Food: for fun or for fuel?

Back in the day (good grief) when I worked in an office, I always ate lunch at my desk. I'd rather wolf down a slice or two and get back to work instead of taking an hour off and then staying an extra thirty to sixty minutes in the evening.

In America, says University of Pennsylvania psychologist Paul Rozin, lunch is not a meal. "It's a fueling."

Thinking of food as fuel is a healthy alternative to thinking of food as pleasure, food as social activity, food as fun, food as reward. There are certainly occasions when all of those things are important--holidays, birthdays, dates--but Americans have it so good we try to have a special occasion every day, or worse yet, every meal.

The family dinner hour is a sacred, American, twentieth-century event. Working parents rush home to protect that daily event, but because so much importance is placed on it, it's often bigger than it should be. With pasta, we serve bread, with steak, we serve potatoes and bread, with bread, we serve bread.

In Paris, I was once chastised for reaching for a piece of bread while there were cous cous on my plate. You Americans eat too much bread, he said.

You can have quality family time without making dinner the reason to do it. Dinner is convenient because everyone gets hungry around that time, but it doesn't--and in my view generally shouldn't--have to be a big meal with all the trimmings, plus dessert. It should fuel you, get you through the night and maybe the next morning's events. [You're just trying to get out of cooking!-ed. Got me!]

PS It's not a terribly interesting article other than learning that 75% of office workers eat at their desk and that they should clean their desk because of all the crumbs and germs left behind. Speaking of which, I should clean this one at home, too.

PPS My husband is not one of those 75%. What, he'd ask? What do you mean not get out of the office for lunch?

[Updated for grammar and clarity.]