Author
|
Topic: Michael Pollan on nutritionism
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 29 January 2007 06:03 AM
Thank for posting this, Boom Boom. I particularly got a chuckle out of these two paragraphs, because it's so true! quote: Consider what happened immediately after the 1977 “Dietary Goals” — McGovern’s masterpiece of politico-nutritionist compromise. In the wake of the panel’s recommendation that we cut down on saturated fat, a recommendation seconded by the 1982 National Academy report on cancer, Americans did indeed change their diets, endeavoring for a quarter-century to do what they had been told. Well, kind of. The industrial food supply was promptly reformulated to reflect the official advice, giving us low-fat pork, low-fat Snackwell’s and all the low-fat pasta and high-fructose (yet low-fat!) corn syrup we could consume. Which turned out to be quite a lot. Oddly, America got really fat on its new low-fat diet — indeed, many date the current obesity and diabetes epidemic to the late 1970s, when Americans began binging on carbohydrates, ostensibly as a way to avoid the evils of fat. This story has been told before, notably in these pages (“What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?” by Gary Taubes, July 7, 2002), but it’s a little more complicated than the official version suggests. In that version, which inspired the most recent Atkins craze, we were told that America got fat when, responding to bad scientific advice, it shifted its diet from fats to carbs, suggesting that a re-evaluation of the two nutrients is in order: fat doesn’t make you fat; carbs do. (Why this should have come as news is a mystery: as long as people have been raising animals for food, they have fattened them on carbs.)
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 15 February 2007 09:56 AM
Some vegan points of view on the book.And another one. quote: Unfortunately, in addition to strawman potshots at vegetarians and the animal rights philosophy, Pollan bases his conclusions on falsehoods and debunked claims, as pointed out in Erik Marcus’ review (first Spotlight review here). For example, Pollan contends that vegetarians don’t really save animals, based on an article by Stephen Davis that was shown to be totally wrong in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. It could be argued that Pollan is reaching new people with descriptions of factory farming that people like Singer, Goodall, and Marcus won’t reach. As we’ve written, “When it comes to advocating for the animals, people are looking for a reason to ignore us – no one sits around thinking, ‘Wow, I really want to give up all my favorite foods and isolate myself from my friends and family!’” So it is unlikely that a large number of people are going to buy and read a book that says they need to become a vegetarian. On the other hand, what does Pollan’s ultimate message (“Eat ‘humane’ meat” / “Vegetarians are anti-social fanatics”) accomplish? Pollan goes out of his way to badmouth and ridicule the possibility of being vegetarian: “the subtle way it alienates me from other people and… a whole dimension of human experience” (e.g., “cultural traditions like the Thanksgiving turkey, or even franks at the ballpark, and family traditions like my mother’s beef brisket at Passover”).
Sounds like bullshit to me. I think I'll give the book a pass. [ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
M.Gregus
babble intern
Babbler # 13402
|
posted 15 February 2007 10:44 AM
Banjo, I found this version of the link posted above, which might work without having to subscribe to the NY Times online. quote: Unfortunately, in addition to strawman potshots at vegetarians and the animal rights philosophy, Pollan bases his conclusions on falsehoods and debunked claims, as pointed out in Erik Marcus’ review (first Spotlight review here).
That's really disappointing. Not having read it, my understanding of its premise was that it deconstructs and traces the agricultural, environmental, health, and larger societal consequences of average (as well as not so average) North American meals, most of which are omniverous. I thought that Pollan took the omnivore position as a starting point because that happened to the default North American position, without using it as a basis of condemnation for animal rights and its supporters (vegetarians, vegans, etc). That's just cheap, and undermines his so-called journalistic objectivity. Too bad, I thought the book would be better.
From: capital region | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050
|
posted 15 February 2007 04:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Farmpunk: people should really read books for themselves. Make up your own minds.
Pft, D-503. You've been spending too much time with that rascal I-330. I've been going vegetarian this month, actually. I mean, I eat fish (because I'm a student and have cans of tuna/salmon sitting around that, quite frankly, I can't afford to not eat), eggs (once a week at most, but still...), but I really do feel better. I've lost a good deal of weight and still feel pretty good (for the first time in three years I'm under 220lbs) and I have a lot of energy. I think rather than becoming an out and out vegetarian any time soon I'm just going to massively cut down on my meat consumption. There is nothing like fried mushrooms, sauteed onions, bbq'd peppers served with a pinch of salt and spices on a big plate of cous-cous. Plus, it is fairly cheap - a big plus for the student in me...or I am, rather.
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955
|
posted 15 February 2007 04:19 PM
Michelle, the second of your links was a good read. I liked this paragraph: "His option is to eat meat from “humane” operations, like Polyface Farms (his main example). Yet accommodating a diet of “humane meat” is a practical impossibility for virtually everyone; e.g., there isn’t a humane option at even 1% of restaurants. And Pollan points out that Polyface isn’t looking to expand." But I assume I like it for much different reason than the author intended. Pollan gives an overview of how food production works Right Now. That is where the focus of any discussion of the book starts and ends. Is Pollan meat centric? Not really, to me. Because all he says is that people have to consider where their meat comes from and why they're eating it. Don't argue that the man has wrote a book that will touch a lot of readers, and then discount the many obvious implied anti-meat themes of the book. Look, I have meat loving friends who think hunting is barbaric. Break it down for mindless meat eaters. Make it real. I know exactly where meat comes from. I suggest that reading Pollan's book will cause a lot of meat eaters to at least consider some points that they otherwise wouldn't realize existed. Steaks come from living animals, and stuff like that. The modern supermarket buying experience alone removes people from where their food comes from (usually a transport truck). Get with it, for fuck's sake. Quibble the fine points after the bigger issues are dealt with. Don't bash a book that is going to eventually help "your" side. [ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Farmpunk ] [ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Farmpunk ] [ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Farmpunk ]
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|