>>> Drawing my thoughts from Micheal Pollans new book the Omnivores Dilema 
>>> there has been a unprecedented increase in processed corn and soybean 
>>> byproducts consumption in the US diet since the 1970's.

Obviously, there is something going on, and it would be obvious if we were 
no so immersed in it.

>>> While companies laugh all the way to the bank my guess is 2/3 of our 
>>> population has been hoodwinked into thinking they are getting "healthy" 
>>> snacks, "natural" meat/poultry/dairy products that in reality contain a 
>>> fraction of the nutrients they did 30 years ago.

My guess is that the amount of nutrients hasn't changed much, but rather 
that the nutrients have changed to favour simple carbohydrates and synthetic 
fats over fibre and vitamins.  The fact that there is money in food 
processing guarantees that food processors will have many more advertisng, 
lobbying and "research" dollars to spend than the farmer who produces 
commodities.

The resulting "research" has proven over and over that what are actually 
unhealthy choices are good for you, and the media, highly dependant on food 
processor money, pick up the theme.

This is so endemic that beekeepers have to result to joining the trend, with 
research to prove honey is good, and a promotion board to compete with all 
the other BS out there.  Don't kid yourself.  The Honey Board's job is to 
spread manure.

What we have to remember is that food promotion is not a new thing.  The 
original food processors are the flour mills, and that they found that if 
they stripped much of the nutrition from grains to make an addictive, 
ultimately dangerous food which is predominantly just a simple starch 
(flour) from what started out being a healthy food, add a bit of mystique, 
and hire Norman Rockwell, they could make far more money than they could 
growing wheat.

Advertising has convinced us that "Mom's apple pie and home-baked bread" are 
ideals, when, in fact, they have been the leading edge of a obesity epidemic 
and represent the road to diabetes. If you are overweight, thank an 
advertiser.

> We are moving rapidly from fact to ideology. One book does not represent 
> the accumulated research of all science. Without reading the book.... They 
> leap from corn syrup to all of agriculture. Use a single data point.

This is a problem.  The author has a simple idea, (maybe it is correct, or 
at least part of the picture).  That idea enough to fill a few paragraphs, 
but you can't usually sell a parqagraph.  You have to pad it out into a 
book.

> A fairly non-biased source like Consumer Reports which is not in any 
> corporate pocket...

Hmmm.  They appear very corporate themselves, and the the corporate mindset 
permeates the entire business and consumer world.

> ...We can test now and find contaminates that we were unable to detect in 
> the past because they were in such small quantities... there are plenty of 
> third world countries where that is practiced and you will die much 
> earlier eating that "healthy" food.

Good points, both, but I think that we may be confusing several issues here.

> Can I make a modest request, that we keep the list closer to beekeeping 
> than earnestly held beliefs that are more appropriate to other venues?

I'm sure we will, but BEE-L has traditionally let almost anything go a few 
rounds before closing the topic and this topic is far too important to 
simply ignore, AND it actually has a great deal to do with beekeeping (how 
and why we do things) and honey (what we produce, what we feed bees, and why 
we do it).

The problem is that we are so totally immersed in and brainwashed by 
corporate myths and consumer psychology that we can no more see it than fish 
can see water.

allen

Opinions are Not Facts... 

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---