Homework #7: Reading Response Monday

The Omnivore’s Dilemma

Michael Pollan

Introduction

Précis

            Americans are constantly changing their ideas about food and within that altering their eating habits. Unlike many cultures, America does not have a tradition around food: a certain national food that everyone eats; this suggests that this is the root of our constant change in attitude. The “Omnivore’s Dilemma” is all about the difficult job of deciding which food to eat, as some of it can be harmful and some beneficial. In order to understand the dilemma, we have to consider where the food originally comes from.

Gems

“Yet I wonder if it doesn’t make more sense to speak in terms of an American paradox – that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily,” (p. 3).

“So violent a change in a culture’s eating habits is surely the sign of a national eating disorder. Certainly it would never have happened in a culture in possession of deeply rooted traditions surrounding food and eating,” (p. 2).

“Omnivory offers the pleasures of variety, too. But the surfeit of choice brings with it a lot of stress and leads to a kind of Manichaean view of food, a division of nature into The Good Things to Eat, and The Bad,” (p. 4).

“Some philosophers have argued that the very open-endedness of human appetite is responsible for our savagery and civility, since a creature that could conceive of eating anything (including, notably, other humans) stands in particular need of ethical rules, manners, and rituals,” (p. 6).

Thoughts

            So far the idea of the book is interesting, the idea that we have to trace food all the way back to its origin to fully comprehend it. It seems almost impossible that things such as the supermarket itself start out as a plant. I have questioned before what the “national food” is in America, and have ceased to find an answer. Now reading this, I understand that we do not generally have one, but because of that our eating habits are constantly transforming. Why is it though, that the human body developed in this omnivorous way, while other animals such as koalas have a set diet? This evolutionary happening is as argued both a setback and an advantage: “...responsible for our savagery and civility.”

            The idea of  “a division of nature into The Good Things to Eat, and The Bad” seems similar to the concept of the dominant discourse in food: food as medicine, or as poison. There are so many choices of food that we become perplexed and struggle with making an informative decision. The book also states that because of our lack of food traditions, we are much more susceptible to the influences of scientists and the media. We then adapt their ideas of what is good and bad. This in turn is a very macro makes micro situation; the institutions are shaping the individuals’ (the Americans’) perspectives on food.

            I do not exactly understand his metaphor of an “eating disorder” throughout an entire nation. An eating disorder is generally defined as “any range of psychological disorders characterized by abnormal or disturbed eating habits, “ (Apple Dictionary). The eating habits of the United States are not necessarily “disturbed”, but instead are undergoing constant change. Is it really an abnormality when change is applied to something? It seems almost natural that food habits would change as a result of new discoveries; change is a consistent aspect of life.

Chapter One – The Plant

Corn’s Conquest

Précis

           

            Most foods can be traced back to some plant that grew in soil, in particular corn; the meat we eat comes from animals who were fed corn, our sodas have corn syrup in them and so on. Mexicans call themselves “maize”, or say they are “corn walking”, because so much of their diet is in turn made up of corn. But Americans now eat on average more corn than Mexicans do. Corn was adapted into American society because of its ability to feed the masses in any environment. The Indians taught the Europeans how to grow it when they came to America, and with that, the Europeans adapted corn, eventually creating an atmosphere where corn was dependent on humans for reproduction.

Gems

“For an American like me, growing up linked to a very different food chain, yet one that is also rooted in a field of corn, not to think of himself as a corn person suggests either a failure of imagination or a triumph of capitalism,” (p.20)

“Corn is the hero of its own story, and though we humans played a crucial supporting role in its rise to world domination, it would be wrong to suggest we have been calling the shots, or acting always in our own best interests. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that corn has succeeded in domesticating us,” (p. 23).

“In the plant world at least, opportunism trumps gratitude. Yet in time, the plant of the vanquished would conquer even the conquerors,” (p. 24).

“Several human societies have seen fit to worship corn, but perhaps it should be the other way around: For corn, we humans are the contingent beings, “ (p. 27).

