Friday, November 27, 2009
My First Thanksgiving Experience
Thanksgiving at "The Inn"
An Untouchable Yet Decorative Thanksgiving
Wow
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Blog Post #4
Michael Pollan tried to use a great deal of facts and statistics to prove his observation. He successfully persuaded me that nutritionism changes food in the first Chapter of his book. But, when I moved on through the book, I can scarcely agree with him because of the bugs in his logic.
In the book, the author mentioned that people are living an unhealthier life than before. He listed many general diet-related diseases which were not so popular several decades before. But these facts are not credible. In 1900, a diabetic might not be able to know that he is a patient because the medical technology was not well-developed then. We can only say that more people are diagnosed as patients today, but not more people become patient today. What’s more, because of nutritionism, the rate of diseases caused by undernourishment is getting lower and lower. Michael Pollan averted to write about these facts in his book in order to demonstrate his own view.
What’s more, even if it can be confirmed that nowadays the physical situation of human beings is getting worse and worse, is it food that causes this tragedy? In this book, the author didn’t provide enough evidences to show the relationship between food and health. He pointed out that the change of food and the change of health status are happening at the same time. But this might just be a kind of coincidence. We can not always say that one of the two things happened together is the cause while the other is the effect. In addition, he produced some instances, in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, to elucidate that some compound from which modern food is made might cause some diseases. But, actually, these examples are merely some special cases. The author used some micro study results to explain a macro argument, that it is the change food which makes people unhealthier than before. His logic is approximately the same as “In 2009, all the flu is swine flu because my mother had swine flu this year.” In fact, besides food, many factors can worsen human’s physical condition, such as environmental pollution and high mental pressure. We can not reach the conclusion that it is food which makes people sick.
To sum up, though Michael Pollan provided plenty of convincing theories and facts to prove the seeming truth of nutritionism makes food become unhealthier, his argument still can not be accepted by me since his logic is coherent and credible enough. An ancient proverb states: Every coin has two sides. It seems such an obvious wisdom now. Michael Pollan’s contention is unilateral and subjective. He should study an object from different aspects, but not focuses on only one dimension by using all the positive illustrations and ignoring all the adverse ones.
Fine, I will take Herman's advise
{It is a poem that I wrote in Chinese and then Herman saw it and told me that I should translate it and post it here. Well, so I did, after a little bit editing.}
From today, I am going to be happy
Waking up in the morning, seeing through the curtians, no matter rain or sunshine, I will smile
Telling myself it is a good weather
From today, I am going to be happy
Feeling the unfair side of the world, wanting to complain, telling myself a joke
Telling myself that my life is not acomplished unless I experience it
From today, I am going to be happy
Facing difficulties, willing to give up, I will try my best to forget about it, and cheer myself up
Telling myself that I can and will make it through
Escape? Fruit!
Sad? Chocolate!
Tired? Meat!
From today, I am going to be happy
If I want to cry, I will smile,
and go eat!!!!!!!!
ps. picture taken at M&M store, time square, NYC
Returning to the basics.
Michael Pollan’s manifesto, “In defense of Food”, is a detailed work that stresses the insufficiencies of our diet and how to correct the unhealthy additions we’ve added to it over the years. Pollan’s main argument is that we should return to eating the basic substances we used to, and not the food like substances we currently consume day in and day out. He lays down many simple rules to easily do so, such as not eating things that your grandmother wouldn’t recognize and avoiding foods that boast healthiness. He continues on to explain the American paradox: the more time we spend worrying about food and trying to correct our diets, the less healthy we actually become.
Pollan continues to explain where the title of his book comes from, including the odd concept of defending food and why something so commonplace would need defending. The reason Pollan feels the need to defend food is because we have taken home grown produce and injected so many unnecessary additives that they can barely be considered “food”. Pollan argues that we should return to the original foods that we produce and consume them without the artificial ingredients as opposed to our current fake foods. Pollan also feels the need to defend food from the industry that creates these fraudulent foods and advertises them as “healthy”.
In order to correct these problems, Pollan promotes an idea that’s been around for centuries, yet is rarely followed: eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By following these seven simple words, we agree to abide by Pollan’s idea of nutritionism, which includes returning to eat what is truly food and only food that is completely free of detrimental preservatives. Pollan encourages us to escape the western diet confronted in a majority of supermarkets, compacted into packages that don’t carry food, but rather an unhealthy substation of food. We can create a healthy diet by avoiding these mock foods and returning to sensible food consumed in proper context.
Pollan does an effective job of presenting the harms of our current food industry and the unnecessary additives that are so commonplace in our current food markets. He brings up the point that people won’t be reading his ideas on how to stay healthy if they don’t want to change their eating habits, and uses multiple examples on how we can efficiently do so. Pollan shows us how to clean up our increasingly unhealthy diet and the consequences we will suffer if we don’t do so.
One of the main drawbacks in Pollan’s argument is his assumption that all foods claiming to be “healthy” aren’t always the opposite of what they claim to be. Foods that are composed of basic organic substances and have little to no added ingredients are allowed to bear the title “healthy” and may choose to do so. Although most of these products don’t need to do so, they still reserve the right and can claim to be healthy while being completely accurate with their statement. While it may not be a big shortcoming in his argument, it’s still unfair for Pollan to advertise a general rule of thumb that any product bragging to be “healthy” is automatically the opposite. Aside from small setbacks like these, Pollan combines multiple arguments with countless examples to both explain and show the western culture why it is beneficial to return to eating plants and how easy it is to do so.
