When did food cease to be a sustaining, nurturing, and integral part of the rhythm of our lives—and become science? When did a meal cease to be pleasurable, satisfying, and relationship-enhancing, and instead become a time of calorie-anxiety, micro-nutritional assessments, and the leading edge of moral judgments and dietary-regimen critiques?

Michael Pollan, journalist and author of The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals and In Defense of Food: An Eaters Manifesto, takes up this issue in an interview with Amy Goodman on the radio program "Democracy Now."¹ He argues that the fundamental assumptions people make about nutritionism negatively impact society's health and well being. 

The prevalent assumptions he specifically refutes include the following:

1. Food is the basic carrier for nutrients to enter our body
2. Since we, as nonprofessionals, do not recognize or taste specific nutrients in the food we eat, experts are needed to help ensure proper nutrition consumption
3. Nutrients within foods can be measured and evaluated to understand the exact effects they have on an individual or an individual's condition
4. Food consumption is solely for health advancement or improvement

He concludes that "since we've been looking at food this way, our health has gotten worse and worse."  As our country plunges headfirst into a global twenty-first century world, we are clearly engaged in reexamining, redefining, and reclaiming eating, food, and sustenance in very unique and innovatively sustainable ways...