Practical Approach to Dealing with Omnivore - Essay Example

A Practical Approach to Overcoming the Omnivore’s Dilemma Industrialization and mass production have had a positive impact on the world, or have they? One no longer has to pay exorbitant prices for shoes, bags, clothes or food - thanks to mass production. But what are the consequences of mass-produced goods, especially food? In a country where a significant percentage of the food comes from mass-produced corn, is it any wonder that Americans have an eating disorder? Michael Pollan explores this question in his book The Omnivores Dilemma. Pollan says, "from eating too much of the same thing when crops were good, and not enough of anything when they werent,"(279) man put his diet out of balance. The result is that Americans have many choices of processed foods, but they are mostly based on the same crop (corn) resulting in the "omnivores dilemma". But what are the alternatives to a diet of mass-produced food? Does not have to become a hunter or gatherer to resolve the omnivore’s dilemma? With conscious choices and determination to find the origins of one’s food, one can overcome the omnivore’s dilemma and eat a balanced diet. The thesis that Pollan has posed in his book is "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" (Pollan 411). It means that we eat because we need to exist as part of nature, and whatever we eat comes from nature. However, if that had been the case, America would not have been faced with the omnivore’s dilemma. Burgers, soda and ice cream are all mass produced in America. It is difficult to distinguish the natural sources of these foods. Pollan describes an American meal as "the myriad streams of commodity corn, after being variously processed and turned into meat, converge... at KFC or Pizza Hut or Applebees" (Pollan 109). To meet this challenge, Pollan has decided to investigate a meal he has prepared for a group of people and discovered that it is not just industrialization that is on trial. The food producing chain of various farms and industries, to the supermarkets that sell them and the media that airs so-called intelligent nutritional wisdom, all influence the way Americans perceive food. Pollan is of the view that the average American largely depends on fast food for meals and does not care where that food comes from. People eat Subway’s salads because the company markets them as healthy. People eat McDonald’s meals because they are convenient. But what guarantees do people have that the ingredients of these meals come from ethical, healthy or even natural sources? Having diverged from traditional culinary culture, Americans do not value whether an “apple is organic or conventional” or a fish is “wild or farmed” (Pollan 5). People continue to face the omnivore’s dilemma, because they have become used to picking packages from the supermarket shelf, rather than understanding and being part of the food chain. Anyone who has a mind to care about what they eat, as Pollan does, would discover that the origin of American food comes from an unethically constructed and manufacturing based food processes. From the soda to the Chicken McNuggets to the coriander, food ingredients are mass-produced, genetically engineered and synthetically fertilized. To better understand how nature provides food for humans, Pollan engages in an experiment of hunting and foraging. He discovers that a meal is tied with the natural systems that man depends on (Pollan 280). If we make the effort, we will come to know that “yeast that leaven our bread” (Pollan 10) comes from some natural source, is processed, and then comes out in its powdered state; the meat in a McDonald’s burger comes from meat of cows raised on feedlots in Kansas (Pollan 65); and the corn that we eat comes from agricultural farms which genetically engineer them to have the required nutritional values. When one becomes conscious of the meal one consumes, it becomes easy to determine what is good and what is not good for ones health. The question of what is ethical or what is not is a bit more confusing to answer though. Pollan (304) asserts that if we knew how animals are slaughtered for meat, or what constitutes rearing of animals, people would be less inclined to eat meat. Many feel there is no humane way to take the life of an animal for the purpose of eating its flesh, be it fish, chicken or cows. As Pollan writes, “eating meat has become morally problematic, at least for people who take the trouble to think about it.” (Pollan 305) I do not see anything wrong with eating meat. The word “domesticated” means the animals are raised by people for a purpose. In the Neolithic age, animal domestication was started for the purpose of preserving food resources. At that time, if people had a poor harvest, there would be less food. Domesticated animals were an important safeguard against poor harvests. Since then, domesticated animals have provided high quality protein for mankind. There is no point in arguing about equality or morality in consuming animals because they are born to be domesticated by people. That is why farm owners breed animals and raise them like plants or crops. I believe vegetarians will eat meat to survive when there is no food resource for, let us say, environmental issues like an ice age. Nowadays, we have abundant food resources that are nutritious. Even though some choose to eat meat, there are many alternative foods for protein. This point is made by animal rights activists. Pollan points out that eating the meat of a cow raised on Joe Salatin’s farm is more ethical than from one raised on a Kansas feedlot due to how they are treated. I will eat meat because it tastes good. In