Scarcity? Think Again.

In today’s society, there are more than one billion people suffering from hunger. This number has certainly increased from past decades. This article by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins and Lindsey Peterson stands against the typical assumption that hunger around the world is a direct outcome of food scarcity. Instead, these writers heavily believe in the fact that food in society is far from evenly distributed. As a result, many individuals in less fortunate countries have trouble accessing this food supply. Contrary to popular belief, the amount of food made available to society has actually increased over the years. Yet, many countries still do not receive equal access to this food as others. “The U.N. World Food Programme notes that in developing countries, the poorest citizens spend upwards of 60 percent of their income on food. By way of contrast, according to a New York Times editorial the poorest Americans only spend between 15 percent and 20 percent on food” (Scarcity Fallacy).

Another aspect this article covers in detail is to highlight the idea that poverty is not the only factor leading individuals to hunger. Gender and ethnicity play just as much, if not more, of a role as poverty. “Scarcity Fallacy” shares with the reader that a shocking 60 percent of those impacted with hunger are women. On top of that, women constitute for more than 80 percent of the world’s agricultural labor.

Personally, I almost feel guilty of the amount of food I waste and consume after reading this article. Though I am well aware that hunger is definitely evident around the world, I never realized the inequality and mass amounts of people affected by this famine. I, as I’m sure many would agree, immediately assumed the scarcity of food was the reasoning for hunger. Now, I am conscious that this is not the case. Though there are many evident organizations focused on helping this world hunger, corruption is certainly involved. For starters, I personally will, without a doubt, think twice before wasting the plentiful food I am fortunate to be provided with. I am now very interested to keep an eye out for how this famine will be approached in the future compared to current and past trends of aid.

·         What are your thoughts on the idea of corruption regarding world hunger?

·         How do you think society should go about decreasing famine?

·         What factor – poverty, gender, or ethnicity – do you believe has the largest impact on the people suffering from hunger?

Would you like efficient and productive fries with that?

Sociologist George Ritzer, in his book “The McDonaldization of Society” emulates the excessive amount of rationalization evident in our society and how that amount continues to increase. In order to display this rationalization, Ritzer uses the fast food industry through the term McDonaldization to clarify his thoughts. Before McDonaldization, and rationalization for that matter, society had little control, efficiency, productivity, predictability and organization. Standardization was definitely lacking. However, ever since rationalization came into the picture, systems have become incredibly competent and dynamic with methods to complete tasks in a much smaller window of time. As far as the fast food industry, for example, employees are given a very specific task to focus on. Their only goal is to complete that task in a quick manner. With this strategy, fast food restaurants do not require much multitasking, therefore, ensuring a much faster turnaround between each order. The technology in our society also plays a key role in allowing systems to become much more efficient and organized. Duties requiring humans in the past can now be completed by a machine. Through McDonaldization, companies soon become obsessed with calculability and quantity of food instead of its quality. Ritzer’s main theme in this article surrounded the idea of bureaucracy, which identifies all the key components of rationalization – rules and regulation.

After reading this article as well as discussing the idea of McDonaldization of my sociology class, I definitely agree that our society is being much more rationalized and systemized. If you think about it, the majority of us go by a set schedule every day. This dehumanization is most definitely depicted in the fast food industry. So many individuals are always on-the-go, creating the perfect opportunity to fall into the trap of constantly grabbing fast food on-the-go. I know, personally, my family hardly every eats home-cooked meals as a family anymore. Everyone runs on such a rationalized schedule, it is hard to make time for a sit-down meal. On the contrary, my sociology course has discussed the idea of de-rationalization. However, I still see McDonaldization as having a bigger impact on our society – it is what we are used to. And we all know how much Americans hate change. In my opinion, I definitely do not see a decrease in rationalization in the future, but I do see its rapid increase certainly slowing down.

• What is your opinion of Ritzer’s idea of McDonaldization? Good for society? Harmful?
• Do you think task completion in our society is slowly turning into robotic?
• How can we individually help decrease this rationalization?
• Do you think McDonaldization is going to slow down?

Why are Pollan, Goodall, and Nestle not fat?

