Follow Zester Daily on Facebook for the latest in food news, cooking tips and healthy eating Follow Zester Daily on Twitter for the latest in food news, cooking tips and healthy eating Subscribe to our Zester Daily RSS Feeds for the latest in food news, cooking tips and healthy eating

Michael Pollan's Misguided Food Nostalgia Print
Pollan's popular food books send the wrong message on hunger and progress, says Louise Fresco.
By Louise O. Fresco   |   Monday, 21 February 2011   |   09:48

Louise Fresco takes on Michael Pollan.Michael Pollan is the sympathetic but misleading guru of all those who would like to save the world by eating well. In his best-selling "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and the follow-up "In Defense of Food," he criticizes large-scale, fossil-fuel-based agriculture, the food industry and the nutrition science that collectively have led us to stray from the path of our great-grandmothers. We eat the wrong things, become obese and destroy the environment. Many have embraced his mantra, so simply stated in his best-selling book "In Defense of Food": "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." It seems so commonsensical that one could not disagree.

But is it right to abandon's skepticism when it comes to Pollan?

Eat food. What else, would you ask? Pollan seems to suggest that people eat things that do not qualify as food. Of course, he means "processed" foods and snacks, which he abhors. There are indeed some horrible concoctions of sugar and fat on the market, but not all food processing is bad or deprives food of its nutrition. On the contrary. Modern food processing has enormously improved the quality and the safety of our food: We benefit from fewer contaminations, fewer bacteriological infections, better taste, better nutritional quality, and so on. Today's canned and frozen foods are infinitely healthier than in the past; canned tomatoes are even to be preferred, because nutrients are more easily absorbed in cooked tomatoes. Processing food also means that it can be shipped around the world, offering poor countries an opportunity to be food exporters, and poor farmers an income -- and making everybody's diet more diverse than ever before in human history. Yes, this comes at a cost, and we should remain conscious of the fact that eating strawberries in the middle of the winter is exceptional and should be treated as a special event, not as a matter of course.

Not too much. This depends. Moderation is healthy when an individual's diet is balanced. But if it is not, moderation can lead to nutritional disorders. Children on a moderate diet of carbohydrates (bread, tortillas or rice) will not become overweight but may lack some of the minerals and vitamins for healthy development.

Pollan suggests that "more is less," a slogan that may be adequate for the U.S., but one that ignores the realities in the developing world. Over 900 million do not have enough to eat and about double that number suffer from chronic micronutrient shortages. It is essential to make North Americans and Europeans understand that food production worldwide must increase dramatically to feed an additional 2.5 to 3 billion people (depending on projections) by 2050 and to allow those who do not eat enough today, to catch up. There is only one way to produce food for the future: to increase the productivity of land, labor and water (more crop per drop) by using the best available modern technology. Not by reverting to traditional, labor- and time-consuming methods that yield too little. There are just not enough people around to work the land, not in North America, not elsewhere. And unfortunately, young people, everywhere, do not take pride in being farmers anymore.

Mostly plants. Indeed, most people know that eating plants is less taxing to the environment than eating meat. But it is not that simple. In many parts of the world, such as Mongolia or the Argentine Pampas, the land is mainly suitable for grazing, so there is no alternative to producing meat. Also, meat is often a byproduct of milk production: no milk without male calves who go on to be slaughtered. Meat also provides protein and iron in a form that is more easily absorbed by humans and is a unique source of vitamin B12. A diet with milk products and fish but no meat can be perfectly healthy. But children benefit tremendously from small quantities of meat. And remember, fish is as problematic as meat when it comes to its effects on the environment. Wild fish stocks are being depleted at alarming speeds and fish farming is a major source of chemical and genetic pollution.

Michael Pollan deserves credit for having put food on the political agenda, where it belongs. His intentions are no doubt honest, although his scientific statements are often simplistic. For example, he asserts that we have replaced sun-based agriculture with fossil-fuel-based agriculture. But, of course, all agriculture is sun-based.

He sometimes errs on the side of demagogy. Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. My great-grandmothers probably wouldn't have recognized kiwi, tofu, broccoli or tilapia. And if you happen to be Chinese, your great-grandmother did not know bread or pizza, neither did Indian great-grandmothers know barbecue. We should cherish the fact that today's cuisine is a wonderful mixture of local tradition and ethnic importation, scientific innovation and widespread availability of food from all over the world. Our great-grandmothers cooked food for hours, losing many of the nutrients; we steam it, or put it in a microwave, or grill it in a fraction of the time.

Our collective food story is not a tale of decline, but of remarkable improvements. We are much healthier, not sicker. We are eating much better than our great-grandmothers. We are infinitely better at controlling the risks of food production. The proof lies in our increased life expectancies and the doubling of world population in the last 50 years. Of course, we still make mistakes, but we are learning. Large-scale pollution through agrochemicals is becoming a thing of the past. Rates of deforestation, too, are finally coming down. Our great-grandmothers would be delighted to know how much progress we have made and how easy it is to achieve a varied diet. They would be excited about the future, so much less tedious than their lives, and they would not recognize Pollan's misguided nostalgia.


