What should we be putting into our bodies? Should we be focusing only on nutrients or the food that they are derived from? This is the overarching question that Michael Pollan poses in his latest book, In Defense of Food. In an attempt to answer this main question, Pollan poses many points and ideas. Pollan argues very strongly for the idea that in order to be healthier, Americans should abandon their typical diet and eating habits, which he has dubbed “The Western Diet”, and adopt eating habits of culturally strong nations such as France, Greece, and India among many others. Though the argument that Pollan makes holds logical validity, he undermines the arguments credibility by using copious amounts of empirical data previous to presenting this point and with other arguments he makes throughout the book.
In the first seven words of his book, Pollan sums up one of the fundamental points of what he finds wrong with “The Western Diet”. To counteract this horrid diet, the reader is told to “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.” Pollan tells the reader (who is presumably American) to focus on eating foreign diets because they are doing everything right by his standards. Instead of deciding what they eat based on the nutrients added or broadcasted on the packaging, these cultural diets just focus on the food trusting that it has the proper chemicals for sufficient fuel and nutrition. Pollan also strongly pushes the point, especially on the part of the French, that these other cultures eat smaller serving. Pollan gives the example that the French, instead of eating until what food on the plate before them is gone, eat only until they are full. The French also make their meals last over a longer period of time, thus eating less over a longer time. By abandoning the act of focusing strictly on nutrients and by beginning to eat more like other cultures, Americans, in theory, will become healthier.
If the reader looks at Pollan’s argument against “The Western Diet” and for French, Greek, and other cuisines, it seems perfectly logical to switch from “The Western Diet”. The typical image that comes to mind of an American is obesity coupled with a disease related to the obesity while the typical image of those who partake in the diet that Pollan vouches for is skinny, healthy, and full of life. If one attributes these differences strictly to cultural ways of eating like Pollan tends to do (and not environmental or other cultural factors such as actually walking to destinations instead of driving or exercise), Pollan’s argument makes perfect sense. If in essence, these other cultures can be much healthier, look better, and live longer simply by eating food instead of just nutrients and by portioning their serving size unlike Americans, it is stupid not to change. Yet in two words, Pollan throws this argument away. Mostly plants. By writing these two words, Pollan manages to link together “The Western Diet” and many of the diets that he recommends Americans to follow. By linking these two words, the lines of “The Western Diet” and a proper diet of that is not American are blurred. Pollan could have possibly avoided this blurring, but by placing these two words within the first seven, he made them a hallmark of the book and committed them to the reader’s memory. If the reader looks at the diet of the French, meats, often fatty ones, and the proteins they bring are a large portion of the French diet. The Greek diet consists largely of seafood with red meats present more than occasionally. While both diets do have plants as a part, one could hardly say that the diets are “mostly plants”. The majority of the other diets Pollan brings up in the book follow the same lines, with Pollan even saying that many diets of healthy groups of people can consists with a low in plants. By allowing these similarities to exist due to his word choice, Pollan’s argument loses much of support. If one can continue the diet of Americans and eat large amounts of after seeing that other cultures can do it, such as the Inuit Native Americans of Alaska, and still be healthy, why change. “Mostly plants” ruins a large part of what Pollan has argued for so diligently.
On a slightly lesser note, Pollan hurts his argument with the complete first half of his book. Though the first half of his book supports his argument that Americans should switch away from the heavy reliance on nutrients in “The Western Diet” by giving reasons why they are unhealthy and how the scientific methods supporting their use is still mysterious and very flawed, he presents the evidence in a very empirical manner, constantly using statistics and studies to support what he is trying to say. Numerical evidence to back up why the scientific evidence is wrong is highly welcomed and a great way to leave ones argument mostly unquestionable. However, Pollan uses this data so much that the reader comes to expect it and need it to accept what Pollan is saying. But in the second half of the book, Pollan ceases to use the statistics and studies and begins to assert his own opinion. Yet the reader cannot trust the validity of his argument when it is solely opinion because previously Pollan has only used numbers to establish his ethos on the subject matter and not himself. So when it comes to him recommending eating like the French or the Greeks purely out of his own logic without any hard, scientific data, readers must question is there any authority behind what Pollan is saying.
In Defense of Food is a novel that causes one to think. Michael Pollan does successfully cause the reader to question “The Western (American) Diet” and see it for what it is worth. Though the Pollan’s text causes us to question what he wants us to, it also causes us to question him. Though many good, valid points are brought up, Pollan’s arguments cannot be wholeheartedly trusted due to his own contradictions and lack of authority, leaving a void due to the fact that the reader no longer believes “The Western Diet” but cannot fully believe in the argument presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment