Omnivores Dilemma: Chapter 17

In this chapter of Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan looks at the idea of vegetarianism and himself becomes a temporary vegetarian. The food industry recognizes that if people were fully aware of what is going on in meat production, less meat would be consumed. Currently we are separated from animals. Almost able to convince ourselves that the meat in the grocery store was never a living thing, but vegetarians and animal rights activists are becoming more common. People now seem to have two choices. They “either look away or become vegetarians” (307). 

Pollan examines the ideas raised by Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, a book that converted many to vegetarianism The basis of Singer’s argument is that as a species we are concerned with equality, which is based on interests, not characteristics. It is undeniable that it is in the interest of animals and humans alike to avoid pain. We should, therefore, at least be willing to give animals equal enough treatment, that we don’t subject them to pain. We treat people below the mental capacity of animals (like the retarded, insane, and children) equally, so why don’t we treat animals equally? Pollan raises many questions, most of which the animal rights activists have no trouble counter arguing and it all comes back to the concept of equality and pain.

Animals feel pain, but there is a difference. For people, “pain amplified by distinctly human emotions” (316) Some animals, like those on Polyface, don’t suffer through their lives. This may be more justified. After all domesticated animals would not be able to survive alone. Pollan seems to come to the conclusion that if we can make the lives of animals more humane, it is easier to justify eating them

I think I agree with Pollan’s conclusion. Instead of changing the way that humanity eats, we should change the way the food we eat is produced and raised on farms. So many problems with the food industry seem to be moving away from natural cycles. I wonder if vegetarianism is not just another one of these instances. However, the suffering that animals endure on industrial farms is unjustified. We have reached the point where eating meat is no longer necessary for our survival. It is a preference. Given that it is a choice, we should be willing to make sacrifices in both quantities produced and costs to ensure that animals do not suffer so greatly.

Is eating meat justified?

Given that humans evolved eating meat, is vegetarianism unnatural? How would an increase in the number of vegetarians impact the food chain? 

Chapters 11 and 13 and The Pleasures of Eating

As The Pleasures of Eating points out, consumers know very little about their food. Consumers have become “passive, uncritical, and dependent” on the current industrial system, not link their food to the agricultural processes taking place. Majority of consumers chose premade food, dressed up by advertising. Food is not looked at as a product of nature, but instead a product of industry. Things will only change is consumers to take responsibility. Berry gives seven suggestions about what consumers (even those living in cities) can do: participate in the production of food, cook, buy local and know where food comes from, when possible buy directly from the farmer, learn about the economy and technology of production, learn what is involved in the best farming, and learn as much as you can about the life histories of food.

            Chapters 11 and 13 in Omnivore’s Dilemma show exactly what it means to know where food is coming from. Pollan visits Polyface Farm in Virgina. Here chickens, cows, rabbits, turkeys, and pigs are raised in a way different from the many monocultures that exist in the industry. Here the processes of nature are taken advantage of and technology is used to help instead of completely change the way animals are raised. Animals are rotated on the farm. Instead of having waste, the waste is used by other animals or in some way to benefit the farm. Joel, one of the farmers, describes himself as an “orchestra conductor, making sure everybody’s in the right place at the right time” (212). People often complain about food prices, but Joel says that clean food like his is actually the cheapest, because all the prices are factored in. There are no additional costs of water pollution, antibiotic resistance, food-borne illness, crop subsidies, or of subsidized oil and water. We should be willing to pay for what’s best when it comes to food. After all, we do that in so many other parts of life.

            It is very true that as a consumer I know little about where my food is coming from. I only see the final product, so it is easy to separate what I am eating from any sort of agricultural process. The systems that have been developed on Polyface Farm seem so ingenious. Many times farmers are portrayed as unintelligent, but this showed how much thought can be involved in running a farm. Instead of seeing natural processes as problems, like often happens in industrial monocultures, Polyface uses natural processes to its benefit. The ecological loop remains intact and as a result, clean food can be produced and profitable. 

Is it really possible for large cities to rely on locally produced food, when so much of our countries farming takes place far away from cities? 

Would eliminating government subsidies or making stricter rules about using fossil fuels and creating pollution benefit us? If so, is that possible to do?

Farmer in Chief, Ominvore's Delusion, and Farmers: What do you think of Michael Pollan's Ideas?

