He roundly condems meat, except in small amounts, but does not apply to meat
the same rules he does to plant foods. He suggests avoiding a diet filled
with industrial plant foods, while eating unprocessed plants is good. But
his argument against meat is that it is too industrialized, hormones,
feedlots etc.

He says that eating lots of meat cuts down on the amount of plants you can
eat. Well, that is pretty obvious! But paleo advises cutting out all the
industrial plant foods, and the industrial meat foods too. That leaves
plenty of stomach space for both meat and  plants, if you choose to do it.

I eat a lot of meat, but also a lot of plants. My dinner last night and
lunch today had 5 separate vegetables, and my snacks were 2 different
fruits.

He is making an argument, but not a 100% honest one. Still, he is nowhere
near as dishonest as a lot of vegetarian writers I have read.

Strikes me as giving pretty good advice except where he allows his
vegetarian bias to control his thinking.


> So despite some of his good-sounding vague rhetoric, Pollan wants people
> to eat less meat and eat more whole grains and legumes. That's
> drastically different than the Paleo approach. His use of vague
> platitudes and condemnation of "reductionism" (which matches Campbell's
> approach) appears to come from Macrobiotic philosophy, which is another
> approach that is very different from a Paleo approach.
>