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?



The Good, The Bad, and The Neutral

‘Food Inc’ can throw a scare into any eater

Steven Rea

http://articles.philly.com/2009-06-19/entertainment/24985443_1_poultry-pathogen-reduction-fast-food-nation-food-advocates

In this article, Rea points out a very valid point. Though this is not the most comforting documentary to watch, it is essential in order to get the point across when it comes to what our food industry is really all about. I know, personally, before watching this film, I had always heard that the food we eat could be bad, but I had to see it for myself for it to really make an impact. The article talks about how a startling issue in our society is secrecy. Consumers are lacking basic information regarding their eating choices. Food Inc. does not abide by this secrecy. “He’s out to scare people - parents with young children, low-income families who depend on fast foods to get by, politicians, and food safety officials, all of us. And he succeeds.” These words could not be said better. This film has to catch everyone’s attention. Corporations have succeeded for so long in concealing the truth. Though we may not want to hear it, we need to listen! Food Inc. is there to provide this information.

Steven Rea, in his supporting article, is reassuring this idea of the necessity of this information. Though I was very disgusted and uncomfortable at the end of the film, I am now so much more aware of what I eat and where it is coming from. Hopefully many more Americans will reading this supportive article and, in turn, choose to view the film, expanding alertness even more.

“But Food, Inc. is an essential one.”

Been There, Bun That

Kyle Smith

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/item_MzisT9ExiKm8XF4nwWzdYM;jsessionid=7181E154DB04421EF8BEAA8A34E713E9

This is a very short article in response to the film Food Inc. Mr. Kyle Smith briefly speaks about how the audience of this film are more than likely already aware of the food industry’s process. Those that do not want to stop eating meat or choose to ignore the dangers will simply not watch this film. However, on the contrary, I can guarantee that not everyone in our class on Tuesday wanted to watch helpless chickens being shoved into tubes as well as innocent cows slaughtered. As a result, I can see where the author of this criticism is coming from, but at the same time, educating a few new individuals is better than none at all.

The source of this article is the New York Post. Therefore, this article was written regarding one individual’s opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I do not believe that I am completely convinced of his argument. Yes, those who choose to watch this may already know much of the information, but I can guarantee many watching this film have no idea what they are about to watch. Consequently, they are learning so much more about the hidden secrets of the food industries corporations hope not too many will ever see.

‘Food Inc.’ not for the squeamish

Amy Biancolli

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/11/MVE1184DN6.DTL

Unlike the first two articles, this article by Amy Biancolli from the San Francisco Chronicle chooses to present a much more unbiased review of the film, Food Inc. As any neutral article would do, this article presents both sides of the argument: the pros and cons of the film. In support of Food Inc., Biancolli talks of the awareness the documentary brings to the table. On the other hand, it also talks of how the film is only a one-sided story. Though we may assume the other side’s story since many corporations declined an interview, but we cannot rely entirely on the information heard from only one side of the spectrum.

Through this article, the reader also finds very informative material on what the film is about overall. These unbiased articles are necessary in order to develop our own reaction to Food Inc. For example, if I only read negative responses to the film before stating my own opinion, I may lean towards criticism without even knowing it.

In the end, I believe a neutral article is the best way to receive an equal view on the film. One is assured to not feel swayed toward one opinion or the other.

And you thought it was bad for humans…

Chapter four of Omnivore’s Dilemma goes into grave detail when it comes to the poor conditions of life as a cow. Most individuals had an idea that a cow’s life wasn’t the greatest, but Pollan takes it three steps further.  This chapter goes into detail in the process of turning corn into meat. As a result, tons of cows are not living full and healthy lives. Pollan describes how cows must live off of excess corn instead of natural grass. Corn is commonly overproduced and instead of wasting it, individuals feed it to cows in order to use all our resources and save some money in the process. Again, everything comes down to corporations ensuring that their money is top priority, doing everything in their power to ensure this money is only increasing. It is true that many consumers do not have a care in the world whether or not cows are hurt in the process of meat production, but maybe these people would care a little more if they knew how these diseases could in fact hurt their own health. Cows are not use to an “excess corn diet.” Therefore, they get sick. When cows get sick, they must take supplements and antibiotics. These medications increase the chances of diseases and not to mention cost more money than no antibiotics at all. Overall, a natural diet of grass is not only better for the lives of cows, but also makes it less likely the consumer will fall to disease after consuming this unnatural industrial meat.

I never thought I could learn about the food industry in even more disgust than when I had watched Food Inc. I was clearly wrong. Before tonight, I focused all my concern on the effect these diseases have on the consumers. Never did I imagine what role the cows played in this entire scenario. This past chapter of Omnivore’s Dilemma opened my eyes to many more perspectives when it comes to the hidden secrets corporations try to prevent the public from knowing about. I am now not solely concerned on how humans are distressed. If cows went back to simply eating natural grass instead of excess corn, what the consumers would be consuming would be much healthier. Everything unhealthy and unnatural about the excess corn fed to cows is passed onto the consumer, us!

