most human beings have a taste for fat and want it in their diet (as it’s been there for 99% of human evolution). As long as it’s coming from a healthy animal (or plant a la the coconut) then why fret about keeping it at 20-25% of one’s caloric intake? I personally find Mark Sisson attractive (at 58!!) and his caloric intake is 60-65% fat.
Also, I slightly agree with Smiling Dave. That woman isn’t too bad looking for a woman her age but she could do a little heavy lifting.
I didn’t actually look at any of the evidence that I’ve been told to go find. You can link it for me. I insinuated that it was “small town” because my opponent was talking about how great little local bakers and butchers would be. I insinuated it was propaganda because I have never seen any controlled studies showing that fat boosts metabolism (LOL).
Whats going to happen is that the “high” fat diet is going to be higher in protein, which has a higher TEF calorie over calorie - i.e. lower net calories. The “low” fat diet is going to be higher in carbs since no one likes to eat low-fat proteins. So you know… that’s not very “ceteris parabis”.
Oh good. You think I’m pro-low fat diets. Where did I say low fat was good? Nowhere. You’re just straw manning me. My official position on fat vs carbs is that there shouldn’t be much difference if calories are controlled and the diet is reasonable (i.e. not “no fat” or “no carbs”). It comes down to insulin sensitivity and brain chemistry. I have known many people who do not do well on carbs. Similarly I know many people who do not do well on high fat diets. Your mileage will vary. Everyone’s mileage will vary. Insulin sensitivity can vary up to 10x over. So… you know…
Where did I say you had to keep fat at 20-25% intake? I’m saying that that’s the context in which I am advocating “low fat foods”. I am saying “low fat foods” are a good addition to a diet that gets 20-25% of its calories from fat. Wow. How radical.
Dude there’s this guy at my gym who is super ripped and he says fat is bad. Lololololololol one data point okay.
“In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people’s serum cholesterol… we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active.”
William Castelli, Director
The Framingham Study
“In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people’s serum cholesterol… we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active.”
William Castelli, Director
The Framingham Study
