The Food Police

Like the other writers, I don't see any basis for singling Pollan out for his focus on obesity, which is a very minor point in his book, or for finger-wagging or moral superiority, which I think he does a great job of avoiding. What his books do is to educate people about what they are eating and where it comes from, which Americans know far too little about. I don't believe that obesity is the point, nor do I believe Pollan does. I believe the point is that Americans are too far removed from the sources of their food and base their food choices on the self-serving guidance of the food industry rather than on basic nutritional education. It is hard to read Pollan's book and not feel compelled to change your eating habits -- and not because Pollan tells you to, but because you can't look at processed food the same way once you think about what's in it.

The one point I do agree with is that obese people should not be stigmatized, regardless of the reasons for their obesity, and that the stigmatization of fat can have complex and often damaging psychological consequences. But this is the only defensible point in the article -- and it is not exactly new (see "Fat Is a Feminist Issue," 1978). There is plenty of data showing that the American diet is linked to the massive increase in obesity and that obesity is associated with a huge increase in health risks. The author is doing no one any favors by blowing smoke on these well-established facts. And even less so by attacking a writer who doesn't even focus on obesity much less stigmatize it but who takes what I think is the most constructive approach, namely, to focus people on understanding what they are eating and letting them decide, based on these facts, what's right for them. I, for one, think Pollan should be required reading in every classroom in America. Perhaps one in ten will decide to eat Cheetos in rebellion against his political correctness. The other nin

Although I appreciate the perspective I also think this is a terribly weak argument. Even the liberal in me is taken aback by the political correctness. While it is true that measures such as BMI fall very short in assessing total fitness and “diets” don’t work, there are some things that are blatantly obvious.

#1 As mentioned in other comments, Americans are getting fatter, especially children. BMI and social science are not required to make this stipulation. One only needs eyes.

#2 Processed food is not very healthful. This is a fact. It is simply cheap and abundant.

#3 Some people are better equipped to make better choices and thereby stay fit (not thin necessarily but fit). I don’t think positing this fact conveys moral superiority.

#4 I am fairly certain that the “headless” shots of the obese in news stories and films (such as Supersize Me) are done for legal purposes so the subjects can’t be identified. I think Guthman is grasping here. Too much academic mumbo-jumbo and PC.

Guthman's article terribly weak. She makes comments to the effect that obesity is not well defined, as per BMI, and that there are not particularly well established connections to what she believes is ill-defined obesity to other human pathologies. Where has she been for the past ten years?

I am 48 years old, and I can say for a fact that people are much fatter today than they were thirty years ago. Children are especially fat these days, as are the twenty somethings. BMI, basically how fat you are around your belly, is a great proxy for abdominal adipose tissue. This is born-out with studies where folks' fat is measured with CAT scans and correlated to waistlines. The abdominal adipose tissue has been found associated with heart disease, type-II diabetes, and other arterial disease.

I have been reading news blurbs for years in the NYTimes about results like those above published in peer-reviewed journals. Why is Guthman trying to make a case otherwise? Is she herself fat and trying to justify herself? Is she on the payroll of ADM, or some other like-minded outfit? Jealous of Pollan's success? Where are your sources? Is this even a field in which you are qualified? Are you an economist, geographer, or other pseudo-scientist?

A psychological profile of Guthman would be more illuminating than this ridiculous article. Why would the Utne reader publish this nonsense? Enjoy your Cheetos.

I think the author of this article was singling out Pollan
mostly because his book has gotten so much attention. His book does
talk about obesity and public health, but no more than other,
similar treatises. Two points: 1. Pollan's book is excellent in its
expose on food policy and effects, and I recommend it. I think the
author of this article goes a little overboard on singling him out.
2. The article's main point, however, is absolutely correct. First,
there isn't much medical evidence that being fat *causes* many of
the health problems it occurs alongside. It seems likely, given the
evidence, that obesity and diabetes, for examples, are two symptoms
of the same syndrome, rather than one causing the other. The author
is also correct in point out the environmental and progressive
community's hypocritical, elitist and cruel scapegoating of fat
people. I am, in general, a radical environmentalist. I am also a
clinically obese but otherwise healthy woman. I agree with most of
the points in films like Fast Food Nation, but I was hurt and
disgusted by the skinny vegan filmmaker's obvious disdain for fat
people. In social circles where everyone acknowledges the need to
be compassionate, and where racist, sexist or homophobic comments
are taboo, my friends often throw out casual comments about fat
people. It's the attitude reflected perfectly in the Fast Food
Nation shot the authors describes. Fat people, to prpgressive
environmentalists, are apparently examples of what is wrong with
our culture. Really, though, we're jsut scapegoats.

