The Problem with the Popular Face of "Food Activism"
By Monica @ 9:47 AM   
There's been an enormous buzz in the blogosphere about Michael Pollan, who is a food journalist at UC Berkeley and has done a lot of first-hand research about the food supply. It would not be a mistake to say that he is one of the foremost, if not the foremost popular author writing about food today. He's the author of In Defense of Food, The Botany of Desire, and The Omnivore's Dilemma. Stephan of Whole Health Source recently wrote:
I heard an interview of Michael Pollan yesterday on Talk of the Nation. He made some important points about nutrition that bear repeating. He's fond of saying "don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize as food". That doesn't mean your grandmother specifically, but anyone's grandmother, whether she was Japanese, American or African. The point is that commercial food processing has taken us away from the foods, and traditional food preparation methods, on which our bodies evolved to thrive. At this point, we don't know enough about health to design a healthy synthetic diet. Diet and health are too complex for reductionism at our current level of understanding. For that reason, any departure from natural foods and traditional food processing techniques is suspect.
I agree. The recent discovery of vitamin K2 is evidence that we should resist the simplistic reductionism of nutritionists focusing only on calories and macronutrients. And while I disagree with Pollan on various matters, he has done some good first-hand research on the food supply and has made this information very accessible to the public. For that he should be applauded. Real food is increasingly under government and government-sponsored industry attack in our society.
Pollan also wrote a very long piece in the New York Times entitled Farmer in Chief in which he exhorted the future president to consider the health, ethical and environmental issues surrounding government farm and nutrition policies. It's definitely worth a read and it got a great deal of attention in the farming, nutrition, and whole foods blogosphere. I don't agree with everything in that article by a long shot, but I'm going to save my (very long) critique for a future post.
So what's the problem? First, Pollan has a strong focus on our botanical heritage, but I believe Pollan's proclivities toward plants when it comes to human nutrition are less rooted in science than they are in emotion and our rich neolithic food culture. Pollan is a long-time gardener and has had interests in botany his entire life. As someone who has also personally been more interested in the botanical side of things and used to teach botany, I can attest to the fact that this can create a certain bias in a person's mind. I'm not sure that's intended but it does come out in his writing.
In the context of personal food choices and education about the rich co-evolutionary history of plants and humans, this isn't an issue. In fact, much of Pollan's writing on ethnobotany is delightful. But Pollan is the popular face of food activism. And when it comes to "food activism" and government policies with regard to food, this has become a huge problem. Since Pollan is so highly regarded and has such public appeal and charisma, people have been repeating his "eat mostly plant schtick" like it's going out of style. This dogma has most definitely overshadowed Pollan's defense of real foods. I see this arrogance and presumption a lot on the web, with many commenters in various internet venues claiming that people are fat and sick because they are eating too much meat. "Eat mostly plants. A little meat. Not too much. What is so hard to understand about that?" they preach.
A lot of people read Pollan and end up not defending food, but attacking meat. This attitude wouldn't worry me too terribly except that there's an enormous politically motivated tendency toward vegetarianism in our society already -- with a strong basis in modern environmentalism, Malthusian ideas propagated by both environmentalists and biotech corporations, and grain-based nutritional dogma. It's pretty clear that most people without extraneous health issues need animal products in their diet as a source of EPA, DHA, vitamin B12, and fat soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 -- and who knows what else since nutrition science is definitely on the low end of the learning curve. But despite that Pollan too resists nutritional reductionism; despite Pollan's focus on our corn-based system of agriculture and the problems with HFCS and hydrogenated vegetable oils; despite Pollan's endorsement of Good Calories, Bad Calories, as "A vitally important book, destined to change the way we think about food" -- those aren't the messages that the public and the media are disseminating from Pollan's writing. The message that they are disseminating is that meat is bad.
I'm not so sure this is entirely Pollan's fault rather than an effect that is combined with the result of decades of government propaganda. But even in his Farmer in Chief article, he suggests that the president and his family have a meatless day once per week. There's also little criticism of wheat being subsidized.
