Americans scared of their dinner?

[Mayhaw Man]

In today'sNew York Times Magazine , Michael Pollan proposes that the popularity of the Atkins Diet, as well as others that have been popular in the past, is based on a basic assumption that most Americans feel guilty when enjoying good food.

No wonder we have become, in the midst of our astounding abundance, the world's most anxious eaters. A few years ago, Paul Rozin, a University of Pennsylvania psychologist, and Claude Fischler, a French sociologist, began collaborating on a series of cross-cultural surveys of food attitudes. They found that of the four populations surveyed (the U.S., France, Flemish Belgium and Japan), Americans associated food with health the most and pleasure the least.

I, on the other hand (while agreeing with many points in this intersting piece) believe that the American obsession with dieting (and the related guilt involved with dining)has more to do with the fact that most Americans just eat too much of everything and believe that's how it should be, as opposed to eating smaller portions of anything that crosses their plate, as much of the rest of the world does.

Read and discuss. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

[Carrot Top]

I've read some things like this before....telling us how guilty we all feel.

I haven't noticed it in anyone.

[birder53]

It was interesting to see the comparisons between the French attitude towards food vs America. I spent a week in France at a management training session several years ago. The classes were composed of Americans, Canadians, French, Japanese, Austrialians, Brits, Scots and Belgiums. The advance word from my American co-workers who had already attended was that they didn't get enough to eat. I even brought some food along with me in case I found myself starving. Breakfast was a big shock for the Americans! We were there in August, the height of wonderful fresh produce. The breakfast spread was a buffet of wonderful breads, fresh fruits, cereals, yogurt, cheeses, coffee and juice. The Americans were looking for their eggs and bacon. I doled out my contraband food to my new found friends from Canada and the US. Even at the morning breaks, the offerings were coffee, juice and water. No "snacks" as we usually see here. I thought the meals were fabulous and the quality outstanding. It was nice to get away from all the junk food we have available here. I ate well, was not hungry at all and actually lost some weight in the process.

We really do have a sick relationship with food over here. My mother and grandmother tried Weight Watchers when I was in grammer school. My mother is still overweight now at 82! I'm surrounded by co-workers who are on a low carb diet. People deny themselves food and then gorge themselves to make up for the denial. Moderation would allow everyone to enjoy what they want and not worry about gaining weight. A bit of exercise wouldn't hurt either. Our culture, advertising and American dream says bigger is better. How do you stop a runaway train?

[cxt]

I thoroughly enjoyed Pollan's essay. He's a well-informed and enthusiastic writer and this topic is relevant for any american who eats.

I agree with Mayhaw Man that Americans are used to getting a lot of food, either in restaurants or at warehouse-like grocery stores. And maybe it's the fact that our parents and grandparents grew up (and prepared meals) during the Depression, but we also feel compelled to eat it all.

I'm in Denmark right now, which has some similarities to the French food culture discussed in the article. Most Danes would be alarmed to get a Cheescake Factory-sized portion in a restaurant, especially since there are no doggie-bags. People here seem to be generally fit, what with all the bicycling and walking, and most people seem happy to use as much butter and bacon fat as a recipe calls for. (They also cheerfully drink like fish, making for a pretty fun crowd, in my opinion). I'm told this is changing though. America leads the world in many ways, for better or worse, so SUV's are appearing, the Atkin's diet has a following and I'm told food paranoia is also a growing trend-- in particular a fondness for spelt over wheat, since it is more "natural" and presumably less allergenic.

A point that Pollan didn't raise but I'm curious about: Americans are relatively accepting of GMO (genetically modified organism) food. Something like 30% or more of american soy and corn products come from plants that are genetically engineered, usually to be resistant to an herbicide. That is just not allowed in western Europe. Are Americans just more accepting of high-tech food production?

[Jinmyo]

A point that Pollan didn't raise but I'm curious about:  Americans are relatively accepting of GMO (genetically modified organism) food.  Something like 30% or more of american soy and corn products come from plants that are genetically engineered, usually to be resistant to an herbicide.  That is just not allowed in western Europe.  Are Americans just more accepting of high-tech food production?

←

It seems to me that they just don't notice it.

[laurenmilan]

I'm in Denmark right now, which has some similarities to the French food culture discussed in the article.  Most Danes would be alarmed to get a Cheescake Factory-sized portion in a restaurant, especially since there are no doggie-bags.  People here seem to be generally fit, what with all the bicycling and walking, and most people seem happy to use as much butter and bacon fat as a recipe calls for.  (They also cheerfully drink like fish, making for a pretty fun crowd, in my opinion). 

