The Omnivore's Dilemma: Tone

Michael Pollan is very frank and forthcoming throughout the book, even if he does at times wax poetic. However, his digressions often consist of very moving analogies and motivate the reader to ask themselves those fundamental foodie questions: what am I really eating and where does it really come from? In a sense, he plays the food critic who, as a connoisseur of higher food culture, judges what we eat on its taste and aesthetic. However, as an investigative journalist he takes it numerous steps further to find out where our food comes from and how it arrives on our plate. Not only does he stop there, as some documentaries like Food Inc. did, but he goes further into the history of Western Civilization and American culture to examine why we have arrived at this unhealthy, unsustainable, possibly self-destructive yet convenient and carefree food culture.

The fact that Pollan's crusade is an attempt to re-attain a normal food culture in an American lifestyle makes for easier contemplating and less radical than other books that might outright condemn meat as murder, industry as evil, and money as the Satan that caused it all. Even if those things are true, they are often presented in a very radical manner that takes away from the credibility of the argument. In Pollan's case, he does wonders for his cause by showing, not telling. Of course, his audience is the American populace at large; more specifically, it is probably those who themselves are searching for the truth behind what we eat and those who are trying to answer the question of what to eat for dinner without compromising their values or their health for that matter. Because of this, Pollan presents arguments supported by many sources and personal experiences in order to make a reasonable argument on a very controversial subject. His argument ultimately attacks all of present-day American food culture and the industrial complex that has blossomed from the dirt, grime, and sickness of the processed food industry.  The Omnivore's Dilemma is supplemented by current events (at the time), supported by scientific fact, and compelled by personal experiences and shocking observations. When the author himself goes on a journey it makes the audience much more willing to consider his case than when it is mere speculation.