Monday, October 25, 2010
Food Inc. Response
The main theme of the movie was, how much do we really know about the food we buy and eat. The film showed us the dark truth behind the food we eat how it is run by a food empire which turns our food into "food" from tortured and infested meat to the cycle of endless pesticides. The authors thought that it is important for the viewers to learn and do something about their food ways because it’s a very important issue, just as Michael Pollan said: "I think it's one of the most important battles for consumers to fight: the right to know what's in their food, and how it was grown."
One of the differences between the movie and book was the movie was more emotional, and the book was more intellectual. What I mean by that is how the movie was made to "tug on the heart strings" due to the graphic horror displayed in the film, the book on the other hand although it said that there was all these terrible things but seeing is believing. When it comes to the intellectual side, in the book you get to form your own opinion since Omnivores Dilemma showed evidence for both sides, while movies are usually made to be one sided and makes the watcher lean towards one side of the argument. Also the book was trying to give the reader greater knowledge of the situation (to make them scholars) and not necessarily that they will change their food habits but just to be informed, unlike the movie.
After watching the movie and reading the book I find myself actually looking at the nutrition’s fact on the covers of the things I buy. Although my diet has not changed that (We don’t buy ground beef anymore, but I still eat fast food) much I feel more aware of what’s in the food I eat. One thing I thought that was very important was how the author described how we should eat:"For we no longer need any reminding that however we choose to feed ourselves, we eat by the grace of nature, not industry". I think it’s important not to eat ignorantly, industrially, and after reading and watching I can make decisions and be conscious of them.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
HW 7d
Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan
Chapter 17:
Precis:
"The food we're eating once had feelings?....."
The phrase above might sound stupid but people nowadays are "just" now realizing this. The foods we eat were once animals and as living things they had feelings. The fact that we slaughter (note that I didn’t say kill, that be down playing the situation, I said slaughter) animals unrelentlessly and without restraint is sad, and it should come as no surprise that people would want to become vegetarians or would'nt want to pay no mind to the situation, because when given to much thought its disgusting (guess that’s why the author was reading an animal’s rights book in a steakhouse).
Gems:
"Nowadays it seems we either look away or become vegetarians. For my own part, neither opinion seemed especially appetizing; certainly looking away was now completely off the table. Which might explain how it was that I found myself attempting to read Peter Singer in a steakhouse"(page 307
"No other country raises and slaughters its food animals as intensively or as brutal as we do."(Page 333)
Thoughts:
In kindergarten we were thought the word "Pig" and learned that it was an animal, but now were taught the word "pig" and learned that it’s a commodity. This not only goes for "pig" but for other animals as well not to mention plants. Although there is the inevitable fact that animals will be killed, (There will always be a person with a crave for fatty proteins, just as there is a crave for sugar) there is no need for it to be so brutal in abundance.
Chapter 18:
Precis:
Hunting at one point in time was a natural way for humans to get food. Based on genetics also it would seem that it is somewhat hereditary in the way that. Besides this is the way things were done before the "magic" of agriculture came in the picture.
Gems:
"The fact that you cannot come out of hunting feeling unambiguously good about it is perhaps what should commend the practice to us"(page 361)
"Perhaps it is the joy of a creature succeeding at something he has discovered his nature has superbly equipped him to do, an action that is less a perversion of that nature, his "creaturely character'" than a fulfillment of it."(Page 361)
Thoughts:
As stated in another post the death of animals is inevitable, but when it comes to how it is killed that’s where it varies. The differences between a hunter's kill and a slaughterhouses' slaughter is huge. I’ve went hunting three times now (for turkey and deer) and one thing we were told was that we were never to just harm the animal and to kill it as quickly as possible firstly for the fact that an injured animal is a dangerous animal and for the fact that its just wrong to see in animal in pain or tortured. I remember my first kill: I shot a bird, clipping it underneath the wing. As I ran up to it to kill it, I remember feeling a bit weird since I was up and close ending a life(of course it ended a couple of seconds later after the adrenaline and praise from the others came in). I find this interesting because a hunter kills an animal that has been "living its life" until then, while a slaughterhouses animal has been "living a life set out for it" until it’s slaughtered.
