I write this post on Christmas Eve (in Singapore) to formally wish you all a fond farewell and to announce the ending of our foodie blogs. These blogs won't be taken offline; rather, I'll keep them online for the sake of memory and archive purposes, at least for another year or two. But let me explain my reasons for officially ending the blogs here:
There's nothing sadder than a blog that purports to still be alive and kicking, but in actuality is dead. I don't want the same fate to befall our blogs--to have people post very, very occasionally and to have nobody comment or no other posts follow.
Think of this as a metaphorical "pulling the plug" on a comatose blog, and then preserving the blog in a bottle full of formaldehyde. But without the same problematic ethical issues which would arise if the blog were a human being.
I've enjoyed being part of this blog very much, and have enjoyed reading all the posts and comments you've all contributed to this online community!
Without further ado, I bid you all farewell and Happy Christmas!
I watched Julie&Julia this afternoon. Well, for the ones that have not watched the movie yet, I will introduce. Julie is a secretary from a government office who loves to cook. She used to be a writer, but she quit her job. No body wanted to publish her book. One day, her husband suggests her about making a blog, a cooking blog. She thought it was a good idea, so she decides to blog about her cooking recipes from Julia Child's cookbook in 365 days. Julie becomes famous through her blog and end up publishing a book, Julie&Julia. Later, the book was made into a movie. As we all know, Julia Child the French cook is famous for her cooking shows and cookbook. Through the movie, I learned so many facts about her. The movie starts from when Julia moves to Paris. She used to be a secretary at government office just like Julie. Since she came to Paris, she did not have anything to do. So, she decides to find her a profession. Julia tries hat making, poker....etc. but fails to find something that she like. At the end, she finds that food is what she is passionate about. She starts to going to a cooking school, became a decent cook. Later, when she meets her two friends who were working on creating a cookbook for American. Julia joins them to create a French cookbook for American housewife. After numerous rejection from the publishing companies, Julia Child ended up publishing her cook book.
This movie reminded me of my English class so much. First, our topic was food. Second, we had our own blog just like Julie. Third, we produced owr own cookbook just like Julia Child did! What a coincidence. I think I can convince many people that our class idea came from this movie or a book, Julie & Julia.
In the beginning, I did not like our topic. 'English class with food as a topic? What is this?' was my reaction. I also did not understand why we had to explore such a different type of writing. They were so much different from what we did in high school. I do not know about other people, personally, I never had to write a restaurant review or never had to write a weekly blog post. As I look back, I learned so much through this English class. If I am to write something that does not need to be formal, I would include pictures, I would change the font, I would change the color, I would change font sizes, I would bold few words, I would underline few words, I would highlight few words....etc. I would do so much to deliver what I intend to say in the most effective way.
This English class not only changed how I write. I think it also changed my perception of food. I am sure it did change yall's too. I am no kidding. Easiest way to find out is going to a grocery shopping. Whenever you pick up something, you'll find yourself looking at the nutrition facts !
For me, Dead week=Stay in the dorm= Review=No Food in the dinning hall
Have you realized that ever since we start the dead week, the food in the dinning hall becomes less and less and the quality... Okay, so after several disappointed experience with dinning hall. I decided to order food online with my friends. Our first attempt is Papa John's and the pizzas are incredibly tasty! So after that, I keep ordering pizzas from Papa John;s from the rest of the week! XD
When I told my friends about that, he laughed and said that he also had Papa John's addiction. He even ate the pizza four days in a row！ Maybe the food there really have some sorts of magix that attract us keep going back~
Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food, was disliked by my fellow foodies of P4 and was discredited as a neophyte writer who cannot construct a well thought out argument. Some of them discredit him as a writer because they believe Pollan was making a general, broad assumption without defining what a “Western diet” is, giving numerous scientific facts to support his argument when he has no education in science, and providing no particular solution when he argues that we need to change our way of eating. However, I think differently. As I was reading the book, In Defense of Food I found that Pollan’s argument was very sound and very well supported by facts and various quotes of renowned people in the area. By using numerous examples in the beginning of the book, Pollan made his conclusions indisputable.
“Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly plants”. Michael Pollan begins his book with these words that are central to his argument. With this clear stance, he argues that we need to end the “Western diet” which is detrimental to everyone‘s health and is the cause of damaging diseases such as cancer, diabetes and heart diseases and arguing that we should go back to the traditional diet. Specifically, Pollan guides the readers through three easy steps in his book. First, he clearly identifies what is food and what is not food but nutrient. He discusses how science and nutritionism has affected our eating behavior and health. Second, he explains the detrimental effects of the “Western diet” on civilization. Third, he provides the practical solution to getting rid of the “Western diet” and further explains his argument referring to phrase “Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly plants”.
