In Defense of Food

Home > Nonfiction > In Defense of Food > Page 6
In Defense of Food Page 6

by Michael Pollan


  SEVEN - BEYOND THE PLEASURE PRINCIPLE

  W e eaters, alas, don’t re­ap ne­arly as much be­ne­fit from nut­ri­ti­onism as fo­od pro­du­cers. Be­yond pro­vi­ding a li­cen­se to eat mo­re of the la­test ap­pro­ved fo­od­li­ke subs­tan­ce, which we su­rely do ap­pre­ci­ate, nut­ri­ti­onism tends to fos­ter a gre­at de­al of an­xi­ety aro­und the ex­pe­ri­en­ce of shop­ping for fo­od and eating it. To do it right, you’ve got to be up on the la­test sci­en­ti­fic re­se­arch, study ever-lon­ger and mo­re con­fu­sing ing­re­di­ents la­bels,* sift thro­ugh inc­re­asingly du­bi­o­us he­alth cla­ims, and then at­tempt to enj­oy fo­ods that ha­ve be­en en­gi­ne­ered with many ot­her obj­ec­ti­ves in vi­ew than simply tas­ting go­od. To think of so­me of the most de­li­ci­o­us com­po­nents of fo­od as to­xins, as nut­ri­ti­onism has ta­ught us to do in the ca­se of fat, do­es lit­tle for our hap­pi­ness as eaters. Ame­ri­cans ha­ve emb­ra­ced a “nut­ri­ti­onal phi­lo­sophy,” to bor­row Jane Brody’s words, that, re­gard­less of whet­her that phi­lo­sophy do­es anyt­hing for our he­alth, su­rely ta­kes much of the ple­asu­re out of eating.

  But why do we even ne­ed a nut­ri­ti­onal phi­lo­sophy in the first pla­ce? Per­haps be­ca­use we Ame­ri­cans ha­ve al­ways had a prob­lem ta­king ple­asu­re in eating. We cer­ta­inly ha­ve go­ne to unu­su­al lengths to avo­id it. Har­vey Le­vens­te­in, who has writ­ten two il­lu­mi­na­ting his­to­ri­es of Ame­ri­can fo­od cul­tu­re, sug­gests that the she­er abun­dan­ce of fo­od in Ame­ri­ca has bred “a va­gue in­dif­fe­ren­ce to fo­od, ma­ni­fes­ted in a ten­dency to eat and run, rat­her than to di­ne and sa­vor.” To sa­vor fo­od, to con­ce­ive of a me­al as an aest­he­tic ex­pe­ri­en­ce, has be­en re­gar­ded as evi­den­ce of ef­fe­te­ness, a form of fo­re­ign fop­pery. (Few things ha­ve be­en mo­re li­kely to get an Ame­ri­can po­li­ti­cal can­di­da­te in hot wa­ter than a tas­te for fi­ne fo­od, as Mar­tin Van Bu­ren dis­co­ve­red du­ring his fa­iled 1840 re­elec­ti­on cam­pa­ign. Van Bu­ren had bro­ught a French chef to the Whi­te Ho­use, a blun­der se­ized on by his op­po­nent, Wil­li­am Henry Har­ri­son, who ma­de much of the fact that he sub­sis­ted on “raw be­ef and salt.” Ge­or­ge H. W. Bush’s pre­di­lec­ti­on for pork rinds and Bill Clin­ton’s for Big Macs we­re po­li­ti­cal­ly as­tu­te tas­tes to show off.)

