In Defense of Food

Home > Nonfiction > In Defense of Food > Page 20
In Defense of Food Page 20

by Michael Pollan


  The work of gro­wing fo­od cont­ri­bu­tes to yo­ur he­alth long be­fo­re you sit down to eat it, of co­ur­se, but the­re is so­met­hing par­ti­cu­larly fit­ting abo­ut en­lis­ting yo­ur body in its own sus­te­nan­ce. Much of what we call rec­re­ati­on or exer­ci­se con­sists of po­int­less physi­cal la­bor, so it is es­pe­ci­al­ly sa­tisf­ying when we can gi­ve that la­bor a po­int. But gar­de­ning con­sists of men­tal work as well: le­ar­ning abo­ut the dif­fe­rent va­ri­eti­es; fi­gu­ring out which do best un­der the con­di­ti­ons of yo­ur gar­den; ac­qu­a­in­ting yo­ur­self with the va­ri­o­us mic­roc­li­ma­tes-the subt­le dif­fe­ren­ces in light, mo­is­tu­re, and so­il qu­ality ac­ross even the ti­ni­est patch of earth; and de­vi­sing ways to out­wit pests wit­ho­ut re­sor­ting to che­mi­cals. No­ne of this work is ter­ribly dif­fi­cult; much of it is end­les­sly gra­tif­ying, and ne­ver mo­re so than in the ho­ur im­me­di­ately be­fo­re din­ner, when I ta­ke a kni­fe and a bas­ket out to the gar­den to har­vest wha­te­ver has dec­la­red it­self ri­pest and tas­ti­est.

  Among ot­her things, ten­ding a gar­den re­minds us of our an­ci­ent evo­lu­ti­onary bar­ga­in with the­se in­ge­ni­o­us do­mes­tic spe­ci­es-how cle­verly they in­si­nu­ate them­sel­ves in­to our li­ves, re­pa­ying the ca­re and spa­ce we gi­ve them with the gift of go­od fo­od. Each has its own way of an­no­un­cing-thro­ugh a chan­ge of co­lor, sha­pe, smell, tex­tu­re, or tas­te-that the mo­ment when it has the very most to of­fer us, when it is at its swe­etest and most no­uris­hing, has ar­ri­ved: Pick me!

  Not that everyt­hing in the gar­den al­ways works out so well; it do­esn’t, but the­re is a va­lue in the ine­vi­tab­le fa­ilu­res too. Whe­ne­ver yo­ur pro­du­ce is anyt­hing less than gor­ge­o­us and de­li­ci­o­us, gar­de­ning cul­ti­va­tes in you a de­ep res­pect for the skill of the far­mer who knows how con­sis­tently to get it right.

  When the bas­ket of pro­du­ce lands on the kitc­hen co­un­ter, when we start in on the cle­aning and cut­ting and chop­ping, we’re thin­king abo­ut a do­zen dif­fe­rent things-what to ma­ke, how to ma­ke it-but nut­ri­ti­on, or even he­alth, is pro­bably not high on the list. Lo­ok at this fo­od. The­re are no ing­re­di­ents la­bels, no he­alth cla­ims, not­hing to re­ad ex­cept may­be a re­ci­pe. It’s hard when con­temp­la­ting such pro­du­ce to think in terms of nut­ri­ents or che­mi­cal com­po­unds; no, this is fo­od, so fresh it’s still ali­ve, com­mu­ni­ca­ting with us by scent and co­lor and tas­te. The go­od co­ok ta­kes in all this sen­sory in­for­ma­ti­on and only then de­ci­des what to do with the bas­ket of pos­si­bi­li­ti­es on the co­un­ter: what to com­bi­ne it with; how, and how much, to “pro­cess” it. Now the cul­tu­re of the kitc­hen ta­kes over. That cul­tu­re is em­bo­di­ed in tho­se en­du­ring tra­di­ti­ons we call cu­isi­nes, any one of which con­ta­ins mo­re wis­dom abo­ut di­et and he­alth than you will find in any nut­ri­ti­on jo­ur­nal or jo­ur­na­lism. The co­ok do­es not ne­ed to know, as the sci­en­tists ha­ve re­cently in­for­med us, that co­oking the to­ma­to­es with oli­ve oil ma­kes the lyco­pe­ne in them mo­re ava­ilab­le to our bo­di­es. No, the co­ok al­re­ady knew that oli­ve oil with to­ma­to­es is a re­al­ly go­od idea.