Chapter 19:
Precis:
People naturally have urges to see if they still have the skills to provide for themselves wither it be hunting for animals or plants. Although people downplay plants when comparing them to hunting for animals, they in themselves are a challenge, mushrooms especially. Mushrooms unlike garden plants need to be hunted for. They don’t beg to be picked like an apple or orange that flashes its bright colors and is usually in the eye level area, while in the contrast fungi is not brightly colored and actually "hide" itself. Guess that’s why one hunts for mushrooms instead of harvesting them.
Gems:
"An economy organized around a complex division of labor can usually get these jobs done for a fraction of the cost, in time or money, that it takes us to do them ourselves, yet something in us apparently seeks conformation that we still have the skills needed to provide for ourselves. You know, just in case."(Page 364)
"Oh, it can be hard work, hunting and gathering, but in the end it isn’t really the work that produces the food you’re after, this effort for that result for there’s no sure correlation between effort and result. (Page 389)
Thoughts:
When you take time to think about it hunting for mushrooms is no joke. Based on what was said in the chapter, you can get lost trying to find them. Not only that but when someone harvests food they usually don’t have to worry about dying if one eats the wrong kind. Make me wonder how it worked when humans first started eating mushrooms? (Trial and error comes to mind, but error would just be death. No pressure.)
Chapter 20
Precis:
What is a perfect meal?...
To some that might be mashed potatoes with steak, and others a BigMac with extra secret sauce. To the author, a meal in which one is totally aware to what they are eating. Although he is not trying to convince us to sharpen the spears of our ancestors he reminds us that people should eat "by the grace of nature", rather than in full ignorance, eat industrially.
Gems:
"It's impossible to prepare and eat a meal quite so physically, intellectually, and emotionally costly without thinking about the incalculably larger debts we incur when we eat industrially"(Page 410)
"For we no longer need any reminding that however we choose to feed ourselves, we eat by the grace of nature, not industry, and what were eating is never anything more or less than the body of the world."(Page 411)
Thoughts:
Michael Pollan is one of the few people in America that in full consciousness ate a meal in which he knew what he was eating. What I mean by that is he knew where I came from, how it got on his table and what it truly cost to get it. Not a lot of people can say they caught, grew, and saw their food from start to finish! This really makes me consider what a world without fast-food would be like. A day where food is neither fast or slow but as the author puts it, food would be food, a time when people eat with a idea of what they are doing.
Chapter 17:
Precis:
"The food we're eating once had feelings?....."
The phrase above might sound stupid but people nowadays are "just" now realizing this. The foods we eat were once animals and as living things they had feelings. The fact that we slaughter (note that I didn’t say kill, that be down playing the situation, I said slaughter) animals unrelentlessly and without restraint is sad, and it should come as no surprise that people would want to become vegetarians or would'nt want to pay no mind to the situation, because when given to much thought its disgusting (guess that’s why the author was reading an animal’s rights book in a steakhouse).
Gems:
"Nowadays it seems we either look away or become vegetarians. For my own part, neither opinion seemed especially appetizing; certainly looking away was now completely off the table. Which might explain how it was that I found myself attempting to read Peter Singer in a steakhouse"(page 307
"No other country raises and slaughters its food animals as intensively or as brutal as we do."(Page 333)
Thoughts:
In kindergarten we were thought the word "Pig" and learned that it was an animal, but now were taught the word "pig" and learned that it’s a commodity. This not only goes for "pig" but for other animals as well not to mention plants. Although there is the inevitable fact that animals will be killed, (There will always be a person with a crave for fatty proteins, just as there is a crave for sugar) there is no need for it to be so brutal in abundance.
Chapter 18:
Precis:
Hunting at one point in time was a natural way for humans to get food. Based on genetics also it would seem that it is somewhat hereditary in the way that. Besides this is the way things were done before the "magic" of agriculture came in the picture.
Gems:
"The fact that you cannot come out of hunting feeling unambiguously good about it is perhaps what should commend the practice to us"(page 361)
"Perhaps it is the joy of a creature succeeding at something he has discovered his nature has superbly equipped him to do, an action that is less a perversion of that nature, his "creaturely character'" than a fulfillment of it."(Page 361)
Thoughts:
As stated in another post the death of animals is inevitable, but when it comes to how it is killed that’s where it varies. The differences between a hunter's kill and a slaughterhouses' slaughter is huge. I’ve went hunting three times now (for turkey and deer) and one thing we were told was that we were never to just harm the animal and to kill it as quickly as possible firstly for the fact that an injured animal is a dangerous animal and for the fact that its just wrong to see in animal in pain or tortured. I remember my first kill: I shot a bird, clipping it underneath the wing. As I ran up to it to kill it, I remember feeling a bit weird since I was up and close ending a life(of course it ended a couple of seconds later after the adrenaline and praise from the others came in). I find this interesting because a hunter kills an animal that has been "living its life" until then, while a slaughterhouses animal has been "living a life set out for it" until it’s slaughtered.
