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

[tyr_13]

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.

 

[Wowbagger]

I would tell him this, if I could: "Dunning and Kruger called. They want their effect back."

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I was really taken aback as well, as I've heard good things about his books. I have no idea what he would be referring to.

 

[Darat]

I don't have the background to this but a possible "excuse" perhaps is that he is confusing the popular reporting of science with the science? We have a newspaper over here that there is a running joke that it reports everything either causes cancer or cures cancer and sometimes both! The reporting is simply bad reporting of the underlying science.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'll watch the interview in the morning, but he's a bit of a crank. Obviously not all cranks are wrong all the time, but he seems to take some good ideas and run way too far with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pollan

 

[BowlOfRed]

I was really taken aback as well, as I've heard good things about his books. I have no idea what he would be referring to.

I didn't see this one, but from reading his earlier books, I have an assumption.

When talking about "real food", he gives the argument that food scientists have continually attempted to break down food into components and made the claim that those components were the sum of the food (eg: fat/carbohydrate/protein + vitamins). But instead each time this was done, vital information was missing and their ideas were later shown to be wrong. I think he feels reductionism has been used to create processed foods that are valuable for the producer, but of low nutritional value to the consumer. I presume also that he feels the product of food research to date has been mostly incorrect and of negative value to the consumer.

Yes, it could be that he's confusing what the actual research says with reported claims, but I would also believe it's more than that.

 

[tyr_13]

I've been presented a lot of stuff from his previous books from people who like his ideas, and while there is some good stuff, there is a lot of really bad assertions and other general dumbness in there as well. I believe he's the originator of the phrase, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Aside from the grammar, it's a 'duh' statement, but people act like it's profound somehow. But he has also advocated a lot of organic practices, good and bad, condemned industrial farming, good or bad, and advocated local produces, which can actually hurt the environment more than shipping products in from where they grow well.

The show is running right now again, so I'll sit through it to see if I'm mistaken about what he's actually saying.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I've been presented a lot of stuff from his previous books from people who like his ideas, and while there is some good stuff, there is a lot of really bad assertions and other general dumbness in there as well. I believe he's the originator of the phrase, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Aside from the grammar, it's a 'duh' statement, but people act like it's profound somehow.

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. I've had otherwise intelligent seeming posters people mock me like I'm the world's biggest moron for saying their diet of mostly processed foods and meat isn't good, and they need to eat a variety of fruits and veggies to be healthy.

I'm continually astounded by how ignorant of basic nutrition JREFers are as a group as reflected in any thread dealing on the subject.

And of course this extends to society at large, as shown, for example, by the continuing popularity of unhealthy low carb/high protein diets.

I've read a couple of Pollen's books. I think his core philosophy is very good but I agree he takes some of his ideas too far.

 

[tyr_13]

Some wisdom from the interview.

-"Sierra Mist is a really nasty product."
I guess he's never heard of 'diet' pop, which is basically water and some citric acid.

-"This is the wisdom of your grandmother, your great-grandmother."
Name that fallacy.

-"We have a national eating disorder, and we're getting very sick because of what we eat."
Fair enough. There is a large problem in the US with obesity, but also with other eating disorders. We really do eat too much, too much sugar, with too little physical activity. There are of course other very large health issues in the US, and what we eat won't address some of the bigger problems, but he didn't claim it would.

-"I don't know that much about food, I'm not an expert."
He sure gives a lot of advice about food for someone who isn't an expert. Three books on it were mentioned in the interview.


-"We've been listening to scientists too long, and their claims, and the nutrition claims the companies make."
Why lump these things together? This still sounds as bad as the first time I heard it.

-"Cereal that promotes the idea they can improve your child's attention at school."
Claims of advertisers are not claims of scientists! Wrong. He's referencing Mini-wheats, which happens to be a rather healthy cereal with ads that claim that children who have breakfast do better in school which is actually true. His other examples do show some of the pitfalls of listening to what ads tell us.

He also said what amounted to, eat apples, but don't eat on the go, at your desk, or in car. Those are the only places I eat apples. It you're eating healthy, it really doesn't matter where you eat it. The problem is that if you're eating on the go, you tend to not be thinking about what you're eating and eating too much. It isn't wear you eat, or how long it took you to prepare it, it's what and how much overall you're eating. His is a false confusion of correlation and causation.

-"A land with lots of herring, can get along with few doctors."
Truly a WTF moment. That's one of the rules from his new book. Is this epic correlation/causation fail, or am I missing some point? Sure, herring can be good for you (something those stupid scientists tell us by the way), but you'll still need plenty of doctors. Besides, has he not heard of overfishing?

Why are the popular advocates of some very real issues so damn stupid?

 

[tyr_13]

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. I've had otherwise intelligent seeming posters people mock me like I'm the world's biggest moron for saying their diet of mostly processed foods and meat isn't good, and they need to eat a variety of fruits and veggies to be healthy.