  As co­ok in yo­ur kitc­hen you enj­oy an om­nis­ci­en­ce abo­ut yo­ur fo­od that no amo­unt of su­per­mar­ket study or la­bel re­ading co­uld ho­pe to match. Ha­ving re­ta­ken cont­rol of the me­al from the fo­od sci­en­tists and pro­ces­sors, you know exactly what is and is not in it: The­re are no qu­es­ti­ons abo­ut high-fruc­to­se corn syrup, or et­hoxy­la­ted digly­ce­ri­des, or par­ti­al­ly hydro­ge­na­ted soy oil, for the simp­le re­ason that you didn’t et­hoxy­la­te or par­ti­al­ly hydro­ge­na­te anyt­hing, nor did you add any ad­di­ti­ves. (Unless, that is, you’re the kind of co­ok who starts with a can of Camp­bell’s cre­am of mush­ro­om so­up, in which ca­se all bets are off.) To rec­la­im this much cont­rol over one’s fo­od, to ta­ke it back from in­dustry and sci­en­ce, is no small thing; in­de­ed, in our ti­me co­oking from scratch and gro­wing any of yo­ur own fo­od qu­alify as sub­ver­si­ve acts.

  And what the­se acts sub­vert is nut­ri­ti­onism: the be­li­ef that fo­od is fo­re­most abo­ut nut­ri­ti­on and nut­ri­ti­on is so comp­lex that only ex­perts and in­dustry can pos­sibly supply it. When you’re co­oking with fo­od as ali­ve as this-the­se gor­ge­o­us and se­mi­gor­ge­o­us fru­its and le­aves and flesh-you’re in no dan­ger of mis­ta­king it for a com­mo­dity, or a fu­el, or a col­lec­ti­on of che­mi­cal nut­ri­ents. No, in the eye of the co­ok or the gar­de­ner or the far­mer who grew it, this fo­od re­ve­als it­self for what it is: no me­re thing but a web of re­la­ti­ons­hips among a gre­at many li­ving be­ings, so­me of them hu­man, so­me not, but each of them de­pen­dent on the ot­her, and all of them ul­ti­ma­tely ro­oted in so­il and no­uris­hed by sun­light. I’m thin­king of the re­la­ti­ons­hip bet­we­en the plants and the so­il, bet­we­en the gro­wer and the plants and ani­mals he or she tends, bet­we­en the co­ok and the gro­wers who supply the ing­re­di­ents, and bet­we­en the co­ok and the pe­op­le who will so­on co­me to the tab­le to enj­oy the me­al. It is a lar­ge com­mu­nity to no­urish and be no­uris­hed by. The co­ok in the kitc­hen pre­pa­ring a me­al from plants and ani­mals at the end of this shor­test of fo­od cha­ins has a gre­at many things to worry abo­ut, but “he­alth” is simply not one of them, be­ca­use it is gi­ven.