Chapter 19:
Precis:
People naturally have urges to see if they still have the skills to provide for themselves wither it be hunting for animals or plants. Although people downplay plants when comparing them to hunting for animals, they in themselves are a challenge, mushrooms especially. Mushrooms unlike garden plants need to be hunted for. They don’t beg to be picked like an apple or orange that flashes its bright colors and is usually in the eye level area, while in the contrast fungi is not brightly colored and actually "hide" itself. Guess that’s why one hunts for mushrooms instead of harvesting them.
Gems:
"An economy organized around a complex division of labor can usually get these jobs done for a fraction of the cost, in time or money, that it takes us to do them ourselves, yet something in us apparently seeks conformation that we still have the skills needed to provide for ourselves. You know, just in case."(Page 364)
"Oh, it can be hard work, hunting and gathering, but in the end it isn’t really the work that produces the food you’re after, this effort for that result for there’s no sure correlation between effort and result. (Page 389)
Thoughts:
When you take time to think about it hunting for mushrooms is no joke. Based on what was said in the chapter, you can get lost trying to find them. Not only that but when someone harvests food they usually don’t have to worry about dying if one eats the wrong kind. Make me wonder how it worked when humans first started eating mushrooms? (Trial and error comes to mind, but error would just be death. No pressure.)
Chapter 20
Precis:
What is a perfect meal?...
To some that might be mashed potatoes with steak, and others a BigMac with extra secret sauce. To the author, a meal in which one is totally aware to what they are eating. Although he is not trying to convince us to sharpen the spears of our ancestors he reminds us that people should eat "by the grace of nature", rather than in full ignorance, eat industrially.
Gems:
"It's impossible to prepare and eat a meal quite so physically, intellectually, and emotionally costly without thinking about the incalculably larger debts we incur when we eat industrially"(Page 410)
"For we no longer need any reminding that however we choose to feed ourselves, we eat by the grace of nature, not industry, and what were eating is never anything more or less than the body of the world."(Page 411)
Thoughts:
Michael Pollan is one of the few people in America that in full consciousness ate a meal in which he knew what he was eating. What I mean by that is he knew where I came from, how it got on his table and what it truly cost to get it. Not a lot of people can say they caught, grew, and saw their food from start to finish! This really makes me consider what a world without fast-food would be like. A day where food is neither fast or slow but as the author puts it, food would be food, a time when people eat with a idea of what they are doing.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Freakonomics Response
One of the tools that the economics used from their tool box would be evidence to find the truth, a more specific name; causation. This is seen in the experiment they did at the school. The author was betting on the fact that if given the incentive one will try to work over an obstacle to get it, in this case it was money for the winner’s college. They offered money to the kids for something they did not want to do, so most kids did not work for it. In the end of the experiment a low percentage of the kids actually improved their grades. Another tool used would be surveys. Throughout the whole thing surveys were heavily used like when they were trying to show if names affected ones success rate. The one in particular was the dad that named his son Winner and Loser. Although one would expect that their names would imply their destiny the outcome was on the contrary, Loser grew up to be a success and Winner wound up a convict. They also tried to read between the lines. Sumo was supposed to be a sport buried in honor and culture but if one takes the time to look at the data one can easily see how cheating was in plain sight.
The author’s acknowledge the lack of evidence behind correlation. Correlation is when things are tied together but no one knows what caused what, and causation is when one can tell what caused what. In the movie they proved the actual causation of the issue in their example. They showed the difference between correlation and causation in the example of the crime rate growing down. According to all the charts people would believe that crime went down in the 1990 because of the rise in the police force (correlation), when the actual solution was that abortion was legalized and thus reduced the birth of babies and bad neighborhoods (causation).
I would have to agree with the statement: "Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices". Although I wouldn’t say it did a very good job of it, due to the fact that it did not talk about the "weirdness" of dominant social practices, but it did talk about dominant social practices. It mainly stuck to the idea that opportunities/incentives matter. People tend to make/pick opportunities that work for them. This connects back to our investigation of U.S food ways in the way most would rather plant, grow, and use corn for most things rather then grass. Farmers would rather grow corn than grass because there is a bigger incentive that they actually want to work towards; Its fast and produces more money and the consequence of not growing it would be going broke.
