Reply to comment

Although Pollan, who has attempted to be a vegetarian himself, seems to favor the argument against industrial organic complex, he still presents different aspects of the issue. After all, Pollan is also an omnivore who is confused as to what side he should take. Throughout the book, he is not constantly arguing why cruelty should never be justified or that everyone should become vegetarians. Rather, he also brings up the point that the term "cruelty" itself was created according to the moral standards of humans. In my opinion, he reasons out both of his claims well. Because he recognizes both sides of the story, I trust Pollan. Had Pollan mentioned only about one side of the issue, I would not have trusted him because I would've thought he might've been biased. But Pollan himself is an omnivore in dilemma, and therefore it should've been in his best interest to carefully gather valid facts and resources to build on both sides of the story in order for him to take a side.