In Defense of Food: My Review

Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food might best be described as a book which fares best when judged by its cover. Below the title, a reader finds some dietary advice which is not a bad place to start: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” There are a few good ideas inside the book, too. It would be easy not to look much deeper, as Pollan’s prose is so lively that most readers won’t want to stop and give things a closer look. However, the reader who does bother to check the details sees that In Defense of Food is not a credible work of nonfiction. Pollan twists facts and misrepresents the way science works in the course of assembling exaggerated, false, and contradictory narratives.

Pollan’s central thesis is that introducing science into our food system has done more harm than good and that the best thing for all of us would be to go back to eating a more traditional diet. It’s fair to point out that nutritional science has led to some mistakes (such as recommendations to replace saturated fats with hydrogenated oils), but Pollan devotes too much of his effort to dismantling his own shallow caricature of science. Pollan’s chief criticism of nutritional science is that it adheres to the ideology of nutritionism, which he defines as the belief that foods can be understood by studying their constituent nutrients. He explains that nutritionism is rooted in the idea that foods are “decidedly unscientific things” (19) and that studying individual nutrients is “the only thing [nutritional scientists] can do” (62). He even puts forth the idea that the goal of nutritional science is to find an “X factor” (178) — a single compound that is responsible for good health — so that food processors can add more of it to their products.

But science — to the people who study it — isn’t defined by the consideration of certain “scientific” things with hard-to-pronounce names. The scientific method is a general process for improving our understanding of the world. It entails using observations to form a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis experimentally, and refining that hypothesis based on the results of the experiment. As far as the scientific method is concerned, oranges are as good a subject to study as vitamin C. And nutritional scientists tend to be aware that human nutrition is too complicated to be explained by a single “X factor.” After all, that’s part of what makes their jobs challenging!

As proof of the malignancy of nutritionism, Pollan points to the various sets of nutritional guidelines which encouraged Americans to reduce their fat consumption. As Pollan explains, these recommendations gave rise to products like the SnackWell’s cookie, which was presumed healthy on the basis of its being fat-free. He contrasts the low-fat guidelines with the theory (put forward by Gary Taubes and others) that weight gain results when the consumption of refined carbohydrates promotes fat storage and overeating. If that theory is correct, he explains, “there is no escaping the conclusion that the [official dietary advice] bears direct responsibility for creating the public health crisis that now confronts us” (59-60).

By the end of the book, he’s moved on to blaming that same public health crisis on overconsumption of cheap sweeteners and added fats, pointing out that Americans have added 300 calories to their daily diets since 1980 and citing a group of Harvard economists who “concluded that the widespread availability of cheap convenience foods could explain most of the twelve-pound increase in the weight of the average American since the early 1960s” (186-187). If both the dietary guidelines and the cheap convenience foods are to blame, then it must be that the guidelines encouraged Americans to eat those convenience foods, right?

Not exactly, as it would happen. For all his insistence that Americans have “an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating” (9), Pollan gives us precious little evidence that we’ve actually been following the official dietary advice. Indeed, a reader of the various guidelines would see that falling prey to the food marketers often meant going against the science-based dietary advice. For instance, the second edition of the 1977 Dietary Goals for the United States, one of the main sets of guidelines which Pollan criticizes, included warnings against overeating and recommended a decrease in consumption of both fats and refined sugars. So while the sugary SnackWell’s cookies might have helped to reduce fat intake, the dietary guidelines were hardly an invitation to eat them without restraint.

It should thus be no surprise that in his quest to fault science-based nutritional advice for our public health crisis, Pollan often misleads readers about what the dietary guidelines actually said. He tells us, for instance, that a literature review “found ‘some evidence’ that replacing fats in the diet with carbohydrates (as official dietary advice has urged us to do since the 1970s) will lead to weight gain” (45). It sounds pretty damning, at least until you look at the actual paper, which, in fact, reported “some evidence” that replacing dietary fats with refined carbohydrates leads to weight gain. Pollan, of course, had a very good reason to leave out the extra word: that little bit in parentheses would have been false if he’d included it. The government recommendations never urged Americans to replace dietary fats with refined carbohydrates. Truth be told, the official dietary advice could have done better here, but a reader of the recommendations would see encouragements to decrease our consumption of a major class of refined carbohydrate (sugars) and to eat more unrefined carbohydrates in the form of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