Below are two prime examples of how the media pick up on and then selectively disseminate some of Pollan's ideas.
First, this editorial in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristoff, in which he lauds Pollan's larger ideas about food and agriculture, but winds up with this little gem:
We face an obesity crisis and a budget crisis, and we subsidize bacon?
The implication is that obesity is caused by eating bacon. Bzzzzt. And another implication is that most of the ag money we are spending is to subsize meat. Bzzzzt.
The first absurdity has been adequately dealt with elsewhere, but I feel compelled to point out that meat is not directly subsidized. The USDA's EQIP program that Kristoff criticizes, capped at $450,000 per feedlot, is to clean up manure pollution from feedlots. While it is not a valid government spending project, why doesn't Kristof point the gun at the grain and soy subsidies that are responsible for feeding animals this way -- and dumping cheap HFCS, corn oil, and soy on the market to boot? No, it's meat that takes the blame for obesity and government spending, even though meat doesn't make people fat and it is not directly subsidized. The amount of money spent on EQIP is miniscule in comparison to commodity crop subsidies, but does Kristoff criticize subsidized wheat? Of course not, because that's not where Pollan's focus is. We've all known for decades that wheat doesn't make people fat, right? And what is to criticize in corn and soy? Only the HFCS, the feeding of corn to cattle, and hydrogenated oils, Pollan's main focus in all of his writing.
Here's the second media piece in the Boston Globe, which specifically discusses Pollan and speculates on what Obama's agricultural policies might look like. Here's an excerpt:
Obama is the most healthy eater to enter the White House in a long time, unlike George H.W. Bush who castigated broccoli as he craved pork rinds.. Guess Derrick Z. Jackson didn't see this piece, where Michelle Obama proclaims, "We're bacon eaters." Good for her and her family... and for HW Bush. Don't expect the media to pick up on stuff like that, though.
Do you see what I mean about how the media picks up on what they want to pick up on? "Plants good, meat bad." It's arrogant and ignorant. How much does Derrick Z. Jackson, the author of that article dissing pork rinds, actually know about dietary fat? Apparently, not much. Wait -- it gets better. Not too far down in the article, there's this little gem:
Obama purchased peaches, pears, apples and nectarines from farmers markets on the campaign trail.
Well, wonderful. It's a good thing Obama doesn't have Type II diabetes caused by a steady diet of commodity wheat, because all that modern fruit, bred for sugar and not even available 150 years ago, wouldn't help his insulin problem much. He'd be better off with the pork rinds in that case.
These are just two examples of how the media get it so totally wrong with regard to nutrition, picking up on some of Pollan's ideas and selectively disseminating them, while the general public laps up this fodder like the non-thinkers they are. I couldn't say it better than Keith Norris of Theory to Practice:
The frightening thing here, from my prospective, is the fact that there is so much of this that Kristof gets right — only to then tumble down the “fat is evil” rabbit hole. I can easily see a “fat tax” imposed, in the very near future, on suspect foodstuffs that the “informed government” will use as a carrot/stick (depending upon your point of view, I suppose) to wean us from the plethora of “unhealthy” foods. This tax would then be used, I’m guessing, to help support/promote the more “healthy” grain-based alternatives. ...