First, Pollan uses varying tones and exaggerations successfully to make his argument sound more convincing. His tone becomes negative and aggressive on the matters that contradict his argument and becomes positive when he speaks of things that support his argument. This is clearly visible when Pollan says, “People eating a Western diet are prone to a complex of chronic diseases that seldom strike people eating more traditional diets” (140); “A hall mark of the Western diet is food that is fast, cheap, and easy”, “Traditionally people have allocated a far greater proportion of their income to food”(145). Also, Pollan says that the Western diet consists of an abundance of processed foods and meat, added fat and sugar, and everything except fruits, vegetables, and whole grains (89). This generalization of the Western diet is a good example of Pollan’s strategy. He claims with exaggeration that the Western diet consists of substances such as processed foods, meat, fats which he previously mentioned as being toxic to our health. To most of his readers, his solid argument and his use of various literary devices are effectively convincing.
Second, Pollan uses factual support of experts in the area to complement his argument. Throughout the book, Pollan’s arguments are almost always supported by quotes from experts in the area. In some portions, Pollan uses three or four quotes on one page; it may seems like he is writing a book out of other people’s thought only and may cause him to be appeared as less credible writer. However, his skillful placement of the words of experts actually strengthens his argument even more. For instance, when Pollan says, “In the course of my own research into these theories” (140), I was doubtful of his ideas. Similarly, when Pollan mentions how an increase in consumption of polyunsaturated fats is a major factor of decline in heart disease, I doubted him not knowing that his claim was being supported. When I realized that it was actually being supported by an epidemiologist Walter C. Willette of the Harvard School of Public Health, then I was convinced Also it was satisfying to know that Pollan was not trying to argue something that he is not an expert of.
Third, Pollan uses an exceptional style to develop his argument throughout the book. In the first two sections of the book, Pollan mainly focuses on teaching the readers and giving them basic knowledge that will help them understand his argument better and will cause them readily accept his argument. In the last section of the book, Pollan reveals that his ultimate goal was to suggest to the readers a healthier way of eating not to dictate the way they think about food. The numerous scientific facts given earlier in the book help the readers to be engaged and to think about their stance on Pollan’s argument. Yet, contrasting to what he tells the reader, the foremost role of these facts given earlier is to evoke the readers to think the way Pollan does. After having been bombarded with the scientific facts, not many readers will discard Pollan’s argument.
Overall, Pollan’s argument, a Western diet, which is detrimental to our health, should be stopped and replaced with healthier traditional diet, has been effectively convincing throughout the book. Not only because of his clear stance but also because of clever usage of different literary devices such as exaggerations, varying tones, exceptions and exceptional structure, have presented his argument convincing manner.
In the book, In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan centers many of his arguments around the “Western Diet.” He defines the western diet as consuming “lots of processed foods and meats, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything except fruits, vegetables, and whole grains” (page 89). Pollan’s argument to “Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much.” is simple enough, and possible, but when he goes on to explain what food to eat it becomes more complicated. The industry is providing the public with what it deems necessary for survival. The food it’s providing might not be the best, but as long as the public isn’t complaining then the industry will continue to do what it can to make a profit.
Even with his advice however, it is hard to get away from the foods Pollan identifies as being bad for us, even our meats and vegetables are processed. The cows we get our meat from are fed on pastures that were probably fertilized, were fed a diet rich in corn and supplements, and injected with hormones and antibiotics. So the products we think are relatively organic and free from processing are just as processed as the sugary, low cholesterol, low fat breakfast cereals we’ve come to associate with “bad foods.” Our vegetables and fruits are genetically altered to produce high yield corn, two inch across strawberries, and large bunches of broccoli, all at the cost of poor nutrition.
If people wanted to change the way they are eating then they would. There have been uprisings before. People have overthrown governments they weren’t happy with, so why not the food industry? If it was really that much of a problem then people would change it. They would put their forks down and tell the industry “No, I will not eat this over processed, unhealthy food.” The public chooses not to. They have decided to eat whatever the industry puts in front of them. There are people who are rebelling, those who are going organic for example, but there isn’t enough force to change the whole industry. People need to eat. As long as they are being provided with some sort of sustenance they won’t mind much what they are putting in their mouths. It’s food, it’s cheap, it works.
Pollan makes some great arguments, but the truth is, not many of them are well supported. The “Western diet” (however untrue that title may be) is what it is because there aren’t many alternatives. Pollan’s logic in his argument that people can change the food industry isn’t even plausible. People are going to eat what they are given as long as they aren’t directly dying from it. It also doesn’t help that they are being told what they are eating is healthy and good for them even if it might not be. Pollan makes arguments, tries to back them up, but in reality they are relatively weak. Sure he has lots of evidence but the logic of it just doesn’t hold. The state of the people who eat the Western diet are perfectly okay with what they are eating, otherwise they might try to change it.
In today’s day and age Pollan’s ideologies appeal to a small audience, and even if he wanted to change the mindset of all his readers his writing techniques and methods would fail to do so.
In his current book his organizational way of writing, in which he meticulously makes an index with each and every chapter talking about a specific detail might educate the reader in some way but his writing is flawed in logic.
As readers we have the right to have our opinions and ideas. When an author wants to put his point across he should try and convince the reader as to why his opinion is the right opinion rather than force his opinion. In the 21st century many people would defend Pollan’s argument saying that the world has gone into the hands of the supermarket tyrants, processed food giants but if thought about it, doesn’t anyone understand that we ourselves allowed them to develop. He argues that there are more diseases now than ever, people are unhappy now more than ever and he points his finger straight towards the so called “western culture”. But is it only the western culture that is responsible? And how is it that only the Americans constitute the “western culture”?