I think they'd also be alarmed by how bad the food actually is. A lotta crap is still a lotta crap...

It's very refreshing to dine with Europeans, particularly the women. They don't have panic attacks around food. They don't go oh-no-i'll-just-have-a-salad. They don't turn away dessert... or leave a crumb, for that matter.

The only time I see Americans act that relaxed was when I dined with EGulleters ;-) Even when I'm with seriously overweight folks, the "food is bad" thing rears its ugly head.

Edited October 18, 2004 by laurenmilan (log)

[Cusina]

Americans hear daily how much of an epidemic obesity is, I guess there is no wonder we look at food as toxic. The balance is complicated, so many choices. I can't imagine how one would go about undoing that guilt though. How do you rewire your reaction to heavy cream? Organizations like Weight Watchers (which I belonged to for a while, by the way) definitely feed this way of thinking. Food is measured by calorie count and broken down into points to be added up for the day. You earn points by exercising that you can add to the amount you are able to eat for a day.

This system worked for me, I've lost that weight I wanted to and I learned a lot about what I can and can't eat and maintain my figure. Much of what changed in my life did have to do with portion control and understanding satiety. But it has introduced a constant evaluation of what I eat. I wonder if this clinical outlook on food as fuel rather than pleasure is a result of the "educating" that has happened in an attempt to reverse the obesity trend?

[jbonne]

a key point that Pollan almost managed to get to (but didn't exactly arrive at) is that the French -- western European, more broadly -- view eating not merely as a sensory pleasure but one that is to be shared communally.

not wholly, of course: when i was in Paris a couple weeks ago, the front page of Le Monde had a piece on French eating habits that essentially lamented the "Americanization" of everyday French cuisine -- instant rice, bagged veggies, eating on-the-go. but the French also cherished their weekend meals as a source of pleasure.

outside the halls of eGullet, there seems to be remarkably little joy among Americans in meal-taking. i'd wager most workplaces offer neither the time nor the accomodations to allow workers to sit and linger over a real (i.e., non-bagged) lunch and a real conversation. schedules have essentially minimized the opportunity for legitimate dinners, either preparing or partaking. that's all as a baseline, *before* you add in paranoia over food safety, carbs, fat, calories, allergies, &c., all the things that make us even more miserable to chow down.

the lack of a communal dining experience also happens to be a near-guarantee that we're going to consume more calories. quite simply, it's harder to stuff your face quite so much if you're in the middle of a conversation.

in essence, we'd have no time to enjoy our food even if it *wasn't* a source of anxiety. when you add the anxiety factors back in, they simply magnify our already-grim view of eating as a fueling stop and little else. no surprise we're miserable about food.

well, not *we*, but ...

[Busboy]

Your post reminded me of the first time I stayed in Athens over the weekend, after several previours weekday-only trips. Since everyone in Greece eats outside whenever possible, it was impossible not to notice that all the tavernas were crammed on a Sunday afternoon, mostly with families. I couldn't help thinking, "Don't these people know there's a ballgame on somewhere? They could be sitting in dim light munching junkfood, instead, they're out here talking to each other. How terrible for them."

[Squeat Mungry]

a key point that Pollan almost managed to get to (but didn't exactly arrive at) is that the French -- western European, more broadly -- view eating not merely as a sensory pleasure but one that is to be shared communally.

<snip>

outside the halls of eGullet, there seems to be remarkably little joy among Americans in meal-taking. i'd wager most workplaces offer neither the time nor the accomodations to allow workers to sit and linger over a real (i.e., non-bagged) lunch and a real conversation.  schedules have essentially minimized the opportunity for legitimate dinners, either preparing or partaking.  that's all as a baseline, *before* you add in paranoia over food safety, carbs, fat, calories, allergies, &c., all the things that make us even more miserable to chow down. 

the lack of a communal dining experience also happens to be a near-guarantee that we're going to consume more calories. quite simply, it's harder to stuff your face quite so much if you're in the middle of a conversation.

←

And I think this is reflected in the latest trend in fast food advertising (which spends a great deal of time and money researching and scrambling to keep up with Americans' food fads and trends). The blatantly anti-social Carl's Jrs.' "Don't bother me, I'm eating!" has progressed into downright paranoid food hoarding, with people fending off imaginary predators of the latest McDonald's "chicken" whatevers. It's revolting.

