The Correlation Between Health and Diet & How Our Surroundings Have an Impact
Mary Maxfield, author of the article Food as Thought: Resisting the Moralization of Eating and graduate of Fontbonne University, advocates the neutrality and meaninglessness of moral labels on the food we consume. Mary complicates matters further as she writes, “When we attempt to rise above our animalistic nature through the moralization of food, we unnecessarily complicate the practice of eating,” (Maxfield, p. 444). In making this comment, she urges us to comprehend that our knowledge of foods considered healthy should not be founded by customs, but rather by scientific evidence. My attitude towards the issue that there is no relationship between diets and health …show more content…
Mary complicates her arguments, because some of her sources are not very helpful in proving her point, such as Paul Campos, who is a law professor, and Kate Harding, an English major, neither of which have the credentials or experience to analyze nutrition and health. She also misuses quotes throughout her paper, only providing short snippets of text that do not validate her argument, and, at times, only mentions her sources, not providing quotes to back up her personal beliefs. Maxfield insists she can back up her statements, but leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to explaining her reasons for including what sentences she refers to, and fails to see that to confirm her beliefs, she needs sources related to the subject she is debating about. Mary also advocates that science is not a reliable way of comparing nutrition and health. Maxfield contends that Michael Pollan, author and professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley, states, “There is a lot more religion in science than you might expect”, which helps reaffirm her view that the use of religion in science adds bias, and cannot effectively show variance in diet and health (Pollan, p. 140); Yet in the same
Mary Maxfield, author of the article Food as Thought: Resisting the Moralization of Eating and graduate of Fontbonne University, advocates the neutrality and meaninglessness of moral labels on the food we consume. Mary complicates matters further as she writes, “When we attempt to rise above our animalistic nature through the moralization of food, we unnecessarily complicate the practice of eating,” (Maxfield, p. 444). In making this comment, she urges us to comprehend that our knowledge of foods considered healthy should not be founded by customs, but rather by scientific evidence. My attitude towards the issue that there is no relationship between diets and health …show more content…
Mary complicates her arguments, because some of her sources are not very helpful in proving her point, such as Paul Campos, who is a law professor, and Kate Harding, an English major, neither of which have the credentials or experience to analyze nutrition and health. She also misuses quotes throughout her paper, only providing short snippets of text that do not validate her argument, and, at times, only mentions her sources, not providing quotes to back up her personal beliefs. Maxfield insists she can back up her statements, but leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to explaining her reasons for including what sentences she refers to, and fails to see that to confirm her beliefs, she needs sources related to the subject she is debating about. Mary also advocates that science is not a reliable way of comparing nutrition and health. Maxfield contends that Michael Pollan, author and professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley, states, “There is a lot more religion in science than you might expect”, which helps reaffirm her view that the use of religion in science adds bias, and cannot effectively show variance in diet and health (Pollan, p. 140); Yet in the same