The University of Oregon and the Robert D. Clark Honors College are pleased to present the Common Reading Program’s third book: Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food: an Eater’s Manifesto.
Over twenty-five years and four books, New York Times bestselling author Michael Pollan has been writing about a place where nature and culture intersect: our plates. In Defense of Food critiques the ways we think about eating, explains the systems that support it, and argues for how we might change it, one meal at a time. The ideas in the book are ripe for discussion: they ask us to think in new ways about the nature of our food, our health, and our society.
We have created this online forum to enable dialogue among incoming freshmen, current students, staff, faculty, and you. The University of Oregon encourages you to take this opportunity to debate and discuss issues presented by this book, engaging with the text and its themes both online and throughout the academic year through guest speakers, film screenings, service learning, field trips, and of course, conversation. We look forward to thoughtful and provocative discussion and wish you happy reading!
I will be a freshman next year so I am new to the common reading practice. I hope that I am not overstepping my bounds by initiating the first conversation on the common reading this year. I would like to start a quick discussion on a fairly general topic: Initial Impressions.
I have just finished the introduction of In Defense of Food and found my initially feeling defensive of my own eating habits. I love meat, and I was a bit confounded when Pollan suggested that meat “might be better approached as a side dish than as a main” (1). After that first shocking bit of advice I attempted to curb my skepticism.
I can admit that I may be “orthorexic” (9). Pollan argues that an obsession with healthy eating can be unhealthy, and I am curious to see how he covers the topics of healthy eating without supporting “orthorexic” thinking.
Finally, I am interested in reading on to discover if I will be persuaded by Pollan’s book to change my daily diet.
What are your thoughts? Other initial impressions?
I am in the same boat as Kyle on this in that I will be a freshman this fall and truly have no idea what direction we are supposed to be headed with this discussion. Given that, I will also simply reflect upon the introduction which is all I have read. Throughout this introduction there were two things that stood out to me…
1- The general feeling I have gained from the intro is that meat is seen in a poor light by supporters of this book which will make reading this book very difficult for a meat lover like me. I try to be open minded about most things I approach in life, but whatever someone tells me about meat will not change the fact that I would love nothing more than to slice a cow open with a large knife and eat all that lies within.
2- On page 6 Pollan states, “The story of how the most basic questions about what to eat ever got so complicated reveals a great deal about the institutional impurities of the food industry, nutritional science, and–ahem–journalism, three parties that stand much to gain from wide spread confusion…” Now I may have misinterpreted this completely but my understanding is that Pollan is criticizing these parties for what? Playing their role in the machine that is our capitalistic economy? The way I look at this subject is that these three parties are creating an industry (and thus creating paying jobs) out of such a simple subject, “what we should eat.” So personally I believe these parties should be applauded for their work; not criticized.
That’s my two cents. I’d be glad to hear and discuss with anyone who has any feedback.
Peter,
Once again, and hopefully I won’t wear this out, but I was in the same boat as you. However, as you read the book, you come to realize that he isn’t against meat. Instead, he is against the kind of meat that we eat today, the kind that is mass produced, malnourished, and overall less healthy for because of the decrease in the micronutrients that our bodies need. He explains how our food system revolves around the quantity of calories that we consume, and the the amount of nutrients per calorie is significantly less than what it was in the past. We need to find ways to eat meat that is produced with the proper amount of nutrients that our bodies need, while lowering portion sizes. He also explains that corporations can’t be blamed for this, because they are, after all, corporations. Their primary interest is making money, and doing that however they can. This is good because that is how capitalism works. They shouldn’t have to increase costs or change their ways to accommodate Pollan’s morals. He instead says that it is up to us to choose, and that we must influence corporations with our decisions. I am very surprised that I actually like this book a lot.
Also, sorry for the lack of citations, I don’t have the book on me, currently.
While I agree that these three fields have done much for the progression of food production in the west, they have also run away with the most basic aspects of eating and replaced them with much more “efficient” versions. While the body does need efficiency to work at its best, I also believe that the body (and my extent, the mind and soul) need culture. As Pollan explains, “Culture, which, at least when it comes to food, is really just a fancy word for your mother” (3). This is a very basic element of the food argument that I feel these three parties have largely overlooked.
I like the fact that you brought this question up because I found him quite confused in the beginning of the book in presenting his argument, but continuing on I was able to grasp his argument much better. I don’t think having steaks and burgers hurt anyone as long as you are consuming it moderately but ultimately Pollan is trying to broaden our spectrum of “understanding” food. He tells us that food is more than just FOOD, “it’s about pleasure, community, family and spirituality about our relationship to the natural world, and about expressing our identity.” (p.8) However, there is a fine line between “obsession” with healthy eating and simply trying to eat healthy to the best of your ability. For example, there is a difference between someone who traps themselves in anorexia and someone who simply eats food and exercises in order to stay in shape and healthy. As you can see he is not OBSESSED about healthy eating. He is simply educating us about ways that we could perhaps be healthier and more in touch with our sense of “eating.” In fact, he knows the fact that most people CAN’T afford to eat all organic foods so I think it is unfair to say that he has an obsession.
In response to your comment about how food should be pleasurable, something that I find challenging is finding food that tastes good but is natural. On page 8-9 he talks about there is a limit to eating food based on whether it tastes good. For example, even if you enjoy eating Twinkies and receive pleasure from doing so, it is not as good as spending time to enjoy a peach. It seems like it is much harder to take pleasure in eating natural foods, such as fruit, when there are all these processed foods around.
An impression that I have largely received from this book is that the “Western Diet,” as it is constantly being referred to, is devoid of culture and is simply a reduction of the basic elements of survival without much evidence to back up their validity. Does that mean the west is devoid of a food culture? It’s something I have been struggling to understand for a while. I feel like we can identify elements of the French food culture or a Mediterranean food culture, but when someone thinks about “American food,” greasy fast food and a handful of pills seem to come to mind faster than any artful cooking or gardening practices. Thoughts?
Brynn,
I believe that when comparing any aspect of American culture to that of countries such as France it is important to remember that the US is a relatively new country. Both the Mediterranean and french diets have had centuries to evolve and perfect themselves, while the so-called western diet is as green as the country from which it originated. Instead of a regression back to basic elements of survival, I see the current Western diet as human progress. We evolved to drink dairy products as humans BC, why not to eat processed foods in the 21st century? Though the American diet is relatively unhealthy currently, I believe that with time either Americans or our diet itself will adapt as these earlier cultures have. Or they would if human culture was still evolving in the same manner in which it did a few centuries ago.
In recent years the world has seen such advances in technology that I would venture to say there is fast developing a single world culture; differing people and their varying cultures have been linked by more accessible internet, faster transportation and more efficient trade systems. As countries worldwide become more closely linked, so do their food trade and their citizens’ eating habits. Fast food franchises have quickly become popular worldwide as countries adopt the “western lifestyle”. Nevertheless, these countries seem to maintain a portion of their old culture, whether practicing traditional dances or old cooking recipes. Even these aspects may prove to fade in time, but for now it seems that every developing country has a “modern” culture and a “traditional” culture (which is also true as far as food is concerned). The question I now have is this: does the US contain these aspects of culture, both the modern and traditional components? Or is the US really too new to have developed any traditional sort of culture?
You said that it seemed Pollan accused the US of having no real food culture. I had that impression from reading this book as well, and I disagree with it somewhat. Our modern food culture IS unhealthy fast food; Americans have developed additives, processed meat and supplements and have built up a lifestyle accordingly. When looking at America’s traditional food culture, however, it seems our country is unique. I’ve often heard the US described as a giant melting pot of genders, religions and ethnicities. With all these varying groups living together, each family bringing their own traditional foods and customs to America and competing within our capitalist society to make their restaurant the most popular, its no wonder that we are hard put to identify a specific trait of traditional US food culture. However, I would venture to say that burgers made of buffalo meat, green beans and squash, and stuffed turkeys are all foods unique to the US. I would also guess that most of our traditional etiquette has been passed down from Great Britain, though I really don’t know anything about that part of our culture.
