1
Sample analyses of Freedman’s article
#1 How Junk Food Can End Obesity derails the mentality that processed foods, and the fast food industry are to
blame for America’s long lasting obesity epidemic. David Freedman has credited the “health-food” movement,
and followers of it such as Michel Pollan. Freedman claims that if the U.S wants to stop the obesity epidemic,
or at least slow it down, they should turn to the fast food and processed food industry for help, not the “healthfood” movement. Although David Freedman doesn’t establish his credibility quite like Michael Pollan did, with
his degree from a prestigious university, he manages to do it through the use of other matter. Freedman first
establishes his credibility by acknowledging he is part of the junk food eating society the United States is
mainly composed of. In fact, he does this right at the start of his article by comparing healthy organic smoothies
that he personally tried, to that of McDonalds smoothies. This also adds a good shock value, which helps get
readers sucked in to the rest of his extensive article. The second and most powerful way that Freedman
establishes his credibility is by fairly representing the claim of his opponent, Michael Pollan and his supporters,
which he refers to as “Pollanites”. In writing his article, Freedman takes a divergent tone, but also becomes
satirical and perhaps even sarcastic at certain points throughout the paper. His use of the word “Pollanites” is a
fine example of how he manages to incorporate a satirical tone, whilst remaining credible and true to his point.
Freedman writes to an audience of American eaters, particularly those struggling with weight problems, who
simply cannot embrace healthy eating and cutting down food intake as a means to lose weight. By writing to a
much larger audience than that of Pollan, Freedman is more likely to stir up supporters and garner respect
amongst his readers. He maps out his argument in three major sections. His first section is devoted to tearing
apart Pollan’s claim. He does well at this, mainly because he acknowledges truths within his opponents
argument, and even agrees with some. In addition, his use of evidence is abundant, using results from his own
experiences comparing food in grocery stores, to results from government and school-funded research. Unlike
Pollan, Freedman stays farther away from statistical evidence, which is likely to bore the average reader, and
instead focuses more on evidence he has gathered from real life situations. Freedman’s establishes ground by
recognizing that Pollan and the “The Pollanites” seem confused about exactly what benefits their way of eating
provides. Anytime Freedman can point out confusion, it helps to derail the oppoitions argument. His second
section deals with the lifestyle that comes along with healthy eating, and how it just doesn’t work for the
average American, particularly the obese ones. Freedman explains that the health-food movement is only for the
minority elite, because the exuberant prices of some of the food can cost far more than the average American
can afford. To conclude, Freedman introduces his solution, which seems far easier than that of his opponents.
When he makes his solution seem so easy, it is very effective at gathering a following from the masses.
Freedman believes the food giants should be at the forefront of the solutions to the obesity problem, and he puts
in a fantastic argument as to why. The processed food industry already controls the market, so putting them in
charge of the problem will help solve it in a quicker, more efficient way than that of Michael Pollan and his
“pollanites”.
#2
In the article “How Junk Food Can End Obesity”, David Freedman addresses about the misconception
and blame on processed food’s role in American obesity. He argues against Michael Pollan, saying processed
foods are not the sole proprietor of health impairment (obesity) and should not be viewed as the single problem.
Freedman claims that processed foods are not the only cause of Obesity, and they should not be shunned just
because they are unnatural (altered).
Freedman introduces his argument with two short anecdotes of his past experiences with “healthy” foods
made with unprocessed fruits and vegetables. He expresses his experiences in an excited and optimistic tone,
but highlights his feeling of disappointment with his anecdotes. He accomplishes three things with this
introduction; first, he introduces the fact that he had prior experiences with fresh unprocessed food, second, he
introduces the flaws in his previous experiences, and third, he introduces his argument against Michael Pollan,
author of “Unhappy Meals” and other persons who shun processed foods, simply for the fact that they are
processed. The use of an anecdote to introduce his argument is a clever and effective, because it shows that he
has a firm understanding on the topic of discussion, and builds credibility for his argument.
2
Next, Freedman identifies and dissects Pollan’s arguments. He cites a quote from Pollan’s argument
about processed food and solution: to replace processed foods with natural, whole foods. This source allows the
readers to understand where Freedman’s argument is coming from. It appeals to the readers’ ethos, because he
refutes Pollan’s exact words. Freedman refutes Pollan’s arguments with his points on the audience of Pollan’s
food revolution by analyzing how Pollan’s health reform would only benefit an elite minority, and leave out a
very important group: the obese masses. Freedman develops his appeal to pathos. It is important to understand
the most important audience of a particular topic of discussion. Here, Freedman explains that Pollan excluded
an important audience of consumers from his argument. Next Freedman discusses the flaws of having a specific
diet of only unprocessed foods. He explains that there is simply not enough food to satisfy such a strict diet, as
described by Pollan. He appeals to Logos, because he uncovers how Pollan’s reform would not be a logical
solution. He discusses essential points to support his argument with his refutation.
Freedman then compares whole foods and processed foods, and discusses why we could not thrive in a
whole food economy. He explains how unprocessed foods can be just as bad with his example of Egyptian
mummies having hardened arteries, and suggests that pre-industrial diets may not be as fulfilling as they are
claimed to have. He follows with an observation of how the obese American consumers would not benefit from
the transition to whole foods. They would still choose not to eat it, because they would not be willing to adjust
their diets. Processed food has not effect on diet.
#3 David Freedmans’ claim in his article How Junk Food Can End Obesity is in fact, in the title of his article,
which utters that Big Foods companies can end obesity. His claim is striking because it contradicts everything
the citizens are told and read about fast foods and processed foods from the media. US citizens are informed by
the media that processed food, junk food, and fast food restaurants are the cause of the obesity epidemic in
America, if not the world. Freedman argues that these huge food corporations can make and be the change that
America needs to end the epidemic in obesity and diseases tangible to it. He shows a sufficient amount of
evidence with credible sources to show why they can be responsible for such a change. One piece of evidence
that especially stands out is the fact that wholesome food is not affordable to everyone. The reason being is
because there isn’t enough fresh local farms around to provide enough of wholesome food for it to be
conveniently located and in abundance of and for the prices to drop and be affordable even to those who are
living paycheck to paycheck trying to make ends meet. He backs this reasoning by actually visiting the poor
side of LA and Oakland and hardly sees any wholesome food stores around. He quotes researchers from
credible universities who specialize in obesity, who say that obese people may even chose fatty foods over
wholesome foods, because of their convenience and price.
Freedman reasons that fast food chains such as McDonalds, Carl’s Jr., and Burger King are aware of the obesity
epidemic, and are making silent and gradual health changes to their menus. Freedman himself goes to one of
McDonalds campus’s to challenge how they can add healthier ingredients to their menu, to which they have
been secretly doing so for a few years already. His evidence and reason for his claim is that by these food
companies making little changes, can make a huge impact, because these companies are the ones who can best
reach the obese, because they are right where the action is. Freedman refutes Pollans’ argument by showing that
it would be more effective for these fast food companies to make changes to their menus rather than sprouting
thousands of local farms to cover the lack of wholesome accessible foods, it just isn’t realistic.
Freedman is targeting the Pollanites and foodies, he himself mentions that the obese are not the people who read
these type of articles. His audience are the people who take an interest in their health, and his reason for writing
this article is to open up their eyes to both sides of the argument. He makes an effort to help his readers
understand the sides of the classes of the poor and the affluent. The poor will not make a decision to shop
healthier when it is out of their price range, and less convenient. His tone seems to be biased against Pollan and
Pollanites, he also seems to be fed up with their ignorance.