Michael Pollan On Jonathan Safran Foer, Food Trucks, Nose-To-Tail, Salt, Sugar, His Last Three Meals, And More In Exclusive Interview (PHOTOS)

We chatted extensively with Michael Pollan the other day, covering:

• Criticism from Jonathan Safran Foer -- and others -- for not being anti-meat enough, and not "grappling" with meat
• The animal-rights community
• How middle- and low-income meat eaters can stop eating feedlot meat
• Nose-to-tail eating and "rock star" butchers
• Food trucks, street food, and redefining our "fast-food" eating culture
• His last three meals
• Salt, high-fructose corn syrup, food marketing, and health claims
• Grilling season, men re-entering the kitchen, and the feminist revolution's affect on cooking
• Oprah, and tangling with the food industry

And much, much more. Accompanied by prints and photographs from the Library of Congress, here are the highlights:

1 of 18

On criticism of himself and Food Inc. for not being anti-meat enough

1 of 19

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

"Nobody is anti-meat enough for the animal-rights purists, except for someone who says that eating meat is morally indefensible.  So there's certain people that are never going to be satisfied by any message short of 'Don't Eat Meat,' and that's not my message."

Gateway Artisanal Cheese

10 Health Benefits of Eating Chocolate

Most Bizarre Pizza Toppings

Svalbard Global Seed Vault

World's Most Gut-Busting Meals

Doritos Locos Experiments

"Nobody is anti-meat enough for the animal-rights purists, except for someone who says that eating meat is morally indefensible.  So there's certain people that are never going to be satisfied by any message short of 'Don't Eat Meat,' and that's not my message."

comments(321)

Total comments: 321 | Post a Comment

1 of 19

Rate This Slide

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Disagree. Fully Agree.

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Current Top 5 Slides

loading...

Choose your Top 5 Slides

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Read the full transcript of the interview, with special thanks to Jennifer O'Reilly, here.

Photographs and prints from the Library of Congress

Follow HuffPost Food on Twitter and Facebook!

 1  2  Next  Last »

Comments

[DaveRhodeIsland]

01:36 PM on 06/03/2010

It's amazing to me that some vegans think that removing animals from the food equation is either natural, or viable for the long term.

Basically, the vegan political extremist position that meat is murder is anti-nature, and relies on a form of belief more akin to a world inhabited by unicorns and fairies, than by real species.

If one chooses not to eat meat, fine. Just stop trying to demonize those of us who do eat meat. It's ridiculous, unnatural, and immature.

[Ljilja]

12:36 PM on 04/26/2010

After my diagnosis with breast cancer five years ago, I tried to become a vegetarian. But, it just wasn't me. I felt I was overcompensating by eating too many crabs, and what's most important, I like meat.
I don't eat meat all the time, but I like it occasionally and in small quantities. So, that's how I eat it now. I try to buy good quality meat twice or three times a week for my family. We have discovered that we'd rather have less of the really good stuff. Thanks for you advice.

http://www.michaelpollan.com/

[stepild]

12:56 AM on 04/19/2010

check it out www.pattywagonburgers.com LA food truck serving grass fed mini burgers

[Ozark Homesteader]

05:13 PM on 04/18/2010

One way for those of us who are not wealthy to purchase meat that is not sourced from factory farms is to buy a bit less of it, using beans and grains as other sources of protein. Honestly, 2 ounces of animal protein at a meal is more than enough, as long as the rest of your meal is nutritious. It's the original Southern "meat and three": http://ozarkhomesteader.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/meat-and-three-the-classic-deep-south-supper/

It also helps if you don't buy small portions of animals. In other words, instead of buying chicken breasts, buy the whole chicken. Then use the whole chicken. Eat every bit of meat, even if something like the neck meat ends up in soup. Then make stock from the carcass, instead of paying through the nose for stock-in-a-box.

