> Pollan’s central thesis is that introducing science into our food system has done more harm than good and that the best thing for all of us would be to go back to eating a more traditional diet. It’s fair to point out that nutritional science has led to some mistakes (such as recommendations to replace saturated fats with hydrogenated oils), but Pollan devotes too much of his effort to dismantling his own shallow caricature of science.
It is, in short, the Naturalistic Fallacy run wild, which is quite common when the topic of nutrition comes up. In short: Something being 'natural' is orthogonal to it being 'good' or even 'good to eat'.
> Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance
Which means nothing to the people who don't have it, whose ancestors evolved to retain lactose tolerance into adulthood for the simple reason that milk is good food, full of proteins, fats, sugars, and vitamins that are just as important to an adult as a child. Just because the default First World diet induces a calorie surplus at this point instead of a calorie deficit does not negate any of milk's benefits.
> nutrition is more than calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in the diet
Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need supplements, because they don't.
> If you're generally healthy and eat a wide variety of foods, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, low-fat dairy products, lean meats and fish, you likely don't need supplements.
> Which means nothing to the people who don't have it
So in the case of lactose intolerance, what's interesting, in fact, is the environmental impact of the fact that the people in the Western world are largely fine with lactose. As the PBS NewsHour story about the causes and effects of China's meat consumption habits shows, Western habits are having a significant influence in the diets of the younger generation in developing countries. The effects of large-scale pollution of water resources is horrific, and competition for water resources is, after oil, the next source of conflict in the world. So yes, it will affect everyone.
> Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need supplements, because they don't.
Sure, First World people don't need supplements, if they have a varied diet. In North America, that's a big if. There are cultural impediments to that varied diet, even for those with the means to afford it. But for many lower-income families, and especially those living in low-income neighborhoods, they experience the "food desert" problem. And they lack the same access to quality foods as more affluent people. That is a systemic issue related to how society (via government) deals with the problem. And the economics of the prices of foods is, in some part, related to the energy requirements which is related to the 90% energy loss up each level of the food chain. There is an environmental impact there.
btw: I just threw in the names of Bittman and Pollan as representatives of the ideas of plant-based and natural diets. It's not like they invented the ideas; they're just the most recognizable cheerleaders for them at the moment.
Since you mention them together a few times, I think it is worth pointing out that the vast majority of lactose intolerant people simply lack the ability to produce an enzyme that digests lactose, while gluten related conditions mostly seem to involve some sort of immune response. Some people probably do have a genuine milk allergy, but mostly lactose intolerant people are just unable to make lactase.
The discomfort stemming from lactose intolerance comes from bacteria digesting the sugar and making gas, etc. The discomfort (and further problems) from gluten is well understood to be an immune response in some instances (Celiacs, wheat allergies), and still thought to be an immune response in most remaining cases.
http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/in-defe...
> Pollan’s central thesis is that introducing science into our food system has done more harm than good and that the best thing for all of us would be to go back to eating a more traditional diet. It’s fair to point out that nutritional science has led to some mistakes (such as recommendations to replace saturated fats with hydrogenated oils), but Pollan devotes too much of his effort to dismantling his own shallow caricature of science.
It is, in short, the Naturalistic Fallacy run wild, which is quite common when the topic of nutrition comes up. In short: Something being 'natural' is orthogonal to it being 'good' or even 'good to eat'.
http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm
> Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance
Which means nothing to the people who don't have it, whose ancestors evolved to retain lactose tolerance into adulthood for the simple reason that milk is good food, full of proteins, fats, sugars, and vitamins that are just as important to an adult as a child. Just because the default First World diet induces a calorie surplus at this point instead of a calorie deficit does not negate any of milk's benefits.
> nutrition is more than calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in the diet
Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need supplements, because they don't.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/supplements/NU00198
> If you're generally healthy and eat a wide variety of foods, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, low-fat dairy products, lean meats and fish, you likely don't need supplements.