I’m sure, if I stretch and twist, I can make this post about Willys, but, frankly, it really has nothing to do with them. So, fair warning….
===========
As I’ve mentioned occasionally in posts, I like cooking and studying food related issues. While I’ve thought about creating a 2nd blog related to these issues, I just haven’t gotten around to it.
About four years ago I asked myself a simple question, for reasons too long winded that I won’t go into them here, exactly what am I supposed to eat? Along the way, I’ve read as many studies, books and articles as I could find that seemed reasonably interested in finding grounded answers, versus sources attempting to champion some superior form of eating. Michael Pollan’s books were some that I felt met those standards (well, until his latest book anyway).
Michael Pollan
A few years ago, a journalist named Michael Pollan jumped square into the middle of the food discussion with a book called Ominvores Dilemma, which I felt was a very good first attempt at exploring the food system within which American’s operate and the viability of those systems.
In his second book on the topic, In Defense of Food, was less memorable, though still an interesting read. This cemented his stature in the “what in the hell should we eat” consciousness of those interested in the topic.
In his third book, Food Rules, which I read last night, his journalistic senses went rogue (in my opinion), creating a book of food rules that I think, while generally helping most people, are supported by a framework of vegetarianism that undermines the research credibility he gained in his first two books. More to the point, the book ticked me off enough to write a review on Amazon.
I’ve published my review of the book below because, I suppose, I can; And, maybe, because some of you, maybe one of you, might find it interesting?
====================
My Book Review of Food Rules:
I found this book disappointing. After reading this book, I had to ask myself whether the person who wrote the Ominvore’s Dilemma, which I felt was a well done piece of journalism, was the same person who wrote this book. While Omnivore’s dilemma reflected an earnest attempt at investigation and analysis, this book appears void of many of the lessons learned from that book. While Mr. Pollan notes that much of the ‘science’ for Food Rules comes from In Defense of Food, I can’t say that the conclusions I reached from In Defense were the same as the conclusions Mr. Pollan spells out in this new book (which means I need to re-read In Defense I suppose).
Now, let me note that most of his rules make good sense and will likely help many average Americans improve their health. However, I cannot ignore the glaring faults of this book.
There are two major concerns I have with Food Rules, the initial supposition and the conclusion. The first concern, his definition of a Western Diet, one of two core facts he simply states are generally accepted facts in the world of nutrition, seems more to serve his conclusion (eat lots of vegetables) than to be a real attempt at definition. If we truly don’t understand the problem, how can we develop a rational conclusion? I believe his hypothesis provides zero insight, when in fact it could provide a great deal of insight into the specific problems with most of the food that ‘Westerners’, or more specifically Americans, consume. Based on the studies, literature and lay materials I have read, I see nothing to indicate that his interpretation of the ‘western diet’ is an accurate reflection of any kind of generally accepted wisdom.
The second, and bigger concern I have is Mr. Pollan’s perpetuation, without a shred of discussion, on page 51, of the argument that “Vegetarians are noticeably healthier than carnivores and live longer.” One of the problems with this statement as fact (there are several problems here, but I won’t get into them all) is that most people aren’t carnivores; they are omnivores. For a writer who wrote a book with the word OMNIVORE in the title, I expect him, if anyone, to understand this is not a minor issue.
In fact, this vegetarian vs. carnivore perception exists throughout this book. For example, his rule number 19 states: If it came from a plant eat it; if made at a plant, don’t. To put it bluntly, where’s the beef here? There are problems with the way beef is created! So, I’d change #19 to: If it came from a plant or dined on plants, eat it. If it was made at a plant or grown at a plant (aka CAFO), don’t. The point here is that a large portion of ‘carnivore products’, such as meat and dairy products, that are sold in most stores are nutritionally deficient (in Omnivore’s Dilemma, he made some fantastic points about this) because they are as manufactured as some vegetarian products (processed cereals come to mind).
Moreover, going back to my omnivore point, most people in the US consume nutritionally poor starches (french fries, baked potatoes, etc) or refined foods (burger buns, rolls, etc) along with their poor quality meats which likely undermines some of the potential value of meat/fat consumption. In sum, we have a huge portion of the American population trying to be omnivores, eating a federally encouraged ‘balanced diet’, but, instead, can only consume low quality meats, dairy products, vegetables and refined foods that represent the mainstream foods (in most stores and restaurants) available to most Americans. To classify these people as carnivores misleads people who are truly trying to figure out what they should eat, along with muddling omnivore and carnivore research undeservedly together.
Mr. Pollan can do better and has done better. Hopefully, his next book will be better.
[fb_button]
UPDATE: (01/29/09) I wanted to thank Gary Wolf, the writer of the article, for responding to my email to him. He told me he has forwarded the correction to the editors of Wired.
