On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:16:22 -0600, "modom (palindrome guy)"
<moc.etoyok@modom> wrote:

>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.

I like Pollan too, and also enjoyed the piece. e's a journalist, not
a nutritionismist :-) I'd also enjoy hearing the educated opinon of a
scientist-(scientismist?) like CindyF.

I had the opportunity to meet Pollan, by the way, when he was on our
campus for our book project which featured his book, The Omnivore's
Dilemma. Nice guy. Great lecture. Dare I say it? "food for
thought" :-)

TammyM