IN DEFENSE OF MICHAEL POLLAN

TO ANNIE WAGNER: Your review of Michael Pollan's latest book, In Defense of Food, was powerfully written and compellingly argued ["Undercooked," Feb 7]. While appreciating the strength of your prose, I disagree with your overall assessment of the book. For me it was a useful examination of the eating habits that the general American public has fallen into, how that happened, their consequences, and a (pretty gentle) suggestion for a solution.

Far from rejecting science, I found that Pollan did an excellent job of using the scientific method to examine the flaws in the methods used to attempt to ascertain what we need in food and what is good for us. He showed that, in the face of the complexity of nutrition, reductionist techniques have a limited ability to discover the overall picture of what we are getting and what we need from our food. He also showed how the intersection of corporate and political interests has corrupted and perverted the scientific attempts to bring "good" food to the public. Rather than feeling that he was asking us to specifically cook like our great-grandmothers, I got that he was pointing out that, once upon a time, there was a body of passed-on knowledge about how to cook whole, healthy foods that has been lost in this age of processed foods.

Finally, having grown up in the "hippie" era of nutritional hysteria and PC vegetarianism, I am leery of food fads and methods for "correct" eating. I find Pollan's writings on food to be clear, thoughtful, informative, and (even if occasionally self-indulgent) useful.

Larry Parker

IN DEFENSE OF CURRENT SHELVING PRACTICES

TO THE EDITOR: I have to wonder about Paul Constant, and not because his French ancestor earned that surname through constancy to the Cross. While suggesting that bookstore browsers should "ask to see the atheism/agnosticism section" where none exists [Constant Reader, Feb 7], he really begs the question: Why would agnostics ("unknowing" in Greek), as neutral and unassuming nonbelievers, ever wish to have their books lumped together with those of the ardent evangelists of the zero, atheists?

Disappointing though it may be for his mind's own filing system, Constant must surely know why bookshops will often place atheist books in the religion section. It is for a very special reason: Atheism is a religion. Estranged child of the Judeo-Christian tradition, this belief system of no god can yet avail of its rich birthright—literacy—which was passed down faithfully through the generations, and proceed to make its case by chapter and verse in the distinct scripture of its own rites and values.

Many gods, three-in-one, or none, all have a place in book heaven.

S. Quinn

IN DEFENSE OF FRITO PIE

TO ERICA: I have a love/hate relationship with you. On the one hand, you are a fellow ex-Texan who shares my obsession with Frito pie in a bag. On the other, well, there are your comments on breast-shaped pasta and the saintliness of Seattle's cyclists. Recently you have been my only salvation during my daily Slog visits, and I wanted to thank you for that. As a Clinton supporter, it's nice to know that not everyone has sipped on the Obama Kool-Aid and that someone shares my frustration with the way any successes coming from the Clinton camp are downplayed by the media. So thanks for calling out the BS and making Slog a place I can still go to be unproductive during my work day.

Candice

IN DEFENSE OF LISTINGS

DEAR STRANGER: This letter is written with legitimate disappointment of the fact that each week readers are being asked to go online more and more to find out basic facts that have always happily been in residence in the print version. I stare at a computer all day long. I don't want to be online for one more second than I have to. Please bring these listings back.

Isadora Lumet

DAN SAVAGE RESPONDS: Papers are small in January and February, Isadora, and no one hates that fact more than we do. Full listings will be restored to the paper—along with Kelly O's porn column—as soon as possible.