A Holey Argument

Michael Pollan, in his latest book book, In Defense of Food, argues that for Americans to become healthier they must do two things: return to eating traditional and ethnic foods, and modify our eating habits to mirror those of the French. While he does a satisfactory job arguing the latter, he does not do so for the former. Specifically, he has a lack of evidence, he makes sweeping generalizations that are not true and oversimplifies the problem, and he provides only unrealistic alternatives.

First, despite the plethora of sources cited in the first two sections of the book, Pollan makes several claims in the third that are left unfounded. The most stunning of these is Pollan's claim that the medical community is consciously plotting against the general public to incite diseases for which they can provide cures. "But the health care industry, being an industry, stands to profit more handsomely from new drugs and procedures to treat chronic diseases than it does from a wholesale change in the way people eat. Cynical? Perhaps." (141) Pollan then goes on to discuss other points, leaving this wild accusation in the air. It is a deceitful tactic used by lawyers when making a false accusation in front of the jury, then withdrawing it when the opposing party objects, and by pollsters using "push polls" with questions to implant skepticism in respondents, such as "would you vote for Barack Obama if he were not a citizen?"

Second, Pollan makes generalizations about certain problems and their solutions, such as when Pollan explains that adding biodiversity to one's diet will result in healthier people through healthier foods, which leads to oversimplifications. "Biodiversity in the diet means more biodiversity in the fields. To shrink the monocultures that now feed us would mean farmers won't need to spray as much pesticide or chemical fertilizer, which would mean healthier soils, healthier plants and animals, and in turn healthier people." (169) Pollan fails to address the numerous scenarios where his argument would not hold. For example, the principle of economies of scale, which says that it is cheaper, per unit, to produce a large quantity of a single good, would suggest that at least some mega-farms (where much of America's food is produced) would still grow the same crops close together.

Finally, Pollan also has the tendency to suggest unrealistic solutions to problems. The epitome of this is his method of determining if your produce is tainted with chemicals: "If you're concerned about chemicals in your produce, you can simply ask the farmer at the market how he or she deals with pests and fertility and begin the sort of conversation between producers and consumers that, in the end, is the best guarantee of quality in your food." (159-160) This is ridiculous because so few Americans are experts on pesticides and fertilizers. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that most Americans are not farmers. If this reasoning were extended to every facet of life we would have to have a conversation with the pilot about landing procedures to ensure the plane is properly controlled, and we would have to travel to Detroit to discuss the inner workings of the transmission in your new Ford before accepting it as drivable.

In short, Michael Pollan presents many interesting facts and makes many worthwhile suggestions, but his argument that we should revert to traditional and ethnic cuisines is plagued by his lack of evidence at certain points, his generalizations, and his unrealistic alternatives. It is obvious that there is a problem with the combination of the American diet and lifestyle that is leading to unhealthy people, and should Pollan be able to rectify these shortcomings he would have a very convincing argument as to the solution to that problem.