We will discuss Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food at our meeting on Wednesday, January 16th, at 4:15 p.m. in the GAHS library. Please post questions, comments, concerns, criticism, and the like on this blog prior to, during, or after our meeting (before January 23rd if you want grade-replacement credit). All questions and responses should indicate an active reading of the text and function to move the conversation forward. (Note: surface-level or obvious questions and responses will not count as participation for grade replacement.)
Those of you unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts may participate in the discussion below by posting a discussion question and offering a detailed response, or by responding to two questions already posted. The note above applies here as well, so heed it!
Question: Do the farmers of the world already have to much on their plate?
I think that it is only a matter of time before our recourses will no longer be enough to provide for us. With the incessantly growing population one has to wonder when our numbers will hit maximum capacity? Pollan suggests that we need more diversity in our diets, and to elaborate on my question how can we expect farms to keep up with our population while growing less efficient foods than soy wheat, and corn. It has already come to the point that those foods that are the most efficient at transforming sunlight, fertilizer, and water into nutrients need pesticides in order to insure a successful crop. Imagine how much chemicals we would have to add to leaves (as Pollan refers to them) in order to achieve a successful crop.. In addition to the effects on our farms it would also have a rather sizable effect on our economy. Being that we have “the bread basket of the world” if we dramatically dropped the consumption of wheat one would think that it would also drop the revenue for that wheat putting people out of work. I should also qualify that last statement by saying that the reason we are ” the bread basket of the world” is because we have the appropriate climate for it, so it would be difficult if not impossible to change crops. I understand the health benefits that would come from “leaves instead of seeds”, however I don’t understand how it would work. I find myself appreciating how many choices in my day to day life I do have, and understand that in being one in around seven trillion that sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order to remain in homeostasis. By that I mean that I’ll take the plunge and eat the foods containing wheat, soy and corn, if it means that everyone gets fead.
This is a very interesting question Sam, and I agree with you. The world population is now estimated to have risen above 7 billion and we are simply running out of land and supplies in order to continue to provide for everyone. It seems like our society has become dependent on the providers instead of themselves to provide their own food like before industrialism. The question is then will we return to a previous era in order to provide for ourselves and have “leaves instead of seeds” or continue on the path we are headed with industrialized foods and food industries in it for the profit.
On the topic of food, farmers have too much to handle. They often have two choices: One, produce food using modern technology advancements, such as growth hormone, a popular additive in chickens (animals that are now 4 times their natural weight, so heavy that they struggle to walk) food is being produced more rapidly and in greater amounts than ever before, or two, produce food naturally and rapidly fall behind competing farmers and producers, for their production will be much lower, and the “organic” foods which they produce will simply not be enough quantitatively to be competitive in the market. Therefore, farmers have too much to handle. They must either assimilate and often unethically but more efficiently produce food or get swept away as they attempt to retain environmental standards which have long been overlooked.
Question: Is “nutritionism” really the problem?
Answer: Pollan creates a very interesting argument about how reinforced foods yield many difficulties regarding one’s health. While it is tempting to believe this, I have a hard time seeing it as true. For example, if society were to regress back to traditional foods, such as in the 19th and early 20th century, would anyone really expect to be “healthier” than they are now? Increased athletic performance by consecutive generations and lowered mortality rates due to food say otherwise. Now that more supplemented foods are available, athletes can receive the vitamins and proteins necessary to develop more fully than their predecessors. Additionally, the previous centuries have experienced more diseases that caused deaths than recent years. And while medical advancements do play a role in this, nutrition gathered from food also has a significant impact. Therefore, nutrition most likely has a positive impact on humans. Also, as a vegetarian, I can’t receive nutrients from meat in an orthodox fashion. I must take supplements and fortified foods to receive these nutrients. And, if they didn’t work, I’d most likely wouldn’t be alive. So, since nutrition enriched foods do show a positive impact, then why are people complaining about modern diets. Well, Pollan does have a point that fortified foods can harm people. But, they do not harm people because of the addition of nutrients themselves. Instead, the pairing of nutrients to an already unhealthy food can result into a fickle consumer’s digestion of that food through marketing techniques. For example, say Burger King adds Vitamin C to their Double Whopper. They would then advertise this all the way to the bank, as capricious customers will believe it is “healthy.” In reality, the extra Vitamin C will be so negligible, that it will hardly have an impact. And what many people forget, is that the 1 milligram addition of Vitamin C does not compensate or eradicate the conglomerate of calories and fat. The consequences still outweigh the benefits. Therefore, nutritionism is not the problem. The way that it is used by companies to endorse their unhealthy foods, however, is.
