Omnivore's Dilemma Critical Analysis
Food Feud
Did you know that most ‘free range’ chickens aren’t free? Probably not. It’s surprising how much is unknown about the food we eat. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan claims that we don’t know enough about our food. Pollan argues that we should be connected to our food by telling us how unhealthy our food can be, by showing us how little we know about our food, and by explaining the good in local meals. Pollan first supports his claim by explaining how unhealthy food can be when we aren’t connected to it. He goes into detail about how corn is ever-present in our food, and he tells us how horribly animals in the industrial food chain can be treated. In his book, Pollan describes how food in America can seem like anything but the delicious meal we should be eating. He exposes all of the processing that turns our food into fuel, …show more content…
Pollan hosts a dinner party and only serves food that he had hunted or gathered himself. His guests loved the dinner, and Pollan thinks that this is because the food was local. In his book, Pollan says that the connection to the food was why it tasted so good. “In the end, I did feel it was a perfect meal. It wasn’t my cooking that made it perfect, but the connection we felt with the food, with the place we live and with each other” (317). The author knows that the food was grown locally, without pesticides and unnatural processes that subdue the flavor. Pollan finally got to taste real food. Authentic, straight out of the garden, pure and delicious food. So you can see, Pollan backs up his claim that Americans aren’t connected enough to the food we eat. He shows us how fake fast food can be, he uncovers secrets behind the food we eat, and he exemplifies what a homemade meal should look like. In his book, Michael Pollan redefines food. He changes the reader’s perspective on what we eat. After all, everyone eats, so we’d better do it
Did you know that most ‘free range’ chickens aren’t free? Probably not. It’s surprising how much is unknown about the food we eat. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan claims that we don’t know enough about our food. Pollan argues that we should be connected to our food by telling us how unhealthy our food can be, by showing us how little we know about our food, and by explaining the good in local meals. Pollan first supports his claim by explaining how unhealthy food can be when we aren’t connected to it. He goes into detail about how corn is ever-present in our food, and he tells us how horribly animals in the industrial food chain can be treated. In his book, Pollan describes how food in America can seem like anything but the delicious meal we should be eating. He exposes all of the processing that turns our food into fuel, …show more content…
Pollan hosts a dinner party and only serves food that he had hunted or gathered himself. His guests loved the dinner, and Pollan thinks that this is because the food was local. In his book, Pollan says that the connection to the food was why it tasted so good. “In the end, I did feel it was a perfect meal. It wasn’t my cooking that made it perfect, but the connection we felt with the food, with the place we live and with each other” (317). The author knows that the food was grown locally, without pesticides and unnatural processes that subdue the flavor. Pollan finally got to taste real food. Authentic, straight out of the garden, pure and delicious food. So you can see, Pollan backs up his claim that Americans aren’t connected enough to the food we eat. He shows us how fake fast food can be, he uncovers secrets behind the food we eat, and he exemplifies what a homemade meal should look like. In his book, Michael Pollan redefines food. He changes the reader’s perspective on what we eat. After all, everyone eats, so we’d better do it