Are we in as much danger as this author suggests?

[Loss Leader]

no, they don't, the mean using unrefined and less well controlled amounts of pesticides and fertilizers, and doing your damnedest to deny animals proper veterinary care.

Organic food is by and large a fraud based on the naturalist fallacy, and it has a nasty side to it. It's much like people who favour herbal medicine because it's "natural".

"Organic," at least in the United States, has a very definite meaning that no one need argue about. When one says "organic" food in the US, this is exactly what one means.

Whether these should or should not be the "organic" standards or whether any logical fallacy is committed in defining these standards, this is what "organic" food is.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I was having a conversation with my dad over dinner earlier tonight, and he told me about a new book he had found out about on the internet.
The author of this book, Michael Pollan, has written other books, all of which appear to link together for they have similar topics.
The book I am questioning at the moment is titled 'In defence of food - An eaters manifesto'.
Now, I am not normally into low fat or healthier alternatives to regular foods, as I find they are generally not much better for you, they do not taste as good, and can hurt the hip pocket nerve. I also believe that they are not in fact any better for me than the original food. I am not trying to promote this book as my way of saying 'I told you so' though.

To get to my point, I am really asking for not only a more mature and educated opinion than my own on this book and food in general (of which a snippet can be read on his website, michaelpollan.com) but if what the author is saying is valid and correct, and if I am right to be skeptical about it.

New poster. Only four posts.

This sounds suspiciously like an advertisement for this book.

I'm skeptical of your intentions here, AshB.

~Dr. Imago

 

[rsaavedra]

This sounds suspiciously like an advertisement for this book.

I'm skeptical of your intentions here, AshB.

Bingo, I also thought the same.

In particular, the OP asks if he is right to be skeptical about what the book's author says, but he didn't really mention what the book's author says. He also didn't link to the book on Amazon, or a place with a review, but provided the author's website. This is probably a lame attempt to increase web traffic on it.

 

[Elizabeth I]

And everything cold tastes better if it is at room temperature and not out of the fridge.

Just sayin

What about ice cream?

(woke up feeling oppositional this morning...)

 

[LibraryLady]

New poster. Only four posts.

This sounds suspiciously like an advertisement for this book.

I'm skeptical of your intentions here, AshB.

~Dr. Imago

I'm going out on a limb here to say that since his other four posts are on divergent topics that he is not a shill and that we need to welcome younger skeptics.

 

[Loss Leader]

New poster. Only four posts.

This sounds suspiciously like an advertisement for this book.

I'm skeptical of your intentions here, AshB.

Michael Pollan is a mainstream author whose last book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, was named one of the ten best books of 2006 by the Times and the Washington Post. I doubt he needs the couple of dozen hits generated by some message board spam.

 

[Fiona]

What about ice cream?

(woke up feeling oppositional this morning...)

Oppositional but impeccably accurate. Would that I had such mornings

 

[Elizabeth I]

Oppositional but impeccably accurate. Would that I had such mornings

[expresses gratitude to Fiona with a gracious bow] <-- sorry, a wagging tail was the closest I could find to a "gracious bow"...

 

[rsaavedra]

Michael Pollan is a mainstream author whose last book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, was named one of the ten best books of 2006 by the Times and the Washington Post. I doubt he needs the couple of dozen hits generated by some message board spam.

Valid. Didn't know the author at all, but just checked on Amazon, Omnivore's dilemma is Amazon's 46th book on the best seller list. Trying to get more traffic to the author's website by posting on this forum would be way too lame to make it a valid motive for posting.

 

[krazyKemist]

What the heck kind of spelling is that?

Their spelling !!

 

[sol invictus]

Michael Pollan is a mainstream author whose last book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, was named one of the ten best books of 2006 by the Times and the Washington Post. I doubt he needs the couple of dozen hits generated by some message board spam.

That book is one of my favorites over the last several years. Pollan is a professor of journalism at UC Berkeley, and he writes in a journalistic way in the best sense - he presents information without forcing any point of view down your throat (his writing reminds me of the best of John McPhee).

The book is divided into three sections, each culminating in a meal (which he eats). Throughout each section he traces as well as he can where the ingredients originates and how they were processed. The first meal is from McDonald's, the second from a not-quite-organic farm in Virginia, and the third consists (almost) entirely of things he grows, harvests, or hunts himself.

It's a fascinating study of how we eat, including commentary on the organic movement, the philosophy of animal rights, and the local food movement. It is extremely good, and I recommend it without reservation.

 

[Loss Leader]

That book is one of my favorites over the last several years.

Without question, The Omnivore's Dilemma is the best book I have read on the subject, even better than Fast Food Nation. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

 

[fuelair]

Read Omnivore's Delight by the same author - it is the initial version of this - and this appears (based on data and reviews about it) to be written to cash in on the success of O.D. The (very brief) gist of both is that processed foods frequently have less nutrients and give less help to the body (consider that processed foods, the like of those we have now, were simply not available in the past. Some processing has been beneficial, but definitely not all (taste has been lost in many things - potatos and tomatos I can absolutely verify).
There is a very interesting book I am reading currently whose title is not right in front of me - I will write again later noting it - which is specifically on the history (late-40's through now) of the real and food-industry made-up history of the acceptance of pre-prepared/processed foods. Relates strongly to this.