  It co­uld well be that, as Le­vens­te­in con­tends, the she­er abun­dan­ce of fo­od in Ame­ri­ca has fos­te­red a cul­tu­re of ca­re­less, per­func­tory eating. But our Pu­ri­tan ro­ots al­so im­pe­ded a sen­su­al or aest­he­tic enj­oy­ment of fo­od. Li­ke sex, the ne­ed to eat links us to the ani­mals, and his­to­ri­cal­ly a gre­at de­al of Pro­tes­tant energy has go­ne in­to hel­ping us ke­ep all such ani­mal ap­pe­ti­tes un­der strict cont­rol. To the Chris­ti­an so­ci­al re­for­mers of the ni­ne­te­enth cen­tury, “The na­ked act of eating was lit­tle mo­re than una­vo­idab­le…and was not to be con­si­de­red a ple­asu­re ex­cept with gre­at disc­re­ti­on.” I’m qu­oting from La­ura Sha­pi­ro’s Per­fec­ti­on Sa­lad, which re­co­unts the cam­pa­ign of the­se do­mes­tic re­for­mers to con­vin­ce Ame­ri­cans, in the words of one, “that eating is so­met­hing mo­re than ani­mal in­dul­gen­ce, and that co­oking has a nob­ler pur­po­se than the gra­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of ap­pe­ti­te and the sen­se of tas­te.” And what might that nob­ler pur­po­se be? So­und nut­ri­ti­on and go­od sa­ni­ta­ti­on. By ele­va­ting tho­se sci­en­ti­fic prin­cip­les and “dis­da­ining the pro­of of the pa­la­te,” Sha­pi­ro wri­tes, “they ma­de it pos­sib­le for Ame­ri­can co­oking to ac­cept a flo­od of da­ma­ging in­no­va­ti­ons for ye­ars to co­me”-low-fat pro­ces­sed fo­od pro­ducts pro­mi­nent among them.

  So sci­en­ti­fic eating is an old and ve­ne­rab­le tra­di­ti­on in Ame­ri­ca. He­re’s how Har­vey Le­vens­te­in sums up the qu­asis­ci­en­ti­fic be­li­efs that ha­ve sha­ped Ame­ri­can at­ti­tu­des to­ward fo­od for mo­re than a cen­tury: “that tas­te is not a true gu­ide to what sho­uld be eaten; that one sho­uld not simply eat what one enj­oys; that the im­por­tant com­po­nents of fo­ods can­not be se­en or tas­ted, but are dis­cer­nib­le only in sci­en­ti­fic la­bo­ra­to­ri­es; and that ex­pe­ri­men­tal sci­en­ce has pro­du­ced ru­les of nut­ri­ti­on which will pre­vent il­lness and en­co­ura­ge lon­ge­vity.” Le­vens­te­in co­uld be desc­ri­bing the ma­in te­nets of nut­ri­ti­onism.

  Per­haps the most no­to­ri­o­us flo­we­ring of pse­udos­ci­en­ti­fic eating (and pro­to­nut­ri­ti­onism) ca­me in the early ye­ars of the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, when John Har­vey Kel­logg and Ho­ra­ce Fletc­her per­su­aded tho­usands of Ame­ri­cans to tra­de all ple­asu­re in eating for he­alth-pro­mo­ting di­etary re­gi­mens of truly bre­ath­ta­king ri­gor and per­ver­sity. The two di­et gu­rus we­re uni­ted in the­ir con­tempt for ani­mal pro­te­in, the con­sump­ti­on of which Dr. Kel­logg, a Se­venth-Day Ad­ven­tist who bo­re a stri­king re­semb­lan­ce to KFC’s Co­lo­nel San­ders, firmly be­li­eved pro­mo­ted both mas­tur­ba­ti­on and the pro­li­fe­ra­ti­on of to­xic bac­te­ria in the co­lon. Du­ring this, the first gol­den age of Ame­ri­can fo­od fad­dism, pro­te­in per­for­med much the sa­me ro­le that fat wo­uld per­form du­ring the next. At Kel­logg’s Bat­tle Cre­ek sa­ni­ta­ri­um, pa­ti­ents (who inc­lu­ded John D. Roc­ke­fel­ler and The­odo­re Ro­ose­velt) pa­id a small for­tu­ne to be su­bj­ec­ted to such “sci­en­ti­fic” prac­ti­ces as ho­urly yo­gurt ene­mas (to un­do the da­ma­ge that pro­te­in sup­po­sedly wre­aked on the co­lon); elect­ri­cal sti­mu­la­ti­on and “mas­si­ve vib­ra­ti­on” of the ab­do­men; di­ets con­sis­ting of not­hing but gra­pes (ten to fo­ur­te­en po­unds of them a day); and at every me­al, “Fletc­he­ri­zing,” the prac­ti­ce of che­wing each bi­te of fo­od ap­pro­xi­ma­tely one hund­red ti­mes. (Often to the ro­using ac­com­pa­ni­ment of spe­ci­al che­wing songs.) The the­ory was that tho­ro­ugh mas­ti­ca­ti­on wo­uld re­du­ce pro­te­in in­ta­ke (this se­ems cer­ta­in) and the­reby imp­ro­ve “su­bj­ec­ti­ve and obj­ec­ti­ve well-be­ing.” Ho­ra­ce Fletc­her (aka “the gre­at mas­ti­ca­tor”) had no sci­en­ti­fic cre­den­ti­als what­so­ever, but the examp­le of his own ext­ra­or­di­nary fit­ness-at fifty he co­uld bo­und up and down the Was­hing­ton Mo­nu­ment’s 898 steps wit­ho­ut pa­using to catch his bre­ath-whi­le exis­ting on a da­ily re­gi­men of only 45 well-che­wed grams of pro­te­in was all the pro­of his ad­he­rents ne­eded.* The brot­hers Henry and Wil­li­am James both be­ca­me ent­hu­si­as­tic “che­wers.”†

