On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 04:12:02 GMT, (Curly
Sue) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:03:14 -0600, "modom (palindrome guy)"
><moc.etoyok@modom> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:09:03 GMT, (Curly
>>Sue) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:02:48 -0600, "modom (palindrome guy)"
>>><moc.etoyok@modom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Michael Pollan in the NYT Sunday Magazine: "Eat food. Not too much.
>>>>Mostly plants."
>>>>
>>>>He elaborates in today's edition. Here's a link:
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/26glv4
>>>>
>>>>You'll have to register, I think, but it's free.
>>>
>>>Pound for pound, that's overcharging for the article.
>>>
>>You didn't like what he had to say? I found him cogent.
>>--
>I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but what I read
>over the weekend I thought was glib.
>
Ah.

I thought his description of the money and politics-infused transition
from food to nutrients in the American discourse was well described. I
probably should have included a PING to Cindy Fuller in the initial
post. I'd much like to hear her well-informed ideas on his discussion
of the science of nutrition and the problems of reductive science,
particularly as it informs his argument regarding what he calls
"nutritionism." Cindy knows her nutrition science onions, but it
seems Pollan knows a thing or two as well.

Like I said, I found Pollan's piece cogent. But Cindy's expert
opinion would surely make for better information.
--

modom

http://www.koyote.com/users/modom/home.html