Thoughts

           Corn has formed our society in such a way that without it, it seems that we could not go on. It seems absurd that one crop could take over so dominantly, especially when it is so dependent on humans for survival. It is interesting that humans found such value in it as to continue its reproduction, especially as the humans tend to take the submissive role in the relationship. Corn has become this metropolis that rules in the farming world. Why is it though, that products made from corn are rendered as unhealthy? Corn syrup is supposedly terrible for the human body, even though it is produced from such an organic substance. What is the necessity in making the syrup unbeneficial; or more, how does this happen?

            The versatility of corn particularly appealed to the Europeans when they immigrated to America. We would think that when someone values versatility, they might also value variety. It seems though that the Europeans did not see much need for different types of crops, but instead selected one with the most efficiency. I believe this is where the ideology started of corn having a powerful presence. The “worship” of corn was simply passed through different generations, and because of its versatility, people did not consider other crops. With such narrow mindsets, we cut ourselves off from nutritional foods. But since our society has been developing in this pattern for such a long time, it will be difficult to fall out of this pattern. It is a sequence that we have made our society and therefore must live with it, the environmental and health impacts aside.

Chapter Two – The Farm

Précis

            As time has gone on, farms have become more specialized, only harvesting specific foods and in George Naylor’s case corn and soybeans. New hybrids of corn have therefore come out, which enable farmers to plant more of the stalks next to each other, creating a bigger surplus in the end. The biggest advancement in the corn industry was in 1947, with the switch to the production of chemical fertilizer by the munitions plant in Muscle Shoals, Alabama; corn became dependent on fossil fuels instead of sun energy. But there are times when corn prices drop, and farmers are left with a surfeit of corn. In order to make up the difference though, they must produce more and more corn.

Gems

“One of every four Americans lived on a farm when Naylor’s grandfather arrived here in Churdan; his land and labor supplied enough food to feed his family and twelve other Americans besides. Less than a century after, fewer than 2 million Americans still farm – and they grow enough food to feed the rest of us,” (p. 34).

“The 129 people who depend on George Naylor for their sustenance are all strangers, living at the far end of a food chain so long, intricate, and obscure that neither producer nor consumer has no reason to know the first thing about the other,” (p. 34).

“Basically, modern hybrids can tolerate the corn equivalent of city life, growing amid the multitudes without succumbing to urban stress,” (p. 37).

“A mere 2 percent of the state’s land remains what it used to be...every square foot of the rest having been completely remade by man. The only thing missing from this man-made landscape is...man,” (p. 38).

Thoughts

            The cycle of production that corn farmers follow seems ridiculous. They produce more, in order to sell more, to pay for the mass production, which in turn does not sell enough, meaning they have to harvest more corn in order to make up the difference. There must be a more effective way of producing corn so that it is more beneficial and constant. With the production of more corn, people are also pushed out of farm areas. What is the point of taking up livable space, when the corn that replaces it, is in turn not always sold?

            People should understand from where their food comes, otherwise they have no possible way of determining its effect on their bodies. Mass producers can easily use complicated wording to cover up hidden truths. George Naylor produces corn, but does not know any of the 129 people that he feeds. While it may be an indirect sale, he still is the one affecting their health. Our food system has become so complex in such an unnecessary way. In order to reach these 129 people, his corn must be processed in so many different ways, which also has a big impact on the environment. His farm also is harmed through the use of synthesized nitrogen. The runoff poisons his water and possibly the surrounding community. Is it really worth hurting the environment with this dependency on fossil fuels? When his grandfather farmed, it may have been slower, but the sun’s energy had a smaller carbon footprint. People need to wrap their heads around the idea of saving the environment and creating an effective source of food production; things should be efficient, but not so efficient that they begin to take away from other aspects of our world.

Chapter Three – The Elevator

Précis

            Corn is grown to a certain standard: acceptable insect damage, appropriate moisture and cleanliness. Corn then is not specialized and farmers instead compete with who can produce the biggest bulk of corn. The farmers then receive profit through their Farmers Cooperative and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Gems

“To be honest, I felt a revulsion. In Mexico, even today, you do not let corn lay on the ground; it is considered almost sacrilegious,” (p. 58).

“I should have known that trading any single bushel of commodity corn is as impossible as tracing a bucket of water after it’s been poured into a river,” (p. 63).

