quote:

---

Consider what happened immediately after the 1977 “Dietary Goals” — McGovern’s masterpiece of politico-nutritionist compromise. In the wake of the panel’s recommendation that we cut down on saturated fat, a recommendation seconded by the 1982 National Academy report on cancer, Americans did indeed change their diets, endeavoring for a quarter-century to do what they had been told. Well, kind of. The industrial food supply was promptly reformulated to reflect the official advice, giving us low-fat pork, low-fat Snackwell’s and all the low-fat pasta and high-fructose (yet low-fat!) corn syrup we could consume. Which turned out to be quite a lot. Oddly, America got really fat on its new low-fat diet — indeed, many date the current obesity and diabetes epidemic to the late 1970s, when Americans began binging on carbohydrates, ostensibly as a way to avoid the evils of fat.

This story has been told before, notably in these pages (“What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?” by Gary Taubes, July 7, 2002), but it’s a little more complicated than the official version suggests. In that version, which inspired the most recent Atkins craze, we were told that America got fat when, responding to bad scientific advice, it shifted its diet from fats to carbs, suggesting that a re-evaluation of the two nutrients is in order: fat doesn’t make you fat; carbs do. (Why this should have come as news is a mystery: as long as people have been raising animals for food, they have fattened them on carbs.)

---

ETA: I think it's the Atkins diet - is that the one with a high dependence on meat?

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

But what exactly does “organic” mean these days anyway? Does the image of contented hens clucking away in the open air over antibiotic-free feed match with the reality of government-approved “free range?” Perhaps the pigs that supplied the bacon experienced some barnyard bliss as they grew fat on a small family farm, but what were the actual conditions of their last moments, when many jurisdictions require the farmer to send his livestock elsewhere for slaughter? And just how “fair” are the trading conditions for fair-trade farmers in developing countries?

---

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: M.Gregus ]

And another one.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, in addition to strawman potshots at vegetarians and the animal rights philosophy, Pollan bases his conclusions on falsehoods and debunked claims, as pointed out in Erik Marcus’ review (first Spotlight review here). For example, Pollan contends that vegetarians don’t really save animals, based on an article by Stephen Davis that was shown to be totally wrong in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.

It could be argued that Pollan is reaching new people with descriptions of factory farming that people like Singer, Goodall, and Marcus won’t reach. As we’ve written, “When it comes to advocating for the animals, people are looking for a reason to ignore us – no one sits around thinking, ‘Wow, I really want to give up all my favorite foods and isolate myself from my friends and family!’” So it is unlikely that a large number of people are going to buy and read a book that says they need to become a vegetarian.

On the other hand, what does Pollan’s ultimate message (“Eat ‘humane’ meat” / “Vegetarians are anti-social fanatics”) accomplish? Pollan goes out of his way to badmouth and ridicule the possibility of being vegetarian: “the subtle way it alienates me from other people and… a whole dimension of human experience” (e.g., “cultural traditions like the Thanksgiving turkey, or even franks at the ballpark, and family traditions like my mother’s beef brisket at Passover”).

---

Sounds like bullshit to me. I think I'll give the book a pass.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Being a vegetarian for moral reasons, I'm not going to follow his advice to 'eat like an omnivore,' but it mostly sounds sensible.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, in addition to strawman potshots at vegetarians and the animal rights philosophy, Pollan bases his conclusions on falsehoods and debunked claims, as pointed out in Erik Marcus’ review (first Spotlight review here).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
people should really read books for themselves. Make up your own minds.

---

Pft, D-503. You've been spending too much time with that rascal I-330.

"His option is to eat meat from “humane” operations, like Polyface Farms (his main example). Yet accommodating a diet of “humane meat” is a practical impossibility for virtually everyone; e.g., there isn’t a humane option at even 1% of restaurants. And Pollan points out that Polyface isn’t looking to expand."

But I assume I like it for much different reason than the author intended.

Pollan gives an overview of how food production works Right Now. That is where the focus of any discussion of the book starts and ends.

Is Pollan meat centric? Not really, to me. Because all he says is that people have to consider where their meat comes from and why they're eating it. Don't argue that the man has wrote a book that will touch a lot of readers, and then discount the many obvious implied anti-meat themes of the book.

Look, I have meat loving friends who think hunting is barbaric. Break it down for mindless meat eaters. Make it real. I know exactly where meat comes from. I suggest that reading Pollan's book will cause a lot of meat eaters to at least consider some points that they otherwise wouldn't realize existed. Steaks come from living animals, and stuff like that. The modern supermarket buying experience alone removes people from where their food comes from (usually a transport truck).

Get with it, for fuck's sake. Quibble the fine points after the bigger issues are dealt with. Don't bash a book that is going to eventually help "your" side.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Farmpunk ]

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Farmpunk ]

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Farmpunk ]