Instead of the unending beauty pageant, my colleagues could all rally around the fundamentals of healthful eating, which are in fact well-established. But I guess the allure of fame and fortune is just too great.
I would like to think that this is the New Year we situate ourselves sensibly among the panoply of creatures who eat as they fundamentally should. But instead, 2013 draws to a close with a whole new crop of iconoclastic dietary diatribe.
The important thing is not "Will this make me fat or help me lose weight?" The thing of importance, and it's very important, is: "Will this help or hinder me from doing the stuff I like?" I like doing stuff.
Whether about wheat or meat, sugar or starch, calories or carbohydrates, this fat or that fat, we seem to have an insatiable appetite for mere grains of truth about diet and health, rather than the complete recipe.
Demonizing saturated fat never helped us much. Canonizing it now won't help us any either. All who share a concern for eating well and the health advances that can come from it must band together to renounce the perennial branding of this, that, or the other food component as scapegoat or saint.
Unapproved, unwanted, and now out of control: the news that an unlicensed genetically modified (GM) wheat has been found growing on a field in Oregon -- almost 10 years after it was supposed to have completely destroyed -- sent shivers down my spine.
I was struck by a fascinating web post this week reporting that, as a country, we're consuming sharply declining amounts of wheat products. Given the vast numbers of Big Macs, Subway sandwiches and Domino's pizzas we buy every day, it seemed counterintuitive.