Julie Guthman, in her article, Can’t Stomach It, presents a unique perspective regarding ‘one of the greatest public health threats of our times’ – obesity. Many overweight individuals are obsessed with ways to be thin and beautiful. This obsession results in an incredibly profitable industry where product and services such as plastic surgery are certainly successful. While most of society turns to this industry to ‘get skinnier’, authors such as Pollan, Goodall, and Nestle approach the obesity dilemma in the fact that the horrible eating habits of individuals are the reasoning for gaining weight. On the contrary, most writers reflect on fat growing culprits such as television viewing, long drive-to-work times, supermarket product placement, working mothers as well as poverty.

“Pollan is much more pointed in his analysis. As he puts it, ‘All these explanations are true, as far as they go. But it pays to go a little further, to search for the cause behind the causes…When food is abundant and cheap, people will eat more of it and get fat” (76). This sums up Pollan’s views on the matter of obesity perfectly. Before critiquing Pollan’s work, Guthman makes sure to objectively present his arguments. She then begins to question Pollan on why isn’t the entire society then overweight. Food is abundant and cheap for all individuals, but not all indulge in this phenomenon. Pollan, Goodall, and Nestle are thin and able to resist overindulgence. As a result, these authors, especially Pollan, choose to look down upon the overweight. One example Guthman’s text gives is that in the film “Super Size Me”, obese people are often left anonymous and only shown from neck down. On the other hand, skinny Americans are not hidden at all. Pollan creates a shameful vision of fat people while never mentioning the struggles some may be experiencing in order to eat healthy such as the high prices of healthier foods and knowledge of good eating habits.

I was personally very surprised concerning the information I learned from Can’t Stomach It. I have seen “Super Size Me” twice and I have never questioned why the obese individuals were never revealed. I also never recognized how much Pollan ranks himself above those suffering from obesity. I have always thought that the reason obese people couldn’t eat healthier was because of the incredibly difficult ability to change their eating habits. However, I am now much more aware that most fat people are not financially capable of changing their ways of eating. Pollan simply claims that these people have no self-control, portraying his own average weight as being superior to those with obesity. I am disappointed that I continued to support Pollan’s views without even looking at the contrary side.

·         Were you previously swayed by Pollan’s biased views against obesity before reading this?

·         Can you think of anything society can do to better balance this division between upper-class normal weight individuals and lower-income obese individuals?

·         Do you think our country will ever be able to offer healthier foods at a cheaper price in order to downsize the obesity epidemic?

Guthman, Julie. "Can't Stomach It: Why Michael Pollan et al. Made Me Want to Eat Cheetos".

Gastronomica. 2007. 

Stop Being So Lazy America

Sidney Mintz, in his writing of “Eating American” could not be said more perfectly. Though many Americans do not want to believe in many statements Mintz makes, it is the unfortunate truth. The writing begins with a discussion of how Americans do not come from one background or specific culture. Groups of individuals enjoy different cuisines. For example, while some enjoy Chinese food, others constantly consume Mexican food. One reasoning for this diverse cuisine is due to the enormous amount of immigrated people within America. This creates a problem when America tries to classify their own cuisine. Many think immediately of fast-food restaurants when they hear ‘American food’. “Eating American” presents the commonly discussed dilemma of Americans choosing to eat out way too often. If they are going out to eat, they are getting food delivered or ordering take-out. Overall, this is assuming that Americans ‘do not have the time’ to make home-cooked meals. Their worlds are too busy to take the time to create a healthier food choice option. This is the excuse the majority of America uses when confronted with why they eat out so much. Mintz makes the intelligent conclusion that if these lazy individuals spent more time concerned with their food consumption instead of completely indulged in electronics and more many less valuable activities than maybe American cuisine would not have such an unhealthy reputation.

