Download Sample Analyses of Pollan

1
#1 Michel Pollan attempts to answer the stark problems our society is faced with today when dealing with food.
Although he has offered an unmistakably simple solution to the issue: eat food, not too much, and mostly plants, the
solution he comes up with isn’t so simple. Pollan has done what so many others have not, and he hasn’t over-simplified
the solution. While other studies pinpointed the sweeping obesity epidemic the country faces on things such as sugar and
fat, Pollan has dug deeper into the issue. His tone could be described as serious, yet he uses sarcasm a lot to reinforce how
senseless the viewpoints of those in the government and food industry are. He points to three distinct groups as the
culprits of our current food problem: the food industry, nutritional science, and even journalists reporting the issues. He
claims that all three of these groups have purposely instigated widespread confusion when it comes to nutrition, and what
it is the American diet really needs to consist of. To start, Pollan argues that the change of food to nutrients is partly
responsible for the misleading dietary guidelines in place today. He does so by utilizing evidence, not always scientifically
backed, but alarmingly obvious evidence from everyday life. It’s his use of this evidence that is relatable to almost every
individual that reads his article that will help him earn credibility among readers. When speaking about the change to
nutrients from food, Pollan used three main pieces of evidence. His first piece of evidence deals with the United States
government, and the Senate Select Committee headed by George McGovern. Essentially, McGovern was ousted as a
senator after he pointed to the large amount of red meat and dairy products in the American diet as a cause for obesity.
This piece of evidence is particularly strong, because history is recorded, especially for the government, so it is easy to go
back and verify that McGovern made these statements, and as a result was not supported any longer by his constituents in
the next election. The lobbying power of the food industry is demonstrated well in this example. The second piece of
evidence Pollan utilizes is the nutritionist ideology itself, and how flawed it is. Without proper qualitative distinctions
between foods, the gap between processed foods and whole foods has disappeared. All it takes is a walk in the grocery
store to see this is true, so Pollan successfully exploited nutritionism itself with this section. The third piece of evidence
that helps bolster his argument is when he shines the light on the re-engineering of popular food products to contain the
nutrients that science and the government has deemed good for Americans. He points to the “Year of Eating Oat Bran”
back in 1988, and how every few years since, there has been a new nutrient deemed bad for the consumer or great for the
consumer. Again, all it takes is a look at the shelves of the grocery store, or even watching the news to know what the new
nutrient focus is. Pollan also points the finger at bad science for the misleading information supplied for the last few
decades. Science is all about breaking things into individual components, something that Pollan argues shouldn’t be done
when it comes to food. Seeing food as nutrients has caused the general public to worry more about certain things on the
nutritional facts, and completely ignore others. His point is backed up when he uses the example of thyme, and how it has
so many individual nutrients that it would be impossible to determine which ones are good for the consumer, and which
ones should be removed. In doing this, Pollan acknowledges the complexity of the situation, which also helps bolster his
credibility, because he aligns himself with those reading his article. He also points at the lack of control in a “controlled
study”, and how participants in these studies can lie about their intake of food, causing the findings to be skewed greatly.
The final piece of the puzzle Pollan credits as a factor is the western diet itself, which is mainly composed of lots of meat
and processed foods, lots of added fat and sugar-except fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. He points to nutritionism as a
reason we ignore this factor all together, as we focus so much on individual ingredients and not the portion sizes they are
consumed in. In rounding up his section on the western diet, Pollan highlights how the food industry has flooded the
shelves with 17,000 food products every year, each with no real nutritional value at all. The marketing muscle the food
industry is equipped with has beaten out the force of tradition, and left Americans to rely on science and journalism to
help them decide what to eat. This is overwhelmingly apparent, as each year that goes by, readers can clearly see that the
food culture has changed into a fast-food oriented culture, with devastating side effects. To end his article, Pollan gives
nine guidelines that point the reader in a better direction. He doesn’t force the rules upon the reader, which helps maintain
his credibility to the end. Ultimately, it’s Pollan’s synthesizing of multiple sources, his abundance of evidence, the
acknowledgement of complexity, and the credibility he established that make his argument a sound one.
#2 Capitalism has a way of complicating things beyond all recognition. In his article socio-economic system has had this
same effect on the most essential of nature’s gifts: food. Utilizing information gathered from health organizations,
nutritional experts, and several recent academic studies, Pollan attempts to make sense of the cacophony of noise “fed” to
consumers by America’s modern food industry. In fact, Pollan’s extensive use of this supporting evidence is the most
noticeable aspect of his article.
