retail news in context, analysis with attitude

There was a wonderful piece in the Wall Street Journal the other entitled “The War on Good Taste,” in which the author lamented calls by organizations such as the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine - which he said “was founded to promote animal rights, and its horror of bacon and butter has less to do with concern over our arteries than with dismay at the grisly fate of pigs and the unjust captivity of cows” - to change Americans’ eating habits.

Not that eating healthier is a bad thing. And eating to survive doesn’t require feasting on dessert, or bacon, or using butter. “But most of us would prefer to do more than just survive,” the Journalpiece says. “What's the point of civilization, as Fran Lebowitz has suggested, if not to enjoy linguine with clam sauce?”

The story goes on: “There are those who would not only vilify foods considered less than salubrious, but prohibit them. And what a ridiculous spectacle it is. Perhaps if Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent less time keeping salt off our tables and more time getting salt on the streets, New York roads might have been passable” during last week’s blizzard.”
KC's View:
The thing I don’t understand is why the choice between good taste and healthy eating keeps getting presented as mutually exclusive alternatives. They strike me as a false set of choices - that the best way to live (IMHO) is to try to eat as intelligently as possible, which means knowing something about the stuff you put in your mouth, to exercise regularly and strenuously, and to understand the role and pleasures of indulgence.

What’s the line from the Jimmy Buffett song?

Commit a little mortal sin ... It's good for the soul.

Same goes for dessert. And butter.

It isn’t a case of either/or. It is - or should be - all about moderation and intelligence.