By the way, we're smoking a whole chicken, Southern barbeque style, as I type. I'll be posting details in the next few days on my little blog. You can find me using all of the parts and combining animal and vegetable protein there pretty regularly.

http://ozarkhomesteader.wordpress.com/

[sheoples]

10:08 AM on 04/16/2010

the way corporate food companies have taken over farms and grow animals is barbaric

i was watching jamie olivers' saving our bacon...........man........i envy the brits........at least they have gov't initiative to move away and ban caged pigs......

in america.........caged pigs are still the norm..........and no laws to outlaw them anytime soon........

so sad.

[grumpyfarmer]

11:19 PM on 04/13/2010

So much misinformation, so little time(and space).

First, animals are not "tortured to death" in slaughterhouses as almost always is claimed anytime a post about eating meat surfaces on this website. Everyone in the meat business from the farmer up knows that animals that are excited or upset often yield meat that doesn't taste good, plus there is no good reason for slaughter not to be humane. The implication by those against eating meat is in the wild animals die in their sleep. I spend quite a bit of time outside, and see the good and bad mother nature has to offer. Death for wild animals is very rarely quick and painless. Watch a hawk eat a rabbit, a snake eat a rat, a coyote eat a prairie dog. The idea that somehow animals are noble and we are brutal savages for eating meat is out there, to say the least. I am an animal lover, I also like to eat meat. I am not hung up about an animal being slaughtered so I can eat, when animals die every single day for a myriad of other reasons. We take good care of them while they are alive, and slaughter them humanely. No reason to feel guilty about it.

[AnimalLover6]

12:23 AM on 04/14/2010

OMG. So far from the truth, it's not even funny. Virtually NO animal is slaughtered "humanely" in the factory slaughterhouse, which is what almost ALL slaughterhouses in this country are:

http://www.madcowboy.com/01_FactsAR.000.html

[grumpyfarmer]

12:30 AM on 04/14/2010

A link, great proof. I can offer up a link to a site that will show pretty convincing evidence for almost any position on any item you care to mention. There is no reason to brutalize animals. I can't sit here and say that a slaughter house is a pleasant place to be, but the idea that there can be no such thing as humane slaughter is nuts. What is also nuts is completely avoiding the fact that everything alive dies, and generally speaking death ain't fun. For the most part animal slaughter can be quick and as painless as possible.

Question. Our local locker, which I sometimes frequent once a week on slaughter day, does indeed without question slaughter quickly and painlessly, I have seen this regularly with my own eyes. Is it immoral to eat meat from that source?

[grumpyfarmer]

12:38 AM on 04/14/2010

I've skimmed your link several times. I have no issue with the idea that "factory farming" is not a good thing, the industrialization of animal agriculture has been bad for farmers, animals, and consumers(other than the fact the raw food products have been able to be unbelievably cheap compared to inflation). You will get no argument from me that hens confined to cages for their entire lives are miserable. However, I do believe animals can be humanely raised, but the deck is stacked against small scale more traditional livestock farmers, and vegans are no more a friend to someone like me who has 200 cow/calf pairs on 2000 acres of native grass than they are to a feedlot owner, or the CEO of Tyson.

[katocat]

09:47 PM on 04/13/2010

Questionable Beef by Lola Balatro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn4VYghL2Eg

[City of Evil]

03:32 PM on 04/13/2010

"Grappling with meat"... sounds like a good time.

[Soliel]

01:37 PM on 04/13/2010

Mr. Pollan-

It's not about animal rights people being purist.

It's the fact you never really included veganism or vegetarianism as a viable option...when it so clearly is an excellent choice in making more positive, humane and healthy choices. Not just for ourselves and animals but for poor people who have to work in the animal industry and those who suffer pollution because of it.

You didn't explore the issue deep enough when you could have easily done so.

This is where the criticism is coming from.

[entopticon]

06:21 PM on 04/13/2010

Soliel, have you ever actually read any of Michael Pollan's work? It sure as hell doesn't sound like it, because if you did, it would be hard to imagine why you would be arguing what you are arguing, because it has little basis in reality. Michael Pollan most certainly has considered the pros and cons of veganism and vegetarianism, and to no short degree.

