Our Terrifying and Terrific Future

            The chapter, “The Future of Food,” explains the dire situation we have put ourselves into involving food.  Next, the chapter poses two extreme ending scenarios: technological and anthropological.  The first part sorts through a variety of issues, first posing the two sides of the never ending debate of whether we will all be fine and our supply is endless, or the doomed fate that we will run out of everything given our dumb nature of not planning ahead soon enough, dooming and “stealing from” our own children.   The chapter next covers each area of concern from increased consumption, to our depleting water supply, to the erosion of our fertile soil and more.  Each has clear limitations and seem to point towards huge problems.  Each resource connects, and everything affects everything else, and this was a major point of the chapter.  “Fixing” one problem simply causes a different problem.  And truly we can’t continue the way we operate now.

            The technological ending is that we will solve all issues with future technology.  Complete market control will make us come up with new solution to continue to move forward and eventually find the means of an advanced and sustainable system.  The anthropological ending was the opposite.  In this scenario, we all moved back in time with a very anticlimactic future.  We revert to less industrial processes, less trade, and more self-supply.  Instead of “any food from anywhere at any time,” it would be specific local foods at the time they are available.

           

            Clearly neither of these endings are the tell all of our future.  It is terrifying to look at the danger we are in if we continue our process the way it is.  And truthfully we have to decide what battle to fight first.  Certainly we will continue to advance technology and work towards fixing each problem, but we must start somewhere.  In class we have looked at problems within the food manufacturing and production, problems in consumption and obesity, and problems of distribution and starvation.  Where do we focus our attention?  In my opinion, world health should come first and maybe the obesity and local problems will follow.  Our attention must focus on caring for the world we have and the people in it, and less on “better” food for the fortunate few.  But our markets do not cater to these matters, so who should step up and help the change.   To solve any problem we must pose all the possible disasters.  With research, planning, changes, and luck hopefully none of the proposed disasters will come true, and instead a terrific and advanced future will emerge.   But it’s up to us all, as citizens of the world, to work toward fighting the disasters.

Who should step up and make a change first?

What issue do you feel is most dire and most deserving of our attention first?

Is it even a tomato anymore?

In Chapter 1, Across Space and through Time: Tomatl meets the corporate tomato, we follow the process of production, distribution, and consumption of tomatoes.  Two journeys are explained: the Tomatl, indigenously produced by Mexican families, and the corporate tomato, mass produced and shipped internationally.  Much like examples in the article by George Ritzer, McDonaldization of Society, the production of tomatoes has become “rationalized.”  The system is completely based on efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control.

The corporate tomato is planted and picked by hand by Mexican workers that make less than a U.S. hour wage for a whole day of work.  The tomatoes are then selected and graded to ensure all the best are going north, leaving the rejects for sale in Mexico.  Next, the tomatoes and truck drivers enter the battle to get over the border, to enter the United States and continue their travels to the market in Canada.  After countless quality checks and truck checks, the shipment will finally be passed to continue.  Getting into Canada is much easier, but again quality is checked.

Now selected based almost entirely on appearance, these tomatoes have been completely changed from their original indigenous form.  The tasty and local food for Mexicans has now totally changed lifestyles, and is not the fruit it used to be.  The new varieties are owned by companies, and is would be hard to come by the original wild tomatoes of Mexico.  Full Mexican families work all day in the fields and factories planting and selecting tomatoes, then must do what they can to have their own land to farm for their own livelihood.

It is incredible to think that every tomato we see has gone through this extensive process.  Every day in every dining hall, restaurant, and grocery store, there are piles and piles of tomatoes.  The quality is top notch here in the U.S. just because we send our rejects straight back to the people who work so hard to produce them.  It does not seem fair, but we want our cheap prices, and yearlong tomato supply, so there is no way around it.

It’s amazing how many chemicals are used, and is clear why winter tomatoes taste so much worse than summer, local, fresh ones.  They are artificially refrigerated, ripened, and glossed to look perfect, but truly they are just a creation to fill the vacancy.

It was funny to hear that McDonald’s purposefully chooses the tomatoes that look best, even if they have no taste.  Clearly, this industry is skewed for certain parameters, and not necessarily the one’s we expect or hope for.

Do you think if people knew the great lengths it takes to get these tomatoes, they would be willing to accept tomatoes as a summer fruit, not year-round?

Do you have a problem with the fact that there is this much industry behind a tomato?

Do you think the Mexican workers are glad for the work?  Or is it their only option now?

At least it looks like a tomato!

Does Thin = Morally Superior?

