There are two central facts to the argument:
1 Agricultural policy changed in the early 70's.
2 Data started to show Americans' getting fatter at that time.
Pollan does not connect these facts persuasively. In fact, at least one economic example he uses - the size of Coca-cola containers as a function of cost of ingredients - is provably wrong. The price of ingredients is trivial in the cost of a Coke. To give you an example: the price of ingredients was going down at the same time Coke introduced and then abandoned the 3 liter bottle. Pollan makes no attempt to speak to the changeover from (cheaply) corn-sweetened to (expensively) artificially-sweetened beverages. Pollan makes the portion size argument and ignores the fact that what we have seen is an increase in the range of portion sizes and not an increase in the minimum portion. What's more, Pollan cites no financial figures or any quotes from actual food marketers to buttress his argument that commodity prices were an important impetus in changing, for example, fast food menus. He simply states it as fact and wrongly at that. The dollar burgers are not "supersized", as Pollan states, except at McDonald's (the $1 double cheeseburger) and that makes sense since McDonald's is losing market share and the stock price is in trouble. Do we know that the $1 dollar double cheese is profitable? Isn't it more likely a loser put on the menu to recapture volume? I would bet you almost anything that the only profit in the $1 double cheese is in the $1 (or more) fountain drink that most people order with it (the most expensive parts of which are the labor cost and the cup). If ingredient cost was the main concern, would fast food places put the soda fountains out where the customers can abuse them and refill practically at will? No. Any restaurateur will tell you that you never let the customer put his hands on anything valuable. People will fill their socks with Parmesan cheese if you leave too much out.
I think the devil is in the combination of corn sweetener and marketing, to be sure. But as I said I think the key is the way in which marketers have used children's natural attraction to sugar and sweet flavors (and bright colors as well - we're all monkeys) and encouraged the idea that gobbling down large amounts of appallingly sweet things is a norm. Look at the alcoholic drinks that are popular with younger drinkers. Compared to the fruit-flavored schnapps, heavily-sweetened malt liquors and sweet-flavored vodkas popular today, Manischewitz is like straight Scotch.
I was a chef for years and I can tell you that all chefs load menus with all the fat, salt and sugar they can - because it sells. In white tablecloth restaurants you try and hide it. The farther you go downscale, the more honest you can be. You also try and maximize the perceived size of the food. Look at the size of the plates things are served on in some fine dining establishments. And as big as fast-food burgers have become, the pictures on the menu boards make them look even bigger. Americans have always been gluttons. In fact, the single unifying theme in American gastronomy - from Chinese-American to Italian-American to down-home outhern - is excess. We are the land where people come to splurge on the things they scrimped on back in the old country. Thus we always have more meat in our entrees, more icing on our cakes, plenty of soda pop and we give the kids whatever the hell they want. Pleasure must increase from generation to generation.
We'll be putting oxycodone in the onion dip before long.
peace,
boddi
p.s. - Kudos to D. Henwood for the Cancun article. Excellent stuff.