Omnivore's Dilemma Discussion Reflection

After last night's discussion, I was lead to a whole new series of thoughts about the reading. A recurring theme throughout the evening's discourse was the impact of agriculture on nature, and what that means to modern civilization. Pollan argues that agriculture has shaped the natural world and humanity more than any other event in history, including wars. This is a novel argument, and to a point I agree.

Agriculture has many little known influences throughout history. We discussed the topic of bird poop as a factor in World War II. Throughout history, armies have tried to conquer more fertile lands, and typically the nations with better agricultural abilities have been much more well off. From this point of view, agriculture has very much shaped the fate of humanity.

Naturally speaking, we examined the problem in Haiti of the mudslides and natural disasters that happen because of overfarming in its initial colonization. There's no doubt that agriculture has had an impact there. One could also easily argue that the influx of immigration to America over the centuries is strongly tied to agriculture; after all, the main point of slavery was to pick cotton in the South.One of the theories for Easter Island being deserted after some time is that people who lived there eventually farmed the island dry of trees and natural resources, thus starving.

One thing I like to ponder tangentially related to these points is the futuristic concept of space colonization. How will agriculture impact that? As we've seen from exploration of the earth, agriculture drove a lot of wars, colonization of certain places while not others, and food is undoubtedly required to conquer new territory. The answer could possible lie in hydroponics, but there's a long way to go before we're at the point of growing fields on the moon.

The Real Dilemma - part 1

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan introduces us to the concept that many farmers can no longer support themselves on their own products and have to go to the grocery store to buy food like everyone else. If farming really is this bad, especially the animal side, and the farmers know it, then why would they but from the store....? (Side note: I know many farmers who are part of the "industrialized system" who grow a lot more variety than just corn).

But this was only the first thought to occur to me.

Growing up in central Indiana, in the corn, around the farms, surrounded by the beginning stage of this "industrial system", I knew something was amiss in the story. An article, Here, I found someone else online sharing my exact thoughts - a family farmer from Missouri.

The article outlines many of my arguments very neatly - primarily that Pollan makes it sound way, way worse than it is. Animals filled with antibiotics, in an apocalyptic hellhole, living terrible lives. From my own experiences, and several other online sources, I can confidently disagree with Pollan here.

It frustrates me to see such a negative view of the animal agriculture industry. It's disheartening to see so much science misrepresented. The more I dug and searched for articles (All of which from reputable sources), I see more and more conflict. What this tells me is that the book is journalism - not scientific writing. Berkeley science review, which he ever references in the book, slams him here.

But why? Why would you have to misrepresent, focus on negatives, and distort things to get a point across? I can only figure one answer: journalism. Controversy sells. And nothing sells like the little golden sticker that says "New York Times Best Seller" on the front of the book. So from here, I see the book more as a source of journalism, and regard the representation of science or facts as something that I will definitely have to verify myself.

More to come after the class discussion.

Cooked!

In the first part of Cooked, we explore a technology that revolutionized the way we eat: fire. Two things that really stuck out to me were:
1. Cooking food more makes it more digestible, and this had a role in the evolutionary process. When people started cooking, it changed everything about food. Pollan claims that it allowed people to focus more on art and other things, rather than constantly trying to find food, which contributed to the end of the "survival" times. Secondly, I like to eat rare steak... So I guess I won't be getting as much nutrients from it as I could. But the taste is worth it!

2. Fire bringing people together around meals. Cooking brought in the idea of "culture" that we have now. Culture is very centered on food, and we owe this to fire. Sharing a meal is what brought people together. Sharing food, leaving the survivalist mindset, began the transition to the modern world we have today, and what arguably sets us apart from animals.

The experience at Bridge's barbecue was also very interesting. as barbecue is probably one of the most primitive forms of cooking. It relates very well to the previous two points, besides tasting very good!

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

While I was reading some news today, I came across an article that is very pertinent to our discussion on natural foods, here. The article coincides nicely with the book In Defense of Food, reviewing the current situation of some genetically modified rice. The author takes the time to point out that not only have genetically modified foods been around for some time, the public opposition is quite high globally, and argues that GM foods have not produced what they were supposed to.

Personally, I am very interested in the idea of bioengineering, and I take the opportunity to look at these kinds of articles critically. I've found that most of the hype and debate over GM foods is from an either an ethical or a health perspective. The ethical side is undoubtedly a tough issue, and opinions vary widely. The health side, however, can be more easily argued with factual evidence. But, once again, we run into the problem that the data just isn't there. Similarly to the whole concept of nutritional science, we really can't make judgement based off of what science is currently available. As soon as something is thought to be a strong point, another data set is shown to conflict the premise. I frequently hear people talking about the danger of GM anything, but it's hard to back up either side without firm science.

