Discussion of American’s Dietary Habits in 'Escape from The Western Diet'

 In Michael Pollan's Escape from the Western Diet, he presents research on American’s dietary habits and America’s best kept secret- where our food comes from. The article begins by explaining various theories as to why disease occurs in the western hemisphere, the United States in particular. Pollan mentions the lipid, omega-3, and carbohydrate hypotheses, which are pushed by the medical industry and contribute to Americans focusing on single-nutrient deficiencies. When he says 'People eating a western diet are prone to a complex of chronic diseases that seldom strike people eating more traditional diets,” he is clearly stating his position on the subject matter. It is obvious that his stance is that Americans should discontinue eating the western diet from the title alone. Pollan’s solution is suggesting that people need to cease eating the western diet and believing in nutritionism and that the best way to avoid doing so would be to spend more time cooking, eating whole foods, and not believing all of the diagrams and rules that the industry is scaring Americans with. The theories previously mentioned are what is fueling the food and medicine industry. According to Pollan, the American people want a quick, scientist- explained fix to be the solution instead of searching for and being prepared to follow the apparent response that is altering their eating habits. Pollan concludes that if Americans follow his three rules: 'Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants' then the number of people affected by disease will decrease.

Pollan's target audience would be Americans who want to be more conscious of what they are eating. The purpose of the article is clear, to inform readers about the ugly truth of their diet, and to persuade them to make a change. Throughout the text, Pollan uses subjective words that show the way he feels about the subject. Words such as 'treacherous', 'cult', and 'cynical' are used to help persuade the audience to share Pollan’s disliking for American’s eating habits. Using the example of the food industry and their usage of the 'one-nutrient explanation' to '[ tweak ] the Western diet' he states they utilize it as an excuse to 'further [ process ] food' instead of acknowledging that processed foods play a major role in the problem in an effort to frustrate the reader with the food industry. Readers of the article will most likely realize that all of Pollan’s evidence points to the food and medical industry being all about money. This is further supported by the introduction of new medicines by the medical field to help treat disease rather than focus on the root of the problems. All that I have previously listed are examples of how Pollan tries to persuade the reader, however, unless the reader is already leaning toward his same beliefs then the article fails to appeal to the positive emotions of its audience. I believe it even brings out frustration toward Pollan himself, based on critical his view of things and inability to propose a solution to every aspect of American’s diets of which he is exposing the ugly truth.

Towards the beginning of Pollan's article he makes it clear what his view is of the 'one-nutrient explanation” and what the purpose is for the article. With each new paragraph and subject, he makes sure to be bold with his statements, leaving little room for misinterpretation. Just one example happens after quoting Denis Burkitt. Pollan explicitly states that 'going back to the bush' is neither appealing or practical for most people. He then states that avoiding the most harmful parts of the Western diet is a better solution. When talking about the amount of time Americans spend preparing meals, he makes the comment that in order to eat healthier, the American people need to spend more time preparing. I feel that this can be subject to various interpretations. Some may interpret this as spending thirty minutes at the most preparing while others may interpret it as needing to be much more than that. I was left wondering if preparing the food myself actually has any correlation with how healthy the meal is and not just quality of it. With the article being aimed at health-conscious Americans, Pollan’s tone seems to show that he assumes the reader believes the way he does- the Western diet needs reformation instead of tweaking done by money- hungry industries.

Without the correction of the majority of Americans' thought process on nutritionism, the disease issue in the Western Hemisphere will only escalate to the stage that it gets uncontrollable. Additionally, Pollan infers that having more whole foods that people grow themselves, in opposition to the case of feedlot steers being fed the Western diet themselves, is the main solution to the western diet. Pollan makes the assumption that changing the diet as a whole, and not just one aspect of it, will be the long-term solution as he presents the information throughout the entire article but specifically when he says: “The food industry needs theories so it can better redesign specific processed foods. A new theory means a new line of products, allowing the industry to go on tweaking the Western diet instead of making any more radical change to its business model.” Knowing the American people's ever-increasing health awareness, the statements made in this article reinforce the argument and seek a deliberate attempt to reform the Western diet. These assumptions help the reader to feel a responsibility for the health of future children and grandchildren as well as those living today.

Pollan describes ways that the western diet is tweaked rather than changed but his evidence seems somewhat biased in my opinion. There are several times he tries to influence the reader closer to his own beliefs. For instance, when describing the medical community's role in the problem he uses subjective words like 'cynical' and the phrase “it is...exactly what you'd expect from the health care community that is sympathetic to nutritionism...” when speaking about medicalizing the Western diet, but he fails to provide proper evidence for his statement. The reason I say his evidence is only mildly biased is because Pollan quotes Denis Burkitt, the man responsible for naming the western diseases, by saying, 'The only way we're going to reduce disease is to go backwards to the diet and lifestyle of our ancestors.' when he begins to describe the reasons why the western diet should become obsolete. When explaining the role of processed foods, he uses the Gyorgy Scrinis theory. Scrinis’ theory states that it doesn't matter what the nutrient content is but the amount of processing that causes disease. He gives the example of meat from feedlot steer. Posing the question that if the cattle are raised on a Western Diet themselves, does that still make their meat 'whole food'? Pollan states that he has been able to create three rules to follow when eating throughout his research. The examples he shows are used in a way to help get across to the reader, why they should be following his rules without giving the other side a fighting chance. It's an all or nothing point of view, meaning it's his rules to follow or the crooked scientists’ theories.

Ultimately, Pollan's argument is very solid and persuading. The examples of the food industry medicalizing the Western diet, and the product from the feedlot steer help to back up his claim to “...escape the worst elements of the Western diet.' He also puts responsibility back on the shoulders of his health-conscious American audience when he suggested we take more time to prepare and appreciate meals to be closer to the center of a well-lived life. For a reader with less than extensive knowledge on the subject of diet, Pollan does a great job explaining his reasoning behind his belief. Even with these great strengths Pollan could have done a far better job with illustrating why and how the different 'one-nutrient' theories have come forth and why they continue to be so prevalent in the average American's life rather than just in the food industry.