Though I do have faith that Americans will eventually fall into a more healthy diet than the one we follow currently, it will take more than an educating book to change an entire country’s habits. In order to choose a healthier lifestyle in the modern world, there must be a total cultural shift. American’s current attitude towards food—eating in front of the TV, buying prepackaged from the supermarket in increasingly larger portions and constantly feeling guilty about any pleasure received from food may be good for the US’s capitalist economy, but it is slowly endangering the lives of it’s people.
After finishing In Defense of Food, I thought it was not only a very satisfying read, but very eye-opening as well in regards to the conflict between what we “should” eat and “when”, in addition to “how” we should eat something.
Similar to you, I did feel taken aback by some of Pollan’s statements, especially during the final chapters where tips are given about the “how”.
To name an example, “Do all your eating at a table” (192), where little explanation is given as to why or why not. But, even considering this, I feel that throughout his work Pollan does not give a forcing push or urgent absolute that people should follow, but rather what could be considered as another option.
Initially, I was extremely anxious to get to the meat of the novel, to see exactly what, why, and how Pollan was defending food.
In hindsight, I probably could’ve just skipped to the third section to satisfy my search. However, I did enjoy reading through the entire novel. I actually liked the researches and facts that he provided in the first and second sections, albeit they felt somewhat disconnected from the last section. Maybe it’s because it’s just so much information to be receiving at such a distance from the main point.
Although I don’t feel swayed by his points to change my diet, I believe it’s for different reasons than those that might be typically expected. While I was reading, I felt like he only presented two types of eaters: ones who ate “real” food and ones who didn’t. Yet even these two groups often felt unclear and switched around a lot. Simply put, I couldn’t identify with either. Maybe he’s right about the world, (or at least about America, lacking in enough true foods,) but I’m not convinced by the point he’s making when it comes to selecting real, whole foods over whatever is in between real and organic. Being raised in an Asian culture, I understand and agree with his points when it comes to actually cooking meals and having a diverse selection (as opposed to a singular food for dinner), as well as listening to your mother on what to eat. This type of connection with food is still present in my family today, and although we purchase basically everything from the supermarket, I think that’s enough to keep our diet healthy and whole as long as we continue preparing meals in the same idea/manner. [The general concept in preparing a Vietnamese dinner is to keep a steady balance between the meats and greens (in addition to rice).] Anyway, at some of the later points in the novel, Pollan’s views just felt a tad extreme – especially in a nation where finding a food without corn or syrup in it is almost unavoidable. If I don’t exactly fall into either of the extreme groups, I don’t see a reason to change the way I diet; at most, I only feel moved to eat more greens.
As soon as I received this book, I almost laughed out loud. I’ve been living this for the past 5 months or so.
It’s kind of a long story, but in short my parents picked up a book discussing how heart disease could be not only stopped but reversed (my dad had a 5-way bypass in 2004) and in February we switched to a mainly plant-based, whole grain, oil-free diet. While my parents keep pretty strictly to this diet, they have allowed my younger brother and I to be more lenient. Even so, I have discovered changes in how my body reacts to processed foods after just a few months on this diet.
I was fascinated in the shift from food to nutrients discussed in ch. 1, and am interested to see what new insights Pollan can add to my understanding of our current food supply. My parents have been delving into whole foods diet as a treatment for almost any ailment, so I am interested to see what Pollan has to say from a more cultural standpoint.
My initial first impression after reading the introduction is the relevance of the differences between American diet and the French. I have been in Europe for over a month now and will be here for another, and by eating no less than I do at home I have lost weight and I feel healthier. I definitely look forward to reading the rest of this book.
Throughout the book, Pollan frequently referenced the French way of eating, as previously mentioned. I too spent a portion of my summer in Europe, and about a week in France. Initially I was certain I would be gaining weight since my usual exercise routine was disrupted from traveling, however, to my surprise I found that eating the “French way” actually caused me to stay at about the same weight. Although it was difficult at first, I focused on eating slower, as I noticed the custom was, and was therefore able to tell when I was full a lot sooner. There may be some aspects where Pollan and I differ, but there is concrete evidence to support the benefits of French eating.
I too was struck by Pollan’s comparison of American and French culture. He enlists the example of Paul Rozin’s experiment in which “he showed the words “chocolate cake” to a group of Americans and recorded their word associations. “Guilt”…[and] the response of the French eaters to the same prompt: “celebration”’ (79). In this way, Pollan makes a connection between food and culture. He reveals how Americans have allowed nutritionism to fully infiltrate our brains and take precedence over what ancestral tradition has taught us. As Pollan states, “the Western diet is systematically and deliberately undermining traditional food cultures” (133). Perhaps, one of the reasons American’s feel such controversy over what/how we eat, is that we do not have the deep-rooted, centuries-upon-centuries old, traditions and culture that many other countries continue to hold as the core pillars of their society. The United States is, in retrospect, relatively new, and maybe we feel that “new” is our cultural identity, and to uphold this (rather than the traditions our ancestors brought from other countries) we must keep progressing. This drive for progression, Pollan points out, is reflected in our eating habits; “Our ancient evolutionary relationship with the seeds of grasses and fruit of plants has given way, abruptly, to a rocky marriage with glucose and fructose” (114). He also notes that our obsession with “bettering” what we already have has created the “treacherous food environment we now inhabit and the loss of cultural tools” (143). Finally, he identifies what will be the most problematic difficulty for American’s to return to a healthy way of eating – “also reforming the whole American way of life” (195).
In response to Darian and Jaime: those are the perfect examples of what the book is talking about; feed your body well, and you will be healthier. I found the book’s take on food to be somewhat obvious; eating “food” rather than processed food or enhanced food is the healthier way to go.
The most surprising thing to me so far in my reading is the extent to which the government and the associations will go to please the food companies at the expense of the citizens themselves who look up to these groups for advice. The associations that are seemingly put into place to make us healthy rather than the alternative will go to great extents to support an industry that is digging us into a hole. We are often times blindsided by the very people that are meant to look out for our well-being.
Some initial thoughts on the book from an incoming freshman:
1) I found this book to be interesting and thought provoking on several levels. The author is able to show just how many ways that food is connected to the world we live in. Examples of this include the way he shows how domestic and social factors can influence diets, and how the government and free market work to create and promote the foods we eat. There are a lot of things that influence our diet that would surprise many people.
2) This book got me thinking a lot about the relationship between the western view of food and the general worldview of the western world. Westerners believe that nature is something to be understood and eventually controlled. We tend to favor this thought pattern over the eastern/ native-american notion that humans should live in harmony with nature. Perhaps this is why we have abandoned the diet that worked so well from an evolutionary perspective for one devised by scientists that attempts to both optimize “nutrition” and gratification.
3. I know that the author mentions several times that meat should be limited to a side dish. But I thought that he was generally supportive of meat, provided that it is not processed or industrialized. He mentions several groups of people who are able to live healthy lives on diets that consist primarily of meat. But the meat they eat comes from animals who obtain a diverse range of nutrients from plants. The meat most Americans eat comes from animals who are fed cheap, low quality, seed-based diets.
Those are just my initial thoughts. Let me know what you think.
I really enjoyed this book. It has been on my to-read list for a while, and I am really happy to have the opportunity to discuss it. And after reading it, I feel like I have actually been following many of the practices prescribed in the book!
That being said, I enjoyed the way that the author has integrated food into every facet of human life. The web that he designed as I read on, beginning with the soil, was really comprehensive and helped me to appreciate and relearn some very basic ideas concerning food.
A point that I found really interesting was the way that energy is harnessed and released through food. Both in livestock and produce, the sharing and degradation of energy is not the highest priority of western agriculture. Maintenance of appearance, mostly by tricking our natural senses, has become a way to keep up with demand of the western world, but at the cost of quality.
