For the most part, I find Michael Pollan’s “In Defense of Food” to be elitist and assuming. Pollan calls this document “An Eater’s Manifesto” and he immediately establishes that he is writing a set of rules that he believes all eaters should abide by: in other words, everyone should be reading Pollan, and everyone should be following his rules. I disagree with the idea that everyone should be concerned with what they eat. It’s a simple law of economics: opportunity cost. If my time could be better spent elsewhere, I shouldn’t spend it on any of Pollan’s rules. I also disagree with this idea on the principle of personal freedom. We live in this wonderful world where people can make any choice they want in pursuit of happiness. But for some reason, if a man in the Midwest decides that he would rather spend fifty years on this earth, happy, plump, and eating richly marbled steaks than seventy years with a less palatable diet and a thin figure, he is judged. Who is Pollan to decide that seventy mildly content years is superior to fifty gloriously happy years? Not every person wants to spend the amount of concerted time and effort that Pollan prescribes on food. I don’t think that Pollan has the right to judge anyone on the way they eat. Eating is deeply personal, and to make the assumption that everyone would be better off on the Pollan diet is not only presumptuous, it is egoistic and self-indulgent.

That being said, for those who seek to eat healthier, more wholesome diets, I think Pollan presents a very valid set of guidelines. He cuts through the bullshit of labeling, dieting, and nutrition, and presents a straightforward case for eating more consciously. I’m not sure that he presents anything groundbreaking that anyone who cares to read this ‘manifesto’ wouldn’t already know, but he condenses the material into a logical and readable guide. I particularly enjoy when he explains tips and tricks of the grocery store—move about the edges, avoid products with health claims, be wary of foods with an encyclopedia of ingredients—it’s light, it’s clever, and maybe I did learn a thing or two.  This is a manifesto for the health-conscious modern middle-to-upper class foodie locavore yuppie liberal, and for those who are of the breed (likely myself included), I will not deny that it’s a well-written set of eating guidelines.

Pollan’s extension of his manifesto to the entire world of eaters stems from the same logic as fat-shaming, that people’s personal choices directly shape their eating habits and their health, and that those choices are up for scrutiny. I subscribe to a different theory, and it’s not necessarily that our society is responsible for rampant obesity and consumerism. I believe that all people have a different set of values, that those values ultimately shape what they eat, and that no particular set of values is superior to another. Some people will eat at their desks because they value time working more than they value time to eat slowly, and that’s okay. Some people will buy white bread and Go-Gurt because they value their children eating affordable food, and that’s okay too. What’s not okay is for someone to buy a sugary cereal because they believe it is heart healthy. We cannot legislate values, but we can use policy to help ensure that people can accurately make choices that reflect their values. We can try to nudge behavior and make it easier for people make valued decisions that also reflect health and well-being, if that is what we as a society value. Policy can bridge the gap between public and private values, but we cannot expect a universal manifesto to articulate the needs of all eaters. If processed foods are ‘silencing the yams’, it is only because our current system has handed them a microphone. We must only assume that consumers are rational actors within the system, insofar as they will do what they believe is consistent with their own unique set of values. We need to use policy to craft a more consumer-friendly system, not to establish a ubiquitous set of values.