The problem with Michael Pollan's latest food piece in the New York Times is that it isn't very . . . nutritious. It doesn't tell a story with new and interesting facts -- like the story of Joel Salatin, a brilliant Virginia farmer, well told by Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma. Instead it contains many broad generalizations, the evidence for which is never given in any detail. Long ago we ate food (i.e., unprocessed food), says Pollan, and it was better for us than the processed food products we eat today. Long ago we listened to stories, say I, and it was better for us than the expert statements on which much of modern journalism is based. If I taught journalism (as Pollan does), I would tell my students the best thing is a story of success (e.g., Salatin) because we can always learn from it. Next best is a story of failure because we can always learn from that, too. Worst is to quote experts (e.g., Pollan quotes Marion Nestle). For two reasons: 1. Experts are often wrong. When they are, it is worse than learning nothing -- we are actively misled. 2. Experts -- at least in standard journalism -- never say the facts on which their claims are based. Even if they are correct, what the reader learns from quoting them is shallow.
Misled by experts, apparently, Pollan repeats Marion Nestle's recommendation to "eat less" (to reduce obesity). Why it is helpful to repeat failed advice that the rest of us have heard a thousand times is not explained. Nor is it made clear what ancient foodway -- Pollan is basically saying we should return to long-ago ways of eating -- we would be following if we tried to "eat less." As far as I know, the answer is none of them.
Several big important stories contradict Pollan's conclusions. One is the story of B vitamin supplementation of flour and other processed food, which greatly reduced neural birth defects. I heard a dean of a public health school tell a room full of new students that this one advance, which averted so much suffering, fully justified all the money spent on schools of public health. I agree. Processing food is not always bad. Sometimes it can be very good. When you process food based on a correct theory, that often happens. Food sterilization, refrigeration, and preservation via additives -- all based on a correct theory, the germ theory of disease -- have had many benefits. It's when you process food based on a wrong theory -- such as the theory that high-fat food causes obesity -- that you can easily do more harm than good.
There is no turning back. We can't avoid processed food. To move forward, we need better theories to guide the processing.