InDefense of Foodis a book that gives dietary advice to readers on the best foodcultures that could improve the quality of life. One significantadvice given by the book is encouraging individuals to indulge mostlyin plant food, however not too much of it. More to that, the authorhas used the development of science to gauge how well that hasimproved or deteriorated the quality of life as far as food nutritionis concerned. It is important to note that science has been acritical tool for improving the general understanding of the world.For food science, this has been achieved through numerousobservations from hypothesis in which it is tested experimentallywith the aim of improving understanding on food. This paper willhighlight some reasons why I fail to agree on certain informationaldetails concerning food and nutrition highlighted by the author inthis book.
Disagreeingwith Pollan on Food and Nutrition
Ido not agree with Pollan’s theses about food and nutrition becausemuch of his arguments seem to be biased. The central thesis is thatthe introduction of food science in our system has resulted to moreharm than good. For this reason, he advises that people are supposedreturn to eating more traditional diets. The main criticism thatPollan points out, is that nutritional science mainly adheres toideologies associated with nutrition. In this case, he has definednutrition as the study of food’s nutrition constituents with themain aim of understanding different types of foods. He furtherdismisses the idea that food is scientific and that the only thingthat scientists can do, is studying individual nutrients (Pollan 19).
Additionally,Pollan puts forth the notion that the main goal of studyingnutritional science lies in finding the ‘x’ factor (Pollan 178).An ‘x’ factor in this case is believed to be a compound that isresponsible for the general good health of individuals. The mainreason that Pollan offers for this study is to commercialize thiscompound by adding more of it during the process of food processes.Therefore, businesses trading in this type of business will end upmaking more money from ignorant consumers. This could be the reasonthat Pollan warns readers against purchasing products that claim tohave high nutritional value (Pollan 3). However, unlike Pollan’ssentiments that development of science and research is harming ourlives, I believe that such a development is aimed at improving thequality of our lives.
Thebook also blames the public for overconsumption of added fats andsweeteners that are deemed to be cheap in the current health crisis(Pollan 186). Because of such lifestyles more Americans have resultedwith more 300 calories in their daily diets. However, I would alsolike to indicate that availability of such foods which are widespreadis to blame for the current health crisis particularly throughunhealthy weight gains.
Inconclusion, the most important lessons to take from this paper arethat people should not ignore nutritional science and should notoversimplify the decision-making processes. This is because ifindividuals risk doing that, they ultimately render themselves to thecheap marketing tactics. In this case, there is a great need toembrace critical thinking that is guided by careful attention todetails to what people eat in their daily diets. I also think thatthe rules that Pollan gives readers in the book could be valuableinformation to many food companies who might take advantage toimprove their product sales. This in essence means that when thathappens, the final consumer will be vulnerable and suffer in the longrun.