The blogosphere is enraptured by Michael Pollan’s (The Omnivore’s Dilemma in case you were snoozing under a rock last food year) piece in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.
“Unhappy Meals” is a polemic against processed food and the cult of “nutritionism”—that is, eating nutrients (often found in boxes of fortified crap) instead of eating whole foods. Don’t have time to read the thousands of words that encompass the history of nutrients, the rise of high-fructose corn syrup (boo, hiss), and the crucial differences between omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids? Skip to the end, where Pollan gives nine “rules of thumb” he has collected.
More than 100 blogs have already weighed in on the story. Most are effusive in their praise. “Brilliant,” notes sustainable-food blog Post-Haste Taste. “Wonderful,” says nutrition blog Guerilla Nutrition. “So simple and so true,” says Calorie Restriction blogger Christina’s CR Journal. Some bloggers, like Waisted in the Wasteland, are so inspired by the article that they’ve vowed to move The Omnivore’s Dilemma to the top of their to-be-read stack. Not even a blog called Snarkmarket could work up any snark for Mr. Pollan. Everyone, it seems, loves him.
Well, except those malcontents on Metafilter, who bring a refreshing skepticism to the party, bashing Pollan for sins that range from essentially “writing the same article/book over and over again” to not even bringing up the concept of exercise. Posters on Chowhound (Chow’s sister site) are also having a thoughtful discussion around elements of the article.
Is “Unhappy Meals” the seed that will turn into another Michael Pollan best-seller? Stay tuned!