1st real post i guess: What is pollan talking about?

I am not a huge fan of in defense of food, mostly because of my love of taco bell and burger king, but Pollan does raise some points i agree with. In the beginning of his book, Pollan defines nutritionism, which is the science of studying nutrients, and critiques the whole basis their school of thought, that is that the right nutrients in the right amount equals good health no matter how they are received. I'm not really sure if i agree with everything he says he (basically that nutritionists could be replaced by his few rules), but i do know that eating an orange will always be healthier then eating some vitamin C pills. In this article a new study presents that taking vitamin E and C supplements do not reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. It could be argued that eating fresh fruits would most likely greatly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, maybe from the vitamins or maybe because your not eating a deep fried Oreo, but the fact is that supplemental vitamins are not the best source of nutrients.
One argument i don't agree with is his call for nutrisionism to be replaced with some simple eating rules. While these rules may be good guidelines for the general public, nutritionists can provide vital insights into your dietary habits, even if sometimes the way they go about fixing the problems may be misguided. His whole point that any person can eat healthy is basically voided by the way America eats. We know it's unhealthy and we do it anyway. His book may be helpful for those trying to find a healthy lifestyle, but offers no real answers for the vast majority of us who don't really care and just want a tasty treat.