I come from an agricultural community, and for the majority of the people I met or worked with, their mantra was to achieve the highest yield with the lowest cost (which means compromising nutrients, the ecology of farming, the environment, and the habituation of a public ignorant of the origins of their food). Organic agriculture, in their eyes, was a step back and a hindrance to the progress of agriculture in a demanding world. The way they justified their methods of farming and ranching was the population argument; in a world where such a small portion of the people provide food, the limited land and resources need to be as efficient as possible to keep up with the demand.
I realize that was a bit of a segway from the topic of the book, but I feel it is an argument that needs to be brought up and is relevant to the food discussion.
Overall, I really enjoyed how so many different cultures have adapted and evolved to subsist on certain diets, and how our bodies, need simple nourishment backed up by a complex science.
The second half of my senior English class focused on the ties between oil and food. After reading Fast Food Nation and Crude World, I thought there wasn’t anything left to surprise me about our Nation’s food industry. I was wrong! Although I have always considered myself to be conscious of the ecological impacts of my choices, I have never truly thought about industrial agriculture and human health. The mindset of valuing nutrients over food is fascinating because I am (at least a little) guilty of it! I am interested to see if my ways of thinking about food are altered by the end of this book.
The point brought up about the role played by the food industry, nutrition science, and journalism (not to mention the government), in creating a detached relationship between people and food is something that should be addressed. These are the things, along with the consumer, that help to drive the capitalistic economy, but at the price of the health of the environment and people alike? These industries are doing their part in the economy, but more of a balance should be created between the welfare of consumers and the growth of the economy. In other words, nutrition science is a foggy subject to research, and should not be portrayed as the absolute truth. Pollan points out that these parties helped “amplify the signal of nutritionism” (80). Later on, he also brings up the campaign to reduce heart disease by reducing intake of saturated fat. Although analysis shows a decline in “heart attack deaths…, hospital admissions for heart attack did not [decline]” (61). This research led Pollan to the conclusion that the low-fat campaign took credit for improving health, an assumption that does not take in several variables including the “improvement of medical care” (61). This is a big generalization of the roles of these parties, and if there is any more information, I would be glad to discuss it.
One of Pollan’s arguments about quality over quantity made me think about the trade offs and affordability of whole foods. Pollan is quick to point out the draw backs of processed, refined foods, and alternatively, the “food synergy”(111) that whole foods possess. Few are lucky enough to have soil and time to raise produce or animals. The least expensive whole foods in the grocery store are the products of industrial agriculture, a higher quantity, but with a cost to quality (118). The trade off for an increase in macronutrients has caused a deficiency in micronutrients (at least the nutrients science has deemed important). But what about affordability? Certain food is made less expensive because of the high crop yields. Even with the soil destruction and deficiency, it is better to have food (and whole food at that), than to have nothing at all. So how could better food become available? If more consumers choose organic, local food, will the movement become not only bigger, but also more financially available?
I would be glad to hear from anyone on this subject.
This book initially seemed like one of those obvious books about eating healthier. But Pollan’s arguments on the extent of science and the government’s influence on some of the choices we make in our diets intrigued me. Until now, I never realized how much we depend and just follow the nutrition information labels and such that are on foods. It got me thinking about how much power the government has on the choices we make. No one questions these labels because we place our trust in those who created them (kind of reminds me of 1984).
When I was in middle school my father, maybe falling into the category of people that Pollan critiques for being too nutrition conscious, switched our families diet to the Mediterranean diet.
But this summer, and for the last 2 summers, I have gone on tour with a music group across the country, and the parents that feed us on this tour feed us a western diet. I admit I was always a little confused as to why they were feeding us so unhealthy food, but it hadn’t occurred to me that we were on entirely different diets.
Coming from this background, I spent a lot of the book thinking “Yes, I already do that, what next?” but at other times i did not agree at all.
One part was in the last section when he encouraged people to never eat snacks. I think that snacks should be fine, and in theory better for you than meals as long as they still healthy. Because of their small size, snacks do not cause the same insulin reaction in the blood as meals and therefore do not cause the creation of fat in the same way meals do. Personally, I live off of one or two meals a day in conjunction with snacks.
The second thing Pollan brought up that I did not agree with was that we should always eat in groups. I feel that I personally eat larger amounts when I eat with others. I don’t feel it is necessarily always healthier to eat in groups and it certainly takes more time.
I think that every one of you is coming up with valid arguments and thoughts. I also was struck by the references that Pollan makes to the Mediterranean diet. Being half Italian (A half that I generally lean towards), I have grown up eating pasta cooked in olive oil, fresh spaghetti sauce, and polenta. Having said that, I find myself frequently eating foods that Pollan advises against. “Processed” food is everywhere and I think, in a way, this book is life changing. Not because it’s profound and definite on what EXACTLY we should eat (like the China Study), but because it makes you focus on the fact that food is not simply fuel. How many of us can say that we eat mindlessly–especially when we’re bored?
I can.
And I think Pollan makes very intriguing and simple points on how to eat daily and still enjoy our meals (especially when they’re shared!). I don’t know about anyone else, but after finishing the book, I have actually started a food log to kind of see what exactly I eat (maybe mindlessly) throughout the day. Definitely more fruits and vegetables after that book…
I have just started reading part III of the book and came across the quote from Denis Burkitt that states, “The only way we’re going to reduce disease is to go backwards to the diet and lifestyle of our ancestors” (142). My parents are on the Paleo diet- a diet that encourages participants to eat in a pre-agricultural revolution style. This means that they avoid eating grains, legumes, dairy, and added sugars. In short, they are directly abiding by Burkitt’s suggestion.
When my parents first switched over to eating like cavemen, I tried it out for a few months. It was hell. I quickly realized that I was depriving myself of happiness by forgoing bread for fruits, meats, and vegetables. That’s not to say I don’t eat whole foods (I love a good salad and eat vegetables at every meal), but it was awful to deprive myself of the goodness that grains posses.
I think that I represent one of the central barriers to Pollan’s prescribed eating plan. I like processed food and I don’t plan on restricting it from my diet. I am well aware of the health risks of consuming processed food, but I think there is more to being a healthy person than simply eating. While it is important to eat whole foods, it is more important to find balance. Exercise regularly, sleep well, and eat a balanced diet that can include processed food if you wish. Moderation is key and deprivation will lead one to consume unhealthy amounts of “restricted” food items.
Something your comment reminded me of was on page 9 when Pollan mentions the French paradox. I agree that the amount of time you spend stressing about food probably affects your health and happiness. I think the reason that most people are unsuccessful at going on different types of diets is because they are forcing themselves out of guilt. I think the challenging part of eating healthy/being on a diet is the mental aspect. Going on a diet seems to work best for those who are doing it for themselves because then they usually aren’t as unhappy and stressed out about what they can or can’t eat.
I feel that Mr. Pollan’s book is more of a “common sense for healthier living”. I truly agree with him that a lot of the food we consume today are extremely unhealthy, and most of all, processed, yet these are the foods that continue to control the majority of humans. This is only because our bodies have evolved to want the most out of what we eat, and processed foods, such as fast food and junk food, are what our bodies crave. This is due to the high calorie count and “nutrients” that these foods contain, and our bodies want the most output from the least input, which in turn results in a craving for processed foods, because in reality, they do this exact thing. Take McDonalds for example. Some of their processed foods have calorie counts in the thousands, yet they continue to be the biggest fast food chain in the world because of the fact that they are capable of supplying massive amounts of food for dirt cheap prices that contain a lot of energy in them. But I digress.
Everything we do and are capable of doing today has to do with survival, and the key ingredient in surviving is eating. Now whether that be eating healthy or eating junk food, it doesn’t matter, most everything we work for is to stay alive. We work for money so that we can pay for food. Sure we have shelter and other things, but without food, nothing else would matter. Joining this idea with that of Michael’s, that the government is working with the food companies to alter the views on the food they provide us, is somewhat startling. Food industries are taking a basic necessity for human life, food, and turning it into a weapon to use against the every day citizen. They control what they put on that packaging, and we as “law-abiding citizens” don’t question any of it. We just take it as it is and leave it be. Sure large companies are good for the economy, but it makes one wonder how far the government will go in order to keep our economic boat above water.
