Chapter Eleven In Omnivore's Dilemma

Michael Pollan, in his 11^th chapter of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, describes a farm, which is nothing short of amazing. This farm is an ecological, environmentally friendly, and efficient masterpiece. Pollan describes the farm different than any other farm I ever heard of before. This is not your regular monoculture or feedlot farm; it is an ecological system that interweaves and connects all parts of the farm together to form somewhat of a hand-made ecosystem. Pollan describes it as a loop of activities that all play a role in the previous and proceeding events. During the chapter, he informs us of all the jobs that he did to make sure the farm ran smoothly. Every day he had to move the ten by twelve chicken pen to a new ten by twelve foot area of grass, which cows had just grazed on three days prior. The chickens would eat larva out of the three day old cows dung and thus ingest a great deal of protein, which lead to healthier, better tasting eggs. Then the chickens would fertilize the grass with their own feces until sunrise the next morning when they were moved to a next patch of grass that the cows had recently grazed on. This was just one process in the whole loop of the farm, but Pollan found it fascinating how everything was so interconnected. He marveled at the fact that for corn farms he could easily start by describing them as a farmer planting a seed, growing it, then harvesting it. However, for Joel’s farm, Pollan had no idea where to start; the cow’s waste was the chicken’s food and the chicken’s waste was the land’s fertilizer. This was truly much more than just a farm. It was an efficient way of producing food that actually helped the land instead of destroying it.

I found this technique of farming very fascinating. This was what Pollan was talking about in his Farmer and Chief. We don’t need to resort to some crazy science with biologically engineered plants or some new and improved fertilizer. This is true science. Joel’s farm was not just a farm, it was an ecosystem; it mimicked characteristics of animals in real life and brought them to a place that could use those techniques to produce food efficiently and in a way that was helpful to the land. However, this seemed like no easy task to me. Joel is a brilliant man and if we want other farms to be like this one in the future, farmers need to be educated how to do it.

1)                   Doctors have to go through medical school, Lawyers have to go through law school, should farmers have to go through some sort of farm school in order to learn how to properly take care of land like Joel?

2)                   How realistic is it, regarding price of food, increased employment, and other factors, for more farms to switch to how Joel farms?

The Omnivore's Delusion

“In his book Dominion, author Mathew Scully calls “factory farming” an “obvious moral evil so sickening and horrendous it would leave us ashen.” Before reading Blake’s article, The Omnivores Delusion, I would have had to agree with Scully. Having animals walk around in their own waste, so crowded they can barely move around, seemed to me an “evil” that was “ so sickening and horrendous” that it made me feel sick. Blake, however, points out what it would be like if this style of factory farming weren't used. He goes into a short anecdote about a neighbor he once had who raised “free ranging” turkeys. Everyone would most likely agree that the conditions when letting animals free range are a lot better than the ones during factory farming. Blake agrees with that as well but mentions an evil about free-range farming that is much worse than factory farming. There was a night in which it rained and it happens that turkeys are not smart enough to come in and take shelter from the rain. Instead, they open their beaks and look upwards and end up drowning. After that night, Blake’ neighbor had to go pick up 4000 dead turkeys. Surely, that seems like a much bigger disaster than having turkeys walk around in their own waste. That anecdote really opened up my eyes to making sure I have all the facts before judging something. Documentaries and texts such as Food, Inc. and The Omnivores Dilemma give a very biased and one sided picture. As I continue studying in this course I will make sure that I pay close attention to the source of the article or film to understand who is writing it and where they stand on the issue. 

1) Who do you agree more with? Blake or Pollan?

2) What do you think are some of Blake's best points against the Omnivores Dilemma?

Food, Inc. Reviews

            Supporting:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105152916

This article, For Health Or Profit, But Not Necessarily For Both, by David Edelstein shows a lot of support of the documentary, Food, Inc. All you need to do is read his opening paragraph to see how he feels about this movie as he relates it to the Matrix. He believes that this documentary opens the eye of the public to the hidden world of the food industry. In his opinion, the documentary does and outstanding job exposing the unethical practices of giant food corporations. Mr. Edelstein was actually so inspired by this film, that afterwards he got his movie theatre to switch from the “giant agribusiness popcorn with the fake small-farmer figurehead” to something organic.

Neutral:

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

This article, Meet Your New Farmer: Hungry Corporate Giant, by Manhola Dargis presents a relatively neutral critique of the documentary Food, Inc. She presents complements about the movie but also complaints that go hand in hand with those compliments. For example, she praises Food, Inc. for Michael Pollan’s narration of some parts of the film. However, she also says that he is never identified when he is speaking which makes it hard to know that it is Pollan’s voice you are hearing. Manhola also complains that this film is no different than previous texts written about the food industry. However, she praises Kenner for his eye catching film and horrific images. In the end, Manhola is somewhat disappointed with the film. She says that it never goes into depth and that it leaves the viewer depressed and powerless with the film’s small, final checklist of things we can do to help.

Negative:

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/item_MzisT9ExiKm8XF4nwWzdYM;jsessionid=7181E154DB04421EF8BEAA8A34E713E9

This article, Bean There, Bun That, is written by Kyle Smith for The New York Post. His opinion of the documentary is that it is repetitive of what books have been saying over the past years and that it is essentially useless because it only reaches a selective audience, those of whom already know about the horrors of the food industry. He attacks many points of the documentary. For instance, he states that the interesting points such as subsidizing corn, fail to reach beyond the surface level.

Mr. Smith is allowed to have his own opinion but I believe he is wrong about the movie’s purpose. He thinks that only people who already know about the food industry will go to watch this movie and learn nothing new. I strongly disagree with him. Every movement starts with education. This movie provides the basic knowledge to start up conversation and then proceed to go into further research of topics involving our food industry. Many of my friends in high school watched this documentary knowing nothing about the food industry beforehand. If our generation is learning about it now, we will be able to do something about it in the future. 