[AnimalLover6]

10:28 PM on 04/13/2010

He has considered it only to dismiss it, with no legitimate argument whatsoever.

[Elk Hunter 1]

11:49 PM on 04/13/2010

The artical is about meat.

When he writes one on lettuce should I complain because he doesn't bring up bacon?

Also those poor people who work in the industry do it out of choice. They also have jobs because of it, would you rather they not work?

[ProfessorBrooks]

01:17 PM on 04/14/2010

"Also those poor people who work in the industry do it out of choice. They also have jobs because of it, would you rather they not work?"

Irrelevant. Red Herring fallacy. The issue of meat and whether to eat it is unrelated to need for jobs. You could just as easily say that we should keep the institution of human slavery or we put slave traders out of work.

[RMankovitz]

12:56 PM on 04/13/2010

Personally, I do not eat any CAFO foods or soy or grains or nuts or seeds. Instead, I follow the Original Diet because I believe it is the most ethical, sustainable, and healthiest diet on the planet. It was designed by nature and tested on 100,000 generations of our ancestors over about 2.5 million years.

It does not require the use of artificial fertilizers or pesticides (both derived from fossil fuel); or diesel fuel to run agricultural machinery to plow, cultivate and harvest; or artificial irrigation; or GM seeds.

It is completely independent of farms and all of the agricultural machinery that destroys topsoil and kills millions of ground-living animals. It eliminates the need for any of the products produced by the pesticide, fertilizer, and GM AgriGiants, or the need for feed-lots, egg-breeders, or dairy farms.

It does not use anything made by Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Syngenta, Dean Foods, Heinz, Nestle, Kraft, General Mills, Betty Crocker, Kellogg, Nabisco, Stonyfield, Yoplait, ConAgra, Cargill, etc.

The ecological footprint of this diet is estimated to be much smaller than either a vegan, vegetarian, or Standard American Diet. It arguably is the most nutrient dense, can be scaled up to feed everyone, and respects the ethical treatment of both animals and plants - something unavailable in any other diet.

A description of this diet, along with supporting references, can be found in "The Original Diet - The Omnivore's Solution".

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com

[Bonaboman]

06:18 PM on 04/13/2010

But I bet some goy grows all of you food for you.

[RMankovitz]

07:11 PM on 04/13/2010

Bonobo

Thanks for bring up the human labor metric. The Original Diet requires the absolute minimum of human labor - nature does all the work. Because all the plant foods are naturally perennial, no tilling, seeding, or artificial fertilizer are needed. You simply watch nature do her thing, and harvest when appropriate. Anyone can figure it out, even a bonobo.

[entopticon]

06:24 PM on 04/13/2010

Mr Mankovitz, I can definitely see your points about CAFO's, soy, and grains, but I don't follow you on nuts. Haven't humans been eating nuts for millions of years?

[RMankovitz]

06:52 PM on 04/13/2010

Nuts (and seeds) are not all they've cracked up to be (pun intended). If you look at the top 9 allergenic foods worldwide, you will find: dairy, wheat, eggs, peanuts, soy, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, and seeds.

Many tree nuts are actually seeds, including almonds, cashews and pistachios. Nature is very protective of plant seeds, and has placed many potent toxins in them to discourage being consumed by large predators, because widespread seed consumption can lead to the extinction of a plant variety.

The most potent poisons in nature can be found in seeds, including cyanide. For example, wild almond contains the glycoside amygdalin, which becomes transformed into deadly hydrogen cyanide after chewing or any other injury to the seed. Eating them raw might have been deadly. Selective breeding resulted in today’s domesticated almond, but it is uncontrolled as to the remaining toxins or their concentration.

Nuts are supposedly a good source of minerals, but paradoxically they contain anti-nutrients such as phytates that bind these minerals so that they are mostly unavailable to humans. People have tried soaking and heating nuts to reduce the anti-nutrient effects sufficiently to make their mineral content available, but who knows.