All of this aside, I had recently started a workout diet, but that is for my own self and my personal goals. I am a firm believer in laissez faire (“let it be” for those who don’t know), and I could really care less about what other people eat or how they eat. This book is great in terms of spreading ideas, but personally, I do not like these kinds of books that tell you how to eat. It’s like telling someone, “You must run outdoors instead of running on a treadmill because that’s not natural.” It serves the same purpose, only one is sometimes more convenient than the other. Same goes with food; both processed and natural foods give you nutrients, calories, sugar, and other knick-knacks, it’s just one is more convenient, and sometimes better tasting.
I strongly disagree with Pollan’s argument that snacks are bad, but I do stand firm with the fact that some snacks are unhealthy. A snack should be a fruit, or something along that line, and not a Snicker bar. I’m not going against my own argument here. I still think that people should enjoy what they want to enjoy, but it’s their choice as to whether or not they’re going to eat healthy or choose the fatty food.
Nonetheless I enjoyed this book. It’s common sense really; eat healthier and live healthier. There’s not much more to it. If you choose to eat processed foods or what-not, then that’s your own choice. No one can stop you from scarfing down that peanut butter cup but yourself. Fatty snacks are okay once in a while, just save that Ben & Jerry’s for a rainy day.
In Defense of Food exemplifies what I have been trying to live for the past few months. After watching Food, Inc., I almost entirely cut fast food out of my diet and as a result I actually feel a lot better and healthier. I am definitely against America’s obsession with getting the proper amount of nutrients and cutting back on fat, salt, calories, or carbs by always reading the nutrition labels. My health teacher once said something along the lines of “if all your food has a nutrition label on it, you’re probably doing it wrong,” and that really resonated with me. I think the French idea of truly enjoying your food is much more important than always worrying about what’s in it. I have always been fortunate in being able to enjoy home-cooked meals with my family, even though my parents work long hours, because that is something they valued while I was growing up. I believe the occasional hamburger or brownie isn’t going to do any harm, but that shouldn’t be entirely what our diets consist of. As long as we eat a variety of foods and include whole foods, we’re probably doing alright.
That being said, one part of the book that I personally didn’t agree with was his chapter with rules for not eating too much food. Pollan writes that “the scientific case for eating a lot less than we presently do is compelling, whether or not you are overweight” (184). While I agree that the majority of overweight Americans could stand to cut back on their food intake, that advice is not for everyone. I personally have an incredibly fast metabolism and am already underweight despite the fact that I eat more than almost everyone I know. If I were to eat less I would lose weight, which would be unhealthy for me. I think what people eat has a lot more effect on their bodies than how much they eat, and that the advice in the other two chapters was a lot more helpful.
When I started this book, I realized that my perspective is different from most people’s, because I have been a Type 1 Diabetic for 17 years. I am always reading labels, monitoring carbs, etc. This means that if I followed Pollan’s initial advice for eating culturally, without regards to food labels, my entire life would spin out of control. In this sense, eating “nutritionally” is the best thing I could do for myself. My immediate reaction was that, yes, the way Americans eat has led to widespread chronic illness, but once diagnosed with diabetes Type 2, heart disease, or high cholesterol, it then becomes extremely important to consume foods cognizant of their nutritional value. It is an unfair argument by Pollan to reference those diseases, but then not consider the lifestyle changes that come with them. Modern nutritionist lifestyle may be unnatural, but millions of people need the labels, the allergy information, and the content lists.
Pollan also does not give much credit to American citizen’s independence. Pollan speaks often of government affiliation and control of food, the “hidden reality of foods” (28), and the quasireligious workings of American government in the industry, yet no American is forced to eat any of it. Stating that, “…the Hippocratic oath… does not apply to dietary advice,” (49) is unfair to scientists and nutritionists. The science of food is changing as much as the discoveries of any other science, and in the meantime, fresh food is available. People have a right to choose, just as they have a right to vote.
On the other hand, fresh food is expensive. There are many families living paycheck to paycheck, which sometimes means that fast food, or packaged goods, are all they can afford. With that in mind, not everyone can pay the extra money for organic, fair-trade food.
Hey. Found this very interesting video I think we should all watch. It’s “natural processed meat”. I think it would be a very good debate topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfZtuKeTyM&feature=g-u-u
While reading Pollan’s book I couldn’t help feel in some ways that his points were rather obvious, but then it occurred to me that being from Oregon, in particular Bend, Oregon, I am most likely living in a small, unique culture of its own. Healthy eating has always been an everyday focus, and buying local has always been a better answer. On the other hand, Pollan did push my thoughts on what is healthy eating. While I knew that refined sugars, and processed foods were considered bad, I didn’t know the science behind it. I didn’t understand why I so desperately craved carbohydrates, but now I know that it is because they are reduced to a pure energy essence (111).
To answer one of the prompts, I in no way find Pollan too radical, in fact he takes a very mild-mannered stance. Why would critics argue that Pollan should have urged everyone to become vegetarians? Pollan himself specifically points out that humans can thrive on a variety of diets, and even notes the health benefits of meat. Humans are, above all else, omnivores, and therefore consuming meat is normal. I am not opposed to vegetarianism, as I have grown up around it, but I also don’t see anything wrong with consuming local, grass fed meat.
After finishing the book, and rethinking little parts of my diet, I couldn’t help but fixate on the year ahead for us. Most of us will be eating in the dining halls, and what does that mean for our diets in relation to Pollan’s advice? Where does the food come from in our dining halls? If anyone knows more about the campus food, I would be grateful to learn more.
There are some people in the dinning halls who make valiant efforts to bring local, fresh, organic, food to our plates. I am pretty sure the beans at Big Mouth are local, as well as a lot of the salad greens, but at the scale that housing is producing food and with a limited budget, I would say that most of the dorm food is not “real” by Pollan’s (or your grandmother’s) standards. However, look out for the two glorious, nutritious, ethical, and delicious “Farm to Table” meals that Carson hosts twice a year. Also, the food CHIP will be touring Carson kitchen so you’re in luck!
I finished Part One yesterday, and when I first began reading In Defense of Food it reminded me a lot of the information I learned in my AP Environmental Science class. We were taught that humans are meant to eat more plants than meat, evident by the type of teeth we have. This came back to me as I read Pollan’s opening, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” (1) As I read more I realized that the way of eating Pollan advised was how my family has always been: more vegetables than not, not a lot of processed food, more attention to the actual food than what nutrients it contained. Despite this fact, as I read Pollan’s description of an “orthorexic” (9) I realized I might be one; I’m constantly conscious of how much fat, vitamin C, etc. is in my food.
If our nation’s food culture is nutrionism, and this isn’t the best path, then how are we supposed to change the entire population to eat the way recommended? Of course Pollan recommends a course of action, but the most successful population diets seemed to engraved in a history. I thought them most interesting aspect of Part One was the history behind how the food industry manipulates what we eat, and how it is presented. It seemed to me that our food choices change so often because the industry has manipulated people to believe that they need to eat a certain way to be the best versions of themselves.
I, too, was reminded of a lot of things from my APES class while reading. In particular, I kept thinking back to the film, Food Inc., in which Pollan also made an appearance. Although the film presented more negative than positive points in regards to food (in America), it basically covers much of the same idea when it comes to eating food in moderation and “mostly plants.”
As for the big industries and the hand that they play in regulating what we eat, it’s become quite ridiculous. I agree that they have manipulated our food choices – and not for the betterment of us, but for them. While Pollan’s probably right about people who are more aware of their diet being the ones who take extra vitamins (although the vitamins may not always cause a huge difference), it’s unfair to have the healthier food choices cost more than the less healthy ones. Should money really play a part in “survival of the fittest?” How can we expect to better the nation in terms of health when the price of greens continually rise while the price of meats and junk foods stay low? I have never been affected by our nation’s food culture of nutritionism – and I’m much less worried about that than of people overeating too much of something (that isn’t green). I’d rather judge a food by the appearance of its entirety than by the small percentages dictating its content on the label.