Are thin people better, more self-controlled people?  In her article, Can’t Stomach It, Julie Guthman points out the situations in which writers like Michael Pollan alienate and degrade fat people.  These authors point out the dilemma of our unavoidable, instinctive desire for sweets and fats.   Pollan states “if food is abundant and cheap, people will eat more of it and get fat.”  If this claim is true though, why isn’t everyone overweight?  Given our oversupply of food and subsidies that keep prices low, we all have the option to indulge endlessly on this abundant and cheap food.  Not everyone is fat though, which is where his argument goes wrong.  Somehow, Pollan himself along with many other people in this world are able to live above their own unavoidable instincts.  Guthman explains that writers like Pollan feel as though they are “morally superior” to fat people.  By their great self-control, they can fight their desires and do what is “right,” by eating the right food, in the right portions, from the right sources, to stay the right size.

By claiming to have all the answers for other people who can’t seem to control themselves, aka fat people, Pollan and other writers like him put themselves above others.  They create the idea that being fat is shameful and pitiful, and that we should simply feel bad for the fat people who couldn’t hold back from their animal desires.  There are many other aspects to this situation though, which Pollan and other writers do not acknowledge, such as availability and price of the “right” food.

While I read Pollan’s articles and book, I was swept up in his smooth and intriguing writing, and he was easily able to mind wash me into believing him and agreeing with his claims.  It is a very valid point though that he seems to hold himself morally above others.  While, sure, some fat people are just overindulging upper-class people who have every option to change their eating habits, I think it is fair to say that most fat people are of a low class.  This makes it again easy for Pollan to look down on these people, but it is not fair.  The food that Pollan recommends for the betterment of this issue is not available to the people who need it most.  People do not necessarily choose to consume only fast food, and they may have all the self-control necessary to eat food like vegetables instead of fast food if offered, but this option may just not be there.  It is an unfair assumption that all people are fat simply because they do not have the self-control to fight their animal instincts. 

Do you think that if healthy foods were available and cheap for everyone our society would be less obese?

How could we make this happen with our food industry already so solidified as segregated?

Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

            In chapters 5 and 6 of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan exposes some of the tactics used by corporations in the food industry.  Corporations manipulate us into buying into their systems.  They manufacture the crops available (mostly corn) into irresistible delights.  And it turns out we innocently love this.  Humans are wired to crave and go crazy for fat and sugar, as well as overindulge in food when we are presented with large portions.  This is because when food is scarce, it is necessary to stock fat in our bodies for fuel when food is unavailable.  The corporations know this, and we accept it whether we know it or not.  And when offered these items for cheap, we can’t help but satisfy our cravings. 

In chapter 5, Pollan compares the situation in 1820 and to our dilemma today.  In 1820, corn whiskey was available and cheap, and due to the natural human desire for intoxication, people couldn’t help but overindulge frequently.  Nowadays, sweets and fats are overabundant and inexpensive, so we all eat these treats readily, in the same way we used to consume alcohol.  And while we are continually warned of our overconsumption and the dangers of obesity, the government continues to subsidize corn, the leading provider of our cheap, abundant calories in the form of high fructose corn syrup and countless other additives.

While it is an extremely smart business technique to push our evolutionary buttons, I can’t help but feel somewhat used and abused.  Human bodies are not evolved for the types of food we provide for ourselves today.  I think it is safe to declare that it would be impossible to find anything in nature that is as sweet as candy.  It is fairly strange if you step back and think about what we are giving ourselves.  We have endless calories at hand, and it doesn’t take but a phone call to get those calories in our hands (thanks to the luxury of delivery).  But should we really be giving ourselves these treats?  I have never been one to believe in dieting, maybe some people have the power, but I have strong instincts and they tell me to eat that sugar and fat, and love it too.  Yes, we are all subject to manipulation from these corporations, and we will continue to willingly comply.  Not only that, but we will appreciate when these corporations provide us with just a little extra of these endless calories, feeling great as we snag a deal, when, in fact, we are again being used, this time to consume the extra calories on the market.

Clearly there is a change in the food we intake from our early ancestors, but would it be healthy to eat as they did?

Do you think if someone had never eaten anything as sweet as candy, they would never crave that ultimate level of sweetness?

Should we fight this manipulation, or do we just go with it and eat everything in moderation as is now recommended?

The Carnivore's Dilemma

            Michael Pollan describes the ethical debate of eating animals in chapter 17 of his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma.  He begins by discussing his views upon reading Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation as he consumes a rib-eye steak.  Singer is a animal rights advocate, or as Pollan puts it, an “animal person.”  The idea being discussed is the thought that killing and eating animals, as we do, is a moral issue in the same way slavery and rape are.  Singer argues that animals should have the same rights and freedoms that we would give to our own people.  In response to people who argue that animals do not have the same capacity for reason and therefore do not require rights, Singer points out the “marginal cases.”  Marginal cases, such as infants and the mentally retarded, are still given the same rights as all people, yet some could argue they are less aware and capable than animals.