  Wha­te­ver the­ir bi­olo­gi­cal ef­fi­cacy, all the­se di­etary exer­ti­ons had the ef­fect of re­mo­ving eating from so­ci­al li­fe and ple­asu­re from eating; com­pul­si­ve che­wing (much less ho­urly ene­ma bre­aks) is not exactly con­du­ci­ve to the ple­asu­res of the tab­le. Al­so, Fletc­he­ri­zing wo­uld ha­ve for­cibly dra­ined fo­od of the very last glim­mer of fla­vor long be­fo­re the hund­redth cont­rac­ti­on of the jaw had be­en co­un­ted. Kel­logg him­self was outs­po­ken in his hos­ti­lity to the ple­asu­res of eating: “The dec­li­ne of a na­ti­on com­men­ces when go­ur­man­di­zing be­gins.”

  If that is so, Ame­ri­ca had lit­tle re­ason to worry.

  Ame­ri­ca’s early at­trac­ti­on to va­ri­o­us forms of sci­en­ti­fic eating may al­so ha­ve ref­lec­ted dis­com­fort abo­ut the way ot­her pe­op­le eat: the we­ird, messy, smelly, and mi­xed-up eating ha­bits of im­mig­rants.‡ How a pe­op­le eats is one of the most po­wer­ful ways they ha­ve to exp­ress, and pre­ser­ve, the­ir cul­tu­ral iden­tity, which is exactly what you don’t want in a so­ci­ety de­di­ca­ted to the ide­al of “Ame­ri­ca­ni­za­ti­on.” To ma­ke fo­od cho­ices mo�
�re sci­en­ti­fic is to empty them of the­ir eth­nic con­tent and his­tory; in the­ory, at le­ast, nut­ri­ti­onism pro­po­ses a ne­ut­ral, mo­der­nist, for­ward-lo­oking, and po­ten­ti­al­ly unif­ying ans­wer to the qu­es­ti­on of what it might me­an to eat li­ke an Ame­ri­can. It is al­so a way to mo­ra­li­ze abo­ut ot­her pe­op­le’s cho­ices wit­ho­ut se­eming to. In this, nut­ri­ti­onism is a lit­tle li­ke the ins­ti­tu­ti­on of the Ame­ri­can front lawn, an uno­bj­ec­ti­onab­le, if bland, way to pa­ve over our dif­fe­ren­ces and Ame­ri­ca­ni­ze the lands­ca­pe. Of co­ur­se in both ca­ses unity co­mes at the pri­ce of aest­he­tic di­ver­sity and sen­sory ple­asu­re. Which may be pre­ci­sely the po­int.

