BLOG POST 4

In the book “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto”, Michael Pollan’s aims at preaching that the modern diet consists mainly of processed foods which need to be rejected and a much more healthy diet must be adopted through practices similar to those of one’s ancestors. He puts forth claims with reasonable evidence that what we are eating today is not food, but ‘edible food like substances’. Also the eating habits of today’s generation such as eating in front of the television sets, in the car are not really the right way to eat. People need to get back to their roots and the food that their great-grandparents ate, which he refers to as the ‘real’ food. This following quote from the book supports the above argument, which is, “Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food”. In his book, Michael Pollan describes the upsurge of chronic “Western” diseases resulting from diet and the technological abyss in the direction of which mankind with its tacit consent is being driven by the industrialized American diet.

While reading this book, several interesting arguments and facts about food are presented by Pollan. But the main focus of Pollan is to get his readers to understand the truth behind the food they gulp in, for which he states examples to unmask the myths about food. One of the examples, which he cites, is about the unclear and illusory labels that the marketers put on foods as part of their marketing plan. Though these labels get the marketers a huge business, most people don’t think about what its harmful effects are. Pollan goes ahead to reveal it all; he forcefully expresses his opinions to make people aware about the discrepancies. Knowing that people like to take the easy way to get things done, one way to attract them is through the medium of food. He also discusses how a person gets tricked by these false labels, saying “more proteins, fat free product, free from carbohydrates” and the list is endless. Pollan brings out these real incidents, which directly relates to everyone’s life and this writing style of his grips the attention of the reader.

As discussed in the previous paragraph, the marketers gain profit over the customers by tricking them. These foods, which are sold, are not only deceiving but also harming to those who consume it. The main emphasis of Pollan has always been towards fresh and organic eating. "There are literally scores of studies demonstrating that a diet rich in vegetables and fruits reduces the risk of dying from all the Western diseases. In countries where people eat a pound or more of fruits and vegetables a day, the rate of cancer is half what is in the United States." [pg. 164] . Pollan is strictly against the dietary consumption of Americans, as they are one of the unhealthiest people in the world who routinely suffer from western diseases like diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and hypertension. As explained above that Pollan truly has a convincing writing technique as his each statement has an explanation to it. In his book, Pollan quotes several studies, which show a direct relationship between diseases and western diet. “The human animal is adapted to, and apparently can thrive on, an extraordinary range of different diets, but the Western diet… does not seem to be one of them.” In defense of food puts forth in front of its reader the poor food habit of people in The States. The people consume processed “food like products” mistaking it for healthy foods. This leads to a nation full of people who are overfed as well as undernourished.

In conclusion it would be right to say that Pollan has really kept up his name by keeping up his writing standard up to the mark. Being a fan of Pollan I have read his book called “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” in which too, he talks about food. Having read both the books, it can be said that Pollan is a man of perfection. He is a person who adds a right blend of examples, facts and figures in order to support his argument. Also what is amazing about his writing style is the elaborate explanation of each argument, which leaves the reader convinced. In order to support his argument he has referenced several sources in the last few pages of the book. One more key point, which plays a very important role in writing a book, is use of transitions as to have a flow without any breaks as to grab the attention of the reader. In the end, not only does Pollan leave the reader with something to ponder upon what is written in the book, but also provides insight on solutions and recommendations for further improvement.

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.

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.

The Bible of Foods

Over the past few decades, the Western Diet swept across America influencing many others to join in on the evocative bandwagon. In his book, In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan points out that the Western Diet is the very cause of all the obesity and heart diseases that scientists are trying so hard to prevent. What nutritionists do not realize though is that they “pay far more attention to the chemistry of food than to the sociology or ecology of eating.” (182) Countries other than America have healthier eating habits than Americans do. We, as Americans, have developed a cafeteria diet effect in which we constantly stand back up for more food. To develop better eating habits, Pollan effectively suggests numerous styles to eat healthier that give the logical impression to readers to live a healthier and happier lifestyle.

