Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Pollan reading

Pollan suggests that there exists an undeniable unhealthiness within the American diet. This is not an uncommon claim. However, instead of blaming the problem on any particular part of the diet itself, he points the finger at the concept of scientifically analyzing food in order to determine an optimum dietary course. It is the idea that food can be dissected and scientifically understood to be inherently good or bad for you that is causing the unhealthy symptoms of obesity and anxiety, with all the health problems that they invite. The problem, he says, lies less in the foods that we may choose to eat, but more in the way in which we eat them and the societal influences surrounding their consumption.

This is an interesting opinion to express. It certainly runs counter to the concept that science is the best available means of understanding the world and finding the optimum solutions to problems. However, Pollan blames the scientific community less than he does the anxiety and hyper-reactionary attitude that many consumers have towards the findings of dieticians. The resultant scramble on behalf of food companies to commercialize and monetize the demands of the populace seems a particularly sore point.

The anti-scientific and anti-commercial tone of the article does make me question the contents of the argument somewhat. It would suggest less that Pollan wants people to be healthy and more that he has an axe to grind with certain institutions and those people who follow them. Nonetheless, the fundamentals of his argument are sound, and I do agree with him on many points. I have never paid much attention to the various dietary fads that have come and gone over the years. Part of this is due to the fact that almost all of them concern losing weight, and if anything I require the exact opposite. The other part is that many of the respected "scientific experts" are hardly scientists at all. The field of nutrition is a ridiculously complex and individualized one, and many respected scientists are of the opinion that, honestly, we don't have the technology or understanding required to be able to tell you exactly what kinds of foods you should eat. There are some rough guidelines that we do know, and I try to follow those somewhat. Don't eat nothing but sugary foods. Milk is good for your bones. You need to eat some kind of protein. Vegetables are pretty good for you. Other than these basic pointers, though, I just eat what I want.

2 comments:

  1. I cought on to his kind of "marxism" anti-corporations vibe too. but i agreed with his points and i think thye hold some real weight.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good analysis of Pollan's critique of food science. We'll be reading a couple of other pieces by him. In one I recall him referring to "nutritionism" as like a false belief that we can best appreciate foods by breaking them down into all of their parts and nutrients, or something like that. So you might keep your critique in mind.

    ReplyDelete