<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Man of Science, Man of Faith &#187; Food</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bryan.pickeroo.com/tag/food/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bryan.pickeroo.com</link>
	<description>Is there a point to all of this?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:28:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Let&#8217;s Talk Health</title>
		<link>http://bryan.pickeroo.com/2007/01/31/lets-talk-health/</link>
		<comments>http://bryan.pickeroo.com/2007/01/31/lets-talk-health/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>bryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bryan.pickeroo.com/2007/01/31/lets-talk-health/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We are what we eat, right? There is a very interesting article over at the New York Times. It is a look at how science has, over the years, worked to make our diet &#8220;better.&#8221; What the article points out is that as we have fooled around with our food in the name of nutrition, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We are what we eat, right? There is a very interesting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?ex=1327640400&amp;en=a18a7f35515014c7&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss">article</a> over at the New York Times. It is a look at how science has, over the years, worked to make our diet &#8220;better.&#8221; What the article points out is that as we have fooled around with our food in the name of nutrition, we have at times inadvertently screwed our health. It also speaks to the rising popularity of boxed and engineered &#8220;health-food&#8221; items that may or may not actually be healthy and/or food. It is a good read and I agree with it. As our food becomes more fooled around with, as we feed our livestock antibiotics and hormones to raise productivity and as we tinker with the genes of crops at the molecular level*, we put ourselves at greater risk of declining health.</p>
<p>The antibiotics trend is especially troubling to me, mostly because I&#8217;m a firm believer in the encouragement of beneficial bacteria and the regularly challenged immune system. Antibiotics kill essentially all bacteria, good and evil, something that science is discovering to be detrimental to health. In fact, without the bacteria in your gut, you wouldn&#8217;t be able to get nearly as much  energy and nutrition out of what you eat. Antibiotics can also lead to super-bugs that are highly resistant to antibiotics. That isn&#8217;t to say I&#8217;m completely against the use of antibiotics. Sometimes it is the way to go. If I&#8217;ve got a raging infection, give me the drugs, doc. What I&#8217;m saying, though, is that beneficial bacteria actually help keep the baddies from taking hold and the immune system needs to be given a chance to fight on its own.</p>
<p>A great portion of the livestock industry, though, gives animals antibiotics their whole lives. Not just when they&#8217;re sick. The drugs make it into our waterways and into us. And it isn&#8217;t good for us.</p>
<p>But that isn&#8217;t what the article is all about. You should <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?ex=1327640400&amp;en=a18a7f35515014c7&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss">read</a> it.</p>
<p>* We have for hundreds of years been tinkering with the genes of plans through selective breeding. I see the distinction in that when selectively breeding a plant, nature generally doesn&#8217;t allow hazardous properties to find their way into the fold. It is when we start taking bits of DNA from completely different species that we are setting ourselves up for trouble.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://bryan.pickeroo.com/2007/01/31/lets-talk-health/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

