Grandmothers vs. Science: Responses to Michael Pollan

Grandmothers vs. Science: Responses to Michael Pollan

A4113f7cc8c2fc3cc96eb640f4534c625dde976e?w=240&h=240&fit=crop
Faith Durand
Feb 5, 2007

Michael Pollan's article, Unhappy Foods, in in last week's Times Magazine has, not unexpectedly, generated some controversy.

He advised: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. He encourages us not eat anything that our great-great-grandmothers would not have recognized as food. In other words, America say goodbye to Taco Bell and Lunchables!

This approach is controversial for the same reason that most people welcome it with a sigh of relief. It's simple. But is it simplistic? Reductionistic? Does it throw out too much real science? Daniel Engber at Slate thinks so, saying that he would rather stick to science than Pollan's nutritonal Darwinism.

Over at the Scientific American weblog, John Rennie argues similar points, citing what he calls mushy holistic thinking.

What do you think? Do you prefer Pollan's reductionism over the wilderness of nutrition labels? I do, personally, but it's worth engaging in the conversation and hearing all sides. After all, this is our food we're talking about.

You can see more responses over at Buzztracker.

Created with Sketch.