Louise O. Fresco is a university professor in Amsterdam, where she writes a syndicated newspaper column and serves as an adviser to the Dutch government on socio-economic policy, science and sustainability. She was previously an assistant director general at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, and her entire career reflects a strong commitment to international development, agriculture and food. In addition to serving on several boards, she is currently on the council of advisors of the World Food Prize. In May 2010 she became a member of the independent review committee of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the InterAcademy Council. She has also published extensively, including three novels.


smaller | bigger
security image
Write the displayed characters
...
fossil-fuel-based agriculture means chemicals, pesticides, etc. Come on. Think harder. LOL.
a guest , February 26, 2011
...
good essay. While Michael Pollin has many good points and observations we're still faced with feeding 300 million people in the US.Because of the food industry we have year round fruits and vegetables and an enormous amount of choice. How about already washed and ready spinach in bags? Not all nationwide technology is bad.
a guest , February 25, 2011
Unbelievable
By saying that "we are much healthier, not sicker" in the last paragraph of your article, you loose all the credibility you may have accumulated throughout your thoughts on this subject. Unless you meant to say - some people living in undeveloped and developed countries are much healthier than the past. You may have been slightly right had you said that! Saying that the EU, U.S.A., and the rest of the developed world is healthier under today's food practices just because you yourself are skinny, is a serious argument from ignorance and utterly, horribly wrong.
a guest , February 25, 2011
...
Your article simply tries to chip away at Pollan's points in a nit-picky literal sense. You don't address the spirit or meaning of his message. Don't you have anything of substance to say? Do you make your living trying to pick at scabs in this manner? Do you regard Pollan's books as the absolute authority and feel compelled to rebel against the generalizations he makes?

What are your policies on GMO food? Fast food menus? HFCS? Diet Soda? Do you care if the public picks apart every generalization or statement that you can't back up with multiple peer-reviewed studies?

You can do better than this.
a guest , February 24, 2011
...
Wow. And she advises the Dutch on sustainability? You can easily tell she in a major corporation's pocket.
a guest , February 24, 2011
Are you serious?
You completely misinterpreted and have pretty much taken everything out of context. You should be ashamed that you published this misguided article.
a guest , February 24, 2011
company spokesperson?
Professors should not use their academic titles when they are advocating for private companies and profits. You are working for Unilever which is a large food company with very objectionable business practices.
And someone here has already caught your coinage of "more crop per drop" as a Monsanto slogan. Really?
a guest , February 24, 2011
unilever!
Please, spare us your discussion of other people's dilemmas when you have a lot going on in your own house:

Unilever's Environmental and Social Dilemmas:
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilever)

Phosphate

Unilever is still using Phosphate [20] in the products like OMO & SKIP in South America sometimes overpassing the law and competing with all the local brands which are Phosphate free.

Palm oil

Unilever has been criticised by Greenpeace for causing deforestation,[21] Unilever was targeted in 2008 by Greenpeace UK,[22] which criticised the company for buying palm oil from suppliers that are damaging Indonesia's rainforests. Unilever, as a founding member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), responded by publicizing its plan to obtain its palm oil from sources that are certified as sustainable by 2015.[23]

In Côte d'Ivoire, one of Unilever's palm oil suppliers was accused of clearing forest for plantations, an activity that threatens a primate species, Miss Waldron's Red Colobus. Unilever intervened to halt the clearances pending the results of an environmental assessment.[24]

On 4 July 2010, Unilever announced that it has secured enough GreenPalm certificates of sustainable palm oil to cover the requirements of its European, Australia, and New Zealand business.[citation needed] GreenPalm is a certificate trading programme, endorsed by the RSPO, which is designed to tackle the environmental and social problems created by the production of palm oil.

Rainforest Alliance

Unilever has committed to purchase all its tea from sustainable, ethical sources.[citation needed] It has asked the international environmental NGO, Rainforest Alliance, to start by certifying tea farms in Africa.

Lipton and PG Tips will be the first brands to contain certified tea. The company aims to have all Lipton Yellow Label and PG Tips tea bags sold in Western Europe certified by 2010 and all Lipton tea bags sold globally by 2015.