When we were first given this book in introducktion I was really excited. Just recently I read his book Omnivores Dilemma and I loved it. In Defense of Food definitely turned out to be just as enjoyable. I feel the thesis of this book is simple and many people considered it common sense. This thesis obviously being, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Although it seems so simple, these seven words contain so much value and are much more complex than common sense.
My favorite part of the whole book would have to be on page 79. Pollen talks about a study performed by Paul Rozin. The scenerio Rozin presented was, “Assume you are alone on a desert island for one year and you can have water and one other food. Pick the food that you think would be best for your health.” Several options were given, but it turned out that the best food for survival would have been hot dogs and milk chocolate. In the study only a few people picked these two options but I bet those who did pick them weren’t even taking the study seriously. I would have never guessed these answers!
What I like most about the study Rozin preformed is that it pretty much proves that the majority of Americans don’t know very much about what is most important for the health of your body. The idea that Americans are close to clueless about food is a very large theme in the book.
I love this book and it has taught me many lessons and made me think twice before I order anything off of a menu. I really believe in Pollens idea to “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
This book reminded me a lot of a unit I did in my AP Language class junior year. We read many articles about the effects of the Western diet and the ethics involved–mostly focusing on the poor treatment of livestock, the use of antibiotics, and the use of pesticides in produce. Because of this unit, I began to really think about what I ate. I started to incorporate way more veggies and fruits into my diet and I cut out a lot of processed food. Slowly, I cut out meat and now I am a vegetarian. I’ve been eating this way for over a year, and I’ve discovered that now, when I do eat processed food, I feel really sick. I never had an issue with gluten or dairy products before I changed my diet, but now my body cannot tolerate them very well.
My own experiences cause me to be in agreement with Pollan. People should buy everything they possibly can local and we should eat meat raised ethically and naturally. I am also in agreement that meat products should not be the center of a meal. I agree with Pollan that in certain ways, our focus on health makes us unhealthy–I think that changing your diet to include all the necessary nutrients is healthy. What’s not healthy is buying processed foods and supplements that are trying to replace missing nutrients.
@Kaitlin Brown: On Pollan’s argument that we should always eat in groups… I don’t think he is saying we will eat less in groups or necessarily be healthier nutrion wise. I think he means that we will be healthier mentally and emotionally, because eating in groups brings people together. Eating in a group does take more time, but that is the good thing about it! You get to converse with people you care about and build stronger connections. I enjoy eating much more when I’m with others. I agree with Pollan that our culture definitely does not value eating in groups, but it’s something that I think is important and that society should attempt to emphasize more.
Many of our world’s cultures celebrate food in various ways. Pollan spent a great deal of time expressing how the French, Italians, Japanese, Greeks, and Indians eat within each of their cultural spheres. This is why the fourth question on the orange paper stood out to me. Americans, as a whole, seem to not appreciate the sustenance in front of them. For example, Pollan pointed out that the French rarely ever snack, and take their time to savor every portion while Americans have the general trend of rushing through meals and grazing whenever they are hungry. I believe that our country’s conventional eating trend reflects that we are a nation that praises convenience and technology at the expense of communal and nutritional values. Going onto the second part of the question, I saw that Pollan stressed that a nation’s eating habits consist of two things: “the foods a culture eats and how they eat them” (173). Since I already gave an example of the second part of this quote, I’ll do the same to the first part. Pollan talks about how Eastern European Jews would use chicken and duck fat in their diets while it seems that Americans would grimace at the “three-letter f-word.” The diverse cultural groups of our world view their nutritional science in different ways. The American beliefs have been processed over time…just like the pabulum we have come to ingest.
I found the information, history, and facts presented in Part 2 to be more convincing than that of Part 1. I found myself more interested in learning about the detriments of the Western diet. It’s terrible that there is even diseases specifically tied to our region, but Pollan made his case that there is definitely a reason for this. Pollan points out that Western diseases are in part due to genetics and our ability to live for a longer period of time (92), but of course what we eat is responsible. The study Mr. Price conducted, and his conclusion that “modern society returns exceedingly little of what it borrows” in regard to soil conditions and in turn food, really reminded me of a Pocahontas, “Colors of the Wind” philosophy. But that makes sense to me, considering the story is an invading Western people who do not understand the relationships around them.
The more Pollan writes about the Western diet and the relationships between industrialization, processed food, and disease, it strikes me that we have created this problem for ourselves. Between the media, food industry, medical field, and our ambitions as a population to better ourselves we have bought into nutritionism.
Though Pollan writes a lot about the history of the topic, I enjoy that his arguments and topics are mostly modern. For example, the corn vs. high fructose corn syrup is entirely relevant; I hear people in Trader Joe’s talking about it and there are countless commercials. On page 117, it struck me that most Americans don’t know that more of their animal food comes from this source. If more Americans had access to this book or the ideas presented, would they change the way they see food/ eat? For my family, we’ve always shopped at farmer’s markets, grown what vegetables were easy, and eaten organically. At the same time, I think of food in terms of vitamins, fiber, fat, protein, etc. This book has made me realize how aware I am of what is in the food I eat, not necessarily how much I enjoy eating it.
As he presents his third point in the industrialization of food section, “From Quality to Quantity” I am reminded again of the information from AP Environmental Science. In that class we had an entire agriculture/soil unit. Just as Pollan mentioned the links/relationships between different foods, there are links from overpopulation to overproduction of food, to eating higher on the food chain, to depleting soil of its necessary nutrients.
On page 122, Pollan describes how our diet has caused us to be overfed, but undernourished. I can’t help but feel sick that while our society has so much invested in creating new “foods” some people don’t have enough to eat. Another Pollan statement that hit me was that “Much more so than the human body, capitalism is marvelously adaptive,” (135). Does the health care industry/ medical field allow us to eat a certain way because it will profit them later, after we develop a chronic disease? It’s so common to hear about neighbors or friends of friends who have diabetes; it’s become terrifyingly casual.
Part 3 proved to be the most useful, actually advising us on how, and what, to eat. This entire book was a very thorough and well- written description of things that seem obvious and common. However, I’m aware that this is my own perspective. Some of my best friends will never understand why I elect to drink organic hormone free milk, just like I personally don’t understand why you wouldn’t, even if it is more costly. How difficult would it be to change an entire population’s way of eating? I know if you tried to change how every teenager ate, you would be unsuccessful mostly because they wouldn’t care. I wonder if this applies to adults, the same adults who buy fast food/ not whole foods for their young children. Do people care that they eat poorly? Not just their habits, but also telling them everything they held as truth in regard to food was wrong. It seems that there are just as many opinions of what to eat as there are foods. Of course, Pollan has pretty much erased the validity of the scientific perspective, so it is truly difficult to make a choice on which is the best route for you.
I was initially skeptical of many of the claims Pollan makes in the first portion of this book. I, like many here, felt defensive and perhaps a bit guilty about my own habits after reading the author’s general recommendations for eating on a daily basis. Pollan suggests that meat should be a side dish rather than the focus of the entree. This is a concept that seems weird and completely backwards to me. However, through reading this book I understand why so many think as I do and have developed eating habits as I have.
The most surprising point in this book is the fact that nutritionism, a field of study which seems to be very rooted in concrete science, is nothing more than an ideology. I appreciate Pollan’s criticisms regarding nutritionism; from what their focus is on when investigating certain foods (nutrients vs. actual foods), to how they actually conduct research. The shortcomings of nutrition science are appalling and it now makes sense to me why many Americans are unhealthy eaters. And to make matters worse, government agencies have supported such flawed findings. With an ocean of eating recommendations, its no wonder we are confused about what is best for us when it comes to food.
Overall, In Defense of Food isn’t a bad read at all. I hope to utilize some of his recommendations when eating on campus this year!
