In Michael Pollan’s In the Defense of Food, he sums up the solution to our nation’s eating problems in three short phrases: “Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” This sounds so incredibly simple, that reader cannot help but wonder why our nation is plagued with so many diet related health problems. However, as the pages unfold you quickly discover that there is much more behind these seven words. For example, what is food? The reader discovers that much of what we eat today Pollan does not consider to be food, rather a “food-like substance.” The average American’s diet is dominated by fast and processed foods, and these foods do not have the nutrients that our body needs, so we crave them more. We have a higher caloric intake because our bodies are desperately trying in vain to acquire vital nourishment. So why are we eating these foods? Because nutrition science and the media tell us that they contain what we need. The problem is that scientists do not know what we need.
Throughout the course of the book, Pollan brings to light the flawed practice of nutritionism. All sciences focus on the principle of isolating variables to monitor individual change, and the reduction science used in nutritionism is no different. Foods are stripped down to the bare nutrient level, and are branded with labels that display their attributes. In this way, foods can be labeled as “high in fat,” or “a good source of protein.” The problem with isolating the nutrients in this way is that on a chemical level, nutrients behave completely differently. Scientists do not gain accurate findings, because in the real world, nutrients are lumped together with other nutrients, each of which will alter the way the other performs. For example, one nutrient may slow the absorption rate of sugar, but in the presence of a different nutrient, it may hasten it. Nutrition scientists do not understand enough about food to correctly identify what we should or should not eat. While they do know the basic building blocks of any diet, it is nearly impossible for them to see the bigger picture of how all the nutrients interact together. Pollan tells us that instead of worrying about the nutritional content of food, we should be more concerned with how the food as a whole benefits us. This points to one of Pollan’s main arguments in the novel: a whole food is greater than the sum of its nutrient parts.
With this argument, Pollan introduces to us the idea of “food synergy.” Webster’s dictionary defines synergy as “The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects." This definition certainly explains what is at work here because if you examine a food ingredient by ingredient, you do not get the same result that occurs when they are all present.
Pollan backs up his arguments by presenting solid fact. In addition, all of his arguments make logical sense, and he brings to light actual studies that have occurred. In one study, researchers observed that by consuming whole grains reduces mortality from all causes. However, when scientists “identified” all the beneficial nutrients in whole grain, they could not explain why these beneficial effects occurred. When examined alone, the nutrients displayed completely different effects. The scientists concluded their study that "the various grains and their parts interact synergistically." This study helps to back Pollan’s argument, and his idea of food synergy.
No comments:
Post a Comment