My readers (or at least the few that comment) have suggested that they want to know more about Food Rules by Michael Pollan.
Here's a conversation I imagine between Michael Pollan and some editor (books i done read uses this format for reviews with great success. I do not pretend to be as clever as raych).
Editor: People seem to like your Omnivore's Dilemma book.
MP: Um, yeah.
Ed: But the problem with Omnivore's Dilemma is that it tells people all about where their food comes from, in an interesting investigative, yet personal way [MP thinks, "Is he reading from some review?"]. But our readers really want a book that tells them what to eat.
MP: Which is why I wrote In Defense of Food. To give Americans clear instructions about what they should eat and why.
Ed: Oh, yeah, it says here that that sold pretty well.
MP: Uh-huh.
Ed: But, see, In Defense of Food is complicated.
MP: [Really?]
Ed: It goes into great detail about the research concerning healthy diets. Our readers don't really want to know why they should do something. They just need something simple and short to tell them what to eat.
MP: Like "Eat food. Mostly Plants. Not too much."?
Ed: Exactly.
MP: Which is the subtitle of In Defense of Food and the subject of several short articles I've written.
Ed: But couldn't you make it into a book?
MP: Yes, I made that line into a book. It's called In Defense of Food.
Ed: You're really popular now, with Botany of Desire airing on tv and all. Ask Amy even used the phrase, "You're getting all Michael Pollan on me," as a way to shut up people who should be minding their own business about diets. You can't get much more popular than PBS and an insult on Ask Amy.
MP: Okay?
Ed: So, basically, we want a book for people who don't read.
MP: ?
Ed: Can you take the next fifteen minutes and write down everything that's in that In Defense of Food book you keep talking about, but leave off all of the narrative, all of the history, all of the research. Make us a list of your points.
MP: Like, "Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much."
Ed: Yes, that's it. But make 100 or so of them. One per page. Short, punchy. No explanation.
MP: Okay, sure. I can make a list if you really want to sell what I've already said in another book in book form for people that don't read.
Ed: Non-readers are our biggest untapped market. Now get to it.
Food Rules is the result of this discussion. One rule per page. Some are a phrase. Some require two paragraphs. Most are two sentences. Pollan admits up front that this is exactly the same information that fills In Defense of Food, just without the actual information.
The instructions are nothing new to me, but, much as I mock the form, I'll admit that I enjoyed reading (all 20 minutes of it) Food Rules far more than In Defense of Food.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Brilliantly imagined! You've convinced me to read something else by Pollan as my first book of his.
'Non-readers are our biggest untapped market' - Aeeeiiii! I'm dying laughing.
I have not read the two studies that I'm going to reference so I'm only referring them for further study. They were mentioned by Trent Loos who writes for High Plains Journal. He gave no titles for the studies but did give the names so I suppose the articles could be found. Steve Sexton of Unversity of California at Berkeley has supposedly done a study on the additional acreage that will need to be tilled to fulfill Pollan's plans and Jude Capper of Washington State University has done a study of comparative costs in terms of fuel, feed, etc. of locally grown eggs vs. those from the "factory farm". This is not to pass moral judgement on anyone's beliefs in this area, only to offer further reading material.
Dianthus's grandfather
Dianthus's grandfather--
The acerage to take to follow Pollan's general principle: Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much. would certainly be less than current American standard.
There are plenty of people having good discussions about the relative importance of eating locally vs. organically vs. any other number of systems (and, like most things, it depends on what your measurable goal is: the same system that will minimize petroleum inputs is not the system that will minimize acerage, alas). Many of these discussions are being used to avoid the real discussion or real change. Most of us (myself definitely included) eat more total, more meat and more processed food than can possibly be good for ourselves or the planet.
I'll see if I can find the studies.
"If mass starvation is to be avoided in the current century," Sexton reasons, "then we must either forsake natural land including tropical forests, or renew our commitment to crop science.
Most of my searching for the study D'sG mentioned leads to an article/commentary on the study by Don Curlee. Curlee, in an effort to make an interesting article, does quite a bit of selective fact listing and juxtaposition. He mentions, for instance, how much more acreage will be needed in cultivation by 2050 if the planet is supporting 9 billion people (a reasonable estimate) and they are eating in "pseudo-locavore fantasy land". He does not give the amount of increased acreage just to support 9 billion people. He quotes Sexton about the need for more crop science (no complaints for me there!) then follows it with a line of his own "Before clearing thousands, perhaps millions of acres of tropical forests, the wisest decision might be to abandon locavorism." Big leap.
Anyway, friends, I would like the original article, send it to me if you find it.
Be aware that D'sG is the one of the biggest advocates of home gardening I know (totally inefficent); he just hates being told what to do (so do I, but we have different ideas about which people telling us what to do are self-righteous hypocrites).
And, in ecology (and I assume economics) scale matters!
Interesting dialogue that I'll have to process more when I'm not at work. My biased opinion is there is enough food already, westernized people need to eat less, governments need to distribute it better and stop paying people to overproduce food that doesn't get used. The common denominator might be greed.
I found the Jude Capper article entitled, "Demystifying the evironmental sustainability of food production" and it's available on the web at academia.edu It's an interesting read over the 16 pages whether one agrees with it or not.
I dug up this post because I was thinking the saying was "Eat less, more fruit." Which I have lost 6 lbs by doing this past month! (and by eating more vegetables, but that makes the eat less, more fruit too wordy.) Amazing, eating less food = healthy (here in the US).
Thanks SalSis. Indeed, most of my readers need just to eat less (and more veggies certainly wouldn't hurt any of us).
Post a Comment