Pollan's Ineffective Attack on Nutrition Science

One of Pollan’s main arguments in “In Defense of Food” is that nutrition science and the ideas of nutritionism have caused many of the health problems in the United States today. He is very aggressive in this assertion, not merely suggesting that nutrition science may not be working, but placing the blame for some health conditions squarely on the scientific agencies working to protect the health of the American population. While discussing the consequences of the low dietary fat suggestion made by nutritionists, he writes, “the dietary guidelines of the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society and the U.S. food pyramid bears direct responsibility for the health crisis that now confronts us.” He goes on to say, “Thirty years of nutritional advice have left us fatter, sicker, and more poorly nourished.” However, his argument is ineffective, because the ethos and logos of his argument are very weak.

Pollan expects the reader to believe what he writes because he is an established food writer who has written about many food related topics in his career. However, his argument against food science is highly scientific, so his background as an author is not sufficient to make him credible. Nutrition science is a complex field that requires specific education to understand, and Pollan has no formal education in nutrition, biology, or human physiology. For this reason, he is not an expert on the topics he discusses in “In Defense of Food.” In the book, he analyzes and interprets scientific data and papers in the field of nutrition science, then presents his interpretation to the reader. Pollan does not provide any reason for the reader to believe that his interpretations are accurate. Pollan’s lack of expertise in the field of nutrition science makes him unqualified to analyze nutritionism.

Pollan’s lack of expertise in nutritionism also impacts the logic of his argument, leading to overly simplified, inaccurate arguments. One example is his attack on the low dietary fat suggestions made by the American Heart Association and the American Cancer society. Pollan writes “it’s difficult to conclude that scientific eating has contributed to our health. As mentioned, the low-fat campaign coincided with a dramatic increase in the incidence of obesity and diabetes in America.” The logic of this argument is deeply flawed because Pollan oversimplifies the situation. He leads the reader to believe that because these two changes in America occurred simultaneously, one caused the other. However, a basic principle of statistical analysis is that correlation does not establish causation, meaning that just because two trends coincide, one doesn’t necessarily cause the other. Pollan disregards the important idea that food culture in America has changed dramatically in the time period he is discussing, which may be enough to fully account for the increase in the health conditions mentioned by Pollan. It’s even possible that the low-fat suggestion helped American health by mitigating some of the negative effects of the changing food culture. The weak logic in “In Defense of Food” makes Pollan’s argument that nutrition science and nutritionism have caused negative health effects ineffective.