Logic vs. Logic

In the book entitled, “In Defense of Food,” Michael Pollan discusses the “western diet” and its effects on the health of Americans. He explains that it is ironic that the more concerned about their health Americans become, the more dangerously unhealthy they become. His purpose is to inform the reader of the dangers of eating seemingly nutritious processed foods and to pursuade the reader to eat orgainic, non processed food. Although at first it may be hard to trust Pollan’s argument due to our trust in science and nutritionism, Pollan does a fantastic job of destroying that trust by using his logic and pointing out flaws in the very science that we trust. He supports his claim with scientific facts, several examples of studies, and the debunking of seemingly concrete evidence that acts against his argument.

He continues to support his stance by citing a study conducted with the Aborigines. A group of Aborigines people who regularly ate processed food volunteered to hunt and gather their own food for seven weeks. At the end of the seven weeks, many chronic illnesses that they originally had that were caused by the western diet had either weakened significantly or were non existant.

To further use logic to support his argument, he prepares a rebuttal for scientific evidence that claims the western diet is good for the consumer’s health. He accomplishes this feat by analyzing reductional science, which is how scientists evaluate the healthiness factor of a certain type of food. Reductional science is the foundation of nutritionism, and Pollan strikes it at the source. He exclaims that reductional science is simply inaccurate when dealing with the complexity of food systems and their effects on the human body. The human body has become accustomed to absorbing nutrients in the context of whole foods, and processed foods are foreign to our bodies.

He proves this with his analysis on antioxidants. When antioxidants are obtained by eating fruits and vegetables, they can eliminate free radicals and reduce the risk of cancer. However, when they are absorbed in supplements, they have been found to increase the risk of certain cancers.

In conclusion, Michael Pollan does an extraordinary job of supporting a stance that one would expect to be entirely knocked down by nutritional science. By showing real life studies that have been conducted, and exposing the flaws in reductional science, his argument gains credibility. He also bombards the reader with facts and cites pages upon pages of sources from which he obtained all of his information, which gives off the impression that he has done his homework and he knows what he is doing. So why not take his advice? You cannot argue with results.