But some falsehoods can’t be made to look true just by neatly hiding the pesky details behind a missing adjective, and Pollan’s book contains some of these ideas, too. Indeed, the notion that nutritional scientists study nutrients to the exclusion of foods is incorrect; the ideology of nutritionism that occupies so much of Pollan’s attention is a straw man. A reader might get the sense that something isn’t quite right when Pollan refers to a few nutritional studies that considered whole foods. On the other hand, the reader might suppose, perhaps those studies are outliers. After all, Pollan tells us that (since 1977) the official dietary recommendations have always been expressed in terms of nutrients rather than foods. As an example, he gives us the 1982 report, Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, in which the National Academy of Sciences “was careful to frame its recommendations nutrient by nutrient rather than food by food, to avoid offending any powerful interests” (25). The only problem is that it isn’t true. The report contains six “Interim Dietary Guidelines,” only one of which was expressed in terms of nutrients, and two of which were expressed in terms of foods. (Of the remaining three, two were encouragements to keep dangerous substances out of the food supply, and one was a reminder not to drink too much.)

The antidote to nutritionism, as Pollan explains, is “to entertain seriously the proposition that processed foods of any kind are a big part of the problem” (141) and  “escape the Western diet” (142) for a more traditional diet. That’s a bold declaration, considering that “processing” in the food system includes not just things like hydrogenating vegetable oils but also everything from chopping vegetables to slaughtering animals. Pollan reasons that science has made us unhealthy by encouraging us to eat in new ways, but a traditional diet must be healthy because “if it wasn’t a healthy regimen, the diet and the people who followed it wouldn’t still be around” (173). Unfortunately, he thereby misses the rather important point that a diet can be unhealthy without doing away with its eaters. Pollan’s line of argument would, for example, vindicate the diet of white rice that left so many with beriberi. And some day, it may well exonerate the American diet, whose worst health effects tend to show up well beyond reproductive age.

For all that Pollan gets wrong, there is a grain of truth to his message. Though Pollan errs in faulting nutritional science for giving us a license to eat every high-carb, low-fat food that processors might concoct, it is true that it would be a bad idea to assume that a low-fat food is a healthy food. Pollan is probably even right that some people reached that conclusion based on their interpretations of the official dietary advice. However, the lesson to take away from this is not that we should ignore nutritional science but that when we oversimplify our decision-making processes, we leave ourselves particularly vulnerable to cheap marketing ploys. With that in mind, the solution he offers is regrettable. Rather than embracing critical thinking and careful attention to detail, Pollan gives us a few simple rules backed up by the same sort of lazy thinking that he claims to have seen in nutritional science. It should therefore be no surprise that food companies have begun to take advantage of his rules for eating, with Frito-Lay advertising that its Lay’s potato chips have only “three simple ingredients” (less than Pollan’s recommended maximum of five ingredients) and manufacturers reformulating products like Gatorade, Hunt’s ketchup, and Wheat Thins to replace the taboo high-fructose corn syrup with other sugars.

To be fair, a few of Pollan’s rules, such as “eat slowly…in the sense of deliberate and knowledgeable eating promoted by Slow Food” (194) and “plant a garden” (197), will probably prove difficult for food companies to use for their own ends. For the most part, however, these reflect a level of privilege which many people do not have. This isn’t too surprising, as Pollan makes no secret of the fact that he writes for a well-to-do audience when he declares, “Not everyone can afford to eat high-quality food in America, and that is shameful; however, those of us who can, should” (184). That doesn’t invalidate his perspective, but there is nonetheless something a bit distasteful about a bestselling author lamenting the eating habits of people whose lives are worlds away from his own. Absent any indication of a good-faith effort to understand why people might choose to microwave frozen dinners instead of preparing a family meal from home-grown ingredients, Pollan’s work seems less likely to inspire positive social change than, as Julie Guthman puts it, to appeal to “those who already are refined eaters and want to feel ethically good about it.”