  EIGHT - THE PROOF IN THE LOW-FAT PUDDING

  W ha­te­ver the sac­ri­fi­ce of ple­asu­re, it wo­uld be ma­de up for by bet­ter he­alth-that, at le­ast, has al­ways be­en nut­ri­ti­onism’s pro­mi­se. But it’s dif­fi­cult to conc­lu­de that sci­en­ti­fic eating has cont­ri­bu­ted to our he­alth. As men­ti­oned, the low-fat cam­pa­ign co­in­ci­ded with a dra­ma­tic inc­re­ase in the in­ci­den­ce of obe­sity and di­abe­tes in Ame­ri­ca. You co­uld bla­me this un­for­tu­na­te fal­lo­ut on us eaters for fol­lo­wing the of­fi­ci­al ad­vi­ce to eat mo­re low-fat fo­od a lit­tle too avidly. This exp­la­na­ti­on sug­gests that the prob­lem with the low-fat cam­pa­ign has be­en in its exe­cu­ti­on rat­her than in the the­ory be­hind it, and that a bet­ter, cle­arer pub­lic he­alth mes­sa­ge might ha­ve sa­ved us from our­sel­ves. But it is al­so pos­sib­le that the ad­vi­ce it­self, to rep­la­ce fats in the di­et with car­bohyd­ra­tes, was mis­gu­ided. As the Hu pa­per sug­gests, the­re is a gro­wing body of evi­den­ce that shif­ting from fats to car­bohyd­ra­tes may le­ad to we­ight ga­in (as well as a host of ot­her prob­lems). This is co­un­te­rin­tu­iti­ve, be­ca­use fats con­ta­in ne­arly twi­ce as many ca­lo­ri­es as carbs (9 per gram for fats as com­pa­red to 5 for eit­her car­bohyd­ra­tes or pro­te­in). The the­ory is that re­fi­ned car­bohyd­ra­tes in­ter­fe­re with in­su­lin me­ta­bo­lism in ways that inc­re­ase hun­ger and pro­mo­te ove­re­ating and fat sto­ra­ge in the body. (Call it the car­bohyd­ra­te hypot­he­sis; it’s co­ming.)* If this is true, then the­re is no es­ca­ping the conc­lu­si­on that the di­etary ad­vi­ce ensh­ri­ned not only in the McGo­vern “Go­als” but al­so in the Na­ti­onal Aca­demy of Sci­en­ces re­port, the di­etary gu­ide­li­nes of the Ame­ri­can He­art As­so­ci­ati­on and the Ame­ri­can Can­cer So­ci­ety and the U.S. fo­od pyra­mid be­ars di­rect res­pon­si­bi­lity for cre­ating the pub­lic he­alth cri­sis that now conf­ronts us.

  Even if we ac­cept the epi­de­mic of obe­sity and di­abe­tes as the unin­ten­ded con­se­qu­en­ce of the war aga­inst di­etary fat-col­la­te­ral da­ma­ge, you might say-what abo­ut the in­ten­ded con­se­qu­en­ce of that cam­pa­ign: the re­duc­ti­on of he­art di­se­ase? He­re is whe­re the low-fat cam­pa­ig­ners ha­ve cho­sen to ma­ke the­ir last stand, po­in­ting pro­udly to the fact that af­ter pe­aking in the la­te six­ti­es, de­aths from he­art di­se­ase fell dra­ma­ti­cal­ly in Ame­ri­ca, a 50 per­cent dec­li­ne sin­ce 1969. Cho­les­te­rol le­vels ha­ve al­so fal­len. Epi­de­mi­olo­gist Wal­ter C. Wil­lett of the Har­vard Scho­ol of Pub­lic He­alth (a co­a­ut­hor of the Hu pa­per) ci­tes the inc­re­ase in con­sump­ti­on of pol­yun­sa­tu­ra­ted fats “as a ma­j­or fac­tor, if not the most im­por­tant fac­tor, in the dec­li­ne in he­art di­se­ase” ob­ser­ved in the se­ven­ti­es and eigh­ti­es and calls the cam­pa­ign to rep­la­ce sa­tu­ra­ted fats in the di­et one of the gre­at pub­lic he­alth suc­cess sto­ri­es of our ti­me. And so it wo­uld ap­pe­ar to be: We re­du­ced our sa­tu­ra­ted fat in­ta­ke, our cho­les­te­rol le­vels fell, and many fe­wer pe­op­le drop­ped de­ad of he­art at­tacks.

