The problem with Michael Pollan’s latest food piece in the New York Times is that it isn’t very . . . nutritious. It doesn’t contain a story with new and interesting facts — like the story of Joel Salatin, a brilliant Virginia farmer, well told by Pollan in The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Instead it contains many broad generalizations, the evidence for which is never given in any detail. Long ago we ate food (i.e., unprocessed food), says Pollan, and it was better for us than the processed food products we eat today. Long ago we listened to stories, say I, and it was better for us than the expert statements on which much of modern journalism is based. If I taught journalism (as Pollan does), I would tell my students the best thing is a story of success (e.g., Salatin) because we can always learn from it. Next best is a story of failure because we can always learn from that, too. Worst is to quote experts (e.g., Pollan quotes Marion Nestle). For two reasons: 1. Experts are often wrong. When they are, it is worse than learning nothing — we are actively misled. 2. Experts — at least in standard journalism — never say the facts on which their claims are based. Even if they are correct, what the reader learns from quoting them is shallow.
Misled by experts, apparently, Pollan repeats Marion Nestle’s recommendation to “eat less” (to reduce obesity). Why it is helpful to repeat failed advice that the rest of us have heard a thousand times is not explained. Nor is it made clear what ancient foodway — Pollan is basically saying we should return to long-ago ways of eating — we would be following if we tried to “eat less.” As far as I know, the answer is none of them.
Several big important stories contradict Pollan’s conclusions. One is the story of B vitamin supplementation of flour and other processed food, which greatly reduced neural birth defects. I heard a dean of a public health school tell a room full of new students that this one advance, which averted so much suffering, fully justified all the money spent on schools of public health. I agree. Processing food is not always bad. Sometimes it can be very good. When you process food based on a correct theory, that often happens. Food sterilization, refrigeration, and preservation via additives — all based on a correct theory, the germ theory of disease — have had many benefits. It’s when you process food based on a wrong theory — such as the theory that fat causes obesity — that you can easily do more harm than good.
There is no turning back. We can’t avoid processed food. To move forward, we need better theories to guide the processing. Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows I think ancient foodways are a good source of evidence with which to build theories (e.g., Weston Price) but of course there are many other good sources of evidence.
—————————————————-
Usually CISSP professionals prefer doing N10-003 as it helps them in their SY0-101 later. A small number however is content with 70-649 too.
I understand what you’re saying, but many additives that are in processed foods can cause cancer.
I agree with most of Pollan’s points. Yes, the science of nutrition is certainly useful in many ways, but at the same time many of us do seem to be over-obsessed with nutritional details. Adding specific nutrients back into foods that are crappy for us to begin is a step in the right direction, but why not just eat the foods that naturally come with these nutrients to begin with?
The “eat less” recommendation seems consistent with what we are learning about calorie restriction and life expectancy, and that higher metabolic activity from more food are coorelated with a lot of different health risks. I agree that it was not well presented
I am very frustrated with the “eat less” mantra. I eat 800-1200 calories a day and in two weeks I haven’t moved off my set point. My size makes doctors think I eat a lot more than I do. Since in a previous attempt to “eat less” I’ve already ended up in the emergency room from not eating, I am well aware of the dangers of not eating enough. So when I hear “eat less,” I want to scream!
I think you and Pollan are talking past each other. Pollans is generalizing about the American diet as a whole: McDonalds and Coke and General Mills’ breakfast products. I don’t believe he has a problem with pasteurized milk or iodized salt.
On caloric restrictions, with particular relevance to your research on smellable calories:
https://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/2/1/6857
I’d like to point out that your example of fortifying flour (white flour, actually) is not really that great, since in this case they are simply adding back some (but not all) of the nutrients that were destroyed in processing. Whole wheat flour does not have to be fortified because it has those nutrients to begin with — which actually supports Pollan’s arguments against food processing.