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

My reviews of Food, Inc. reviews

GreenMuze review

The review of Food, Inc. by GreenMuze was exactly as expected.  It supported the film, and praised its great insight and the education is provides.  The motto of this site is “Green Ideas & Innovations,” which clearly goes along with support of organic food and critique of industrialized systems.  While this review makes valid points of the corrupt system, it uses a lot of quotes from the movie.  In using all these quotes, it is as if the reader is simply being given a second look at the movie, but this time with another voice between the lines saying, “look, isn’t that a great point!”  The review certainly does a good job advocating for the movie and further villainizing these food corporations though.  Just like while watching the movie, you get swept up in the excitement and horror of it all, and it is hard to remember to step back and look at who is writing this and the bias within.  Another technique used in this review is quotes about the film.  These quotes are not cited, but they all state the film as an important and “must see” film.  Clearly, this review is in full support of the movie, which makes sense coming from a liberal, “green” supporting site.

New York Times review

The New York Times reviews Food Inc. in a seemingly middle standpoint.  While this paper often has a liberal standpoint, it seems that in this review they aren’t too over the top in either direction.  The review explains Food, Inc. as a horror film, which is a somewhat applicable remark.  Throughout the review, film techniques that Kenner used are exposed, such as the continuous use of gruesome graphics and sob stories.  The review is not putting down these techniques, but is simply calling them out, so that the reader can be aware of the manipulation of emotions within the film.  This is not a bad thing though, all movies manipulate our emotions, and that is why we watch them.  Without emotional twists, a film is monotonous and won’t sell.  This review agrees that the statements within the film are gut wrenching and infuriating, and never says they are invalid statements.  An end critique of the film states that the film is not quite deep enough though, noticing that each issue is touched upon, but never dives into any solutions.  While this review comes from a somewhat liberal source, it seems to have a good view of the film both as an educational film, but also simply as a thriller.

Cargill's response

Cargill’s response to Food, Inc. is much more concise and doesn’t delve into the film the way they other reviews did.  Clearly, coming from one of the major food corporations that are repeatedly shunned and villainized in the film, this review does not fully support the movie.  But also, they seem quite careful as to not come on to strongly in rejecting the film.  In this careful tightrope walk, Cargill’s CEO explains their support and agreement about organic foods.  This is an interesting tactic that seems to be saying, “we’re on your side too.”  Beyond this attempt to keep their audience happy, Cargill’s main point is that there is no simple solution to feeding the 6 billion people on earth, and that unlike the film stated, it would not be possible to feed our population in a system recommended by the film.  The last point made was a quote from Norman Borlaug, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the 1960s “Green Revolution,” stating that organic farming could feed only 4 billion, which doesn’t cover our entire population.  While this is a legitimate argument, and good promotion of contemporary industry, the truth of this statement is hard to place since it was a quote from the past, and modern technology might prove this statement wrong.

If we are what we eat, then we are in trouble.

Chapter 4 of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivores Dilemma depicts the process of raising meat cattle.  In order to do so, Pollan purchases a steer, 534, and will follow his steer from calf-hood to the dinner plate.  It turns out almost all cattle, unlike the fully industrialized life cycles of chickens or pigs, start on pasture naturally with their mothers, drinking her milk and eating grass.  This is the most natural experience that each of these cows ever has.  After a few months of this seemingly perfect life, it’s weaning time.  This is a tramatic time for the calf and mother as they are forced apart, but the calf doesn’t even know the great trauma ahead of him.  After a short grace period at both the breeding facility, then the feed-lot, this calf enters his miserable life of fattening and sickness.  Corn, protein, fat, and antibiotics are mixed together and fed out three times a day.  Given the excess corn, these are the least expensive calories, and for the food industry this is all that matters.  Cows are not naturally designed to eat corn though, and this causes major issues for their health.  Also, the fat and protein fed to these cows is rarely a natural source for them.  Often, they are fed beef fat sent from the slaughterhouse where they are headed in months to come.  With this extremely unnatural system, the cows are very unhealthy and often contract diseases and bacteria that can even be spread to humans.  And while we all seem to believe that we are running the system best for ourselves, the truth is that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by breeding anti-biotic resistant bacteria, creating toxic wastes, and further draining our diminishing fossil fuels.

            In my opinion, just like the corn industry, this system is seriously harmful.  But this time, instead of just unfair and dreadful for the farmer, this is system can ultimately damage our population as a whole.  We are taking an entirely natural and ideal cycle, using the sun’s energy to grow grass for cows whose manure then fertilizes the grass, and turning it into a viscous cycle of waste and danger.  We use fossil fuels to create fertilizers that pollute our world, to grow corn that damages the cows, which in turn breeds resistant superbugs, and by the end of the process the cow’s manure is so chemically altered that it creates toxic waste lands.  Where does this make sense at all?  Oh yeah, just so we can have our cheaply made steak that is, by the way, questionably causing major health problems not just for the cows, but for us as well.

Do you think this kind of system would still work if we began to use grass or hay in the feed instead of corn?

Shouldn’t the government be more concerned about this breeding of anti-biotic resistant bacteria?

Does this knowledge make you want to change your eating habits or can you accept it as just the way it has to be?