Animal testing

Unilever states it is committed to the elimination of animal testing, and where it is a legal requirement in some countries, it tries to convince the local authorities to change the law.[25] Some activists[who?] argue that this is little more than an effort to gain good publicity and Unilever continue to use animal experimentation such as the LD50 poisoning test.
[edit] Social issues

Race and advertisements
Hindustan Unilever, had been showing television advertisements for skin-lightening cream, Fair and Lovely, depicting depressed, dark-skinned women, who had been ignored by employers and men, suddenly finding new boyfriends and glamorous careers after the cream had lightened their skin.[26]

The Austrian branch of Unilever (Eskimo) is producing and marketing an ice-cream under the name Mohr im Hemd. "Mohr" (moor), is a colonial German word for African or black people, has a heavily colonialist and racist connotation.,[27][28] "Mohr im Hemd" (moor in the shirt) is a traditional Austrian chocolate speciality which refers to naked, "wild" Africans. Unilever refutes any racist intentions and claims that it has tested the name in broad market studies in Austria without any critical feedback.
Sexism in advertisements
The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood criticized Unilever for the 2007 Axe marketing campaign, which they considered sexist.[29] Unilever's response is that the Axe campaign is intended as a spoof and "not meant to be taken literally".[30]
Unilever has launched the Dove "Real Beauty" marketing campaign, which encouraged women to reject the underfed and hyper-sexualized images of modern advertising in 2007.[31]
Child labour
In 2003 Hindustan Unilever was accused of making use of child labour,[32] among others.
a guest , February 24, 2011
...
Its as though the author's goal was only to find SOMETHING to criticize MP and she did very poorly. All her arguments are simply weak and based on misinterpretation of MP's meaning. Criticize him all you want, but if you are going to, your argument needs merit.
For example:
EAT FOOD. Surely MP would agree that canned tomatoes and frozen veggies qualify as food, and yet the author took his words and changed them to "dont eat anything processed in any way". And certainly your great grandma could recognize canned food.

Next, EAT MOSTLY PLANTS: Does the author really think MP was target audience is mongolian nomadic people?!?! MP's rules apply only to those who have the luxury of choice, not people who survive by subsistence. jeesh. Again, if the mongolian eats what his grandma ate, he would be doing fine by MP.

And lastly (although I could go on), EAT WHAT GREAT GRANDMA ATE:
The author states "and if you happen to be Chinese, your great-grandmother did not know bread or pizza, neither did Indian great-grandmothers know barbecue". Really! thats your argument?!?!?! that is so simplistic its ridiculous! Do you really think MP is arguing that chinese people cant eat bread and indians cant eat barbeque?!?!? so stupid. What MP means is to eat whole, minimally processed foods, in moderation. Or, eat the way people did 100 years ago, any people, not just YOUR GREAT GRANDMA, duh!
Its kind of pathetic that she used that ethnic argument, as it is obvious she is just reaching for something to argue about.

a guest , February 23, 2011
If you really cared about the developing world...
If you really cared about the developing world...you would advocate veganism. Then we wouldn't have to change our agricultural system to feed everyone.
a guest , February 23, 2011
The Author Works for Unilever
Enough said.
a guest , February 23, 2011
how do you know no farmers wrote comments?
To the poster who mourns the absence of farmers in these comments: You have no way of knowing, do you, unless by "farmer" you (condescendingly) mean "someone who agrees with Fresco and me (and is steered by the Agribiz nose)."

So many great arguments and astounding facts in these comments (if not the article itself). But it's easier for you to avoid them and make a pious call-out to those noble farmers, supposedly feeding the world. If you'd read the comments, you'd learn that most grain farmers are actually feeding animals, whose meat mostly goes to first world consumers (thereby wreaking havoc on the environment). But one of the worst problems is not even food production, but distribution fairness. Many millions of people are starving and food-deficient and nutritionally deficient (including lots of obese Americans). The food system in place is currently NOT working. And the e coli and salmonella recalls that have killed, sickened, and affected millions more people should be adequate proof that the current system is NOT working (for consumers, anyway) but requires drastic, systemic CHANGE, not naive, back-patting approval.

Writers like Fresco (Caitlin Flanagan, Camille Paglia, et al) love to pose as contrarians b/c they get attention and make a name for themselves while making the powers that be very happy for keeping on-message for the status quo.
a guest , February 23, 2011
So Confused
I'm wondering if the author actually read Pollan's book or if they simply wrote this entirely based on the phrase, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I'm not quite sure why this was written really. The reason Pollan "ignores the realities in the developing world" is because that's not the purpose of his book. If you want to talk about the develping world and solving world hunger that's fantastic, but I don't think using Pollan's book as the premise of your argument was the right way to go.

