Actually, I vividly remember him stating that he believes the wide variety of diets indicates that there little health reason to avoid meat – but that there are plenty of ethical and environmental reasons. I don’t have the book right now so I can’t tell you which page it is, but it’s where he comes down to practical recommendations. So he does mention that.

Agreed on the Omega-3 inconsistency…

First, I think both you and I are observing how Pollan is moving from mainstream to the actual truth in his rhetoric, and yes he does seem to be getting it as far as animal production goes.(Leaving out the ethics).Whether or not he actually started out as an “innocent naive” and worked his way to his present position, or if that was his intent all along, I can’t say, but it did work as far as getting more mainstream people to pay attention.

Second, my position about “being local” is about a lot more than how far the food travels. Which, as was talked about in the interview, is not the only issue. However I give much more emphasis to scale of operation and directness to the consumer (how many middle-persons are there?)in my analysis than any of them did. So much of what is environmentally unsustainable and ecologically imbalanced (if not to mention ethically, morally untenable) is perpetrated by the large scale factory farms (both animal and vegetable). And when you buy direct all of your food dollar goes to the farmer, while in most other cases 80-90% goes to advertisers, marketers, brokers, distributors and retailers. What isn’t even mentioned is the carbon footprint that that 80-90% goes to (except the cost of transportation).Buying local avoids all of this as well as supports the local farm community.(My bias comes from having spent years as a small direct market farmer, primarily organic; I could not afford to stay a farmer).

Thirdly, I totally support and have no argument with your choice to be vegan. I was married for ten years to a Buddhist whose main reason for being vegetarian was spiritual I accepted and supported this, eating and cooking only vegetarian at home. I believe that it is a higher consciousness that considers the soul or spirit of all living things. In my defense, in your review you did say you were leaving out the ethical issue(s)in criticizing Pollan’s points (or lack thereof). I was responding in the spirit(NPI)of leaving ethics out of it, though I believe that ultimately it always comes back to that anyway.

My fourth point considers the criticism of fundamental thought as regards the conversation regarding, local, organic and sustainable as brought up by Professor McWilliams. I myself have been guilty of fundamentalist thinking and positions. There is much to be gained by developing greater perspectives and higher points of view. However, I have also learned that fundamentalism is also always based on some important truth, whether it be the words of Buddha, Mohammad, Jesus, or the awareness of the souls and spirits of animals. So I think it is important not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Ultimately, saying locavores are wrong is a mistake. But what is humane and what is murder? Is killing vegetables for food inhumane? Is terminating pregnancy through abortion murder? Is it wrong for osprey to live off the killing of fish? Were the Native Americans immoral when they prayed to the spirits of the animals they killed and thanked them for giving their lives so that they may live? Can we really separate out ethics and morality from nature and the natural order of things, regardless of how far we develop our consciousness?

I don’t know the answers.

I agree with much of what you say about Pollan’s influence and the important impact he’s had in raising these issues. I do not quite buy the ‘he’s a journalist’ argument, since it’s pretty clear he’s pushing an agenda. I think it’s more accurate to say he’s a very well-researched and fact-based opinion writer. I don’t think he is just dealing with the conversation as he coms to it, though, because in so many cases he is setting the tone of the conversation!

I think he is working towards a vegetarian position, actually. After I wrote this article I listed to this episode of Science Friday, which I think you may find particularly interesting. It’s about what one new author is calling ‘the Loca-vore Myth’, and includes interviews with Pollan and that author. You should give it a listen, it’s really interesting stuff. And Pollan straight up comes out and admits the inferiority of meat as far as energy and the environment are concerned. It’s here: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=112105594 , with free download available on iTunes

As for the end of your argument, I just do not agree in any way. Sorry! I watched the TED talk ( I <3 TEDs!!!) and was quite disappointed with what I saw. I know my views are the minority, but I do believe in them. For the sake of time and space I'll simply summarize:

There is no such thing as a non-exploitative ('humane') situation where one group in power takes something forcibly from another group with no power, and makes money from it. Money is the priority, and the welfare of the animals will always be secondary. These animal agriculture systems are, by definition, exploitation. There is no such thing as humane murder.

But Dylan, I do love your input and always appreciate your thoughtful comments. And conversaytion is my new favorite word! So awesome!

What I do notice is that the longer he looks into the mess the harder and harder it is for him to stay “objective” and not take more and more radical stances. Probably he is working his way to the obvious merits of avoiding meat and animal products in our diets and agricultural system. But he has to get there in his own “naive” way as a journalist, regardless of how aware he himself may be.

Having said that, I would like to point out the relative wisdom he has come to and the larger message he has to make. In addressing the issue of sustainability and the meaning of the word (which he has serious misgivings about as do I) he has this to say (in an article in the New York Times, see whole article here-http://www.pastureland.coop/files/Michael_Pollan_NYT_121607.pdf): “Whenever we try
to rearrange natural systems along the lines of a machine or a factory, whether by raising too
many pigs in one place or too many almond trees, whatever we may gain in industrial efficiency,
we sacrifice in biological resilience. The question is not whether systems this brittle will break
down, but when and how, and whether when they do, we’ll be prepared to treat the whole idea of
sustainability as something more than a nice word.”

Without going into a long conversation about it, and in the interest of truly looking at the whole picture I would recommend you check out this video: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_barber_s_surprising_foie_gras_parable.html, or look up anything you can by Joel Salatin. Both of these people give wonderful and inspiring ways of how we can include animals in an agricultural system that are both beautiful and healthy for the planet.

PS in writing this I accidentally coined a new word: “conversaytion”-a talk with Sayward that results in a conversion to veganism
, hee hee.

Just to clear one thing up – I’m not asking that Michael Pollan, or anyone else, become a veg*n. I mean, of course I’d prefer it because I think it’s the healthiest, most sustainable, and of course most ethical way to live! But I’m not so naive as to expect a massive conversion. My point was that from somebody as intelligent as Pollan, I expect a certain level of intellectual honesty. I think it’s dishonest, and a disservice, NOT to mention the environmental superiority of a veg*n diet (this is an undeniable fact) and the healthful benefits of eating veg. He can leave ethics out of it, since that’s what he seems to do.

That’s all I meant.
Love you all!

i think overall pollan’s books do indeed have merit, and i have also read that veg-only diets aren’t for everyone…that some people truly do better with some amount of animal protein in their diet. from the wee bits i’ve read, the ‘paleo’-type diet seems to be a fairly sound one…a little bit of everything: meat, veggie, grain, fruit, etc.

no-one, but *no-one* should ever need to eat a 32-oz porterhouse steak, however, as old-time steakhouses used to tout (and maybe some current ones still do?) or 1-lb hamburgers.

really, it’s all about balance and moderation, and what makes you feel the best. when it comes to our diets, i think one-size (or type) really doesn’t and just can’t fit all.

there’s my $.02 on that! :)