Michael Pollan Discusses "In Defense of Food"

The Michael Pollan event was wildly successful. Thousands of people showed up to hear him speak, whether they agreed with the information in his book or not. In addition to this, his speech was entertaining. Pollan made the event casual and incorporated jokes. The audience interaction was strong; people were receptive to what he was saying. Even those who did not necessarily agree were responsive in a positive manner.

Michael Pollan makes some strong points that are hard to argue with. As a hopeful future dietitian, although he insults the profession a little bit, I must admit that a lot of what he claims makes sense. The first point he made that stuck out to me was about the “American Paradox”. Pollan claims that for a nation who obsesses about nutrition, we have very poor nutritional health. I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why nutritional science is a good major to have—people are obsessed with eating properly and seem to need the guidance dietitians can provide. To go along with this, Pollan also said that when nutrients are what matters, people become dependent on scientists to tell others about foods to eat. As I think about this more, it seems a little pathetic that we’re the only animal species that’s needs an entire group of professionals to determine what’s good and bad to eat. However, at the same time I feel conflicted because learning nutritional science is what I feel passionate about. What kind of future does the nutritional science profession hold? I’m not quite sure, but dietitians seem to be needed and not needed at the same time.

This brings me to the second point Pollan made that I felt was powerful: nutritional science is a young science. It’s promising, interesting, but not quite 100% yet. He compared nutritional science now to what surgical science was like in the 1600s. This is a much more promising view to me. I took this statement as nutritional science experts were needed in order to get this science up to high standards, which makes me feel confident about my future in dietetics. The Western Diet is one that definitely needs to be altered, and I want to be a part of that change. Michael Pollan made a point that I had never really thought about until his speech: we are always trying to determine a “satanic” nutrient, or a “blessed” nutrient, and our views on these nutrients keep switching and changing. Since the status of nutrients is never constant, people are left feeling unsure and insecure about what to eat, which is why dietitians and nutritional scientists are so heavily relied on.

One other comment Pollan made was, “We got fat on the low-fat diet.” Most of the bad fats we consume are the ones we invented in an effort to be healthier. The low-fat foods and nutrients may be low-fat, but are high in other bad fats. Nutritionists are now trying to point this out to those who are frustrated with their weight. Pollan said, “Nutritionists are the guides”. For the sake of my future profession, I hope it will remain this way for a long time.

Thoughts on Section I of "In Defense of Food"

In Section I of In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan's view on nutrition is keeping it simple. Throughout this book so far, it seems that what he’s trying to do is put things in perspective. He is re-focusing his image (and perhaps ours as well), while viewing the big picture.

One point Pollan makes is that food used to be a good thing—it was social, bonding, and beneficial. I agree with this statement. Now it seems that people are afraid to eat the way past generations used to—they didn’t care what the food was. If it tasted good, why not? We’ve gotten so caught up in eating “the right things”, we’ve forgotten how to enjoy it altogether.

However, Pollan makes a certain point at the beginning of his book that I feel conflicted about: “What other animal needs professional help in deciding what it should eat?” My major is dietetics, and I hope to go into a nutritional field one day. By Pollan making this statement, my future career in dietetics and nutritional science is not looking favorable. Although fortunately for me, people out there still feel they need massive amounts of guidance when it comes to nutrition and being healthy.

“Speak no more of food, only nutrients” was another important point brought up in the book. Pollan mentions nutrition experts only talk about nutrients, rather than food in general, which can be harmful. Every day more and more contradicting arguments and studies about nutrients are coming out. We seem to be working around food instead of just eating it. The food vs. nutrients ordeal has gone on far too long.

Philip Brewer, author of an In Defense of Food review blog, agrees with Pollan’s main objective: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” We are hearing too much information rather than keeping it simple, which is how Brewer describes In Defense of Food. Brewer claims the book is straightforward, and I agree. My feelings on the book so far: eat in moderation, and you’ll be fine.

Preview of "In Defense of Food" Review by Philip Brewer: "The message of this book is simple: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Michael Pollan gives it away right at the start, so I don't feel too bad doing the same. If you already eat food, but you worry about health and nutrition, you'll find this book fascinating and important. If, on the other hand, you're the sort of person who tends to eat less food and more "edible substances" and "food products," you will instead find this book important and fascinating..."

http://www.wisebread.com/book-review-in-defense-of-food