manner, fish or chicken meat that appears edible could in fact be seriously contaminated with botulism. Also,“ radiolytic products,” or“ free radicals” are created in foods by the radiation process; it may be necessary to monitor them continuously for toxicity. A few studies have been conducted on the effects of irradiated foods. Children fed irradiated wheat showed blood abnormalities called“ polyploids”; 28 mice fed irradiated chicken had seven times fewer offspring than those fed cooked chicken; and a relationship was found between the radiation dose and an increase in deaths in a strain of fruit flies fed irradiated foods. At this writing, the FDA does not require the labeling of irradiated foods, an unfortunate information blackout. However, all is not totally hidden: Fruit treated with radiation may become brown or mushy, or ripen abnormally; sometimes it will bruise easily, or develop black spots. Food irradiated in sealed plastic containers may develop a bitter, metallic aftertaste. All things considered, preserving foods with irradiation appears to cause a lot more problems than it solves. It also could expose workers to lethal doses of radiation in the event of an accident; it causes problems in waste disposal; and nobody knows how such a peculiar way of dealing with the food we eat could affect our energy, our childbearing capacity( the mice didn’ t do so well!), and our possibilities of getting cancer. I think drying is better. NUTRIENTS IN PROPORTION We have all been bombarded with countless articles, books, and lectures on the subject of vitamins, minerals, protein, carbohydrates, and fats. These elements, which are given form by the morphogenetic field of the system to which they belong, have been the focus of nutritional study for the greater part of this century. Yet although information on recommended quantities of nutrients abounds, I have seen very few comments on something I consider much more important: the proportion in which these nutrients occur in food. The general scientific approach to nutrition— and this includes both medical nutrition and the“ natural” approach that relies heavily on vitamin supplementation— stresses only the quantity of nutrients. It sees the body as a mechanism, or machine, and food as an aggregate of separable particles called nutrients. It considers that in order to run efficiently, this body-machine simply needs certain quantities of specific nutrients. The context in which these nutrients are supplied— whether they are consumed as part of food or in the form of supplements— and their relationship to one another, is of little if any consequence. Nutritionists who apply the mechanistic, scientific viewpoint believe it doesn’ t matter if you get your vitamin A by eating a carrot— or by popping a vitamin pill. Measurable quantity is all. This approach to nutrition is deeply ingrained in us. No lecture on nutrition seems complete without a recommendation for taking certain amounts of vitamins or minerals, and we talk about grams of protein— we who have never weighed a protein in our lives— with the same certainty with which we consider pounds of meat. But trompe l’ oeil optics has taught us that by looking differently at something we see different things.
With the systems approach, we can look at the picture of nutrients in foods and see not their quantity, but how much of each is consumed in relation to another. What proportion of nutrients is optimal for human health? Let’ s look first at the one and only food that is designed specifically to meet the nutritional needs of a human being: mother’ s milk. All other foodstuffs— fruits, grains, leafy greens— we share with our fellow creatures, but human mothers produce the one food that is perfectly tailored to the requirement of human children. Following is a chart of its nutritive elements and the porportional relationship between them. The main point here is to get a general sense of MORE and LESS.