A Stellar Defense of Food (Blogpost #4)

In his New York Times Bestseller, In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan argues that nutrition science over the past five centuries has shifted the focus of diet from foods to their internal makeups, thereby changing what we eat, but not making us any healthier. Pollan uses excerpts from nutritional science studies, understandable definitions, his own personal tips, and even an appeal to common sense to sufficiently increase his logos. In Defense of Food is a well thought out and informative introduction to the controversy surrounding whole vs. processed foods.

Pollan claims that nutrition science has shifted the focus of diet from foods to the chemicals and ingredients of which they are composed. Pollan supports this argument very well through the use of definitions and examples which help to identify this shift in food. Early in the book, Pollan mentions what he calls the Western Diet. Pollan’s definition of the Western Diet includes lots of processed foods and meat, added fats and sugar, and lots of everything except fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. By providing this definition and distinguishing it from previous diets, Pollan creates a visible contrast and gives his argument a basis.

Not only does Pollan provide a clear definition of the Western Diet, but he also identifies changes within food in a way which is interesting to the reader. In the last section of the book, Pollan gives tips about what to eat and what not to eat. One of his most memorable tips is: Don’t eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. Pollan supports this argument with mention of additives like high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, and even extra vitamins. By incorporating the “great grandmother aspect”, Pollan helps the reader to understand the monumental changes within food which are so central to his argument.

Pollan discusses changes in diet as a result of nutrition science, and he also asserts that the shift toward nutrient based diets has not made us any healthier. Pollan uses descriptions of failed scientific studies, which he calls “bad science”, in an effort to prove this point. One such study was the Lipid Hypothesis which was promoted by nutrition scientists, beginning in the 1950s. The Lipid Hypothesis, as Pollan describes it, is “the idea that dietary fat is responsible for chronic disease.” In a whole chapter of his book devoted to the melting of the lipid hypothesis, Pollan details a study done by Harvard nutrition scientists which discredits the lipid hypothesis. This study even found that the fats which the lipid hypothesis encouraged higher consumption of, trans fats, are the actual fats which lead to chronic disease.

In addition to using studies to discredit certain aspects of nutritionism, Pollan clearly points out flaws within this ideology. Pollan brings light to the weaknesses such as its inability to discern qualitative distinctions among foods, whether processed or whole. Pollan goes on to explain how this flaw influences the way we eat and our health.

Michael Pollan does a phenomenal job of supporting his main argument throughout the book. He even admits to speaking only “on the authority of tradition and common sense.” Pollan uses well documented sources and simple rules of common sense to create a thought provoking book. It makes readers want to eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.