Blog #4: Gastronomical Devolution

In 2008, Michael Pollan published his book, In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. In his book Pollan, a food critic and journalist, discusses the effect that growth of the food industry and the birth of “Nutritionism” have on the world’s population today. The effect Pollan refers to is called the “Western Diet” and which he believes, is the cause of “Western Diseases.” The Western Diet is no haute cuisine but instead consists of food easily procured and conveniently eaten everywhere, anywhere, anytime. Such foods as ham, hamburgers and hotdogs – all processed food from the food industry – constitutes some of the Western Diet. Western diseases include: obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and heart disease. The effect he describes is prevalent in places of the Western Hemisphere and areas adopting the Western lifestyle – buying and eating store food. As a resident of America and having relatives who have type 2 diabetes, I am alarmed at the relationship between the Western diet and type 2 diabetes. Throughout his book, Pollan argues the need for the general public to return to buying organic food as close as possible to its origin – i.e., the farmer – and be aware of the harmful consequences of eating products from the food industry; Pollan convinces the reader of this argument through refutation, organization and questions.

Supporting Pollan’s claim that people should return to eating organic food, Pollan uses one main refutation – the overdependence of scientists, whose findings are reinforced by the government and journalists. The refutation starts with Pollan’s reference to Liebig’s discovery of the macronutrients in soil. Liebig’s discovery was the initial step to Nutritionism as he made the bold claim “that all that plants need to live and grow are these three chemicals… [which also applies] with [a] person” (20). With this claim, the movement for finding the “X nutrient” and making the ideal processed food has been set – which led to the oversimplification of processed food and the rise of the medical bill per person today. Each discovery of a nutrient and its effects on a person’s health has led to a new product that pales in comparison to its organic equivalent. From this line of thinking, Pollan elaborates the organic equivalent’s superiority to its processed equivalent due to possessing nutrients unknown to Nutrition scientists and “food synergy” (111). By eating food with very little nutrition, people are insufficiently nourished and require more medical attention than ever before. Before establishing the refutation though, Pollan considers organization for the sake of his argument’s clarity and coherency.

Pollan’s book has three sections: The Age of Nutritionism, Western Diet and the Diseases of Civilization, and Getting Over Nutritionism. In the first section, Pollan defined the components of his argument – namely Nutritionism and food. Nutritionism is a term coined by Gyorgy Scrinis that refers to the study of nutrients, the broken down parts of food (27). With this definition, Pollan makes the foundation for his argument. Pollan redefines food and portrays how people – even with all the technology accessible to them today – scarcely know what makes them live with an overwhelming influx of information in the Western Diet and the Diseases of Civilization section. The large influx of information refers to multiple hypotheses of what would be the master nutrient such as the “lipid hypothesis” and the “carbohydrate hypothesis,” which both suggested conflicting concepts (23). Pollan then ends the book with suggestions on how to apply the points reached in the beginning sections such as the suggestion of “[eating] mostly plants, especially leaves” (162). Through organization, Pollan forms his argument by providing a specific connotation and denotation of common words like nutrition and food, to exposing the reader to an immense research about food. However, Pollan avoids leaving his readers in confusion by using questions.

By asking the reader, Pollan challenges any response the reader has to offer and to ask the reader to think as an individual and not follow blindly what he is told. Pollan also uses his questions to direct the argument flow. For example, Pollan’s initial question to the reader is “why?” in reference to “[avoiding] products that make health claims” (2). A common answer would be the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), government or the scientists said the food was beneficial for a person’s health as stated on the health claims. Pollan offers a different answer; food with such claims is not authentic food, which Pollan uses as a thread to the next topic. When stating the statistics of vegetable oils in a person’s diet, Pollan uses this technique by asking the question “why corn and oil?” to explain the logic running the food industry (117). With questions directing the content flow and asking for the reader’s attention, Pollan’s argument is clear to the reader – that people return to eating organic food.

Today, the number of people suffering from Western diseases is increasing as people convert to the Western Diet. With insuring diseases, the price people pay for medical attention has also risen. The increase in people’s unhealthiness is the consequence of food oversimplification. Pollan makes the refutation that the goals the food industry and nutrition scientists are trying to accomplish are counterproductive with each food product developed leading to the weakening of a person’s health. Food products made by the food industry are oversimplified in comparison to organic equivalents because food products are based on the current knowledge nutrition scientists have on how food fuels people. With its limited knowledge, the food industry produced food that lack the unknown components organic equivalents are known to have – a point Pollan makes ironically by using an accumulation of nutrition research. By defining common terms and exposing the reader to an immense influx of research about nutrition, Pollan convinces the reader that people should eat food produced as closely as possible to nature, citing the ill consequences of eating processed food, which really is not food but rather food imitations. However regardless of how convincing Pollan makes his argument to be, he implies that it is up to the reader whether or not to heed his advice.