  Whet­her the low-fat cam­pa­ig­ners sho­uld ta­ke the cre­dit for this ac­hi­eve­ment is do­ubt­ful, ho­we­ver. Re­du­cing mor­ta­lity from he­art di­se­ase is not the sa­me thing as re­du­cing the in­ci­den­ce of he­art di­se­ase, and the­re’s re­ason to qu­es­ti­on whet­her un­derl­ying ra­tes of he­art di­se­ase ha­ve gre­atly chan­ged in the last thirty ye­ars, as they sho­uld ha­ve if chan­ges in di­et we­re so im­por­tant. A ten-ye­ar study of he­art di­se­ase mor­ta­lity pub­lis­hed in the New Eng­land Jo­ur­nal of Me­di­ci­ne in 1998 strongly sug­gests that most of the dec­li­ne in de­aths from he­art di­se­ase is due not to chan­ges in li­festy­le, such as di­et, but to imp­ro­ve­ments in me­di­cal ca­re. (Tho­ugh ces­sa­ti­on of smo­king has be­en im­por­tant.) For whi­le du­ring the pe­ri­od un­der analy­sis, he­art at­tack de­aths dec­li­ned subs­tan­ti­al­ly, hos­pi­tal ad­mis­si­ons for he­art at­tack did not. Mo­dern me­di­ci­ne is cle­arly sa­ving mo­re pe­op­le suf­fe­ring from he­art di­se­ase, but it ap­pe­ars that we ha­ven’t had ne­arly as much suc­cess eli­mi­na­ting the di­se­ase it­self.

  NINE - BAD SCIENCE

  T o un­ders­tand how nut­ri­ti­on sci­en­ce co­uld ha­ve be­en so spec­ta­cu­larly wrong abo­ut di­etary fat and he­alth, it’s im­por­tant to un­ders­tand that do­ing nut­ri­ti­on sci­en­ce isn’t easy. In fact, it’s a lot har­der than most of the sci­en­tists who do it for a li­ving re­ali­ze or at le­ast are wil­ling to ad­mit. For one thing, the sci­en­ti­fic to­ols at the­ir dis­po­sal are in many ways ill su­ited to the task of un­ders­tan­ding systems as comp­lex as fo­od and di­et. The as­sump­ti­ons of nut­ri­ti­onism-such as the idea that a fo­od is not a system but rat­her the sum of its nut­ri­ent parts-po­se anot­her set of prob­lems. We li­ke to think of sci­en­tists as be­ing free from ide­olo­gi­cal ta­int, but of co­ur­se they are as much the pro­duct of the­ir ide­olo­gi­cal en­vi­ron­ment as the rest of us. In the sa­me way nut­ri­ti­onism can le­ad to a fal­se cons­ci­o­us­ness in the mind of the eater, it can just as easily mis­le­ad the sci­en­tist.

  The prob­lem starts with the nut­ri­ent. Most nut­ri­ti­onal sci­en­ce in­vol­ves stud­ying one nut­ri­ent at a ti­me, a se­emingly una­vo­idab­le ap­pro­ach that even nut­ri­ti­onists who do it will tell you is de­eply fla­wed. “The prob­lem with nut­ri­ent-by-nut­ri­ent nut­ri­ti­on sci­en­ce,” po­ints out Ma­ri­on Nest­le, a New York Uni­ver­sity nut­ri­ti­onist, “is that it ta­kes the nut­ri­ent out of the con­text of the fo­od, the fo­od out of the con­text of the di­et, and the di­et out of the con­text of the li­festy­le.”

  If nut­ri­ti­on sci­en­tists know this, why do they do it any­way? Be­ca­use a nut­ri­ent bi­as is bu­ilt in­to the way sci­en­ce is do­ne. Sci­en­tists study va­ri­ab­les they can iso­la­te; if they can’t iso­la­te a va­ri­ab­le, they won’t be ab­le to tell whet­her its pre­sen­ce or ab­sen­ce is me­aning­ful. Yet even the simp­lest fo­od is a ho­pe­les­sly comp­li­ca­ted thing to analy­ze, a vir­tu­al wil­der­ness of che­mi­cal com­po­unds, many of which exist in int­ri­ca­te and dyna­mic re­la­ti­on to one anot­her, and all of which to­get­her are in the pro­cess of chan­ging from one sta­te to anot­her. So if you’re a nut­ri­ti­on sci­en­tist you do the only thing you can do, gi­ven the to­ols at yo­ur dis­po­sal: Bre­ak the thing down in­to its com­po­nent parts and study tho­se one by one, even if that me­ans ig­no­ring subt­le in­te­rac­ti­ons and con­texts and the fact that the who­le may well be mo­re than, or may­be just dif­fe­rent from, the sum of its parts. This is what we me­an by re­duc­ti­onist sci­en­ce.

