Michael Pollan

[[File:Arnoldandpollan.jpg|thumb|right|165px|''[[Arnold Schwarzenegger|Der Gropenfuhrer]]'' ([[bodybuilding]] [[Nutritional supplement|supplement]] pusher) and Pollan in 2010]]
{{foodnav}}
'''Michael Pollan''' {{lived|1955|}} is an [[United States|American]] [[journalist]], [[author]], and food activist. A 2006 ''[[New York Times]]'' review of his book, <i>The Omnivore's Dilemma</i>. described him as a "[[liberal]] foodie intellectual".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/books/review/23kamp.html?_r=2& |title=Deconstructing Dinner |author=Kamp, David |date=April 23, 2006 |newspaper=New York Times}}</ref> He has also been accused of "promoting '[[Denialism|denialist]]' anti-[[GMO]] [[junk science]]" by ''[[Forbes]]'' as well as being [[Hypocrisy|duplicitous]] on his anti-GMO stance, appearing in anti-GMO documentaries and arguing against GMOs, yet when asked direct questions of their safety he usually agrees with the [[scientific consensus]] that they are safe, usually not in the same interview.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/24/michael-pollan-promotes-denialist-anti-gmo-junk-science-brags-he-manipulates-new-york-times-editors/2/ |title=Michael Pollan Promotes 'Denialist' Anti-GMO Junk Science, Says He Manipulates New York Times' Editors |author=Entine, Jon |date=August 24, 2013 |newspaper=Forbes}}</ref> His main argument against GMOs is that they do not really improve the regular diet but contribute to an already broken food industry, while they are just as bad to eat as anything else produced in excess.<ref>''The Omnivore's Dilemma: The Search for a Perfect Meal in a Fast-Food World'' by Michael Pollan (2006) Bloomsbury. ISBN 0747586837.</ref>

In a 2007 essay he wrote for the ''New York Times'', Pollan proffered his now famous [[Aphorism|simple line]] of nutritional advice: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?ei=5087&em=&en=ce28063f61d4a925&ex=1170219600&pagewanted=all&_r=0 |title=Unhappy Meals |author=Pollan, Michael |date= January 28, 2007 |newspaper=New York Times}}</ref> While this is seemingly simple advice, the rest of the article describes how nutrition is made more complicated than necessary in order to package "nutrients" as opposed to simply "food." Pollan sees an unhealthy influence over nutrition going back at least to the 1970s with cattle ranchers pressuring the government not to recommend consuming less meat. He says "nutritionism" is not a [[science]], but an [[ideology]] over-emphasizing nutrients "out of context" of food. Notably, Pollan is not a [[dietitian]] (someone formally trained in dietetics), but a [[nutritionist]] (someone interested in food); his formal training is in English.<ref>[https://michaelpollan.com/interviews/q-a-a-conversation-with-michael-pollan/ Q & A: A Conversation with Michael Pollan] by Russell Schoch (January 4, 2004) reprinted from ''California Monthly'' by Michael Pollan.</ref> He criticizes [[fad diet]]s and [[sugar]]y cereals' claims regarding whole grains. There's quite a helping of [[appeal to nature]], but he really doesn't mention [[organic food]] much, if at all. Mostly he says, "Eat more fruits and vegetables." (French fries and catsup don't count). 

He was criticized by Daniel Engber in ''Slate'' for arguing that food is too complex a subject to study scientifically and blaming [[reductionism]] for today's health ills, while at the same time using nutritional research to justify his own diet advice.<ref>http://primary.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2007/01/survival_of_the_yummiest.html</ref> But in reading the article, Pollan does not say scientists should not study food. Rather, he is critical of much of the science performed — for example, studies based on asking people what they ate and how much — and perhaps more importantly, basing one's decisions on what to eat (or what supplements to buy) on the latest headline news about the latest research.

In 2009, Pollan said at a Pop Tech conference, "I hope I’ve driven home the point that our meat eating is one of the most important contributors we make to [[climate change]]. A [[vegan]] in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a beef eater in a Prius!"<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100508042706/http://www.poptech.org/blog/michael_pollans_gospel_of_sustainable_food Michael Pollan's Gospel of Sustainable Food] by Rachel Barenblat (10/24/09 16:10 UTC) ''Pop Tech'' (archived from May 8, 2010).</ref> This probably inspired some self-righteousness among vegans and/or Humvee drivers, but was erroneous. The carbon dioxide-emitting differential between vegans and heavy meat eaters was initially estimated at about 2 tons/person/year vs. the differential between Prius drivers and Humvee drivers is about 4.75 tons/person/year.<ref name=pasick>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100211111728/http://blogs.reuters.com/adam-pasick/2009/10/26/crunching-the-numbers-on-a-vegan-in-a-hummer/ Crunching the numbers on a vegan in a Hummer] by Adam Pasick (13:10 October 26<sup>th</sup>, 2009) ''Reuters Blog''.</ref> A revised estimate for Prius vs. Humvee was 2.6 to 3.3 tons.<ref name=pasick/> To Pollan's credit, after learning this, he requested that his statement be removed from Pop Tech's webpages.<ref name=pasick/>

==See also==
*[[Food, Inc]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

{{foodbox}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pollan, Michael}}
[[Category:Journalists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:GMO]]
[[category:Living people]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]

Categories: Journalists, Authors, GMO, Living people, Pseudoscience promoters