Beef with the Food Guru.

Of course I am talking about Michael Pollan.

Despite the fact that Pollan's food rules are strongly biased toward those who can actually afford food i.e. not the low income class, he does have very good insights on the problems of the food systems in generally. Not to mention that although the middle class is targeted, the movement needs to start somewhere, and those who can afford it, should be the ones to take the biggest part.

I glanced through Pollan's newest book, a small, quick read called Food Rules: An Eater's Manual, recently while waiting in Barnes and Noble. I decided I didn't need to purchase the book, and after spending 15 minutes with it, that was about the time it took to read through it--or at least get all the rules in. But that wasn't the reason for not taking it home with me. I found it troubling to have a book full of RULES for me to follow in regards to my eating habits.

The one that put me off initially, said "Leave something on your plate". After a quick google search, I realized I wasn't the only one who was not thrilled with this rule.
In an interview with Michael Pollan, the website Epicurious also questioned it:
Epi: A related rule, "Leave something on your plate," surprised me. Isn't waste against the principles of ethical eating? Wouldn't it be better to simply shrink portions to eat less?
MP: It's a form of self-discipline, instead of your plate dictating when you're full. I'm talking about a bite or two, not leaving a big pile of food.
(http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/chefsexperts/interviews/michaelpollaninterview)

I had a similar reaction to this rule. It could quite possibly be my up-bringing, as Pollan points out, but one of my biggest pet-peeves with food is wasting food. I hate to see food go bad and even worse good food thrown out. I am not saying you have to finish all the food if you are full, but then please, put it in a container for later! The answer seems simple to me: serve less initially and then go back for more if you are still hungry. I should probably note here, another rule I don't like; there is nothing inherently wrong with seconds! Yes, it can be an issue when people go for seconds because it is sitting there and they think they are still hungry when they are not--but, sometimes you are actually just still hungry and that is OKAY!

I very much appreciate Pollan's earlier books that I have read, (okay, in the process of reading!) The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food, more the former than the latter as he second book starts to get a bit "rule" heavy. I think his lessons are important, but I don't want them told to me as rules, I would rather have the information explained to me and I can then take my own actions accordingly.


I do have one rule for eating: no rules. I found that setting dietary restrictions of any kind are more detrimental than helpful in any situation for me. I do eat healthy and mostly natural foods--because that's what I want to eat. But if I want to pick up a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, I do it. If I, for example, were to create a rule "no ice cream" or even "less sweets" for a generic rule, then I would sit and want the ice cream and waste time thinking about how I wish I could eat it and then I would eventually indulge and then feel guilty for eating it. Why not just eat it, enjoy it, and move on?