Unhappy Meals story by Michael Pollan

I didn't write about Michael Pollan's cover story, Unhappy Meals, that appeared in the 1/28 Sunday New York Times Magazine, because everyone and their sister in the food world covered it. In case you missed the story (or didn't finish all 10,053 words - yes, I counted them) here is an amusing Seuss-inspired summary I found on the Food on the Food blog.

Whole foods, good.
Processed foods, bad.
Science is good,
Except when it’s bad.

People lie.  Lying is bad.
But calling people liars feels good.
Is that bad?

Biodiversity is good.
Having 2/3 of human calories come from only 4 highly processed crops: corn, soybeans, wheat, rice:
Bad, bad, bad.

Grandma’s cooking was good.
Mom’s food was bad.
Today’s moms aren't much better because they're passed out drunk in a sandbox.
Oh wait, that was a different story.

Americans are fat.
Gluttony is bad.
Making money off of diet-related health problems is rad.
I mean, bad (sorry, a lobbyist jumped in there).

Real food is good.
Food broken down into isolated nutrients doesn't do jack shit.
One-A-Day is sad.

Health claims aren’t good ‘cause
They’re hiding what’s bad.
Diet fads are dumb.
A walk ain’t so bad.

Oversimplification is BAAAAAAAAAD.
Oops, too late.

I'm not mocking Pollan's piece. You should read it. It's right on the money, as all of his writing is. He's a hero to me. But as you know, nothing is sacred in my world.

In the interest of providing at least a modicum of relevant/serious content in this post, I'll point you to a couple of reviews/critiques of Pollan's story. I always like to know the other side of an issue, even if I don't agree with it.  Here they are and don't miss the commentary underneath the reviews:

Scientific American
Huffington Post
Slate
Marc Joseph (occassional guest author to LF)

If anyone has read any other reviews of Pollan's story, I'd love to know about them.