Just before time ran out on their TOTN Science Friday radio segment, last Friday, Ira asked Michael Pollan an important question, Why should anyone listen to a guy who has never plowed a field in his life talk about farming? In those last seconds Pollan accurately pointed out that as “eaters” we are all stakeholders in the food system. Perhaps time or humility prevented Pollan from going much further.
I’d like to submit that although, as eaters, we all need to get involved in discussing and shaping our government’s farm policy, one man who we all need to hear from is Michael Pollan – not just because he’s an eater (and a gardener). As a journalist, Pollan gives us the “big picture” that mere eaters and farmers would, otherwise, have a tough time getting. Few of the rest of us have the skills or could find the time to research all the politics, economics and the science that we would need to put it all in perspective.
It’s great that Pollan gets to be heard on radio, TV and Web interviews. Interviews lead one to wonder who is this guy and why should we listen to him? Fortunately, the answer can be found in his writings. I feel that anyone who reads his detailed articles and comprehensive books will not only be enriched, but also inspired. I know I have been. In an era when journalism has lost so much of it’s luster, Pollan’s work reminds us what it’s all about.
Amen. I couldn’t agree more… both as to Mr. Pollan’s ability to illuminate many aspects of food issues AND as to the need for more and better “big picture” journalism. Thank you SciFri.
What a great question to ask, but is the answer really that we should listen to him because of what he’s saying (i.e. in his writings)? There’s no denying Pollan has a great ability to put together a story and appeal to our sense of what *seems* right, but when the question was asked on Friday I found myself wondering the same thing. Pollan gave a reasonable argument in defense of himself, but I can’t help but feel that we shouldn’t necessarily *listen* to him, though we should certainly hear him and take it into consideration!
While Pollan makes wome interesting observations, his advice to include meat, butter, lard and saturated fat in our diet is dangerous and wrong.
Who should we listen to? We should listen to scientists and doctors that base their decisions on scientific research.
Look at the first four comments to the USDA on the 2010 Dietary Guidlines for Americans, by doctors that base their opinions on sound scientific facts: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm
———————————-
John McDougall, MD wrote:
So far the dietary guideline have made no meaningful impact on the health of Americans. Please spend time looking over the benefits of a diet based on the starchy foods that have caused billions of people to be trim, active, young and healthy. For example the Asians on rice, people from rural Mexico on beans and corn, the Peruvians on potatoes, the people from New Guinea on sweet potatoes. Americans are sick because the focus of their diet is not on starch, but instead on meat and dairy products and refined foods. Only a serious change in our diet will cause serious change in people’s health. I would be happy to share more thoughts on this if you would like.
———————————–
Dr. Hans Diehl wrote:
In harmony with the Cancer Guidelines issues by the World Cancer Reserach Fund and the work done by Neal Barnard, (Reversing Diabetes) T. Colin Campbell (The China Study) and Caldwell Esselstyn (Clevelandclinic on Reversing CHD) and in view of ecological consideration, would it not be wise to take another and more serious look at the advantages of a more plant-food centered low fat diet diet high in vegetables, fruits and legumes? Many of us in the field of epidemiology view the scientific evidence as rather compelling.
Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr. M.D. wrote:
Evidence based research and epidemiological studies leave no doubt that the epidemic of cardiovascular disease results from consuming the typical Western diet of processed oils, dairy, meat, sugar and processed flour, Recent research indicates that within minutes of ingestion of oil, dairy and meat products there is measurable injury to the endothelial cell compromising its ability to produce nitric oxide. This gas is the life jacket which protects our blood vessels from developing cardiovascular disease. Furthermore patients with severe coronary artery disease have been able to halt and reverse the disease when eliminating these products from their nutrition. The western diet as presently outlined in our food pyramid is responsible for carotid artery thickening in 12 years olds, a call for statin drugs in children, type ll diabetes in adolescents, the need for coronary artery byapss surgery in adolescents and the finding that coronary artery disease is ubiquitous in those between the ages of 16 and 34 years who have died from accidents, homicides and suicides. This epidemic of cardiovascular disease is totally preventable, but presently the foods which produce this disease are touted as healthy in the food pyramid. Science of the 21st century clearly refutes the health claims of the present food pyramid. Public awareness of the necessity to optimally preserve endothial function will be a revolution in our national health.
————————————-
Neal Barnard, M.D. wrote:
It is essential that the Dietary Guidelines address Americans as they are. That is, most Americans are overweight, the vast majority have the beginnings of atherosclerosis, if not fully developed cardiovascular disease, and many have other diet-related health problems, such as hypertension or diabetes. It is a mistake to draft Guidelines as if Americans are healthy and trim. By way of introduction, I am a physician and clinical researcher who studies the clinical effects of nutritional interventions. More and more research shows that low-fat, plant-based diets are most effective for prevention and treatment of chronic diseases that plague our nation. In light of recent publications highlighting the benefits of low-fat vegetarian and vegan diets (see attached), I think that a critically important question in need of an Evidence-based Review by this esteemed committee is, ?What role can low-fat vegetarian and vegan diets play in the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases, particularly obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer??
——————————-
Follow the science, not the hype!
Be well,
-dog
Thank you for your comment, sir (dog). I have been a vegetarian for years, but also include a fairly large amount of fats in my diet – generally from local dairy products or nuts and oils.
Personally, I feel that after having read some of Pollan’s work (though I missed the radio article) that he was initially suggesting no particular diet, but rather introducing the dilemma.
This may have changed, however what I took from it – and what I have believed for years – is that an informed, holistic and simultaneously personal-based diet works best for any individual today. Meaning, our genetic code, particularly in the U.S., comes from many regions of the world.
Address one’s moral and ethical believes, inform oneself on chemicals and additives, processes and methods, and listen to one’s own bodies history and responses. Though posts here point to science, and I do not disagree, my experience has been that every excellent physician appreciates an informed and proactive patient. Again, thanks for your post.
–Richard
Pollan is a gardener, and did do some farming work in preparation for his book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.” While not extensive (i.e., year round), he did work with Joel Salatin on Polyface Farm in Virginia in his efforts to understand Salatin’s organic growing process.
As for Pollan’s suggestion that we include fat in our diets:
1. He didn’t say that fat should be all we eat, nor even a majority of what we eat.
2. He’s arguing for fats that occur naturally in our foods as opposed to processed fats that are supposed to be healthier because the amount of fat has been reduced. Processed and reduced fat foods tend to loose their actual association with their origin as food for our human diet.
3. Pollan calls for a diet that balances vegetables, grains, dairy, and meats and/or other proteins. In the Omivore’s dilemma he does suggest consuming meat, but not as the main portion of one’s diet. Vegetable food consumption should make up most of the human diet.
I think you’ll find that Pollan is in line with nutrition science, and is not on a hype boat. If science somehow finds that ingesting all of the chemicals in processed foods is good for us, then you can argue against Pollan’s dietary recommendations.
Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
It appears that you have not read Pollan’s book “In defense of Food.” He goes into detail about the lipid hypothesis. It is not supported by the evidence. He gives references. Pollan is also critical of food scientists and journalists for the confusing message that they broadcast, and rightly so.
It is worth noting that Pollan is way ahead of the curve. Reading his article in the NY Times from 1991, today, without looking at the date, one has to wonder….