Nutritionism 1

In an entry on my other (bike-related) blog I briefly discussed a newspaper article, from our local rag, about an upcoming visit from Micheal Pollan. I read with great gusto his previous work, An Omnivore's Dilema, and am now working through his present book In Defense of Food. I find his work amazing and inspirational, although as is the case with one's habit energy, the inspiration does not necessarily lead to drastic change in action, only in mindset. The synthesis of his ultimate world view seemingly, well factually although I don't purport to know, is that modern scientific factory farming has harmed us in many ways unimaginable. So far the newer read is a bit less compelling, but it raises so many brilliant questions.

I'm going to read more before really dissecting his stances, but following are a couple more resources concerning Pollan's work. These, admittedly, are pro-Pollan, in that I can imagine a food culture and food lifestyle based on his perspective as being both more work, but terribly more satisfying. In September and October, when I lost 15 lbs and ate much more judiciously, I felt so much better, livelier, more regular (in several ways). To think that I would return to that monkey mind of mindless grazing of garbage. I just don't get it except at a superficial, "Gee, I'm stupid" level.

• compendium of essays, including significant work in New York Times.
• Slate review of An Omnivore's Dilema. My how I love Slate. Ironic that it was co-created by Bill Gates. Another more recent treatment of his new book on Slate. And another discussion of ..Defense.

The Buddhist path is one of renunciation, of giving up to gain. Pollan's now famous (well, in relative terms) mantra,"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." can be nicely intricated with a broader Buddhist goal of doing less for a more mindful purpose. East less because the craving, the desire, the "need" will only create greater suffering. I can't but agree 267% with such a statement, as it relates to my own existence.