            The next question brought forward is the question of what people can do.  The answers proposed are either turning away, or ceasing to eat meat.  In turning away, millions of animals will continue to “suffer” and die, and you will continue to eat meat and ignore the process by which that meat ended up on your plate.  By becoming a vegetarian, you will burden yourself and others with the difficultly and alienation caused by vegetarianism.  Pollan also mentions though, that along with the burden, you will in fact still be killing millions of animals as machines, sprays, and land clearing for agriculture continues to take lives and habitats.

            The slaughter of animals is also discussed in this chapter.  Pollan explains that he was not allowed onto the kill floor, and our explanation of the process, though seemingly humane, may not truly account for the situation at hand.  Again we are posed with the decision of whether to “trust” and turn away, or whether to only support where we can view and evaluate the situation for ourselves.

            In my opinion, humans are meant to eat meat, and so it should be.  While the modern industry has alienated us from the entire process, the truth is that meat comes from live animals, so yes, they will live the lives we provide them, and then they will die to provide for us.  Ecosystems are meant to use sunlight to grow plants to feed herbivores that feed carnivores, all of whom die and recycle back into the ground to feed more plants.  This is a flawless cycle, perfected through time to create balance and unity within communities.  As the article stated, even the eaten need the population control provided by carnivores in order to survive.

            So, if people are concerned for the wellbeing of animals.  I believe that it is best to find a farm in which the animals will lead happy, healthy lives until their slaughter.  Polyface farm is a fine example of this, but there are many others that will provide the animals with all the ingredients for happiness.  If the animals are given room to roam, food to eat (the kind they actually want), water to drink, care for sickness, and shelter from danger, than the animals will have lived happy lives.  In return for the care we provide them, they will provide us with meat, and the cycle will continue.

Do you think it's better to be a vegetarian or to choose your meat responcibly?
Do you think we could sustain an entire population of just vegetarians?
Would you be willing to face the process by which the animals you eat are killed?

[Edited Photograph], Retrieved Feb 23, 2011, from: http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Thread-Vegetarian-food?page=3

A Happy Alternative? Could It Be?

The system described in chapter 11 of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma is much more palatable.  In this chapter, Pollan explains his experience on Joel Salatin’s Polyface farm.  Joel uses an extremely sustainable system to produce beef, poultry, pork, rabbit, and eggs.  In his system, he rotates his animals so as to use their natural habits and natural waste to aid each of the other elements in the cycle.  There is no one place to start, since it is a loop.  This is a major difference between his system and the industrial system.  Instead of a linear path from fossil fuel to corn to animal to waste, Joel’s system turns all waste into fuel for a different cycle.  Joel uses sunlight for grass, which is food for cows, whose manure houses larva to feed chickens.  The chickens then spread the manure and eat the larva, which eliminates cattle pests, and of course, the chickens produce eggs.  Turkeys and meat chickens also cycle over the land in a similar fashion, along with spreading and pecking through rabbit droppings, which otherwise would be garbage due to its high ammonia levels from rabbit urine.  Pigs, in a similar fashion, aerate the manure that cattle produce in winter in their shed.  Joel gets them to do so by spreading corn in the manure as it layers, leaving tasty treats for pigs to dig for as they turn over manure to create ideal fertilizer.  This system does not rely on fossil fuel, and within the cycle are happy animals doing exactly what nature intended, whether it pecking, eating, digging, scratching or wandering.

           

            This is exactly the kind of system that gets me excited about local, natural foods.  It seems almost to good to be true, and is truly ingenious.  The animals are happy, the farmer is proud, the food is apparently delicious, and the system is sustainable.  What more could you really ask for?  Well, I guess people would argue that this system could not feed the world’s population, and this is probably true.  This system is not focused on mass production and quantity; it is focused on the truth of the system and the quality of the food.  Sure, this will not feed the world, but adding these kinds of farms to the market is a vital step forward.  It is a totally different mindset, and like was mentioned in chapter 13, change in the food system can be much like the change in our religious system in the past.  By adding new structures and markets, we will diversify, and create a more rounded society.  Local food, organic food, industrialized organic food, industrial food, and who knows what is next, can each have a part of the food industry overall.  Joel’s Polyface farm opened my eyes to a whole different perspective, without government regulation and without the strict mindset of profit and yield.  This is the food I would like to eat, and I think this is a system that will be very attractive to those who are exposed to it.  And where there is a demand, someone will supply.

Why don’t you think the government chooses to help subsidize these kinds of farms?