Pollan finds fault in the Western Diet where one cannot support a healthy lifestyle. To counter this diet, Pollan develops eight ways on how to eat or live a better lifestyle: “Pay more-eat less, eat meals, do all your eating at a table, don’t get your fuel from the same place your car does, try not to eat alone, consult your gut, eat slowly, cook, and if you can, plant a garden.” (183-201) Pollan points out that Americans today are all about efficiency in time, what they do not realize though is that they are speeding up the processes of eating time as well by take-outs at fast food restaurants or snacking throughout the day rather than sitting down and enjoying the “traditional big three.” (188) By snacking throughout the day, Americans have added on an extra meal to the “traditional big three,” most fast food restaurants have fallen into this category; for example, Taco Bell and its “Fourth meal.” Americans even develop new cars that hold bigger cups and refrigerated compartments. However, instead of snacking throughout the day and constantly eating, we can revert back to the traditional three meal day; through this, Pollan states that we can live a healthier and happier life. This is where his concept of “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” comes in. “How can we change our ways?” According to Pollan, the dinner table is where manners and the “art of conversation” is taught and developed. On top of that, head of the tables (i.e. parents) can determine “portion sizes, model eating and drinking behavior, and enforce social norms about greed gluttony and waste.” (189) Through this we can change our eating habits and slow down in life to take in the food slowly instead of America’s favorite motto of “faster, faster, FASTER!”

Pollan’s logic in his argument is undeniable. With all these extra chemicals and sweets added into our diet, it is no wonder why many Americans are obese. Americans have adopted the Western Diet and yet they still do not see what is causing this obesity and heart disease. Pollan points out that this diet is actually rebuking the growth of our society. When one realizes what the Western Diet has done to the society, he/she realizes that Pollan’s choice is the right choice.

Appealing to a Rational Mind

In his most recent novel, In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan keeps the promise of his title: he stands up for the rights of whole foods to exist in a world of nutrient-centered diets. Pollan isn’t the first to defend food; on the contrary, there is an entire movement organized around this idea. The Slow Food Movement, started by Carlo Petrini, is a proponent of organically grown food. The movement also rejects the corporate food industry for it’s processed food-like products. Pollan is unique in that he introduces the idea of industry and capitalism using their self-created problems of heart disease and obesity to their own advantage by turning healthcare into a business opportunity. He convincingly portrays the industrial world as a manipulative community through his use of precise language strategies and direct logic, weaving a story that captures and maintains the attention of his audience.

From the very beginning of In Defense of Food, Pollan makes readers aware of his three enemies: nutritional scientists, journalists, and the food industry. While he argues against these groups of people for various reasons, his dislike for them is united in one main point: they steer people away from natural, whole foods and towards imitation products that will damage their health. However, Pollan does not announce his contempt openly: he takes a sly approach at calling out the perpetrators. At several points in his writing, he innocently mentions that even though the scientists who once forcefully backed the Lipid Hypothesis are silently but swiftly distancing themselves from it, they probably didn’t intend to let their followers go astray. And the journalists also probably didn’t mean to advertise whatever was popular at the time simply for personal gain. According to Pollan, these groups are the reason why our culture is known for obesity and facing numerous fatal diseases. Yet instead of openly placing all of the blame on them, he attempts at taking an objective point of view by somewhat justifying the actions of the other side. This writing strategy draws in readers, making Pollan seem less like a crazed health junkie and more like a levelheaded individual simply trying to point out the facts.

While Pollan doesn’t fully blame the scientists and journalists, he does point a finger directly at one particular group: corporate industry. Pollan contends that the industry uses the work of the nutritional scientists in order to sell more of its products. Marketing of these supposedly nutritious items has become a multi-billion dollar force, intent on corrupting the minds of vulnerable shoppers through flawed nutritional claims. He insists that the food industry consistently spins out thousands of deceiving substances posing as real foods with no regard for the health of the public. Pollan explains that “fully a quarter of all Americans suffer from metabolic syndrome, two thirds of us are overweight or obese, and diet-related diseases are already killing the majority of us” (135).