Last thing..."We are much healthier, not sicker." I definitely question that statement. Here in the US in seems as if it's the other way around.
a guest , February 23, 2011
vested interests
Among the (mostly negative) responses to this piece, I was unable to identify a single one coming from those that feed us: the farmers. On the contrary, most opinions reflected great ignorance about food production processes that can only come from a sector of comfortable urbanites that could not care less about the fate of the many that do not have sufficient food to eat. How did Mrs. Fresco dare to criticize one of their cherished gurus? There are many religions in this world, these zealots who also have (hidden) vested interests, should remember what an old religious book said about people like them: ‘they have eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not listen’.
a guest , February 23, 2011
THANKS!
Thanks for a great article that points out exactly why Michael Pollan is so ON POINT and SENSIBLE as a food activist!
a guest , February 22, 2011
Pollan's Popularity
Pollan's popularity is due to many people who are well-fed by a very successful American food system. These people can now spend their time accusing others of the very things Pollan is guilty of. Pollan is not new. He is just a retread of Adell Davis. - Rick Parker
a guest , February 22, 2011
Modernn Agriculture
Peasant farmers, and the bellies of third world countries, will benefit from MODERN, ECOLOGICALLY SOUND agricultural practices, not from modern chemicals and aggregation of their property by multinational corporations who stealing people's livelihoods and cultures. Momentum is building in our efforts to share modern, scientifically proven, biologically based and sustainable agricultural practices. Ms. Fresco suffers from typical right wing cherry picking of sound bites and hysterical hyperbole.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Agribusiness mouthpiece?
I believe the simplistic and short-sighted view the author takes of hunger is exactly the kind of thinking that has allowed failed, self-serving aid programs to continue for decades. I would encourage interested readers to consider Maren's The Road to Hell, Hancock's Lords of Poverty and Gussow's This Organic Life, among many others.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Lots of misinformation here....
I agree with Pollan that you shouldn't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize - and eat.
That means a fair amount of meat and chicken, liver, oysters when available, lots of eggs, cheese and other dairy, and unprocessed lard as the preferred fat, along with butter for the table. Vegetables from the garden, fruits in season. Grains, not so much. If your gg was Japanese, she still wouldn't recognize tofu because the Japanese eat only fermented soy, like tempeh.

I heard Temple Grandin speak last night and she was saying that ALL the big meat producers have now cleaned up their act so that animals are humanely treated - thanks to the efforts of McDonald's and Wendy's. She also made the point that properly pastured animals actually improve the soil they stand on. Someone asked if she were a vegetarian. She said she tried being a vegan in college, but felt horrible, weak and faint. She begins every day with animal protein - "and I'm not talking about a little low-fat yogurt" and on that regime has tons of energy and gets huge amounts of work done. The diet Michael Pollan prescribes for all may work for some, and its romance is appealing, but it's not the solution to everything.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Great Comments, Not impressed With Article
I don't need to repeat what a lot of other people have already said. Bottom line, I'm not impressed with the article that Ms. Louise O. Fresco has written. And the World Food Prize? That's a prize that large agribiz gives out to people "helping" the world.
a guest , February 22, 2011
What's the point?
It doesn't really seem like there's an actual argument here, other than sort of a silly semantic one, coupled with the not-at-all-original idea that what might be a solution for some is not necessarily applicable to all. Michael Pollan is far from the only author out there who over-simplifies the food debate; I think the author of this post has done herself a disservice by mentioning only him ... it does make the story seem more like "link bait", as one commenter put it, than a serious article. I'd love to read a real piece from Ms. Fresco, who appears to be a very accomplished scholar. I'd be particularly interested to read about any sort of solution she suggests, or a more original counter-argument (on top of being quite limited, the thesis put forth here seems very repetitive of the points Raj Patel has been making for a long time). Perhaps Zester could give her a forum to do just that??
a guest , February 22, 2011
what she really thinks
Just as you might imagine from this essay, Ms. Fresco has a highly fantastical notion of how affordable and available bread and food is to everyone in the world, now that industrial ag has worked its magic--along with the world's wondrous supply chain.

Read more for her great insights, esp. what a gift white bread is to the world and why we shouldn't despise it. She clearly doesn't care about the nutritional aspects vis a vis poor people who must eat it. Filling the belly seems to be her bottomline.

http://boingboing.net/2009/02/05/ted2009-louise-fresc.html
a guest , February 22, 2011
...
My great grandmother would have recognized kiwi and broccoli as food, probably even as a fruit and vegetable respectively. And she definitely would have seen tilapia as a fish. That she would not know the appropriate monikers for them is not the point. Ok, tofu would probably stump her, small loss.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Dubious, at best
Apples and oranges here, (Professor?). Or would your great-grandmothers not recognize the objects of this analogy?

Stick to what you know, and presumably have read.
a guest , February 22, 2011
These comments are a disgrace.
Ladies and gentlemen, agree with professor Fresco or don't, but at least do this eminent scholar and public servant the courtesy of arguing her article on the merits. These ad hominem attacks and false accusations turn my stomach, as they should anyone who is genuinely interested in examining and solving the problems of hungry world. What's up here is not discourse, it's bile, and you should be ashamed.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Transparent Idiocy
Okay...so the idea of eating mostly plants is invalid because it's hard to grow stuff in Mongolia...excellent work professor.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Misinformed
It is articles like this one, that is trying to erase the small step we have made in the right direction.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Yum...I love BPA with my canned Tomatoes and...
Cancer causing 'Caramel Coloring' with my Soda.

This article is classic misinformation at its grandest.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Silly
This article takes highly specific details and isolated cases to undermine Pollan's--which, as most good, big-picture arguments do, assumes that there are instances where the theory will not hold up. Such as MONGOLIA. Moderate diets of carbohydrates such as TORTILLAS. Really? There's no such thing as universal truths, but there is such a thing as a good point, which Pollan makes and Fresco merely flails at.

