In Defense of Ethos

In the New York Times’ best seller In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan weaves an intricate response to the question of what we, as Americans, should eat. Starting with a simple premise, ‘Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.’ (Pollan 1), Pollan begins his argument by addressing and establishing the research he will use throughout the book. Throughout The Age of Nutritionism (Pollan 17-81), his manifesto defines and argues against the (‘fundamentally flawed’) scientific methods used by scientists and nutritionists to determine the nutritional value of food. However, Pollan’s ethos (credibility and relationship) with the reader is weakened due to the contradictions in his rhetoric when referring to common sense and science and, consequently, his ability to establish authority.

In the beginning of his argument, From Food to Nutrients (Pollan 19), Pollan discusses the concept of nutrients and how science has contributed to food development. Scientists began to look more at individual nutrients that they thought were beneficial to humans. In this way, they could engineer food to what our body needs. The language of food soon became focused on nutrients rather than food as a whole. When scientists began isolating components of food, such as antioxidants, carotenoids, amino acids, and more, Pollan argues that they reduced foods in terms too simple for something so complex. “One of my aims in this book is to show the limitations of a strictly scientific understanding of something as richly complex and multifaceted as food” (Pollan 13). As he begins to address why science currently has a limited understanding of food, Pollan acknowledges a gap in his writing and asks the following question: “On whose authority do I purport to speak?” He concludes that he speaks on “the authority of tradition and common sense . . . and the wisdom of our mothers and grandmothers.” His use of this logical thought is very attractive to readers because it is something that many people can connect to and feel understanding with; it is a useful rhetorical strategy. Yet, this connection stands in sharp contrast to much of his rhetoric that follows. Particularly at the beginning of his work, Pollan cites an abundance of nutrition and food sources in order to compensate for his current lack of authority.

One of science’s greatest strengths is its ability to adapt, gain new knowledge, and explore the world around us. Michael Pollan may be right in his reasoning that the science of food and industry lacks the proper experience and knowledge to dissect our complex culture, food, and food’s effect on our bodies. He argues that it may, at a later time, solve the problem of the diet, but for now “letting scientists decide the menu would be a mistake” (Pollan 13). The French Paradox (Pollan 9, 29, 182), which Pollan uses frequently to support this argument, is an excellent example of a food phenomenon that scientists are unable to explain. How can the French have a diet rich in saturated fats and have a low rate of coronary heart disease? This problem has been approached many times in terms of reductionist science, where complex things are understood by reducing them to their simplest parts. However, his dismissal of science, as well as his argument for the same science, often leaves the reader confused as to which side he is on. In turn, this directly impacts the relationship of understanding and authority between the author and the reader. If Pollan is advising readers to reject the industry science, which has a strong foundation in reductionist science, why does he constantly make use of reductionist science himself? This paradox is very confusing to the reader and often leads them astray, making them lose interest in reading or doubting the accuracy of future arguments.

In Getting Over Nutritionism (Pollan 139), Pollan again addresses reader concern, saying, “You’ve no doubt noticed that much of the nutrition science I’ve presented here qualifies as reductionist science . . . Guilty.” He further concludes that even though reductionist science is imperfect, it is “the sharpest experimental tool we have” (Pollan 139). This is the very science reasoning that he argues against at the beginning of his book. His attempt to predict and respond to reader concerns and criticisms is an incredibly effective method of rhetoric. It demonstrates that Pollan is actively thinking and concerned about the potential flaws in his argument. However, his previous remarks on the science drives the reader away from, not towards, his ideals on what we should eat. When an author begins to contradict himself, his authority is threatened. In the first two sections of the book, Pollan struggles with this as he attempts to balance research and his opinions.

Throughout the book, Pollan makes several strong arguments on what we should eat. However, his arguments are, at times, overshadowed by a sense of doubt caused by ambiguity in his language and position on specific arguments. In the conclusion of In Defense of Food, Getting Over Nutritionism, Pollan recognizes his logical gaps and flaws and argues more from his stronger perspective: common sense. This conclusion represents a much needed clarity of the first two sections of the book, and helps redevelop his authority. It comes at a time that is too late, however. Pollan often notes that the science of today is not experienced enough for something as complex as food. However, science is a dynamic process. In order to repair his argument Pollan concedes, “. . . as nutritional science improves, we should be able to ameliorate the worst effects of this [Western] diet” (Pollan 134).

Works Cited

Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. New York: Penguin HC, The, 2008. Print.