Note, re-KM00 post, not necessarily organic, just less processed and less grown for transportation purposes rather than for taste/nutritional value. Many of the things required for "Organic" foods are perfectly silly.

I am only quoting myself because of the time that passed between the time I wrote it and the time the forum was able to get back up. The other book is: Something from the Oven (Reinventing Dinner in 1950s America) by Laura Shapiro. It looks at the process in a somewhat different way - including how the industry successfully blanded down most peoples taste expectations, partially overwhelmed the desire to feel good about cooking the regular way, etc. Very interesting!! (2004, Viking/Penguin/Large Print, Thorndike)

Though the 50s is emphasized, there is information about later developments also - which is why I noted the "through now" thing.

 

[Loss Leader]

I am only quoting myself because of the time that passed between the time I wrote it and the time the forum was able to get back up. The other book is: Something from the Oven (Reinventing Dinner in 1950s America) by Laura Shapiro. It looks at the process in a somewhat different way - including how the industry successfully blanded down most peoples taste expectations, partially overwhelmed the desire to feel good about cooking the regular way, etc. Very interesting!! (2004, Viking/Penguin/Large Print, Thorndike)

Though the 50s is emphasized, there is information about later developments also - which is why I noted the "through now" thing.

I'll look for it. Thanks.

 

[Beerina]

I watched him on CSpan on Sunday, oddly enough. He was pretty down to earth about the food/nutrition/health thing. I have the book on reserve, but I haven't read it yet.

Basically his thesis is that there is no one cure-all, healthy diet

Most food-related health problems seem to be due to too much food making you fat.

A person who ate a little, including cheeseburgers, would probably live longer than an obese person who was a lacto-vegetarian.

Eat less, lose weight, and you'll live longer, to say nothing of fewer joint problems and muscle strains.


I'm sure there are 400 lb. men who smoked, drank too much, and ate bacon cheeseburgers their whole lives. There just aren't too many of them.

 

[Loss Leader]

Most food-related health problems seem to be due to too much food making you fat.

A person who ate a little, including cheeseburgers, would probably live longer than an obese person who was a lacto-vegetarian.

Eat less, lose weight, and you'll live longer, to say nothing of fewer joint problems and muscle strains.

You've created a false dichotomy between a thin person who eats poorly an a heavy person who eats well. There is also the possibility of a thin person who eats well. That person may be healthier than a thin person who eats poorly (and probably is).

Moreover, you have posted no evidence other than your own opinion that total caloric excess is more important in determining overall health than what those calories consist of.

 

[Gevaudan]

Basically his thesis is that there is no one cure-all, healthy diet, but that our grandmothers cooked better than we do.

Not my grandmother. You know that commerical where a 50's-era lady is serving food to her family that has an entire stick of butter on each portion? Yeah, that was maw-maw. Ah well . . .

This really isn't anything new, I read a book years ago called something like "The Caveman Diet" that said basically the same thing.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I'm going out on a limb here to say that since his other four posts are on divergent topics that he is not a shill and that we need to welcome younger skeptics.

Well, still only four posts... Did anyone buy the book? (Is anyone going to buy it now that I bumped this thread?)

Free advertising. AHHHHH!!! Makes the heart all warm and tingly, don't it?

~Dr. Imago

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nevertheless, at least some real food tastes better than processed food. I can personally attest that free range chicken does have a better flavour and texture than battery produced. Tomatoes and potatoes also, as Fuelair stated. And everything cold tastes better if it is at room temperature and not out of the fridge.

Just sayin

Re the tomatoes and potatoes, how do you know which accounts for the difference in flavor when veges also differ by 'time since harvested' and 'seed variations'? If you eat veges the day they are picked/harvested the taste difference is tremendous. But whether or not someone sprayed for insects or added fertilizer prior to harvest may or may not affect the taste.

Also, "free range" may or may not indicate a different diet. You can scatter chicken feed in a pen just as easily as you can put it in a food bowl in a cage. Perhaps exercise matters, after all it is muscle you are eating when you eat most chicken meat. But I don't think "free range" really tells you all you need to know that might affect taste.

I was under the impression processed food meant canned, frozen or in some other format besides fresh. 'Organic' has a different meaning.


BTW, I eat eggs and chicken from uncaged poultry as well and avoid any meat that antibiotics and hormones were used raising if it is available. This is more for humane treatment of farm animals and better for the environment so I am not advocating ignoring such product qualities. I'm just saying there are many variables that affect food flavor.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I read one of Pollan's other books, called The Botany of Desire, which traces the histories of four plants and their coevolution with humans. Aside from a few over-used metaphors, I thought it was fascinating until I got to the last of the four chapters. This was finally an area I had studied in depth, and I found it littered with completely misleading information. He has a very sneaky way of making false implications, and this chapter made me question everything he had written in the previous chapters.

I haven't read the book in question, or OD, but I did listen to a lecture of his when he was touring for one of these. And again, I found he was severly misrepresenting nutrition science, often blaming scientists for the failures of journalists, and often making arguments along the lines of "nutritional scientists have made mistakes in the past; therefore, we must ignore everything they tell us," as if no conclusions can be extrapolated from any food science. He seems very big on naturalistic fallacies and arguments of nostalgia as well. On the whole, I got the impression that he takes a much more philosophical approach in his writing rather than a scientific one.