A recent New York Times article, titled “Lunch Trays Got Too Lean in City’s Fight Against Fat”, details the efforts of the New York School District to provide their students with healthier meals. They introduced salad bars, whole grain pasta, and several other more nutritious options.
These changes led to the average overall calorie count of a student’s tray to dip below the federal standard for the minimum number of calories a student should consume. Now the program faces elimination because it fails to meet a somewhat arbitrary number that doesn’t account for the quality of the food.
I feel this situation would infuriate Pollan. Nutritionism is blinding the officials from realizing that although these meals may not meet the federal guideline they are undoubtedly healthier meals for the children.
However, the district should make sure the students are receiving enough food to adequately fill their stomachs.
Thank you for bringing this up! I read this article as well, and my mind also went to Pollan – specifically, his discussion of the connection (and corruption) between government guidelines, media, and food scientists. His warning about the dangerous relationship of these outlets was clearly exhibited in this situation.
In my opinion, the school district was acting responsibly in their care of the students, providing the types of meals that Pollan (and great-great-great grandmothers/fathers) would probably recommend. However, due to the low calorie count, which you very aptly described as a “somewhat arbitrary number” when looking at the quality of the food, the progress that the meals plans have made will probably be obstructed, or even reversed.
Pollan makes the whole premise of his book clear, just by the cover and opening lines: “Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Those seven words have a massive amount of meaning behind them, as we’ve read. The school district seems to be following this mantra to the best of their ability, however based on the article there’s an argument that the “Not too much” has been taken to extremes.
– Another thing that would be interesting to look at in conjunction with In Defense of Food and this article would be Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution.
Living in Portland, constantly being surrounded by stores like Whole Foods and New Seasons and the general “Portlandia” atmosphere, I assumed that this novel would present information with which I was already familiar. While I recognized some information, much of the history and information about other cultures and their eating habits proved to be new and educational.
One of perhaps the most interesting pieces that I found was placing the Aborigines back into their ‘roots’ and watching the effects of the Western Diet reverse themselves. I often think about this reversal with the small group and wonder, how would it be possible to do this on a global scale? While the effects were seen so clearly in this control group, how could one not wish to reverse the Western Diet? I almost found myself wishing that Pollan would pose more solutions, after all, I do not believe that the estimated 314 Million people could fish, hunt, and farm the way the selected few did in this experiment.
I felt that I could most closely relate to the sections when Jane Brody is quoted. Jane Brody was a frequent guest at a house my family rents in Minnesota our family has bonded with her, so much so that when she is quoted I hear her words and this helps me to more fully connect with this novel. This was most helpful to me when I found the novel getting tedious and wordy, without the interjection from someone other than Pollan, the ability to hear another opinion assisted me in more fully comprehending the novel from multiple points of view.
I have not yet completed the novel yet, so I cannot make any judgements on what is yet to come or what is missing. I hope to continue to be brought into the novel as Part 3 continues.
A contemporary issue which Pollan touched on is one which particularly interests me: the current conversation surrounding the actual benefits of organic foods. Pollan wrote: “ …it is true that food certified organic is usually well grown in relatively healthy soils–soils that have been nourished by organic matter rather than synthetic fertilizers. Yet there are exceptional farmers and ranchers in America who for one reason or another are not certified organic and the food they grow should not be overlooked.” (Pollan 169)
If you were to type “organic” in the search box of any large newspaper’s website, there is a good chance that the majority of your results would be on the topic of a recent Stanford study. In this study, scientists concluded that eating organic is hardly a more healthy way of eating (unless you are speaking of environmental health). The Huffington Post recently published an article titled Organic Food Is Not Healthier Than Conventional Produce: Study. In this, Lauran Neergaard wrote: “Organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing detectable pesticide levels. In two studies of children, urine testing showed lower pesticide levels in those on organic diets. But Bravata [senior research affiliate at Stanford] cautioned that both groups harbored very small amounts…” The study also concluded that overall levels of pesticide presence in foods has dropped in North America over the last decade as a response to consumer concerns.
After reading In Defense of Food, I would have regarded the results of this study with skepticism: Pollan’s advice “avoid food products containing ingredients that are unfamiliar” (150) and his general aversion towards the Western diet would make one believe that organic foods are the only options. Perhaps, though, the organic label has become all too sacred and is truly leading to the disinclusion of some wonderfully nutritious and safe products. I suppose my only worry then is that this whole study and the multitude of articles following it serves merely as the new fad of nutritionism, overblown in order to make consumers spend their money elsewhere. Can science truly determine the value (or lack thereof) of an organic product?
I completely agree with you. I was raised to believe that organic food is the healthiest of all. While the environmental benefits are undeniable, it was surprising to find out that the health benefits may not be as great as I thought.
At a glance, organic is probably not a bad option. People who eat organic food, whether or not it is any healthier than non-organic, probably tend to eat healthier diets in general than people who don’t care if their food is organic. If we try to eat organic food, we will probably be healthier even if it’s only due to a shift towards a more plant filled diet.
On the other hand, organic is -as you pointed out- just another label. I think that your worrying that organic food only contributes to nutritionism is completely justified. Restricting yourself to organic food is like restricting yourself to any other kind of food; your diet becomes a set of health claims. Buying a variety of local and in-season products is probably much healthier, even if not all of the food fits under the government’s definition of organic.
Although the arguments that Pollan makes concerning healthier eating/living seemed valid and relatively common-sense, I was most intrigued by the section of the book in which Pollan describes the way that the food industry wants food analyzed in a nutritionalist mindset. This enables the industry to provide consumers with “healthier” products every time a new diet or eating regimen is released simply by reducing one nutritional aspect of the food. To me this seems like a fundamental problem of our society, as corporations have incentives to discourage new and different ways of thinking, because these new modes of thought could reduce future profits and jeopardize the established structures. This is true for almost all aspects of industry, and probably most clearly displayed by the renewable energy initiatives. Corporations making billions by utilizing fossil fuels are understandably unwilling to jeopardize their current business model and risk a reduction in profits, regardless of the negative impacts that the actions of the corporation have on the environment or on other people. Only when new ventures appear more lucrative than the current model do companies begin to transition to newer/better ways of thinking. I think that the more people speak out about the problems of the current system, the more the general public will push to change it, which, in my opinion, is the most realistic way to alter things that we believe to be wrong.
Like so many of you, I also think that this book could be life changing, especially when taken seriously. One point that intrigued me was the idea that food is more than fuel. While we mostly know this in our minds, I find that few of my friends and relatives really take time to put this idea back into focus. Sure there is always Thanksgiving dinner where everyone sits around the table and has a full meal with the sole purpose of enjoying the food and the people around you. Then there are all the dinners eaten on the couch while watching the television, not really enjoying the food just eating it because you were hungry, or worse just eating because it’s dinner time. Breakfast, if you eat it, and lunch aren’t any better as those meals tend to be consumed much too quickly in order to continue on with the day.
Pollan suggests, and I agree, that the sheer abundance of food has made America indifferent to it. Food, in one form or another, is readily available, so why savor it? He quotes Harvey Levenstein saying Americans have “a vague indifference to food, manifested in a tendency to eat and run, rather than to dine and savor.” This made me think that while we’re so focused on changing what we’re eating, we should also think about how we eat.
I truly enjoyed the read. Polland notes that we’ve made a huge technological step in identifying and isolating nutrients at a molecular level, yet we still are largely ignorent to how they interact. So then, we’ve identified pieces to the “nutritional puzzle”, but are unsettlingly blind to how they fit together. Polland’s logic and eloquence in explaining this first impressed me, but soonafter left me with a feeling of dismay. How can we confidently read ANY nutritional studies?
Polland illuminates many of the so called “limitations of knowledge” within the hard sciences. How can we deduce scientifically when we aren’t asking the right questions and/or looking for the right things? How can we make claims of the parts if we don’t understand the overall whole?
In Defense of Food took a very roundabout approach to achieving its purpose, which it states at the very beginning: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Although at times it felt a little drawn out, most of the book had me constantly reexamining my own eating habits.
