Michael Pollan says, 'don't listen to scientists'

[Arisia]

Thanks for the tip. I'll look for it. I wish the market for "no sugar added" would take off.

I see more and more 'No HFCS!!' labels on things these days, that's a hopeful sign at least.

 

[jj]

"Don' listen to scientists" is a very successful meme these days. It's always been popular among the ignorant, but back to Scopes, the religious right was an enthusiastic proponent of denying science.

In the 1960's to 1980's, the lunatic left was doing its best to deny science any validity at all, from the "science is a male paradigm" nonsense to the utter blithering that was deconstructionism, and on to the idea that "all ideas are equal".

This set the stage for the current all-out attack on all of science and technology being run by the religious right, wherein we're up to 40% of the population believing in "creationism", not only Darwin but also relativity, cosmology, endocrine and genetic biology, and many other fields are under full-scale take-no-prisoners attack.

This attack, by the way, is also an attack on the very fundamentals of the USA, the USA having been founded in the Enlightenment movement, not as a "Christian Nation", and having been successful because of its full-scale adoption of technology and science, which is no longer the case.

The meme of "don't trust science" has already caused extensive harm to the USA and its population, and we're headed down the same road as the shore of North Africa in terms of going from 1st world to 3rd world religious theocracy, in fact, we're almost there, we've gotten to the point of religious bans encoded in law (stem cells, abortion, birth control) already.

The faux-nutritionists, along with the faux-audioscientists, the faux-medicine people, etc, are simply thieves and scoundrels who are taking advantage of the USA's rush to ignorance.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Thanks for the tip. I'll look for it. I wish the market for "no sugar added" would take off.

I'm not sure how you quantify taking off, but I see more and more foodstuffs labeled "no sugar added" or "no sodium added" or any number of other similar qualifications. I find it helpful.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

But then, how much expert food advice does a person really need? What in the world did people do back in the days before there were such critters as scientific experts?

They ate poor diets and suffered medical conditions?

 

[Muldur]

"Don' listen to scientists" is a very successful meme these days. It's always been popular among the ignorant, but back to Scopes, the religious right was an enthusiastic proponent of denying science.

*snip rest for space*

Why am I not surprised to hear yet ANOTHER anti-religion diatribe from you jj?

Science is not infallible. In fact, "experts" of all types turn out to be wrong much more often than most people realize.

I'd recommend the book "Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us And How to Know When Not to Trust Them." (by David H Freedman) VERY enlightening, but don't read it unless you're prepared to have your world-view shifted.

http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-consultants/dp/0316023787

 

[Mr.D]

Science is not infallible.

Who's saying it is?

In fact, "experts" of all types turn out to be wrong much more often than most people realize.

The logical conclusion to this is NOT "Therefore don't listen to experts."

 

[slingblade]

Science is not infallible.

Unlike god, science knows it's not infallible.

 

[Naive1000]

Science is not infallible. In fact, "experts" of all types turn out to be wrong much more often than most people realize.

Science is self-correcting. Religion is not.

 

[Polaris]

(Font size and spacing changes mine)

I think ignorance despite 'other' knowledge is the problem. Pollen needs to meet the skeptical community. Maybe he'll get email.


I read The Omnivore's Dilemma. It was a bit of a slog but had some interesting information and was clearly well researched. Farm subsidies for corn producers is having a serious impact in a negative way on our average diets. The Libertarians among us should be very concerned as the subsidies are changing the food market with little benefit.

Pollen noted how excess corn syrup creates its own markets including massive use in the soft drink industry. In other words as the corn piles up, new uses for it evolve. Whether you think high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is worse than the calories supplied in other forms or not, it is frustrating for me when I can't find a lot of foods that don't have it. I don't want any sugar in my spaghetti sauce. Clearly it's popular with others, but I feel my food choices are limited when there is HFCS in every spaghetti sauce on the shelf. I understand a little sugar does something to tomatoes that is desirable in the sauce. But when HFCS is in the ingredients, the sauce is much too sweet tasting.

He also notes how super-sizing encourages overconsumption which is a no brainer but Pollen discusses the marketing mechanisms involved that might give more insight to people even if the outcome of super-sizing is obvious.


Pollen has heard too many industry science whores and doesn't understand that it is not actual science. He gets it the scientists that work for the corn producers are untrustworthy. There is a propaganda organization called the Corn Refiners Association that is the single source for a few peer reviewed papers extolling the non contribution of HFCS to the obesity problem in the US. When you do a lit search for HFCS and obesity, you find the papers finding no relationship all come from one guy who works for this organization. Pollen may not know there are real scientists out there.

