Did you see that article in the New York Times Magazine by Michael Pollan? I read it last night and it took forever. And then my brain hurt. But, that’s what happens when you’ve been pondering Dr. Seuss all day. Still, the piece is recommended reading for anyone interested in leading a healthy lifestyle and/or eating delicious food at any point in the future. Don’t have an hour? Let me sum up:
Whole foods, good.
Processed foods, bad.
Science is good,
Except when it’s bad.
People lie. Lying is bad.
But calling people liars feels good.
Is that bad?
Biodiversity is good.
Having 2/3 of human calories come from only 4 highly processed crops: corn, soybeans, wheat, rice:
Bad, bad, bad.
Grandma’s cooking was good.
Mom’s food was bad.
Today’s moms aren't much better because they're passed out drunk in a sandbox.
Oh wait, that was a different story.
Americans are fat.
Gluttony is bad.
Making money off of diet-related health problems is rad.
I mean, bad (sorry, a lobbyist jumped in there).
Real food is good.
Food broken down into isolated nutrients doesn't do jack shit.
One-A-Day is sad.
Health claims aren’t good ‘cause
They’re hiding what’s bad.
Diet fads are dumb.
A walk ain’t so bad.
Oversimplification is BAAAAAAAAAD.
Oops, too late.
(A special thanks to squeezyB for inspiring me to bust a rhyme. A special apology to Mr. Pollan.)
Technorati tags: Unhappy Meals, Michael Pollan
I'm forever grateful
to you
for having read
that article
for me.
and
for summing it up
so well.
I've seen links
to it
all over
the web today!
So hear what I say:
food may be it but
you, you're not bad at all!
(and now I'm creeping off to bed feeling ashamed for my utterly stupid comment...please forgive me)
Posted by: ilva | January 30, 2007 at 02:52 PM
thank you for the succint version, now I can stow away the original article for reading when I have more time on my hands, and your brilliant abbreviation will tide me over in the meantime!
Posted by: sam | January 30, 2007 at 03:04 PM
Whew, that was very Seussy, Tammy.
:D
Posted by: cookiecrumb | January 30, 2007 at 05:04 PM
My bit? Oh .... Ditto!
Okay, that was lame. But there it is. I had heard about this piece elsewhere and am glad to have a nice summary until that day when I'm 75 and have free time.
Posted by: squeezyB | January 30, 2007 at 05:16 PM
It did take FOREVER to read. (I haven't read Omnivore's Dilemma yet b/c it's so damn long.) I thought it was interesting, if somewhat alarming. And vague. My great-great grandmother probably wouldn't have recognized yogurt as food, but my Greek friend's would have. What about that? What about THAT, Michael Pollan?
What I took away from it was "buy your shit at Whole Foods from now on." And I'm going to, actually. And grow a garden (despite my truly spectacular laziness.)
Posted by: Heath | January 30, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Message to Heath:
First, I totally agree with you about what great-grandmothers would or would not recognize, depending on heritage. Good observation.
Second, Pollan *hates* Whole Foods; did you know that?
Endnote: I think it's so cool that you're going to start a garden.
Posted by: cookiecrumb | January 31, 2007 at 02:07 AM
Yeah, I agreed on the general theme, but might quibble over some details. My mom was a health nut way before it was popular to be. And my grandmother made to-die-for Southern fried chicken and gravy. Is that better than granola? Maybe not. And would the Hawaiians fare as well on a Mediterranean diet as they would on their own native diet? Who knows? But, it’s hard to cover every possible scenario, even in a 5 million-word article.
Other thoughts: though labeling is abused in a variety of ways, I’m still in favor of rigorous labeling standards so that we as consumers at least have a fighting chance of figuring out what’s inside (don’t worry, little Gorton’s fish stick, I know you’re tricking me but I’m still going to eat you). Not all labeled stuff is highly processed. And if it’s genetically modified, then I have a right to know about it. Color me pro-choice.
And why do we think we know so much better than natural selection how the world should be designed? Still, there are plenty of scientists out there (ahem) who are making nutritional discoveries that will benefit us in the long-term, not just genetically engineering the shit out of everything.
Also, Pollan touched on a society-wide issue of relying too much on *expert* advice instead of one’s own instincts. Which is true across the board from eating, to parenting, etc. Advice is no substitute for experience. You know, unless your instincts stink.
CC, why does Pollan hate Whole Foods? For diverting traffic away from the small farmer?
Posted by: Tammy | January 31, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Two thumbs up for Master Tammy. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version.
Posted by: Nina | January 31, 2007 at 05:16 PM
Ooooh, I had forgotten about that whole debate between Pollan and the CEO of Whole Foods - I'll have to go back and re-read it!
Posted by: Heath | February 01, 2007 at 07:25 AM
Tammy: Yeah, that's one way of putting it. Pollan thinks Whole Foods should carry local produce in each of its stores. Read here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/6/20/125716/262
Posted by: cookiecrumb | February 01, 2007 at 04:46 PM