Fresh produce piled high at a farmers' market.
  Fresh produce piled high at a farmers' market.

We've heard it before: most Americans have a pretty big problem with food. We eat too much of it, and a lot of the stuff we eat is junk. It's everywhere we turn, tempting and distracting us. Our overindulgence is even altering our brains.

 

But Todd Essig, a psychoanalyst at the William Alanson White Institute and a psychiatry professor at New York Medical College, has found a positive spin on what food can do for mental health.

 

In an article published this week on a Psychology Today blog, Essig makes the case that local food, eaten mindfully, can fundamentally improve your life.

 

Our tendencies to overeat, and eat junk food "deprive ourselves and our intimates of the many psychological satisfactions and pleasures that can come from eating sustainably," Essig writes.

 

What we need to do, he says, is "derive as much meaningful gratification as possible from our calories (which is not to be confused with consuming as much food as possible)." And local food seems one path to that kind of feel-good experience.

 

The case for local food is familiar: it's fresh and seasonal, it supports the local economy, it burns fewer fossil fuels in transportation, and it's more likely to be organic or pesticide-free.

 

Even Wal-Mart is looking to get in on the action, with its push in 2008 to buy more local food, and its most recent promise to stock more fresh fruits and veggies.

 

But now Essig is giving us another reason: buying food from local farmers and producers (presumably at a farmer's market) is a way to socialize and make connections. It's also a lovely sensual experience — a place to soak up rich colors, smells and tastes of fresh food.

And the social aspect of eating well is perhaps the most likely way to get psychological benefits from food, Essig suggests.

We know that feeling loved and having a 'good feed' have gone together since infancy. And today, even in the midst of our modern hustle-and-bustle, the intimacy families and friends (and even strangers) can find at the table can provide life with deep warmth and profound pleasure.


Of course, being a locavore is easier said than done. In the depths of winter of the northern latitudes, for example, it's hard to stock a fridge with many local foods beyond root vegetables and hothouse herbs. And we at Shots are loathe to admit that we often scarf our lunches in front of the computer, which doesn't evoke much warmth or pleasure.

But Essig's call for "culinary mindfulness" is one possible guiding tonic to Americans' fraught relationship with food these days.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/01/26/133243471/a-psychoanalys...

Views: 28

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks, Sydni.  This makes good sense, and happily it's making good sense to more and more people every day.  But in discussing it, may I be forgiven for suggesting that we not succumb to the vogue pronunciation of "culinary."  "Culinary" follows the same rule governing the pronunciation of "cute," "cumin," "cumulative," "cutaneous," "cupola," and "cupid."  

 

The phonetics guru (and NPR commentator), Charles Harrington Elster, says in his introduction in THERE IS NO ZOO IN ZOOLOGY AND OTHER BEASTLY MISPRONUNCIATIONS (1988), a good-humored guide to avoiding common mispronunciations, "In these pages...you will discover which pronunciations are preferred by most authorities, and which have the longest and strongest tradition in the dictionaries."

About "culinary," he writes, "KYOO-li-ner-ee, not KUHL--i-ner-ee"

"The first syllable of this word should sound just like the letter Q. Though it has been heard for most of this century, the pronunciation KUHL-i-ner-ee did not appear in dictionaries until the 1960s. Since then, only Merriam-Webster's wordbooks have put it first."

Adriana, at the risk of hijacking Sydni's thread (though I wouldn't expect to see anyone here arguing with the thesis), let me say that most people don't make a study of pronunciation. They usually pronounce words the way they've heard their parents and teachers and friends pronounce them--and often they will stubbornly cling to the mispronunciation of a word because "it just sounds better" the way they've always said it. I would suggest, however, that those of us who love to cook and discuss food and who therefore may use words like "culinary" more often than others, have a special obligation not to persist in using vogue pronunciations in the small-minded conviction that words sound better the way they've always spoken them.

Sometimes when someone is in doubt about how to say a certain word, she will consult a dictionary, but as the astute L. Craig Schoonmaker, author of an online "Correct Pronunciation" guide (see link below) points out, "If one goes to a typical dictionary to resolve such questions, s/he may find little or no guidance, because most dictionaries today are "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive". That means the editors include all pronunciations actually heard in the major dialects of English spoken across the world, with the result that all of the above pronunciations are included in major dictionaries — which leaves the person who consults a dictionary getting no answers to his or her questions."

Correct pronunciation: a Prescriptive Dictionary http://www.fanetik.org/corrpron.html

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service