What we do know is that heating nuts damages the fragile polyunsaturated oils they contain (mostly omega-6), as does shelling them and leaving them exposed to light and air. Oxidized oils are quite detrimental to one's health.

[grumpyfarmer]

08:34 AM on 04/13/2010

For those of you who still want to eat meat, the chief obstacle to more humanely raised animals and the so called family farmers is lack of marketing options. Supporting farmers markets and small local locker plants is essential for the "localvore" movement I first read about here. Most of us(farmers) are better at farming than we are retailing, that is why we have consistently had our asses kicked over the years by entities such as Tyson(and in reality Wal Mart). The argument that it is impossible to raise meat more humanely in a setting that is not factory is bogus. The issue come down completely to price and ability to sell it. What most consider on this site to be humanely raised meat often does take more labor, but often those costs can be offset by less investment in costly facilities. However if you have to transport this product 500 miles to sell it, or simply can't sell it to a major packer because you lack the volume, as a farmer you simply can't survive. It is all about market access and protecting markets that cater to smaller more traditional farmers.

[entopticon]

10:27 AM on 04/13/2010

Great post grumpyfarmer. It really is so important for us all to support local economies and food infrastructures so that we can make them the most viable option for small farmers. Economic sustainability is key to environmental stability. That is one of the reasons that animals play a key role in sustainable food production.

If the average American put 15% of their food expenditure into supporting locally produced foods, the effect on the local economies of towns across America would be absolutely amazing. And if 15% of the money that we currently give away to the global megacorporations of big agribusiness to subsidize their monocrops went to help support local food infrastructures, the effect on those local economies would be even more amazing.

[City of Evil]

03:37 PM on 04/13/2010

You might want to talk to these guys: http://www.thepiggery.net/ They're a small hog farm in my area that's been in business for a few years now, and it seems like they've had a lot of success selling directly to consumers.

[RedAlert99]

08:26 AM on 04/13/2010

I am not a "militant" vegetarian, I lead a quiet, healthy life and don't push my views, but I have to speak up when people bring up this old sticking point.
I think people miss the entire point when they fall back on the argument that we are carnivores or omnivores etc. Whether we are or aren't is an easy distraction from the fact that it is entirely a choice. There is no dispute that humans live long healthy lives as vegan and vegetarians with less impact on the enviroment, so I feel that to approach that discussion with the old tired argument that we are "meant" to eat some meat is a copout. It's neither here nor there, it is a choice based on the scientific, health, and environmental facts, and views on the treatment of living creatures. You've made your choice, but take responsibility for it. If you know all the facts (if not, do your research) and you still eat meat simply because you "like the taste" then admit that's all there is to it. The omnivore argument exists only to ease people's decision to eat meat as far as I can see, because there's no doubt you can be healthy, energetic and happy as a vegetarian.

[fefu]

08:34 AM on 04/13/2010

I mostly agree with you, it is a choice. BUT, people are different. We have different genes and those genes get expressed in different ways. Some people may find it easier to be vegan or vegetarian easier than others in terms of health. Some people just need at least a little meat in their diet even if it's some tuna or a more environmentally friendly fish. It's not an excuse to run out and eat McDonald's hamburgers every day, but sorry, some people just need meat.

I do think it's natural for people to eat meat even though for most people it's not necessary. I mean, polygamy is probably natural for humans too and I wouldn't go around promoting it.

[manumoka]

06:26 PM on 04/13/2010

"need...meat"? I don't think anybody needs meat. I think we've all been conditioned to varying degrees, to like certain foods; most people are pushed into eating meat.

I remember the first time I consciously grappled with the experience of eating a hamburger. I was 3 or 4, and I'm sure I had eaten them before, but it suddenly hit me: I was suddenly aware enough to feel the meat sitting in front of me. It seemed really gross, and the idea of it turned my stomach. I protested. My parents gently insisted, explaining that all the other kids eat hamburgers all the time. I still couldn't get it down until they covered it with ketchup. Twelve years later, I decided enough with the coverup, and stopped eating red meat.

