In Defense of Food: Michael Pollan

Thanks for my birthday wishes, blogosphere!  I had a nice day, as nice as you can have when you suffer abject national humiliation and ignominious defeat.  I don’t think I’ve ever used the word ignominious before.  That possibly the only good thing to come out of this utter shame; the ability to use hyperbolic adjectives.  I’m randomly supporting the Netherlands and Ghana now, so they will no doubt lose in the next round.

The problem that I have in reviewing ‘In Defense of Food’ is basically, I agree with all of it.  But not in an enthusiastic, this-has-rocked-my-world sort of way.  More like you read it, nodding once in a while, thinking, yes, this makes sense.  I don’t really need convincing.  It’s nice to have it all set out in a logical and simple way, but it’s not passionate.  That’s part of the point.

I much prefer ‘Animal, Vegetable, Miracle’ by Barbara Kingsolver, even if that was a little saccharine in places, because it was a real family, making real choices, and sometimes not even enjoying the consequences.  By comparison, ‘In Defense of Food’ is more clinical and sterile.  I also felt that once in a while, he fell into his own traps.  He is highly critical of scientists who make extravagant claims for the latest wonder-nutrient, but then comes pretty close to making the same claims for omega-3s.  I’m sure omega-3s are very good for you. I just think if you are going to write a book like this then you have to be whiter-than-white; otherwise there are too many people who will use any inconsistency as a reason to tear your whole case down.

In terms of simplicity, though, Pollan’s rules for eating can’t be beaten.  Eat food.  Not too much of it.  Mostly plants.  These rules are beautiful in their clarity.  Compare them to almost any other form of diet rules: no carbs after five pm, or no protein and carbs together.  These rules are exhausting just to think about.  It’s no wonder that people can’t stick to them and end up hating themselves.  Pollan offers a very convincing reminder that the food industry exists to make money from you, not to keep you healthy or feed you well.  It’s hard to make money out of broccoli, so they make money out of processing.  But he also makes the very important point that how you eat is as important as what you eat.  Or to put it another way, it’s sociology and culture rather than nutrition which explains why European countries eat a lot of cheese and drink a lot of wine but are a lot healthier.

This is a short read and worth a look.  I haven’t read ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma’ and I haven’t been put off, though I wonder how much more I might get out of it.

Regular readers might remember that after I read ‘Eating Animals’ I made a commitment to stop eating meat unless it was ‘Freedom Food’.  (This is the independent labelling system we have in the UK, which guarantees animal welfare standards.  It is monitored by the RSPCA.)  A quick update on that.  I’ve been effectively vegetarian since then.  I did wistfully have to turn down a very nice looking pork pie.  I have had more than one conversation with a bewildered teenage sales person in the local deli: ‘you want what?’ – but the shop owner came to his rescue.  I ended up with a ‘freedom’ chicken curry, but it was a bit disappointing.  I scoured the shelves of our local supermarket last week, but only came up with ‘freedom’ sausages.  It’s turning out much easier to be a veggie than eat freedom.