[jgarner53]

On the whole, we spend far too much time "on-the-go," and far too little time lingering over a leisurely meal. Even at Thanksgiving, where most of us don't have to rush back to work, and the kids don't have soccer practice, tutoring, and play dates, we all scarf down our food and then go back to the football game on TV. There are so many "on-the-go" products on the market now - even Campbell's soup now comes in a sippable cup. Does it even need to be heated? Kids' snacks have pudding and yogurt in squeezable tubes to combine the "fun" factor with the whole OTG thing. We eat in our cars constantly, between snacks picked up at the quickie mart to drive thru meals because we can't be bothered to sit down and stop our lives for anything.

Add to that our paranoia about calories, carbs, fat, whatever, it's no wonder that we don't enjoy our food.

I also tend to think that some of this goes back to our Puritan heritage where just about anything sensual (and face it, good food is sensual), was considered sinful. At least enjoying it is sinful.

How many of us have said, or thought, or been with people who've said, "Oh, I'm being so bad by eating this," or "I really shouldn't, but..." We dish this guilt out to ourselves every day. This food is bad, that food is bad, but I'm going to eat it anyway.

[hjshorter]

I wonder if this clinical outlook on food as fuel rather than pleasure is a result of the "educating" that has happened in an attempt to reverse the obesity trend?

←

Have you read Perfection Salad by Laura Shapiro yet? Her explanation of the relationship between social position and a perceived lack of interest in food (for women at least) was fascinating. In a nutshell, a lot of the US food fear has its roots in the lack of aceptable scientific careers for women in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[designchick88]

I read that MSNBC article earlier today and thought it was interesting. I am sure many foodies have had the experience of telling someone "actually, I love to cook" and then seeing a combo of horror and/or disbelief cross their face.

One of the tidbits from that article I found interesting:

"Americans continue to be less likely to invite people over for a meal -- in part because a guest diner means not simply home cooking but also some housekeeping, all of which is harder to do with increasingly jammed schedules."

Which probably explains why we get reciprocal invitations for one out of every 5 or 6 social events that we host. I think it's sad when even relaxing over a meal with friends is too much of a burden on our time to bother with.

When we were in Europe last year I was truly amazed at how much time people take to eat a meal, and how they don't do anything but eat and converse while they're at the table, whereas nowadays I can't get through a business lunch without someone yakking on the phone or tapping at their BlackBerry for half the meal. The worst incident was when a group of coworkers and I went out for dinner to a very good restaurant, renowned for its excellent fare, and one guy sat at the table and e-mailed people from his BlackBerry the entire meal. He had the BlackBerry in one hand and his fork in the other. I was appalled and wanted to grab the darn thing away from him and beat him with it, but everyone else seemed to think it was normal multitasking. There's something wrong with that.

[Cusina]

The comment about it all stemming back to our puritan heritage is interesting. I also think about the 50s gee whiz convenience age, and the depression/war waste not want not hoarding mentality as factoring into the equation. In a relatively short amount of time, less than 50 years, America has gone from being a country that had a lot of need to one of great plenty. Perhaps we are still making that transition? In 1829 in France Careme was preparing giant banquets for royalty with tremendous sugar topiaries. Even the wealthiest Americans in that day couldn't imagine such feasts until after the Civil War. Are we just behind Europe on the timeline, will we eventually get to the point where they are or are we going in a different direction entirely?

[Behemoth]

It's very refreshing to dine with Europeans, particularly the women. They don't have panic attacks around food. They don't go oh-no-i'll-just-have-a-salad. They don't turn away dessert... or leave a crumb, for that matter.

←

I dunno -- my experience is that they will eat anything, but a lot less of it.

designchick -- emailing during lunch?! I am as email obsessed as the next person, but yikes. Welcome to eGullet, btw...

Edited October 19, 2004 by Behemoth (log)

[Susan in FL]

I just can't understand feeling guilty when enjoying good food. That's life! I do realize that exceptions are those with eating disorders, which have been discussed many times on eG. I get that. But personally, and maybe it's from my own narrow perspective, I can't get into feeling guilty about fine dining. I get great joy from food and all the aspects of it and taking lots of time to enjoy it.

I do agree with you Brooks, about how many Americans eat too much of everything as opposed to eating smaller portions. I love eating multi-course meals, with smaller portions of several things, but that seems not to be the American way.