Work Cited:

Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. 2006: Large Print Distribution, 2009. Print.

Decoding Pollan

A normal individual would identify food as any substance that composes carbohydrates, fats, proteins and water, or nutrients necessary for the sustenance of a human being .It is true, we have to admit that the age of nutrition governs us as evident from our well accepted definition of what we consider to be food. However Michael Pollan begs to differ on the topic of what he considers food. Pollan’s book In Defense Of Food presents a completely unique and counterintuitive definition of what he considers to be food .Yes, that’s counterintuitive since no one would be expected to support Pollan intuitively, knowing little about Pollan or without having read the book. Michael Pollan poses a question that hasn’t been asked for centuries. Can the food we eat actually be considered ‘food’? This rhetorical question -food for thought for a number of readers is the basis upon which Michael Pollan writes his book supporting his stance by targeting the authority over the dinner menu held by scientists and food marketers alike, arriving at the conclusion that most people today don’t eat what their ancestors ate in the past .He appropriately selects the title In Defense Of Food ,clearly defining the standards that he sets for any item to be even considered ‘food’ .Pollan holds the view that food nowadays requires defending from the food industry and nutrition science. Pollan seeks to create an interesting imagery of the actual reality we are living in and is the first to question the age of nutrition which is rapidly taking over modern day. His attitude throughout the book can be seen as one of deep lack of trust in modern science, evident especially throughout the first section of the book. He seeks to elaborate on this subject in the first part of the book ‘The Age Of Nutritionism’ by clearly explaining how that silent transition towards an age of nutrition actually came into being. Pollan seeks to highlight the theme that an individual should not only resort to healthy eating but should also eat to make himself happy and content as a result of it (Pg 8). He justifies his claim that modern day is adversely affected by nutritionist movements that instigate people to psychologically adapt themselves to the conditions of the present when a wave of ‘nutritionism’ governs an individual’s dietary patterns and daily food intake. According to Pollan in Part One, Chapter 9 titled Bad Science the concept of scientific reductionism - the split up of food into constituent nutrients ,serves to mislead us since food is actually very different from the nutrients that it contains. This claim proves to be logically accurate since people purchase a food product according to the label that it possesses without actually recognizing the cumulative effect of various nutrients. This shows that Pollan strives to differ from Science, relying on logical analysis of the matter rather than on basic facts that are offered by Nutrition Science

Nutritionism, the term originally coined by the Australian sociologist Gyorgy Scrints according to Pollan is ‘the official ideology of the Western diet’ .The explanation of nutritionism and its concepts in the first part of the book holds relations with Western culture, causing a smooth transition towards Part Two of the book which deals entirely with this matter . In Part Two, Chapter One, Pollan enhances his claim by noting the improvement in health conditions of aborigines when they were asked to live in their hometown ,a life without civilization, originally living in comfortable settlements ,an experiment conducted by the nutrition researcher Kerin O’Dea. Pollan actually notes the ingenuity of the experiment due to its simplicity and lack of relations with modern nutritionism. He applies the experiment to analyze the situation of obesity that overpowers the United States. He shuns nutritionism and Western diet, referring to western diet as the elephant in the room. By Chapter three a slow transition from anti-nutritionism towards advisory guidelines is witnessed when he asks the readers to think of food more as a relationship .The elegant transitions implemented by Pollan throughout his work make his stance more convincing since the readers are capable of connecting each Part of the book together. This gives of an impression of a skillful writer.