"The Omnivore's Dilemma" doesn't scold us for being fat, or
eating corn-based foods; it asks us to look at where our food comes
from. "...is Pollan’s way the way out? ...his answer, albeit
oblique, is to eat like he does. The meal that he helped forage and
hunt and cooked all by himself...To what kind of politics does this
lead?" Pollan doesn't suggest we should all hunt and forage each
meal for ourselves. He says on page 410, of one meal at McDonald's,
and his hunted-and-foraged meal, "Let us stipulate that both of
these meals are equally unreal and equally unsustainable," and
later, "This is not the way I want to eat every day. ...But imagine
for a moment if we once again knew, strictly as a matter of course,
these few unremarkable things: What it is we're eating. Where it
came from. How it found its way to our table. And what, in a true
accounting, it really cost." "I worry that Michael
Pollan...reinforces the belief that some people — thin people —
clearly must have seen the light that the rest are blind to." I
think he talks about obesity much less than you suggest. The book
is a great introduction to industrial food. Don't avoid it for fear
of finger-wagging and insults...there isn't any.

locally grown is great if you've got lots of money or don't mind
eating turnips all the new england winter ... speaking of which
have you ever seen what obese people have in their grocery carts?
try coming to my local low-income supermarket and check out the
sugary sodas, fatty meats, junk food, and processed crap in their
carts. yeah it tastes good and is cheap. we need simple and
positive education, not people like michael pollan waxing poetic
about how we can construct the perfect sustainable meal after a
trip to our local Whole Foods Market, which most of us can't
afford.

Julie Guthman’s article ‘The Food Police’ (UTNE, Jan-Feb 2008)
was a disappointingly unenlightened and poorly constructed defense
of bad nutrition. Anyone who has been both fat and lean, to
whatever degree, knows that lean simply feels better (let’s not say
thin, as thin refers to shape, lean to body composition). Regarding
the ‘so called obesity epidemic’ as she puts it, one need only take
a look at photos of Americans in their swimsuits at water parks and
beach resorts prior to say, 1950. Fat Americans were few and far
between. And obesity may not be a health threat? Obesity’s
relationship to diabetes, heart disease and musculoskeletal is
undisputed. In terms of its effect on longevity, how many obese
people do you see over 70? How many obese people have mobility
difficulties and circulatory problems due to an overly sedentary
lifestyle and an excessive burden on the bones and connective
tissues? It seems incredibly naive -- and unhealthy -- to suggest
that the link between obesity and poor health is controversial.
Pollan doesn’t directly urge his readers to write their congressmen
or the USDA (does that even help?). Rather, he does something more
important -- he urges us to vote with our forks. The change from
industrial agriculture and processed foods to healthy locally grown
foods starts at home, and it does happens ‘one meal at a time’. The
truth is, some people have seen the light, and others need to start
paying attention. Instead of defending the indefensible, I would
urge Ms. Guthman to put down the Cheetos and pick up a piece of
fruit -- preferably locally grown -- instead.

Julie Guthman is wrong in her assertion that Micheal Pollan
"makes no suggestion that we ought to alter the structure of our
food system so that we all might come to eat better." Michael
Pollan has spoken out and written commentary about the upcoming
Farm Bill numerous times. His advocacy for changing the way
government subsidizes the foods that make us unhealthy has been
extensive. To suggest that Pollan has put himself on a moral
pedistal with regards to food, while turning his back on the
policies that damage the health of average Americans is simplistic
and uninformed. There are many passionate people out there, in
addition to Pollan, who are working hard to change the course of
food policy in this country.