So, What Can I Eat?

As we’ve pressed on through the various novels, articles, and visual sources of this class, I’ve become more and more disheartened.  What can I actually eat, while taking both the moral and ethical concerns of food into account?  It seems that the real problem stems from the current state of the farm bill, an issue that is for the most part out of the control of the average citizen.  Many of the sources we have read or watched are quick to point out the concerns of industrialized and processed food; however, most fail to point out any realistic solution, if they provide any attempt at one at all.  More than any other source Animal, Vegetable, Miracle has me convinced that I can do something about improving the way I eat.  Now, the question I’ve asked myself countless times while reading this book, and again reiterated in the form of a class discussion question last period was, “How plausible is living the kind of lifestyle the Kingsolvers do for the average citizen?”  Though a viable option for the my future, as a college student it is an absolutely impossible feat to accomplish in the here and now.  The best I can do at present is to carefully monitor the amount of processed foods I intake, and try to eat the freshest fruits and vegetables I can.  However, I do believe the average citizen can substitute at least a portion of his or her diet with home-grown, or fresh, organic produce.  Through definitions by example of what it means to eat towards a healthier lifestyle, the book has shown me that I can actively pursue a partially home-grown diet when I acquire a place of my own.  When Camille, a girl writing in a voice almost any college student can relate to, shares her recipes she provides a strong argument of definition by example.  They sound both doable and delicious, which strongly help to convince me that I can eventually make some important dietary changes, and that the switch will be utterly rewarding.

The “Hard” Facts About Corn

Corn as we know it today is a hard, inedible crop destined for a single end–processing.  Without this step it is utterly useless as a foodstuff, or as anything else but toxic cow feed for that matter.  ”King Corn” makes not only this argument, but more specifically that the current overproduction of industrialized corn is slowly destroying the environment and the creatures that inhabit it.  As a documentary, the entire argument of the movie is based upon facts.  One could contend that only one side of it is shown, but even then one would have to concede that it is difficult to misrepresent visual evidence when there are clearly no actors or visual tricks used in the picture.  Perhaps some of the most compelling arguments in the documentary were made with the combination of data and pathos.  Personally, the most memorable, as well as the most disturbing point in the movie, was the visit to a Colorado feed lot.  The viewer sees the disgusting, cramped conditions the cows are forced to endure, of which industrialized corn is the evil mastermind, and can’t help but to feel some sort of sympathy.  Along with the various shots of the animals in this dreadful situation, facts behind the lots are offered to the viewer that would make any human squirm uncomfortably.  First, the audience learns that the corn is what makes these lots possible.  Because the subsidized corn is so unbelievably inexpensive, farmers can feed many more cows than they would usually be able to, and therefore cram more onto their lots.  Then, one learns that what the cattle eat hardly constitutes as food at all.  The corn that the cattle consume every day slowly kills them.  As research, and credible sources tell the audience this, they must unwillingly accept the truth behind this cruel treatment.  Not only is the corn unhealthy for the cattle, but it indirectly harms the environment as well.  The waste these giant lots produce is equivalent to, or can even exceed that produced by a city of 1.7 million people.  This mind blowing statistic violently shakes the audience, and only further helps them to tune into a reality we are often oblivious of.

Big Organic

Claim: The basic claim Pollan makes in chapter nine is that the word organic has become meaningless.  ”The organic label may conjure an image of a simpler agriculture, but its very existence is an industrial artifact” (137).  Though the word “organic” may carry with it a certain connotation, in all actuality organic farming is now an extremely industrialized process.  Qualifier: He does seem to limit the scope of his argument a little later in the chapter.  ”So is an industrial organic food chain finally a contradiction in terms?  It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it is.  Of course it is possible to live with contradictions, at least for a time, and sometimes it is necessary or worthwhile.” (183).  Thus, his claim does not entail everything within the organic industry, as it does exist with some contradictions, but as he stated earlier, organic food is probably healthier and generally tastes better.Grounds: “The inspiration for organic was to find a way to feed ourselves more in keeping with the logic of nature, to build a food system that looked more like an ecosystem that would draw its fertility and energy from the sun [...] As in so many other realms, nature’s logic has proven no match for the logic of capitalism” (183-184).  Our society has failed to uphold the basic meaning of organic, and therefore the word is meaningless. Warrants: “Compared to conventional chickens, I was told, these organic birds have it pretty good” (172).  Through this specific, sarcastic statement, Pollan makes the more general warrant that organic farming should be operated differently than conventional, but unfortunately is not.Backing: “Seldom if ever stepped upon, the chicken-house lawn is scrupulously maintained nevertheless, to honor an ideal nobody wants to admit has now become something of a joke, an empty pastoral conceit” (173).  This backs the idea that the chickens are not treated specially, and thus some of the differences between conventional and organic farming are subtle to say the least.Evidence: “They get a few more square inches of living space per bird (though it was hard to see how they could be packed together much more tightly), and because there are no hormones or anti-biotics in their feed to accelerate growth, they get to live a few days longer” (172).  As he traveled to Petluma Poultry as well as conventional farms himself, this statement provides evidence that the treatment of the chickens hardly varied at all.  In many ways the organic label is entirely meaningless, but this sort of “special” treatment allows them to say otherwise.Rebuttal: “Better for what?  If the answer is ‘for my health’ the answer, again, is probably–but not automatically” (177).  Pollan goes on to say that it would be very difficult to scientifically prove organic food was healthier than that conventionally produced.  Though there have been some studies done praising the health benefits of eating organic food, one cannot assume healthiness based on a label.  Many foods certified as “organic” have still been heavily processed or have traveled long distances, losing much of their nutritional value.