Further, why would you presume to lead the developing world down the identical path (replete with the same old pitfalls) tread a century ago by the developed world? Fresco can go right on eating corn products, but I hope no one follows her off the cliff.

-The Catcher in the Corn
Sherman , February 22, 2011
To Be Fair
Her current relationship with Unilever aside (non-executive director), Ms. Fresco's academic credentials suggest she's really passionate on food issues, especially as they relate to developing countries, and has some good ideas.

But as has been said in several comment it seems like she's confusing Pollan's subject (The North American food system and North American eating habits) with her own interests/academic studies relating to food systems and food studies, and thus the whole piece is based on a false premise.
a guest , February 22, 2011
what a crock of manure
Others have illustrated the fantasy-level thinking of the writer. One thing so far unchallenged, and which stood out to me in neon lights as an absurd lie:

"Large-scale pollution through agrochemicals is becoming a thing of the past. "

Truly, for me this statement of hers completely shreds her credibility and leaves me with my mouth hanging open aghast (who are all these people who hire her to sit on their committees, etc? Is she just a yes-woman for Corporate Food?).

I live in the Midwest. The degradation of our soil, waters, air, and no doubt health is dire and ongoing, the direct result of agrochemical add-ins--fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. We have applications that have been banned for decades in Europe being plastered on from dawn to dusk across the farm belt states. The soil is saturated with these toxins. The water is so toxic most people are warned against swimming in or eating food from most of our lakes and rivers. We are drowning in agrochemicals in Ne, Iowa, the Dakotas, Illinois, MN, and elsewhere across the country--anywhere (which is everywhere) that Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, and all their counterparts in the agrochemical mega-industries ply their trade. This has not decreased ONE IOTA and the ongoing abuse of these once naturally fertile environments is terrifying. What will it lead to? An ag application that protects a corn plant, e.g., from the herbicide that was added to protect it from the super-mold that developed as a result of the excess rains/flooding that also necessitate a topping up of a pesticide that doesn't lessen the influence of the fertilizer that needs to be added in bigger doses as the floods wash the soil down to the Gulf and have less and less fertility b/c of their decades of abuse by Big Ag's inputs? Spare me!

What a terrible article.
a guest , February 22, 2011
If nothing else
This shows you what happens if you challenge the cult following of Michael Pollan.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Not permitted to disagree with Michael Pollan
While Michael Pollan has created a groundswell, a minor revolution, for new ways to reform our misdeeds in how we've been growing and eating food, and how those terrible behaviors have created nutritional dungeons in America, there is always room for other views. Ms. Fresco expresses many of my own concerns about some of the Utopian -- and dare I say, elitist --expectations of what Pollan would categorize as appropriate food choices. I know people who get their CSA boxes, shop politically, locally and organically and are, of all things, FAT. We live in a big world. Hungry people don't care if the broccoli is grown locally or if it's organic; they're just happy to see a head of broccoli. Like Alice Waters, Pollan has to stick to his position in extremes to get even small details across to educate the many. And I believe his message is working. But sorry, as much as abhor the Monsanto model, I missed the perceived Monsanto underpinnings to this article.
elaine corn , February 22, 2011
What happened to civility?
I have to say that I am shocked by these comments. To anonymously attack the author's appearance, to assert that she is the paid shill of big corporations, and to compare what she writes to Mein Kampf is not useful, amusing, or smart. To think that all issues about food politics are settled and that there is nothing left to debate is close minded. I am left with a very bad taste in my mouth.

Rachel Laudan
a guest , February 22, 2011
For Shame
I certainly do not agree with the entire article, but I find it most shameful that the theory of nutritional correctness is more important than kindness and respect for a person. The comments here have been shockingly offensive and mean-spirited.

This is an interesting article, if nothing else, and I appreciate the invitation to further discuss, challenge and progress the state of nutrition and agriculture.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Most Food Grown in US goes to Feed Animals
You talk about the necessary increase in production to feed the world, while never stating what most people don't understand. That a huge majority of Ag land and resources in the US goes to raise food to feed animals, not people. Most of this meat is raised under such poor conditions that huge quantities of antibiotics are needed to keep the animals healthy to create the same high fat calories, the government now tells us to eat in moderation. While the actual food that most nourishes the human body eg vegetables and complex whole grains are considered "specialty crops" which make up a small minority of unsubsidized Ag in this country. Very strange article the seems to be aimed at people who don't have a grasp of the true complexities of the entire conversaion.
a guest , February 22, 2011
An AND, not an OR, debate
The problem with this piece is that it's an AND debate pretending to be an OR debate. The author pits her arguments against Pollan's but he wouldn't likely disagree with the author. It's misguided to take his points out of context. For example:

• Packaged foods: he's not talking about canned peas or tomatoes. He's talking about sugar-loaded stuffed pizzas, twinkies, and other nutrition-free, high-sugar content foods masquerading as "food."

