OT: The ethics of the exclusion diet, ie the Paleolithic Diet, on a worldwide scale

While reading a bit about the Paleolithic Diet, which is where my diet is currently heading, I noticed this tiny afterthought in the diet's Wikipedia article. I'll quote it so you don't have to follow links:

The Paleolithic diet has been criticized on the grounds that it cannot be implemented on a worldwide scale.[24][25][156] According to Loren Cordain, if such a diet was widely adopted, it would compromise the food security of populations dependent on cereal grains for their subsistence. However, he says that where cereals are not a necessity, as in most western countries, reverting to a grain-free diet can be highly practical in terms of cutting long-term health care costs.[157] Barry Bogin, a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan, states that less intensive farming techniques, such as pasture-grazed cattle, will not produce sufficient meat to feed the world’s population.[158] On another level, critics have argued that exclusion diets such as the Stone Age diet "can be highly restrictive, socially disruptive, and expensive."[21][15]

I know we have our own issues to deal with; we have good reasons to eat better. Eating as our ancestors did will, according to certain researchers, lead to great gains in overall health. But at what cost? If conclusive evidence seals the fate for grains as "unhealthy," these crops may just lose their value and get pushed aside for less efficient agriculture that produces at a lower output. Yes, we'd (possibly) be healthier, but how are we going to feed billions of people in the future while we use valuable land to produce food less efficiently?

Note: my projections are based on purely hypothetical situations, although it is not possible to dissolve the ethical implications of the food we eat.

Have thought about this problem many times, not specifically in relation to the paleolithic diet, but just having the majority of the population in general eating a 'somewhat' healthy diet seems very difficult.

But Imagine if everyone were eating grass fed meat, non gmo, organic produce etc., etc. I just dont think it would be possible where the population is at right now to produce those things on a large enough scale.

empty wrote:While reading a bit about the Paleolithic Diet, which is where my diet is currently heading, I noticed this tiny afterthought in the diet's Wikipedia article. I'll quote it so you don't have to follow links:

The Paleolithic diet has been criticized on the grounds that it cannot be implemented on a worldwide scale.[24][25][156] According to Loren Cordain, if such a diet was widely adopted, it would compromise the food security of populations dependent on cereal grains for their subsistence. However, he says that where cereals are not a necessity, as in most western countries, reverting to a grain-free diet can be highly practical in terms of cutting long-term health care costs.[157] Barry Bogin, a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan, states that less intensive farming techniques, such as pasture-grazed cattle, will not produce sufficient meat to feed the world’s population.[158] On another level, critics have argued that exclusion diets such as the Stone Age diet "can be highly restrictive, socially disruptive, and expensive."[21][15]

I know we have our own issues to deal with; we have good reasons to eat better. Eating as our ancestors did will, according to certain researchers, lead to great gains in overall health. But at what cost? If conclusive evidence seals the fate for grains as "unhealthy," these crops may just lose their value and get pushed aside for less efficient agriculture that produces at a lower output. Yes, we'd (possibly) be healthier, but how are we going to feed billions of people in the future while we use valuable land to produce food less efficiently?

Note: my projections are based on purely hypothetical situations, although it is not possible to dissolve the ethical implications of the food we eat.

1. Only western countries eat terribly (primarily America) so this is not a world wide problem.
2. It's a matter of economics, if people are willing to keep buying paleo foods the price will eventually drop. This will never happen as 90% of people I have spoken to would rather eat their comfort foods in return for 20years of their life.
3. Diets are going to be irrelevant within the next 20years because of nanotechnology. I personally hate the idea but I can definitely see it happening.

abc123 wrote:

empty wrote:While reading a bit about the Paleolithic Diet, which is where my diet is currently heading, I noticed this tiny afterthought in the diet's Wikipedia article. I'll quote it so you don't have to follow links:

The Paleolithic diet has been criticized on the grounds that it cannot be implemented on a worldwide scale.[24][25][156] According to Loren Cordain, if such a diet was widely adopted, it would compromise the food security of populations dependent on cereal grains for their subsistence. However, he says that where cereals are not a necessity, as in most western countries, reverting to a grain-free diet can be highly practical in terms of cutting long-term health care costs.[157] Barry Bogin, a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan, states that less intensive farming techniques, such as pasture-grazed cattle, will not produce sufficient meat to feed the world’s population.[158] On another level, critics have argued that exclusion diets such as the Stone Age diet "can be highly restrictive, socially disruptive, and expensive."[21][15]

I know we have our own issues to deal with; we have good reasons to eat better. Eating as our ancestors did will, according to certain researchers, lead to great gains in overall health. But at what cost? If conclusive evidence seals the fate for grains as "unhealthy," these crops may just lose their value and get pushed aside for less efficient agriculture that produces at a lower output. Yes, we'd (possibly) be healthier, but how are we going to feed billions of people in the future while we use valuable land to produce food less efficiently?