After reading this writing of Mintz, I am much more aware that America does not have its own personal cuisine. Instead, Americans feed off the cuisines of other cultures. I found this writing to illustrate my beliefs in America’s eating habits almost to a tee. I am certainly not implying that I do not fall guilty of this laziness. I am fully aware of my bad fast-food eating habits as well as my immense time spent watching television and on the computer. However, as we have said multiple times, I, along with the rest of America, will not be able to switch this laziness off automatically. As long as we make the conscious decision to begin to consider our food options more carefully than we are on a good track. One example of this would be for a family to start having a home-cooked meal at least twice a week. Each person has their own unique starting place in order to make this transition successful. Nonetheless, this transition from lazy, constant fast-food eating would also directly and positively affect the high risk Americans have come to obtaining diabetes.

·         Would you be willing to give up some of your time spent with electronics in order to cook more home-cooked meals?

·         Do you agree in the case that America does not have its own cuisine and that it feeds off other cultures?

·         How can Americans individually choose better eating habits? How about as a nation in whole?

Animals have feelings too…

Chapter 17 of Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma begins with author reading Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation while trying to enjoy a rib-eye steak. This reading heavily promotes animal rights and against the consumption of meat. “Vegetarianism is more popular than it has ever been, and animal rights, the fringiest of fringe movements until just a few years ago, is rapidly finding its way into the cultural mainstream” (Pollan 305). The meat industry recognizes that the more we know about how animals are turned into meat, the less likely we will be to buy it. Again, companies will do whatever they need to in order to trick us and conceal the truths of the meat industry. Excessively biased Pollan actually presents both sides of this ethical dilemma – in support of animal rights as well as the dilemmas of being a vegetarian. In the end, this chapter of Pollan presents three different ways to go about this ethical debate:

1. Choose to not eat meat at all
2.  Eat meat, but still take responsibility for what one is eating
3. Eat meat, not concerned at all with the process of how that meat was made

Pollan summarizes this very informative reading with the encouragement that all Americans need to become more aware of what they are eating. This is not implying that we must all become vegetarians after hearing the truth, but Pollan urges that we need to become as educated as possible within the industry so many companies purposefully cover up.

*  *  *  *  *

The consumption of meat in American culture has doubled in the past decade. And still, just as many people are unaware of the origins of this meat. I must, however, give Pollan some credit for presenting two sides of an argument instead of simply his sole view. The significant point I got out of this reading is Pollan’s attempt to convince us readers that we must better educate ourselves on the origins of the foods we are eating. However, the truth is, we all viewed “Food Inc.” I do not think we can become better educated about the meat industry in any better way than through watching this film. I cannot speak for everyone in the class, but I eventually went back to eating exactly the same before viewing this film. Again, as I have mentioned before, numerous Americans do not care where this comes from. After eating this meat and at such large amounts their whole lives, it is incredibly difficult to change. Plus, Americans hate change.

Having read Pollan’s critics has also made me ever since read Pollan’s writings differently. I am now much more aware of his and Food Inc.’s attempts to profoundly exaggerate the troubles of our current food system.  I learned so much more about vegetarians. For example, most vegetarians cannot give a valid reason why they don’t eat meat as long as they know that those animals were treated okay. What than justifies being a vegetarian if animals are treated humanely?

• What are your personal views of vegetarianism? Do you see this justification mentioned?
• Out of the three different ways Pollan describes this ethical debate that I listed above, can you easily classify yourself in one of these and support your choice?
• Industries do a successful job disguising our meat to not remind us of the animal it used to be. Can you think of any other strategies producers use to ensure that consumers remain uneducated on the meat’s past and guarantee profits to still flow?

Cows, what would you like for dinner? Grass or some antibiotics?

Before Chapter 11, Pollan touched lightly on the idea of natural farms versus industrial farms, but never really explained each in full detail until this chapter. All in all, the reading describes industrial farms as the mass production of farming with the injections of chemicals and antibiotics in order to keep animals of heavier weight.  Pollan has described many times that “we are what we eat”. If these animals are consuming many chemicals and antibiotics, we are, as well. Polyface Farm, described in this chapter, portray many of the characteristics in its industrial farming.

