The Omnivore's Dilemma: Industrial Corn - Essay Example

Harris Kamran English Position Paper 26 July The Omnivore’s Dilemma: Part Industrial/Corn Michael Pollan’s book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” brings the custom and the entire industry of food under a new light of research and perspective. He targets the eating habits of the modern day society, and explores the various aspects and elements of the constituents of the food that people prefer to eat, linking their eating habits to their personalities and to the fate of the human population at large (Pollan).

It is a wonder that the simple act of eating could have political, cultural, psychological, and even moral ramifications (Pollan). The book is divided into three parts, the first part dealing with the industrialized food and food containing corn. This paper purports to analyze an argument that Pollan advances concerning the element of corn, and aims to counter it. Pollan suggests that food containing corn is not a good option, because it is not only more expensive to provide due to storage and transportation, but also poses more economic constraints on the society which go unnoticed (Pollan).

Let us examine these points leading up to Pollan’s suggestion one by one. Pollen argues that the vast use and overwhelming demand for corn by the population means that an increasing amount of resources are spent on the production, transport, and supply of this essential ingredient (Pollan). This puts a direct strain on the energy demands and supply of the world at large, because, according to Pollan, the use of corn uses fossil fuels and other energy resources to plant it, water it, protect it by using pesticides, and transport it to the various locations around the country for its consumption (Pollan).

This argument is weak in that it focuses only on corn for the procedures which are just as suited to the production and use of other vegetables and crop, and even meat. The writer is obviously biased in his approach towards examining the subject. He takes an apparently prejudiced stance when he honors the grass-growers over corn-growers (Pollan). Here it should be noted that the resources expended on the production and use of corn are not different from those expended on, let us say, cotton, or wheat, or potatoes.

All crops have to be sowed, water, protected against pests, and transported. The argument may rise that since corn is in such a huge demand, it requires much more energy for production than the other crops. The fact, then, would be that the huge demand for corn produces more revenues and profits in sales than do for other crops, and these revenues balance the expenditure and even tips the scale on the side of the profits. It stands to reason that to grow the crop that is in demand more than that which is not is not only beneficial for the farmer in terms of economy, it is also an economic boost for the country.

The other argument that Pollen proposes is that the use of corn in industrialized food items puts unseen economic constraints on the individual and the country, in the form of tax subsidies, health benefits due to illness caused by that food, the salaries of the workers associated with the trade, pollution costs, and animal husbandry (Pollan 201). Therefore, Pollan argues that even though the cost of a fast food item may be low apparently, it proves to be very costly in the long run (Pollan 201).

The writer, when making this point, is not only being prejudiced again, but is also being very absurd. The idea of future costs being calculated into the price of a food item, and on that account, banning or abstaining from that food item is unfounded. The same approach could be applied to, say, the manufacturing of cars. If such a system were to exist in which future and unforeseen liability had to be taken into consideration, then the car price should have included tax subsides, health damages due to roadside accidents, the costs of environmental damage and so on, so that no one were able to afford a car.

The whole argument is futile. These future liabilities can be applied to organic food items, or alternative food items, as well. However, Pollan chooses to focus only on industrialized food and food containing corn. True, there is no denying the health hazards associated with fast food, however, the writer’s approach is biased and unfair to merit a sound argument and conclusion. To propose a business and economic climate in which the most demanded consumer product is ignored in favor of those items which are not well-suited to the society’s lifestyle is not only economically damaging, but also socially corrupting.

The popular use of corn means there are opportunities to expand this sector and increase job opportunities and improve the economic condition. The industrialization of food should not be taken as a silent evil; it provides sustenance to countless people who depend on it for survival. Works Cited Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. U.S.: Penguin Group, 2006. Print.