• Feeding the world: the industrial food complex in our country grows stuff mostly for cattle feed (for our cheap burgers, not the starving people of the world) and for ethanol (to make our cars go) and for making sugary substances to put into the aforementioned packaged food (to eat during the superbowl.)

Pollan has never pretended that this complex issue is easy to solve. He has never pretended that a person on food stamps can load up on broccoli and brown rice and call it a day. Indeed, he insists that our food system is out of whack and it needs to be easier for people to have access to healthy food. The fact that he promotes an ideal doesn't make the argument any less valid. Does it?
a guest , February 22, 2011
...
I'm boggled that someone who supposedly advises the government on socio-economic policy things that processed food is a boon in the way that it can withstand the lengthy trip to the third world to feed the masses.
it certainly isn't as though we should be encouraging and nurturing their capability to grow their own food.
heavens no, lets send them 10 tonnes of canned tomatoes, the nutrients are absorbed better, you know.

i feel for the students who pay tuition prices to hear you lecture lady. jesus christ.
a guest , February 22, 2011
you are very silly
i don't think Pollen meant for his book to be for malnutrition folks of Mongolia. I think it was for over consuming people or cultures...mostly people from the United States.

I also think that you might be a very white, right-wing wacko. "My great-grandmothers probably wouldn't have recognized kiwi, tofu, broccoli or tilapia." duh.. you grandmother probably wasn't from China or India or Japan where kiwi is from. Tofu is from China and Japan is your grandmother from there? well if your grandmother has ever been to Italy then she would know broccoli. tilapia is from Africa. Pollan is speaking about eating foods that are sustainable you the individual culture. it is not a hard concept to get. someone of you educational level should be able to pick up on a concept that over millions have read.

get a grip, his book is a positive thing, it does not hurt anyone and he only wants to make the world a better place. get over yourself. plus your a little behind the times to be writing a critical piece on his book.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Why do you care so much?
Why do you care so much of what Pollan writes? You must have ties to Monsanto (wouldn't surprise me).

Pollan is starting a food revolution through books - you are trying to make more money for food companies. You need more profits for food companies, Pollan doesn't - dumb article - typical FOX News type approach, Shock & Awe!
a guest , February 22, 2011
Oversimplification and intentional misunderstanding
Your take on the "Don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize as food..." is so literal one wonders if you have a form of autism. The statement isn't meant to be taken literally about just your personal grandmother, it was intended to get one to think back to what would have been considered food a couple of generations ago REGARDLESS of race or nationality. My grandmother wouldn't recognize Kimchi either, but I still consider it to fit under the category.

When Pollan is referring to processed food, the emphasis really is on these hyperprocessed plastic, pseudofoods with ingredient lists that read like chemicals. Bringing canned tomatoes into the argument is to intentionally misunderstand just to be argumentative. Granted, a small percentage of canned or frozen WHOLE vegetables might be quite helpful for those of us living outside of the grow zones - however, factory produced "meals" containing countless chemicals and stabilizer, and shot into a tray with a tub, are not helpful or needed.

The argument against "mostly plants" taking a geographical turn is again ridiculous. Eskimoes living in Alaska can eat massive quantities of fat that would clog the heart of a dweller in a warmer land, that doesn't mean that is how we should eat. Take your geography into consideration, your phenotype, your heritage, and use some common sense.

And if you are going to attack a "food movement" because it threatens or annoys you, try to have a well thought out argument first.
a guest , February 22, 2011
...
I envy people, like Rick Parker, who seems so willing to trust. I wish I could blindly go about my days, not noticing how fat, lethargic, uninspired, unhealthy and dissatisfied much of the American public is. It would be so much easier for me if I could accept that people themselves, and only themselves, are responsible for their plight. I get tired of listening to people like Marion Nestle explain how fast food companies, in particular, must increase their market share every 90 days and therefor must do anything in their power to make that happen, even at the risk of causing disease. It would really be helpful if I hadn't had the experience of retrieving my own health by eliminating a great deal of meat, dairy and processed foods. I wish I could just be sick and tired and accept that as my destiny. Because, I'm just a pseudo-scientist and my own experience, and the experience of hundreds of thousands of other people who have successfully made health-giving lifestyle changes, don't mean anything in the face of real scientific studies underwritten by, say, Monsanto. It must be nice to just cover one's head and stick with the status quo. Wish I could do that.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Regrettable
I find it most unfortunate that I wasted precious moments of my life reading this deliberately obtuse, biased and ignorant opinion.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Wow
Let me get this straight: You're telling Americans -- who eat on average 3,000 calories a day or more -- that moderation is not healthy? I agree with what many others here have already said: The author of this article has deliberately misunderstood Pollan's writing for the sole purpose of complaining about what she misinterpreted to begin with. Pollan is not trying to solve world hunger; he writes for an American audience. Nor is he necessarily anti-canned goods. Canned tomatoes can be great, as long as they're not loaded with sodium or chemical preservatives. Pollan just wants people to use some common sense in choosing what they eat. Pity I see very little common sense exhibited in Fresco's column.
a guest , February 22, 2011
...
All one has to do is figure out where she's been getting her paychecks.
a guest , February 22, 2011
risible
Any food writer who thinks carbohydrates supply necessary vitamins and minerals is in desperate need of an editor, fact-checker, and perhaps a link to Google so they can do some high-school level research.
a guest , February 22, 2011
How much did you get paid for this Mrs. Fresco?
Seriously, this may be the worst representation of an anti-Pollan attack I have ever seen.

