A Lot Of A Little Or A Little Of A Lot

The two articles by Pollan (“Unhappy Meals”) and Dupuis (“Angels and Vegetables: A Brief History of Food Advice In America”) both deal with the various influences in recent and not-so-recent history on American eating and the depth of investigations into the content and relative value of what we eat. As could be suspected, the overall consensus in the past is very similar to what is the consensus today. Many people have varying ideas of what is healthy and unhealthy beyond a first glance, and despite the deluge of peoples’ subjective ideas and very objectively conducted scientific studies, there is no “perfect diet” and no one can agree on whether to eat a little of everything, or a lot of just a few things.

Pollan’s article covered mostly what he called the formation and rise of “nutritionism.” Pollan defined nutritionism specifically as “an ideology”, one that breaks down food into its component parts and ingredients as opposed to viewing it as food itself. Speaking of food, that term itself doesn’t mean what it used to. Steak, potatoes, carrots, and fish are food. Candy, cereal, and even bread cannot be constituted themselves as food anymore because they are so processed now and the manufacturers have power-packed them with so many synthetic nutrients and vitamins that may or may not even be good for you. These kinds of changes came in a long line of developments following this fascination with the nutrients in food. Scientists discovered new vitamins, minerals and other nutrients in food, and tested them for their positive or negative effects on our health. Based on these findings, the government would give some kind of ruling on whether the now nutrients should be increased or decreased in our diets. To satisfy the market demands, food manufacturers would add or subtract these nutrients and advertise the life out of it. After a while, new findings might prove otherwise and the process starts all over. This cycle is undoubtedly a result of our overthinking food. Pollan posed the question, “So nutritionism is good for business. But is it good for us?” Ultimately, Pollan decides to, as he clearly states in the introductory sentence (no doubt somewhat satirically): “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

The Dupuis article pertained a bit more to the history of our eating decisions beyond that of health, and provided a very interesting read. One of the first associations she makes is between eating and morality. Some religions have very specific guidelines about eating, particularly in eating meat, but for those of whom religion plays little part in their eating decision, they often rely on the views of scholars or popular figures. She observed that “because we have lost our faith in both religion and science as guides to eating, we rely on popular writers to steer us through a welter of confusing and contradictory information.” I personally noted that this is the case as much or even more today, although the celebrities touting the latest diets realistically bear very little weight compared to the scholars and moral figures of the past! Whether they knew it or not, most of the recorded views from figures such as Benjamin Rush, Charles Finney, Sylvester Graham, and the Shaker communities. Abstinence or sparing use of alcohol, minimal red meat, more roots and plants from the ground, and overall portion control were all recommended and have a solid base in recent findings. These all contributed not the tightening of their belts as our modern thinking would have us believe, but to improve their moral and social standing beyond just the function of their bodies.

These two articles look at different periods in more recent history where the food is viewed from two very different lights, but to serve the same ultimate purpose of deciding of what and how much to eat. For Pollan, it is because of the complexity and minutia of the innumerable ingredients in even the simplest foods that we eat. For Dupuis, it was because of the representations that certain foods had in society and the improvement or detraction of value they reflected on their consumer. Their findings consequentially were varied respective to their field. Oddly enough, however, Dupuis quite directly called out Pollan and the very article we read, saying that no matter what ingredients and nutrients are constantly argued over and removed from our diets, the same dietary diseases persist almost undiminished. I myself found myself confused by Pollan’s conclusion (and introductory sentence) as he went on and on about the inconsistency but then gave his own caveman-esque definitive statement to try and tie it all together. I think it is ridiculous how conflicted our national sentiment is on the value of the tiniest parts of our food, and the commercialization of not only the ingredients but also our overall mentality of what is the most important part of our dining experience. Maybe the drawn line really is portion control. Researchers and scientists have gotten portion sizes pretty well established, maybe just stick to those instead of giving into gluttony and we can eat how much we are told instead of worrying about a lot of a few foods or a tiny bit of dozens of different options.