Michael Pollan remarks in the introduction of In Defense of Food that had he written the book forty years earlier, it would have been received as “the manifesto of a crackpot” (14). In light of the superficiality of the book’s merits and its loose relationship to the facts, that wouldn’t have been a particularly unfair appraisal. Alas, in the time since the work’s publication in 2008, our collective judgment has proven decidedly less sound. Thanks to its engaging style and appealing commonsense message, In Defense of Food has become required reading for thousands of college students, and its author now stands at the helm of a respected social movement. With the alarming rise in diet-related disease, the time was indeed ripe for someone to fill that leading role. It’s just too bad that it was somebody who mostly gives us the same kind of simplistic solutions and sloppy reasoning that helped to create the problem in the first place.

Also posted at Amazon and Goodreads. For more on In Defense of Food, I recommend the following posts:

You can also look at all of my posts about In Defense of Food.

About these ads

27 Comments »

  1. [...] Gerade in Ökokreisen wird so oft auf der Buch hingewiesen und daraus zitiert, und das sollte man mal in Frage stellen. So lange ich selbst das Buch nicht lese und keine eigene Kritik schreiben kann, möchte ich allen diesen Post empfehlen:  In Defense Of Food – My Review [...]

  2. dpowell29 said

    Like so many in the food biz, he’s an entertainer and huckster. Science is inconvenient for marketers of all types.

    • Adam Merberg said

      I don’t disagree that there are a lot like Pollan in food. However, it seems to me that he’s taken more seriously than others with a similar style. For one, he’s training the next generation of science journalists at my university. I find that pretty unfortunate, given the distortions I’ve documented here. I understand that science can be difficult to do well, but it should be much easier to avoid making false statements which are explicitly contradicted by the documents one is citing.

  3. Lisa said

    Thank you for your interesting articles.

  4. Joseph T. Espinosa said

    Thanks Adam!

  5. Amazing review, just linked it at my blog! Thanks and keep up the awesome work!!

  6. Eric Suggs said

    Hey, if you could check out Deep Nutrition by Catherine and Luke Shanahan, and review I’d be very interested in seeing what you think. The author is a MD and looks at epigenetics of food. The message is different from Polan’s, but from a similar view. The authors seem to embrace science, and don’t seem to shield themselves from scientific facts as much, and seem less dogmatic. Its kinda hard to tell though, and I am not so educated with nutritional and medical science to tell.

    Check it out!

    thanks

  7. michael said

    I enjoy countering opinions, but I think your analysis is too nit picky and obscures the overall benefit the book delivers. Pollan’s 3 line manifesto is a good one. His point on nutritionism resonates with many because it’s intuitive and welcoming. It seems counter productive to ‘debunk’ his thesis when what it promotes is sound dietary choices. I think there are bigger fish to fry in the world on diet and nutrition.

    • Adam Merberg said

      I don’t think it’s “nit picky” at all to point out that one of Pollan’s central narratives is directly contradicted by the evidence he brings up in its support. Aside from this, I think it’s worth pointing out that his attack on nutritional science is wrong-headed. Many nutritional scientists work hard to improve the lives of people like you and me, and it seems unfair to blame our public health crisis on them when the evidence doesn’t support it.

      His point on nutritionism resonates with many because it’s intuitive and welcoming.

      But is it good that it resonates with people if it’s wrong?

      It seems counter productive to ‘debunk’ his thesis when what it promotes is sound dietary choices.

      It’s true that he promotes some sound dietary choices, but I think his advice also encourages people to reject some perfectly healthy dietary choices.

      Regardless, it seems to me that if your defense of Pollan is that he promotes “sound dietary choices,” you’re defending him as an activist, rather than as a scholar or a journalist. I think you can make an argument that Pollan has done more good than harm. However, even if you think activists should be allowed to say what they will without consequence, would you agree that it’s important to keep sight of what is actually true? When a professor of journalism at an accredited university is spreading untruths and continues to be regarded as an expert, I find that extremely problematic. If Pollan weren’t a profesor of journalism, I’d be inclined to give him a bit of a break. However, as long as he’s training the next generation of journalists, he should be called out when he gets things wrong.

      • Dallin said

        I think that if you want to attack his journalism of science, go ahead. Maybe it’s a bit skewed, but until you can prove that his recommendations on how to eat will in fact contribute to weight gain and health issues you shouldn’t discredit the entire thing by saying his book “is not a credible work of nonfiction. Pollan twists facts and misrepresents the way science works in the course of assembling exaggerated, false, and contradictory narratives.”
        Stay focussed Mr. Merberg. Especially as a biased scientist who may or may not feel attacked as a scientist only, not as a nutritionist.