"Modern food processing has enormously improved the quality and the safety of our food: We benefit from fewer contaminations, fewer bacteriological infections, better taste, better nutritional quality, and so on."-I guess that's your opinion that processed food tastes better than the alternatives. Sad, but still your opinion.

"In many parts of the world, such as Mongolia or the Argentine Pampas, the land is mainly suitable for grazing, so there is no alternative to producing meat."- As someone pointed out previously, Pollan attacks an American problem, so this is almost irrelevant. But, he doesn't say don't eat meat, he says eat less! Are you telling me these cultures where there is no alternative to meat, these people are scarfing down 8-12 ounces of meat per meal? I doubt it lady.

There is just so much about this piece that is laughable that I'm sure the two positive reviews came from your office. God bless you dear.
a guest , February 22, 2011
The dumbest thing I've ever read
Cannot believe this article exists anywhere besides someone's horrible livejournal. I really don't think Pollan's point was that you shouldn't ever eat frozen vegetables, or that people all around the world should adapt their diets to those most suited to a developed economy and our climate/landscape. I don't think the author does either.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Misinterpretation of Pollan's Message
I think the author of this essay fails to see Pollan's message. It is my opinion that he did not write a book about ending world hunger - he wrote a book about: (1) how sensible food choices can help put an end to western dietary diseases (diabetes, etc...); (2) by eating food that is produced locally and seasonally, we are able to cut down on fossil fuel waste that is needed to ship produce around the world; and most importantly (3) highlighting to many westerners that the diet we're eating is a cause of several of our societal problems (again - obesity, a failing healthcare system, etc).

I believe that he also highlights that the power lobbyists hold in government make "processed" food so cheap and accessible is a major cause in all of this. In my opinion, this is where the anger needs to be directed - the purveyors of the vast monoculture which was once the most naturally productive farmland in North America. A change in government regulations would change our dependence on corn and soy, and start allowing the farmers in the midwest to grow things that are edible without chemical treatment.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Your grandmother wouldn't recognize tilapia?
She wouldn't be able to identify a fish? Tofu, sure. But no sensible person would fail to see broccoli or a kiwi as plants, and so this argument is simply condescending.
a guest , February 22, 2011
So Releived, by comments; not article
Agh, while reading the article, I was struck by the thin arguments put forth by Louise O. Fresco. Pollan's books were written for American audiences. Not for 3rd world countries. I don't think that in the USA, eating moderately, will lead to an eating disorder. This feels like such a grasp for filament. There is no substance here and I was shocked. I scrolled to the comments, in hopes that I was not the only person struck by the ridiculousness of the author. Pollan's books are not dogma at all. He puts forth strong evidence that eating foods that are local and natural are better for the person and the planet. That does sound misguided, doesn't it?
a guest , February 22, 2011
This is just a silly mean-spirited piece
The writer is only trying to get some attention critizing Pollan.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Disagree
I disagree on pretty much every point she makes except that children need b vitamins. Was she hired by the FDA?
a guest , February 22, 2011
...
I would be reluctant to have Louise, who lives in a city that serves some of the most tasteless food in Europe, cook lunch for me.
marcellamm , February 22, 2011
Canned tomatoes?
I did not note the mention of BPA found in the plastic lining of made kinds of commercially canned tomatoes.
a guest , February 22, 2011
...
So, we should send easy cheese in a can and Little Debbie snack cakes to solve world hunger? GENIUS.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Pollan doesn't have all the answers , Low rated comment [Show]
Whose side is she on?
The writer's use of Monsanto's advertising slogan from a few years ago, "more crop per drop," speaks volumes.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Flawed premise
Your argument issues from a decidedly flawed premise -- that you actually know what you're talking about. "...moderation can lead to nutritional disorders." Are you serious? Even out of context -- are you serious?

And let us not fail to point out that the meteoric rise of gastrointestinal disorders coincides almost exactly with the trajectory of food regulation begun in the 1960s?

Further, to paraphrase, processed foods are good? Do you have any idea what the free radicals introduced by partially hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup do your body, not to mention your potential for developing cancer? Have you looked at those stats, by chance?

