In Defense Of Food

After reading the first forty pages of In Defense of Food my perception has changed slightly as I now realize that Micheal Pollan is capable of making sensible arguments. The introduction and the first section of the book attack an ideology that Pollan describes as nutritionism where food science has focused more on the nutrients in foods than the food themselves. He also describes how the United States government came up with its nutritional recommendations, which were heavily influenced by lobbyists that worked for the major arms of the food industry, but hey thats nothing new.

The argument that the focus on nutrients has made us less healthy, strikes me as a valid point seeing as the food scientists have failed to create processed foods that are equal to their natural equivalents. Additionally most of the information that we have been told about what our diets should consist of, has been proven wrong by the time we have had the opportunity to publish studies on the diet trends. Furthermore it is ridiculous the way that food companies try to add nutrients to foods once the catch even the smallest hint of health benefits. However I don't believe that he should blame the food industry for at least trying to understand what our foods contain that make it possible for us to survive. It is just human nature because eventually there will probably be some sort of wonder food that will give us everything we need. On the other hand it would be more a more effective use of time to just advocate a diet that is balance that provides the nutrients required by our human bodies. Science should be used to distinguish what foods are healthier for you, and avoid trying to re-engineering them.