The author’s acknowledge the lack of evidence behind correlation. Correlation is when things are tied together but no one knows what caused what, and causation is when one can tell what caused what. In the movie they proved the actual causation of the issue in their example. They showed the difference between correlation and causation in the example of the crime rate growing down. According to all the charts people would believe that crime went down in the 1990 because of the rise in the police force (correlation), when the actual solution was that abortion was legalized and thus reduced the birth of babies and bad neighborhoods (causation).
I would have to agree with the statement: "Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices". Although I wouldn’t say it did a very good job of it, due to the fact that it did not talk about the "weirdness" of dominant social practices, but it did talk about dominant social practices. It mainly stuck to the idea that opportunities/incentives matter. People tend to make/pick opportunities that work for them. This connects back to our investigation of U.S food ways in the way most would rather plant, grow, and use corn for most things rather then grass. Farmers would rather grow corn than grass because there is a bigger incentive that they actually want to work towards; Its fast and produces more money and the consequence of not growing it would be going broke.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Growing Your Own Food
I didnt know what to eat it with at first, but finally I made a tuna sprout sandwhich with cheese:
Reader Response 5
Chapter 10- Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan (Precis):
America land of quantity over quality. Why did America turn its head on the environmentally friendly way of producing natural food? The answer would be how it does not meet the standard of the industrious process. The grass farming method of growing livestock is against the principle of industry: time and money. If livestock is not grown and fattened up fast enough in a certain amount of time, it will not meet the standard of industry and produce less money.
“Our civilization and, increasingly, our food system are strictly organized on industrial lines” (Gem)
To connect all back, plain and simple: corn works within this system, grass does not.
America land of quantity over quality. Why did America turn its head on the environmentally friendly way of producing natural food? The answer would be how it does not meet the standard of the industrious process. The grass farming method of growing livestock is against the principle of industry: time and money. If livestock is not grown and fattened up fast enough in a certain amount of time, it will not meet the standard of industry and produce less money.
“Our civilization and, increasingly, our food system are strictly organized on industrial lines” (Gem)
To connect all back, plain and simple: corn works within this system, grass does not.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Reader Response 4
Chapter 6, Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan (Precis):
Due to the over production, the result becomes huge/excess proportions and over consumption. In this chapter the author also discussed similarities in eating binges and drinking binges. The similarities being, turning excess corn into a non-perishable form with encouragements for people to eat more of it. Something interesting about this would be the play of human psychology here: When food is placed before people majority of the time people will finish it. This may be a result of parenting which teaches/encourages their kids to "finish their plate", whether its rice to vegetables which kids may not like but grow up with the urge to finish their plates. To conclude the chapter, the author places the blame of unhealthy Americans on their agricultural policies: “we subsidize high-fructose corn syrup in this country, but not carrots.” Until we change our policy, “the river of cheap corn will keep flowing.”(Gem)
Chapter 7, Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan (Precis):
The author takes his family to a McDonalds to eat and enjoys their meal in the family car, and takes a closer look at the highly refined foods. One of the results of all this processing is that a brand new type of "food" has been invented, one which is no longer associated with the plant and/or animal it came from. Does the chicken nugget taste like chicken? Sadly the answer is no, rather it just taste like a chicken nugget. Does the patty in the burger taste like real beef? No it does not. Using McDonalds as an example of this over-zealously over corn, the author summarizes his thoughts on the corn-empire: "The farmers going broke cultivating it; the countless other species routed or emiserated by it; the humans eating and drinking it as fast as they can, some of them—like me and my family—in automobiles engineered to drink it, too"(Gem)
Chapter 8, Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan(Precis):
Grass is as difrent from industrial farming as can be. There are many diffrences of these is the natural cycle that is made when animals eat what they were made to eat. Cows for example when they eat grass.In the cow-grass cycle there is no such thing as waste, firstly when they eat grass they make fecis and the fecis in turn goes to the grass as fertilizer making the cycle start over."We never called ourselves organic- we call ourselves 'beyond organic'. Why dumb down to a lesser level then we are?"(Gem)
Chapter 9, Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan (Precis):
So the items labeled with the nice "Organic" sign on the store shelves are not what they seemed...