  Sci­en­ti­fic re­duc­ti­onism is an un­de­ni­ably po­wer­ful to­ol, but it can mis­le­ad us too, es­pe­ci­al­ly when ap­pli­ed to so­met­hing as comp­lex, on the one si­de, as a fo­od and on the ot­her a hu­man eater. It en­co­ura­ges us to ta­ke a simp­le mec­ha­nis­tic vi­ew of that
tran­sac­ti­on: Put in this nut­ri­ent, get out that physi­olo­gi­cal re­sult. Yet pe­op­le dif­fer in im­por­tant ways. We all know that lucky so­ul who can eat pro­di­gi­o­us qu­an­ti­ti­es of fat­te­ning fo­od wit­ho­ut ever ga­ining we­ight. So­me po­pu­la­ti­ons can me­ta­bo­li­ze su­gars bet­ter than ot­hers. De­pen­ding on yo­ur evo­lu­ti­onary he­ri­ta­ge, you may or may not be ab­le to di­gest the lac­to­se in milk. De­pen­ding on yo­ur ge­ne­tic ma­ke­up, re­du­cing the sa­tu­ra­ted fat in yo­ur di­et may or may not mo­ve yo­ur cho­les­te­rol num­bers. The spe­ci­fic eco­logy of yo­ur in­tes­ti­nes helps de­ter­mi­ne how ef­fi­ci­ently you di­gest what you eat, so that the sa­me 100 ca­lo­ri­es of fo­od may yi­eld mo­re or less fo­od energy de­pen­ding on the pro­por­ti­on of Fir­mi­cu­tes and Bac­te­ro­ides re­si­dent in yo­ur gut. In turn, that ba­lan­ce of bac­te­ri­al spe­ci­es co­uld owe to yo­ur ge­nes or to so­met­hing in yo­ur en­vi­ron­ment. So the­re is not­hing very mac­hi­ne­li­ke abo­ut the hu­man eater, and to think of fo­od as simply fu­el is to comp­le­tely mis­const­rue it. It’s worth ke­eping in mind too that, cu­ri­o­usly, the hu­man di­ges­ti­ve tract has ro­ughly as many ne­urons as the spi­nal co­lumn. We don’t yet know exactly what they’re up to, but the­ir exis­ten­ce sug­gests that much mo­re is go­ing on in di­ges­ti­on than simply the bre­ak­down of fo­ods in­to che­mi­cals.

  Also, pe­op­le don’t eat nut­ri­ents; they eat fo­ods, and fo­ods can be­ha­ve very dif­fe­rently from the nut­ri­ents they con­ta­in. Ba­sed on epi­de­mi­olo­gi­cal com­pa­ri­sons of dif­fe­rent po­pu­la­ti­ons, re­se­arc­hers ha­ve long be­li­eved that a di­et con­ta­ining lots of fru­its and ve­ge­tab­les con­fers so­me pro­tec­ti­on aga­inst can­cer. So na­tu­ral­ly they ask, What nut­ri­ent in tho­se plant fo­ods is res­pon­sib­le for that ef­fect? One hypot­he­sis is that the an­ti­oxi­dants in fresh pro­du­ce-com­po­unds li­ke be­ta-ca­ro­te­ne, lyco­pe­ne, vi­ta­min E, and so on-are the X fac­tor. It ma­kes go­od the­ore­ti­cal sen­se: The­se mo­le­cu­les (which plants pro­du­ce to pro­tect them­sel­ves from the highly re­ac­ti­ve forms of oxy­gen they pro­du­ce du­ring pho­tosynt­he­sis) so­ak up the free ra­di­cals in our bo­di­es, which can da­ma­ge DNA and ini­ti­ate can­cers. At le­ast that’s how it se­ems to work in a test tu­be. Yet as so­on as you re­mo­ve the­se cru­ci­al mo­le­cu­les from the con­text of the who­le fo­ods they’re fo­und in, as we’ve do­ne in cre­ating an­ti­oxi­dant sup­ple­ments, they don’t se­em to work at all. In­de­ed, in the ca­se of be­ta-ca­ro­te­ne in­ges­ted as a sup­ple­ment, one study has sug­ges­ted that in so­me pe­op­le it may ac­tu­al­ly in­c­re­ase the risk of cer­ta­in can­cers. Big oops.

 

‹ Prev