Have you thought about making it from scratch and freezing it? I do it all the time, it's better tasting, and I know exactly what goes into it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have you thought about making it from scratch and freezing it? I do it all the time, it's better tasting, and I know exactly what goes into it.

Maybe after I retire.

 

[Dymanic]

They ate poor diets and suffered medical conditions?

Did they? More so than today?

Is that a fact that (at least partly) drives our modern obsession with nutrition, or is it an assumption that just sort of logically follows along after? I mean, we now take a scientific approach to eating -- as well as farming, and preparing food (which we now call "processing"). A lot of time and energy has been devoted to developing that science, and even though trying to keep track of the various findings can be like having a net's-eye-view at a tennis match, we must be getting something of value in return for all of that. Right? So what evidence is there that eating-related medical disorders were more common "back then" than they are now?

Arbitrarily, say the year 1900 -- a dozen years before a fellow by the name of Casimir Funk coined the term "vitamin". About a third of the US population lived on farms. What sort of eating-related medical conditions were common at that time (or, if you prefer, at some other point in time of your choosing)?

 

[tyr_13]

I suggest you start here on wikipedia's foodborne illness page. Then continue on to look at other countries today who are using 1900's era technology and practices and see what sort of food problems they have to deal with.

Seriously. I know you think this is all about science doing very little to improve nutrition in food, but science has had other problems to deal with in regards to food such as safety and supply. It hasn't been until recently that 'nutrition' was an issue. I say 'nutrition' because really the only issues Pollan (sorry for misspelling his name in the thread title although I did spell it correctly in the tags) has legs to stand on are the over consumption of calories, salt, and sugar. With food production he has some valid criticisms as well.

But his solutions are a mixed bag with one of the main ingredients being ********. The big problem with having a mixed bag of solutions including a lot of ******** is that everything in it gets covered with the ********. Suddenly even the issue smells like ******** and people don't take it seriously.

 

[ZirconBlue]

You say its a simple, "duh" idea, and yet every time a thread about nutrition comes up, most people balk at the idea that their diets should be mostly based on fruits and vegetables and act like this is the most idiotic idea they've ever heard, and will make posts literally claiming that eating a diet of primarily pasta and beans is nutritions.

Well, if "mostly plants" doesn't include a lot of plants, like legumes, then maybe it's not as good advice as it sounds at first.

Hunt's Garlic and Herb (the pasta sauce that comes in 26 oz. cans). It doesn't have any added sweetener in it, at least that was the case the last time I bought it last month. Their other flavors do have added sweeteners, so make sure you find the Garlic and Herb flavor. I think they have a 'No sugar added' variety, too, but I like the G&H well enough, so I stick with that. As far as 'gourmet' brands, I know that Bove's (you might only find it in the northeast US, since it's a restaurant in Burlington, VT) has no added sweeteners in their Marinara or Roasted Garlic sauces.

I recommend Classico brand. My favorite varieties, like Tomato & Basil, and Spicy Tomato and Pesto, contain no added sugars. The varieties that do at least use sugar rather than HFCS. As a general rule, I prefer sauces that contain no more than 6g of sugars per serving.

But then, how much expert food advice does a person really need? What in the world did people do back in the days before there were such critters as scientific experts?

Doesn't "scientific experts" include Doctors?

 

[Dymanic]

I suggest you start here on wikipedia's foodborne illness page.

I see the foodborne illness issue as completely separate from the nutrition issue. It does not seem to me to be a very advanced scientific concept that contaminated food is unhealthy food. Not only that, but incidents involving serious and widespread consequences from foodborne illness are becoming increasingly frequent, and I'm prepared to argue that our modern system of food production and distribution is causing those problems rather than alleviating them.

Then continue on to look at other countries today who are using 1900's era technology and practices and see what sort of food problems they have to deal with.

I suggest that we look specifically at what sort of nutrition problems they have to deal with. I suppose we could count malnutrition, but there again we hardly need to consult scientists. The first of Pollan's three duh precepts, "Eat Food" pretty much covers it, don't you think? And to make it a fair comparison, let's make sure we aren't biasing our observations by selecting countries where success in agriculture is severely constrained by poor soil conditions or unfavorable climate. Did you have any particular places in mind?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I just finished watching Stephen Colbert interviewing Michael Pollan about his new book. Aside from advocating taxing pop, this line stuck out at me. It was alone the lines of, "we've listened to scientists too much about food."

I'm sure the interview will be up on the website within the next day or so, so we can get the exact words then.

This sentiment is what gets me stabby about a lot of nutrition, organic, and 'real food' advocates. They imagine that it's the scientists fault we're getting fat. Whatever legitimate concerns they bring up, they tend to toss in some other claims contrary to the best science, and bolster their claims by trying to tie the health problems to scientists.