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  I’ve de­di­ca­ted In De­fen­se of Fo­od to two edi­tors, Ann Go­doff and Gerry Mar­zo­ra­ti, be­ca­use the bo­ok wo­uld not exist wit­ho­ut them. It be­gan with an as­sign­ment from Gerry, who, over lunch one af­ter­no­on at a res­ta­urant in Oak­land, pro­po­sed that I le­arn all that I co­uld abo­ut di­et and he­alth and then wri­te an es­say abo­ut it. When that es­say was pub­lis­hed in The New York Ti­mes Ma­ga­zi­ne a ye­ar ago, un­der the tit­le “Unhap­py Me­als,” Ann Go­doff, my long­ti­me bo­ok edi­tor, te­lep­ho­ned to sug­gest the pi­ece might hold the germ of a bo­ok-this bo­ok. I men­ti­on all this be­ca­use I sus­pect many re­aders as­su­me bo­oks spring full blown from the he­ads of wri­ters, when in fact many of them spring, half ba­ked, from the he­ads of bril­li­ant edi­tors. I’m unu­su­al­ly for­tu­na­te to ha­ve two of the very best ones de­ci­ding how I sho­uld spend my ti­me. I’m do­ubly for­tu­na­te that Ann and Gerry al­so hap­pen to be two of my de­arest fri­ends. He­art­felt thanks to both of you.

  Ann and Gerry we­ren’t the only edi­tors who had a hand in this bo­ok, tho­ugh the ot­hers don’t we­ar the tit­le or re­ce­ive com­pen­sa­ti­on for the­ir la­bors (be­yond this pa­rag­raph). As with every one of my bo­oks, Judith Bel­zer re­ad the ma­nusc­ript mo­re ti­mes than an­yo­ne sho­uld ha­ve to and imp­ro­ved it in co­unt­less ways. I can no lon­ger even ima­gi­ne what it wo­uld be li­ke to wri­te a bo­ok wit­ho­ut her as my first re­ader, and you can ha­ve no idea just how many la­me sen­ten­ces and lo­usy ide­as she has kept out of print. As in the past, Mark Ed­mund­son and Mic­ha­el Schwarz al­so re­ad the bo­ok in ma­nusc­ript and ma­de pri­ce­less sug­ges­ti­ons; I co­uldn’t ha­ve mo­re sup­por­ti­ve or sti­mu­la­ting col­le­agu­es. Thanks too to Jack Hitt, who’s re­ad all my bo­oks in gal­leys and hel­ped me to fi­gu­re out what I’ve writ­ten-not al­ways so ob­vi­o­us. Chris­top­her Gard­ner, a nut­ri­ti­on sci­en­tist at Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity Scho­ol of Me­di­ci­ne, re­vi­ewed the ma­nusc­ript for sci­en­ti­fic ac­cu­racy and res­cu­ed me from nu­me­ro­us er­rors of fact and in­terp­re­ta­ti­on; of co­ur­se any that re­ma­in are mi­ne alo­ne. His own pi­one­ering re­se­arch in di­etary pat­terns was al­so very help­ful in de­ve­lo­ping my r
e­com­men­da­ti­ons in part three.

  I owe an in­cal­cu­lab­le debt of gra­ti­tu­de to Ad­ri­en­ne Da­vich, a gif­ted jo­ur­na­list (and for­mer stu­dent) who did a splen­did and he­ro­ic job of re­se­arc­hing the bo­ok and fact-chec­king the ma­nusc­ript. Ad­ri­en­ne im­mer­sed her­self in the me­di­cal li­te­ra­tu­re, sco­ured the Ber­ke­ley lib­rary and da­ta­ba­ses for in­for­ma­ti­on, and wor­ked the pho­ne con­fir­ming facts right up to press ti­me. I don’t exag­ge­ra­te when I say this bo­ok might still not be fi­nis­hed if not for her ze­al, in­tel­li­gen­ce, scru­pu­lo­us­ness, judg­ment, and un­fa­iling go­od hu­mor in the fa­ce of a da­un­ting de­ad­li­ne. I al­so want to thank my as­sis­tant Ja­ime Gross, for her in­dis­pen­sab­le help and cons­tant go­od che­er, as well as my past and pre­sent stu­dents at the Gra­du­ate Scho­ol of Jo­ur­na­lism, who cont­ri­bu­te mo­re to my work than they pro­bably re­ali­ze.