  8. [...] A mathematician factchecks Michael Pollan. [...]

  9. megan said

    I was intrigued to find this blog.

    Unfortunately, your argument against Michael Pollan’s Defense is cute at best. It’s clear you do not know the expanse of literature that not only Pollan references, but that is related to the work that he cites.

    In short, I wasn’t convinced. And I wanted to be.

    My impression is that you enjoy the attempt to derail something that (perhaps) you do not personally agree with– hardly scientific. And even if this is not the case, certainly uninformed.

    • Rob Wakeman said

      “the expanse of literature that not only Pollan references, but that is related to the work that he cites”

      For example what?

    • Adam Merberg said

      Thanks for your comment. Could you be a bit more specific with your criticism? Which of my criticisms are incorrect? What specific body of literature are you referring to? It’s certainly true that Pollan references some literature, but as I’ve shown, he does not always represent it accurately.

      • rowan said

        I want a non bias opinion that looks at this book and carefully looks at what on the whole is incorrect. Your blog seems like a very lazy approach.
        For example you are doing the same thing you claim he does. You have twisted the omega 3 and 6’s argument. What he says is that you shouldn’t take omega 3 and 6 replacements but eat them from the source that they naturally come from. He doesn’t discredit all the science. Your example of the lay potato chips is poor also. You are meant to apply all the other rules as well. What I took from the book was that the science has been poorly applied by people with a narrow view. it doesn’t claim all the science is incorrect.

        More the book claims that the science has been manipulated by food companies and food scientists have not stepped in to correct them.

        You’ve concentrated on smaller ideas and not looked at the larger messages.

      • amerberg said

        If you want to object to something I said about omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, why don’t you comment on a post in which I actually mentioned those, and also include a quote that you feel was wrong or misleading and explain why?

        As for Lays, here’s the issue in brief. Nutrition scientists never told people to start eating Snackwell’s (the fat-free cookies). Rather, food companies co-opted that advice. And Lays shows that food companies are similarly co-opting the five ingredient rule. So even though the five-ingredient rule isn’t an endorsement of potato chips, it still will lead some people to believe that Lays are somehow healthy. The point is that distilling nutrition advice to soundbites opens the door to that kind of co-optation, and that the problem isn’t limited to advice that mentions nutrients.

        My review didn’t claim that the book said that all of the science is incorrect. Again, I’d encourage you to include direct quotes so I can see what you’re disagreeing with.

        Finally, I don’t think I’ve concentrated on “smaller ideas” at all. The claim that government nutritional recommendations only focus on nutrients (not foods) is central to the book. I provided a counterexample (which was quite easy to find, being the example that Pollan offered as evidence) to show that that message is incorrect.

  10. Mountain said

    Having grown up on welfare, I find nothing distasteful about Pollan’s lamenting of the eating habits of people whose lives are worlds away from his own. After all, he is lamenting the habits, not the people. This perspective leads people like Pollan, who can afford to eat better, to make the effort to do so. It also should spur people of conscience to work to make better food & better eating habits available to more people. You can see example in the work of City Slicker farms & Novella Carpenter in Oakland; you can also see it in the work of those who gather unsold produce from farmers markets & distribute it to food kitchens & food pantries, to make more healthy food available to those in need.

    Also, I think it is important for people to have a few simple rules to guide their eating. For those privileged few who wish to embrace, as you say, “critical thinking and careful attention to detail,” that’s fine– but most people don’t want to spend a lot of time & energy thinking about what they’re going to eat. We need simple rules that will lead us to healthy results the great majority of the time. That said, I don’t think the “5 ingredients” rule is a very good one. However, rules like only eating things that rot & only eating things your grandmother (or great-grandmother) would recognize as food is a very good start. Guidelines like eating slowly & growing a garden can be embraced by anyone, regardless of how (un)privileged s/he may be.

    • Adam Merberg said

      Having grown up on welfare, I find nothing distasteful about Pollan’s lamenting of the eating habits of people whose lives are worlds away from his own. After all, he is lamenting the habits, not the people.

      The point is that it is problematic to focus on the eating habits. Eating the way Pollan does is something that tends to appeal to people who have certain life circumstances. To suggest that the way to improve things is for individuals to decide to change the way they eat is misguided.

