The Omnivore’s Dilemma: Chapter 16 Summary & Analysis

1. Good to Eat, Good to Think. Pollan notes that, for a human, being an omnivore is both a blessing and a curse. People can eat many things in nature, but “when it comes to figuring out which of those things are safe to eat,” humans are pretty much on their own. This problem—the omnivore’s dilemma—was first diagnosed by Paul Rozin in his study of the eating habits of rats. Like humans, omnivorous rats have to balance the potential risks of food that could hurt or kill them with their desire to try new things.

According to Pollan, humans are also making this calculation every time they decide between, say, boxes in the cereal aisle, or between organic and conventional strawberries. The omnivore’s dilemma explains the psychological as well as physiological dimensions of eating. As the philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss put it, humans want food that is “not only good to eat, but also good to think”—which is to say, they need to justify eating their food in intellectual terms as well as simply eating it.

2. Homo Omnivorous. Pollan notes that, for humans, variety in what we eat is a “biological necessity.” Human bodies have evolved specifically to be able to consume and digest the nutrients found in both plants and animals. There is a tradeoff between “big brains” and “big guts”—animals like koalas have sophisticated digestive systems that can extract all the nutrients they need from a single plant, but consequently, their brains are small, and they’re particularly vulnerable to drought and diseases that compromise their food sources. Humans, on the other hand, have sophisticated brain circuitry to allow for a varied diet, and can live almost anywhere on earth.

Humans use several tools in order to make choices about food selection. The first is sense of taste, which predisposes us to desire sweet foods (a valuable source of carbohydrates) and dislike bitter foods (protecting us from defensive toxins found in plants). Another is disgust, which prevents humans from ingesting hazardous bits of animal matter like feces and rotting flesh. But bitterness and disgust aren’t always effective, since some of the bitterest plants, for instance, contain useful medicines. In these cases, humans overcome their innate aversion with their powers of memory and recognition.

Finally, cooking allowed us to overcome plant defenses by removing toxins and making foods more digestible. Cooking vastly increased the amount of energy available to humans, which many evolutionary biologists believe accounts for the large size of the human brain. For anthropologists, cooking is an example of the “cognitive niche” humans made for themselves in the world’s ecosystem, using their big brains to overcome the evolutionary defenses of other animals and plants.

3. The Anxiety of Eating. Pollan asserts that being an omnivore can be a source of pleasure. For example, humans’ sophisticated sense of taste allows for very specific and idiosyncratic food preferences, a cultural phenomenon that provides “social glue” and brings communities together. At the same time, however, the abundance of food humans can eat also fosters anxiety in making dietary choices. Humans decide which foods they want to eat through an “elaborate structure” of social rituals and cultures around dining. Regional cuisines, for instance, reduce anxiety around eating by rendering food familiar to the diner and legible in a wider cultural context. Human omnivorousness is a particular cause of anxiety because there seem to be very few restrictions on what humans can eat—they might even, for example, consume other human omnivores.

4. America’s National Eating Disorder. Pollan thinks that part of the problem with American eating habits is that there has never been a stable national cuisine; instead, the culture is constantly reinventing new habits of eating, which makes Americans easy targets for fads and diets. Rather than eating in response to the dictates of pleasure and tradition, Americans are constantly looking for a “scientific” rationale for what they eat. They are then shocked to learn that other, more traditional food cultures in fact produce healthier people. For example, in French culture, people eat supposedly “unhealthy” foods like cheese, but eat smaller portions and share their meals communally. In this way, the French can enjoy their meals “without ruining their health.”

Americans lack a “lasting consensus about what and how and where and when to eat,” Pollan argues. The problem is exacerbated by food companies, which exploit “dietary instability” by developing processed foods designed to create new eating experiences. The result is a cultural vulnerable to constantly shifting eating patterns and nutritional fads. This instability undermines traditional social structures around eating—like group family meals, for instance. Instead of relying on culinary traditions and common sense, people turn to various and conflicting opinions from governments, doctors, and advertising campaigns to tell them what to eat.