Comments on: Ensuring Pollan-ization

By: L Nettles

L Nettles — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:55:48 +0000

This from a reader who thinks organic is for suckers, but still enjoyed the book. If they read this book I hope they will get something from the author’s attacks the way the USDA over regulates in favor of the large agribusiness concerns. There is a message there that applies to the economy as a whole. I also agree with the author about the detrimental effect of the corn subsidies. If this perhaps encourages their soft little minds to think for themselves its ok with me.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:11:34 +0000

For our freshman week book at Columbia, we read the Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution by C.P. Snow. Of course that was in 1960, when universities were a little less PC (but very Marxist!).

By: John Beaty

John Beaty — Sun, 31 May 2009 16:31:55 +0000

Actually, I think the NYT editors would do us all a service by asking their reporters to take a closer look at ALL the things they report on.

But that’s just me.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:11:54 +0000

Thanks to Bill Marler for his characteristically gracious response. I have no wish to question his firsthand account, but that just throws into odder relief the Times article itself (headline: “For Personal-Injury Lawyer, Michael Pollan’s Book Is Worth Fighting For”), with its implied narrative of Pollan’s persecution if not martyrdom and the controversial content of his book as uppermost in all sides’ minds.

Perhaps we can all agree that 1) Michael Pollan tends to get really, really good press at the Times and that 2) editors there would have done a service by asking the reporter to take a closer look at the nuances of the episode, including who was intending to do what by their actions.

By: Bill Marler

Bill Marler — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:41:53 +0000

Walter – it is WSU – Washington State University. A couple of things. I served eight years on the board and have given to a variety of scholarships and programs that have nothing to do with food. Regarding this “pollan-ization,” whether it was because of the $54M budget gap or for some other reason that the program was cut, I was happy to help. The book, which I have read and do not completely agree with, had nothing to do with my donation. The point is that this program is one that is important to the University. I pledged to help support it next year too – and I do not even know what the book is – perhaps it should be yours?

GO GOUGS!

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:35:54 +0000

Thanks for correction. Fixed it in post and my comment.

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:28:14 +0000

The post says the controversy erupted at the University of Washington but the linked article indicates it’s actually Washington State University.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:37:04 +0000

The reference to extensive ties (Marler has served as a trustee for six years, not just attended the university) was meant precisely to head off any reader notion of him as a mere interloper, the better to focus on what if anything might be genuinely problematic (or non-problematic) about the interchange.

I can see a range of possible views on that, which is why my post didn’t come at the story from a “this-is-outrageous-and-must-be-stopped” point of view. I do wonder, however, why there weren’t more questions asked at a place like the New York Times, which often seems to react with shock-horror-outrage on learning that, say, prescription drug makers are allowed to distribute ballpoint pens to medical students. Maybe next year the sides will be reversed and a WSU trustee high up in Starbucks or the french-fry-potato industry will personally endow a program requiring freshmen to read an elegant and impassioned defense of the current mass food distribution system. If that happens, I can see many people saying, “and that’s fine too, just like the Marler-Pollan episode was fine”, but I somehow doubt the Times will be among them.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Sun, 31 May 2009 12:24:45 +0000

I don’t think that’s a fair description of what happened. One of two things happened:

(1) The university ran out of money to fund the program; or,
(2) The university lied about running out of money and actually bowed to political pressure from agribusiness.

When the lawyer — whose “extensive ties,” whatever that means, includes him being an alumni, not just some interloper — agreed to fund the program, that shut down objections entirely, because the “objections” were all claimed to be financial.

If #2 was the real reason, well, too bad, they trapped themselves by lying about it. If there’s a “controversy” about the book’s content then it should be raised in public.