• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


Project 2 Rough Draft

Page history last edited by Colton Michael Dale 12 years, 7 months ago

   In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto



       One of the most concealed problems in America is dieting. Many people these days listen to professional nutritionists and the “latest science” for advice on how to eat and what to eat. What most people don't realize is that the constant change in the ways of dieting and how they make the simplest question of what to eat to stay healthy into an incredibly complicated and confusing one. In “In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto,” Michael Pollan argues that nutrition science and professional nutritionists constantly change how we should diet and we, needing help, seek to them for guidance when we really need defense against them through persuasive rhetorical strategies. Pollan proposes a simple answer to what we should eat in seven words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.


       Pollan states that many people who are reading his book would argue against him that who is he to tell us how to eat and advising us to reject the advice of science and industry. He creates a sense of ethos as he says that he speaks on mainly the authority of tradition and common sense. He raises some interesting thoughts on why they should listen to the authority of tradition and common sense. There were no nutritionists or people telling us what to eat long ago and have been doing with notable success. You would eat whatever your mom put on the table for you that were passed on from generations to generations. Humans navigated the question of what to eat without expert advice and instead they had culture to guide them. Pollan expresses the exigence of not needing expert advice to diet and just follow common sense and tradition.


       What is driving such relentless change in the American diet? One force that Pollan believes is a thirty two billion dollar food marketing machine that thrives on change for its own sake and another is constantly shifting ground of nutrition science. With the use of pathos and personal experience, he states that part of what drove his grandparents food culture from the table was official scientific opinion which decided in the 1960s that animal fat was a deadly substance. Food manufacturers stood to make very little money from his grandmother's cooking because she was doing it from scratch and her own cooking fats. By magnifying the “latest science” they managed to sell her daughter on the virtues of hydrogenated vegetable oils which we are now learning may be as well a deadly substance. He creates logos by listing a couple of examples that support his idea.  One example is in 2006 came news that a low-fat diet, long believed to protect against cancer, may not actually do such a thing. This shows how they are changing their views overtime so they can continue to receive a profit. Who wants to hear again that you should eat more fruits and vegetables? Institutional imperatives of the food industry, nutrition science, and journalism stand to gain a lot from the widespread confusion of what people should eat to stay healthy.


     With the use of enthymeme, one of the claims that Pollan proposes in his book on how to eat healthy is if you are concerned about your health, you should probably avoid products that make health claims. His stated reason for that claim is because a health claim on a food product is a strong indication it's not really food, and food is what you want to eat, which is part of the answer he proposes on how to eat healthy. The ground to his claim is that healthy food such as vegetables and fruits don't have any health claims. This is another part of his answer to the question of what we should eat to stay healthy: Mostly Plants. 


     Pollan argues that what he calls "the western diet", which in his view is lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything except vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, is more harmful then helpful. With the use of logos, he states how an intrepid group of doctors and medical workers that were stationed overseas early in the twentieth century observed that wherever in the world people gave up their traditional way of eating and adopted "the western diet", there soon followed an anticipated series of western diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cancer. By using logos, he is able to support his claim and persuades the reader exceptionally well.


     The answer is simple: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Through rhetorical strategies, Pollan successfully argues that we need defense against professional nutritionists and nutrition science because they are constantly changing the way we should eat to stay healthy just so they can continue to receive profits. The simple question on what to eat to remain healthy turned into a confusing and complicated one by nutritionists and food industries. 





1. Does the paper have a clear thesis that follows the "skeletal structure" we've discussed? I.e., doe it both identify the central argument(s) of the work it is analyzing and identify the trope and/or techniques the author/director uses to make their point(s)?


 Yes, very well put together.  I like the shorter paragraphs that are to the point and don’t go out of context


2. Does the paper have a clear exigence and purpose (by explaining the exigence and importance of the work it is analyzing and/or the exigence and importance of analyzing this piece of work)? Do you have a solid idea of why this argument is an important one and/or why it is or should be interesting to an audience made up of people such as yourself? What is the exigence?


Great first sentence, i agree with it.  Shows the purpose right off the bat too.  Third sentence is confusing.  second paragraph is clear and well thought out to open the main analysis of this paper


3. Does the project contain ample support statements/support paragraphs that refer to and back up the thesis?


 Okay support, could use more to back up claims. more quotes


4. What is the strongest part of the paper (most interesting, most powerfully argued, etc.)?


 The opening paragraph makes it clear about what his argument is.


5. What is the weakest part of the paper (or the part that needs to be improved, further developed or extended)?


 Some of the sentences make very little logical sense and need to be revised


6. Does the author make appropriate references to particular moments in the text (quotations, paraphrases, etc.)? Are there enough references to both back up the thesis and allow a reader to follow the argument being made?


 Somewhat.  needs more backup to his claims through quotes and such


7. On the sentence-level, did you find the paper to be well written? Does it contain poor grammar or sentence-fragments? Is it unnecessarily wordy at times?


 It’s alright at the moment, but needs to be revised and rewritten to make it an A paper.  Love the use of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." it makes for a strong argument.


8. Does the project read like an analysis rather than a review? I.e., does show a clear attention to the structure and technique of the piece rather than simply summarizing it and explaining its strenghts and weaknesses?


 More like an analysis than a review, well done.  needs more backup though to solidify the analysis


9.What grade would you give the paper if it was a final draft?


C+, but could DEFINITELY get up to the A range pretty easily with some easy revisions and the addition of some more backup to your claims through quotes and statistics.


10. How well does the rest of the paper correlate with the opening paragraph and the thesis?  Is the thesis clearly explained and analyzed?


The rest of the paper clearly goes along with the first paragraph and thesis.  Although some of the sentences aren't always clear, the point of the paper is clear and doesn't go off track.


Essay as a whole SAYS: We need to change our dieting ways to keep us healthier.

Essay as a whole DOES: Presents an argument for that.


Paragraph 1 SAYS: Michael Pollan thinks that we should stick to the “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” saying.

Paragraph 1 DOES: Presents a thesis surrounding that claim.


Paragraph 2 SAYS: Don’t listen to popular science claims.

Paragraph 2 DOES: Backs it up by saying you should make your own choices and you shouldn’t switch up your diet so much.


Paragraph 3 SAYS: That claims about food from “science” can deeply persuade people.

Paragraph 3 DOES: Backs that up with two strong claims.


Paragraph 4 SAYS: Avoid foods that make health claims.

Paragraph 4 DOES: Provides an argument for that, saying that if a food product has health claim, it’s probably not all that healthy for you.


Paragraph 5 SAYS: Don’t stay so attached to the “western diet” of lots of processed meats.

Paragraph 5 DOES: Provides a good argument of that through examples.


Paragraph 6 SAYS: The overarching claim is “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

Paragraph 6 DOES: Closes up the paper and reinforces the thesis.


Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.