Blog Post #4

Michael Miller

Pollan and His Argument on the Western Diet

“The Western Diet: lots of processed foods and meats, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything except fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.” When Pollan states this argument on page 89 of In Defense of Food, he brings up a very strong and appealing point. In some ways he is correct, but in more ways he is extremely wrong, and approaches his argument in a poor redundant unconvincing fashion. Later on in the reading, he shows two perfect examples to express my reasoning of his redundancy, and poor background evidence. Yes, Pollan knows a great deal of what he is talking about, but he pushes his arguments way too far, and tries to make his opinions seem like facts.

On the following page, after Pollan states his argument, he begins to approach his reasoning on why he believes in that. He could have explained concrete facts on what Americans eat, and compared the specific food of the west with the specific food of everywhere else. Instead, he decides to bring up the Western diseases. At this moment in the book, Pollan most likely loses a lot of readers. He wrongly attempts to bring the medical side of the western diet into the problem. The attended readers who read Pollan’s books, and especially who read In Defense of Food, do not want to read about what a dozen scientist/doctors find medically wrong with the rest of the world. Not only does Pollan bring up the wrong evidence to support his argument, but he stretches the point for more than seven pages. Finally, Pollan finishes his poor evidence with stating that he finds it “odd” that so many people need “root canals, braces, and extractions of wisdom teeth…” First, did Pollan ever go to dental school? No! So why in the world does he try to connect bad eating habits with dental problems? I do not care what a human being eats, but if you do not have good personal hygiene, or you do not properly brush and floss your teeth, then yes you will receive root canals, and extractions of teeth. Pollan brings up this argument, because he is trying to gain as much evidence as he can to convince the readers he is right, but he needs to realize that less is sometimes the best.

Finally, later in the book Pollan continues his forceful opinions with making another assumption/”fact”, that “Foods that lie to our senses are one of the most challenging features of the Western Diet.” As an author, he has to write to a wide variety of readers, and to publish a good book/argument, he cannot make specific references like that. As I came across that part in the book, I lost even more focus of reading. I am a reader who has grown up my whole life eating food in the west, and I totally disagree with that statement. I mean how a piece of food that someone eats all of the time can be lying to that person’s taste is beyond my knowledge. Obviously, if the person continues to eat the western food, that persons taste buds must enjoy what they are receiving. Throughout the whole book, Pollan puts forth many arguments, but somehow finds the wrong way to backup his reasoning. With as many arguments as Pollan expresses, he has no need to stretch out each argument longer than it needs to be. I do not have the right to judge Pollan’s writing abilities off one book, but I do have the right to completely disagree with his approach of convincing his readers his argument is correct in the book, In Defense of Food.