I know that it's considered quite chic to just adore the Economist. Oh, such a smart magazine! And I grant you that it's very knowledgable and clearly written. But whenever I'm starting to really like an issue, like it enough to consider subscribing, some line of stupid wit pisses me off so utterly that I don't pick up another one for weeks. Usually this happens on a train or bus, so it doesn't stick in my brain enough to quote. This time it happened online, and here it is. An article about wheat promises to be incredibly informative, wonderfully detailed, with far-reaching insight drawing on multiple disciplines. Plenty to disagree with, of course, but still deliciously nerdy. It is, in fact, that, but not just that--like a tasty bowl of mueslix marred by discovering a roach leg, this line uptop brought my zen-reading to a screaching halt.
The Atkins diet and a fashion for gluten allergies have made wheat seem less wholesome.Fashion, huh? I'm sure it's very fashionable to have your small intestine so damaged by your own immune system that it impedes the absorbtion of all kinds of nutrients, not just one of the principle carbohydrates in most western diets. Fatigue, anemia, osteopoerosis, and mouth sores are all very trendy these days. This new style even has a great name and an NIH sponsored webpage! It's called Celiac Sprue.
And no, I don't have Celiac Sprue, I don't even think I know anybody who does. That doesn't prevent me from having some bare minimum of respect for people who do.
Since all the articles lack bylines I find the unwarranted, pointless, distracting snittiness even more obnoxious, since it's institutionalized. Oh, and the kicker was an incredibly annoying oversimplication too, but that's another story.