I do consider health and fitness into my habits, and could never eat the way I do without my routine of working out and running\walking.

We have family in Denmark... I understand, cxt!

[fifi]

I have resisted contributing to this thread, until now. I have spent a bit of time in Europe and I do find a difference in emphasis on food.

The first premise is that good food, lovingly prepared, is the glue that sticks the family and the body together. You can't do that if your family has this impossibly insane scheduling. What is the value of that? What if the kid is a soccer star if there are no bonds, no glue to hold the psyche together?

How did we get here? When did the "external" forces on the family and our food traditions get taken over by the "go-go" life-style? It seems to me to be relatively recent. I don't remember that as a kid during the 50s and 60s. We ate what our mothers put in front of us, and those portions weren't the inflated portions that we see from the corporate entities trying to convince us that they are "giving good value".

Then you add in the 24 hour news culture that has to grab on every "study" to make "headlines" and you have the recipe for revolving paranoia that has no real basis in fact.

We are insane.

*rant over*

[Pan]

A point that Pollan didn't raise but I'm curious about:  Americans are relatively accepting of GMO (genetically modified organism) food.  Something like 30% or more of american soy and corn products come from plants that are genetically engineered, usually to be resistant to an herbicide.  That is just not allowed in western Europe.  Are Americans just more accepting of high-tech food production?

←

We don't know when we're eating it because the government has resisted calls to require labelling of GMO products. If more people knew, would they care? That I don't know.

[chromedome]

Here in Canada, we have a farcical system of "voluntary" labelling of GMO foods. Since polls have us sitting at about 80% "Hell, no!", there has been little or no use of this voluntary system. In practice, of course, since our government has been unwilling to take this on, we eat a whole lot of it without knowing...just like you do.

Greenpeace markets a buyer's guide to GMO/non-GMO foods, the Canadian link is here.

The short version is, if you're buying major brands you're buying GMO.

[Fat Guy]

Some would say the European attitude towards genetically modified foods is the hysterical one, but regardless of the merits of that claim it does underscore a point: Pollan wrote a nice article but it is unbalanced. It emphasizes a fictitious contrast between alleged American food insanity and alleged European food sanity.

Having written about such matters for years -- my first article on Paul Rozin's work was published on Salon.com in 1999 -- I think the evidence is strong that Europeans are less obsessed with fat as such than Americans. And there are a number of American food fears that Europeans on the whole reject.

At the same time, Europeans have food fears that Americans reject. The litany of crazy mystical European beliefs about food is just as embarrassing as the American list, it's just different. To go to the crux of Pollan's article, which focuses on Atkins, the French have their own derivative of that diet, called the Montignac Method -- we've been discussing it on eGullet for ages. Anybody who thinks they don't have fad diets in Europe hasn't been paying much attention to fad diets in Europe.

Pollan's essay is, however, an important step forward for the New York Times. Two years ago the Times finally caught up with the reality that Atkins was the dominant dietary trend of this era, and now the Times is finally realizing that Americans are food-phobic. Yet Pollan bizarrely claims, in Sunday's article, that the Johnny-come-lately recognition of Atkins's importance by the Times represented the beginning of a trend, rather than recognition of one. He writes, "it was an article in this magazine two years ago that almost singlehandedly ushered in today's carbophobia."

That's one of the sloppiest claims I've ever seen from Pollan, who is usually known for careful research and presentation of facts despite his political agendas. That indefensible statement combined with the recycling of Rozin and a generally loose train of thought indicates to me that Pollan's heart wasn't in this piece -- indeed most of the articles in this grandiose and self-important Sunday Times Magazine food package felt that way to me.

[lovebenton0]

The diet wars have been going on for many years -- Atkins is simply the current campaign winner. If we followed all the paranoid suggestions by the diet industry we would be living mostly on water -- bottled water. I suppose herb-flavored bottled water. No carbs, no fat, no cholesterol, no sugar, no salt, no gluten, no dairy, no fish or seafood . . . . The list goes on and on. And the diet industry and the medical community constantly change their minds over the current "dangerous" foods. (Remember the OMG! eggs and cholesterol, then the "incredible edible egg?" ) No wonder so many people in the US are confused and guilt-ridden over what they do eat, or want to eat. Conversely, as others have mentioned, those same guilt-ridden people will shovel down enough food at one meal to feed a small family then feel bad about it.

