Discussion 6.1: Week 6: The Omnivore’s Dilemma (1-84)

Answer ONE of the following questions that has not been answered by a previous poster, unless they have all been answered once already. It should help you to do the reading assigned before answering these questions. Also post a paragraph response to one of the other postings by your classmates. Make clear which comment you are responding to. You may agree, disagree, ask a question, or try to come up with a transition connecting two of the ideas in different postings. Please post by Thurs. 10/3 at midnight. ( CHOOSE THE CHOICE 6!!!!!!!)

Choice 1: Nor would a culture with deeply rooted traditions surrounding food and eating . . . be shocked to discover that there are other countries, such as Italy and France, that decide their dinner questions on the basis of such quaint and unscientific criteria as pleasure and tradition, eat all manner of “unhealthy” foods, and, lo and behold, wind up actually healthier and happier in their eating than we are. We show our surprise at this by speaking of something called the “French paradox”. . . Yet I wonder if it doesn’t make more sense to speak in terms of an American paradox—that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily. (2-3)

Why are we as a nation, less rooted in traditions about food and eating, experiencing a “National Eating Disorder” despite our interest in eating well? How do you account for the greater healthiness of many other more traditional diets?

Choice 2: Nor would a culture with deeply rooted traditions surrounding food and eating . . . be shocked to discover that there are other countries, such as Italy and France, that decide their dinner questions on the basis of such quaint and unscientific criteria as pleasure and tradition, eat all manner of “unhealthy” foods, and, lo and behold, wind up actually healthier and happier in their eating than we are. We show our surprise at this by speaking of something called the “French paradox”. . . Yet I wonder if it doesn’t make more sense to speak in terms of an American paradox—that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily. (2-3)

According to Pollan, what seems to be the problem in the way American choose their food? What else would you like to know about this topic?

Choice 3: Pollan notes a recurring theme in his three food journeys:

there exists a fundamental tension between the logic of nature and the logic of human industry, at least as it is presently organized. . . . at various points our technologies come into conflict with nature’s ways of doing things, as when we seek to maximize efficiency by planting crops or raising animals in vast monocultures. This is something nature never does, always and for good reasons practicing diversity instead. A great many of the health and environmental problems created by our food system owe to our attempts to oversimplify nature’s complexities, at both the growing and the eating ends of our food chain. (9)

In what ways do we oversimplify nature’s complexities in terms of how we grow our food, and what we eat? What are some of the negative consequences Pollan shows of this oversimplification?

Choice 4: Pollan notes a recurring theme in his three food journeys:

there exists a fundamental tension between the logic of nature and the logic of human industry, at least as it is presently organized. . . . at various points our technologies come into conflict with nature’s ways of doing things, as when we seek to maximize efficiency by planting crops or raising animals in vast monocultures. This is something nature never does, always and for good reasons practicing diversity instead. A great many of the health and environmental problems created by our food system owe to our attempts to oversimplify nature’s complexities, at both the growing and the eating ends of our food chain. (9)

What “good reasons” does nature have for always practicing diversity rather than creating monocultures? What else would you like to know about this topic?

Choice 5: Pollan imagines a naturalist viewing the supermarket:

If you do manage to regard the supermarket through the eyes of a naturalist, your first impression is apt to be of its astounding biodiversity. Look how many different plants and animals (and fungi) are represented on this single acre of land! What forest or prairie could hope to match it? (16)

Why is this impression deceptive? How does Pollan ask us to look at the supermarket in a different way?

Choice 6: Pollan imagines a naturalist viewing the supermarket:

If you do manage to regard the supermarket through the eyes of a naturalist, your first impression is apt to be of its astounding biodiversity. Look how many different plants and animals (and fungi) are represented on this single acre of land! What forest or prairie could hope to match it? (16)

What is Pollan’s main point in this section, and how does it relate to the overall chapter? What else would you like to know about this topic?

Choice 7: Though the American farmer now feeds 129 Americans, as opposed to 12 Americans in 1919, why does the family farmer struggle to survive? (34)

What is the problem with the government policies that result in economic problems for farmers despite their heightened efficiency?

What else would you like to know about this topic?

Choice 8: Pollan gives a striking metaphor: “Instead of eating exclusively from the sun, humanity now began to sip petroleum” (45). What does he mean? What are some of the hidden costs of cheap corn (46-47)? What is a hidden cost of cheap food?

What else would you like to know about this topic?

Choice 9: Pollan states “You are what you eat” is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil” (84).

vocabulary: truism: an undoubted or self-evident truth, especially one too obvious or unimportant to mention

What does Pollan mean by this? Why should we be concerned about the diet and living conditions of the cows we eat? What surprising things has Pollan revealed about the source of our food? Explain why.

What else would you like to know about this topic?

Choice 10: Marketers have tried to sell us their food products. In the 70s, International Flavors and Fragrances said synthetic could be better than natural, since natural foods are a “wild mixture of substances created by plants and animals for completely non-food purposes—their survival and reproduction. . . consumed by humans at their own risk” (97). In contrast, we could eat “things designed by humans for the express purpose of being eaten by people” (97).

Pollan points out that “Natural raspberry” could be from chemically modified from corn or any other “natural” origin (98). He also notes the development of resistant starch, which we can’t digest so there are no calories (99).

What is your reaction to the argument by IFF? What is wrong with this reasoning?

How do you feel about the developments in “natural flavoring” and “resistant starch”? What else would you like to know about this topic?

PEERS post: ( should response to him)

Choice 10: Marketers have tried to sell us their food products. In the 70s, International Flavors and Fragrances said synthetic could be better than natural, since natural foods are a “wild mixture of substances created by plants and animals for completely non-food purposes—their survival and reproduction. . . consumed by humans at their own risk” (97). In contrast, we could eat “things designed by humans for the express purpose of being eaten by people” (97).

Pollan points out that “Natural raspberry” could be from chemically modified from corn or any other “natural” origin (98). He also notes the development of resistant starch, which we can’t digest so there are no calories (99).

What is your reaction to the argument by IFF? What is wrong with this reasoning?

How do you feel about the developments in “natural flavoring” and “resistant starch”? What else would you like to know about this topic?

This reasoning from IFF sounds like a justification to chemically modify food so they can convince more people to purchase more products. It seems that they have no care or concern for the health of their customers and the possible long-term side effects of chemically modified food. Because chemically modified food is easier and cheaper to produce, it will benefit business greatly who implement it into their products.

Personally, I believe that “natural flavoring” is extremely deceptive. Somehow the company justifies their chemically made product to be “natural” when it actually is not. The average american is already not very well educated on what is really healthy so they will easily fall for this marketing tactic. It is a very dishonest way of conducting business for money. Resistant starch doesn’t sound like a great thing either. Just as gum is not good to swallow since it is not easily digested by the body, it seem like a good idea to ingest resistant starch. It seems that we are getting to carried away with modifying food to “fix” problems like obesity. These problems can be solved in a much healthier way without no calorie substances like resistant starch.

I would like to know more about the long-term side effects of “natural flavoring” and “resistant starch”. We as human beings did not create the world we live in and therefore, cannot know for sure the modifications that we make to plants there were here before us will benefit or hurt us in the long run.