      It also should spur people of conscience to work to make better food & better eating habits available to more people. You can see example in the work of City Slicker farms & Novella Carpenter in Oakland; you can also see it in the work of those who gather unsold produce from farmers markets & distribute it to food kitchens & food pantries, to make more healthy food available to those in need.

      You mention some good organizations and ideas, but I think the connection to In Defense of Food is tenuous at best.

      Also, I think it is important for people to have a few simple rules to guide their eating. For those privileged few who wish to embrace, as you say, “critical thinking and careful attention to detail,” that’s fine– but most people don’t want to spend a lot of time & energy thinking about what they’re going to eat.

      Lots of people would like to be told to eat fast food, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. Are you suggesting that because Pollan tells people what they want to hear, he doesn’t deserve criticism?

      We need simple rules that will lead us to healthy results the great majority of the time.

      I reject the idea that Pollan’s rules do that because they are very much cooptable by industry.

      However, rules like only eating things that rot & only eating things your grandmother (or great-grandmother) would recognize as food is a very good start.

      I don’t think these rules are that useful. For all Pollan’s insistence that Twinkies never spoil, they only have a shelf life of 25 days. Almost every food will spoil, though honey will not. There are plenty of wholesome foods that my great-grandmother wouldn’t have recognized.

      Guidelines like eating slowly & growing a garden can be embraced by anyone, regardless of how (un)privileged s/he may be.

      Keep in mind that I said that these rules reflect (rather than require) privilege. The point is not that you need to be rich to start a garden, but that maybe it doesn’t appeal to somebody with a blue collar job, and that such people should have a say in how their problems are solved.

      That said, do you really think everybody has enough land to start a garden?

  11. Andrew said

    Out of curiosity, has Prof Pollan ever seen this blog? Have you talked to him personally? I feel like a critique such as what you are doing here deserves to be answered by the man himself. A healthy discussion on improving his journalism standards at least.

    • Adam Merberg said

      I did send him an email a couple of years ago after I reviewed The Omnivore’s Dilemma. I got a short note from his assistant explaining that he didn’t have time to reply.

      I’ve thought about sending another message since my criticisms of In Defense of Food were different (and, I would argue, much more serious), but I haven’t gotten to it yet. I think a few people on Twitter also encouraged him to read this review, but that didn’t go anywhere.

  12. If you’re promoting the consumption of grains these will mostly end up being refined grains in some way. It’s pretty much impossible for the average person to eat a high-grain diet of only brown rice, pearl barley, and pumpernickel. Other beards and pasta are NOT whole grains but more or less refined, or contaminated with other refined ingredients. And “refined” and “whole” are not defined in the guidelines. A major strategy of the cereal industry is convincing buyers that products are “wholegrain” when they are anything but, if the definition of a whole grain is, as it should be, “the whole grain and nothing but the grain”.

  13. MikeB said

    Adam, I find your analysis very compelling.

    I took over a freshman course in basic scholarship–entry-year experience–last semester with the theme of the pleasures of eating. I took on most of the previous professor’s materials because I had little time to prepare. One of those materials was Pollan’s book.

    I read it and was just appalled at his confusing–and confused–use of “science” both conceptually and as terminology.

    The book sometimes reads as a screed against “science,” whereby he repeatedly confuses “nutrition science,” “science,” “ideology,” and “scientism,” using the terms interchangeably at times.

    His view of the food sciences is obviously a straw man: he depicts nutrition scientists as nearly blind rats scrutinizing single “nutrients” with no sense of larger eating patterns. He throws around the much-abused term “reductionism” whenever he disagrees with some finding about a nutrient, but then will wax nearly poetic about Omega-3s.

    After sneering at “science,” he will turn right around–sometimes on the same page–and cite a piece of SCIENCE to debunk his own straw man figure! It is extremely annoying, nonsensical and downright damaging to depict science this way.

    At times he almost seems to “get” what he’s doing: “Oh wait! Nutritionism isn’t science, it’s an ideology!” It’s as if, halfway through the writing, he stumbled upon his own confusion, but instead of revising appropriately he just said “fuck it,” and bumbled along.

    Most frustratingly: He pretends to debunk “science” but then resorts to scientific studies to support his debunking, forgetting that the whole point of the scientific enterprise is to be self-correcting.