Before you speak--especially in a public forum--you'd do well to understand your topic. Your pronouncements only make you look foolish and, judging from the other comments here (except for that one misguided soul), make you even less credible than you start out.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Great article! , Low rated comment [Show]
Straw man (or just a troll)
And gastric bypass surgery is proof that obesity isn't a problem.More good news: According to the Center for Health Statistics, cholesterol levels are looking better (now that a quarter of the 45-and-older population is on a statin). I shudder to think of the author on a climate change panel.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Pedantic
I'm sure, Louise, that Michael Pollen would agree to most of what you've said. Congratulations on pointing out the itty bitty flaws in his otherwise sensible prescription. If it wasn't for you, Louise, canned tomatos would have been off the shelves by year end.
a guest , February 22, 2011
Sorry, this is not publishable.
Pollan writes for an American audience, where overeating and processed foods are a problem. He is not pretending to solve the problems of world hunger. This is a total straw man, and not worthy of publication, let alone promotion.
a guest , February 22, 2011
What a Misinterpretation!
I'm sorry, but I think this article really twists and misinterprets Michael Pollan's words. The food processing that he decries is not the simple canning or freezing of basic foods, but the creation of food-like snack products that bear little or no resemblance to food from nature.

True, my great grandmother would not recognize a kiwi, but I think she would realize that it was a fruit and be willing to eat it when told it was safe. But what would she think of a potato-based snack food that came out of a can?

And I have to laugh at her assertion that we need to feed millions more, followed by the statement that there are not enough people in the world to work the land. Um, hello? Reallocation of resources? Return the honor to the profession of farming and bring those young people in?

Call me a dreamer or a socialist or a brain-washed Pollan-ite, but wouldn't it be great if the resources that currently provide US citizens with pre-cooked bacon (so we don't have to get our kitchens dirty) instead were really and truly used to solve world hunger?
a guest , February 22, 2011
I don't know where to start
"Processing food also means that it can be shipped around the world, offering poor countries an opportunity to be food exporters, and poor farmers an income"--Historically, when poor communities have turned to food export as a source of income, they have become little more than slave laborers (see coffee, bananas, cocoa beans for a few precedents).

"It is essential to make North Americans and Europeans understand that food production worldwide must increase dramatically to feed an additional 2.5 to 3 billion people (depending on projections) by 2050 and to allow those who do not eat enough today, to catch up."--We currently have 1B starving people in the world. We also have 1B obese people worldwide. We don't have a food scarcity problem, we have a food distribution problem.

"There are just not enough people around to work the land, not in North America, not elsewhere."--There is currently an unemployment rate that is hovering close to 10% in the U.S. We have surplus labor here.

"Modern food processing has enormously improved the quality and the safety of our food:" --We have actually seen a sharp INCREASE in food borne illness in the U.S. Centralized production and processing increases the percentage of the population effected by a contamination incident.

"Not by reverting to traditional, labor- and time-consuming methods that yield too little."--While chemical fertilizers can cause a dramatic short term increase in crop yield, those numbers sharply decline as the intensive production encouraged by them depletes the land.

"Our great-grandmothers cooked food for hours, losing many of the nutrients; we steam it, or put it in a microwave, or grill it in a fraction of the time."--Popping something in the microwave is not cooking but how illuminating that you think so.

a guest , February 22, 2011
Zester Daily - Really?
Sorry, this whole diatribe is so misleading, this is obviously a shill for the processed food industry (the minute the 'feed the world' stuff starts, it's easily recognizable)....I'm distressed that a foody blog like Zester Daily would entertain a syllable of it.
reinbeau , February 22, 2011
Ditto on Link-Bait
Did the writer actually read Pollan?

Canned tomatoes or frozen peas (any canned or frozen whole fruits or vegetables) would fall under the "food" category. They are not made of picked-apart corn/soy/wheat and then glued back together with lots of fat, salt, and corn syrup (the latter being what Pollan calls "edible foodlike substances").

The writer's other points are equally (often bizarrely) off-base. Just because my Grandma never saw a kiwi doesn't mean she wouldn't have easily recognized it as a fruit, and therefore "food" -- ditto for Chinese grandmothers who may have never seen pizza but would recognize the components.

The reason Pollan has become popular is because what he says is common sense (unlike this writer's nonsense), and most people recognize it as such.
a guest , February 22, 2011
...
Pollan puts it into simplistic forms so that America can digest the main points he's trying to convey. Mostly plants- We as a nation consume far, far too much meat. If he were to put that it's okay to eat some meat in his tagline, he'd lose some of his audience right there. And I don't think Pollan is referring to canned tomatoes when he talks about processed foods...nor do I think many readers would be confused about this part of his books.

www.foodfitnessfreshair.com
a guest , February 22, 2011
Finally a voice of reason , Low rated comment [Show]
Nice link bait
Classic: "I'm going to intentionally misinterpret everything and then rail against it". You need more ads on the page to cash in on your genius!
a guest , February 21, 2011

busy
Last Updated on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 10:22
 

Zester Daily | Food News | Cooking | Dining Out | Healthy Eating | Wine

Copyright © 2012 Zester LLC.

Site Design & Hosted by digical