In an article entitled "The Food Issue - Farmer in Chief", published on October 9, 2008, Michael Pollan addresses a letter of concern to "the future President of America". We have, since then, elected our new President, yet the letter has not lost its signifigance. The whole article includes valuable information. One passage, however, directly relates to our study of language.
In a part of the article, Pollan begins to suggest several steps the government may take in order to nurture to make local foods affordable for consumers. The following passage is directly taken from the article:
"Create a Federal Definition of 'Food.' It makes no sense for the government food-assistance dollars, intended to improve the nutritional health of at-risk Americans, to support the consumption of products we know to be unhealthful. Yes, some people will object that for the government to specify what food stamps can and cannot buy smacks of paternalism. Yet we already prohibit the purchase of tobacco and alcohol with food stamps. So why not prohibit something like soda, which is arguably less nutritious than red wine? Because it is, nominally, a food, albeit a 'junk food' -- and instead make clear that such products are not in fact food of any kind. Defining what constitutes real food worthy of federal support will no doubt be controversial (you'll recall President Reagan's ketchup imbroglio), but defining food upward may be more politcally palatable than defining it down, as Reagan sought to do. One approach would be to rule that, in order to be regarded as a food by the government, an edible substance must contain a certain minimum ratio of micronutrients per calorie of energy. At a stroke, such a definiton would improve the quality of school lunch and discourage sales of unhealthful products, since typically only "food" is exempt from local sales tax." (Pollan 11)
Pollan acknlowedges that difficulty will be met when trying to agree upon a single definition for the word "food". He also makes sure to include a qualifier when mentioning his own definitions of the word (i.e. 'arguably').
Once again, informative definitons have imposed reform. They seem to be overtaking politics. From fundamentals to food, we're on our way to rewriting the Oxford Dictionary!
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It surely would be controversial if the federal government decides to define 'food'. If the standards are too high, the food industry will rise loudly in objection and hire lobbyists to defend itself for the federal money.
Principles of language introduced in Hayakawa's book seems to be appearing everywhere.
Every argument starts with defining the terms. Whoever owns the definition is most likely to win. It sounds way too cruel for a tool that's supposed to bring cooperation and peaceful harmony.
(Jennifer Park)
Post a Comment