This is a really long article, but I actually only want you to read from the heading "The Elephant in the Room" until the end of the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?pagewanted=8&_r=2
Michael Pollan essentially defines food in this article. In order for something to be considered "food" as opposed to "nutrients" it has to fulfill certain criteria.
1. Which one of his criteria of what constitutes food do you find most effective? Why?
2. Which of his criteria do you find least effective? Why?
3. Did you find his overall argument effective? Why or why not?
4. Pollan mentions Go-Gurt as an example of a product that fails in multiple criteria and cannot be considered "food". Can you think of a food you eat regularly or have eaten that would fail multiple criteria? What food? Which criteria does it fail?