No matter how in-vogue (and fun, I’ll have to admit) it may be, however, to bash on the government, it is really the actions of the collective citizenry that will turn the tides here. Unfortunately, I don’t have much confidence in the “collective citizenry” on this issue. For the vast majority at least, it seems as if health, fitness and diet (and independent research in these areas of concern) is just not worth their time. We are living collectively (and “paying” via ever-increasing health care premiums) with the ramifications of such apathy now. One thing I’ve never suffered well is willful ignorance; being forced to financially support the ramifications of another’s willful ignorance is enough to push me over the edge. Indeed. Keith and I are not the only ones to pick up on some of the perhaps unintended political effects of Pollan's writings. The Weston A Price Foundation released an excellent open letter to Michael Pollan two years ago, encouraging him to pursue a more objective approach to human diet. Here's an excerpt:
What's so disappointing about your conclusions is the fact that after revealing the dark side of the industrial food system, and blasting the vegetarian argument out of the water, you end up dishing up the food industry's tired old anti-saturated fat, plant-based-diet propaganda. What you've done is present your health-conscious yuppie readers with the prudent diet dressed up in designer clothes and introduced your foodie readers to food Puritanism in a silk gown. She looks lovely and slim, she's popular with all the right people, but the shocking secret that emerges on the honeymoon is her frigidity; the girl in green turns out to be barren, unable to provide us with the thing we most desire—a healthy productive life. In retrospect, your inadequate prescription is not surprising because you actually show your hand right at the beginning of The Omnivore's Dilemma, where you tell us that foie gras and triple crème cheese are "demonstrably toxic substances" and that bread and pasta are "two of the most wholesome and uncontroversial foods known to man." You describe yourself as an investigative journalist, so we are justified in asking: have you found any science proving that foie gras and triple crème cheese are "demonstrably toxic?" These delicious traditional foods are not demonstrably toxic to the French, so why would they be toxic for us? And have you interviewed even one person among the millions suffering from carb addiction or celiac disease, or stood in the bread aisle and read the labels on what passes today for bread, the stuff made from plants that we are supposed to eat six to eleven servings of every day? Because you are such a persuasive writer, people believe you when you say that saturated fat is bad, that lean meat is healthier than fatty meat, and that vegetarians are healthier than meat eaters. You repeat these ideologies, these "shared but unexamined assumptions" as you call them, without examining them at all, passing on to your readers many of the malicious dietary falsehoods put together by the industry you claim to dissect. Your endorsement of the McGovern Committee recommendations—at least of its original recommendations to cut back on meat and dairy products—is truly perplexing given that a quick search of the internet reveals the former senator's marriage to corporate agriculture, a system that would much rather we consumed plants, especially processed plants, than animal foods. ...
The omnivore's dilemma is not in fact a dilemma at all, but a construct of false nutritional doctrine. We need investigative journalists like you to help us clear away the misinformation. Please accept our invitation to a meal.
I hope Pollan is getting the message and will start disseminating it. I'm still skeptical but somewhat hopeful that he will, since he's now read Good Calories, Bad Calories. His food activist followers, many of whom want to cram grains, vegetables and fruits down all our throats and deprive us all of meat through shifted subsidies, coercive laws, and government nutritional edicts, could certainly stand to hear it from him.Labels: Conventional Wisdom, Grains, Meat Myths, Modern Ignorance, Nutritional Guidelines, Subsidies
|
11 Comments:
Monica,
What types of fruit and how much do you eat daily? I am very interested in eating the way you and Dianna eat but I am confused about fruit. Any advice would be appreciated.
Depends on whether you want to lose weight or not and what your current diet is like. Frankly, I've lost about 11 pounds low-carbing it, but I don't think I'm going to lose any more. I need to lose about 20 more pounds. My guess is I'll have to incorporate intermittent fasts and high intensity workouts to lose. In fact, I lost 1.5 pounds after doing just one fast and one workout. The reason I don't think I'm going to lose more on low carb is because my diet was not that high in sugar in the first place and I'm a smaller person. Smaller people have difficulty losing without watching portions.
If you want to lose weight, I'd suggest getting at 30 g. or under of carbs per day. Fruit would fill up that quota pretty quickly! A cup of berries has 15 grams sugar. An apple has around 25. (Subtract the fiber from the total carbohydrates to get the net amount of digestible carbs.) Berries give you the most bang for your carb buck: they are rich in anticancer phytochemicals and antioxidants.
You can check the carb levels in any food at nutritiondata.com. Just subtract fiber from the total carbs and keep a daily tally keeping the number at or below 30 daily.
