Michael Pollan – In Defense of Food Audiobooktext
As the author of In Defense of Food himself says: why would someone have to go out and defend food? Isn’t it something from our usual environment that we do every day?
Well, the truth, at least in the developed west of the planet (precisely: in the US), what is eaten more and more are food-based products – that is, highly processed foods and, to the limit, imitation of food. Processing food has a millenary history, but at a time when the massification and modernization of production includes everything, even food, it is this that must adapt to these processes. And that doesn’t always match what people require to eat well.
To this powerful trend of generating “food” that is easy to manufacture, transport, store and distribute (which has the enormous push behind a very profitable industry that, like any industry, has its own agenda, in many cases very different from that of the people), adds the fragile and incipient nutritional science that a decade scares you so that, by God, you do not even think about using the dangerous butter and gobble up the scientifically processed margarine, before realizing in the next decade that it has been making eating something very likely dangerous. And back to the butter. And the examples in that sense abound enough to have a modicum of skepticism about nutritionist fads and suggestions.
The day before yesterday was margarine, yesterday the trauma (perhaps wrong, we are learning) of lipids, today omega-3 and other fads. Maybe tomorrow, again, we will find out that we are doing everything backwards. And that considering an isolated nutrient, out of its context, is like studying a monkey (or a man) outside its society. A monkey is not a monkey, we know that.
The central problem is that, thanks to the manipulation of the big “food” industry and the apprentice nutritionist science that gropes around here and there and tells us what is good for us while learning by ruining, we focus unduly on “nutrients. “when we always eat FOOD.
The result: Despite the American obsession with food, the health of the poor Northerners is going from bad to worse. In reality, what works well is the medicine that moderates and even reverses the deterioration of health due to the gross nutritional imbalance – there are more heart attacks, but fewer deaths from these attacks. Paying of course, but that’s what moves everything, right?
What to do then? Simple, says the author: Eat food. Not much. Mostly plants. That is your recipe.
It is very interesting how he develops these three lines of his proposal. For the food, for example, the first thing is to re-learn to identify it. One of her rules: If your grandmother didn’t recognize something as food, avoid buying it. The same if any food has many ingredients that you cannot pronounce and you have no idea what they are. Etc.
It is a useful and interesting read of In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan . Even in a country like ours where it is still very easy to gorge on fresh and relatively inexpensive fruits and vegetables and the convincing union of a not very robust nutritional science (requiring both faith and information has not arrived with much force (yet) ) and from an industry that earns nothing if it sells you bananas or lettuce, but earns a lot if it sells you some attractive bag of a complex and novel compound, low in something and rich in something else, which costs many times more, does its best for getting addicted and probably hurting you in the process