Well, duh, to put it as eloquently as people do having passed through North American education, of course I read the article. Is it possible that you cannot fathom the concept of not picking up on the main theme of a text, but rather on something else contained therein? The tone and phrasing used when discussing the "inefficiency" of German brewing and Japenese food production in the article was patronizing and implying that cultural conservatism is stupid and backwards. I tried to speak for other values than economical, trying to point out how this crass way of thinking has impacted American food quality in a negative way (much SAD-der than in Europe, I'm telling you). I didn't criticize the author, since he might only be representing a way at looking at things, using "other people's words". Since I realized my tone was a bit crass too, I wrote a second post trying to explain (by using a Swedish example) that I wasn't criticizing American education, but rather the implementation of
 transnational capitalism, wether in America (already in place?) or in Europe (on it's way!). But maybe YOU didn't read carefully enough? Er, I believe it's called psychological projection...
Erik F.

Engelhart/Paul <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
One thing the North American education system stresses is that in order to critique an article, you should read it. You obviously only read the title and then guessed (incorrectly) at what the article was about.

> Erik Fridén wrote:
> The article also explains why American beer sucks, why your
supermarket-meat is chockfull of hormones and why your vegetables are GMOd and "nuked". When you give foodproduction completely over to profit-thinking
without "obliterating" the ill-informed by a proper educational system they will force "the good stuff" off the market by buying the cheapest foods (with acceptable taste), making healthy food - a human right! - a luxury.

Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor