More on the Problems of Pollanism

For a long time, I've said that Michael Pollan was in over his head. Which was my charitable way of saying that I didn't believe a word he said (or, increasingly, wrote) when it came to agriculture, agricultural technology, GMOs, and the like. 

Omnivore's Dilemma is full of, um, sloppy reporting --- again, my kind way of saying that it's clear to me that he fudged facts when it suited his purpose.

Pollan's occasional forays into Twitter have done nothing to ease my mind or mitigate my suspicions. He routinely links to bad studies that purport to show evidence of, say, the evils of GMOs, and it's clear that he's touting the virtues of whatever study he's linked to --- even though, often as not, those studies are nothing more than total bullshit.

So it was a relief of sorts to learn that my take on Pollan isn't some fiction of my imagination. Read this report from Jon Entine.

Entine, who is criticized as being a "shill" for corporations, directs the Genetic Literacy Project, which is affiliated with George Mason University. Because Entine also writes for mainstream outlets like Forbes and because he's also a fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, many in the food movement have concluded that, well, he's a shill. 

I don't agree with that view and as near as I can tell, the GLP is dedicated to, as its website says,

Agricultural and human biotechnology are reshaping farming, food and medicine. The GLP explores the intersection of DNA research, media and policy to disentangle science from ideology. . . . The goal of the GLP is to promote public awareness of genetics and science literacy.

In any case, Entine's essay contains Pollan's own words about that writer's views on GMOs, science, the food movement, and "objective" journalism (Pollan is a journalist of sorts). So in this case, I think we can set aside questions about Entine and focus on what Pollan himself has said and done. 

And that, friends, confirms what I've long suspected.  

 

Beer. Women. Sexism. Um. . . .

UPDATE: About two hours after writing this, I arrived at An Opinion About It: The core of the ad is so stunningly --- stupid. So banal. So "doh" --- that I have to wonder about the guy who owns the company. I've long said that where the Big Brewers went wrong was in their insistence on using sex, sexism, boobs, babes, bikinis to market beer to young men. The BB rarely, especially after about 1960, aimed for any other audience. So for a "craft" brewer (there's that word!) to do so just seems, well, dumb. Utterly lacking in imagination.  

And that's why, unlike my young friend who alerted me to this story, I was less outraged than baffled. Because, ya know, how could a business owner be so lacking in smarts and imagination?  

In any case, what follows below is what I originally wrote; my spur-of-the-moment response: 

In light of my recent full-bore rant about knee-jerk reactions and whining, this uproar about a Texas brewery's advertising is fascinating.

Having just learned of this, I'm not sure what I think but I was alerted to it (indirectly) by a smart young woman. And the fact that I don't have a knee-jerk reaction of my own (as I did to the situation that provoked the aforementioned rant) means, well --- hmm. This is complicated -- and in part by the response of the brewery owner. 

In any case: Read? Discuss? 

 

Thinking About Food, Cities, "Food Security"

I can't think of anything that summarizes the themes of my new book more than this short article from "cities" section of TheAtlantic.com. 

Because if we strip away all the blather about eating local, antibiotics or not, GMOs or not, "feeding the world," etc. --- all that blather boils down to logistics and food-dependent populations. "Food dependent" meaning: urbanites, who by definition do produce their own food. 

So: short, readable (maybe 1,000 words versus the roughly 100,000 words in my book). Take a look.