Sign in with FacebookGinny Messina's Reviews > In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto
In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto
by Michael Pollan
by Michael Pollan
Actually, there is enough good stuff in this book that it probably warrants another star or two. But I was so alarmed at the amount of misinformation here that I can’t bring myself to say that the book is “okay.”
Michael Pollan is right about some of the big stuff. Nutrition research is badly flawed. It has sometimes led us down the wrong road (although it has also provided life-saving findings). The government is far too slow to change its recommendations and has strong ties (to put it mildly) to the food industry. The same can be said of my own nutrition profession.
And obviously he is right that we should choose more whole foods and engage in practices that help us appreciate food—a useful perspective even if it isn’t a particularly cutting edge one.
But for the most part, Pollan’s reasoning about nutrition and research was pretty unsophisticated and uninformed. He carefully describes all of the reasons why nutrition research is flawed, and then employs some of the worst examples of research (animal studies and completely uncontrolled observational approaches) to support his own arguments. He quotes "nutrition professionals" whose credentials and opinions are questionable at best. Almost without exception, his observations on nutrition are wrong—sometimes subtly so, sometimes overtly so, and sometimes in ways that are actually dangerous.
Pollan defends his right to provide nutrition advice because he speaks on the authority of “tradition and common sense.” But, tradition and common sense will get you about 90% of the way to a healthy diet. The other 10% can have devastating effects and Pollan really has no sense of this.
The last part of the book has recommendations about how to eat and shop. “Shop the perimeter of the grocery store” is exactly the advice that was popular among nutritionists when I started in this field 30 years ago. It’s just as wrong now as it was then. Why would you shop the perimeter of the store if you are supposed to be eating mostly plant foods? Far better to shop the produce corner and then head to the interior for grains, beans, condiments, and spices.
Pollan doesn’t want us to eat anything with more than 5 ingredients on the label. So no prepared spaghetti sauce, salsa, fortified soymilk, or curry paste, all of which are perfectly healthful foods that play a central role in my diet.
Of course, I understand the spirit behind this and all of his recommendations—-he wants us to slow down, cook more from scratch, use more whole-food ingredients, fewer manufactured foods. He’s a big fan of the Slow Food Association, for whom he is a frequent speaker and which he admits can sometimes sound like an elitist club for foodies (I'm thinking this has something to do with the fact that it is an elitist club for foodies as a quick peek at their website shows). Slowing down to cook and eat and enjoy food are good things, but there has to be room for a little bit of compromise and a sense of reality. There is nothing wrong with eating pasta sauce from a jar or frozen vegetables or—-my favorite convenience food and I’ll defend it to my death—-butternut squash soup from a box. It’s the way many busy responsible people cook and it’s a perfectly healthful and acceptable way to eat.
I was pretty disappointed that his entire discussion of the ethics of food choices fit into one single parenthetical sentence plus a footnote. This from the man who wrote The Omnivore’s Dilemma and who debated ethics with Peter Singer (and lost the debate). I realize this isn’t what this book is about, but Pollan knows, far better than most people, the true cost-- in terms of animal suffering and environmental destruction-- of animal food production. When he talks about how to eat, he is obligated to speak to that issue at least a little bit.
Pollan’s opening mantra—-eat food, not too much, mostly plants—-is good advice. There are other snippets of good advice in this book. For me, it was all greatly overwhelmed by faulty and uninformed reasoning , the unnecessarily restrictive requirements for food choices, and the great amount of misinformation.
All in all, a disappointing book. At least it was short (a little shorter than my review, I think!
Michael Pollan is right about some of the big stuff. Nutrition research is badly flawed. It has sometimes led us down the wrong road (although it has also provided life-saving findings). The government is far too slow to change its recommendations and has strong ties (to put it mildly) to the food industry. The same can be said of my own nutrition profession.
And obviously he is right that we should choose more whole foods and engage in practices that help us appreciate food—a useful perspective even if it isn’t a particularly cutting edge one.
But for the most part, Pollan’s reasoning about nutrition and research was pretty unsophisticated and uninformed. He carefully describes all of the reasons why nutrition research is flawed, and then employs some of the worst examples of research (animal studies and completely uncontrolled observational approaches) to support his own arguments. He quotes "nutrition professionals" whose credentials and opinions are questionable at best. Almost without exception, his observations on nutrition are wrong—sometimes subtly so, sometimes overtly so, and sometimes in ways that are actually dangerous.
