When did food spark your interest?
Marion Nestle is a consumer activist, nutritionist, and academic who specializes in the politics of food and dietary choice. Nestle received her BA, PhD, and MPH from the University of California, Berkeley. In 1988, Nestle was appointed Chair of New York University’s Steinhardt School of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health. She held that position until 2004, when she became the Paulette Goddard Professor in the same department.
Nestle is the author of numerous books, including "Food Politics," which explored the way corporations influence our nutritional choices, and "What to Eat," an survey of how to navigate the modern American supermarket. Aside from her books and teaching, Nestle writes a popular blog for the Atlantic Food Channel.
Marion Nestle: I was given a nutrition course to teach when I was teaching undergraduate biology at Brandeis University. And the rule in that department was that you had to teach anything that the department needed you to teach, whether you knew anything about it or not. My Ph.D is in molecular biology, and the students were clamoring in those days for a course in nutrition. It was my turn to teach and they said, “Here it is. Do something with it.” And on my first day of preparing for, when I started reading about nutrition and reading books about it, it was like falling in love. I’ve never looked back.
Question: Were there any other pivotal moments?
There were two moments. This was in the early 1970s or the mid 1970s. Frances Moore Lappe had just come out with Diet for a Small Planet. Linus Pauling . . . which was a book about how if you eat low on the food chain and eat a largely plant-based diet it would be better for you and for your health as well as for the planet. And Linus Pauling had come out with a book called Vitamin C and the Common Cold, and I wondered . . . I was trained in science. I wondered if there was any science behind that . . . any real science behind it. And that kind of formed the way I thought about it as I went into this course to teach it. The second book was the diet . . . The Recommended Dietary Allowances, which was a book put out by the National Academies of Science, which is a compendium of research information on diet and health, and the amount of nutrients that humans require in order to stay healthy. And I opened up that book, did one of these random, stick your finger on a page things, and started reading the background literature for it. And I realized that much of the basic research on nutrition and health was based on studies that used very, very few subjects and weren’t controlled very well. And I have fabulous examples of some of those studies. And I was completely hooked. I thought, “This is how public policy on nutrition gets made. This is really interesting.” And I loved the idea that you could go from basic science to public policy in one subject and do it in one class. And that really formed the way I think about it even to this day.
Trained as a molecular biologist, Nestle recalls how she found her way to nutrition.
Torn between absolutism on the left and the right, classical liberalism—with its core values of compassion and incremental progress whereby the once-radical becomes the mainstream—is in need of a good defense. And Adam Gopnik is its lawyer.
- Liberalism as "radical pragmatism"
- Intersectionality and civic discourse
- How "a thousand small sanities" tackled drunk driving, normalized gay marriage, and could control gun violence
As Game of Thrones ends, a revealing resolution to its perplexing geography.
- The fantasy world of Game of Thrones was inspired by real places and events.
- But the map of Westeros is a good example of the perplexing relation between fantasy and reality.
- Like Britain, it has a Wall in the North, but the map only really clicks into place if you add Ireland.
The lost practice of face-to-face communication has made the world a more extreme place.
- The world was saner when we spoke face-to-face, argues John Cameron Mitchell. Not looking someone in the eye when you talk to them raises the potential for miscommunication and conflict.
- Social media has been an incredible force for activism and human rights, but it's also negatively affected our relationship with the media. We are now bombarded 24/7 with news that either drives us to anger or apathy.
- Sitting behind a screen makes polarization worse, and polarization is fertile ground for conspiracy theories and fascism, which Cameron describes as irrationally blaming someone else for your problems.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.