On January 28 th, 2007, the New York Times published an article, "Unhappy Meals," by Professor Michael Pollan, Knight professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma," was chosen by the editors of The New York Times Book Review as one of the 10 best books of 2006. His article is available for viewing on the New York Times website, or else a copy is available from Coastalfields.

For much of the article, the facts are correct, but some of the article is pure fabrication. The presumptions and analysis undertaken by the author are sloppy and erronious. There are an astounding number of contradictions.

Nonsense

One contradiction that is found throughout the article is the assumption that humans are an omnivorous species. Though Pollan later says this belief is questioned by nutritionists and that vegetarians are healthiest, he never questions himself on the truth of his own assumption. A Professor of Journalism ought to keep better objectivity than that, and should certainly report the facts...even if he doesn't personally agree with their implications.

Another contradiction is when he claims (under the misleading and sensational headline "Eat Right Get Fatter") that eating carbohydrates instead of fat is what caused people to not lose weight (or to gain weight)...even though he had just stated the fact that the same people in question binge-ate the carbs, and did NOT cut back on fat. If Pollan relied on logic or on fact, he would be able to report that it is not the carbs which are bad, but the overeating that is bad.

Several of the section headlines, such as the one quoted above and "Bad Science," are sensational, misleading, and partially or fully wrong. "Eat Right Get Fatter" is certainly nonsense: those who were getting fatter were in fact not eating right, they were binging. "Bad Science" gives the impression that all nutritional science is bad, while in fact much of the science done in the field of nutrition has been good!

Bad Science, Bad Journalism

Pollan shamefully fails his responsibility as a reporter of truth for the interests of the people. Besides distorting, fabricating and perverting truth, he leads the reader to think that there is no point to eating right because they will get fatter.

In the section of "bad science," Pollan states that nutritional science focuses on one nutrient at a time, which nutritionists know is a bad idea. After the confusion of this statement is overcome (aren't nutritionists nutritional scientists?) it is still not true. While nutritional science is learned by studying one nutrient at a time, this is because that's the easiest and most logical way to learn it. This does not mean that nutritional science believes the eater should only focus on one nutrient at a time. Once the basics of nutritoinal science are taught (one at a time), it is all tied together to be applied by the nutritionist and the eater.

It is perhaps understandable that Pollan does not understand how science is taught and applied: it appears undertook little scientific analysis for this scientific article.

Pollan either oversimplified or underresearched the section about how society has simplified food to make it unhealthy. To paraphrase, Pollan states that one cannot live on processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice, and then goes to say that we need more variety in foods than just corn, soybeans, wheat and rice. Certainly, there is truth in his first argument. You cannot live on processed grains alone. However, unprocessed foods are a different matter entirely. People all over the world for millinia (not just the poor) have lived long, healthy, strong lives on unvaried diets of unprocessed grain. It is the processing (and sometimes not even then) that makes grains not nutritious enough to eat on their own, not the lack of variety.

Illogical

Why does Pollan attack the practice of eating grains (instead of leaves) on the basis of micronutrients? It is hard to say where he came to base his argument, not only because of his sloppy citation, but because there is no basis in reality or fact for it. Grains do NOT lack in micronutrients. Grains are and have been the staple food for billions of people for thousands of years! Whole grains, especially stone ground whole grains (because of the lower heat in processing), are full of all sorts of nutrients. This does not mean you don't need leafy greens, but leafy greens do not have quite as much nutrition per serving as grains - even when omega fatty acids are considered.

Pollan seems to somehow understand this because he goes so far to contradict himself and claim that grains are worse than leafy greens because they are more nutrient rich than leafy greens! He seems to think that you are more likely to overeat if you eat grains instead of greens. Why does he think this? It is impossible to say...

Racism Is A False Approach to Diet

Admire Professor Pollan! He is not content with outright lies, pseudo science and poor journalism. He must raise the ugly flags of racism. Mr. Pollan should look about him! All people from all races are all human beings...we are all the same species! It is insulting, idiotic and innane to claim that food habits based on ethnicity and cultural heritage are healthy ways to eat. It is nonsense to believe that such food habits would be healthy because they allowed those ethnic and racial populations to be stable.

It should be a joke to hear such things from a Professor of Journalism. This is ridiculous. Even eating a (presumably unhealthy) "Western diet," our population is booming! And people with "traditional" diets are not necessarily healthier. People throughout the world are capable of learning how to eat well and do eat well. Their ethnicity, the foods that are native to their areas of the world and their culture certainly do not matter.

Ah, but perhaps we judge the Professor too soon. Mr. Pollan seems to know this is insanity when he explains (in an entirely different section, contradicting himself while confounding the reader) that these cultural differences were likely to be caused more by lifestyle (exercise, etc) than the foods. And yet he never encourages a change in lifestyle, but rather encourages the reader to emulate the "superior" eating habits of better ethnicities.