And if that weren’t doing enough damage, capitalism has decided to take it a step further. While some are shocked by the sheer number of people with food-related diseases, the corporate food industry finds a positive side to this tragedy. Instead of changing the food products it sells to promote a healthier lifestyle and therefore incurring severe losses, the industry has decided to turn the Western diet into a whole new business opportunity: healthcare. The food industry would much rather make a profit and let society deal with the harmful costs.

Pollan uses the persuasive modes of logos and pathos in making his argument convincing. His clear, direct logic is difficult to argue with. While statistics can be manipulated and data can be misconstrued, there is no denying Pollan’s simple logic. The food industry has a clear choice. Instead of making thousands of people morbidly obese and fatally sick, it can choose to stop selling products that are causing these diseases. Yet it continues to promote the “Western diet” and feed Americans with a lot of everything except real food. Pollan convincingly portrays the corporate world as a malignant realm focused on efficiency and profit. Along with bearing a simple logic, he reaches out emotionally to readers with his surprising statistics on diet-related diseases. The large number of fatalities and sicknesses due to these diseases only add to making the corporate food industry seem avaricious and heartless.

Pollan’s arguments are not always consistently convincing. At times throughout the book, his data appears to be skewed and his opinions too biased to be considered seriously. However in this particular argument, Pollan leaves out all biases and still manages to drive home a very strong point. Using basic facts and appealing to a rational mind, he is able to convince readers to contemplate the harmful actions of the corporate food industry and possibly even have them considering joining a mass movement of people striving for a truly healthy lifestyle change.

Pollan's Underlying Meaning of Organization

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. These simple words are the heart and soul for Michael Pollan’s argument In Defense of Food of how humans have transcended from eating whole and hearty foods to eating scientifically engineered high calorie and high fat “food”, which he calls the Western Diet, moreover how the American population should go back to the original way of eating. His argument is made effective by the strategy, organization and layout of the book, which makes the reader think and question why the population no longer eats as their mothers or grandmothers did when they were children. The latter creates an intriguing argument which tends to draw the reader to read further to find the cause and a solution.

The book is layout in the manner that the first two-thirds of it is filled with scientific research and data pertaining to the ever-growing food corporation (who has a strong relationship with the government) and the consequences of the food they sell the population at such low prices. He includes the chocolate cake study, in which a group of American people were showed the word chocolate cake and the top word association was “guilt”. Moreover, he includes a study by the Harvard School of Public Health and by the Women’s Health Initiative. While all the facts and studies are overwhelming, it creates a shocking impression, either good or bad, leaving the reader hooked.

The last third of the book is Pollan’s solution to the Western Diet, which he calls “Getting Over Nutritionism”. He organizes this last portion of the book in four sections. The first one is an introduction to his solution and the last three are devoted to his food motto of Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants. He explains what each fragment means in depth and provides not a strict diet that most people tend to ignore or only perform temporarily but gives his audience a variety of options ranging from don’t eat alone to avoid food products that make health claims to cook, if you can, and plant a garden. This is an effective organization and communication technique since the audience doesn’t feel restraint on what to eat, which would only cause an enlargement in the believers of orthorexia.

One complaint that was rather unexpected from my point of view was that Pollan has no fundamental organization; there is great deal of flipping back and forth throughout the book to make it possible to make his point of view understandable. However, think back when studying for a major examination, which too involves a great deal of flipping throughout the book, yet by doing this the concept seems to become engraved into our minds. By doing this links are made, the argument flows easily and becomes memorable since it took more effort to grasp it, making his argument effective.