Feedlots

            What people imagine a cow’s life to be like may be very different than what it actually is nowadays. Michael Pollan writes about this in his fourth chapter of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The old fashion image that pops up in peoples’ mind of a cow grazing on a farm is no longer true. Now it is more like the picture below, with cows lined up front to back, standing in their own feces, and eating corn all day.

            What happened to the old fashion cows grazing on grasslands? It all relates back to corn. Sixty percent of corn produced in America goes to feeding cows. But cow’s stomachs are not meant to digest corn. They have an organ called the Rumen, which transforms grass into protein. They have evolved into a species that feeds on grass. Making their diet consist of only corn is very disruptive to cows. Corn contains a lot of carbohydrates. By feeding the cows a diet rich in carbohydrates, they get very large very quickly. They develop diseases such as E-coli and have to be treated by many antibiotics in order to live up to the optimal date for slaughtering.

            What aggravates me the most about this whole system is the fact that I myself am stuck between two decisions. On one hand I strongly believe in sustainability. Cows should be allowed to graze, their feces should fertilize the grass, and the environment should sustain for years to come. But our population is growing. We need food to feed the people of our world. Cows don’t grow fast enough on a grass fed diet to fulfill our demands for meat. So what do we do? Do we help the environment and produce better quality meat? Or do we sacrifice quality and the health of our environment in order to satisfy the demands of the people? How about that dilemma, Pollan?

1)   What’s your answer to my question posed in my last paragraph?

2)   Do you think we should be worried about the long-term effects the antibiotics cows eat will have on us?

Response questions for food inc.

1) Why do you think the FDA doesn't crack down on the inappropriate treatment methods of animals by companies like Tyson.

2) What actions can be taken to make vegetables and other healthy foods more affordable to the U.S. consumer?

Food Inc.

The problems with the food industry are vast and difficult to keep track of. As a consumer, many of us don’t worry how the items in the aisles of the supermarket got there as long as they’re not expired and reasonably priced. But to delve into the process of turning raw materials into the foods we see in the supermarkets, reveals a process that some might wish they never knew. The documentary, Food Inc. helps remove the curtain that hides the food industry’s processes and techniques. It uncovers a trail of actions that some might consider unethical and unmoral.

Comparison of the size of the chicken

The film takes us through many examples of how the food industry might be seen as morally wrong. The most shocking example however, deals with the production of chicken. American food production industries, such as Tyson, are highly involved in the production of chickens. In fact, Tyson owns the chicken from when its born to when its packaged and sold in the market. In the documentary, representatives from Food Inc got turned down from 11 chicken growers before they came across one that would let them into the chicken coup. That was the first signal that something was very wrong. After Food Inc showed the events that occur inside the chicken coup, a sense of disgust and guilt came over me. The chickens were packed in unsanitary conditions and given antibiotics so that they would grow faster and bigger. In fact, these chickens would grow so quickly that they would be too heavy to take just 3 steps. As seen in the picture above from Food Inc., chickens now are much bigger than what they used to be in 1950. Food Inc also showed the abuse and maltreatment of the chickens by the employees.

99 cent bag of chips

Although I was outraged by how the chickens were treated and unethically grown, the family in Food Inc, which could not afford healthy meals, also caught my attention. Everyone always jokes about how Americans are so obese, but it’s pretty obvious to me why that is- the American government subsidizes carbohydrates that are bad for us. When you can go out and by a big bag of chips for 99 cents or you can get one head of broccoli for 2 dollars, it’s a pretty simple decision to make when your on a tight budget. Americans want the most “bang” for their buck, and the government guides them to unhealthy junk foods that are made from commodities that are heavily subsidized. Our food system needs a desperate makeover. People need to be educated about the problems we face and the solutions we offer. Food Inc. was an excellent start to my education about the issues involving our food industry. 

Corn: The Farmer's Nightmare.

            It’s hard to imagine corn in one fourth of all products in the supermarket. If you think that’s hard now try imagining that corn is in our toothpaste, trash bags, cleansers, matches, batteries and many other non-food items. It’s even in the walls and structures of the supermarket itself! Michael Pollan starts off with this “wow factor” and gives us the impression of corn as the greatest thing this world has ever seen. Pollan, however, is perplexed by this omnipotent feeling of corn in our supermarkets. In chapters two and three of The Omnivores Dilemma, Pollan takes a trip to Iowa to see where corn first starts in it’s process from the fields of Iowa to the markets of the city.

            Pollan takes us through a brief history of the agriculture industry starting with the invention of synthetic nitrogen. The introduction of nitrogen created fertilizers, which then made possible the idea of monocultures; Monocultures then helped our society to start overproducing corn and soybeans. The reason why corn is the most widely grown crop is because of its many uses. It can be used as feed for cattle, fuel for cars, and sweetener in many drinks and food products. After Pollan talked to a farmer, George Naylor, about his thoughts about corn, I was left with somewhat of a different feeling than my original high hopes.

            A couple of generations ago farmers were making about 20 bushels of corn per acre. Nowadays, farmers yield close to 200 bushels per acre. You would think with a 900 percent increase in productivity famers would be making a very decent living. It’s the exact opposite of that however. Farmers are stuck in an endless cycle of poverty and bankruptcy. With corn prices so low, they can barely make a living. The facts just don’t make sense to me. Were we better off in the old days where farmers were yielding such a smaller percentage of crops? It’s a scary thought when the basis of human survival relies on farmers who are probably better off quitting than continuing farming under their current conditions.

Do you think there might be any side effects of humans having their diet consist of so much corn?

What measures should be taken to help farmers make a better living for themselves and their families?