In a letter to the president, Michael Pollan urges change in the food industry. Problems with health care, energy, and climate change are all liked to food. Producing cheap food, instead of quality food, has become the goal. Leading to use of vast amounts of fossil fuel and green house gas emissions. Cheap food also leads to health problems, because it is not as healthy. On farms, we have separated crops and animals in monocultures, creating problems that don’t exist in nature. Creating sustainability within farms and moving from fossil-fuel-based fertility to sun-based fertility would be much more beneficial. Pollan feels we need to change food culture, and move to a decentralized system.

Blake Hurst argues against many of Pollan’s ideas, saying his solutions are oversimplified and lack understanding of the industry.  Hurst feels technology has changed farming, but it has changed the rest of the world as well. Both consumers and farmers benefit from cheap food. Using additives prevents mold, fungus, and bugs from getting in our foods. Keeping animals enclosed keeps them safe.  Technological advancements made producing more food possible by putting nitrogen in the soil. He says Pollan is right in arguing that farmers use chemical fertilizer because it is easier and cheaper. Hurst thinks those are perfectly valid reasons.

The NPR interview explores issues effecting farming today. Many farmers feel that Pollan attacks them and that many of his ideas are either unrealistic or ill-informed. Pollan claims that he is not critical of farmers, but does question some practices and the current system, which he feels gives farmers limited choices. Hurst feels he has choice in this competitive industry. Both Hurst and Pollan do, however, agree that current farming is harming the environment. As Hurst points out, farming relies on technology and specifically the ability to synthesize nitrogen has enabled us to feed the world. This comes at a cost to the environment though. Pollan urges innovation in farming; using sunlight, putting animals back on farms, and new crop rotations. Currently we don’t know if we can feed the world in a more sustainable way, but we have to try.

It is hard to decide where exactly I (and other consumers) should stand in this debate. Obviously I want my food to be healthy, but I also want it to be a cheap as possible. Farmers struggle enough already and making harsh regulations may only make their lives harder. It is clear though, that something needs to change. We can’t keep relying on fossil fuels to produce our food. Something must be done. Like all other industries, the farmin industry should move forward and benefit from technology, but maybe not in the way that it is now. Indusrty should work to use what nature has provided instead of looking at the production of each product separately.

Who is more right in this debate, Pollan or Hurst?

Are the solutions proposed by Pollan plausible?

How much responsibility does the government have in making changes in the food industry? 

Reviews of Food, Inc.

Meet Your New Farmer: Hungry Corporate Giant

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/movies/12food.html

In this supportive review from the New York Times, liberal newspaper, Manohla Dargis refers to the movie as being “informative” and “infuriating”.  One problem that the review points out was that it was slightly too ambitious and therefore did not necessarily go into enough detail about every section. Dargis says that the movie often “stops short before it really gets started”. Debates are not full developed in the movie. This review is fully behind the movie in blaming corporations for all that has gone wrong.

Movie Review: Food, Inc.

http://screencrave.com/2009-06-11/movie-review-food-inc/

This review comes from a movie reviewing sight, as opposed to a news source with a known political tilt. I have to say that none of the review I came across can actually considered in the middle. Although this one does try not to lean to far, it seems to favor the movie and its ideas. It points out the good like how the information was a “mixture of interesting and completely disturbing” and that the people interviewed were knowledgeable and presented different views of the industry.  It also points out the bad, the fact that the other side is missing and like the New York Times article, that topics were sometimes rushed.

Artificially Fattened Chickens, New Strains of E. Coli-Film Seeks to ‘Expose’ U.S. Food Industry

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525646,00.html

This critique of Food, Inc comes from Fox, a relatively conservative news source, and points to the fact that the movie was very one sided. It points out that all through large companies refused to be interviewed for the movie, they have not stayed silent. Those in the industry are working together to counter the claims of the movie, creating websites like Safefoodinc.com. The article claims that the movie delivers misinformation about the industry, which consists of 98% family owned farms, is very interested in the well-being of animals.

Omnivores Dilemma: Chapter 4

In chapter 4 of Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan tracks one cow’s life. The meat industry has changed, because it is economically logical to keep more animals together, feeding them corn. Making meat cheaper and more readily available comes with an environmental and health costs. By feeding animals corn products and keeping them pent up, we broke an ecological loop. Pollan first visits a ranch in South Dakota where the stage “least changed by the modern industrialization of meat” takes place (69). Beef cattle, born on independent ranches throughout the West, eat grass and milk. When allowed to live naturally, cows help to sustain the grass (as long as they are moved around) and with the help of bacteria in the cows’ stomachs, the grass sustains cows. At 6 months cows are weaned and prepared for feedlots.