As it turns out, the mainstream organic should be called "Big Organic". Although it started as a bunch of organic farms owned by hippies in the 70's, which used no chemicals to grow produce things started to change as time went on. After experiencing growing pains and limitation in agriculture, they went to industrial machinery to help them extend business. This somewhat ironic that the same people that once "raged against the machine" eventually turned to it (industrial organic).
Thoughts:
"Are we the masters of corn, or is corn the master of us?"
"Will we ever be able to escape the fast food chain?"
Due to the over production, the result becomes huge/excess proportions and over consumption. In this chapter the author also discussed similarities in eating binges and drinking binges. The similarities being, turning excess corn into a non-perishable form with encouragements for people to eat more of it. Something interesting about this would be the play of human psychology here: When food is placed before people majority of the time people will finish it. This may be a result of parenting which teaches/encourages their kids to "finish their plate", whether its rice to vegetables which kids may not like but grow up with the urge to finish their plates. To conclude the chapter, the author places the blame of unhealthy Americans on their agricultural policies: “we subsidize high-fructose corn syrup in this country, but not carrots.” Until we change our policy, “the river of cheap corn will keep flowing.”(Gem)
Chapter 7, Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan (Precis):
The author takes his family to a McDonalds to eat and enjoys their meal in the family car, and takes a closer look at the highly refined foods. One of the results of all this processing is that a brand new type of "food" has been invented, one which is no longer associated with the plant and/or animal it came from. Does the chicken nugget taste like chicken? Sadly the answer is no, rather it just taste like a chicken nugget. Does the patty in the burger taste like real beef? No it does not. Using McDonalds as an example of this over-zealously over corn, the author summarizes his thoughts on the corn-empire: "The farmers going broke cultivating it; the countless other species routed or emiserated by it; the humans eating and drinking it as fast as they can, some of them—like me and my family—in automobiles engineered to drink it, too"(Gem)
Chapter 8, Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan(Precis):
Grass is as difrent from industrial farming as can be. There are many diffrences of these is the natural cycle that is made when animals eat what they were made to eat. Cows for example when they eat grass.In the cow-grass cycle there is no such thing as waste, firstly when they eat grass they make fecis and the fecis in turn goes to the grass as fertilizer making the cycle start over."We never called ourselves organic- we call ourselves 'beyond organic'. Why dumb down to a lesser level then we are?"(Gem)
Chapter 9, Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan (Precis):
So the items labeled with the nice "Organic" sign on the store shelves are not what they seemed...
As it turns out, the mainstream organic should be called "Big Organic". Although it started as a bunch of organic farms owned by hippies in the 70's, which used no chemicals to grow produce things started to change as time went on. After experiencing growing pains and limitation in agriculture, they went to industrial machinery to help them extend business. This somewhat ironic that the same people that once "raged against the machine" eventually turned to it (industrial organic).
Thoughts:
"Are we the masters of corn, or is corn the master of us?"
"Will we ever be able to escape the fast food chain?"
Friday, October 8, 2010
Reader Response 3
Chapter 5- The Omnivore's Dilemma-Micael Pollan(Precis)
We are the industrial eater, it takes a certain kind of eater, the industrial eater, to eat corn that has been broken down and put back together but as processed food like “margarine, Tang, Cheez Whiz and Cool Whip”. All of which are, essentially “food imitators” they can provide sustenance but they won’t really sustain us. Chapter 5 explains how since there is a large surplus of corn, industries need to get all that surplus biomass somewhere. This is where we come in, exploiting the human desire for sweet stuff, High Fructose Corn Syrup is born. Following this logic leads to the conclusion that Americans are unhealthy for a reason; they are doing their part to consume all excess biomass, as efficient as possible.
Thoughts:
One response made by a New York food additive manufactrurer in the book was that natural food is a: "dubious substance, came to be eaten by humans at thier own risk", my response: "WHAT!!!!??!!"
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Reader Response 2
Chapter 3-Omnivore's Dilemma Michael Pollan(Precis)
Turns out Old McDonalds’ happy farm isn’t so much a farm nor is it happy. In chapter 3 I found out Old McDonald (the average meat maker) upgraded from farm to a feedlot or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation which feeds our cows low quality corn and leave them in low quality holders and in turn eat a whole bunch of low quality cow (and I mean a lot, specifically 100 million beef cows).These feedlots, like cheap corn, brought the work ethic of quantity over quality when making meats. Paraphrasing what was said on page 68; when animals live on a farm the very idea of waste cease to exist due to their ecological loop, on the other hand feedlots take this wonderful idea and neatly divide it into two new problems, a fertility problem which is "fixed" by adding chemical fertilizer and a pollution problem that is hardly "fixed" at all (Gem). More importantly the chapter discussed how "You are what what you eat eats" and something interesting that I never thought of, is how in America we do an amazing magic trick which is turn excess bushels of cheap corn into steaks.
