Much of this issue stems from the problems that the public has in general with regards to understanding the many different qualities of food. Nutrition as an entire profession continues to slow down and may begin to vanish because individuals are more interested in the tastes of food rather than the nutritional aspects of food. The bulk of society is poorly educated in regards to food nutrition. In terms of food nurturance, this is a very select and remote part of the profession. If the entire profession as a whole is hurting because of a lack of public knowledge and education on the topic, it is clear that this miniscule part of the profession will be the first to go. This does not mean food nurturance specialists are not worthy of the same recognition and importance within food nutrition as other nutritional experts; it simply shows that this is not a widely-accepted and valued part of the industry.
Although the Gingras article suggest many questions and alternatives to practicing teaching and discussing food and nutrition in an academic environment, one of the most critical discussions included keeping the instructor’s personal opinions and thoughts out of the discussion directly. Gingras admits that this is very difficult and has become a substantial problem in the writing and teaching style that has been utilized. Unfortunately, I believe that this is not a problem and that instructors must do what they can to involve their personal opinions and thought processes into the lectures and discussions. In fact, this is the purpose of the conversazione in the first place, to gather together and discuss food and nutrition.
The problem here is that Gingras presupposes and the role of the instructor is merely to facilitate the conversazione without actually taking part in it. I believe that the purpose of the instructor is to facilitate the discussion by adding personal thoughts and