Weight Loss: Healthier Food or Less Calories?

I recently came across an article called, Junk Food Diet Raises Questions, by Joanne Franco which discussed a Kansas State University Professor and his experiment with a decrease in caloric intake. Professor Mark Haub lowers his daily intake from 3,000 calories to 1,800 calories and lost 27 pounds. The interesting aspect of the experiment was that Haub ate nothing but junk food that was available in a vending machine. He did not exercise at all during the two month period and he did take certain vitamins in order to receive all of the necessary nutrients. Therefore, Haub met all of his dietary needs, ate tasty junk food, and lost a significant amount of weight!! With all of the recent concerns surrounding rising obesity rates, this serves as an intriguing method to lose weight. Of course, it could just be that Haub was able to lose the weight due to unique, genetically-based reasons, so this must studied extensively in a lab before suggesting this as a weight-loss strategy. Furthermore, a weight-loss strategy centered around lowering your caloric intake will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of eating disorders, so caution must be used before following in Professor Haub's footsteps.

This article struck me as fascinating, particularly because we have spoken so much about rising obesity rates and potential solutions to this dilemma in class over the past few weeks. I have always believed that caloric intake was more important to weight loss/gain than the quality of the diet, but it was surprising that Haub was able to lose so much weight on such an unhealthy diet. This underscores the importance of caloric intake in weight change and has led me to think that the most effective diet would consist of a mix between healthier foods and a significant decrease in caloric intake. However, I do not think this diet should be implemented until further research is performed, as it could have several negative side-effects, both physiologically and psychologically.
Do you think this experiment applies to the general population or the results primarily occurred because of Professor Haub's biological predisposition to weight loss?

The McRib

About a month ago, I came across an interesting McDonald's special that I had never heard of before: the McRib. This sandwich, consisting of a boneless pork patty shaped like ribs, barbecue sauce, pickles, and onions is unique in that it is rarely available to consumers. McDonald's purposefully sells the sandwich on a limited basis, and has only sold it nationally twice before; in 1982 after a test market run, and in 1994, in relation with the Flintstone movie. The sandwich has received pretty good reviews, but it is the scarcity that contributes to its popularity. Since it is only available on rare occasions, people rush to local McDonald's retailers to eat the sandwich, as they do not know when they will have the opportunity again. McDonald's USA President Jan Fields even mentioned that the sandwich does not sell well on a consistent basis because people get tired of it. The McRib was released on November 2nd and will be discontinued December 5th, after about a month long appearance. 

I find both the marketing strategy and consumer reaction intriguing and when reflecting on my own reaction to the marketing ploy, I realize how brilliant it truly is. Although I have not tried the sandwich, I already have decided to track down the rare McRib this weekend with my roommate, before it is no longer available. I believe this truly represents and helps identify the problems characterizing the food industry today. People hear that McDonald's, a globally recognized fast food chain, is selling a sandwich for a limited time, and do not think twice about what they are about to consume. Well, on this blog, I am about to do that. You cannot simply break down the  sandwich into the pork patty, bun, sauce, pickles, and onions, as there are over 50 ingredients that compose these parts listed here: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do?itemID=10031. The sandwich 500 calories, 10 g of saturated fat, and 980 mg of sodium (which is already 41% of your recommended daily value!). On another website (http://www.foodfacts.info/mcrib/), the sandwich is literally deconstructed and the pictures are absolutely disgusting. The most disturbing part of it all is that I now know all of this information and will most likely still try to get my hands on this sandwich. It says a lot about the current generation of consumers; we are not cognizant of what we are eating, but even if we are, most will not change their eating habits.
After reading this post, would you still eat the McRib?

The (Disturbing) Future of Food

After reading this article, I found myself agreeing with many of Belasco's points and realizing the sad state of the modern food industry. He points out that the fix to many of the problems must come either technologically or anthropologically, but I see fundamental flaws in each. Relying on a technological fix is risky and although we have been inventive recently, this is not something we can rely on. Furthermore, a technological fix just delays the problem as it has done already, which is why an anthropological fix is necessary. Unfortunately, a fix of this nature takes time and requires a cultural transformation. Americans must adapt an entirely new mindset when it comes to food; rather than not being knowledgeable about what we eat, and being "distanced" from food, we must become as involved in the food process as possible. Experts, such as Michael Pollan, have been saying this for years, but not enough people care enough about future generations or are even educated enough to make the necessary changes. 