He also seemed to take pride in not being an expert. Great.

He was involved with Food, Inc.

Enough said.

 

[Number Six]

The "real food" talk raises my BS meter. The food that some refuse to call "real food" is obviously real food and a refusal to be honest on such a basic thing seems dumb, as well as counterproductive to their cause.

I get the impression that if a frozen food that could be heated up in five minutes in a microwave and be very healthy were invented (if it doesn't exist already) then some food advocates would still be against it. If that's the case then it seems it's not about food in the first place. That's not to say some of the things that the "real food" folks say aren't good ideas but there is definitely a component of lifestyle religion in there too.

As someone else earlier in this thread said, what is the difference between (a) preparing a meal and eating it now and (b) preparing a meal, freezing it and eating it later? Assuming you're not freezing it for an extremely long time it's essentially the same meal either way.

 

[Dymanic]

He was involved with Food, Inc.

Enough said.

Enough to accomplish what?

 

[tyr_13]

I see the foodborne illness issue as completely separate from the nutrition issue. It does not seem to me to be a very advanced scientific concept that contaminated food is unhealthy food. Not only that, but incidents involving serious and widespread consequences from foodborne illness are becoming increasingly frequent, and I'm prepared to argue that our modern system of food production and distribution is causing those problems rather than alleviating them.

You didn't ask for nutrition issues, you said food related medical issues. I was pointing out that science has, and continues to, reduce the problems of foodborne illness.

But if you are prepared to argue that modern food production is causing such problems please do. I can think of examples of poorly regulated food industry causing problems myself. However, those aren't as prevalent as they were in the past and are able to be addressed with new science and better regulation.

I suggest that we look specifically at what sort of nutrition problems they have to deal with. I suppose we could count malnutrition, but there again we hardly need to consult scientists. The first of Pollan's three duh precepts, "Eat Food" pretty much covers it, don't you think? And to make it a fair comparison, let's make sure we aren't biasing our observations by selecting countries where success in agriculture is severely constrained by poor soil conditions or unfavorable climate. Did you have any particular places in mind?

China and Mexico. Start reading up on Dr. Pauling, how breeding new strains of rice with better nutrient content, and needing less water and fertilizer fed Mexico, China, and the Middle East. If you want examples of what modern research can do for the world, Dr. Pauling is exhibit A.

 

[Dymanic]

You didn't ask for nutrition issues, you said food related medical issues.

Here is that exchange, stripped down:
Me: "What in the world did people do back in the days before there were such critters as scientific experts?
Tsukasa Buddha : "They ate poor diets and suffered medical conditions?"
Me: "Did they? More so than today?"
You: "I suggest you start here on wikipedia's foodborne illness page."

Do you see the point at which one of us made the jump from talking about diet and nutrition to foodborne illness? I mean, I don't mind addressing that, but just in case it comes up again, I do suggest that we ignore at least some medical issues which might potentially be considered food-related, such as choking on a bite of hotdog, being scalded by hot coffee, or getting flattened by a UPS truck while dashing across the street for a Big Mac.

I was pointing out that science has, and continues to, reduce the problems of foodborne illness.

I will not dispute the fact that science continues to make efforts to reduce those problems. In fact, those efforts are on the increase, not the least reason being that the incidents themselves are on the increase. I hope you will note my careful choice of phrasing when I say that what I am prepared to argue is that it is our modern system of food production and distribution that is causing this increase. It's not the science. Our food system is not run by scientists. It's run by profiteers.

But if you are prepared to argue that modern food production is causing such problems please do.

Thanks. Don't mind if I do. We can take a look at what Pollan has to say about that, as well as what the W.H.O. and the CDC and some others have to say on emerging diseases and the safety of our food supply and whatnot -- but first, I wonder if there might be a couple of things we might agree on at the outset. Would you accept it as rather obvious that cattle confined in close quarters where they are forced to stand up to their hocs in their own feces are more likely to become diseased than cattle that are allowed free range? Does that proposition strike you as consistent with the modern, scientific, germ theory of disease? How about the proposition that simply because of greater size of today's food system, pathogens which enter our food supply today are likely to be spread across much greater distances and affect many more people than would have been the case around the year 1900?

I can think of examples of poorly regulated food industry causing problems myself. However, those aren't as prevalent as they were in the past and are able to be addressed with new science and better regulation.

Can you cite those examples, and be more specific about just what the prevalence was in the past compared to what it is now?

Start reading up on Dr. Pauling, how breeding new strains of rice with better nutrient content, and needing less water and fertilizer fed Mexico, China, and the Middle East.