If you don't want to lose and you just want to maintain, keeping it at around 75-100 grams per day will probably do it if you don't have any prior insulin problem like diabetews. Some people might even lose weight on that, though, because the standard American diet has about 200 or more grams of carbohydrate per day.
Since I've determined that I'm not going to lose much more simply doing low carb, I try to keep carbs at around 50 grams per day or lower. I think that's a good level for me. This generally means I can have a bowl of berries or a piece of fruit daily. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, because I eat other things with carbohydrates, too. I drink milk which has about 12 grams per cup. However, keep in mind I'm relatively small -- around 150 pounds. Larger people may be able to eat a bit more.
I'd highly recommend buying a copy of Protein Power or Protein Power Lifeplan by Michael and Mary Dan Eades. It gives so much more information on the whole reason why "low carb" works. And the books are cheap.
I'll say all this with a qualifier. I'm no longer sure all carbohydrates are problematic for humans. I think that the high prevalence of carbs in our society interact with other problems, like a lack of vitamin D and too many omega 6 oils that suppress thyroid function. I also think there is something very specific about wheat that is problematic, since several healthy cultures and many Americans seem to do fine with a lot of starchy tubers in their diet (this would certainly not be advisable with a prior insulin problem, though). Whatever your goals are, it's likely you'll need to tweak what works for you but I'm guessing you'd see a lot of beneficial effects getting between 30-50 grams of carbohydrate per day.
The following sites are also excellent though the first two are not strictly low carb:
freetheanimal.com
wholehealthsource.com
proteinpower.com/drmike
Best of health!
Whoops -- wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
Good luck! Keep us posted! :)
I just read my comment, Madmax, and realized that I wasn't very clear, perhaps.
How people react to fruit really depends on their insulin metabolism. A lot of people don't have success on low fat diets because these diets are *necessarily* high in carbohydrate. I would never say that fruit is unhealthy, but it's simply not the best for everyone to eat a lot of it, especially in the modern day when so many illnesses in our society seem to be very closely related to insulin (even heart disease and cancer, besides diabetes): we all know people that can stay thin eating a lot of carbohydrate. But some people really can't, and in fact a lot of people actually gain weight on a lowfat diet eating mostly grain, fruit, and vegetables. If you're one of those people I would definitely say your body cannot tolerate carbohydrate well, and I would cut out any fruit besides berries for awhile and see how you do. The other fruits, like apples and bananas, are much higher in sugar than berries (strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, blueberries, etc.).
It's interesting that you mentioned Pollan read GCBC, because in the interview I based my post on, he acknowledged that the Masai and Inuit were healthy on their traditional diets. I think he may be coming around, but he may also be calcified in the position he's published on. Maybe we could call it "the author's dilemma".
I also disagree with Pollan sometimes. I think 2/3 of his statement "eat food. not too much. mostly plants" is irrelevant at best. But He seems to have a pretty good grasp of the first statement, which is rare. The foie gras thing is interesting, because it's the richest known source of K2 MK-4.
Monica,
Thank you so much for your reply. It was perfectly clear. I have a history of diabetes in my family and I think I may be hypoglycemic which as I understand it is a prelude to diabetes if not worse. I intend to eat a "Paleo" or "Primal" diet with many vegetables, some fruit (mostly berries as you recommend) and limited tubers (the occasional sweet potato). I have about 20 pounds to lose. I hope to lose that and hopefully build some muscle over the course of 2009.
Best of luck for the new year!
Hi Stephan, thanks for stopping by. I'm definitely going to have to try foie gras sometime. (Can you believe I've NEVER had it!?) I'm making some pate tonight with your recipe for calf liver. I spent last night going through most of your posts while watching the marathon Twilight Zone. Your blog is a treasure trove of information -- thanks for providing such detailed reporting of peer-reviewed studies. Perhaps eventually you could consider writing a book. I've not seen such a great synthesis of nutritional information on any other one health blog.
