preview

Analysis Of Michael Pollan's In Defense Of Food

Decent Essays

The purpose of this paper is to argue that Michael Pollan’s theory, to “eat food [but] not too much Mostly plants” is a good way to eat because it helps people to live longer. Michael Pollan, author of the 2007 article, “Unhappy Meals” and the book In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, argues for "eating food. Not too much. Mostly plants"(Pollan). People are "better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products" (Pollan). He argues that nutrients are not food and he is right. Nutrients are located in food and food is nutrients. Fresh foods are natural byproducts of the earth. People "should avoid food products that make health claims"(Pollan) because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it's not really …show more content…

For instance, when "beta carotene is ingested as a supplement, scientists have discovered that it actually increases the risk of certain cancers"(Pollan). Supplements work but only if you need to take a supplement but if the supplement is not needed and you can eat the actual food then eat the actual food and not the supplement. I agree with him that fruits and vegetables are healthy because they are natural and come from the earth. Fruits and vegetables contain the proper nutrients that the body needs to protect itself against disease and other illnesses. The nutrients in fruits and vegetables are only good when they are all working together and not when they are separated.

Wild greens and whole grains are healthy because they also come from the earth and when they are not pulled apart for the natural chemicals that they contain they are healthier for people to consume. For instance, the garden-variety thyme has 38 different antioxidants. "The great things about eating food as compared: you don't need to fathom a carrot's complexity to reap its benefits"(Pollan). "Some of those compounds in that sprig of thyme may well affect my digestion of the dish that it is added to, helping to break down one compound or possibly stimulate production of an enzyme to …show more content…

People have been eating meat for generations. It’s only been in recent years that people started giving antibiotics and growth hormones to animals. I could not find a definite year that companies or people have been giving animals antibiotics and growth hormones. There are still farm owners that keep their animals free range and free from antibiotics and growth hormones. The animals maybe smaller when they are not given growth hormones but they are at least living how they would if they were wild, without the threat of being eaten by predatory

Get Access