Steve Greenburg (Cartoonist). (2007). Drug-resistant Superbugs [Cartoon], Retrieved Feb 9, 2011, from: http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/archives/2007/11/drugresistant_s.html

Ignorance is Bliss

After watching the film, Food Inc., I am further concerned about the food industry of today.  The film begins by calling out the illusion of diversity in our supermarkets.  It’s hard to imagine that we aren’t given diversity when you walk through endless isles of a grocery store with countless brands and products.  But the truth is, most of the food we are offered comes from just a few major companies and sources.  Covering our products are pictures of happy animals in huge pastures, with cheerful farmers caring for them.  This is all just part of the illusion though.  Nowadays, people don’t want to pay for that kind of care if they can get the “same” product for much cheaper.  We want the most bang for our buck, and to achieve this, even our food industry has resorted to mass production, including the production of living animals.  The industry is “behind a veil,” as the movie put it, so we are completely unaware of the truth behind the products we consume everyday. Companies know ignorance is bliss, so as long as we’re not begging for answers, they are happy to keep it their little secret.  The segment of the film that has stuck with me most was the sequence of chicken production.  It was horrible to see the little chicks being grabbed and thrown, then going down shoots into piles as if they were objects.  The dark tunnels for raising the chickens are atrocious, and seeing them kicked and grabbed and piled was so hard to watch.  Knowing this is the kind of system that millions of animals go through is mortifying.  Along with the horrible treatment of the animals, these systems seem far from sanitary for us as consumers.

Clearly, there is a major flaw in our system since there is so much disease flowing through it all.  The movie shows a story from a woman whose child died from E. coli by eating a hamburger.  Seven years and multiple more deaths later, the government still won’t pass any bills to insure further safety in our food industry.  As the woman stated, we should be able to trust our government to protect us, yet they are not doing so in the slightly bit.  These systems are pools of disease and contamination, yet the government fully supports and even subsidizes these systems.  And on a real farm, with healthy animals, and clean slaughter and butchering of meat, the government will not approve of or support the system.  This all makes no sense to me.  Without a doubt, this industry is corrupt, and yet once again, we as consumers have no idea of the horrible situation we are supporting.

What do you think needs to happen to fix this major problem?

Why won’t the government agree to close down factories that continually show signs of disease contamination?

While we can all gasp and frown at the situation, is seeing the problem enough to make you want to change your ways?  Possibly looking for real farms closer by, so you know where your food is coming from?

As if...

More like...  

Mark Bittman (Photographer). (2008). Here's the Beef [Photograph], Retrieved Feb 8, 2011, from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1

[Photograph], Retrieved Feb 8, 2011, from: http://meat.adept.co.nz/

Our Inevitable Support of a Vile Corn Industry

In reading Michael Pollan’s Omnivores Dilemma, chapters 1, 2, and 3, I am repulsed by our country's situation concerning the extreme connection of all our food to a corrupt corn industry.  Pollan describes the immense diversity within a supermarket.  From produce of all kinds, to dozens of meats, to the endless shelves of unidentifiable products that at one point were manufactured using plants, animals, and/or fungi.  Just before the incredible diversity, though, there seems to be quite a lot of corn. Livestock are fed corn, and then land on our plates as meat.  All kinds of sweet snacks and drinks are full of high fructose corn syrup, clearly derived from corn.   And as for the countless additives listed at the end of nutrition labels, many are some how created using corn.  Pollan also explains that even the items that aren’t food contain corn, from cosmetics to cleaners to the building itself.  In attempt to pursue the path that our food takes from farm to dinner plate, Pollan decides it is necessary to follow corn.  Landing in Greene Country, Iowa, on George Naylor’s farm, Pollan learns the truth behind corn.  Corn, as it turns out, has taken over every inch of spare land in Iowa.  Farmers are able to overuse the land by adding synthesized nitrogen and fertilizers, creating many environmental and health problems.  The cheap cost of corn has created great hardship for thousands of farmers as each harvest costs more to produce than it is worth on the market.  Held back by government policies and inability to sell any other crops, farmers are forced to continue to sell more and more corn, increasing yield as much as possible as they continue to drive the price down with their high supply.  As this cycle continues, the corn, as Pollan describes, is like a river of commodity, rapidly flowing to companies for creation into various products.

In my opinion, there is a real problem on our hands.  I’m actually quite disgusted by the fact that our “diverse” world of food all stems from corn, and even more disgusted by the conditions in which corn farmers are living.  It is incredibly unfair that these farmers are stuck in an inescapable debt, simply so we can have our thousands of cheap products.  The fact that the government is doing nothing to fix the situation is ridiculous.  It makes no sense for the government to subsidize farmers, yet still not even pay them back for the cost of producing the corn.  There is clearly a huge problem here, and the companies just continue to thrive at these farmers’ expense.  It sounds fairly impossible these days to even escape from supporting this process.  Even our basics are contributing to the problem, milk, meat and eggs come from animals fed corn, and even other products like magazines and trash bags contain corn.  It is an inescapable fact that everyday we are supporting this repulsive industry, yet almost no one even knows of the great issues they are buying into.

What do you think we could do to try and stop this seemingly impenetrable cycle?

Why are we all so unaware of the bad situations at hand in our world, even when we are contributing to the problem?

Besides this being a moral issue, do you think there may be a nutritional or health issue with the fact that almost all our food stems from corn?

[Drawing], Retrieved Feb 1, 2011, from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56739839@N00/391695819/