On page 49, Pollan introduces Mark Hegsted, the Harvard School of Public Health’s nutritionist. He includes his quote “The question to be asked is not why we should change our diet, but why not? Pollan only included the one quote that was vital to his argument instead of including Hegsted’s whole article. He does this all throughout the book, only including the gist of a study or fact instead of including the whole thing since this would certainly make the book longer and put the reader in overload. By using one piece of information from a great amount of sources, the effect of the overall piece becomes much greater. Another device he uses throughout the book is his casual, educated, confident and relatable tone. His advice is confidently put forth, and his research backs him up, making it hard to find a counterargument. Moreover, he separates himself from the scientists, one example of the latter is seen when he talks about taking a survey and admitting that it was hard for him to recall every meal he had eaten in the past three months, further admitting that he had gone over the recommended portions “If a four ounce portion of steak is considered medium was I really going to admit that the steak I enjoyed…was equivalent to two or three of these portions? He is just another human subjected to the Western Diet but trying to overcome it and teach others along the way.

One of the most important relationships the whole world has with nature is eating its products. However, the government and the food corporation are deviously replacing the whole foods with processed foods in supermarkets. Michael Pollan’s argument presents itself as a great alternative or rather an escape for the Western Diet. He breaks up his book into small readable mind-healthy portions. While shocking us with an abundance of facts, he does get his point across by making the reader make an effort to understand it and by providing bits of comic relief now and then. His tone is nowhere near accusatory to America since he sees the big picture, also including France, Italy, Japan and Greece. And instead of providing direct and harsh orders he provides friendly advice to the wider public. His book was memorable in my point of view, making me as well as many others aware of the dangers of the Western Diet and how by breaking habit, one of the most difficult tasks for humankind, the American population can once again be a healthy and powerful nation.

Blog Post 4: The Power of Logic

In In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan explores a variety of issues concerning the food habits of Americans. He puts his main solution to this problem in seven simple words: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.” He pleads with his readers to stop yielding to the cultural fads and scientific studies that make up the “western diet” and revert back to their natural human instincts about what they should eat. The way Pollan defines the “western diet” and his logic about using common sense when deciding what to put in your mouth seems to be so natural that the reader wouldn’t think twice about agreeing with him. This convincing flow of logic is what makes his work so effective.

Pollan begins to draw the reader into concurrence with him in the introduction. He brings up the fact that this phenomenon of humans questioning what they should eat is a relatively new concept. For centuries, we have managed to choose which foods were good for us without consulting a nutritionist, a food journal, or a diet book. For the vast majority of human history, we didn’t need these kinds of resources. And frankly, we were healthier. So what has changed? Pollan argues that “what mom says to eat” has fallen to what scientists, the government, and the food industry presents to us. We crane over recent studies that disprove everything we have ever been told, and instead choose to follow the no-carb diet or the cranberry juice diet to make us healthy, productive people. We buy foods that contain hardly any nutrients but are packed with processed food-like substances. Sound crazy? That is exactly what Pollan wants his reader to think. His depiction of our current state of being, our “western diet”, inevitably makes you question its validity and wonder why we followed it at all. The modern idea of what is real and factual when it comes to food is being broken down. This is not a predicament that we, as humans, like dealing with. If the western diet it not the answer, how do we get out of this mess? As Pollan says, doesn’t it make sense to just follow our gut (literally) and eat what comes naturally to us again? That is what had been done since the beginning of time. And if the reader is in sync with Pollan’s definition of the western diet, then this is the obvious choice. He leaves no room for rebuttal.

The sequence and flow of Pollan’s argument is hard to dispute. After reading only a few pages of In Defense of Food, today’s nutritionism culture sounds absolutely ridiculous. And maybe it is. But it doesn’t really matter, because the reader is already on Pollan’s side. The effectiveness of the author’s reasoning assures the reader that Pollan has to be on to something. His research and statistics definitely help support his stance, but they are like mere sidekicks compared to the power of his simple logic. Eat Food? Obviously. Not too much? Alright. Mostly plants? Sounds reasonable. This convincing course of thought is Pollan’s greatest strength and the backbone of In Defense of Food.