Pollan defends his right to provide nutrition advice because he speaks on the authority of “tradition and common sense.” But, tradition and common sense will get you about 90% of the way to a healthy diet. The other 10% can have devastating effects and Pollan really has no sense of this.
The last part of the book has recommendations about how to eat and shop. “Shop the perimeter of the grocery store” is exactly the advice that was popular among nutritionists when I started in this field 30 years ago. It’s just as wrong now as it was then. Why would you shop the perimeter of the store if you are supposed to be eating mostly plant foods? Far better to shop the produce corner and then head to the interior for grains, beans, condiments, and spices.
Pollan doesn’t want us to eat anything with more than 5 ingredients on the label. So no prepared spaghetti sauce, salsa, fortified soymilk, or curry paste, all of which are perfectly healthful foods that play a central role in my diet.
Of course, I understand the spirit behind this and all of his recommendations—-he wants us to slow down, cook more from scratch, use more whole-food ingredients, fewer manufactured foods. He’s a big fan of the Slow Food Association, for whom he is a frequent speaker and which he admits can sometimes sound like an elitist club for foodies (I'm thinking this has something to do with the fact that it is an elitist club for foodies as a quick peek at their website shows). Slowing down to cook and eat and enjoy food are good things, but there has to be room for a little bit of compromise and a sense of reality. There is nothing wrong with eating pasta sauce from a jar or frozen vegetables or—-my favorite convenience food and I’ll defend it to my death—-butternut squash soup from a box. It’s the way many busy responsible people cook and it’s a perfectly healthful and acceptable way to eat.
I was pretty disappointed that his entire discussion of the ethics of food choices fit into one single parenthetical sentence plus a footnote. This from the man who wrote The Omnivore’s Dilemma and who debated ethics with Peter Singer (and lost the debate). I realize this isn’t what this book is about, but Pollan knows, far better than most people, the true cost-- in terms of animal suffering and environmental destruction-- of animal food production. When he talks about how to eat, he is obligated to speak to that issue at least a little bit.
Pollan’s opening mantra—-eat food, not too much, mostly plants—-is good advice. There are other snippets of good advice in this book. For me, it was all greatly overwhelmed by faulty and uninformed reasoning , the unnecessarily restrictive requirements for food choices, and the great amount of misinformation.
All in all, a disappointing book. At least it was short (a little shorter than my review, I think!
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read In Defense of Food.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-40 of 40) (40 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lisa
(new)
-
added it
Mar 31, 2008 03:15pm
Ginny, Best review on this book that I've seen. I loved, loved, loved The Botany of Desire. Mixed feelings about The Omnivore's Dilemma. I was going to try this one, but my to-read list is so very long. And I'm taking any excuse to pare it down. So this book might come off my shelves.
reply
|
flag
*
I haven't read the Botany of Desire but guess I'll have to add it to my own long to read list! But as long as you have lots of good stuff to read, I definitely would not bother with this book. Marion Nestle's "Food Politics" is a much better choice. It's not as much fun to read--it's a little bit more academic and dry--but at least she is informed about the subject matter.
I haven't yet read this book, so I appreciated reading your dissenting views about it. I'm about 98% vegan (most days 100% :>)), and was trying to figure out if this book would be any use to me. It sounds like my opinions are already too deeply set for this book to mean much to me.
Generic, my main objection to the book is that Michael Pollan writes very authoritatively about subjects he doesn't really understand and he gets tons of stuff wrong. The core message is good though, and is probably something you would essentially agree with. Still not worth reading the whole book for, though!
Thank you for the clarification. I'll just get it from the library and scan it for the good stuff. (BTW, I like the soups in a box too. :) Trader Joe's, YUM!)
Ginny, Definitely put The Botany of Desire on your to-read list. I'm glad it was the first book of his I read. (I got angry at times while reading The Omnivore's Dilemma and I might never get to this one.) The Botany of Desire almost made my favorites list. I think that you'd enjoy it. It's really fascinating and very well written.
The Botany of Desire is a fabulous book. I was underwhelmed by Pollans manifesto although I did enjoy The Omnivores Dilemma.
Ginny, I am so happy to see another dietitian agree with my view on this book -- and who articulated why his book is just plain bad much better than I did. I just didn't have the patience to read this all the way through. Life is too short.By the way, while I'm not a vegetarian, I own both the Vegetarian Way and the Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets and love them both. You give our profession a good name.
Thanks Ginny for this very informative review of a book I've been thinking about reading, and some of his other books too. Maybe I'll just find Botany of Desire to read since so many of the comments praise this book. I appreciate knowing just where Pollan is mistaken in what he rights as well as when he gets it right.
I'm so glad you liked my blog!!! I appreciate the kind words. If anything should be overconsumed these days, it's veggies.
Sallie, I still think that The Omivore's Dilemma is well worth reading. But I'm looking forward to Botany of Desire, too!
I've got to say that I only just began this book and was frankly startled and a bit horrified by what Pollan had to say. I ready the Botany of Desire and enjoyed it. The Omnivore's Dilemma was also interesting although I thought he let the meat industry off the hook a bit too much. However, this book is (so far... I haven't finished it) so anti-science and full of false information that it is scary-- especially coming from a well-respected person like Pollan. Yes, science that is too closely connected with industry is a dubious thing. However, one cannot throw out science altogether and say that it provides us with little useful information. The nutrients in food are important. It is those nutrients that make certain whole foods so healthful. I understand that if one gets too reductionist a lot of processed food can falsely be considered healthy. However, the whole foods that most anyone would agree are healthy are that way for a reason-- because of their components and how those components interact with each other and with ourselves. Anyway, I'll probably finish the book but I have seriously lost some respect for Pollan.
Hi Pierce--I was pretty horrified, too! That someone who is so highly regarded would write so authoritatively on a subject about which he doesn't know a whole lot. And it's too bad, because the overall message of the book was certainly valuable.
Ginny, I hope that you don't let your and others' opinions about this book dissuade you from reading the Botany of Desire because it's a fascinating book. I'm really glad that it's the first book of Pollan's that I read!
Hi Aaron,I didn’t actually say that 10% of Pollan’s advice is deadly. I was responding to the idea that we can make dietary decisions based on “common sense and tradition.” I said that this will get you about 90% of the way to a healthy diet and that the other 10% could have negative consequences. My point was that there are some important things about nutrition where tradition no longer serves us well, and we can find better answers from science.
I also said that Pollan gives nutrition information that is just plain wrong and that, in some cases is, in fact, dangerous. One example is his casual comment that we can get vitamin B12 from veggies grown in B12-rich soil. This is, unfortunately, a widespread belief among many consumers, especially vegans, and it isn’t true. Vegan nutritionists have been hammering away at this issue for decades and it is really annoying when someone who has lots of recognition and only casual knowledge of nutrition comes along and blithely reinforces the misinformation!
Ginny, I'm fortunate that I, and all the vegans who are my friends and acquaintances, know to acquire nutritional knowledge from those with accurate information.
I take my sublingual B12, B12 in B complex, and B12 in a multi vitamin-mineral and know that it's essential that, as a vegan, I supplement with B12. If I was an extremely careful & healthy eater and got adequate sunshine, that might be all I needed, but I know I am also wise to take the multi and extra calcium & D as well. And I'm always learning but I get my education from those who are qualified to dispense it.
But the B12 information from Pollan is infuriating. One more reason that book might come off my to-read shelf. The good news is that the vegans I know do not rely on Michael Pollan for their nutrition information. We read more vegan friendly books than his.
But it is possible that new vegans or potentially interested vegans who have not educated themselves, could use this information to their detriment. It's too bad.
Ginny, Thanks for your last post/your posts.
I am a nutrition professional, and I have to say that I loved the book. Here is my defense.I, too, agree that not all information in the book is what I consider to be 100% correct. I do, however, think that if most people adopted the diet he outlined here, our nation as a whole would be considerably healthier. I also hope that this book will spark interest in nutrition and encourage people to find out more.
I believe that, when taken with all of his other suggestions about how to eat, shopping on the perimeter of the grocery store is sound advice. He is trying to tell people to buy veggies and fruits from the produce section, whole grains, beans and nuts from the bulk section, fish and meats from the deli area, dairy and eggs from the dairy case. In my experience, most grocery stores are set up so that these four sections are on the perimeter, and processed foods in the middle. Yes, pre-made pasta sauce is a processed food (though to a much lesser extent than, say, a candy bar). Many sauces contain one or more forms of sweetener, for a start. The ingredients are also not fresh, locally-grown, or in some cases, organic, all of which Pollan makes articulate and well-thought arguments for in this book and in Omnivore's Dilemma. He also encourages people to buy directly from local farmers via CSA or farmers markets, and avoid the grocery store as much as possible.
He did also mention animal products as the primary source for B12.
As for his research, he provides page upon page of sources at the end of the book. It is clearly well-researched.
