The Year 2090- Omnivores Cease To Exist?

Michale Pollan in chapter 17 challenges himself and everyone in the world who eats meat. He strays from his original dilemma about; unsanitary farming conditions, the use of corn in everything and the unhealthiness of the  meat. He now opens what may even be a bigger Pandora's box, and as a proud meat eater I was so upset while reading this chapter. He cites many top experts on animal rights, and many scientists who have studied the effect of pain on animals. After struggling with this decision in his own mind he decides to become a vegetarian. He believes that allowing for animals to be slaughtered and pained with the excuse of them "not being humans" is "speciesist". Thinking about his arguments does bother me a lot because on most points he is so right and it would be so hard for me to give up meat. I agree with him but something in the back of my head is trying to justify myself.
One point he brings up is that the same way we enslaved blacks, and did not give adequate rights to women, maybe todays moral step would be to stop eating meat. What if as we grow as a people we are realizing our flaws and are slowly correcting them? More and more people are becoming vegetarians every year. Is it possible that sometime in the next century meat eating may be outlawed? I just really hope I am not around for it. I can not envision my life without it. It just hits the spot that no vegetarian or vegan food can even compete with.

Is all of Pollan's logic correct when he decides to become a vegetarian?
Are there any people who argue this point and have logical rebuttles that Pollan may not be able to answer? ( please tell me there are!)

Dear Mr. President-Elect

I think Michael Pollan over does himself in this article titled Farmer in Chief. He blatantly calls out the now President Barrack Obama for how food was not on his priority list while campaigning. He does so brilliantly by showing that what President Obama did stress during his campaign in fact directly revolved around the food industry. Mr. Pollan makes it clear that food should be a top the countries agenda. He proves that as high calorie diets increase and the price per calorie decreases, fossil fuels, greenhouse gases and a myriad of life threatening diseases increase. What is a country without people to run it? That is where we will be if the majority of our country is dying due to obesity and type 2 diabetes. What scares me is that unlike a broken leg or bruised arm where people feel pain and then go seek treatment, consumption of food does not hurt. What happens in our body is not visible. People do not pick up on slight increases of blood pressure or higher cholesterol. Until one day they have a heart attack or stroke due to it. It is like saying if a persons leg was broken and they didnt feel it and it did not hinder their day to day activity, they probably would not got get a cast. However one day they will be walking and their leg might tear off, then they will realize that they made a mistake. Michale Pollan is trying to make sure we do not make that mistake.

Side point: I think calling this article Farmer in Chief was great, for those of you who didnt get it, it is a play on commander in chief, it made me laugh.

Food Inc. Review #3

"This movie offers very little that food radicals don't already know." That is Kyle Smiths review of Food Inc. Although short he gets his point across pretty easily. The New York Post, the paper Smith rights in, is known for its light reading when compared to the Times and The Journal. It comes as no surprise that someone in the Post would take such an extreme angle. However, he may be correct. The problem with his negative statement of the film is that he assumes the movie was made for food radicals. Obviously this can not be the case. Farmers and industrial meat companies are not the only people who want to make money. So do directors, producers and studios. To think they went through all this trouble to voice their opinions to the tiny amount of food radicals is not logical. The crowd they were hoping to reach out to was the laymen. They were trying to make the general public aware of the food they eat not the minority of food radicals who may or may not know. His statement is valid, but when evaluating the movie as a whole and the awareness it has sparked, Smith is totally off base and incorrect.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/food-inc/critic-reviews?dist=negative

Food Inc. Review #2

Rob Hopkins of the website known as Traditional Cultures is very insightful in his review of Food Inc. He gives a great summary of the movie and even gives the perspective of a UK member watching. He concedes that as their meat isn't "as" bad it is still not the healthiest. However, he does say that most UK watchers would then say after watching the film that there is no way that happens here, that only occurs in the U.S. After his summary Rob goes on to praise the film for its vantage point ability. He says that the reason this film made it bigger than a regular industrial film is because it told the other side of the story. Towards the end he makes his best points. He says it better than I would; "Ultimately though, this is a hopeful film.  Yes the food system is extremely powerful, but as the film says, so was the tobacco industry.  The movement of local, organic, unprocessed food continues to grow.  As one farmer interviewed in the film says “people have got to start demanding good wholesome food from us and we’ll deliver, I promise you”. Overall, Rob seems to have enjoyed the film and agree with most of what it said. He definitely thinks good will come out of it. I just hope he is write.


http://transitionculture.org/2010/02/09/film-review-food-inc/

Food Incc. Review # 1

The New York Times is usually known to be a liberal news paper in which its authors are usually cynical of the things they report. However, in Manhola Dargis' review of Food Inc. it seems that this may not be the case. He seems to be right on point with the objectives of the movie. He notes that it is scary to watch and that if the typical movie goer had not read and of Pollan's books these facts would be astonishing and brand new. Manhola does however take shots at some of the producing methods taken by the creators of the film. The Times is a widely read newspaper and if it wants to continue to be sold it must cater to all its readers. And being an American newspaper it can not seem like it totally agrees with all of the films points. This is why I think that the reader must read between the lines of this article to truly see the authors focus. The article at times may seem to be a negative review but does a good job of not attacking or defending the movies overall agenda.