Pollan wants to help. He does this by not merely identifying the adverse effects of nutritionism but also by highlighting what can be done to retard this transition towards this phase of nutritionism. Pollan finally defines food, the famous definition we’ve been awaiting until this point in the book. In Part three Chapter two he provides an insight of what he had said earlier in the introduction. According to Pollan your great grandmother would never recognize what a Go Gurt portable tube is, so merely don’t eat it. In other words Pollan asks us not to eat artificial products that contain chemical additives .He goes on to explain why we should eat mainly plants ,especially leaves since a plant based diet produces fewer calories and protects you against chronic diseases. I couldn’t agree with Pollan any more, a vegetarian myself. Pollan’s advice may seem unrealistic for a number of people in the US, who have a purely meat based diet but his advice presents the option needed to change that. I feel Pollan includes a number of facts to make his argument effective enough and hence his advice binding. It is clear that the primary audience towards which this book is directed, is the average American person. Hence he goes on to ask readers to eat more like French, Italian ,Japanese or Indian people. He supports his statement by saying that they eat according to the rules of a traditional food culture.I feel that Pollan should be informed of the reality that exists: Asian food is not necessarily healthy ,in fact it is sometimes more unhealthy than American food.

Overall I feel that Pollan presents a firm argument clearly advising his readers what to eat and what not to eat. Pollan’s varied tone, literary usage and extreme stances seem to add an element of interest to the book. A reader can be satisfied if he just reads the first three phrases of the book: Eat food, Not too much, Only Plants.

As far as we Know (Blog Post #4)

Michael Pollan summarized his new book In defense of food in the first line of text, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” (1). After reading this line and the rest of the first page it seems that there would be no reason to read the remaining 244 pages of this book. He has told the reader what his points are and some brief reasoning. However, if you do continue past the first page you will find that what you thought the first few lines meant at the beginning is nowhere close to what they mean at the end of the book. In between the beginning and the end of this interesting book Pollan argues that in the last half of the 20th century mankind depreciated the value of what he calls natural foods and instead emphasized more on creating foods that have better nutritional value, last longer on the store shelves, and make us healthier . He continues to state that this change has brought a rise to the age of nutritionism and the “western diet” which has caused unforeseen health consequences that are very common today.

No one likes to be told that what they know is all wrong, especially in a way that that is bewildering and sometimes sarcastic. And that is exactly what Pollan does almost every page of his book. Pollan tears apart what we believe today are the common causes of obesity, heart problems, and overall health and uses specific parts of new research to disprove them. Pollan’s literary technique for disproving facts is quite common. He states what a previous study concluded compared with a new study that disproves the old study. In most cases this is an effective argument of basic logic; however Pollan’s facts are continuously drawn under fire throughout the entire book. The questionable integrity of his facts mostly stem from the fragility of the studies he presents.

Because many of the studies he presents occurred within the last ten year most of the information is not completely understood and Pollan acknowledges this fact many times. For example when talking about meat based diets and how they affect the heart he states at the end of the argument, “We just don’t know”(68) . While I commend him on being honest about the lack of understanding, he is his own worst enemy. It is quite ironic that what he is trying to disprove is misunderstood and he is using new misunderstood science to prove it wrong. This works against his credibility in the book and ultimately undermines his whole argument. What Pollan really needed to do to disprove these food mysteries was find a solid piece of evidence that can connect most of the questions, a sort of theory of relativity for food or put simply, the bigger picture.

Throughout the book Pollan mentions that the problem with food theory and nutrients is that you have to study it using scientific reductionism. He states that “[Scientific reductionism] is an undeniably powerful tool, but it can mislead us too…”(62). Not only does this call in to question yet again the foundation of some of his scientific facts, but also calls for an investigation into possible other related matters. Pollan fails to include facts about exercise, lifestyles, or even genetics when talking about the western diet and how it makes us sick. These are the things that health teachers and researchers have been telling us for a long time are important factors to having good health. Not including an analysis of this makes it seem like Pollan is trying to hide something, or infer that he has not thought his theory through.

While substance to an argument is important, the way you present is almost equally so. Overall In defense of Food was an easy read. Pollan for the most part used basic words with a few of unfamiliar words scattered around the pages. Most of these unfamiliar words were the names of the nutrients or food additives. Even with such basic words and structure Pollan is able to create an engaging curiosity of food through the ease of read and logical flow of ideas. Although the pace of reading is sometimes held up by bewildering scientific facts, the parts in between are quite entertaining.

Pollan is no doubt a good author. His inquisitive nature creates the foundation of a great and engaging book; however the undermining credibility of his scientific facts works against him. Missing related health topic such as lifestyles and exercise also contribute to his questionable knowledge on the topic. It reminds the reader that the man behind the book is merely an author and not a scientist. While the parts in between the scientific arguments are quite entertaining but it does not fix the fact that this book’s content is only speculation into a field that is filled with uncertainty and what ifs.


Work Citied:
Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food. New York: Penguin Books, 2008. Print.