In this week's reading, The Future of Food, by Warren Belasco, the impact current consumption will have on future generations is discussed as well as possible solutions to remedy the problem. The limits of the earth's carrying capacity, famously mentioned in Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population, have not been reached due to technological innovation. Belasco explains, "There is little doubt that, over the past two centuries, world agricultural productivity has increased much more rapidly than almost anyone anticipated. The Malthusian nightmare that population will outgrow food supply has not happened - yet" (123). Although human inventiveness has been able to bail us out, Belasco questions how long this can last considering our current consumption rates. Progress has occurred at the expense of energy, water, and land resources and if progress is to continue, Belasco argues that there must be a change. This "fix" can either be technological or anthropological, meaning that we must continue to innovate and and overcome the constraints on natural resources through new technology, or change the mentality of the general population in order to increase local and responsible consumption. Belasco concludes by simply telling the reader that a good starting point is to learn how to cook; become closer with the food you consume and you will become more educated about the food industry, eventually leading to more responsible decisions.
Is there any other option other than a technological fix or anthropological fix?
Will it take one single, alarming event to force people to change their attitudes concerning their eating habits?

What is Really Causing World Hunger?

In this week's reading, The Scarcity Fallacy, by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins, and Lindsey Peterson, the true causes of world hunger are discussed. While scarcity, resulting from "natural disasters, population pressure, and shortfalls in food production" is widely believed to be the problem surrounding hunger, this is not the case. In fact, even though world hunger rates have increased in the last decade, the amount of food on a per capita basis is at its highest mark in the history of mankind. Therefore, "food security" and "food poverty" are the real causes of world hunger, rather than scarcity. Since the problem is not scarcity, the problem arises of how to distribute our food more equitably in order to prevent excess in developed nations at the expense of a shortage in developing countries. The New York Times headline stating, "India's Poor Starve as Wheat Rots", exemplifies the problem with food distribution rather than the sheer amount of food produced. There is excess food, but it is not reaching the people who need it. This occurs for a variety of reasons, mainly the fact that people cannot afford food. The countries where both poverty and hunger rates are lowest, called low-income food deficit countries (LIFDCs), are net importers as they cannot produce enough to meet their own needs. Thus, the high rates in the international marketplace are preventing these nations from receiving an adequate amount of food. Other aspects of society, such as gender and ethnic inequality, and corruption in the food chain have led to the increase in the world hunger rate and in order to prevent this problem from being exacerbated, nations must attack these issues rather than focus on increasing production.

I believe the points made in this article are convincing and it is interesting to note that the amount of food per person is higher than its ever been before, yet we cannot develop a system in which people are not starving. This problem goes beyond the international marketplace and is deeply engrained in society. There is an inequity in society between developed nations and third-world countries that may never be resolved. I believe governments do realize the true issues causing world poverty and hunger, but know a quick fix is impossible. Richer nations will live with surplus, consuming more than they need and leaving leftovers to waste, while others starve and this is how it will be until these developing nations become technologically sound. Specifically, the people in Sub-Saharan Africa have not seen improvements in their standard of living, although there have been many efforts to aid the area. Unfortunately, the story of human history always involves the suffering of many at the expense of the few who live surrounded by wealth.


Is there a remedy to the problem of worldwide poverty or will the distribution channels never be fixed in order to make the allocation of food more equitable?
How can developing nations "catch up" in order to escape their impoverished lives?

