Blog Post #4: Pollan Falls Short.

It does not take long for Michael Pollan’s audience to grasp Pollan’s main argument while reading “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.” The very first few opening sentences of the book’s introduction offers readers a clear insight of what is to come, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Pollan could not make his message any clearer of what he wants humans to do; or I guess I should say it is clear of what he wants Americans to do. His book targets mainly Americans and changing what he refers to as their “Western Diet.”

The author defines the main features of the “Western Diet” as containing “lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, [and] lots of everything except fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.” Most people can understand where Pollan is coming from as they think of the “Western Diet.” After all, those two words alone cause instantaneous images to come forth in one’s mind of fast food chains such as McDonald’s ® and Burger Kind ® and greasy and artery clogging foods such as those served at waffle house and various other food establishments. Although Pollan supplies many facts about his claim, he fails to truly convince his audience. Instead of gaining readers’ support he loses it just as one loses his shirt in a messy divorce. Nothing worth having comes out of a messy divorce and the same can be said for Pollan’s argument.

A major flaw in the argument is that Pollan generalizes his claim too much. He organizes his argument to make it seem like every single American follows what he considers as the “Western Diet.” This mistake comes from the fact that processed foods and fast food chains are what are seen right in front of our eyes, everywhere we look. What we see before our eyes, however, is not always the complete truth. Not every American follows that specific “Western Diet.” From person to person, a different definition for the Western Diet exists.

Besides the fact that Pollan generalizes his case, his most significant mistake occurs when he fails to recognize the other side of his argument. This is to say that he does not take the time to identify the benefits of processed food. This causes him to lose credibility from his potential supporters. Processed foods do actually possess quite a few advantages over organic foods. First benefit, it is cheaper for a country as large and populated as the United States to make processed foods as opposed to organic foods. Organic food requires an abundant amount of money and energy to grow and it is sometimes a waste when that money and energy can be utilized on more useful resources. Second benefit, processed foods are convenient and available everywhere. Yes, processed foods may not be the healthiest option, but it is definitely not the worst. Processed food eaten in appropriate proportions and mixed in with some organic foods is actually pretty healthy. Keep in mind when eating processed food, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing.

Pollan makes it seem that all that is required of a person to be healthy is to just eat organic food. That is completely false. On the last page of “In Defense of Food” Pollan ends his claim by writing, “The cook in the kitchen preparing a meal from plants and animals at the end of this shortest of food chains has a great many things to worry about, but ‘health’ is simply not one of them, because it is given.” Most doctors will agree that eating organic foods might be the “healthier” option, but it is not going to lead a person to direct health. Real health comes from both diet and exercise. Pollan mentions nothing about exercise in his drawn out book.

Although Pollan’s book is filled with an overwhelming amount of facts to support his claim, he falls short in succeeding to convince his audience. He chooses quantity of facts rather than quality of facts for his book and this trick is evident as one approaches the end of Pollan’s “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.”