Another point is made in the article presenting the security/health research that is required for these companies to be able to market their products. The author admits there is no data to show that the products are toxic or bad for your health, but then again, it's the companies that are providing the data - potentially a conflict of interest.

My opinion on this topic, and many related topics, is that it's a personal choice. A consumer should educate themselves not on just journalism, but also the hard science behind the products. They should take the initiative, read the scholarly articles, and deduct their own opinions. Only then are you mitigating the bias enough to get a sure, thorough sense of what you believe and how you will personally react.

Lastly, the point of third world countries being among the most opposed when they potentially have the most to gain is another angle on an already complex issue. The momentum from the promise of these bioengineering companies to provide food for the world (and consequently, end world hunger) can't be ignored. The author makes a keen point that we haven't seen those results yet, and that relying on these products would produce a financial enslavement to the companies that produce them - once again, the issue of ethics arises. So what is the real direction here? Are GM foods dangerous, or are they the next step in a world liberated from starvation?

In Defense of Food

Michael Pollan poses the question "What would happen if we were to start thinking about food as less of a thing and more of a relationship?"  in In Defense of Food. When most of time, we view eating as an obligation, we lose a significant part of what a meal could mean. Pollan suggests that we think of eating as more of a relationship, not just with food, but with the earth and nature. Once again, I see the recurring theme of returning to a more traditional diet. He also brings attention to the refined and more "industrialized" food, and how historically it has been bad for our health. Compared to centuries of cultural and traditional eating, the health impact of the new "westernized diet" is hard to ignore.

As I read this book, the idea of eating a more traditional or cultural diet constantly emerges throughout the topics presented. We can't view foods as merely their chemical components, but view them as a whole, and return to the idea of food as a relationship, rather than a daily obligation. But what's the best way to do this?

Real Food Shopping Spree

This challenge was to find real, unchanged food in the local grocery store. Although it sounds simple, when limited to only the middle aisles, there are few real foods to be found. Here's several I managed to find that were unadulterated:

1. Maple Syrup: although maybe not organic and natural, it was unchanged and didn't contain anything foreign.

2. Black Beans: Nothing was added to these, just beans straight from the farm.








 


 3. Parmesan Cheese: No additives or health claims, just regular Parmesan cheese without any changes.

For comparison, I included two products that would seem good for you and normal, and make health claims (one of the food rules to avoid). These are exactly the kind of things that Michael Pollan suggests to avoid in In Defense of Food.

Food Rules

Michael Pollan gives some good advice on everyday eating - not by telling you what to eat or not, but simply some guidelines to avoid the unhealthy habits we make all too often. And it's not about science, although there's plenty to go along, but really more about traditional and cultural diets. All of the rules listed in the book are based more on tradition, what your great grandparents would have had, rather than hammering scientific studies and statistical data about disease. These rules are more common sense, stemming from cultural, old-style eating habits - the way they were when America was still young and the idea of the food industry had not yet been realized. By simply linking your diet back to these old ways, you could improve your eating habits a lot.

Several rules that I particularly liked were:

#20: It's not food if it arrived through your window.
#32: Don't overlook the oily little fishes.
#43: Have a glass of wine with dinner.

A couple rules that I think are among the same ideas that could help?

1. If a product is named after a food, but doesn't actually contain it, don't eat/drink it. (ie shrimp sauce, fake lemon juice)
2. The easier to make, the worse it probably is (except whole fruits, of course).
3. If you have to cook it for a second time, avoid it (pre-cooked meat, etc).
4. Remind yourself what a portion or serving actually is, and consider that when making your plate
5. In a cafeteria, the healthiest options probably won't be the focus for that meal. Get stuff from the side lines or salad bars.
6. Drinking water at meals is the easiest way to get to the recommended daily serving. 

Overall, the book was a great quick read, reminding of some simple things that don't take much conscious effort but could drastically improve your diet. The rules don't take much to remember, since they're based off traditional attitudes toward diet - summarize it to one sentence: eat like your great grandparents did.

Bees, almonds, and a ton of speculation

Time's "The Plight of the Honeybee"details the full impact of what colony collapse disorder could bring to not just honey, but many other agriculture fields (literally!) that would be severely restricted without the honeybee. The problem, though - we don't know why it's happening!

Several causes are presented: chemicals (pesticides) and parasites, two major opponents that could potentially be controlled, as well as the idea that the large-scale farming of cash crops like corn and soybeans could create a "desert" with no room for bees. In reality, though, no one has a substantial claim for what appears to be the random bee apocalypse.

In one of the last paragraphs, the author talks of researchers preparing a genetic bank for the bees, keeping the genomes which could be used to cross breed and select for a bee that wouldn't die. Although it could be regarded as a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), it's undeniable that genetic engineering to save the fate of the honeybee is a viable solution. Using engineering to fix this problem could solve it, but could also present many more issues...what else could these genetically selected or changed bees do? Could this present moral and ethical issues?