It's a SNAP

In this week's reading, Food Stamp Usage Soars, and Stigma Fades, by Jason DeParle and Robert Gebeloff, the recent increase in food stamp usage is discussed. The nation's growing food stamp program, officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has hit record highs in recent months. The once disparaged program is now feeding one in every eight Americans and one in every four children and the people that once criticized it, have been forced to rely on it. The recent trend in food stamp usage has not been confined to poor, urban areas, as the suburbs have been hit hard. During the recent recession, the majority of the poor living in metropolitan areas, were located in the suburbs. "Use has grown by half or more in dozens of suburban counties from Boston to Seattle, including such bulwarks of modern conservatism as California’s Orange County, where the rolls are up more than 50 percent" (2). Unfortunately, during the 1990's, food stamp usage was scorned and many people who were eligible and needed food stamps, did not receive the benefits. In the latter part of the Clinton administration, continuing into modern day, the program has been revived and more people are not afraid to seek its benefits. Although some people see the program as supporting laziness and motivating people to stay idle and unemployed, in general, the program has helped millions of people nationwide. Some of these people may have not needed the food stamps if they worked as hard as possible, but it cannot be debated that the program has helped starving people throughout the country.

Although there are some negative opinions surrounding the SNAP program, I believe the increased usage is beneficial. The example of the woman in Ohio's Warren County, who owned a Mercedes-Benz and a $300,00 home loan-free, and qualified for a food stamp deserves scorn. But for the most part, there are several stories cited in the article of struggling families, who can barely pay for food, and the food stamp helps them to meet their basic necessities. The name change under the Bush administration was crucial in removing much of the stigma associated with food stamps and has cleared the path for increased usage. Although the program contributes to the federal deficit, the list of people it helps makes it worthwhile. "They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare" (1).


Does food stamp usage lead to more positive changes, or does it contribute to much of the nation's laziness?
How can the food stamp program be revised to help only those who really need it?

The Fundamental Attribution Error Concerning Anorexia

This week's reading, Never Too Rich...Or Too Thin: The Role of Stigma in the Social Construction of Anorexia Nervosa, by Karen Way discusses the unsettling trend of increased dietary disorders among the U.S. population. Modern American culture focuses on the image of women, advertising pictures of girls so thin that it seems unnatural. However, the men of today have grown to desire the thinnest of women and this creates an unattainable goal for females. An even more disturbing trend is that society seems to be apathetic towards those who are anorexic, blaming their personality traits rather than the culture that influences their behavior. This is where a psychological perspective must be taken and it lies in people's tendency to blame the observed behaviors of others on dispositional traits rather than on situational traits and do the reverse to explain their own behavior. Rather than realize that social media and magazines portraying the "ideal" woman are a main cause of the rise of eating disorders, society says that there must be other underlying factors that have caused the disorder. Way argues, "In efforts to further legitimate claims that anorexia is a psychiatric illness, medical operatives have aligned anorexia nervosa with obsessive-compulsive disorder and other anxiety disorders, fueling the stigmatized portrait of anorexics" (100). By tying anorexia nervosa to other disorders and family issues, society is preventing the issue from being fixed, as the real problem lies in the decline in women's self esteem as a result of the media.

I believe the claims made by Way in her article are accurate and she makes an interesting point about the growing apathy towards anorexics. She mentions the contestants for Miss America, and the women in the centerfolds of Playboy, as she conveys the idea that the media puts too much pressure on women to lose weight. I agree that by individualizing the issue of anorexia, various industries are trying to cash in on the eating disorder and hinder society's ability to decrease the rate of those inflicted. Society must realize that the disease is a more a result of social media and societal pressures rather than the result of a specific gene or psychological disorder. This message must be relayed and people must understand that they are making a fundamental error of the human mind when attributing the problems of anorexics to their personality rather than to their environment.

What can be done to prevent the media from putting this pressure on women to consistently lose weight?
Can men do anything to help prevent females from becoming anorexics?

Taking the Joy Out of Eating Steak

About a week ago, it was parent's weekend at Cornell and my family took me out to a fairly expensive and fancy steakhouse. Not being familiar with the Ithaca area, we found the restaurant tough to find, but once we arrived, we knew John Thomas Steakhouse was legitimate. As we were seated, I skimmed through the menu of various steaks and seafood, and all I wanted was a medium-rare juicy Filet Mignon. I found it on the menu, asked the waiter if he suggested the steak and ordered it with enthusiasm. I had spied on the family next to us and saw another boy biting into the Filet Mignon and it looked unbelievable. It took some time, but the steak was eventually brought to me and at that point my mouth was watering.