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

Genius

The angle Michael Pollan takes to make write his book Omnivore's Dilemma in chapter 4 is nothing short of genius. He buys his own cow to track it through the process from when it is born until when it is ready to be sold as meat. Again, the top priorities of the top meat packaging companies are; money, money and guess again, money. And so their whole operation is centered around getting the animals ready to slaughter in the quickest time possible. He writes that it used to take a calf about 5-6 years to reach its 1,220 pounds. However now, due to the increase of corn in their diet along with vitamins and supplements they are able to reach that staggering weight in only 14 months. Another thing that the farmers have become very adept at is tricking not only the cattle but also the bacteria in the cows rumen. One of the fine features of evolution is that not many organisms can digest grass. However, due to bacteria int he rumen of cows they are able to digest and extract the necessary vitamins and minerals from grass. When cows are transported, it seems that they are either not fed or fed very little, and in most cases lose around 100 pounds on their voyage. When they arrive at the farm the farmers need to feed them grass for a while so that their bacteria, now sensitive, can get back on track. Once they become strong again then the farmers begin to feed them corn. I think this is an amazing procedure the men in this line of business have figured out. One question to asks ourselves is if the cow will get sick if fed corn then why is corn allowed to be fed to them? Is this a type of animal cruelty? Or is it th fact that only a weakened rumen will be affected by surplus corn intake. I think the people in control of getting cows ready to be slaughtered have definitely taken a lot of time to get the process down pat. I still do think that it might not be the most ethical way to handle cows, but if I was a farmer trying to makes a buck as quick as possible I am not sure I would be able to risk the temptation.

Food Inc.

I always knew that there was a long process in which food goes from its origin to my plate. However, watching the film drastically changed my overall impression of that process. The industries who have control of most of the produce in the U.S. look at food and in their head all that registers is dollar bills. They have no compassion or sympathy for anything else. The only thing they care about is how much net profit they will gain come the end of the fiscal year. The way cattle and chicken, which are living creatures, are treated is inhumane and outright despicable. There seems to be no thought of empathy that goes into the process. Thankfully, I keep kosher restrictions which by definition disallows any harm to the animals. The main focus for slaughtering animals in Judaism is to cause as little pain as possible to the animals. The blade must be so sharp, and only one slice of the knife may be used. Multiple stabbings or cuts would render the food "not kosher."
I imagine that if I did not keep kosher I would definitely have a hard time eating meat. We as a human race do happen to be the ones calling the shots. What if we were some other species cattle? Would we want to be treated like that?
Aside from the horrific footage shown in the film which I do believe is to strengthen public awareness, there were some amazing points and new facts which I was previously unaware of. Besides for reading a few chapters in Omnivores Dilemma I had no appreciation for corn. I mean its great when its canned on the cob or even in its baby form, but the fact that almost everything we eat and even things we do not eat are created from corn baffles me.
Overall the documentary was really educational, and indeed sparked an interest for me in where the things I use in my daily life come from. And the fact that such a broad section of knowledge had never crossed my path before, it makes me wonder about other things that I take for granted and where they come from. My general mode of thinking has been changed thanks to this film.

Zea Mays

Zea Mays or more formally, corn, is possibly the most important agricultural product the world has ever come to see. As Michael Pollan writes in the first chapter of his book Omnivores Dilemma, our daily lives revolve around corn and we may live our whole lives without even realizing it. It only took a few pages in his book to make my eyes bulge and my jaw drop. The fact that corn is a constituent of pesticides, fiberglass and even cosmetics is startling. I could have never imagined such dominance and prevalence of only one crop. When was the last time anyone took a second out of their day to appreciate what corn does for us. Even the cows we get our meat and dairy farm are fed by corn. This angle only makes me think where we would be without corn. The reason I think Pollan opens his book with the introduction to corn is to open the readers mind to a new world of thought. Before anyone can pick what they want to eat they must know their options. The most interesting part of the whole chapter is when he said that a quarter of the 45,000 items in a given super market contain corn.

What I took out of this reading was an increase appreciation for corn and anything that influences my life so greatly without my knowledge. however, what scares me the most is what would happen if many corn fields were to burn down, or if farmers jacked the prices up for corn. It seems like they would be able to rule the world if what Pollan says does in fact hold true. If some wealthy fortune 500 CEO were to buy up all the corn fields in the U.S. he would really be buying the entire food industry market and give him, what I think would be more power than the president.

Does the U.S. have any backup plans in case of a corn famine?
What happens if the produce for a given year is found to have a disease?
Would we be able to enjoy the things we enjoy every day if corn was not existent?