Being a non-western myself I know that these problems are faced in other countries as well. Obesity, hypertension and other `diet’ related diseases are there in other countries because of their staple diet and junk food intake, not just because they have started to follow the American culture. The main reason as to why people were fit during our grandparents age was because of their lifestyle. They had to do more physical work while we tend to have more of a sedentary lifestyle. So it’s the way we live our lives that decides our health now rather than how much of processed food we eat.
As a reader one major drawback I found in his writing was that he kept on giving scientific facts. While proving a point it is necessary to give evidence for your stance however too much of plain scientific talk like in Pollan’s book fails to stimulate the readers mind as the reader looses interest in the subject itself. For example when he talks about the various acids or risk factors for CHD or even the general surveys. These facts are either unnecessary or too hard to follow for a common man.
The other factor that was a drawback in Pollan’s argument was that he was not able to justify his counterarguments. He seemed to beat around the bush by just providing the facts and scientific knowledge. In today’s world people buy the things that they like. People have grown up eating all sorts of food and have made the conscious decision as to how much of organic food has to be eaten and how much of processed food. The government bodies that check and make sure that the food put up in the markets is eatable and good are set up for a reason. Even though the food might be genetically engineered and processed it is still food which can be eaten. These industries only flourish because there’s a demand for them so technically we are not forced into eating the processed food we actually prefer it.
In conclusion Pollan shows that he has strong ideals, however he fails to put his point across to us readers. In all if the world itself is happy with what they eat and how they live then why would they want to change their lifestyle?
In Defense of Pollan As a New York Times Bestseller, In Defense of Food, written by Michael Pollen, successfully grabs the public's attention by stating unique perspectives and referencing an abundance of sources about the type of food that people should eat. However, readers also complain about the judgmental tone of his writing, as well as the numerous facts which require more clear explanations. This is especially true for its main argument: people should eat unprocessed food; plants in particular. In spite of the fact that I do not side with some of his opinions, I still consider his statement as a well-organized and convincing one .
He first approaches the statement by attacking harshly on the western diet which contains “lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything except fruits, vegetables and whole grains.” With the citation of several famous people like Denis Burkitt and Walter Willett, Michael clearly makes his point that western diet is not only lack of nutrition but also has the potential to cause a variety of diseases such as high blood pressure and excessive cholesterol. This is true to some point. Nonetheless, food is more than nutrients and health. It is also about pleasure, experience and the identity if the nation. People gain much pleasure through dining experience. People distinguish their identity by what they choose to eat. If that is the case, what food are people supposed to eat on daily basis? He then goes on to give some fundamental guidelines which define the “real food”. For instance, “Don’t eat anything your great grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.” This sentence basically conveys the idea that those unprocessed food, as the favorites of the grandparents in the past, is the healthiest food that the people in the contemporary society should eat. In other words, the best food culture and wisdom comes from the past. Interestingly, he uses a simple but precise expression about grandmother to describe the features of the real food vividly. This clear definition is followed by the method of eating healthy diets. In the bullet point form, he lists all the rules distinctively and gives each rule a thoughtful explanation to convince the readers. To be honest, this is my favorite part of this book. Unlike any other nutrition books which talk on and on in big paragraphs and complex sentences about how we should eat, the book uses concise arguments and understandable vocabularies to give out the guidelines which are quite easy to follow. Moreover, the reasonable explanations given under every healthy eating rule also establishes his authority as an author. In particular, the effective use of both examples and data strengthen Pollen’s argument.
It is not hard to infer from the above that Pollen’s statement about eating unprocessed food is structured pretty well. Furthermore, the content is also quite convincing and persuasive. Though the definition about western diet is a little bit general and controversial, it’s undeniable that some of the diets in the west do appeal the problems mentioned in his argument. For example, McDonald’s, which is considered to be world’s largest chain of fast food restaurants as well as a significant American food cultural phenomenon, is producing food which makes millions of people get obese. He is also right about the fact that unprocessed food contains some nutrients that supplements cannot provide. The more the food was processed, the less nutritious it became. To avoid the popularity of some diet-related diseases and shortage of vital nutrients, consuming unprocessed food which comes without a package is absolutely natural and wise. In his argument, Pollen analyzes this fact to the readers and transfers the professional phrases into very explicit expressions which can help the readers comprehend. Besides, he even enumerates ways of putting the words into actions to convince the readers that the guidelines he offers are applicable.
To sum up, although scientists appear to pay much attention on health in food and process the food such that it will be more nutritious, yet this may not be the case. The more we process, the less nutritious it becomes. Also, the food culture is more than health and nutrition, other aspects like culture, pleasure and identity should be considered. However, his argument and definition are subject to dispute. In terms of the quality and organization of Pollen’s argument about “people should eat unprocessed food”, Pollen does a terrific job in convincing the readers.