Pollan basically mimics the idea I was trying to express in my past blog regarding Food, Inc. “It takes a lot of “not knowing” about how industrial beef is made to enjoy it. Or forgetting once you do know” (83). I don’t think this concept could be explained any clearer. Just because we all watched the film on how bad meat is for us and read Pollan’s beginning chapters certainly does not mean we are all going to stop eating meat. As I look back on what I have eaten in the past few days, I will be honest and admit I ate meat without even remembering the past film. Individuals cannot change their eating habits overnight and some, after 19 years of eating meat, cannot change them at all.

• Do you think cows should continue to be fed excess corn or go back to natural grass?
• Do you support my idea of many consumers either forgetting or not caring about how industrial beef is made?
• After watching Food Inc. and/or reading chapter 4 of Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, do you think differently about eating meat?

Food Inc: Meat Will Never Be the Same

I certainly did not prepare myself for what was seen in the film we viewed last class. This film talked about the entire industrial process of food production while portraying true stories of individuals which made the entire documentary feel even more practical. Before viewing Food Inc., I had absolutely no idea the numerous negative factors in the food industry. This just proves how well society is covering up and hiding these shocking facts from the consumers.

Food Inc. begins by explaining where exactly our food comes from. As read about in Omnivore’s Dilemma, the public is so far detached from the knowledge of what exactly we consume each day and where that food comes from. Some of the instances this film walks the viewer through are E. coli outbreaks, the recent high increase in obesity and diabetes, the endless cycle farmers are vulnerable to, and the impact of fast food chains. Corn, soybeans, and chickens are some of the key elements demonstrated throughout the entire film. What made this film so emotionally stimulating as well as disturbing was the fact that this wasn’t only information, but very much so applicable to American’s everyday life. It is one thing to hear about the E. coli outbreaks of many, but a whole new level when the viewer hears the story of a poor young boy who fell susceptible to this deadly disease, simply by eating a hamburger. The problem with the food industry that scares me the most is how vulnerable every single individual consuming food, which is obviously everyone, is to the many diseases in the food we eat.

Corporations are only concerned with their own profit. Food Inc. made this statement so much clearer. I am guessing I was not the only one deeply disturbed by what I learned about our food industry through this informative film. Obviously, Americans would not be so shocked if corporations were doing a better job of educating the public on what exactly they are eating as well as the process it takes. As I mentioned before, corporations know their companies will hurt if more people were aware of the food industry. For example, every time I think about what I learned from this film, it is very difficult to look at meat the same way. At dinner the night after class, I began to tell my friends about the film we watched today and how I will never look at meat the same. Instead of wanting to learn more, many of them said, “No, no Brittany eww, I don’t to hear it. Don’t ruin it for me. I like my meat.” This is a perfect example of how many consumers have an idea of the shocking facts in our food industry, but is so addicted to their eating lifestyle; they choose to just not hear about it. Many are completely satisfied with no education whatsoever on what food they are eating and where this food comes from.  

·         What was your reaction to this film?

·         Have your eating habits changed at all since viewing Food Inc?

·         How do you think consumers can become further educated on the food industry?

·         More and more Americans are becoming aware of the food industry’s problem, but the problem hasn’t gotten any better. Do you think it ever will?

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Naturalist in the Supermarket

Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma is divided into three different sections: corn (industrial), grass (pastoral), and the forest (personal). The first chapter of this book introduces the significance of corn in the industrial food chain. This reading began by stating the endless amount of biodiversity found in America’s supermarkets. “There must be a hundred different species in the produce section alone, a handful more in the meat counter. And this diversity appears only to be increasing” (16). Similar to the book’s introduction, Pollan then presents the questions, “What am I eating? And where in the world did it come from?” The initial question of the introduction: “What should I eat?” would be almost impossible to answer without first addressing these two questions. The more and more diverse supermarkets become with numerous food options, the more difficult it will become for American’s to recognize what is healthy for them to eat.

After Pollan talks about this large biodiversity and “national eating disorder”, he then goes into the idea that the industrial food chain is dominated by corn. “The great edifice of variety and choice that is an American supermarket turns out to rest on a remarkably narrow biological foundation comprised of a tuny group of plants that is dominated by a single species: Zea mays, the great tropical grass most Americans know as corn” (18). Pollan than proceeds to give an elaborate list of the many different types of foods that include corn, which basically includes everything.  “Indeed, the supermarket itself – the wallboard and joint compound, the linoleum and fiberglass and adhesives out of which the building itself has been built – is in no small measure a manifestation of corn” (19).

I found this chapter in Omnivore’s Dilemma incredibly interesting. The beginning of the chapter expanded on our last class discussion on the “national eating disorder.” Being a college freshman where an unlimited amount of food is available in the dining halls, it is essential to balance the healthiness of your meals. The endless biodiversity within foods certainly does not help. I constantly hear students in the dining halls questioning if a certain dish is healthy or not? Individuals know they should eat healthy, but not knowing what you are eating makes it impossible to decipher the proper meal.

In regards to Pollan’s writings regarding the large impact corn has on the industrial food chain was very surprising. Before reading this article, I had a slight knowledge that corn was used frequently, but never to the realistic extreme. This proves just how important corn is in the production of the food (and even drinks) we, as Americans, consume each day.

·         What can we Americans do in order to become more aware of the food we are eating as well as what it is we are eating?

·         Do you think the “national eating disorder” is going to increase or decrease in the future as more and more foods are produced?

·         What are your thoughts on the question we are left with at the end of the Chapter 1 reading in the middle of page 19? “And us?”