The first few lines of Michael Pollan's article "Unhappy Meals" do not seem so convincing, since the diet suggestions appearing there are not innovative, and can be found in many other journals and newspapers published during the recent years. Another issue which don't work in Pollan's favor, is his ironical tone, not necessarily suitable for a newspaper article. Nevertheless, gradually the ideas presented by Pollan grasp the reader's attention, especially after reading his critique of the obsession of American society with nutritionism. This critique was new and therefore surprising to me; nevertheless, eventually, it was most convincing. Pollan's begins his main argument regarding the great damages nutritionism causes, by trying to undermine the supposition that the idea of nutritionism itself is scientifically based and therefore indisputable. He does this by bringing contradictory evidence from different sources, showing us that until now an agreement has still not been reached as to whether this diet is at all healthy.
One of the basic assumptions of nutritionism is its complete credibility.
Consequently, shedding light on its actual ambiguity supports Pollan's argument by making the readers question the credibility of nutritionism, when the author later on points at it an accusing finger for being as the underlying "ideology" of the majority of the suppositions in the modern western diet.