In this non-fiction book by a journalism professor at UC Berkley, Michael Pollan asks the age old question…”What’s for dinner?” Michael Pollan believes that how we answer that question may well determine how we survive as a species. In his book he details how we as a country have been lead down the convenience path when choosing what we eat. Fast food chains and the American Supermarket have changed the way we eat as a nation and Michael Pollan is considered an expert in this subject. In this award winning book, he follows the four food chains: industrial food, organic or alternative food, and food we forage ourselves and the impact these sources are having on the health of our country. Michael Pollan’s book was named one of the ten best
Foer’s article provides a sense of humor as well as personal stories to attempt to persuade his audience for the ethical treatment of animals along with his personal solution for his own health and the health of his family. On a differing take on the solution, “Escape from the Western Diet” by Michael Pollan provides the complete change of our diet and way of life based around cooking and eating meals. however creates a more powerful and logical argument against the “Western Diet” in his article, He uses a combination of his credibility from his publications on health and foods, evidence against the practices of the medical community, along with his solution to the issue of obesity to create an article that draws in audience’s emotions and rationale. Pollan’s strongest points in his article was the use of credibility and his ability to bring logic and reason to most of his points against medical society and the publics solution to obesity. Pollan comes in with a stronger
Pollan explains this situation in the quote, “ What 's involved in absorbing all this excess biomass goes a long way toward explaining several seemingly unconnected phenomena, from the rise of factory farms and the industrialization of our food, to the epidemic of obesity and prevalence of food poisoning in America…”, portrays the waste of vital resources being inputted into a larger issue. Because most people in America are unaware of these problems being directly correlated from the waste of oils and assets, we become blind to how it will affect us as a whole. However, Eisenhower expressed his concern with our excessive use of resources when he stated, “ As we peer into society’s future, we-- you andI, and our government-- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow.” Truly, we need to find a solution to this epidemic so our resources of today do not become a history of
The way that this happen is he gives us an insight on what other countries have done about their heath and food safety. To give an example of this is he said, “Throughout the European Union, laws have been passed to guarantee food safety and animal welfare, restrict the use of antibiotics among livestock, ban genetically engineered foods, encourage organic production, and begin the deindustrialization of agriculture (3). When he gives this example this allows us to compare the US’s current state and see that other countries have made attempts to better their food safety issues. In the US food safety issues are not as important to American citizens because a lot of the food is cheap. They trust the regulations that are currently in place because they might not see all the issues that come along with the not having the best protocols.
In “The Pleasures of Eating,” by Wendell Berry, I believe his quote, “There is, then, a politics of food that, like any politics, involves our freedom,” signifies the politics in the food industry and how the ignorance of consumers restricts their freedom unknowingly. In the previous paragraph, Berry discussed the, so called, american dream that includes the luxury of “ignorance” to the food that is consumed. He claims that if people truly looked into the food industry, and studied it, they would return to reality. He later makes a point that “we cannot be free if our minds and voices are controlled by someone else”(Berry 99). This statement is made because blind consumers are not free from the hidden truth of our food: such as the process, the chemical additives, and the state of the food we consume.
Many people have been more conscious of what they are eating. They are trying to avoid salty dishes, sodas, butter, and alcohol because it is bad for the health. But, for Dr, Aaron Carroll, director of the Center for Health Policy at Indiana University and author of The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully, said that not all the food you are considering bad are really bad for you and there are fewer pieces of evidence against them. “In fact, maybe we should be eating some of them more often,” Greta Jochem wrote in her article for The Salt. Moreover, he mentioned that the evidence presented about the food you should avoid is weak.
