Michael Pollan's Lack of Defense

In Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food, he argues that western culture is a direct cause of the current health crisis as it relates to nutrition. His argument fails to convince the reader because it attacks American culture, goes against logic, and is impractical in its implementation. The revamping of American food culture which Pollan advocates would take much more than the simple fixes and easy outs that he suggests.

At the beginning of chapter four, Pollan says, "How a culture eats may have just as much of a bearing on health as what a culture eats" (Pollan 182). He then continues to address the French method of dining and glorifies their food culture as superior in practice. As an American, I feel insulted by his proposition to conform to a French diet. He should know that many Americans would immediately shut off his argument at the evocation of the word French. Just the fact that he would paint American culture in a negative light in comparison to the French distracts the reader from his main point. An argument becomes impotent when it fails to fully grasp the reader's attention. Pollan also talks about our current trend to walk away from the traditional family table toward an environment where snacking, speed eating, and fast food reign supreme. However true this cultural shift analysis may be, Pollan severely hurts the effectiveness of his argument by directly attacking American food culture as a whole.

Pollan also fails to provide sufficient logic to support his call for an all out reversal of western dietary practice. He suggests that we "PAY MORE, EAT LESS" (Pollan 183) That statement sounds practically insane when you read it for the first time. How can he expect a concept like this to gain acceptance in a society where money is such a valued commodity? We are consistently searching for new ways to get more for less. The food industry plays on this to satisfy our culture. The fact that most Americans cannot directly see the adverse effects of buying more unhealthy food for less money means that there is little incentive to follow advice to the contrary. In my opinion, every well-supported, legitimate concept needs logical backing to make it effective. Pollan's argument fails to provide the logos needed to persuade the reader.

Finally, the theory of cultural change laid out in chapter four is impractical and, for the most part, inapplicable. On this subject, we must first address the fact that a very low percentage of Americans actually own or even have knowledge of In Defense of Food. It is safe to say that Pollan will not be radically impacting Western culture any time soon. In addition, the suggestions which Pollan provides include the encouragement to eat slowly, cook more, and plant gardens. The average American has no time for these traditional dietary methods. His argument also provides little visible incentive for a culture that is consumed by instant gratification. Putting Pollan's advice into action would require a patience and self-control that many American people simply do not desire to apply in this area. His concepts may sound appealing to the reader, but they are impractical because there is little chance that they will take root in Western culture.

Michael Pollan essentially fails in effectively convincing the reader to accept his argument for cultural change in his book, In Defense of Food. This breakdown in connection with the reader is a direct result of a perceived attack on American culture, lack of logos, and the difficulty of application. Pollan's ideas are plausible and thought provoking, but when push comes to shove, they just don't get the job done.


Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food. New York: Penguin Books, 2008.