Terrible Advice

Mr. Pollan should appologize. He is a danger to the trusting reader. The author's simple "flagrantly unscientific" steps to eating right dangerously mislead the would-be healthy eater. Don't buy a food if you don't know the word on the ingredient list or can't pronounce it? This is not necessarily good advice: many "real foods" have funny names that the consumer might not know; furthermore if the food is fortified, the word is likely to be long or unknown (but not unhealthy). With his reasoning, who would ever attempt to enjoy the tomatillo, what Spaniard would have tried the Aztec tomatl? The healthy eater should do research so they know if the once-unknown word is actually a safe or unsafe ingredient. It is not good to just guess it's unhealthy because you don't know it (or healthy because you do know it).

Mr. Pollan says eat only products with five ingredients or less. Please, Professor, this is silly. You can have healthy food with more ingredients that this, especially if it is a mix of fruits and veggies (think canned mixed fruit in water, or even salsa with no bad preservatives!). Fortified foods usually have more ingredients than this; this does not mean they are bad.

Pollan's Flagrantly Unscientific, Flagrantly Idiotic Advice

Mr. Pollan says to get out of the supermarket. Why? "You won't find any high-fructose corn syrup at the farmer's market; you also won't find food harvested long ago and far away. What you will find are fresh whole foods picked at the peak of nutritional quality."

Professor, step outside your office and take a look. At today's farmers markets, the farmers are almost always selling foods picked long before their peak, shipped in from far away (and also as long ago as the harvest from five years ago). Farmers at farmers markets are more likely to be selling foods stored in more unsanitary conditions (for germs, temperatures and other reasons) than the supermarkets due to more infrequent inspections, lack of training, perceived "display appeal" (such as putting perishables in a dirty basket, unrefrigerated, in the hot sun), and lack of consideration for the interests of the consumer. As farmers, we'd like everyone to be able to trust farmers. But as farmers, we know too many farmers that are not usually honest or selling a product that provides better nutrition, better freshness, or is otherwise superior to supermarket goods.

Need we go through each of Mr. Pollan's advices one by one? If Mr. Pollan didn't tire of writing his lies, why should we tire in writing truth?

Number 5 is definitely not true. Eating healthy is actually usually cheaper. If the farmer you are buying direct from is charging you so much that it is not cheaper, you are getting ripped off, or you are doing something else wrong that is driving up the cost (for example, buying meat, too much dairy, or buying healthy but expensive pre-made foods such as bread). Try making your own bread and other foods! It's quick and easy.

If you need help in eating cheaper, healthier and tastier food, contact Coastalfields and we'll introduce you to the nutritional analysis and science provided by your tax dollars from the FDA and USDA, help you budget, teach you recipes and otherwise prepare you to feed yourself and everyone you love.

Paying more does not reduce the risk that the farmer used pesticides (or other chemicals, for that matter). Under the Organic Act, Organic farmers are REQUIRED to use pesticides; non-organic (conventional) farmers, while not required to, and still encouraged to and usually do use pesticides. The only defense against unethical farming is the public's vigilance. Contact your farmers and food suppliers. Ask hard questions.

Number 6: Leaves, Professor? If you focus on leaves for your diet, you'd better eat a lot of different kinds, and supplement with other foods like grains! Iceberg lettuce, for example, is a leaf, but is so devoid of nutrients that it might as well be water. Need it be said again that grains are not bad for you? Even Mr. Pollan could not avoid saying (but aptly disguises in a lot of mumble jumble) that you need to not overeat, more than you need to choose leaves over grains.

Yet Mr. Pollan cannot disguise the truth about "flexitarians," so he simply has to invent lies. Flexitarians are not as healthy as vegetarians, although they are certainly more healthy than the typical eater. The typical flexitarian eats more meat than they ought to (or admit to!). An adult needs only about 50 grams of protein PER DAY. Meat provides much protein, little nutrients. A bowl of Uncle Ben's rice provides nearly 10% of your protein needs for the day. What happens with too much protein (from animal OR plant sources)? Toxemia and a multitude of diseases. No one has ever died of not eating enough meat.

Number 7's faults have already been discussed. Number 8 implies that healthy food should NOT be cheap nor easy. This is not the case! Healthy eating can be, and almost always is, as cheap and easy as the Professor's standards of journalism. Most of the healthiest meals are quicker, easier and less expensive than fast food, premade meals or other unhealthy alternatives.

Number 9: Yes, Mr. Pollan is right, it is generally better to eat a varied diet, and biodiversity is good for the environment. However... you can eat a varied diet and still be unhealthy, and farming can be done with biodiversity and still use just as many pesticides and fertilizers. While diversity in either case is a good first step, both can easily be misapplied to make the result no better for the eater or the environment.

We Want None of the Journalism Mr. Pollan Professes

Mr. Pollan should be so ashamed of this article that he ought to never pick up a pen again before apologizing to everyone; the New York Times should print a retraction and the public should be outraged. If this sort of wholesale lying and mangling of truth continues, the necessary trust our democracy places in its journalists will be damaged beyond repair. Is it any wonder that people are turning to the citizen-journalists of periodicals like YourHub.com?

We want none of the journalism Mr. Pollan professes.