After writing my post I actually read on Eades' site that Pollan defended foie gras when it was temporarily banned in Chicago -- not the nutritional aspects per se but the idea that it's not inhumane -- and of course, it's not. So, I too am hopeful that Pollan might change. I'll have to see whether that was after WAPF's open letter to him. I think it might have been since the ban was overturned in May 2008 or so.
I didn't want to be too tough on Pollan in this post. In fact, I agree with him on so many concrete aspects (just not necessarily his proposed political solutions). He's done some great work at identifying the problems with the feedlot system, which I appreciate.
I just get frustrated when a popular author's suggestions start being transformed by the public and journalists into anti-meat activism and the whole grains mantra. They have no idea the damage they are doing. I'm not even sure Pollan intends that at this point, but his past harping on meat, without an honest revelation of the benefits to so many people, is taken by so many to be an implication that everyone should go out and buy whole grains instead of meat and all their problems will be solved. I sympathize with their frustration over feedlots, but let's face it, the government has made finding grass-fed meat practically impossible for many people depending on one's geographic locale -- through grain subsidies, feedlot cleanup assistance, and the shutdown of USDA plants that have all squeezed grass-fed producers out of business.
Grass-fed coming back and it's economically feasible but it's not going to happen overnight. Here in Boulder, CO I have access to grass-fed bison, beef, elk, pork, and pastured poultry and eggs direct from the producer. But someone who lives in Shitkicker, Nebraska or is on a very low income may simply not have that option -- and such a person, particularly if they have an insulin disorder, shouldn't be made to feel guilty for eating bacon and pork rinds! :)
"I have a history of diabetes in my family"
Me, too. And a ton of cancer. And heart disease. And Alzheimer's. According to Gary Taubes, all with strong connections to insulin.
Hypoglycemic means low blood sugar. Hyperglycemic means too much. My understanding is that either problem may happen at a given time to someone with diabetes, depending on how well they control their insulin.
If you're pre-diabetic, you'll get your insulin under great control on a whole foods diet and you'll feel wonderful in no time. Even early stage Type II diabetes is pretty much completely reversible with diet. I look forward to hearing how it progresses!
Thanks Monica. I'm keeping the idea of a book in the back of my mind, but I'm not ready at this point. Maybe in 10 years. If I did write a book, I'd like it to be a sort of follow-up to Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, where I go through the research on healthy traditional populations and what they ate, integrated with modern medical studies and extending beyond dental/skeletal health into the other "diseases of civilization". I think that would be really cool. But it would require a LOT of research.
I'm not convinced that foie gras is humane, honestly. Small producers say the geese/ducks want to be force fed. I don't know if that's true or not, but the big operations look like CAFOs if not worse. Even in the small operations, they harvest the birds just before they die of liver failure. I think I'd have to visit a farm myself to really form an opinion.
Sorry it's taken me awhile to get back to you on this.
Perhaps I shouldn't issue verdicts so hastily myself. I have to admit that my sole source of information on the humane production of foie gras is this post by Michael Eades, among a few other minor sources:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/good-eating/how-foie-gras-is-made/
In reading it more carefully, I see that he makes the distinction Pollan originally made between small and large producers.
Whatever we all decide with regard to foie gras, I personally agree with you that the humane production of meat is an important issue. I don't think it's a matter of universal ethical concern, particularly for the poor, to avoid inhumanely raised meats which is pretty much all they'd have access to besides fish. However, everyone should know how ALL their food is produced -- to make sure that we're really not evading the reality of it.
I just watched the video for the first time, actually. Hm. It seems rather contrived, honestly. The video of the feeding process doesn't bother me all that much but it seems they're completely confined indoors. I don't like that.
And... claiming that a bird undergoes less stress in those conditions, or that it's good for their liver!? is absurd. That's like saying humans have more less stress in a crowded unventilated office all day long instead of spending some time hiking in the sunshine and that eating junk food all day is good for us. Ummmm. no.
*sigh* Still, I didn't get the impression that the feeding process is all that bad. And what Eades says about it not being particularly painful might be true, I just don't know.
Post a Comment
<< Home