He did not question science as a way to learn about diets, either. He simply said that it is impossible to study only one factor and expect to understand how a food works. He also questioned the accuracy of certain data-gathering techniques. He did applaud certain studies, but the ones he seemed to think were the most valuable were those that studied diets as a whole, and not individual nutrients. Pollan's beef is not with science in general, only with what he terms "reductionist science."
The idea of this book is to go back to a diet of whole foods and try to avoid as many processed ones as possible. Pollan does not dictate what readers should be eating specifically, but rather says there are many options for healthful diets. He did not intend the book to provide specific dietary advice to populations in need of more specialized advice. The book seems to me to be a more general guide to healthy eating.
Pollan's arguments are not popular, but that does not mean they should be dismissed. I hope this book inspires readers to make healthful changes to their diet and to learn more about the ways food impacts their health.
Thank you, Astrid, for saying what I was thinking and stating it in a highly articulate fashion.After reading the comments here, I was a bit distressed. I found this book to be very inspiring.
We, as a family, are focusing our efforts on following the guidelines Pollan lays out -- Eat Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants. My children -- ages 14 and 10 -- are beginning to recognize how over-processed many of the highly marketed foods are that they frequently ask for. It's been very educational for them.
Additionally, I watched my mother fall into the "health food" traps that ran rampant in the 80s and 90s. She was a frequent consumer of highly-processed, carbohydrate-laden, "baked not fried" foods that are shoved in our faces at every turn of a TV knob or magazine page. She passed away about 2 years go from complications related to Type II diabetes.
So, yes, while this might not be the LAST book a person should read on the subject, it certainly makes a stellar FIRST book. It's piqued my interest and given me some direction.
And now I need to go bake a loaf of bread.
Thanks for your critique. Being a dietician, I will defer to you for the science.You had some conflicting comments that didn't make sense to me. Tradition and common sense are 90 percent of the diet. Then his book is a masterpiece because the American diet is less than 10 percent common sense. You have to give him credit for trying to raise awareness -- scientific or not.
Shop the perimeter of the store -- confusing what you said. All the produce and "good" things are in the perimeter of my grocery store.
As a dietician I wish you would have touched on the claims of HFCS and its effect on the body. Was he right here? Does breaking down/processing food take the nutrition out of the food? These were the type of scientific claims he was making. If people followed his claims, they would be healthier. Are you saying they would not be healthier?
The American diet needs to be restricted from what it is today. People are out of control (in many ways besides diet). I think the book points this out and gives an alternative.
If I got this right your main gripe with the book is that Pollan comes across as an expert and he is not. I think I got that claim from the first few pages.
Thanks for your comment, Paul. Yes, I do think that the general advice that Pollan gives—-eat real food, less of it, and mostly plants—-is valuable. It’s not exactly new or cutting edge, but he certainly popularized this message. Unfortunately, he does a very poor job of interpreting scientific findings, and there is tons of material in the book that is just plain wrong or overstated. I can only comment on the nutrition information because that’s the area I know about, but I figure that if he couldn’t get that right, why would I assume that he was right about any of the other stuff?
“Shopping the perimeter” of the store is kind of a minor note in this book, so I didn’t mean to focus too much on the importance of that advice. I gave it as one example of the way in which Pollan resurrects simplistic and outdated concepts that have little relevance today. (Yes, the perimeter of the store houses produce, but most of it is taken up by meat, dairy, deli and bakery. Not exactly foods that we want at the center of the diet if we’re eating for our health and the environment. When I shop, I go nowhere near the perimeter of the store except for the produce and wine sections.)
I’m very happy if people will follow the advice to eat a mostly whole-foods, plant-based diet. But I don’t know very many experts on plant-based nutrition who think this book is a reliable source of information.
Thank you, Astrid. I just finished the book and was astonished by Ginny's negative review. You have clearly articulated my response to the book. I didn't see it as a rejection of science or the study of nutrition -- more of a warning to be skeptical about nutritional claims plastered on processed foods by the folks who make their living from producing them.
Astrid wrote: "I am a nutrition professional, and I have to say that I loved the book. Here is my defense.I, too, agree that not all information in the book is what I consider to be 100% correct. I do, howeve..."
Thank you Astrid for your thoughtful response to this review. I am not a nutritionist, and I found Mr Pollan's book to be very interesting and make a lot of sense. I understand that my research should not stop with this book, and I look forward to reading more on this subject. I appreciate Ginny's take on the book, but I agree with you, he opposes a reductionist take on food and makes a point of how the food industry is not above commissioning a scientific study on a specific ingredient to promote their product.