I'm certainly not saying that everyone should abandon health considerations as there are valid concerns based on an individual's health -- I definitely have dietary restrictions of my own. However, once I decide to indulge in a certain food I have no guilt over it. I eat for pleasure as well as fuel. But what anywhere says we have to abandon the pleasure because food is obviously fuel? The paranoia mongers pushing their own diet industry theories/products.

[Behemoth]

The diet wars have been going on for many years -- Atkins is simply the current campaign winner. If we followed all the paranoid suggestions by the diet industry we would be living mostly on water -- bottled water. I suppose herb-flavored bottled water. No carbs, no fat, no cholesterol, no sugar, no salt, no gluten, no dairy, no fish or seafood . . .  .  The list goes on and on. And the diet industry and the medical community constantly change their minds over the current "dangerous" foods. (Remember the OMG! eggs and cholesterol, then the "incredible edible egg?" )

It is a lot easier to run a profitable company selling packaged, heavily processed food that has been magically rid of some or other supposedly harmful ingredient. You simply can't get much of a markup on a basic head of lettuce. I spend a lot of time in Europe each year (visiting family) and have lived most of my life abroad, and what always strikes me when I'm shopping abroad is how much less packaged food dominates supermarkets over there -- not to mention that most european (even suburban) neighborhoods are within walking distance to at least a twice-weekly farmers market, bakery,butchers etc. I guess that this is changing now, which is really a shame.

It's funny, growing up I always assumed the US had the highest standard of living in the world, but the longer I live here the more I find it to be true on the surface (in terms of house sizes, number of cars) and very untrue once you dig a little deeper (high debt, lack of wide access to good plain foods, public transport, sidewalks, health care, vacation, social life etc...especially as soon as you get out of say, the very largest cities.) I am always wary of the whole "Europe is better" thing: they definitely have their own problems over there, and big ones, too. But I also feel that people take more pleasure in each other's company and in meals and all the little stuff. I hope that doesn't change anytime soon. Let's just say I am really looking forward to christmas...

Edited October 19, 2004 by Behemoth (log)

[Busboy]

Wandering back over to the social-familial (if that's even a word) aspect of Euro-dining, I wonder if that's not important on a couple of levels not discussed.

First, my general experience is that home cooked meals for family and guests tend, more or less naturally, to be healthy.

Even if you're not trying to channel Thomas Keller, if guests are coming over, you're likely to set out something relatively wholesome and home-made, not processed and frozen -- a roast chicken or grilled pork chops, for example. There's almost always a salad and a couple of types of vegerables and some potatoes or rice. You probably have a better chance of stumbling across something particularly tasty in France or Italy than in Iowa or Wyoming, but you're likely to get a pretty good meal there, too...if nothing else, our beef still kicks French beef's butt.

Even on a Tuesday night with just the family, I'd suspect that a meal would be served up sans angst and with a little freshness and variety. In other words, simply shifting the pattern from random microwaving to family dining brings almost inevitable improvements.

A second thought comes from my fathe- in-law, who spends a good deal of time golfing and drinking with retirees in the Florida Panhandle, where he lives. He once said something to the effect if, "you know what kills these old geezers off: stress." Unscientific though the observation may be, it is an interesting one when you contrast the idea of dinner being two hours of delight with friends and family, versus it being a day-long stress-generator. Over time, the difference between the two approaches may be significant.

Better food, less stress -- let's get the family together for dinner, and call the neighbors, too.

[For the record, the Busboy family had Popeye's red beans and rice and carryout pizza in separate rooms last night, but that's just Monday. Sunday was a proper dinner for nine (kids, friends, kids' friends), braised lamb shanks and polenta, lentils, salad, the last of the cherry tomatoes, on perhaps the last night warm enough to eat at the table on the front porch. I feel healthier just thinking about the damn meal.]

[Lexica]

The first premise is that good food, lovingly prepared, is the glue that sticks the family and the body together. You can't do that if your family has this impossibly insane scheduling. What is the value of that? What if the kid is a soccer star if there are no bonds, no glue to hold the psyche together?

←

To me, this is one of the most important aspects of it. (It's also at the heart of one of the fundamental differences between my husband and me, which is why I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about it.)