Virang, I believe you make a very good point. I do think that nutritionalism has become a factor, but maybe not so bad as to be called a problem. You mention athletes and how nutritionalism may have helped them grow stronger and better than previous generations, which is no doubt part of the new nutritional breakthroughs and understandings, but Pollan looks over the population in general, whereas athletes have a tendency to eat better than others may. As an athlete myself I understand the importance of nutrition but while I don’t use vitamins, I do eat more “real food” and am more aware of what I take in.
Q: Is all the progression of food doing any good for the human, or is it only benifiting companies?
A: After pushing past all the advertising in the health industry, that certain food can help you lose weight, it seems that all that is left is a bunch of chemicals put into a box with packaging around it. Technology is always advancing, and food isn’t far behind. The food markets and companies are only trying to help better the human diet, but most of the foods were fine before scientist started messing with them. I can’t say that scientist haven’t helped with the evolution of food, but the change is so slim, that it rarely even matters. Trying to change the way food is called and appears doesn’t make it anymore tasteful. Food companies try to twist words around saying what is healthy isnt and what is healthy is. Food companies aren’t out to get us, but another change in a food label can’t make anyone drop 20 pounds.
Emily I think you are right that the progression of food has really done nothing to benefit the people. I believe that this progression of good has decreased the quality of our food and almost made some of it disgusting because it’s barely even real food. I do understand the need for lower prices of ways to produce food to make it more cost effective for consumers, but I believe the quality of the food should come first. What is the purpose of having this cheap, gross food if it is so bad for our health? Our health should be way more important than the cheapness of food. I definitely think the food industry benefits from this way of food processing because it’s simple for them and they make more money. That’s all business is about. They care for our health only to pass by the FDA but after that they couldn’t care much less. They want money, no matter how they get it.
I also find myself somewhat in agreement. Big business have dominated the course of America and essentially direct political action as well. This increase in food production due to growth hormones and genetic engineering is both good and bad for the people. The good is that food is more readily available and cheaper to all humans, but the bad is the subsidizing of unhealthy foods. This explains why a head of lettuce would be more expensive than a whopper. The subsidizing of food by the government only benefits the unhealthy American, and the big business who made money off this.
It’s crazy to me how American has changed what they most want throughout the centuries. Always thought Americans were all about carbohydrates. I never knew that they switched food types throughout the centuries. When Pollan was talking about Rozin’s study, the answers blew my mind. I always thought the foods that were picked most would be the most beneficial, but the ones that were least picked were actually it. The information in this book really helps you to see food in a different light. Eating certain foods doesn’t always help you like you think it does because as he quotes “The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science, is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of the food, the food out of the context of the diet, and the diet out of the context of the lifestyle”.
Question: Why is it that each century has the feeling that a certain type of nutrient, for example protein or carbohydrate, is the most beneficial to you? Thinking that one nutrient is above all others makes no sense to me, especially when it changes every century.
Why would they stop making processed foods? That is a multi-billion dollar industry for people. The heads of these companies would never stop making something that generates so much money. All anyone cares about nowadays is money. They don’t care about the health of Americans or anyone else. All they care about is profit. So if these factories were to stop, tycoon heads would lose all their profit, Americans would be outraged because they wouldn’t get their junky food, and many people would be out of work. All of this leads to an outraged American society. We Americans would rather be fat and have out processed food than to be healthy and not have them. That us why the will not stop making processed food.
I agree with Chris’s response to the overall opinion of the book. I think that most parts were dry and slow but I learned more from this book than any other I’ve ever read. I also think that this wasn’t just a book but also was like a weight loss program all wrapped into one. The author at some points used fear and intimidation to force his readers into reading that part of the book closer. Especially when it came to diseases and things that can easily kill a human, even I became skeptical of the sandwich I was eating at the time. It was weird to think that food that is supposed to be “safe” and “okay to eat” can kill me faster and could possibly lead to deadly diseases. It’s almost like a false hope and I hate not knowing. Furthermore, as the world and technology advance, so will our food and products humans create. The book explains how we have “more than 7 million new food products a year” and as we get farther and farther away from our roots with growing and taking things solely from the earth, we will get more diseased and have more issues.
Question: To elaborate more on Chris’s question, if we know that our processed food causes major issues with our health, why can’t we as a country or even as a world focus more on the natural things the earth gives us? I understand the jobs and the unhappiness, but cant we make people more aware and give them the choice to take control of their lives or not?
Answer: I don’t think there is a clear answer to my question. However I think most of my question can be answered through education. For example, by reading this book I learned about what effects processed foods and fats do to my body. I also learned that I can really eat anything in moderation as long as I include other aspects that are natural. If more people had a class or read a book in school or anything of that sort to teach them about their bodies and what makes it work, we would have a less diseased, fat, and dying society. As Chris said with how “money is the driving force behind everything…” let’s use some of that money and try to help our society instead of kill it.