Food safety is a topic that has been on everyone’s mind since technology has been introduced into the production and distribution of food across the world. It seems though, that even with all the new advancements in technology there are reports that come in about contamination of cheese products, glass found in food packaging or some genetically modified food that has been spurring controversy. It’s funny how in this age of technological advancement in the growth and production of food, people are pushing the move back to organic foods or natural foods. The question that can be posed for the argument for organic food versus GMOs is which one is safer and is every food that is labeled “organic” truthfully advertised? Kinchy illustrates, in
Belasco, the author of The Food Concepts wrote, “To avoid disaster we need to predict it.” Food is a part of everyday lives. Many people see food as a way to fuel our bodies and nothing more. I see food as something that has the power to change the world. Something that has that much power should not be able to have an adverse affect on society, but it does. I agree with the quote from Belasco, and want to get the information on the food being consumed out to the people who are eating it.
“Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food” (Hardy, 2006). The Greeks followed this idea by the philosopher Hippocrates, but today’s society does not take the message seriously. A majority of people eat harmful foods and do not receive the nutrition they need to stay healthy. There are a number of reasons why nutrition is lacking. A lot of teens and college students eat snacks that are not healthy such as chips, pop, candy, etc.
The Context: An unhealthy diet can lead to disease. There is a large body of evidence linking poor diet to overweight and obesity as well as cancer and diabetes. Standard approaches to overweight and obesity reduction have assumed that individuals’ food related behaviour is carried out via rational decision making process ( Just & Payne, 2009) . However, inter-disciplinary research in behavioural theory and food choice indicates that people do not behave in a rational manner, and that environment plays a major role in influencing the choice of a person (Stewart Palmer, 2012). Nudge theory offers a means by which we can attempt to influence the food choice of the individual by making changes in the choice architecture of the offering.
First, Pollan talks about how many people throughout history that were supposed to be experts, for example Dr. Kellogg, came up with some strange theories that many people believed, but we later discovered were not true. Americans follow these “food fads” and so they don’t have consistent eating habits through time. The book says “We don’t have any strong food traditions to guide us, so we seek food advice from ‘experts.’ This may be one reason we have so many diet fads in this
Marion Nestle divides this book into five parts. Part one, undermining dietary advice, talks about how confusing it is for Americans to understand nutrition and what to eat; it talks about how hardly any American knows the federal dietary guidelines. The major source of nutrition knowledge comes directly from the media and indirectly from the food industry itself. Part one describes how the nutritional guidelines are not based solely on scientific evidence, but on political compromise. Part two, working the system, discusses how food companies lobby Congress, use personal connections with legislators and agency officials who can promote regulations, and use nutrition experts to approve their products.
Over the years in America food and how it is consumed has changed, and we seem to actually be eating more unhealthy despite advances in modern science and technology. In Michael Pollan’s book, “In Defense of Food”, Pollan talks about this idea, and how food itself has been replaced by the nutrients in them. Today’s development of food science has done more harm than good, and the food industry has become industrialized. People have to avoid the new “Western diet” and need to go back to the natural way of eating healthy foods. When I arrived at college, I completely changed my diet for good after just a single week in, as I had a realization I needed to eat healthier to transform my relationship with not only food, but with my body and mind.
Just reading the title of In Defense of Food (2008) by Michael Pollan gave me some hope that he would tell us that enjoying our food without guilt is all we need to know. In a sense he does just that, but first he defines what food is and is not and then goes on to explain how to find, and enjoy, this food. My first question is why people feel the need for someone to tell them what to eat. In fact, Pollan himself asks this question. Throughout the book, he spends a great deal of time defending why he wrote the book.
The media text I want to analyze in my full report is Food, Inc. (2009). Food, Inc. is a documentary film meant to showcase the faults in the American food industry and persuade viewers (consumers) to change the way they eat and to buy products from companies “that treat workers, animals and the environment with respect”. The film utilizes interviews from various kind of people such as farmers and food safety advocates to persuade viewers to make a change with their relationship with food. However, some of the claims that the interviewees make are questionable. Three specific tactics (fallacies) used in the text that I found to be questionable were, hasty conclusion, freeloading term and popularity.