Michael Pollan is at it again. Or maybe I should say that I'm at it again - buying into his latest food-centric hypothesis with exceptional fervor. Pollan has been in the media again recently, on a small (or perhaps large, as I personally have seen several interviews with him) junket for the release of the paperback version of his most recent book,
In Defense of Food. I used the availability of the less pricey paperback as my excuse to finally pick up my own copy, and have been plowing through the slim read at a steady pace.
In Defense of Food is somewhat of a follow-up to the much-heralded
The Omnivore's Dilemma, and I am glad that I had the discipline to force myself to read
Omnivore before picking up
Defense. While
In Defense of Food does stand on its own, it is really made so much richer by the context that
The Omnivore's Dilemma provides. It is easier, for instance, to comprehend why modern "industrialized" fruits and vegetables may contain fewer nutrients if you have read the more full and detailed description of how exactly those fruits and vegetables are produced.
In Defense of Food addresses modern American nutrition (or rather, "nutritionism") in the same way
The Omnivore's Dilemma addressed modern American food production - by breaking it open and providing a solid basis for questioning the very basic premises that Americans generally take for granted. Where exactly did the U.S. government's nutritional guidelines come from? How have those guidelines been influenced by industry versus by science? And when they are influenced by science, how much do those scientists really know about how food works in our bodies? According to Pollan's research, the answer to the last question seems to be surprisingly little.
Which leads to the main premise of Pollan's argument - that the current approach to nutrition in the United States, generally centered around individual macro- and now micro-nutrients, ignores the likely very important larger picture surrounding nutrition. Pollan suggests, rather convincingly, that what makes many traditional diets successful (think of the French or Mediterranean diets, for example) is not so much a matter of a particular food or nutrient, but rather the
combination of foods and nutrients eaten together. Further, he argues that
how those foods are eaten, the cultural norms that have grown up around them, plays an integral part in the healthfulness of the diet as well. It's not a surprise that the French tend to be thinner than their U.S. counterparts when you take into account a culture of smaller portions and a tendency
against second helpings. In the meantime, the so-called scientific approach to eating in the U.S. has resulted not in a healthier population, but rather has coincided with an increased prevelance of obesity and "diseases of civilization", such as diabetes and heart disease.
Though Pollan does, as he admits, sometimes fall back on "nutritionism" to prove his point, his overall argument makes sense, and is hard to refute based on the plethora of evidence he provides. After poking holes in almost every nutritional guideline presented in the past fifty years, Pollan does not leave us with nothing, though. The final section of the book contains some very straightforward, if general, guidelines for eating. These guidelines fall under Pollan's general rules of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.", and are the most straightforward, common sense set of nutritional guidelines I've encountered to date. As Pollan has effectively changed my thinking about food shopping, so now he has similarly affected my thinking about food eating. I will surely keep his guidelines in mind when making food choices in the future. For that reason, I definitely consider
In Defense of Food a worthy read.
If this wine's label strikes you as a bit more fancy than usual, I'll provide fair warning that your instincts are correct. This bottle checks in well above my usual $20 price cap. In fact, the reason I purchased it at all was because, after enjoying this wine at the extravagant restaurant price during a friend's birthday dinner several months ago, I was thrilled to find it at Trader Joe's for around $33. I had to pick it up.
surprisingly well-balanced. Flavors are both juicy and savory, with the same plum, blackberry, and cassis as on the nose, but also including smoky and spicy elements as well. The finish is slightly bitter. I called it medicinal, but others have likened it to bitter chocolate, which is probably a more appealing description! Overall, this wine is very good, though too pricey to be an everyday wine for me. Perhaps next time I will spring for it on only a very special occasion - or, better yet, find a $20-and-under "stand in"!
Posts
