That is a straw man argument, and while straw may be high in fiber, it lacks substance [and] is unpalatable.

That is pretty funny - I will try to remember this one for the next time I encounter a straw man argument and have the chance to comment on it.

As for the original article, I generally agree and especially like your bullet point summary under “Highlights”. Sadly, America has largely become a nation of hurry-up meals and convenience foods, with many of us forgetting about the original natural nutrition that has been lost in the quest for faster processing and corporate profits.

But I am afraid people getting from one end into another end:

Organic Food.

That people got to make it wrong again.

When every people thinking in the same way, I am very afraid.

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts here!

I would like to counter your observations on a few points, though.

First, I disagree that saying the science of nutrition is “in the middle ages” means that it is mere quackery, Pollan seems to me to rather be stressing that there is still a long way to go before our understanding of nutrition is on a par with our understanding of many other health-related fields.

I would agree with that sentiment, and direct you to two recent podcasts featuring Dr. Richard D. Feinman, a leader in the field of metabolic and nutritional research and a professor of biochemistry at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York as well as the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Nutrition & Metabolism.

Listen to part one here:
A Talk With Professor Richard Feinman: Part 1 (Episode 135)

and part two here:
A Talk With Professor Richard Feinman: Part 2 (Episode 136)

People like Dr. Dean Ornish claim to have nutritional science all figured out, yet Ornish has publicly stated he very proud of the fact that he convinced Tropicana to enhance it’s orange juice by adding in artificial fiber to make up for the refining they have done to make a fattening but very commercially viable product.

Michael Pollan would say to Dr, Ornish: “Gee Doc, what’s wrong with, I dunno, eating an ACTUAL ORANGE?”

Pollan’s beef is taking nutritious food items like oats or oranges that are cheap and having companies take these things, refine them (by removing fiber, for example) and dilute them (by adding High Fructose Corn Syrup for example) to the point of nutritional uselessness, THEN playing the saviour by marketing a NEW IMPROVED version (at a premium price) with chemically derived supplements to make them “not quite so bad”.

Why is Malitol supposed to be better than just plain old orange pulp?

That is “Nutritionalism” as opposed to nutrition, and when food scientists working for corporations assist in this process, they cast a shadow over the entire field of food science.

Pollan is not a luddite, and does not claim that knowing that vitamin c cures scurvy is worthless knowledge. That is a straw man argument, and while straw may be high in fiber, it lacks substance is unpalatable.

Though distrust of experts is powerful narrative for change, in this case, Pollack vilifies science and high priests of science (the scientists) while he happily wears the crown of expert and using science to augment his thesis when needed. Never in the lecture, he mentions the role of science in finding that Folic Acid prevents Neural tube defects or that VItamin C prevents scurvy. Instead he says that nutrition is a science in middle ages equating nutrition to quackery. That is far from truth and especially unfortunate since as a professor, writer and thoughtful man , he should know better.

Pollack is correct that scientists made mistakes but he ignores the fact that is not the scientists but the industry that exploited science as a marketing tool to persuade people to buy and consume products. Unfortunately, condemning science and the scientists without understanding the societal factors at play is not naive world view and can not be used a narrative of progress.