Relax You Don't Need to Eat Clean

Carroll attempted to establish the dietary principles that should guide the choice of food in his article "Relax You Don't Need to Eat Clean" (Carroll n.p). He bases his arguments on other research studies and historical events in order to demonstrate the inconsistencies in the scientific attempt to define healthy eating. Similarly, Pollan attempted to explain the failure of science and nutritionists in defining the concept of food in his article "Unhappy Meals." In his quest to promote traditional eating, he established a set of principles that he believes are required to maintain good health through diet. The two articles contain a variety of claims, evidence, and presentation styles. It is on these bases that this write-up seeks to comparatively analyze the articles “Unhappy Meals” and “Relax, You Don’t Need to Eat Clean.”ClaimsThe central claims advanced by Carroll include the weakness of scientists in recommending the right food to the people and variations in scientific findings regarding the health benefits and nutrients in the diet. As a result, it has created significant constraints in dietary choices which continue to remain harmful to consumers. For instance, people tend to eat much of certain foods that are considered healthy and remain susceptible to diseases. Therefore restrictions on what to eat should be avoided what he refers to anti-intellectualism since people can eat healthfully without the terror accompanied by restrictions. Pollan’s claim sits contrary to Carrols’ especially in need to establish the standards for eating. According to him, the tradition holds the most acceptable definition of food which should be consumed with temperance. He further contends that there are principles that guide healthy eating with the primary reference to plant products.Both authors hinge their arguments on extant research which reveals absolute reliability in the information they seek to convey. It demonstrates that they are both useful in articulating the ideas on the suitable approaches to food and eating. However, Pollan is more effective in delivering the information due to the variety of methods and reliance on more sources of information to help build his position. He adequately captured historical and contemporary perspectives on the concept of eating to arrive at the principle claims. As a result, this gives more authenticity to his findings than those of Carroll. Notably, Carolls’ concerns are based on limited proof which makes his opinion and ideas dominant in supporting the concept of eating and the right food based on scientific research.Meanwhile, both writers agree that scientific findings have greatly succeeded in misguiding the people on the nutritional value of foods as well as associated health benefits. In this case, both cite instances when these studies display outstanding contraries. Pollan (1) invokes the confusion in the study of the causes of breast cancer while Carrolls pointed out the research differences in the gluten-free foods. The main differences in the two views are based on the popular approaches in determining what is suitable for food. Pollan developed standards which he calls the rule of thumb which can guide consumers in the right direction. On the contrary, Carrolls believe that humans can discern the proper food without any guidance, something they have done all the years. Attempts to set standards on nutrition and to eat often result in anxiety and fears which deny an individual freedom and pleasure which come from food.Carroll and Pollan have integrated both contemporary and extant research in expressing their views. For example, Carrolls pointed out the incident in 1968 when monosodium glutamate was first considered a health hazard in a Chinese restaurant followed by myriads of current research including the 2010 gluten-free consumption trends as well as 2015 polls on the safety of the genetically modified organisms (Carrolls n.p). On the other hand, Pollan traces the change in eating from the 19th century in which he attributed to the era of ‘Nutritionism.' In this case, he draws several instances including the increase in chronic diseases among Americans, the origin of beriberi among Chinese laborers in Malaysia, and the nutrition policy changes by the McGovern Senate Select Committee among others. He further captured the contemporary initiatives including the Women’s Health Programs, the cost of diet-related diseases, and 2007, Havard study on the benefits of Omega-3. In as much as the claims are based on some reference, the verifiability of the sources and their authenticity remain a core concern. In both cases, the evidence as integrated into the articles cannot guarantee adequate backing to their conclusions. The ideas expressed in both articles are important contemporary issues that should be backed by adequate evidence to avoid the temptation to misguide the public further. However, Pollan’s work is reasonably detailed compared to that of Carrolls regarding evidence.PresentationIn the overall performance, the authors used different tones in expressing their ideas. Pollan used humorous, informal, and formal tone. Statements like “A health claim on a food product is a good indication that it is not food and food is what you want to eat” reflect his sense of humor (Pollan 1). Moreover, other expressions such as “Uh-oh” are part of informal tones (Pollan 1). Finally, he formally outlined certain principles that should guide the decision to choose the right food. Carrolls, on the other hand, used both formal and informal tones in addressing the concept of eating and food. The tonal variation in Pollan’s work makes the article relatively interesting. However, both authors capture the attention of their audience about the topic, and the articles directly address scientists in the food industry that is doctors, nutritionists, and researchers.Meanwhile, the primary focus is to convey the health message to the public to enable them to make informed choices regarding what they eat. They successfully captured the attention of their audience due to the vivid presentation of arguments based on facts and scientific studies. As a result, the ideas and opinions of Pollan and Carrolls have a significant influence on the researchers in the food industry as well as the choices among consumers. For instance, using Pollan’s principles, consumption trends can significantly change. On the contrary, Carrolls’ conclusion which emphasizes self-consciousness whereby people should eat what they deem fit for food requires the neglect of research outcomes on healthy eating. The differences in the presentation are also apparent in the way each author chronologically arranged his work. Pollan adopted a sequential approach in developing his arguments while Carrolls focused on drawing various opinions from different sources to build on a single idea of avoiding fear and anxiety in the choice of diet.Overall, the concerns over the right food and the contraries in scientific studies are the primary focus of both Pollan and Carrolls. Both agree that healthy eating is based on an individual’s choice. Meanwhile, there are significant differences in the presentation of the claims, use of evidence and overall article structures.Works CitedCarroll, Aaron. Relax, You Don’t Need to ‘Eat Clean’. New York Times, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/opinion/sunday/relax-you-dont-need-to-eat-clean.html. Accessed on December 4, 2017Pollan, Michael. Unhappy meals: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants. New York Times, 2007. Print