If this system really works, why don’t more farmers switch to this kind production?

Is there a fault in this system that Pollan did not reveal, or is this system as seemingly flawless as is it made out to be?

chickens in sunshine?

grass-eating cows?

space between pigs?

Could It Really Be?

Images from:
[Photograph], Retrieved Feb 15, 2011, from: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/national-sustainable-agriculture-standards.php
[Photograph], Retrieved Feb 15, 2011, from: http://williamsgreenscene.wordpress.com/
[Photograph], Retrieved Feb 15, 2011, from: http://martinzoo.homeschooljournal.net/2010/05/13/polyface-farm-tour/

With A Necessary Second Opinion

After reading multiple responses to the ideas presented in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, I am now viewing these issues in a slightly different light.  Farmer in Chief was an article (or letter for the president-elect) written by Michael Pollan further stating his ideas, and giving ideas about what government and the president should be doing to change the situation within the food industry.  In response to the ideas presented by Pollan and others like him, Blake Hurst wrote The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals.  This article opposed Pollan’s thoughts, and presented the industry from the farmer’s perspective.  After both these articles were written, Neal Conan interviewed Pollan and on NPR, creating a conversion of agreement and disagreement over the issues at hand.

In his article, Pollan starts by explaining that the focuses of the president’s campaign, health care, energy, and climate change, are all related to the food industry, and so it is about time for the government to step in.  Pollan explains how food is now created from fossil fuels, and that a naturally contained system is now industrialized to be completely wasteful, contributing to our energy crisis and climate change.  His other main point is that diet is a leading cause of disease and death in our country, and that this system is decreasing healthfulness of our food, therefore contributing to our health care concerns.  Beyond just these points, Pollan creates a list of tasks for the first family and White House, such as using local food, posting menus, and creating a garden on part of the South Lawn.

            In Hurst’s article, he starts by explaining that everyone is believing they know all about the industry after reading these books, but really, people don’t know anything, and their points are completely unfair, and in fact, hypocritical.  People expect farmers to farm just like they did in the 1930s, yet no one hesitates to use the latest technology for their own careers. His other main points mostly point out the complete lack of knowledge of people who are preaching this problem, and the people who are changing the rules.  Hurst explains the practical use of genetically modified seeds, and how they decrease pollution.  Also, he explains that there are aspects of the industry such as indoor raising and caging that are actually implemented to help not only yield, but also the animals.

            In the conversation between the Hurst and Pollan, while Pollan portrays farmers as the naïve tools of the corporations, Hurst argues that as a farmer he consciously makes his own decisions and is in fact more educated in the truth behind the matter.

            I am now of two minds on this issue.  While I agree that there needs to be a change in the industry, and government should be stepping in to regulate and fix the system.  I think that Pollan was a bit too bias, and did not have the whole picture in his arguments.  Hurst has great arguments, and it is hard to deny his knowledge given he is at the heart of the industry as a farmer.  When reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma I feel bad for the farmers, believing they are oblivious and stuck in this system, but now looking back, I can see that this is just how Pollan made them out to be.  In truth, as Hurst stated, they are aware of the system and are doing what they can to make their living, but also to protect the earth, such as by using GMO seeds.  Also, while it seems horrible for the animals to be cooped up inside or crated, I was unaware of the safety this provided the animals.  It seems like it must be a better system to crate piglets than to let them be squashed by their mothers.  These are the situations in which people must gather more knowledge before assuming everything they hear is the complete truth.  This is a situation that makes me want to step back and view the whole picture of every statement Pollan says.  Such as in the organic food industry, it seems perfect, but if there are fungi, insects and diseases on these plants given the lack of pesticides, could this also pose a problem?  I don’t know the answers to all of these questions, but it is clear that you must get the whole picture before believing everything you hear.  Pollan is correct that it is time for government to step in though, and certainly America needs an education on food.  As Pollan stated, education on tobacco was able to change the American normal, so it is time to educate on eating “right,” whatever that actually means.  As far as Pollan’s extreme idea’s for the White House and first family, I think these are unnecessary and over the top.  It is not going to happen, and it doesn’t need to happen.  We should focus on bigger issues like education and food safety.

Do you think that it is special circumstance that Blake Hurst is so aware of the whole situation, or do you think other farmers do feel trapped and unhappy?

Why do you think Michael Pollan attacks GMO seeds if they really can help decrease fertilizer use, and decrease pollution?

Is it possible to be in the middle on this issue, or is it really a black and white situation as Pollan and Hurst are explaining it?

PollanHurst

vs

Pollan and Hurst Debate the Future of Agriculture [Photograph], Retrieved Feb 13, 2011, from: http://www.iptv.org/mtom/story.cfm/feature/588