Another fascinating article in the NYT Sunday Magazine by my dietary hero, Michael Pollan. (If you haven’t read his essay “Unhappy Meals” yet, drop everything and do it. Now.) Pollan’s latest essay takes on Washington as it explores how the Farm Bill has influenced American diets. What was meant to be a simple support to retain independence of our food supply has become a major economic dysfunction that has led - directly, he suggests - to the obesity and health crises, as well as creating a destructive impact on the environment, global poverty and immigration.
Pollan’s solution is yet another great example of the power of framing. If we reframe the Farm Bill as the Food Bill, he suggests, it will put the issue in strict relief, refocusing the discourse in the appropriate c0ntext. After all, when a dollar can buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots, something is wrong with the way we have structured our nutritional infrastructure. The Farm Bill isn’t built in the best interest of our nation of eaters.
Pollan does a great job demonstrating how innovation, in this case, an economic policy innovation that’s been around for decades, can create unintended consequences for the broader ecosystem at large. And how something as simple as framing can be the first step in focusing the debate and solving the problem.
Pollan’s work is always fascinating and thought-provoking. Read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin
Michael Pollan’s thought-provoking essay in yesterday’s NYT magazine (see the link below), examined the practice of Nutrionism, the science of deconstructing and evaluating food, outside of its natural eco-system. As with any industrial advance, innovating within a vacuum has a tendency to give rise to many unintended consequences.
Pollan writes about the dietary shift from Food to Food Products. He points out that with each incremental food science discovery (Antioxidants! Fat! Carbs! Sterols! Probiotics!), manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon, but despite the increasing availability of “nutrient-smart” food, our overall health has steadily declined. The more we know, the more Food Products are constructed to deliver more of the good and less of the bad, the less healthy we seem to become.
This is not meant to be a diatribe on processed food. Instead, it’s an observation on the need to innovate within the eco-system. The whole of the ecosystem - supply, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, sales, experience, support - must be involved for innovation to succeed, just like the context of the food, diet and lifestyle must be considered to understand the impact of nutrients. As we aim to solve problems and exploit opportunities, we must be broad-sighted and look at innovations in light of the consumer’s life, adoption and use. Does it function as it needs to? Does it fit within behavior patterns? Does it solve a problem? Does it create others? How does it work within their entire basket of purchases and alternatives?
When we stop looking exclusively at the small bits of the equation and start looking globally and in context, our ability to innovate becomes stronger. Remember, you need to measure the right stuff, not just the easy stuff.
By the way, Pollan’s main thesis: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
Smart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html
Another fascinating article in the NYT Sunday Magazine by my dietary hero, Michael Pollan. (If you haven’t read his essay “Unhappy Meals” yet, drop everything and do it. Now.) Pollan’s latest essay takes on Washington as it explores how the Farm Bill has influenced American diets. What was meant to be a simple support to retain independence of our food supply has become a major economic dysfunction that has led - directly, he suggests - to the obesity and health crises, as well as creating a destructive impact on the environment, global poverty and immigration.
