Svar på tal

Svar till Michael Pollans Unhappy Meals finns attt läsa i Slate. Onekligen ett par poänger. Daniel Engber liknar Pollan vid Edmund Burke, vilket kanske inte är rättvist men onekligen kul. Den här biten är tänkvärd:

"But Pollan's nutritional Darwinism only makes sense if the selection pressures of the distant past were in perfect alignment with the health concerns of today. In other words, our food culture would have evolved to protect us from cancer, heart disease, and obesity only if those maladies had been a primary threat to reproduction in the ancient world. It's hard to imagine that the risks posed by these so-called "diseases of affluence"—which often strike late in life, after we've had babies—would have been as significant to our fast-living, sickly forebears as the dangers of, say, bacterial infections or the occasional drought. Indeed, for much of human history, natural selection might well have traded off the dangers of morbid obesity to mitigate the risk of starvation. There's just no way to know how the ancient culinary traditions will fare in the modern world until we try them."

Och artikeln avslutas:

"As Ben Goldacre points out in the New Statesman, solid epidemiological work has validated the standard advice we get from our doctors: Exercise more and eat your fruits and vegetables.

Pollan cites the same scientific research to support what he describes as his "flagrantly unscientific" diet plan: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I'm happy to follow those dicta if they'll help me to live a longer, happier life. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into the misleading, great-great-grandma-knew-best philosophy that spawned them. I'd rather stick to the science, warts and all."

Man ska inte anamma en persons åsikter utan att läsa kritiken också.
Matälskarna gillar Pollan skarpt men försöker att inte vara alltför devota, vi håller inte med om allt. Det behöver man inte.
Diskutera gärna nedan. Respektfullt, tack!