I'm continually astounded by how ignorant of basic nutrition JREFers are as a group as reflected in any thread dealing on the subject.

And of course this extends to society at large, as shown, for example, by the continuing popularity of unhealthy low carb/high protein diets.

I've read a couple of Pollen's books. I think his core philosophy is very good but I agree he takes some of his ideas too far.

Yeah, those debates usually display 'the excluded middle' fallacy many people fall into with nutrition. You get people claiming that ALL processed foods, including frozen veggies, are terrible for you and stuff like that, and other people claiming meat is all you need. It doesn't help that strawmanning is so common as well.

The part I highlighted basically is what I think as well.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, those debates usually display 'the excluded middle' fallacy many people fall into with nutrition. You get people claiming that ALL processed foods, including frozen veggies, are terrible for you and stuff like that, and other people claiming meat is all you need. It doesn't help that strawmanning is so common as well.
The part I highlighted basically is what I think as well.

Oh please - the idea that we can live on a diet of straw is sheer lunacy!

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Yeah, those debates usually display 'the excluded middle' fallacy many people fall into with nutrition. You get people claiming that ALL processed foods, including frozen veggies, are terrible for you and stuff like that, and other people claiming meat is all you need. It doesn't help that strawmanning is so common as well.

The part I highlighted basically is what I think as well.

Indeed, I agree.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The show is running right now again, so I'll sit through it to see if I'm mistaken about what he's actually saying.

Watched the re-air at 8:30 CDT and he wasn't that bad, though I concur with (what I read to be) your assessment in the OP that while nutritional conventional wisdom is good, we shouldn't ignore, you know, the people who have facts and data supporting them.

I guess he's never heard of 'diet' pop, which is basically water and some citric acid.

As someone who drinks Diet Coke in lieu of water on a daily basis, let me say there's nothing wrong with his objection as long as it's qualified. HFC sodas contribute to obesity (our would in my case - I probably save 50k kcal a year, and no, I don't make it up with other sweets) so he's basically correct. If you want fruit juice or caffine, there's alternatives much better for you than Sierra Mist.

-"This is the wisdom of your grandmother, your great-grandmother."
Name that fallacy.

The appeal to antiquity in this case is not problematic if he's contrasting the serving of prepared foods vs. processed foods. I'd agree with him that prepared meals are better than packaged and processed ones.

-"We have a national eating disorder, and we're getting very sick because of what we eat."

Axiomatic and concur with your comment.

-"I don't know that much about food, I'm not an expert."
He sure gives a lot of advice about food for someone who isn't an expert. Three books on it were mentioned in the interview.

Couldn't agree more, see my above stopped clock comments and the one in this post.

-"We've been listening to scientists too long, and their claims, and the nutrition claims the companies make."
Why lump these things together? This still sounds as bad as the first time I heard it.

This didn't strike me as damning when I heard it because of his follow up comments quoted below... again with caveats.

-"Cereal that promotes the idea they can improve your child's attention at school."
Claims of advertisers are not claims of scientists! Wrong.[/quote]

Agreed. He's conflating claims of marketing people with those of the folks in the lab at Quaker Oats, Post, etc. with those of sicentists. Egregious logical fallacy, but he does have a point.

He also said what amounted to, eat apples, but don't eat on the go, at your desk, or in car. Those are the only places I eat apples. It you're eating healthy, it really doesn't matter where you eat it. The problem is that if you're eating on the go, you tend to not be thinking about what you're eating and eating too much. It isn't wear you eat, or how long it took you to prepare it, it's what and how much overall you're eating. His is a false confusion of correlation and causation.

This I think you're overthinking and applying an unfair weight of comparison. He's clearly not talking about eating apples in your car, but fast food.

-"A land with lots of herring, can get along with few doctors."
Truly a WTF moment. That's one of the rules from his new book. Is this epic correlation/causation fail, or am I missing some point? Sure, herring can be good for you (something those stupid scientists tell us by the way), but you'll still need plenty of doctors. Besides, has he not heard of overfishing?

Why are the popular advocates of some very real issues so damn stupid?

Coveyesque in it's in insipidness, but was he referring to the diet of people in Northern Europe or the socialized health care? That point was never made clear.

And in case it seems like I'm an apologist for him, I think he's someone talking about things he's not an expert in who is recycling "common sense" and makes a few good points among not woo or hokum per se, but arguments a critical thinking might frame with more data and less "wisdom".

 

[bignickel]

Was listening to a Skepticality, where they were interviewing Gary Taubes. He was expressing a similar sentiment, but explained it further: there have been way too many nutritional experts and scientists who have been saying things and proposing policy, with no actual experiments or research to back them up.

 

[tyr_13]

As someone who drinks Diet Coke in lieu of water on a daily basis, let me say there's nothing wrong with his objection as long as it's qualified. HFC sodas contribute to obesity (our would in my case - I probably save 50k kcal a year, and no, I don't make it up with other sweets) so he's basically correct. If you want fruit juice or caffine, there's alternatives much better for you than Sierra Mist.