What does it mean to be Healthy?

    In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan, he made several arguments. However there is one critical flaw in In Defense of Food. Pollan put too much emphasis on food. Pollan made food seem like the only element in the stair way to being "healthy". In reality it is not the only factor. There are a couple of other factors, Pollan himself also recognizes that it isn't the only factor but he chooses not to elaborate that in his book. Some of these factors are exercise, eating habits and possibly many others. Take in mind that he hints at these "other" factors throughout the book but chooses not to divulge in them because his ultimate goal is to promote food from the farmers market. So he had no choice but to ignore these "other" factors.

First of all, Pollan throws the word "healthy" around excessively without properly giving a good definition of it as he did for the "Western Diet". Does Pollan mean that a certain type of food [processed vs. fresh produce] is healthy or does he mean us, humans, being healthy? This is unclear because he mentions both. " Yet as a general rule it's a whole lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a raw potato or a carrot … watch out for those health claims"³⁹ Here Pollan uses sarcasm to compare a box of cereal to raw potato and carrots. He obviously tries to convince the readers that the carrot and raw potato is a whole lot better [healthier] than the cereal. If we go with this example then that means healthier food produces healthier people. If the readers go with this logic then Pollan is right, which is the way Pollan wants the reader to think.

However later on in the book he mentions other elements of "healthy" which isn't in terms of whether the food is "healthy" or not but whether the person is "healthy" or not. "Yet people differ in important ways. We all know that lucky soul who can eat prodigious quantities of fattening food without ever gaining weight"⁶³ However he just drops it right there and didn't go further with this example. So who is this "lucky soul" and what are the ways that we, humans, differ? Maybe the fact that some of us would rather be a couch potato than be an athlete. The varying amount of exercises that we perform has a huge effect in not "gaining weight" from "eat[ing] prodigious quantities of fattening food". If we go with this logic then that means food plus exercise gives us "healthy", which isn't the way that Pollan wants us to think.

    In the book it could be seen that he subconsciously supports this view [that food plus exercise gives us "healthy"] but in order for him to attain his objective like the food industry he has to push the readers in focusing solely on food. Pollan mentions the compromise of food and exercise in " How a culture eats may have just as much of a bearing on health as what a culture eats"¹⁸² Here he acknowledges the fact that food is not the only factor it's what we do. As he quotes "Rozin focused on portion size and time spent eating"¹⁸³. Using this quote he shifts the focus from what we do which is more general- encompassing the elements of exercise, how we eat, where we eat, and basically what we do- to portion size and time spent on eating which boxes out all the other elements which is more specific.

    In this way Pollan twists the facts that eating healthy food promotes good health. The fact of the matter is it is not the only variable. Health goes hand in hand with what we do and partly with what we eat. We cannot go without consuming the right amounts of nutrients or our body would have a deficiency of nutrients and that could lead to a various amount of problems. Like the sailors case.²¹ We also cannot go without having exercise. There needs to be a balance between the two to have a healthy person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

zBlog Post #4

In Michael Pollan’s latest work, In Defense of Food, Pollan argues that nutrient scientist and food industrial marketers are misleading us with those “unreal” food with many healthy claims to replace the real and traditional food. The author suggests that we ought to consider about what to eat that is informed by ecology and tradition rather than by the prevailing nutrient approach. One major claim that Pollan makes is that nutritionism exaggerates the health concerns or health benefits that people get from eating certain products. His argument was made effectively with directly related statistics to his claim. The scientific examples stated in the book appeals to reader’s logic further enhanced his argument. In addition, his extensive analysis effectively supported his points and make them more convincible.