Thoughts:
1. The more I read this book the more I find out that I really don’t know what I’m eating and what I’m eating is eating
2. When did these facts become acceptable?
Turns out Old McDonalds’ happy farm isn’t so much a farm nor is it happy. In chapter 3 I found out Old McDonald (the average meat maker) upgraded from farm to a feedlot or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation which feeds our cows low quality corn and leave them in low quality holders and in turn eat a whole bunch of low quality cow (and I mean a lot, specifically 100 million beef cows).These feedlots, like cheap corn, brought the work ethic of quantity over quality when making meats. Paraphrasing what was said on page 68; when animals live on a farm the very idea of waste cease to exist due to their ecological loop, on the other hand feedlots take this wonderful idea and neatly divide it into two new problems, a fertility problem which is "fixed" by adding chemical fertilizer and a pollution problem that is hardly "fixed" at all (Gem). More importantly the chapter discussed how "You are what what you eat eats" and something interesting that I never thought of, is how in America we do an amazing magic trick which is turn excess bushels of cheap corn into steaks.
Thoughts:
1. The more I read this book the more I find out that I really don’t know what I’m eating and what I’m eating is eating
2. When did these facts become acceptable?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Reading Response 1
Chapter 1- The Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan(Precis)
Do we really know what we are eating? Although the author, when following the industrial food chain, expected his investigation to lead to a variety of out lets, majority of comes from or is corn. Ever since the food line processed food is not what it seems:
"In recent years some of this supermarket euphemism has seeped into Produce, where you will now find formerly soil encrusted potatoes cubed pristine white, and "baby" carrots machine-lathed neatly into tapered torpedoes. -page 16"(gem)
From our so called chicken nuggets and the soda we drink to wash it down to the very store we purchase these items from corn is there.
Chapter 2- The Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan(Precis)
The people of America are corn. I mean that in every sense of the phrase. Chapter 2 explicitly shows that although we American would like think that we eat a diverse diet everything from burgers to Twinkies, when we look at what makes up our food on a molecular level majority of it is processed corn. Most importantly we have become what we eat, corn with legs.
"A commodity is like a filter stripping qualities and histories from the harvest of a particular farm an farmer."(gem) This made me wonder, when did we start to put quantity over quality in food?
Thoughts:
1. When did we become so dependent on this one crop?
2. Is this corn issue a triumph of capitalism or failure of imagination? or both?
3.when did we start to put quantity over quality in food?
Do we really know what we are eating? Although the author, when following the industrial food chain, expected his investigation to lead to a variety of out lets, majority of comes from or is corn. Ever since the food line processed food is not what it seems:
"In recent years some of this supermarket euphemism has seeped into Produce, where you will now find formerly soil encrusted potatoes cubed pristine white, and "baby" carrots machine-lathed neatly into tapered torpedoes. -page 16"(gem)
From our so called chicken nuggets and the soda we drink to wash it down to the very store we purchase these items from corn is there.
Chapter 2- The Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan(Precis)
The people of America are corn. I mean that in every sense of the phrase. Chapter 2 explicitly shows that although we American would like think that we eat a diverse diet everything from burgers to Twinkies, when we look at what makes up our food on a molecular level majority of it is processed corn. Most importantly we have become what we eat, corn with legs.
Chapter 3- The Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan(Precis)
Corn is not just a food anymore, its a commodidty. Chapter 3 tells how some corn went from being a crop grown by farmers who actually gave a .... about what they grew to corn that is grown just to apease the masses. In fact there is corn made that actually has little to no nutritional benifits.Somthing that stood out to me was on page 60 was:"A commodity is like a filter stripping qualities and histories from the harvest of a particular farm an farmer."(gem) This made me wonder, when did we start to put quantity over quality in food?
Thoughts:
1. When did we become so dependent on this one crop?
2. Is this corn issue a triumph of capitalism or failure of imagination? or both?
3.when did we start to put quantity over quality in food?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)