“But nature abhors a surplus, and the corn must be consumed. Enter the corn-fed American steer,” (p. 64).

Thoughts

            The idea of corn being filtered into one big “golden river” of corn seems a little odd to me. Farmers should be recognized for their work and should not be forced to meet simple standards. This entire idea of commodity corn stifles creativity in production. I do agree though that all the corn produced should at least be healthy and edible. Or why not just make the standards a little better, so all food products created by corn are of the highest quality?

            Corn is dominating our society, but it seems as though it is making it have less worth. First of all, with the way it is strewn across the dirt roads in Illinois, we find it no longer a sacred food, but take it for granted. But also with so much corn circulating in the economy, its price is going down, putting new pressures on the farmer to create more, to earn more. Why does our society not introduce a new crop that can substitute as corn? Maybe even a healthier one. 

Chapter Four – The Feedlot: Making Meat

Précis

            Cows live no long on farms but in feedlots where they eat a diet consisting of corn and added protein. This can sicken the cows, as they are naturally herbivores. We in turn eat this meat and can also therefore be exposed to diseases, such as E. Coli.

Gems

“Industrial meat takes an almost heroic act of not knowing or, now, forgetting,” (p. 84).

“He has, of course, another, quite different identity – as an animal, I mean, connected as all animals must be to certain other animals and plants and microbes, as well as to the earth and the sun,” (p. 81).

“Hell, if you gave them lots of grass and space, I wouldn’t have a job,” (p.79)

“One of the most troubling things about factory farms is how cavalierly they flout these evolutionary rules, forcing animals to overcome deeply ingrained aversions. We make them trade their instincts for antibiotics,” (p. 76).

“In any city it’s easy to lose track of nature – of the transactions between various species and the land on which everything ultimately depends,” (p. 73).

Thoughts 

            If it is so unhealthy for cows and for us, why does the agricultural industry continue to feed cows corn? I understand that it is cheap and fattens them up, but isn’t our health more important? It seems to me that cows are no longer considered animals, only food sources. We need to draw the line somewhere to keep our humanity. It’s fine to eat the cows, there is no way to stop an entire nation from doing it, but improvements in the care of them could be reached.

            I wonder if the people at slaughterhouses feel any remorse about the cows’ lives. At the feedlots they seem to care more about their jobs that anything else, as the one man states, “...I wouldn’t have a job.” But if he continues to feed his cows in this way, he may even contract some disease. The whole idea of going against nature seems odd; everything evolved this way for a reason. When we counteract the ways of evolution, it is impossible to have a positive outcome. 

Chapter Five – The Processing Plant: Making Complex Foods

Précis

            The corn that is not fed to animals at feedlots is sent to food processors, which break it down into various chemical compounds. This allows us to separate food from nature.  These chemicals are then used to replace the natural ingredients in food, making them artificial and cheaper.

Gems

“But the underlying reductionist premise – that a food is nothing more than the sum of its nutrients – remains undisturbed,” (p. 98).

“As Tyson understood, you want to be selling something more than a commodity, something more like a service: novelty, convenience, status, fortification, lately even medicine,” (p. 96).

“Like every other food chain, the industrial food chain is rooted at either end in a natural system: the farmer’s field at one end, and the human organism at the other,” (p. 94).

“Step back for a moment and behold this great, intricately piped stainless steel beast: This is the supremely adapted creature that has evolved to help eat the vast surplus biomass coming off America’s farms...” (p. 90).

Thoughts

            Why do people shy away from nature so often? The way nature has evolved has given us food options, without the need for artificiality. Preserving foods is understandable; people should be able to keep food for a while, and taste foods from other countries. But in the way that they load chemicals into the food in order to substitute so many natural tastes, it becomes too much.

            There is a lot of pressure now to come up with the next big food product. As demonstrated by General Mills, there is heavy competition because anyone can knock off the food that you create. While this competition may be good as it stimulates the economy with new products and more consumerism, the health of actual consumers is being hurt.

            The food is being processed to the point where it is indigestible. What is then the point of food when no nutrients are being absorbed? Because a special starch cannot be broken down into glucose, it is supposedly healthy for diabetics. This is unnecessary though, when they are so many more much healthier alternatives. Our corn could be put to much better use.