My husband grew up in an intact nuclear family (mom, dad, 2 kids - 1 boy, 1 girl) that was part of a very large extended family (he has 21 first cousins on his mother's side alone). His parents have always been busy with their medical practice, and my husband and his sister both had a lot of extracurricular activities (sports, music lessons, etc.). Plus my mother-in-law doesn't cook, she defrosts. The result is that even on the rare occasions when they did sit down at the same time, nobody was eating the same thing - everybody would have defrosted whatever they felt like eating that night.

On the other hand, I am an only child in a micro-family (I have 2 first cousins, total) and my parents divorced when I was 7. My parents lived 3+ hours apart after the divorce, so although it was technically joint custody, whichever parent I was living with at the time effectively functioned as a single parent with no co-parent to help. Despite that, we shopped together, cooked together, and ate dinner together almost every night.

The long-term result is that to me, food is about much more than its nutritional value - it's about sharing time and affection, about exploring new things with loved ones, about doing or making something because you know somebody else will enjoy it and their enjoyment increases your own.

To him, food is fuel - large servings, eat quickly, get on with the important stuff of life.

I feel very frustrated and sad about this sometimes.

[kangarool]

Um…

The following could well be a red rag to a bull… but here are a couple counterpoints for your consideration.

I don’t think any of the opinions expressed so far are in any way ‘wrong’ … indeed, I certainly agree that languorous hours spent in loving preparation of food and shared over several more hours with family and friends from far and wide is one of the key elements that makes life worth living … for me and for you.

I seriously question if it’s all that important for everyone.

In fact, I don’t think it’s a stretch that, for some people (actually millions upon millions), they could think of nothing worse than spending their precious few free hours in the kitchen. They may HATE cooking. They may be utterly uninterested by food that you consider healthy and delicious. They just get off on other things in life, or they just love Pizza Hut Pizza or microwaved burritos, and that’s simply their idea of the best possible food. They may know, or suspect, that it’s not good for them – and so feel ‘guilty – but that doesn’t mean they derive no pleasure from it. The thought of roasting a chicken, and inviting others to their home to share it over the course of several hours, is almost certainly anathema to millions. And that presumes they all have loving, socially adept and willing family and friends who want to spend their precious few free hours with them "sharing" it all, which is by no means a given. (God I sound misanthropic! But would you acknowledge that it could be true?)

Anyway. My problem isn’t with EG opinions, it’s with the article. One major problem is how it purports to depict something that is unique to "Americans."

What, exactly, is an "American?"

"Americans are an unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily." Really? I feel sorry for those 300 million unhealthy, obsessive people.

Obviously — obviously — diets, fads, schemes, reengineered food products constructed to tap into certain food fashions, and new thinking about the effects of certain foods on the human body will always have a willing and sizable (pun unintended) audience in the U.S., as I’m sure it does in most developed countries.

But, that article ignored so many possible factors related to "American" attitudes toward food, and cited just that one odd little "experiment" where Americans said "If I eat it, I’ll feel bad" and the French said "If I eat it, it’ll taste good." The experiment, or at least Pollan’s communication of its results, was so simplistic as to be useless, and the whole premise of the article was pretty much based on that.

Here's a silly, off-the-top-of-head example, but what if one delved deeper into these "food attitudes" and discovered that Americans might have said:

"If I eat that, I’ll feel guilty or bad … because I constantly consume American entertainment, and the movie and TV stars I watch are stick thin, and I want to be famous, so I’ll have to be stick thin, and if I eat that, I won’t be." Or a million other possible responses as to why they responded "guilt"? Is the problem then Americans’ attitudes to food? Or are other cultural factors and apprehensions manifesting themselves through Americans’ relationship to food? What’s the real problem?

Yep, maybe if we all ate dinner with our families for longer, we’d be happier and healthier.

But maybe if Americans didn’t idolise celebrities so voraciously (it depresses me that I know that Michael Pollan is Tracy Pollan’s brother!), or consume such vast quantities of media, or respond so gullibly to advertising claims, or chase fashions and fads of all kinds so manically, or if they'd just trade in that WalMart job and choose to work harder and get a higher paying job so that they weren't tempted by the apparent value represented by SuperSized fast food meals that tasted so good … then we might all be even "healthier."

But then we’re not really talking about food anymore.

My points in this post are hardly more coherent than his, but: my read of Pollan’s article is that "Americans" see chocolate cake, say "guilt", and are unhealthy because of that. Maybe he needs a book rather than a magazine article to make the case, because he didn’t come close to pulling it off therein.

So. Let the vitriolic counterattack begin!