Ginny Messina, I can't believe it, but I am in total agreement with you about this book and am delighted to find that I'm not the only person who gave this book one star. Astrid's comments, and those echoing his comments, miss the point. Pollan's book, in context, IS really an attack on science. He's saying, "well, science isn't working so well, so let's go back to your great-grandmother." This is the impression that any reasonable reader will reach, and I'd suggest that people who doubt this should just read the book themselves with an open mind and draw their own conclusions.
What we should say instead is, "if the science isn't working so well, then inquiring minds want to know why? How can we make the science better?" That's Pollan's job as a science writer, and he's clearly failed. There is good science out there, we just need to evaluate it instead of just throwing up our hands and saying "back to the 19th century."
[/Rant off:]
I think you really pinpointed the problems with this book -- Especially that Pollan, while dismissing science as useless on the one hand, on the other hand cites hopelessly flawed nutritional research in support of his own views.
Ginny says, "There is nothing wrong with eating pasta sauce from a jar or frozen vegetables or—-my favorite convenience food and I’ll defend it to my death—-butternut squash soup from a box."Of course everyone has their convenience foods that they love -- but there is no denying that homemade tomato sauce and butternut squash soup are healthier (and taste better)-- and depending on the source, fresh vegetables will always be more nutritious than frozen. Don't take it so personally.
Thank you, Astrid for a very well-written rebuttal to Ginny's argument. I've read this book, and it has opened my eyes to all the crap that I have been putting into my body. I felt inspired by this book and I think its great. I don't know a lot about "food science", I'm not a dietician, so I'm not going to nit-pick about his comments on vitamin B12, or whatever other little thing he may have gotten wrong. For me, I don't care about those things because I got a heck of a lot more out of this book than wondering if my vegetables are grown in soil rich in B12. What I got out of the book were the bigger things like eating more whole foods, staying away from the processed stuff, going to the farmer's market, checking out those food labels for things I cannot pronounce (and have no idea what they are!), and so on, and so on ... so if Michael Pollan can do that for at least one person (which I know he has), I would definitely say he has succeeded with this novel.
Astrid--I'm with you on your defense of Pollan. I just finished this excellent challenge to understand what food we decide to put in our bodies. I did not find the book to be antiscience at all. Rather, it promotes a researched and persuasive critique of modern reductionism in food science. Pollan's many forms of advice--such as eating whole foods, eating smaller portions, and eating lower on the food chain--are sensible and often wittily written. Overall, In Defense of Food is a very useful and nonlabored read that states well the case for wholesome and healthy eating. I was especially taken with Pollan's explanation of the nutritional shortfalls and unhealthy side of the processed, refined, and industry driven Western diet. Two thumbs up here for Pollan!
According to Pollan, p. 12: we have "as much, if not more, to learn about eating from history and culture and tradition" (than from science) . "I am advising you to reject the advice of science . . . " (p. 13) This isn't research, this is rhetoric. I think culture and tradition should not be worshiped as gods. Culture and tradition brought us the Inquisition, the Crusades, and oppression of women.
Astrid, I totally agree with your view. I think the reason Ginny trashed this book with only one star is because it promotes omnivory and she is a vegan. Veganism is a cult with a rigid belief system. Ginny defends it by trashing books that promote omnivory by nit picking at details that discredit the author, then implying that if you cannot trust him on these points, why should we trust him on anything? She ignores the central, strongest, well-researched points of the book, because she cannot refute them. See her similarly slanted review of Lierre Keith's "The Vegetarian Myth" on Amazon. And then be sure to read the book!
Haley, there are certainly some really good books that look at the ethics of animal food consumption like Eating Animalsand Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money. But these are books that focus on animal issues alone. I don't know of any book that takes a comprehensive look at the politics and ethics of food production, including all the things that Pollan talks about *plus* animal issues.
Hayley, you would be better off going to Whole Foods and reading descriptions in their pamphlets, leaflets, food signs and casings. They are updated daily on where their food is from, what it has and doesn't have in it, how it was and wasn't made...even down to stating when theyhave waxes on their organic foods such as avocados, why and what's in the wax. This to me is he basics of food ethics--telling you exactly whats in the food you are purchasing. Then on the internet you can look up the nutritional value of each and every whole food in the universe! A little time cosuming knowledge can be but you will be better for it. Forget auhors' opinions