    He shows no shame when he approvingly quotes quacks like T. Colin Campbell and Weston Price.

    His much-quoted advice–“Eat food, mostly plants, not too much”–is such an utter banality that it borders on hoodwinking.

    In the latter part of the book, he offers the ignorant, flippant advice to avoid foods with lots of “unpronounceable” ingredients, forgetting that about one hundred pages earlier he lists all the unpronounceable ingredients in simple thyme, which he praises to high heaven.

    He makes the complete bullshit claim that “diversified farms have little need of pesticides.” I’m a small, diversified farmer. I know from experience that the more types of plants you grow, the more types of pests you attract, because the different varieties of plants all have their unique pests associated with them. He simply does not know what he’s talking about.

    So now I’ve taken to using the book as an example of how NOT to approach the subject of food science. Instead of “teaching” In Defense of Food, I debunk it.

    Thanks for providing some of that material.

    • Adam Merberg said

      Thanks for this comment. Your students are lucky to get a critical treatment of this book. There’s so much wrong in the book, that I didn’t come close to covering everything. I guess that makes it a good example of how not to conduct basic scholarship. Though it seems likely to me that much of the reading on “the pleasures of eating” would be of similar quality. I hope at least some of the reading list is of better scholarly quality.

  14. Di said

    If you ever sought the council of a nutritionist for say diabetes, you would see exactly what Michael Pollan is talking about. Perhaps the basic dietary guidelines looks good and what is says as a whole doesn’t sound that bad. Until the nutritionist breaks out all her paperwork, then you see what Michael Pollan is actually talking about. It is broken down into protein, carbs & fat. And all food is seen just as those 3 things. Things with artificial sweeteners are continually suggested as good food choices. Margarine is still toted as better than butter. When I suggested eating real food including butter, the nutrionist was struggling since she didn’t have those as ready examples. This meeting I had was before Michael Pollan’s book came out. I just read this book earlier this year. My mother just took a class about diabetes last month and the info hasn’t changed. The nutrionists academy is supported/sponsored by major food corporations and the beef industry so really can we believe anything they say if they have to make sure the final say for nutrition is ok with all their sponsors? I think not… I took a nutrition class in college back in the early 90’s and it was an even more complicated version of the same carbs, proteins, fats. So I ignored all that and took away the simplest version: drink lots of water, eat in moderation and gets lots of exercise. That worked great until I started dealing with migraines and started researching the causes to find that processed foods (most anything that comes in individual boxes)that were full of preservatives including MSG and when I cut that out, I saw a major reduction is migraines. When I cut out foods with HFCS, my sinus issues went away. To be healthy and not be encumbered with health problems, I am down to eating whole foods cooked from scratch. Michael Pollan’s suggestions are actually quite good even though arrived at them differently.

  15. Di said

    MP did remind us of one thing – that science is based on theory. I found it funny that he incorporates evolution as fact yet that too is just a theory. We have to accept theories by faith and that really we live by whatever it is we believe. If the food corp has lots of money and can persuade you to believe them thru advertising even tho they don’t disclose their lack of nutrition in their food, is it any worse to believe MP’s theory ? The media (including those with even bigger distortions than MP), nutritionists, Pharma or anyone else for that matter?

    I think its fine if you want to catch a well know journalist in some of the finer details. That’s great! But its your attitude that you give off in the comments – the unrefined unprocessed version spouting off and trying to debate anyone that doesn’t agree with you that you lost your credibility as trying to “help others see the truth”. You come across as the guy who has been to college and now thinks he knows everything. Funny thing is that the longer you are out of college, the more you realize how much you don’t know and how much there is yet to learn.
    Here’s a question: Why is a guy going for a Ph.D in mathematics even care about journalism?
    The fact that you are upset because MP teaches at “your” school thereby making it your right to expose him makes me wonder if you or friend of yours took his class and didn’t do well and now you are trying to give pay back.

  16. Maegan said

    As a 14 year old girl reading this for English, I don’t see the literary importance of this book. It almost seems like he is complaining about science throughout the entire book. I find myself struggling to read this as it seems quite repetitive. Three pages plus on Fish oils is far too much.

    • Maegan said

      *is far too many.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 107 other followers

%d bloggers like this: