Disagreeing With Mark Bittman

by tristero

For the first time ever, I find myself disagreeing with the great Mark Bittman.

I get where he’s coming from, I understand that the quest for the perfect should not stand in the way of the good, but, imo, our food system needs radical changes, not band-aids. Fake “chicken” will relieve animal suffering – as a 30-year-plus vegetarian, that strikes me as a very good thing – but it comes at a price. As with all modern processed food, the specific balance of nutrients and micro-nutrients in “chicken” hasn’t been time-tested over centuries, as with traditional processes (e.g. cheeses). Replacing 40% of a culture’s animal protein with this stuff – or even just a significant fraction of that 40% – strikes me as a classic Bad Idea. Although the ingredients seem benign enough, the long term consequences could very well be dire, one more example of nutrionism running the show rather than the eating and enjoyment of delicious food.

Endorsing heavily processed industrial food also opens a slippery slope. I think Michael Pollan got it exactly right: Eat [non-industrial] food, not too much. Mostly plants. The sooner we all move in that direction, – by among other things, making real food affordable again, and by no longer hiding the high price of bad food through outrageous subsidies – the better. Sorry, but fake chicken doesn’t help.

A hallmark of liberalism – co-opted and cartooned by the right – is the willingness to question basic assumptions. To that end, I’m thrilled that Bittman, a man of enormous stature in the food world, is urging those of us who care about food politics to question carefully the practicality of “real food” and seek alternatives. I don’t think he makes a convincing case for “chicken,” but the issues are complex, there is a lot of needless animal suffering, and his voice is so important that I’m glad he raised the subject. It helps those of us who disagree articulate our problems with his position, and it may lead to other, more sensible ideas.