Note: my projections are based on purely hypothetical situations, although it is not possible to dissolve the ethical implications of the food we eat.

1. Only western countries eat terribly (primarily America) so this is not a world wide problem.
2. It's a matter of economics, if people are willing to keep buying paleo foods the price will eventually drop. This will never happen as 90% of people I have spoken to would rather eat their comfort foods in return for 20years of their life.
3. Diets are going to be irrelevant within the next 20years because of nanotechnology. I personally hate the idea but I can definitely see it happening.

1. It is certainly a worldwide problem. We can barely even feed the world's population right now using processes that are far more efficient and space-conserving than what would be used in order to eat "healthy."
2. From what I've read, which unfortunately isn't a whole lot, it takes far more space and costs more money to create "healthier" food. For example, as quoted above, pasture-grazed cattle. We might be able to feed ourselves, but it would take much more resources to feed an equivalent amount of people fed by more intensive techniques. Not to mention, if we have a lower yield, I'd bet that there'd be far less distribution as well.
3. Sounds awesome.

Note that for #1, we can't feed much of the world right now particularly due to distribution. Rising costs and lower efficiencies will not help distribution in any way.

Hmmm, Argentina leads the world in beef consumption and yet have enough to export $5 billion a year to American markets and fast food industries. I wonder how they do it.

I think all food needs to be locally produced, population will have to be adjusted in accordance to the abundance of food not the reverse. But, economy and profit rule over common sense and sustainability.

I agree that this is not a world wide problem considering that a few countries most specifically the western ones are those that eat terribly. Paleo foods are more often than not a bit expensive. And personally, i'd rather eat my comfort foods such as chips, ice cream and sodas.

abc123 wrote:

empty wrote:While reading a bit about the Paleolithic Diet, which is where my diet is currently heading, I noticed this tiny afterthought in the diet's Wikipedia article. I'll quote it so you don't have to follow links:

The Paleolithic diet has been criticized on the grounds that it cannot be implemented on a worldwide scale.[24][25][156] According to Loren Cordain, if such a diet was widely adopted, it would compromise the food security of populations dependent on cereal grains for their subsistence. However, he says that where cereals are not a necessity, as in most western countries, reverting to a grain-free diet can be highly practical in terms of cutting long-term health care costs.[157] Barry Bogin, a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan, states that less intensive farming techniques, such as pasture-grazed cattle, will not produce sufficient meat to feed the world’s population.[158] On another level, critics have argued that exclusion diets such as the Stone Age diet "can be highly restrictive, socially disruptive, and expensive."[21][15]

I know we have our own issues to deal with; we have good reasons to eat better. Eating as our ancestors did will, according to certain researchers, lead to great gains in overall health. But at what cost? If conclusive evidence seals the fate for grains as "unhealthy," these crops may just lose their value and get pushed aside for less efficient agriculture that produces at a lower output. Yes, we'd (possibly) be healthier, but how are we going to feed billions of people in the future while we use valuable land to produce food less efficiently?

Note: my projections are based on purely hypothetical situations, although it is not possible to dissolve the ethical implications of the food we eat.

1. Only western countries eat terribly (primarily America) so this is not a world wide problem.
2. It's a matter of economics, if people are willing to keep buying paleo foods the price will eventually drop. This will never happen as 90% of people I have spoken to would rather eat their comfort foods in return for 20years of their life.
3. Diets are going to be irrelevant within the next 20years because of nanotechnology. I personally hate the idea but I can definitely see it happening.

1. Not sure. For some reason i don't see much of asia thriving on a paleo diet. Maybe it speaks to CS point about diets being somewhat individualized.
2. The opposite would happen as demand would push prices higher. Also current companies are incentivized for mass production and not health. Healthy farming practices aren't efficient and if adopted per unit costs would increase.
3. Ive thought about this also a la ray kurzweil. I think nanotechnology is going to be very similar to a hair loss cure where its just around the corner "x" time away where x keeps getting pushed further. We should be driving electric cars and living in solar powered homes long ago. However, in reality technology doesn't materialize as fast as imagination.

The paleo diet is irrelevant to the worlds health concerns. There are literally billions thriving on a diet high in grains, legumes, dairy and the other staples that the paleo diet deems as "neolithic agents of disease".

Now as far as not being able to feed the world. This may certainly be true and if everyone practiced sustainability then the world wouldnt be in this mess in the first place. But we are, and thats the world we live in.