Having been originally printed in the New York Times, one expects Pollan’s article to be largely informative.
Data gathered from studies at Harvard University, the Institute of Medicine, and even the Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition all add credibility to Pollan’s claim through a powerful appeal to ethos. In a worrying yet crafty denial of the
status quo, Pollan also provides evidence showing some of the data gathered by these reputable institutions to be untrue.
2
But the most reinforcing evidence utilized by Pollan is that regarding the manipulation practiced by leaders within the
food industry; behavior which has served only to make American as a whole far less healthy.
Pollan’s frequent, effectively supportive use of evidence in combination with where the article was originally
published suggest an educated, left-leaning audience was intended for his piece. This is also evidenced by the piece’s
cynical tone, through which Pollan conveys a sense of exasperation over America’s debate over food – as evidenced by
his elaboration on the events which occurred following the release of the McGovern report in 1977. Pollan’s description
of Senator McGovern and his colleagues as “naïve” in their willingness to point the finger at the food industry are
particularly effective at enhancing this aura of cynicism.
Beyond all other aspects, Pollan’s appeal to logos is what gives his article merit. Raw, recent, and relatable facts
formulate the basis of the claim made in “Unhappy Meals”. Particularly convincing is Pollan’s brief review of the health
fads that had come and gone in just the year before the article’s publication (2006). Americans remember the short-lived
fervor over “breakthrough” low-fat diets, the importance of dietary fiber, and the recent rise of nutrients such as omega3s. By reminding readers how all of these fads quickly lost steam (not to mention their scientific backing), Pollan forces
readers to acknowledge the confusion and outright deception associated with food and food industry.
When analyzed only for its effective use of supportive data, Pollan’s article can seem more like a boring lecture.
But the end-all appeal of the article is Pollan’s portrayed understanding of the very American problem with food.
Gathered and presented information serves to further seek controversy, but the art of Pollan’s article is his attempt to
address that controversy. By presenting potential solutions to the problem he works so hard to identify, Pollan closes the
emotional gap between writer and reader, ensuring his article and its claim are both convincing and appealing.
#3 The article Being Happy With Sugar the author uses well synthesized sources to examine the implications of sugar and
the difference between fructose and glucose. The tone of the writing is informational with spurts of dry humor, this is
evident when the author jokes that if a product has a picture of the earth or yoga mats that it is considered organic
therefore healthy. The author was effective with the structure of there argument. Each perspective was well researched
and cross-examined. The article doses not try to answer unanswered questions. Instead it relies on well-documented
research and professional opinions. The author errors on the side of caution when inserting his views, this was done by
incorporating competent research. The author was effective at gaining adherence because the research derives from
scientific sources such as universities or health journals.
The author presents Gupta’s views to highlight the ignorance associated with sugar. This combined with the dialogue
between the two health experts displays the tension between the two opposing ideas. The author then includes his research
on the subject that sheds light on the middle ground, such as what a calorie is actually defined as. The author then repeats
this process again with two contrasting arguments. This formant is effective because of the use of factual research to
warrant claims. The author first piece of compelling scientific research is from a nutritional biologist at the University of
California Davis, after the studies results are examined the author then states his thesis; the implications of sugar are
unknown and further scientific research has to continue to reach definite answers. The author draws from the medical
industries past to display his claim. He compares an event of oversimplification from the past to what is happening in the
present. This is effective because it display the logic used to come to this angle of thinking, it also illustrates the
complexity the issue consists of. Furthermore, it shows the dangers of assumptions without thorough research and the
consequences that may ensure. The author then adds stark contrasting research from The New York Times that represents
the opposition’s views. This is effective at creating contrast for the reader. This is successful at persuading because it
gives the audience different researched points while allowing logic to win with minimal author intervention. The next
piece of research is from a professor at The University of Maastricht in the Netherlands. This research opposes the claims
of the research from the New York Time’s; this was effective because it summarized an argument followed by another
research summary that debunks the first summary. By displaying one view-point and showing why the viewpoint is
invalid with another viewpoint the author effectively convinces. The author then strengthens the argument more by
shifting the angle of his approach using research from The Journal Nutrition Research Review. By researching the social
influence of medicine the author further synthesizes his sources with multiple strong researched points. The author ends
the article asking question’s that are thought-provoking and show how little is known at the time about sugar.