Evidence: Statistics and Examples
Before the days that our grandparents were born, , the examples and statistics that Michael Pollan lays out through the argument Before the days that our grandparents were born, , the examples and statistics that Michael Pollan lays out through the argument that the nutritionism does not help our health are very general as they are all close to our life and includes detailed data.
The examples he provided in the first chapter are very persuasive as they are all close to our daily life since human being cannot live without food and we are all concerned about our health and we often pay attention to the events that affect us, especially those that we have to deal with everyday in our life: food. Fast food restaurants(like KFC, Mcdonald's), Vitamins supplements, candys... The food he talks about in this book are those we can easily find on the streets or in the market. For instance, those food, tasty and familiar, get readers' attention easily and make them think about their own lives through the examples to get the purpose of convincing them. Also, the examples are in clear order of time. To get to know the history of what we eat and the development of it is very useful and interesting as it helps us to learn more about the modern nutritionism: about how it was created and how it developed in these years.
One major claim is that Pollan makes is that exaggerates the health concerns or health benefits that people get from eating certain products. In the 1950’s, manufacturers advertised that margarine, which contains polyunsaturated fats and vitamins, could be healthier replacement for the unhealthy butter. However, during the process of making this nutrient product, more dangerous substances were made that could harm people’s health. Additionally, many companies try to promote nutritionism often make claims that do not relate to personal health.
According to Pollan, these false claims have contributed to the growing health concerns in the United States. Though there is a larger movement by companies to make products concerning health however, Americans’ health hadve progressively gotten worse, which supports Pollan’s claim that nutritionism is a detriment to American health.
With this study, we can recognize the main problems that have led to the rise of market nutritionism, false or exaggerated information from the companies and advertisers in order to make viewers or readers believe in their products. First, one must consider if the market nutritionism is trust-worthy and if it actually relates to our health. Second, one must consider if the data provided by Pollan in terms of the companies’ argument are clear and factious. The day that the supermarkets begin to sell artificial foods will mark the day that natural foods begin to disappear from the said; the whole name of the man who coined the term of "Nutritionism" and published "Sorry Marge" in Australian quarterly Meanjin; the exact percentage of the data got from low-fat study. At the same time, Pallon’s data makes the examples more believable critical.

Analyse and Organization
Logical analysis is always necessary in an argument since throwing a pack of evidence to the readers does not help them fully understanding the book that much. Pollan does a really good job analysing all his evidence in a clear orderly fashion and made the article all organized that it is easy for readers to understand and analyse too. His analysis is very comprehensive as he does not just argues from one postition but from various aspects and combined them together in a way that is not only compact but also neat and clear. In this book, Michael Pollan talks about his evidence in a way that as if he is telling a story. From the old days to this modern society, how the food in market changed, how the food science grew and how it affected our daily life. After showing all the evidence, he asks questions to make the readers think: how come people are still getting fatter after eating all these low-fat food? Why do people nowadays have higher rate of heart disease? Does food science really do good to our health or just the economy? It makes readers automatically willing to get more information by considering these questions.

In summery, Michael Pollan argues that the modern nutritionism is not trust-worthy and it barely has anything to do with our health Michael Pollan effectively and convincingly presents his with detailed statistics, interesting examples and an organized analysis in an orderly fashioned way.

The Effectiveness of Pollan's Argument

The question of what to eat or not to eat has not been a serious issue until the past century. Most people relied on their culture, family, and common sense of what works to make this decision until recently with the advent of nutritional science. Michael Pollan reveals problems with nutritional science and presents information on healthy eating in his book In Defense of Food. Michael argues that the diet taken on by America, often called the Western diet, of processed foods is unhealthy and most likely the cause of most of the chronic illnesses that people suffer from who eat the Western diet. He also argues that the large industries and misguided nutritional science are much to blame for this and that returning to a more natural diet will help restore our health and the food environments we disrupt. Pollan’s case is delivered in a way that appears logical, feels personal, and offers much support and appeal to his argument.

Michael Pollan uses a tone that is very appealing. He speaks in a personal way, as if he is on level with the reader. He speaks as if he is a friend and an advocate of food for both the simple and learned. As if having a conversation with the reader as a friend, Pollan relates his argument in first person. This style of writing brings the argument to the reader and involves them in the thinking process and revelation of facts. The reader then feels inclined to let down his or her guard and be receptive to the information Pollan has to present, which is a very good strategy for a persuasive piece of literature. He asks questions in a personal and applicable manner and his suggestions are presented in a way that seems helpful and insightful. Pollan also includes the reader into “we” and “us” once he presents his argument, which shows an assumption that the reader is now part of his movement and ideals, or at least considering his stance. This is also a disarming tool, if one is not offended by this assumption. Pollan’s tone makes him feel more as a friend than a persuasive writer and drives home his point, making it feel closer to home and urgent, proving to be an effective tool.