Two ideas stood out to me in this book. The first was the image of Americans eating from an endless soup bowl (footnote on Page 185). I personally tend to be a fairly healthy eater. While I eat my fair share of meat and grains, I tend to avoid fast food and stick to more naturally grown stuff. However, I completely fall into the trap of “eating until the plate is empty”. At a restaurant especially, I feel bad if I “waste” food, when really, stopping when you are full is just the healthy option. Because of this one paragraph, I have found myself making a conscious effort to eat less at meals.
The other thing that really caught my attention is that so much of the American diet is just corn and soybean products. It’s amazing how hard it can be to avoid something that’s hidden in nearly every product at the supermarket. Making a move towards more leafy vegetables seems a lot more intimidating when you can’t supplement your diet with nearly any product you find in the store without falling into the same corn and soy trap.
I really did enjoy this read. Since finishing the book, I have found myself in many social situations where the topic of the Western Diet, nutritionism, and the American food industry itself have been brought into question– a subtle reminder of the importance of food and the way we view it as a culture. I thought that was pretty neat…
I was fascinated by Pollan’s argument regarding food and its importance to culture. I too am guilty of being an on-the-go eater. Rarely am I able to take the time to go to the store to pick out my own fresh produce, prepare it, cook it, and sit down with others to enjoy my home-cooked meal. As an incoming freshman who is living in the dorms and on a meal plan, I do not foresee much change in this diet plan. Eating has became more of a habit– a thing I need to do so I can get on to my next activity. As someone who loves to cook and likes all types of food, I am sad I am not able to really enjoy food the way it was intended. The American lifestyle that I have experienced has not created an environment where enjoying the pleasure of food seems possible. I have jam-packed my life full of things to do, that I do not have the chance to enjoy each and every meal in my day. Even as a small child in elementary school, I was conditioned to speed through my lunch in order to be the first table to go out to recess… At a young age I was taught that eating was not an event of itself, but something I did prior to the event– a warmup, if you will.
Personally I find it sad that eating has become what it is in my life. I wish I could make more time to really enjoy it as an event of its own and experience it with others.
I have to say, I enjoyed this book far more than I thought I would. I really appreciated how Pollan’s advice to his readers was so simple yet so well thought out and eloquently stated. I was most fascinated, and at times disturbed, by the willingness of consumers to accept and trust health claims made on the labels of processed foods, like Cocoa Puffs and Fritos, that they know to be unhealthy. It’s interesting to think how often consumers will choose processed foods, claiming to contain essential vitamins and nutrients; over the fruits and vegetables they know to contain them.
I also appreciated Pollan’s take on how healthy eating is more than fueling your body with the “correct” nutrients, but that it also deals with one’s with the setting in which one eats it. It’s comforting to think that sitting down to a meal with one’s friends and family, is not only enjoyable but also has health benefits.
I found this book to be very intriguing and I enjoyed reading it. My family has always made an effort to eat healthy – we regularly visit the farmers market and have a garden in our backyard. Since I have grown up with this lifestyle many of the points that this book made seemed obvious to me. I have always tried to eat as many fruits and vegetables as possible and refined food rarely finds its way onto our shelves. However, this book did make me think about some new ideas that I had not previously considered.
For example, I never thought about the relationship between soil and food. It is, however, a very important relationship. The fact that healthier soil provides produce that contains more nutrients makes me proud that my family often eats produce that comes straight from our backyard. I hope that in doing that I am consuming more nutritious produce than what is sold in grocery stores. A quote that really stuck with me from this book was “…you now have to eat three apples to get the same amount of iron as you would have gotten from a single 1940 apple, and you’d have to eat several more slices of bread to get your recommended daily allowance of zinc than you would have a century ago.” (118) I always thought that an apple was a healthy food and it seems strange to consider that an apple was more nutritious in the past than it is today, and may continue to lose nutrients in the future.
The other point that changed my way of thinking was that food should be thought of as “real food” and “processed” food. After reading this book, instead of counting calories I am now simply trying to eat more “real food”. This approach is much simpler and much more satisfying. Also, I try to enjoy the fresh, delicious food that I am eating rather than viewing it as a means to an end. I would recommend this book to others and would encourage them to adopt this view of food.
While reading “In Defense of Food,” two things stood out which made enjoying the book nearly impossible; Pollan’s curt and haughty tone, and his blatant attack on nutrition science — if not the scientific community as a whole.
As Pollan attacked the “Western Diet,” it seemed as though he was also attacking those who follow it. I am admittedly a long-time follower of the Western diet, and felt as though the author’s condescending diction only served to insult my intelligence rather than convert me to the nutritionism free-traditional-whole food-diet he so relentlessly preached. I felt as though most of what the author was saying throughout the book was common sense, and his constant repetition of the same points as well as his diction came across more rude than it did helpful or informative – especially to those of us who know better yet constantly fall victim to our tastebuds. All in all, I felt as though Pollan was making the inaccurate assumption that everyone who follows the Western diet only does so because they don’t know better and are poorly educated on the subject, and his tone made it seem as though he was writing not to better the lives (and diets) of those stricken with food-related health problems but for people who already follow a more “healthy” diet – as if to say “Hey, can you believe those guys still eat all those processed foods? What idiots.” This made reading the book simply unpleasant.
As a die-hard supporter of science, I also found Pollan’s attack on nutrition science rather upsetting (for lack of a better word). Pollan made it sound as though the scientific community simply pulls theories out of, let’s say, nowhere in order to secure the highest bidder; if it’s in their best financial interest to say egg yolks are bad for your health then they’ll stick to that for a few months, if their investors change their minds and want the scientific community to suddenly endorse a high consumption of egg yolks well then that’s what they’re going to do. But in reality, industry endorsements play much less of a role in the publishing of scientific journals and new information than simply informing the public for the sake of informing the public. The main obligation of the scientific community is to inform those not directly involved – the general public – when new information that could benefit their wellbeing has been discovered. Not doing so would be negligent on their part. Scientits are not responsible for what the public does with/ the decisions made based on new information, only making sure they have that information in the first place. I feel as though Pollan barely addresses this point, placing far too much blame on the nutrition scientists for being informative about newly discovered information.
What I found to be most interesting about this book was the questioning of our trust in science itself. Pollan objects that the scientific adjustments creating the Western Diet, only created more health problems than before. So if science shouldn’t step in and be a part of the food industry, to what extent does it belong in every other area of our lives?
Americans put so much trust in concepts that we may not fully understand (like omega 3s) because scientists and nutritionists told us to. Does society trust too easily? It comes back and bites us in the health department, where will our easy trust backfire next?
I enjoyed this book more than I originally thought I would. I expected to hear the same old arguments about health and diet, but was surprised to hear Pollan’s shocking statistics and arguments. I was most interested in his points about cultural differences, especially when the Western diet was compared to French culture. I especially enjoyed his reference to the experiment that showed American’s reaction to the words “chocolate cake” with the word “guilt” and the French associated “chocolate cake” with “celebration”. Last summer I was given the opportunity to spend about a month in France, a week of which I spent with a French host family. Although I believe the French are leaning towards a more Americanized way of eating, things were different in my French Family. They took their time. They didn’t just run to the grocery store to grab a few things, they made it an experience. The whole family came and it wasn’t rushed through, but every item was carefully chosen, because it had a later purpose. They took their times cooking the meal, which the whole family helped in creating, and the meal itself was an experience. It wasn’t hurried; they ate slowly, had smaller portions, multiple courses, and spent time on conversation. They planned events around their meals as opposed to the American way of grabbing something quick so it doesn’t interfere with our busy schedules. In my early years of high school, I had much more time on my hands and was able to eat very healthy. My mom would buy fresh produce from the farmers market and she arranged to have a weekly delivery of fresh greens from local farmers. We hardly ate meat, and focused on locally caught fish. But as time went on, both of our schedules became busier, and we no longer had the time to put an effort into eating healthy. I believe that our cultural sense of time is a big reason we live so unhealthily. As Americans we are taught to keep going, pushing ourselves to do bigger and better things, adding more into our days, pushing out that time we used to spend on meals. Food is no longer a priority, whereas the French culture still holds food in esteem. Maybe in order to change our diet, we need a change in culture first.