I'm not sure how much of those kinds of decisions are physiological, psychological, or social. But I think our genes/stomachs have been processing plants far longer than meat. Given the environmental and other reasons to directly eat the food that is grown (rather than go through the intermediate stage of consuming the animals that eat it), I don't think it will hurt anyone to do so.

[steve12]

02:11 AM on 04/13/2010

I recently turned vegan in my eating habits at 51 after getting a diagnosis of diabetes from my doctor. It has helped me tremendously in controlling my blood sugar and weight. It is actually easier than I expected. I also think that my new eating habits more closely mirrors my political views and ethical concerns.

However, I am not foolish enough to believe that the Americans people will turn vegetarian, much less vegan, after centuries of eating meat. Mr. Pollan takes a much more realistic view and is much more likely to get converts than a die hard vegan. Perhaps one day labeling laws will require that meat be certified for how humanly the animal was slaughtered and not just for quality. Also, perhaps more school cafeterias could be encouraged to have meatless days.

You are not going to get 95% of the population to change its eating habits overnight. Instead, I think the Pollan approach is the right approach and far more likely to be successful and effective.

[Photofarm]

06:08 AM on 04/13/2010

More protein and less carbs is how I control my diabetes, and that means meat in my diet. Although I have tried to eat more green vegetables as well. Limiting bread, potatoes, and much of the processed food that has high amounts of carbohydrates helped me lose 40 pounds, along with eating 3 regular times a day along with a couple carb snacks. Actual food intake stayed about the same, but metabolism seemed to increase.

[dzent1]

02:09 AM on 04/13/2010

I'll worry more about the slaughter of animals after we successfully stop the slaughter of human beings in other countries that our government and corporations want to take over.

[Aelfgifu]

06:23 AM on 04/13/2010

I can worry about both at the same time.

[NathaninSeattle]

01:08 PM on 04/13/2010

No kidding. Since when is compassion something we have to divvy up like slices from a pie?

[PhatP]

04:03 PM on 04/13/2010

To dzent1...That's brilliant. Like saying...I'll worry about the slaughter of human beings in other countries only after we end gang violence or homelessness issues here in our country first.
It's not a zero sum or an all or nothing problem.
You can worry all you want with that attitude....it's the ultimate cop out!

[jgarma]

01:30 AM on 04/13/2010

It's a long way off, but I wager that there will be the day when humans look back and wonder how there was a time when we treated animals so horrendously. I often say that if meat eaters had to kill and butcher their own meat, there would be far fewer of them.

Re the marketing of fat/sugar/salt -- the addictive trifecta -- we really need to get educated.

Sugar (fructose) truly contributes to making us fat and sick:
http://www.garmaonhealth.com/2010/02/beware-fructose/

Corn syrup (fructose) is big business and it and everything made with it (manufactured food) is cleverly marked to us, as the late Peter Jennings demonstrated in his documentary, "How to Get Fat without Really Trying" :
http://www.garmaonhealth.com/2009/08/how-to-get-fat-without-really-trying/

Well, the fist step to changing something is to learn a better way. Thanks to Michael Pollan and many others, some of us are on our way!

Yep

[TimtheEnchanted]

09:44 AM on 04/13/2010

I must agree with your statement that if people had to process their own meat they would eat less or stop altogether. Many years ago I worked in the meat business before it became corporate and centralized. So I have very strong opinions about meat consumption. However, the same can be said about vegetables although to a lesser degree. We have been operating a small farm for 6 years now and the attitude of some towards vegetables and living soil is unbelievable. To the uninformed and undereducated about life cycles, when they find out a worm was in residence on or near that carrot the reaction is mind-boggling. Should they ever know of the deer or rabbit that "eased nature" next to the cabbage, forget it. The learning curve back to natural food and away from "safe" processed food is a long and hardfought battle yet to be won.