In Defense of Food part 2 discussion thread

[grantmeaname]

Use this thread to discuss the first two parts of Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food, the Roman Numeraled section III, "Getting Over Nutritionism". As a courtesy to other readers, who may not have your edition, note your place in the book by part and chapter (Part I, chapter 2) in addition to page number.

[mustachecat]

Some initial thoughts.

In "Eat Food: Food Defined" (p. 161), he writes, "Depending on how we spend them, our food dollars can either go to support a food industry devoted to quantity and convenience and "value" or they can nourish a food chain organized around values--values like quality and health. Yes, shopping this way takes more money and effort..."

What are your thoughts on this? I often see people exhorting others in the forums here to reduce their grocery bills (and I've certainly done the same), but eating sustainably is just not cheap.

I agree with Pollan that a mostly plant-based diet is probably optimal for most of us. But there's something about the way he discusses meat that just rubs me the wrong way. For instance, when he talks about vitamin C on p. 164 ("Mostly Plants: What to Eat"), he makes us seem as if we need SO much vitamin C, that only an incredibly plant-rich diet could provide. But I dunno; one orange a day would do it. On the other hand, many other plants don't have particularly high amounts of vitamin C.

He seems more dismissive when he talks about vitamin B12 on the next page. We need a "tiny amount," which is technically true. The RDA for vitamin B12 is 2.4 micrograms (vs. 75-90 g. of vitamin C), but 3 oz. of chicken has only 0.3 to 0.4 mcg. OTOH, liver and shellfish are bursting with it.

But why gush about vitamin C, only to consign B12 to be "an exception" and imply that it's not really that important? Also, I believe he's wrong when he says that B12 can be obtained from fermented vegetables. I'll pull a source later.

[Worsted Skeins]

Some initial thoughts.

In "Eat Food: Food Defined" (p. 161), he writes, "Depending on how we spend them, our food dollars can either go to support a food industry devoted to quantity and convenience and "value" or they can nourish a food chain organized around values--values like quality and health. Yes, shopping this way takes more money and effort..."

What are your thoughts on this? I often see people exhorting others in the forums here to reduce their grocery bills (and I've certainly done the same), but eating sustainably is just not cheap.

Geography really plays into this one.  For example, CSA share prices vary with land costs.  My spring/summer CSA works out to be $18 for a half bushel of organic fruit and veg.  My fall CSA (different farmer ) is $28 a "share" which turns out to be an overflowing half bushel, often with a dozen of their free range eggs on the side.  We share the fall membership with a friend since we cannot use all of the produce in the overflowing box within a week.  Unfortunately we aren't seeing any fruit in the fall box--so that $14 a week is supplemented by grocery store apples, citrus and bananas.

We use the contents of our CSA to determine our menus.  I then buy local fish--not cheap even when my fishmonger is buying directly from fishermen.  I also have a butcher who buys his chickens locally.  He cannot match grocery store loss leader prices but at regular price I think his chicken is a better deal.  Have you noticed how grocery store chickens contain an added "solution"?  The butcher does not add to the weight of the bird with chemical soup. A whole chicken provides several meals--especially after the meaty carcass is cooked into stock for soup or stew.  Everyone here knows the drill.

Obviously these are deliberate choices for us.  They are Mustachian in the sense that when people in my community (farmers and fishermen) are contributing to the tax base, my taxes are lower.  But I could certainly buy cheaper stuff elsewhere--or spend more time out with a fishing pole. 

 

[velocistar237]

What are your thoughts on this? I often see people exhorting others in the forums here to reduce their grocery bills (and I've certainly done the same), but eating sustainably is just not cheap.

I'm trying to figure out this balancing act. I'm not really in a position to start a garden, and the type of food Pollan recommends is very expensive here. I'm hoping that many grocery store vegetables are sufficient.

But why gush about vitamin C, only to consign B12 to be "an exception" and imply that it's not really that important?

I've noticed this inconsistency. He condemns nutritionists for talking about food in terms of nutrients, and then he talks about food in terms of nutrients. (Maybe he addresses this at some point? I'm still in section II.)