This was not a book I particularly enjoyed. It was a very logical and well researched argument, but he took the human aspect of it out of it and that is I think his biggest drawback for me. A lot of what he said made a lot of sense. It is very true that the way we eat today in our society is not good. It leads to many bad health issues, and makes us feel not as good as we would like. Nutritionism has been an epidemic on our society that is almost to the point of no return, but that doesn’t mean we need to get rid of it altogether. There are some basic aspects of it that are proven simply as facts and those we can accept will have to stay. The rest I would be open to changing; at least to a degree. I am not a person who likes to spend a lot of money, so if I am going to be paying a substantial amount more for the food that Mr. Pollan suggests we eat then count me out. I will take the food that isn’t is good for me and just work out a little harder. The question that really stood out to me was the last question, asking what I would serve Mr. Pollan if he were to come over for dinner. To be very honest, I would not enjoy having Michael Pollan for a dinner guest because I would have no idea in the world what to serve him. I feel that any choice I would make, he would be very quick to judge me and my eating habits and probably give me a ten-minute speech on the nutritional facts of the meal in front of him. Now i’m all for being healthy and living a long life free of preventable ailments, but there are things in life that are there simply to be enjoyed. I see food as one of them. Food is a delicacy that a lot of people in the world don’t even have, and we are making a huge deal out of what kind of vitamins are in each thing we put in our mouth? Michael Pollan has lost his enjoyment in food because it is now clouded by the enormous amounts of national facts he now constantly puts in the front of him mind. I would never turn down a guest for dinner, but this would certainly not be a dinner I would enjoy very much. The food I would serve would be the same if it was Michael Pollan or my mother. Mr. Pollan would criticize me for the food choices I made and would not enjoy the fruits of my labor at all. My mother would love the food I made her, simply because I made it for her, not for the nutritional information that goes along with that meal. That’s the way eating should be. You need to gain nutrients and energy from food, but it is also one of those things in life that should be enjoyed. Life is too short to only thing about the chemical make-up of your food. It’s one of those times you should just slow down and small the roses… I mean dinner.
In the beginning of the novel, Pollan dicusses the shift from our diet being based upon culture, or rather, what mom dictates, to that which media and “science” (which I put in quotes, because, as he explains throughout the novel, science has yet to fully grasp the impact of nutriets within our bodies, but rather seems to jump to conclusions without waiting for a full dictate. And for me personally, I find that to be true simply because of the fact that I am one of the few people I know who lives against the standards of 21st century america: I make a conscious effort to eat whole, organic, unprocessed, pure food because that has been what my mom has dictated. Growing up in such a household as a child was difficult (for the obvious reasons that my lunch, not only was it hand packed, but looked much different than the lunchables and ramen noodles that my friends were consuming), but as I have gotten older I have come to be enormously grateful for such an upbringing, and reading this book has only heightened this sense of gratitude as well as has expanded my thinking as to how I might push my previous boundaries in an attempt to eat more wholely. Moreover, as someone who makes a conscious effort to eat real, whole food, I know just how incredibly difficult such a pursuit can be in this day and age when there are countless food products but so little food. Though, as the novel clearly states, the way to rectify the national epidemic of unhealthiness is by promoting the consumption of real food–with the food industry just that, and large conglomerate of scientists, producers, journalists, and the government, such a task can seem far beyond daunting.
I really wanted to find this book interesting, but I felt like I learned everything I needed to know in the summary that was in the first two pages. As someone who recently cut meat out of their diet I was hoping to find information that would reinforce my decision and give me ways to defend myself when people criticize me about the “dangers” of not eating meat. Instead, this book was a giant history lesson of how the food industry has transformed over the last fifty years or so. The history-based method Pollan chose also had the potential to be interesting but it was difficult to get past his attack on the food industry and the science behind nutrition. He made the entire work an “us” versus “them” and was so incredibly one-sided that it was difficult to focus on the facts he was presenting.
I understand why Pollan wants people in the United States how nutritionism can cause more harm than it does good, but as a person who grew up in the Willamette Valley eating fresh produce from local farms and markets, it seems unnecessary and was simply presented in a far too negative way.
Although some critics have argued that Michael Pollan doesn’t go far enough in his advice– for example by insisting that all eaters become vegetarians, I do not think that he needs to be more radical in his approach. I think that Pollan’s advice, above all, is practical. He does not suggest that each and everyone of us completely change our diets– while that may be beneficial for our health, it is unrealistic and nearly impossible living in our Western-diet-saturated society. Instead of telling us what to eat, Pollan tells us how to eat, which is a very important distinction.
I think Pollan addresses the questions posed by Sydney in her post by suggesting that we do in fact put too much trust in science when it comes to our food. Scientists are always changing their minds about what is “healthy” and what nutrients we should focus on. If they haven’t given us reason to trust them in the past, as with the Atkins Diet, why should we trust them now?
It was easy to feel a bit attacked by Pollan’s advice in this book. He had an extremist point of view, basically condemning the way that most people live their lives. However, if his advice is taken as merely advice, then the individual reader can determine what aspects of the book to follow. Ideally, we could transform our lives to reflect all of the rules Pollan lists at the end of the book, although personally, I would find that to be difficult, as we now have realized that supermarket food has also been corrupted by big business food industries and consumerism. However, if we all keep his suggestions in mind, it can’t hurt us. All Pollan was trying to do was make us aware of the dangers from “science” and consumerism that have influenced the way we eat without us questioning. Pollan wants us to be skeptical, or at least to be aware so that we don’t blindly pick up “food” that will make us unhealthy. He’s advocating a different way of thinking, not necessarily forcing us to all make gardens.
Overall, my impression of this novel was that Pollan had very interesting and thought-provoking ideas and facts to share about the Western diet and I believe they are important to expose to Western eaters as well as to those cultures becoming more and more exposed to Western-style eating.
From the very beginning however, I noticed that Pollan’s diction and tone seemed to mock the scientific community and cater to a broader audience. while I understand that a goal of the novel is to educate the masses in an effort to bring awareness and ultimately change in our eating habits, I couldn’t help but feel that his attitude toward scientists is an effort to connect to non-scientific readers and I felt somewhat alienated. Pollack seemed as though every explanation of scientists’ methods should be met with a jab at their professionalism and ethics. when he explains that scientists who look at diet through the lens of singled-out nutrients, or “nutritionism” feel a need to pit a “good” nutrient vs. a “bad” nutrient and that they arbitrarily choose which nutrient they feel like ganging up on that month, I felt as though he was going to extremes and not addressing the fact that science works as a series of trial and error and that our thoughts and theories constantly change as a result of that–that’s just how science works!
I do realize that he is also trying to point out the government and food industry’s oppressive influence on Western consumers, and I was absolutely fascinated by the connections he was making between big industry and the commercialism of food. To think that the food industry has been left to it’s own devices since it’s inception is a concept that seemed to throw me. I had never really thought about the dangers of politics in food beyond the usual idea of processed foods being produced for a better profit.
I found that a good chunk of the novel is comprised of basic biology/geography lessons like the relationship between plants and animals and while I had already been taught those concepts, it definitely kick-started my own trail of thought on how very important food is to life. Usually, I think of meals as simply a part of my day to be checked off of the to-do list; brush teeth, have breakfast, take a shower–check, check, check. however, food is entirely our lives, it is, down to our core, what makes us tick and shapes our health, future, and culture. I don’t think nutritionism should be totally shunned and I don’t think it ever could be, just as we can never really go back to the days before the commercialization of food, however I think that our everyday diet could be positively influenced by a new perspective of “food synergy” that is just as powerful or more powerful than nutritionism.
I think Western culture should make an attempt to bring back a real sense of love for food and discard the thought of it as just a means of fuel.