Pollan also uses great form to present his argument in an effective manner. Michael’s stance and information is presented in an organized and logical structure. His exposition begins with a rich introduction, laying out a summary of his stance, raising questions, and presenting facts about food, the Western diet, nutritionism, and the food industry. He also presents his motto “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly vegetables.” This serves as an effective way to ensnare the attention of the reader by presenting a bite of his argument to leave a taste and longing in the reader’s mouth for more. Pollan fleshes out enough to present a logical case that appeals to the reader’s common sense, yet leaves the true meat of his argument for the proceeding chapters. The first section of the book deals with the issues of how the Western diet became what it is, defining the science and ideals that brought it about (nutritionism and reductionist science for specific examples), and bringing forth facts, problems, and fallacies of said ways of thinking and acting. The second section of the book deals with bad science, health issues, research, and the steps that nutritionism has taken to lead the Western diet to where it is. In these sections Pollan virtually bombards the reader with fact after fact until it is nearly unbearable, and then he seems to take a short break where fresh air is offered between chapters and lighter subject matter, before going into another torrent of information. This method provides an ever building and overwhelming wall of evidence that persuades the reader to at least consider his argument, if not believe it, yet it is done in a sincere and personal manner. Michael also presents his subjects and information in a logical order, either chronologically or subjectively, much in the way of laying bricks for his “wall of evidence,” slowly and solidly building up. The third section of his book presents a “where the rubber meets the road” set of information. Here Pollan clarifies and thoroughly explains his suggested lifestyle and way of eating, which he sums up in the motto “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” He offers a chapter for each phrase and thoroughly explains each with many points, applications, insight, and information. He doesn’t seem to push his suggestions onto the reader, but instead seems to presents his suggestions with open-endedness. Pollan’s form here seems to be that of suggesting a new lifestyle to a friend, it is almost as if he is liberating the reader from a poor lifestyle of eating. This section is almost like a breath of fresh air after his copious amounts of information and is welcomed by the reader who has just had his or her mind flooded with facts. It provides means of application for all of the information and when the reader is contemplating the forms of application, he or she is cognitively thinking of ways that they would work out in his or her personal life. This further embeds the argument into the reader’s mind and serves as another effective literary device.

In conclusion, Michael Pollan’s argument is made effective by his use of strong literary skills, logic, form, and tone. His effective presentation offers the reader a healthy and insightful view whether it is believed or not and is a quality piece of literature.

Blog Post 4

In Defense of Michael Pollan

I found Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food to be particularly boring. Not because of the subject, but because of the way that subject is presented. After I finally finished, I felt like I just read a 201 page research paper. That aside, Pollan clearly presents his argument and supports it with an overwhelming about of evidence and detail.

Pollan’s main argument is that the so-called Western Diet is extremely unhealthy; it’s the reason that America has the highest percentage of obese people. The Western Diet, he says, is too much processed and refined foods and too little fruits and vegetables. Most of the food that Americans eat isn’t food at all; its “synthetic” edible substances recreated in laboratories and factories. All the weird chemicals that go into these substances are what is making people sick and overweight. Replacing these foods with organic meats, fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy products would give people a happier, healthier life.

Most of the book is Pollan describing research done by him and many other people that seems to support his claim. He starts off by describing how scientists have tried to isolate a single or small handful of compounds that make people healthy, and then try to add them to other foods in a kind of weird experiment. What these scientists don’t understand is that it’s not necessarily a single compound in foods that makes it good for you; it’s very possible that a whole range of chemicals present work together to make you healthy. Most of the developments in nutritional science has made things worse, not better.

He moves on to describe problems with the Western Diet. One issue is that Americans are consuming more calories while eating fewer nutrients. Another issue is that methods that the food industry uses to get more out of their crops, like the refining process and planting huge amounts of a single crop, result iin food having less nutrients than they did a century ago. So know, in order to get the minimum amount of nutrients we need, we have to eat more. Also, he says, food choice used to be based on culture (another word for your mom); now, it’s based on science. People are choosing foods that scientist say is good for them instead.

The last part of the book is composed of tips that Pollan offers to help people make better choices about what and how much they eat. Some of these tips include treating meat as a side, not an entrée; eat more leaves; eat whole meals instead of snacking all day; eat only when at a table and with other people; avoid products with unrecognizable or unpronounceable ingredients; and my personal favorite, avoid products that make health claims.

Another underlying argument Pollan makes is that nutritionalism is an overcomplicated science that has no real bearing on trying to eat healthy. Focusing on just a few nutrients is not the way to decide what food to eat; instead, you should just “eat food your great-grandmother would recognize.”

While I didn’t neccisarily enjoy In Defense of Food, the subject is an interesting one, and Pollan makes many valid points to support his claim denouncing the Western Diet.