Following upon the development of Amazon's search capabilities within books, I happened to be looking at Marion Nestle's Politics of Food and found the phrase "politics of nutrition" in the Introduction. Amazon yielded only one hit for that phrase... google is a bit more forthcoming, with 126 hits...
DIET, NUTRITION AND THE PREVENTION OF CHRONIC DISEASES (WHO Technical Report Series 916)
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Dept of Science and Technology, Philippines "Politics of Nutrition"
Center for Science in the Public Interest does cover 'politics of nutrition'
10 January 2004
20 March "Interdisciplinary" gets no respect. "Stewardship" has always been an obstacle in and to the program: its presence in the name has diluted the Global component, and been diversive into questioning of "activism" and "advocacy": to be a Steward certainly implies action; and other programs are clearly "activist" (surely Poverty and Womens' Studies, and hopefully Environmental Studies).
Fowler and Mooney's Shattering: food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity [SB175 .F68 1990] says in its conclusion: "All of the issues come down to questions of social justice and public action" (201). How can there be "social justice" without "advocacy"?
Ron has been tracking BSE/Mad Cow stuff, and today sent the text of a Verlin Klinkenborg OpEd piece from NY Times, which I've cached for later retrieval.
After much up-and-down, and the cancellation of this spring's Institute because of low interest/registration, it seems worthwhile to summarize my own sentiments of the moment:The Global Stewardship Institute offered the potential of --and W&L's only venue for-- developing an interdisciplinary perspective on a wide range of GLOBAL issues. But nobody (students or faculty) seems to want that, however much some of us may feel that our students need that. And that 'some of us' is a minority even of the Global Stewardship Committee.