I cut the steak into thin slices and dipped it into the steak sauce before eating it and the first few bites were as good as advertised. But then, something strange happened. I was definitely not full yet, but he enthusiasm I had felt earlier began to diminish. The readings about the commodity chain analysis for beef began to enter my mind. Did the eat I was eating come from a grass-fed cow? Was he given growth hormones or antibiotics? Did he live a life of torture, with no personal space and arthritis stemming from the enormous body he had to support after he was forced to eat great quantities of food? Eating the meat was no longer purely an act of eating; my mind had begun to influence my appetite. My thoughts turned a delicacy into a meal that was undesirable. I wanted to eat more; I tired to eat more and I admit I did get a few more bites down, but the joy was gone. Never before had I truly cared about what I was eating. I never took the time to think about the process; the journey from the farm to my plate. But as these thoughts entered my mind, I couldn't help but think about the meat as more than just food. My favorite meal had become a nightmare.

Leaving the restaurant, several questions floated around my head:
Would I ever view steak the same and would it ever be as enjoyable as it once was?
Does knowledge of the process the cattle go through make it wrong to eat steak?

Are Food Guides Published in the Best Interest of Consumers?

This week's reading, The Politics of Government Dietary Advice, by Jennifer Lisa Falbe and Marion Nestle, discusses the influence the food industry has on the dietary guidelines that are published by various governments. The article focuses on the changes that have taken place in the food guidelines created by governments over time. The trends illustrate that these guidelines have become much more convoluted in an attempt to please the food groups that protest anything that portrays their food as unhealthy. This was seen in Technical Report 916, in which it was suggested that sugar consumption should be less than 10% of your daily caloric intake. Lobbying groups representing the interests of the businesses in the sugar industry fought against this guideline, saying that it was not accurate. They cited the DRI's that established the safe upper limit of daily sugar intake at 25% of calories, while also demonstrating the economic impact this would have on sugar producers. The result: the advice about sugars only says, "limit the intake of free sugars. The controversial 10% goal is not mentioned" (132). Furthermore, dietary recommendations have become more complex in order to satisfy lobbying groups; sugar consumption recommendations have gone from "avoid too much sugar" in 1980, to "choose and prepare foods and beverages with little added sugars or caloric sweeteners, such as amounts suggested by the USDA Food Guide and the DASH Eating Plan" in 2007. This is not only an issue in the U.S., as the same political influences have changed the Canadian dietary guidelines as well. In 1992, Health Canada switched from a "foundation diet" approach to a "total diet" approach, encouraging its citizens to consume more calories. This change was undoubtedly influenced by political forces and ultimately led to increased obesity in Canada. Government issued guidelines may not be offering citizens the optimal advice.

The ideas presented in this article are believable, yet it is shocking to think how much lobbyists can truly impact governmental decisions. Dietary advice is an important matter; it affects the health of a country's citizens, which is critical to the performance of a country as a whole. Yet, even with the health of the people at stake, governments allow political influences to control the decision making process. Is it beneficial to the people to make the guidelines more complex? To remove quantitative suggestions and replace them with generalizations? It is certainly not helpful to the citizens of the nation.

Is it worth sacrificing the health of your country's citizens to please the lobbyists of certain food corporations?
Can laws be made to prevent the political influence on government issued dietary guidelines?

The Impact of Eating American

In this week's reading by Sidney Mintz, titled Eating American, the questions surrounding an "American cuisine" are discussed as well as the impact of American eating habitats in the near future. Mintz decides that there is no true American cuisine, as there is an Italian cuisine or Asian cuisine. This stems from differences in our country's origins; a conglomerate of various immigrants representing differing ethnicities. Mintz describes a social pressure in America to assimilate: "That there are powerful pressures toward sameness, working particularly upon children, may be thought to increase the homogeneity of American food habits...by learning such behavior, people are becoming sociologically more alike, but it is not really clear that they are becoming more culturally alike" (26-27). He claims that Americans, as a whole, eat out a lot, and some foods, such as the hotdog and hamburger can be classified as American, but this does not constitute a cuisine. After he states that Americans lack a national cuisine, Mintz goes on to discuss American eating habits in general and the impact these habits will have in the future. Eating fast food, prepared and packaged food, diets high in salts, fats, and processed sugars, and low in fruits and vegetables, drinking more soda than tap water, and several others. These poor habits, if unchanged, will have a devastating impact on the American way of life in the next 50 years. Shortages and health issues will become a staple of American livelihood.