It's just one of those omissions that annoy me. The statement, 'pop is bad,' is only valid if diet pop is excluded. If he had said, "Seirra Mist has tons of calories," I wouldn't have batted an eye. To call it a horrible product, and then give Colbert his homebrew beer, is silly. I wonder how many calories are in that beer. How is that beer better? It might well be, but he didn't present any reason for it. Now as an opinion that's fine, obviously he likes the stuff he make himself and it was simply an opinion he presented.

Keep in mind that fruit juice tends to have more calories and sugar than pop with less fiber than the actual fruit.

The appeal to antiquity in this case is not problematic if he's contrasting the serving of prepared foods vs. processed foods. I'd agree with him that prepared meals are better than packaged and processed ones.

When combined with his beer and his statement about scientists, I don't think that was all he was saying.

This I think you're overthinking and applying an unfair weight of comparison. He's clearly not talking about eating apples in your car, but fast food.

Probably, but I think of apples and the like as fast food. It's food that I don't need to prep and that I can eat on the go. Apples and bananas being two that I use all the time. It's in fact faster food than going through the drive-thru. But yes, it's different that what most people think of when they think of 'fast food', which means 'food from a fast food restaurant' I guess.

Coveyesque in it's in insipidness, but was he referring to the diet of people in Northern Europe or the socialized health care? That point was never made clear.

I don't think he was talking about socialized health care because he says at the end of that bit, "and free health care too." Granted he might have meant that was his point in the first place and not Colbert's joke, but it doesn't seem so. I think he meant diet, but I'm not sure.

And in case it seems like I'm an apologist for him, I think he's someone talking about things he's not an expert in who is recycling "common sense" and makes a few good points among not woo or hokum per se, but arguments a critical thinking might frame with more data and less "wisdom".

Sorry for the snip job on your post. But don't worry, you're not coming off as such to me. I'm probably coming off as bashing his stance in total more than I actually want to. He has some good points, which is why the other crap makes me so upset. Some otherwise reasonable people may want to dismiss more of what he is saying because of the stuff they can tell is bunk.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some wisdom from the interview.
-"Sierra Mist is a really nasty product."
I guess he's never heard of 'diet' pop, which is basically water and some citric acid.
-"This is the wisdom of your grandmother, your great-grandmother."
Name that fallacy.
-"We have a national eating disorder, and we're getting very sick because of what we eat."
Fair enough. There is a large problem in the US with obesity, but also with other eating disorders. We really do eat too much, too much sugar, with too little physical activity. There are of course other very large health issues in the US, and what we eat won't address some of the bigger problems, but he didn't claim it would.
-"I don't know that much about food, I'm not an expert."
He sure gives a lot of advice about food for someone who isn't an expert. Three books on it were mentioned in the interview.
-"We've been listening to scientists too long, and their claims, and the nutrition claims the companies make."
Why lump these things together? This still sounds as bad as the first time I heard it.
-"Cereal that promotes the idea they can improve your child's attention at school."
Claims of advertisers are not claims of scientists! Wrong. He's referencing Mini-wheats, which happens to be a rather healthy cereal with ads that claim that children who have breakfast do better in school which is actually true. His other examples do show some of the pitfalls of listening to what ads tell us.

He also said what amounted to, eat apples, but don't eat on the go, at your desk, or in car. Those are the only places I eat apples. It you're eating healthy, it really doesn't matter where you eat it. The problem is that if you're eating on the go, you tend to not be thinking about what you're eating and eating too much. It isn't wear you eat, or how long it took you to prepare it, it's what and how much overall you're eating. His is a false confusion of correlation and causation.

-"A land with lots of herring, can get along with few doctors."
Truly a WTF moment. That's one of the rules from his new book. Is this epic correlation/causation fail, or am I missing some point? Sure, herring can be good for you (something those stupid scientists tell us by the way), but you'll still need plenty of doctors. Besides, has he not heard of overfishing?

Why are the popular advocates of some very real issues so damn stupid?

(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.

 

[Arisia]

... 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.
...

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.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

It'd be great if it turns out that corn syrup is the missing ingredient necessary to achieve clean, controllable nuclear fusion.

 

[Dymanic]

I believe he's the originator of the phrase, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Aside from the grammar, it's a 'duh' statement, but people act like it's profound somehow.

To the extent that it's profound, it is because of its duh-ness.

-"I don't know that much about food, I'm not an expert."
He sure gives a lot of advice about food for someone who isn't an expert.

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?

-"We've been listening to scientists too long, and their claims, and the nutrition claims the companies make."
Why lump these things together?

Good point. Somewhere along the line, though, those things did get lumped together -- didn't they? Companies do make nutrition claims, and they do base those claims on the findings of scientists -- don't they? It has become a vital aspect of food marketing, hasn't it? Never before have so many depended on so few for advice on nutrition... and had so many health problems related to eating habits despite it.

I see that as Pollan's central thesis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

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