It’s crazy to me how Americans have changed what they most want throughout the centuries. I Always thought Americans were all about carbohydrates. I never knew that they switched nutrient types throughout the centuries. When Pollan was talking about Rozin’s study, the answers blew my mind. I always thought the foods that were picked most would be the most beneficial, but the ones that were least picked were actually it. The information in this book really helps you to see food in a different light. Eating certain foods doesn’t always help you like you think it does because as he quotes “The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science, is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of the food, the food out of the context of the diet, and the diet out of the context of the lifestyle”.
Question: Why is it that each century has the feeling that a certain type of nutrient, for example protein or carbohydrate, is the most beneficial to you? Thinking that one nutrient is above all others makes no sense to me, especially when it changes every century.
I thought the book was very interesting. There were many parts of the book I did and didn’t agree with. I do believe our country and the food we eat has become, pretty much, disgusting. Our foods have become so processed that it’s almost not even real food. Some foods never even expire. Some of the food I eat, I don’t even think about what they do or how they make the food because I know I’ll be disgusted. I agree with him that fatty foods and the extremem amount of them we have can cause many chronic illnesses, but that is most certainly not the only cause.
My question is:
Why have we let our food get this far to the point where its almost not even food? Why is is so difficult to use natural ingredients to make more natural foods? And lastly, why is this issue so underrated in today’s society?
I think that the reason they don’t use natural ingredients all the time is because it is cheaper to make processed food and it can taste a lot better. It is more cost efficient to make things in bulk, and it would be harder and more expensive to do that using natural ingredients. Also we do not know how to use natural ingredients to the fullest extent, so food does not come out tasting as good. They have to make it processed to give it the extra flavor it needs to sell. I think that if we can unlock the full potential of natural ingredients, then we could possibly make a change to the major foods we eat and make them healthier for us.
Check this excerpt from article about “the Michael Pollan of clothing” in the January 2011 issue of The Believer magazine. If you want to read the whole thing, e-mail me and I’ll make a copy for you.
http://www.believermag.com/issues/201101/?read=article_selsberg
First off, I enjoyed the book as a whole. I found a few parts a little dry and slow, because it went into a little more detail than I would have liked. But other than that, I found the book very insightful, giving a whole new outlook on the diets of the world. After reading the section about what classifies as “foods,” I realize just how many things I eat that are just “imitators.” Whenever I see something like a poptart or Lay’s chips, I immediately jump to the conclusion that my great-great-grandmother would wonder what I was eating.
Question: What stops the food industry from making more radical changes? It’s obvious that many of the things that are being sold are killing us. Why can’t an immediate halt be put to processed foods.
Answer: Money. The driving force behind almost everything in life is money. Shutting down the Oreo industry would put thousands of people out of work. Cutting out the use of high fructose corn syrup would demolish Coca-Cola. If one company decided they wanted to help America out, the other companies would just increase their production to fill the public demand. And to ask for all soda companies to stop making and selling soda…well, that would be unreasonable in this lifetime. What’s contributing to the health problems of today is not just the selling of unhealthy products, but also the excess availability of it. Not once have I walked into a Walmart without a huge display of different sodas. It’s so easy to just walk down to the nearest gas station and pick up a soda, which is why some people do it every day. It becomes a part of their lifestyle. And why would these million-dollar industries want to break the habit, when it brings in billions of dollars each year? Unfortunately, it’s probably going to take a more serious reason than the hundreds of thousands of lives lost to heart disease corrolating to the intake of high fructose corn syrup, transfat, or anything else that’s doing more harm than good.
I understand where you are coming from, especially with the excess amount of processed foods and other unhealthy products, but I think there’s more to it than money. I don’t think your question can be answered fully on a blog. Money is a huge competitor for the business. I think also the taste. We have gotten so accustomed to the way these foods taste that we are addicted to them. It’s not easy for consumers to simply stop eating these foods. Then we’ve got the simplicity of making these foods. It’s all machine processed and simple to produce in bulk. Many factors have changed our foods and I think that it will stay that way for many years to come.
Why would they put a halt on processed foods? They make so much profit off of processed food that not making them would be unheard of to them. If they stop making those kinds of foods, then many factories could go out of business, business heads woudl not get the money that they want, Americans would be outraged, and many people would lose their jobs. So if processed foods were to be stopped, then what would happen would be a terrible thing for America as a whole. Lots of profit would just go out the window. Even though America would probably be healither overall, the heads of these companies would never let them stop making these quick, easy, unhealthy foods.