After reading Mintz's article, I had a very pessimistic feeling about the future of America as a result of our current eating habits. Throughout my education, I have been constantly warned about the ill effects of eating poorly and some popular eating habits among Americans. It is disturbing that the numbers have not been changing drastically over the past few decades; decades in which the message of poor eating habits has been disseminated to all Americans. It seems inevitable that the way in which most Americans act, not just in terms of food, but in general, will lead to events in the near future that will come as a shock to most people, but this will not surprise me.

Do you agree with Mintz that Americans do not have a national cuisine?
How can we take steps to avoid the grim scenario that seems to await Americans in the next 50 years?

The Irrationality of Rationality

In this week's reading, The McDonaldization of Society, George Ritzer provides an analysis of modern society in an unorthodox manner: he uses McDonald's as a paradigm for societal trends. He states that rationalization occurs in any forward thinking society and it stresses "efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty" (372). These trends have positives, as society becomes closer to maximizes its productivity, but the negatives are far more drastic. Ritzer says, "the irrationality of rationality is a seemingly inevitable byproduct of the process" (378). The measures civilization takes to increase output and use more rational procedures end up hurting the individuals the system is supposed to benefit. Just like McDonald's, society is in a process of dehumanizing its people, and making individual lives less exciting and meaningful. Quality takes a backseat to quantity, as the latter is more applicable to the social world. This disturbing trend has even been mentioned in my previous blogs, as commodity farmers have been forced to produce as much as possible, forgetting about quality. When he concludes, Ritzer makes it evident that the solution to this rapid "McDonaldization" of our population is not to return to a less rational form of society, but to gain greater control over the process of rationalization.

This is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a while; not because of the originality of the ideas, but because of the way in which Ritzer conveys these ideas. By using McDonald's, a symbol of the past few decades of global societal change, the author is able to make generalizations about society in a lucid manner. I agree with his idea that it is impossible for our society to try and move backwards to reverse the ongoing trends and that we must learn to control the irrationalization that comes with rationalization. We need to continue to think rationally about moving forward and becoming more productive, but must do this in a way that prevents dehumanization.

If current trends persist, will our society be controlled completely by robots at some point in the future?
How can we improve society and become more productive through technology, while limiting the negative impact it has on our well-being?

Eating Meat: A Question of Morality

In this week's reading of The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, he discussed the ethics of eating animals. Pollan, admittedly a meat eater, brought forth many questions surrounding the killing and consumption of animals. Mainly, he considers the arguments presented by Peter Singer, in Animal Liberation, a book promoting vegetarianism. Throughout the chapter, Pollan tries to refute Singer's argument, but is continuously rebuffed. Pollan concedes that he must "take the steer's interest into account or accept that I'm a speciesist" (309). The vegetarianism argument is "disarmingly simple" (307), and for this reason Pollan slowly begins to question his eating practices. Pollan was most troubled by the idea that someday speciesism might be regarded as an evil comparable to that of racism. This leads him to reluctantly become a vegetarian. Unfortunately, Pollan immediately discovers some of the more and less obvious flaws of being a non-meat eater. He conveys that eating meat is more convenient and sociable, but most importantly, it has alienated him from other people and "a whole dimension of human experience" (314). Pollan speaks of how meat eating is more than just a dietary decision; it is a cultural and evolutionary tradition. Our ancestors ate meat in order to survive, and some evolutionary changes that have occurred, both physically and mentally, involve the hunting and eating of animals. Pollan shows how meat eating is ingrained in the human mind, but the current moral questions surrounding it create an interesting omnivore's dilemma.

