A Look at Michael Pollan's "Damaging Innovations"

Today was the first time since I arrived at college that I used the communal kitchen on Statesider’s third floor; it was a delight. At about quarter after six I made my way to the new grocery store by the Lucky building. Here I marched up and down the unfamiliar aisles and picked out pasta, red sauce, tomatoes, onions, chicken, lettuce, and a grapefruit, more than I could ever finish. I brought my food up to the register and the cashier asked me for $12.87, no wonder I did not eat out more often.

When I got back to Statesider I put a pot to boil and began to dice up the tomatoes and onions. Once my water started to bubble I put my pasta in to cook and took out another pot in which I poured the red sauce then added my diced tomatoes and onions. After I had gotten the pasta and sauce going I got began to cook my chicken, using olive oil I had been able to finagle from the dining hall to grease my pan. After about ten minutes of stirring the pasta and flipping the chicken both seemed cooked. I strained my pasta and then put a portion of it on a plate. I proceeded to drizzle red sauce on top of the pasta and then cut up the chicken, which I then heaped on.

I sat down and ate, not only did I eat though, for once I thoroughly enjoyed. There was no commotion of the buffet line, no asking what the thing that looked like chicken but may have been fish was, only satisfaction. I had taken the time to make the meal and thoroughly relaxed to enjoy it. But then I remembered, the dishes, another reason why the cafeteria was so tempting.

I truly believe that Pollan hits the nail on the head in saying that American culture has led us to “eat without enjoyment” or how Harvey Levenstein puts it, “eat and run”. In my mind there are two types of people who indulge in these non-fat processed foods. There is the type like myself who frequents the gym and tries to eat health afterwards. In my mind I do well at trying to eat the whole foods that Pollan suggests, however, I can only do this the extent it is available in the cafeteria. And again eating lacks enjoyment, I work out and then try to avoid over indulging in unhealthy foods. The other type are those people who use the enhanced nutritional values of processed foods as a substitute for exercise. The claims of low-fat are not being screamed by the healthy vegetables but ironically these people feel if the eat “whole grain Lucky Charms” they are avoiding the extra calories they may have otherwise gotten.

What has plagued this new generation is the breaking down of foods into its component nutrients. Rather than counting grams of protein and calories from fat, people should rely on a balance to sustain themselves. Excessive restrictions in one area of diet are no better idea than excessive indulgence, because eventually they can no longer be maintained. When a normal diet is resumed the metabolism will have slowed down and the result is weight put on. Rather eat a variety. The problem is that even our government is leading us into this fad of nutritionism. There is no way to mix and match numbers perfectly to get the RDA’s prescribed intakes every day, but by doing what Pollan says, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” a balanced diet will be achieved.

Response to Mark's "In Defense of Foods" section 1 blog

http://mfarrelllsc100s10.blogspot.com/2010/02/response-to-in-defense-of-food-section.html#comments

In his argument, Mark remarks on Pollan’s introduction in two ways. First, he discusses how processed food has become a highly available and widely advertised product. With the destruction of foods down into nutrient form and macronutrients it has opened up the market to processed foods to dominate grocery store aisles. The choice of words in his blog, “some of the healthiest foods we can get are fresh fruits and vegetables” demonstrates how we have come to think of fruits and vegetables. What Pollan is critiquing in his introduction is exactly this mentality that processed foods compare to the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables. Pollan would argue that plants are the right choice all of the time, and it is in our best interest to stay away from the over glorified processed food section. Mark also discusses his current food habits and how they differ with his parents. He discusses how things used to be made from scratch and how the modern generation has moved away from this. I find this idea very accurate because my Mom always says to me that you are better of cooking at home and making things from scratch, the reason being you see what goes into it. As a result, you have more control and will be cautious in over indulging in highly unhealthy foods.

The second point Mark brings up is his current shopping procedure. He says it is a decision based on “best taste, brand, and cheapest price.” Although I contest I do occasionally look at the label, price is a large factor for a college student. When trying to budget on small amounts, it is much easier to eat a diet of processed foods than organic. Thus processed food gains a one up on so called “whole foods” because often, even if consumers want “whole foods”, they are simply too expensive.

A Look at Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food"

In the introductory chapter of Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food,” he discusses a concept introduced in the past century, nutritionism. This term was introduced by Gyorgy Scrinis to represent the up and coming idea that foods can be broken down into their chemical subcomponents and be thought of as molecules rather than as foods. This way of thinking has paved the way for processed foods to advertise their nutritional values as comparable to whole foods. Pollan argues that this new wave of food logic has drawn us away from our ancestral eating habits and is leading us to have a diet of enriched-processed foods. He believes that this method of reducing food down to its nutrient components has drawn us away from the correct eating habit he breaks down very succinctly, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.”

Having grown up with a French mother, I agree with Pollan’s argument of the “French Paradox”. My dietary habits, although somewhat Americanized, have retained much of the influence of my grandmother’s cooking. In our family no one diets, no one counts calories, and no one obsessively checks nutritional facts. The reason being is that we try to eat by the standards set forth by Pollan. My Mom always advocates the idea of “having a balance meal”, and to my family this entails some kind of meat, usually a starch, a source of vegetables, a salad, and a fruit for dessert. Just by following these simple standards our family has always managed to stay lean, yet have fulfilling meals.

Pollan also does a good job of reflecting the instability of research over time. The one thing that research has proven over and over throughout the ages is that there is always more to be discovered. The example of breast milk substitute for infants, where breast milk substitute was found to be lacking many necessary nutrients, shows the serious consequences if research is not taken with a grain of salt. As Gerald Pugliese suggests in his New York Times article, "You have to differentiate junk science from good science." In the world of dietary habits the recommendations will always be changing. Thus the nutritionism theory is eternally instable. In recent years what has this done for us? Our nation has a rising obesity rate that shows no sign of reversing. Instead of taking a nutritionist approach we should take Pollan’s advice and the habits of our ancestors in eating “whole foods.”