Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >
Oct 7, 2009 04:43 PM

"Don't Yuck Someone's Yum": Readers Send Their Own Eating Rules to Pollan

After Pollan published his Rules for Eating in his book "In Defense of Food," he asked readers to post their own eating rules. Yesterday, the New York Times listed 20 of those "Reader Rules" in a snappy little slide show.

Among the rules from readers:
Don’t eat egg salad from a vending machine.
Don’t yuck someone’s yum.
Never eat anything that took more energy to ship than to grow.
It’s better to pay the grocer than the doctor.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. I loved this and am sending it on. Thanks.

    1. I can't agree with all of them (No second helpings...), but I really like the "my father..." and "my grandma" ones.

      1. Excellent. My favorite is "If you are not hungry enough to eat an apple, then you are not hungry."

        9 Replies
        1. re: small h

          But...I don't like apples in general...and would not think of an apple even if I were hungry. I can buy 'interesting' apples from the farmers' market from apple growers then throw them out (not a single one eaten) after two weeks sitting around on the counter.

          1. re: huiray

            The point of that "rule" is to remind you that people eat because they feel like eating, and not because they are actually hungry. If you were actually hungry, you'd eat an apple and you'd damn well like it. The fact that you're buying food and then throwing it out says to me you do not spend a lot of time being actually hungry. (Neither do I, by the way, and I don't like apples very much either.)

            1. re: small h

              "If you were actually hungry, you'd eat an apple and you'd damn well like it."
              But my point was that I normally wouldn't eat that apple if I was hungry. If it was the only food available then of course I would. However, I guess you are extrapolating from that rule you like and are interpreting it to include the extended meaning that the person who posted it was actually saying that he/she did not like apples but would eat it if he/she was truly hungry and had no choice?

              ETA: It's a small point, I do get the sense of what I think the commentator was aiming for.

              1. re: small h

                I wish i were better at abiding by this rule.

              2. re: huiray

                If you were starving(really starving) and only apples were available, you would probably eat them. That's what small h is talking about.

                1. re: Fromageball

                  Eight months and 2 days of c-rations in Nam, taught me what it was like to "eat to live". I swore that if I ever got out alive I would spend the the rest of my life "living to eat", both for some buddies that never got the opportunity and myself. It may be hard to understand, but this is part of the reason, I never eat at chains.
                  Eight months and 2 days, so I can now buy a Baskin & Robbins in Hanoi? WTF? (The first time I have ever typed that acronym.)

                2. re: huiray

                  So substitute a pear, banana, orange, handful of grapes, carrot, handful of broccoli and you should get the general idea.

                  1. re: rweater

                    I don't think it's a matter of substituting. I think it means if you're truly hungry, you'll eat anything. People eat grass if they're hungry enough. If you pick something you enjoy eating, then it doesn't say anything about your hunger level.

              3. I have two:

                Never eat fluorescent food.

                If the bugs won't eat it, neither should you.

                1. Thanks for posting this. My favorite, and a part of my Italian heritage I'd like to embrace, "You can't leave the table till you finish your fruit!" On that note, I'm going to get a handful of raspberries RIGHT NOW.