  This bo­ok is in many ways a work of synthe­sis, bu­ilt on a fo­un­da­ti­on of re­se­arch and thin­king la­id by ot­hers. In edu­ca­ting myself on the su­bj­ect of fo­od, he­alth, and ag­ri­cul­tu­re over the past se­ve­ral ye­ars, I’ve be­en for­tu­na­te to ha­ve fo­ur of the wi­sest and most ge­ne­ro­us te­ac­hers: Jo­an Gus­sow, Ma­ri­on Nest­le, Ali­ce Wa­ters, and Wen­dell Ber­ry-you are abi­ding ins­pi­ra­ti­ons. For the­ir in­sights and in­for­ma­ti­on in con­ver­sa­ti­ons and e-ma­il exc­han­ges, I’m al­so ple­ased to be ab­le to ack­now­led­ge and thank: Su­san Al­lport, Gyorgy Scri­nis (co­iner of the term nut­ri­ti­onism), Wal­ter Wil­lett, Joseph Hib­beln, Gladys Block, Ge­of­frey Can­non, And­rew We­il, Gary Nab­han, Bill Lands, Da­vid Lud­wig, Jim Ka­put, Aly­son Mitc­hell, Bri­an Hal­we­il, Bru­ce Ames, Mar­tin Ren­ner, and Ke­rin O’Dea. I ho­pe I’ve do­ne jus­ti­ce to yo­ur work. Much of what I know abo­ut ag­ri­cul­tu­re and fo­od systems I le­ar­ned from Jo­el Sa­la­tin and Ge­or­ge Nay­lor; and abo­ut eating well from Car­lo Pet­ri­ni, An­ge­lo Gar­ro, Dan Bar­ber, ever­yo­ne at Chez Pa­nis­se, and of co­ur­se my mot­her, Corky Pol­lan. The gro­wers in my own lo­cal fo­od cha­in ha­ve al­so cont­ri­bu­ted much to my thin­king abo­ut fo­od and he­alth: Thanks to Judith Red­mond and ever­yo­ne el­se at Full Belly Farm (my CSA), Da­vid Evans at Ma­rin Sun Farms, and all the far­mers at the Thurs­day far­mers’ mar­ket in Ber­ke­ley.

  Alex Star, my story edi­tor at The New York Ti­mes Ma­ga­zi­ne, hel­ped to fo­cus my thin­king in a se­ri­es of con­ver­sa­ti­ons; his gent­le but per­sis­tent prod­ding kept the pro­j­ect on track, and his in­ci­si­ve qu­es­ti­ons hel­ped shar­pen my ar­gu­ments. I’m al­so gra­te­ful to the hund­reds of re­aders who e-ma­iled me af­ter the pub­li­ca­ti­on of both The Om­ni­vo­re’s Di­lem­ma and “Unhap­py Me­als,” of­fe­ring in­va­lu­ab­le cri­ti­cisms, le­ads, re­ading sug­ges­ti­ons, and pro­vo­ca­ti­ons; this bo­ok is much bet­ter for yo­ur cont­ri­bu­ti­ons.

  At The Pen­gu­in Press, I get to work with not only the most ta­len­ted but al­so the ni­cest pe­op­le in bo­ok pub­lis­hing: Tracy Loc­ke, Sa­rah Hut­son, Li­za Darn­ton, Lind­say Wha­len, Mag­gie Si­von, and Jac­qu­eli­ne Fisc­het­ti. Pub­lis­hing a bo­ok is sel­dom tho­ught of as a ple­asant pro­cess, but at Pen­gu­in the­se days it ac­tu­al­ly al­most is. I co­unt on Aman­da Ur­ban, my li­te­rary agent for the past twenty ye­ars, for sa­ge and comp­le­tely un­var­nis­hed ad­vi­ce, and on­ce aga­in she de­li­ve­red the go­ods. Binky is al­most ne­ver wrong abo­ut anyt­hing. Tho­ugh I wo­uld li­ke to ta­ke this op­por­tu­nity to re­mind her that, when I left New Eng­land for la­id-back Ca­li­for­nia, she pre­dic­ted I wo­uld ne­ver comp­le­te anot­her bo­ok. He­re’s num­ber two.

  I owe a debt to three very spe­ci­al ins­ti­tu­ti­ons for ma­king that pos­sib­le and sup­por­ting the wri­ting of this bo­ok: the Gra­du­ate Scho­ol of Jo­ur­na­lism at Ber­ke­ley, whe­re I’ve ta­ught sin­ce 2003 (thank you, Or­vil­le Schell and col­le­agu­es); the John S. and James L. Knight Fo­un­da­ti­on, which has sup­por­ted my re­se­arch sin­ce I ca­me to Ber­ke­ley (thank you, Eric New­ton); and Me­sa Re­fu­ge, for len­ding me the ca­bin over­lo­oking To-ma­les Bay whe­re I wro­te the first pa­ges of this bo­ok un­der ne­arly ide­al cir­cums­tan­ces (thank you, Pe­ter Bar­nes).

  Fi­nal­ly to Isa­ac, kitc­hen col­la­bo­ra­tor, su­per­tas­ter, fast fri­end of the car­bohyd­ra­te, thank you for all the won­der­ful ide­as and sug­ges­ti­ons, even for co­ining the word “cor­nog­raphy” to desc­ri­be yo­ur fat­her’s work. The pri­ze of you and yo­ur mot­her’s com­pany at the din­ner tab­le at the end of the day is what ma­kes the wri­ting pos­sib­le.

  SOURCES

  Lis­ted be­low, by sec­ti­on, are the prin­ci­pal works re­fer­red to in the text as well as ot­hers that sup­pli­ed me with facts or cont­ri­bu­ted to my thin­king. Web si­te URLs are cur­rent as of Sep­tem­ber 2007. All ci­ted ar­tic­les by me are ava­ilab­le at www.mic­ha­el­pol­lan.com.

  INTRODUCTION: AN EATER’S MANIFESTO

  Glas­sner, Barry. The Gos­pel of Fo­od (New York: Har­per­Col­lins Pub­lis­hers, 2007).

  Kant­ro­witz, Bar­ba­ra, and Cla­udia Kalb. “Fo­od News Blu­es.” New­s­we­ek (March 13, 2006).

  Kass, Le­on. The Hungry So­ul (New York: The Free Press, 1994).

  Mo­zaf­fa­ri­an, Da­ri­ush, and Eric B. Rimm. “Fish In­ta­ke, Con­ta­mi­nants, and Hu­man He­alth: Eva­lu­ating the Risks and the Be­ne­fits.” Jo­ur­nal of the Ame­ri­can Me­di­cal As­so­ci­ati­on. 296.15 (2006):1885-99.

  Nes­he­im, Mal­den C., et al. “Se­afo­od Cho­ices: Ba­lan­cing Be­ne­fits and Risks” (Was­hing­ton, D.C.: Na­ti­onal Aca­de­mi­es Press, 2006).

  Nest­le, Ma­ri­on. Fo­od Po­li­tics (Ber­ke­ley: Uni­ver­sity of Ca­li­for­nia Press, 2002).

  Pol­lan, Mic­ha­el. The Om­ni­vo­re’s Di­lem­ma (New York: The Pen­gu­in Press, 2006).

  --. “Our Na­ti­onal Eating Di­sor­der.” New York Ti­mes Ma­ga­zi­ne, Oc­to­ber 17, 2004.

  Pren­ti­ce, Ross L. “Low-Fat Di­etary Pat­tern and Risk of In­va­si­ve Bre­ast Can­cer: The Wo­men’s He­alth Ini­ti­ati­ve Ran­do­mi­zed Cont­rol­led Di­etary Mo­di­fi­ca­ti­on Tri­al.” Jo­ur­nal of the Ame­ri­can Me­di­cal As­so­ci­ati­on. 295.6 (2006): 629-42.

  Ro­berts, Pa­ul. “The New Fo­od An­xi­ety.” Psycho­logy To­day (March/April, 1998).

  Ro­zin, Pa­ul. “The Se­lec­ti­on of Fo­ods by Rats, Hu­mans, and Ot­her Ani­mals” in Ad­van­ces in the Study of Be­ha­vi­or, Vol. 6. Edi­ted by J. Ro­senb­latt, R. A. Hil­de, C. Be­er, and E. Shaw (New York: Aca­de­mic Press, 1976), pp. 21-76. The phra­se “the om­ni­vo­re’s di­lem­ma” is usu­al­ly cre­di­ted to Ro­zin, who stu­di­es the psycho­logy of fo­od cho­ices.

  Scri­nis, Gyorgy. “Sorry Mar­ge.” Me­anj­in. 61.4 (2002): 108-16. Scri­nis co­ined the term “nut­ri­ti­onism” in this il­lu­mi­na­ting ar­tic­le.

  Temp­le, Nor­man J., and De­nis P. Bur­kitt. Wes­tern Di­se­ases (New Jer­sey: Hu­ma­na Press Inc., 1994).

  Tri­ve­di, Bi­j­al. “The Go­od, the Fad, and the Un­he­althy.” New Sci­en­tist (Sep­tem­ber 23, 2006).

  PART ONE: THE AGE OF NUTRITIONISM

  On the his­tory of nut­ri­ti­on sci­en­ce and the evo­lu­ti­on of di­etary ad­vi­ce:

  Brock, Wil­li­am H. Jus­tus von Li­ebig: The Che­mi­cal Ga­te­ke­eper (Camb­rid­ge: Camb­rid­ge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1997).

  Cam­b­rid­ge World His­tory of Fo­od, The: Vo­lu­me One, edi­ted by Ken­neth F. Kip­le and Kri­em­hild Co­nee Or­ne­las (Camb­rid­ge: Camb­rid­ge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2000).

  Ibid.: Vo­lu­me Two, edi­ted by Ken­neth F. Kip­le and Kri­em­hild Co­nee Or­ne­las (Camb­rid­ge: Camb­rid­ge Uni­
ver­sity Press, 2000).

  Can­non, Ge­of­frey. The Fa­te of Na­ti­ons: Fo­od and Nut­ri­ti­on Po­licy in the New World. The Ca­ro­li­ne Wal­ker Lec­tu­re 2003, gi­ven at the Ro­yal So­ci­ety (Lon­don: Ca­ro­li­ne Wal­ker Trust, 2003). Can be ob­ta­ined on­li­ne at www.cwt.org.uk.

  --. “Nut­ri­ti­on: The New World Map.” Asia Pa­ci­fic Jo­ur­nal of Cli­ni­cal Nut­ri­ti­on. 11 (2002): S480-S97.

  “Effect of Vi­ta­min E and Be­ta Ca­ro­te­ne on the In­ci­den­ce of Lung Can­cer and Ot­her Can­cers in Ma­le Smo­kers, The. The Alp­ha-To­cop­he­rol, Be­ta Ca­ro­te­ne Can­cer Pre­ven­ti­on Study Gro­up.” New Eng­land Jo­ur­nal of Me­di­ci­ne. 330.15 (1994): 1029-35.

  Fre­uden­he­im, Jo L. “Study De­sign and Hypot­he­sis Tes­ting: Is­su­es in the Eva­lu­ati­on of Evi­den­ce from Re­se­arch in Nut­ri­ti­onal Epi­de­mi­ology.” Ame­ri­can Jo­ur­nal of Cli­ni­cal Nut­ri­ti­on. 69 (1999): 1315S-21S.

 

‹ Prev