Feedlots have problems with disease and sanitation. Cows are forced to eat in ways that evolution did not intend (like cows eating cows). In comparison with other things they eat, corn seems great, but it is still not what cows are made to eat. Almost all of the health problems can be traced to food. It’s so unnatural that, cows could only survive on the feedlot diet for 150 days. To keep them healthy enough, cows are given antibiotics, leading to new antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

Manure now can’t be used as fertilizer, because it would kill plants. So feedlots have to look for ways to get rid of it. Cows live in their own manure, which gets caked onto their hides and can get into the meat we eat, leading to things like E. coli. It may be cheaper for corporations to raise animals this way, but there are many other costs, like taxes, disease, and hurting the environment. From birth to slaughter weight, a cow costs approximately a barrel of oil.

Before the system of producing meat worked so well. The process made ecological sense, but the industry claimed it was not efficient enough. I find what has happened appalling and I’m shocked that I didn’t know more about it before. Logically it does not make sense. I understand that it is cheaper for the corporations, but it comes at such a cost to consumers and the world in general. The food we are eating is causing great harm to our health and to the environment. We are so concerned with speed and efficiency that we have moved away from focusing on the quality. It is great that meat is now more affordable, but that has only happened by reducing the quality, putting our health and the environment at risk.

If so many problems stem from the production of corn, would reducing production force the meat industry to change?

All the problems were clearly created by changes in the industry. At this point, is it possible for us to go back?

Food Inc

            Food Inc examined the food industry and tried to expose the often hidden interworking of the industry. It showed the inhumane ways in which many “farmers” in America raise their animals. Chickens, pigs, and cows are kept in close unsanitary quarters. Farmers have become reliant on huge corporations and have limited say in how they run their farms. The changes in the food industry are having a very negative effect on health. Food poisoning is becoming more prevalent as we increase the amount of technology used. Diabetes is also increasing. Families find it more cost efficient to eat fast food meals, than to buy vegetables. Cheap food is replacing healthy food.

It is not surprising that as the rest of society becomes increasingly rationalization, so has the food industry. Companies work to make a profit. That is their only real concern. As long as they are making money, large companies have no regard for the impact they have no society. Processing animals in a factor setting makes economic sense, so of course they do it. Part of me completely understands this. Why shouldn’t companies maximize their profit? Even when it comes to food that makes people sick, companies main concern is money. As long as the cost of lives (and I mean the actual monetary cost to the company) doesn’t exceed the cost of making a change, companies will not make a change.   

Now while what is happening in the industry does in many ways make sense, it makes me sick at the same time. I feel like as an individual consumer, I have little control over what I eat. I can walk into a supermarket and have 47,000 choices, but the big companies have complete control over what almost every single item is. Majority of the beef is coming from the same place and produced the same way. With increasing choice, there also seems to be increasing standardization. 

Omnivores Dilemma: Chapters 2 and 3

       In the second chapter and third chapters of Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Polan discusses the history of the production of corn.  In supermarkets today, almost everything comes either directly or indirectly from corn. Polan visits a farm in Iowa and talks with George Naylor, a corn farmer. Over the years there has been and increase in technology enabling more corn to be produced per acre. With a new type of seed, corn can now be planted closer together. Polan points out that “hybrids can tolerate the corn equivalent of city life” (37).  As corn production increased, the production of other plants and animals on many farms decreased. The number of people also decreased, because new technology allowed fewer people to produce more corn. In addition to new seeds, the tractor revolutionized production. Another key factor was chemical fertilizer, which put nitrogen into the soil, enabling farmers to plant corn year after year instead of rotating crops. The invention of this fertilizer means that now earth can support more life. Farming has basically become turning fossil fuel to food, which although seemed economically smart at first, is most definitely ecologically inefficient. Although technology has allowed production to increase, many problems have accompanied this development. It now costs more to produce corn than it is worth, but it is still produced. Naylor points out that with such low prices farmers can give up or produce more, but as more is produced, prices drop further. The government pays if the price drops too far, making it possible to always have high production and low cost. In corn production, the focus has shifted from quality to quantity. 

       Although I knew that corn was key to the production of so many different things, I was unaware of the extent. I was completely unaware of how harmful the current production of corn is to the environment and how terrible things are for corn farmers. There seems to be so much waste and not nearly enough profit. It would make sense to think that producing less corn would solve the problems in the corn industry, yet given how little corn farmers earn, this is not a possibility. They all produce more, because they see it as their only chance of survival.

Is there anything the government can do to help farmers and prevent constant overproduction?

Overall, have improvements in technology been beneficial or harmful?