The most interesting aspect of the vegetarian argument is the idea that history will judge us meat eaters harshly; that "a crime of stupendous proportions is going on all around us every day, just beneath our notice" (309). I find this perspective from the future intriguing. The idea that we might not even recognize the crimes we are committing daily; that we are just as ignorant as the Nazis participating in the Holocaust or the millions of people who enslaved Africans for centuries, is hard to wrap my head around. It makes me question my eating practices; will I look back one day, as well as my kids and grandkids, and be shameful for the crimes I committed? Eating meat is simply a dietary option in modern times. It is not a necessity, so is eating Earth's animals worth the moral dilemma?

How can we make a rational decision about eating meat?
Is eating meat a crime against nature or is it simply a natural phenomenon?

Get to Know Your Food

This week's reading titled, The Pleasures of Eating, by Wendell Berry, is about the major problem with modern day consumers: a lack of knowledge regarding the food they eat. He describes today's industrial eater as, "one who does not know that eating is an agricultural act, who no longer knows or imagines the connections between eating and the land, and who is therefore necessarily passive and uncritical - in short, a victim" (146). Those who have industrialized the industry do not want the consumer to know the process of how the food gets to their plate. The overriding concerns of this industrialized food industry are not the quality of the food and health of the customer, but are volume and price. In order to overcome the flaws of the modern food industry and be healthier individuals, consumers must make an effort to know their food. Berry believes eating responsibly encompasses seven steps, all of which bring consumers closer to their food. He emphasizes buying food that is produced locally, and even growing your own food, but if not learning as much as possible about industrial techniques. Going back to the title of the essay, Berry intends for the reader to understand how to make eating pleasurable. He believes this can be done through forging a relationship with the food one eats; growing it, knowing it throughout its whole life, and eventually consuming it. "Eating with the fullest pleasure - pleasure, that is, that does not depend on ignorance - is perhaps the profoundest enactment of our connection with the world" (152).

I have seen a constant trend in writing about the modern day food industry and the role of the consumer. All of us, the people who eat the food, at the end of the chain must research and get more involved with the food we eat. To be ignorant, and eat mindlessly, is damaging to all involved except the industrialists. Getting as close to the producer of your food as possible, makes eating much safer. If you can even grow it yourself, eating becomes rewarding. If every consumer makes a stronger effort to eat less food that is produced industrially and get "closer" to the food, the pleasure of eating will become more widespread.

What are some ways in which the average consumer can gather more information about the food they eat?
Can raising the food we eat create moral dilemmas that prevent us from truly enjoying the food to the extent that we should?

An Oxymoron: Industrial Organic

This week's reading in The Omnivore's Dilemma, written by Michael Pollan, discusses the reality of the rapidly growing organic foods industry. He brings the reader to Polyface Farm, owned by Joel Salatin, a farmer who triumphs over the industrial system through his natural methods. The relationship between humans and grass is highlighted, as this mutualistic partnership has enabled each species to flourish. On Salatin's alternative farm, "by the end of the season, his grasses will have been transformed by his animals into some 25,000 pounds of beef, 50,000 pounds of pork, 12,000 broilers, 800 turkeys, 500 rabbits, and 30,000 dozen eggs" (126). Pollan comments on how this productive farm amazingly enriches the soil and surrounding environment. He contrasts Salatin's Polyface Farm and George Naylor's farm in Iowa; the former is pastoral, diversified, biological, and functions in a local market, among other things, while the latter is industrial, specialized, mechanical, and is entrenched in the global market. Salatin's natural ideals were exhibited in his strong opinions shared with Pollan. He believed that industrial organic was a contradiction in terms, so Pollan set out to decide if this opinion was valid; he discovered Salatin "hit the nail on the head." Joel Salatin's argument against the organic food industry was confirmed after researching the products at Whole Foods, the number one seller of organic foods in the supermarket industry. Pollan viewed the labels, reading in-depth stories of each animal and the farms they came from: "Rosie, a sustainably farmed, free-range chicken" who came from a company whose "farming methods strive to create harmonious relationships in nature, sustaining the health of all creatures and the natural world" (135).  The other foods all contained the same verbose, pleasant-sounding labels, and when Pollan visited the places that were described, he discovered the labels were far from the truth. Rosie's farm in Petaluma, was more of an animal factory than farm. She lives in a shed with about "twenty thousand other Rosies, who, aside from their certified organic feed, live lives little different from that of any other industrial chicken" (140) and rarely walk outside the shed. Salatin was correct; industrial organic was a euphemism for industrial.


