Unhappy Meals and Going Vegetarian

I'll be honest: the material I read in Michael Pollan's article "Unhappy Meals" and in Kathy Freston's "The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for One Day" was eye opening and startling. After being somewhat ignorant to the nutritional misconceptions in our society for the first 20 years of my life, these two articles without a doubt had a profound impact one me. Michale Pollan really stresses the institutions in America that have made us unhealthy eaters while Kathy Freston provides statistics for a hypothetical scenario where we all gave up the consumption of meat. Both of these individuals seem to achieve exactly what they wanted in their articles: to raise awareness and propose alternatives. Since these two articles cover similar material, I will summarize each of them individually for my two key points.

Pollan opens with a statement that summarizes his entire article: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He then goes on to say that the rest of the article will probably just make this bold statement more confusing, but he proceeds anyway. At first I was disappointed by this fact, wishing I could get away with reading only six words. Soon though it became apparent that although the rest of his article was confusing, it was also very enlightening. He starts out by discussing the progression from eating foods to eating nutrients. Back in the day we simply consumed food without concern for what they were made up of. Now though, we strive to eat nutrients on individual level instead of foods as a whole. What this does is it takes away from the holistic nutrition (like the idea of eating an bread) and instead focuses on eating fiber (which we can artificially infuse into all sorts of things, including bread). This idea is referred to as nutritionism. The most striking problems that Pollan points out that proves nutriotionism is bad is that A.) we often wrongly identify those nutrients that are good for us and B.) that nutrients have different effects based on their combinations and relations to other foods. A perfect example of these negative ideas is how when we eat right, we get fatter. The push to replace fats with carbohydrates actually made America much fatter. In trying to improve nutrition though, scientists hit two big problems. The first is that focusing on nutrients is the only feasible way to analyze food. The second is that surveys that analyze consumption of food are usually not accurate due to extensive lying. Ultimately it comes down to this: either we keep our fingers crossed that natural selection adapts our bodies to this terrible diet or we strive to reduce meat consumption, increase plant consumption, and start eating real food.

The second article, by Kathy Preston, is essentially just a list of statistics about what would happen if everyone became a vegetarian for the day. Essentially everyone of the statistics points to one of two things: everyone as a vegetarian will conserve resources and decrease waste. In light of the fact that this is a statistics based article, I will highlight the three I found most impactful. First, if we all stopped eating meat, the grain that we saved could feed every person in the world with 3 pounds of grain per day (more than enough to survive). Second, that everyone turning vegetarian would save 70 million gallons of gas. Finally, greenhouse gas prevention would be equal to that of France's total pollution. These facts, and all of the others, are very powerful.

As I said in the beginning of this blog, the emotions these articles stirred up in me were very strong. They managed to insight questioning, shock, and even fear in me as I read them. The reason they were so powerful was because they applied to my everyday decisions. Every time I walk into the dining hall I am faced with the option to eat healthy or to eat unhealthy; I have usually picked the latter. At what cost does this come though? Essentially I have learned to take my diet much more seriously and to analyze everything I put into my body. Pollan's idea that we should eat food and not just "food like substances" is a very strong one. If you would have asked me a day ago if what I ate was food, I would have told you yes. Now though, I am no quite sure what I would say to such a question. The two articles combine to make me question whether or not I should be a vegetarian. Am I risking a short life or early medical complications if I do not?

In terms of relating this article to the big picture, it reminds me a lot of a film I watched over Christmas break called Supersize Me. This documentary follows a New York native around on his quest to eat McDonalds for thirty days straight. Three separate doctors examine him and evaluate his health throughout the experiment, giving him expert advice on what his body is being exposed to. When compared to Pollan and Freston's articles, it is clear that what he was eating was not food but instead was something that resembled food. His health showed it. By day 21 of his 30 day journey he was having heart palpitations and had to check himself into the emergency room. Obviously the average American does not consume this much that resembles food, but they are almost as guilty/at risk. The fact that we go to the stores and buy bread infused with various nutrients and meat that has been raised on preservative infused grain means that we are also at risk of medical complication. I think the fact that these articles and the film tie in so well together is an important connection to make when delving into the topic of nutrition.

In terms of application, I think the most important thing to note from both of articles is a topic raised in "Unhappy Meal". Some might say that our bodies as humans will ultimately adapt to this new nutritional system. Here's the problem though: we don't let survival of the fittest work its magic. Ideally (not in a sadistic way) those whose genes are not conducive to the US's current diet would die off and only those with favorable genes for surviving on those types of food would survive. The problem is that modern medicine has been charged with trying to extend everyone's life regardless of nutritional background. Consequently, I intend to imply all of this information to my life. Perhaps I will try and be a vegetarian for a day. There obviously will not be a dramatic reduction in pollution and hunger as a result of my vegetarian exploits, but there will be some good done: I will be healthier and hopefully people will follow my lead. The biggest thing that I intend to do is reduce my meat consumption across the board. I am a big time fan of giant meat proportions (steak, chicken, pork, you name it) but now I will be a lot more conscientious about the amounts I consume. Hopefully I will see health benefits as a result of this transition.

Questions -

Some of the Vegetarian statistics are not labeled with time periods. How long will the changes be in effect? For instance, how long could the excess fuel power cars?

Will there ever be a time somewhere far down the road where the health benefits of certain foods will be fully understood and thus utilized in our everyday lives.