I have been reading a lot of books on food lately. Most of this stems from my dissertation topic: I’ve chosen to examine the narrative and moral structure of what I’ve termed ‘weight loss reality TV.’ There are quite a few shows in this genre, including perhaps the best well-known (and most widely distributed and cross marketed), The Biggest Loser. I’ve entitled this part one because there are other books I’ll likely discuss in my blog in the upcoming days or weeks.
A while ago I picked up a copy of Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. Readers of his earlier food book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, will see a little of his old book given a different spin, including his critical take on industrial agriculture. But he also considers the science and ideology behind nutritional science, and he emerges very skeptical of the advice given by the experts.
He explodes many sacred cows in his book. Fat in our diets is not really the enemy. Breaking down foods into their constituent nutrients (or antioxidants, or whatever) is not a good way to conduct science or to ensure health. And perhaps what is going to be the most maddening to most people is that we eat too many animals. Far, far too many. And too many animal products. This last part might not seem that explosive in terms of what nutritionists have been telling us about saturated fats and cholesterol, but Pollan’s point is a double swipe at what he calls “nutritionism,” which is that food can be reduced to constituent parts (fibre, vitamins/minerals, macronutrients, etc). First, this ignores the problem that farming animals causes in the first place. Too much meat not only means more health problems; it also means higher chances of environmental degradation, for instance. Second, this ignores that many cultures without boneless, skinless chicken breasts have done fine without too many animal products. Many people do just fine incorporating them into their diets as once or twice a week luxury items, and a variety of other cultures across the globe have lower rates of chronic illnesses than do our own. [1]
So what does Pollan recommend? In some ways you could be saved the trouble of reading the book, as the cover picture summarizes his approach: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By this, he means simply that we should eat things that are not overly processed or intended for convenience, that we should eat less, and that our diet should lean towards vegetables, fruits, and grains, rather than animal products. It might even seem to be a “diet,” summarized this way, but it’s not really intended to be. It’s intended to be a slogan that connects the various strands of his book. Not only is that diet likely to be good for our health, but it is also likely good for our environment, it is more sound than most of the nutrition science, and it defeats efforts from those who hawk foods and fad diets. But Pollan’s showing why this slogan is a good one to follow is engaging. Although written to the non-expert, I would also be tempted to assign it in a sociology of food course because it would provoke a great deal of discussion.
[1] Although Pollan’s book comes across as somewhat Amerocentric, his arguments apply to all to the degree that they adhere to a “Western” diet: those in North America, Europe, Australia, and those who are eating like people in those areas. Even here, though, there are clearly wide variations.