On the other hand, Joel Salatin’s farm is much more natural. Pollan uses cows and chickens as his basis when describing natural farming. When cows graze natural grass, they are still consuming food, but in a much more natural way. The waste cows leave behind after eating the grass, in turn, serves as food for the chickens. It is important to remember that this food chickens are eating is coming from the cow’s natural waste, free of chemicals and antibiotics. Chickens then produce waste which serves, in turn, as fertilizer for the soil. With the fertilizer, the soil results in the natural grass eaten by cows. Natural farming is one large ongoing sequence. One must keep in mind that this is a natural cycle of events, with no extra costs incurring in order for this cycle to proceed. The sequence eventually produces healthy beef and eggs, with antibiotics and chemicals wholly absent.

I approached Chapter 11 of Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma much differently that I had any other chapter. After recognizing the “other side” or Hurst’s contesting opinion, I am much more hesitant to immediately believe the words of Pollan. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed the extended discussion on industrial farms versus a natural farm.

After spending a good time in this class, I am well aware that there are always two sides to every argument. I recognize that while natural farming seems strong and flawless, Americans must identify the fact that much more man labor must be in play than on an industrial farm. Pollan shares a personal experience he encountered with this dilemma. This article raises many questions that I feel are important to discuss in order to get down to the bottom of this issue regarding industrial vs. natural farming?

·         Keeping in mind the pros and cons of both types of farming, which type of farming do you think is that best for our society?

·         Is natural farming worth the extra man power in order to ensure Americans are consuming healthier food?

·         Does your opinion of Pollan continue to change throughout each chapter? After reading criticisms of his work, does he still convince you as much as he did in earlier chapters?

There's Always Two Sides to a Story

Though this piece written by Michael Pollan took some time and attention to read, every word was worth reading. Pollan’s “Farmer in Chief” letter was addressed to the next elected president discussing the fact that our country is focusing so heavily on global warming, health care, and energy, but is disregarding our current food system which would assist in improving all three of these issues. Some of these problems have even increased due to our eating habits, where the fast food culture plays a significant role. For example, the price of health care has recently gone up. A reasonable basis for this increase could be due to the fact of the high price of food in supermarkets. Individuals are not able to afford this expensive food. Therefore, they result to fast food restaurants. This is where many health problems arise, leading to increased health care. The same connections are found with global warming and energy issues.  Throughout the entire letter, Pollan continues to stress the importance of government intervention. Towards the end of this letter, Pollan takes his opinion a step further by providing the president-elect and his family a list of tasks in order to take this government involvement in the right direction.

A second article read portrayed criticism of Pollan’s opinions regarding the food industry. Black Hurst’s article is told from a farmer’s point of view. He begins the article in an airplane setting where he overhears a businessman discussing farming. It is obvious from his lack of knowledge that he believes solely what he reads in articles and books. This is the highlight of Hurst’s criticism against Pollan’s writings. Many individuals fail to establish their own opinion of the farming industry. Many immediately assume farming to have been identical to the farming of the 1930s. New technologies have evolved since then. It is important for the reader of these articles to recognize that Hurst is a farmer himself. Therefore, he has a pretty accurate idea of the current farming industry.

My opinion of the farming industry has most definitely changed after reading both extreme opinions of Pollan and Hurst. Until reading these criticisms, I was guilty of reading simply the opinion of another individual. Though Hurst’s article is also just ‘another individual’s opinion’, at least I am now aware of both sides of the argument. Pollan makes very strong points when he mentions the connection the food industry has with the country’s three major issues. Hurst also makes a convincing statement as well as the fact that he himself is a farmer.

I am now finding myself going back to past readings I have read from Pollan. I definitely have a different view on his opinions. I am not saying I completely disagree, but I am certainly not taking his word. For example, Pollan makes a good point when he stresses America’s lack of knowledge of what they are eating, but he also might be taking it a step too far when he makes a list for the president-elect to follow. We, as Americans, should be focusing on the country’s food familiarity overall instead of concerned on the White House. I am now going to try to look more at the bigger picture instead of automatically being convinced after hearing only one side of an argument.

• Do you think Pollan took it too far when he made a list of tasks for the president-elect and his family?
• Did your opinion of Pollan change after reading Hurst’s criticism? If so, what changed?
• Why do you think so many Americans automatically believe what they read without hearing the other side of the argument?