I think you're still talking about basic caloric intake there, so -- again -- covered by Pollan's first precept. I don't see it as particularly relevant to the conundrum faced by the US shopper who can't put an item in the grocery cart without first taking the time to carefully read the nutrition label so as to make sure it contains the right amount of niacin to boost that all-important HDL... or whatever. We have become a nation of nutritionists. Pollan asks why. He's a journalist. That's what journalists do. I think it's a good question. He appears to have done his homework, and I find his answers enlightening. I often see people eager to dismiss his findings, but I never seem to see any of those critics take the approach of revealing the flaws in those findings by examining them in detail. It usually takes the form of arm-waving. Just sayin'.

If you want examples of what modern research can do for the world, Dr. Pauling is exhibit A.

I've probably spent more time perusing examples of modern research than did all of the three generations of my family before me put together, so I think you'll have a hard time getting the Luddite label to stick. What I find most relevant here is what a massive food processing and marketing industry is doing for the world, and how that influences -- and is influenced by -- government policy.

 

[tyr_13]

Here is that exchange, stripped down:
Me: "What in the world did people do back in the days before there were such critters as scientific experts?
Tsukasa Buddha : "They ate poor diets and suffered medical conditions?"
Me: "Did they? More so than today?"
You: "I suggest you start here on wikipedia's foodborne illness page."

Do you see the point at which one of us made the jump from talking about diet and nutrition to foodborne illness?

Um, yes, you did. You asked for medical conditions related to diet, and that is what you received.

I mean, I don't mind addressing that, but just in case it comes up again, I do suggest that we ignore at least some medical issues which might potentially be considered food-related, such as choking on a bite of hotdog, being scalded by hot coffee, or getting flattened by a UPS truck while dashing across the street for a Big Mac.

I will not dispute the fact that science continues to make efforts to reduce those problems. In fact, those efforts are on the increase, not the least reason being that the incidents themselves are on the increase.

Over what timescale and to what level? Again, compared to the time around 1900, still plenty of advancement.

I hope you will note my careful choice of phrasing when I say that what I am prepared to argue is that it is our modern system of food production and distribution that is causing this increase. It's not the science. Our food system is not run by scientists. It's run by profiteers.

In which case the goalposts have been moved.

Thanks. Don't mind if I do. We can take a look at what Pollan has to say about that, as well as what the W.H.O. and the CDC and some others have to say on emerging diseases and the safety of our food supply and whatnot -- but first, I wonder if there might be a couple of things we might agree on at the outset. Would you accept it as rather obvious that cattle confined in close quarters where they are forced to stand up to their hocs in their own feces are more likely to become diseased than cattle that are allowed free range? Does that proposition strike you as consistent with the modern, scientific, germ theory of disease? How about the proposition that simply because of greater size of today's food system, pathogens which enter our food supply today are likely to be spread across much greater distances and affect many more people than would have been the case around the year 1900?

Actually on second thought lets not. There are threads on that already, and I don't want the goalposts moved so far/derail this thread. I will say however that the overall effect still results if far less death, disease and suffering than around the year 1900.

Can you cite those examples, and be more specific about just what the prevalence was in the past compared to what it is now?

I think you're still talking about basic caloric intake there, so -- again -- covered by Pollan's first precept. I don't see it as particularly relevant to the conundrum faced by the US shopper who can't put an item in the grocery cart without first taking the time to carefully read the nutrition label so as to make sure it contains the right amount of niacin to boost that all-important HDL... or whatever. We have become a nation of nutritionists. Pollan asks why. He's a journalist. That's what journalists do. I think it's a good question. He appears to have done his homework, and I find his answers enlightening. I often see people eager to dismiss his findings, but I never seem to see any of those critics take the approach of revealing the flaws in those findings by examining them in detail. It usually takes the form of arm-waving. Just sayin'.

No, I specifically used an example of higher nutritional value overall. You'll have to try better to hand wave it. Pollan isn't being a journalist asking questions. That's a remarkably feeble claim, as his at least three books on eating would tend to show and his latest one giving rules for eating flat-out disproves.

I've probably spent more time perusing examples of modern research than did all of the three generations of my family before me put together, so I think you'll have a hard time getting the Luddite label to stick. What I find most relevant here is what a massive food processing and marketing industry is doing for the world, and how that influences -- and is influenced by -- government policy.

No one has tried to label you a Luddite, so that's an odd statement to say the least. Again, you're moving the goal posts from 'don't listen to scientists' and to problems in the food industry and government. Even more frustrating is that even if one accepts many of those issues as valid problems, it does not follow that Pollan's recommendations are thus worthy ones. One can agree with Pollan on some of the problems and disagree on the proposed solutions.