No other novel I have read has been even close to as informative as The Omnivore's Dilemma. The questions it raises about the organic food industry, affect the decisions I make everyday. I realize I have had so many false notions about this food industry, but Pollan has helped unveil the realities of industrial organic. It all begins to make sense after reading this book; the wordy labels, the emphasis on the pure, all cover up the industrialized nature of the industry. It makes me more aware of the food I am eating and  the novel teaches the reader to ask questions and really research the food that is being sold.

How can the everyday consumer differentiate between the falsely advertised organic products, and those that are truly natural?
Is it inevitable that every natural industry eventually falls to the power of industrialism?

The Case for Industrial Farming

This week's reading in The American entitled The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals, written by Blake Hurst placed an emphasis on the criticisms that modern day industrial farmers face. Hurst brings the reader into the mind of the industrial farmer and gives substantial reasons for the actions of himself and others like him. Unfortunately, most of the public thoughts today about industrial farming have negative connotations and Hurst rebuffs a lot of this common thinking. He quotes several authors from Matthew Scully to Michael Pollan, and specifically with the latter, he explains why their statements are far from the whole story. In much of his article, Hurst focuses on the claims made by Pollan and proves to the reader that Pollan presents an extremely biased perspective; "Pollan should talk to some actual farmers before he presumes to advise a president". Hurst conveys to the reader that many of the fertilizers, pesticides, and other farming methods currently employed by many of today's farmers actually provide more benefits than negatives, contrary to the public opinion. This goes beyond positives on the farm and increase in sheer output of crops; he explains that current farmers' methods also benefit the ecosystem and our globe as a whole in the long run.

Having read the beginning of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, I have seen both sides of the issue. As I think about the cases presented by each author, I believe Hurst's are stronger, especially because he is an industrial farmer himself. The knowledge he has accumulated from his experiences on the farm since childhood are invaluable. Although we must account for the bias Hurst must have, being that he is an industrial farmer being attacked for his methods, he presents his perspective confidently and succinctly in the article. He brings the reader to the farm, figuratively, and explains to us why the methods he uses benefit us, him, and the world through specific examples and reasons only a farmer so close to the source itself could present.

When two sources present both sides of an issue, with strong evidence for each case, how do we determine who is more correct in the situation?
Are industrial farmers, through their methods, benefitting or hurting the ecosystem and economy in the long run?

"You Are What You Eat" is Corny

This week's reading in The Omnivore's Dilemma focused on the fundamental aspects of the American diet. More specifically, Michael Pollan emphasized the importance of corn in our daily lives. He brought us to the local supermarket, and broke every item down to its finest ingredient. Consistently, this process brought us to the American Corn Belt, and from there he discussed the history of this magnificent vegetable. Beginning with the colonization of North America, Polan demonstrates how corn's unique characteristics enabled it to not only make way into the diet of the colonists, but become the preeminent food in this diet. Pollan explains, "Corn won over the wheat people because of its versatility, prized especially in new settlements far from civilization" (25). Once the colonists discovered the dual identity of corn, as food and a commodity, they no longer needed the Native Americans and used corn as a major tool in their development. Corn's ability to be grown in much greater quantity, last longer, and serve many purposes for the Englishmen, from a heating fuel to its use in the production of beer, led to its ever expanding use. In these first three chapters, Pollan conveys that corn's frequent appearance in the modern American diet is no accident. Centuries ago its usefulness was carefully noted and it has continued to be used as an integral part of the American economy.

After reading the beginning of Pollan's analysis into the importance of corn in our economy and diet, I came away with more of an understanding as to how corn has become so integral. I felt it was very important that he illustrated how corn could help make a peasant community transition from a subsistence to a market economy. It's ability to be stored, widely grown as it is very adaptive, and be used as a commodity in trade help explain its usefulness. The main point I came away with is that corn is an extremely large part of the current American diet and its elevation to this status began centuries ago when the colonists needed a versatile food source.

Without corn, would the United States of America even exist?
Has corn been one of, if not the most important factor in making the U.S. the world superpower that it is today?