my view, domesticated animals are just food. I do not feel any guilty eating domesticated animals. As Pollan says, “Without us eating them, they would not exist at all” (Pollan 310). To experience Pollans claims, I decided to prepare a meal instead of buying one. Conscious of the result of Pollans investigation, I chose my products with care at the supermarket to prepare a meal of fried chicken and salad. For the chicken, I chose Perdue Home-style Chicken Breast, which is a commercially raised chicken. According to Richard C. Auletta, in his article “Defining ‘Free Range’” published in The New York Times, “Perdue chickens are free to roam in very large houses that are well ventilated and very bright.” So, he claims that where commercially raised chickens live in is more sanitary compared to where free-range chickens live in since they are under human control. He also points out, “commercially raised chickens are not raised in cages, are not force-fed, are not given any hormones or chemical growth stimulants.” Therefore, I chose Perdue chicken over free-range chicken. As long as chickens live in the sanitary conditions and are not given any hormones in Perdue farms, Perdue Chicken Breast satisfied part of my omnivore’s dilemma. My contemplation on the origin of my chicken breasts did not deter me from preparing my meal. I continued, and marinated the chicken with Kikkoman soy sauce which was actually manufactured in Japan. Similarly, the garlic and onions, which I ground in a mixing machine with a dash of sea salt to marinate the chicken, came from Mexico. While I did not know the cost involved in farming and hiring pickers for these bulbs, I could only imagine the efforts it took to cultivate, harvest and then transport them from Mexico to America. After waiting for 15 minutes, I stirred the fried chicken in oil from olives grown on a farm in Italy. To make a simple tossed salad, I chose organic vegetables. The salad was an array of salad leaves, cherry tomatoes, onions, nuts (in packets), tossed in olive oil, and coriander leaves from my window pot. The meal was topped with home-made ice cream and soda, both locally made. No doubt, this was not a simple meal as compared to purchasing a McDonalds meal. But I felt that, at least, I was conscious of the origins of the food ingredients I consumed, albeit not all of them. I was uncertain of the origin of the nuts. The chicken, for example, was mass produced, perhaps by a farmer with no ethics of killing them. The olive oil, garlic and onions were imports from countries where I have no idea who owned the farms or how the farms were operated. The salad was made up of mass produced vegetables termed organic, which, in my view, should have more nutritional value than conventionally grown food since organic vegetables are much more expensive and naturally grown without fertilizers according to the farmers. Frankly, I am not sure whether organic foods are more nutritious than conventionally grown foods. When I ate both organic vegetables and conventional vegetables, I could not find any difference between them. Still, I choose organic foods for my meal, for its label “organic” which has a magical power to make people believe it is more nutritious. Also, I just do not want to ingest any pesticide whether it is “tolerable” or not. Like others, I am obsessed with the idea of a balanced diet. I would rather consume a nutritious meal than spend on food which comes from dubious origin and has little health value. The sea salt and coriander were blessedly naturally produced, which were consolations to me. In finding out about the origins of the ingredients of my meal, I felt I was part of the food chain. It satisfied my moral curiosity; not to mention, it has resolved some of the dilemma of what to eat and what not to eat. My experiment with food has made me realize that ones food chain is a combination of mass produced and organic food, and some even home grown. Some are imported from faraway lands which I have no idea of the conditions of the farms or how their food items are exported. This has proved that finding the origin of food and deciding what not to eat is not as difficult as most people perceive. In fact, it would be easier if one does not depend too much on fast food. Indeed, the food that people eat need not necessarily be unethical if they make the effort to channel their concerns to the industries and producers. But, more importantly, they need to be conscious of what they eat. One need not become a hunter-gatherer, as it is impossible in todays hectic lifestyle, but can make a compromise for ones meal. Adopting culinary methods that would enhance nutritional values is one way of resolving the omnivore’s dilemma. Discovering a meals origin and making a conscious choice of rejecting those which are unethical and harmful for health, is another approach. In doing so, choosing the food items which are beneficial becomes easy. Once this consciousness is regularly practiced, it would be easier "to know about its provenance and its price" (Pollan 409). Spiritually, it would be easy for one to understand the bounties of the Earth and thank nature for providing it to mankind. As Pollan writes, "The meal was more ritual than realistic because it dwelled on such things, reminding us how very much nature offers to the omnivore, the forests as much as the fields, the oceans as much as the meadows" (410). In the process, one hopes to learn to appreciate the food chain and its constituents more, to make ethical and conscious decisions. Work Cited Auletta, Richard C. “Defining ‘Free Range’” The New York Times 5 Dec. 1996 Pollan, Michael. The Omnivores Dilemma. The Penguin Press, 2006. Read More