The Scarcity Fallacy

In "The Scarcity Fallacy," Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins, and Lindsey Peterson discuss the real reasons for the issue of world hunger. World hunger is not due to food scarcity. In fact, food is rather abundant. The problem is that the copious amount of food is not distributed equally around the world. In addition, more reasons for world hunger include mostly economic and social factors. For example, poverty is a major factor that contributes to world hunger. According to this article, "the poorest citizens spend upwards of 60 percent of their income on food. By way of contrast...the poorest Americans only spend between 15 percent and 20 percent on food." Other reasons for hunger include unequal opportunities for women, ethnic inequalities, and social inequalities. Solutions to the world hunger problem include reducing ethnic, gender, and social inequalities. If better access to education is given to developing countries, then people can create better lives for themselves to get out of poverty. Giving women access to contraception will reduce family size in developing countries, resulting in a decrease in child hunger. Also, the article states that "it would cost less than one percent of the current U.S. stimulus package to save a generation around the world from poverty." We could greatly reduce world hunger if we donated more money to developing countries.

I was actually not surprised to learn that the reason for world hunger was not due to food scarcity. Before reading this article, I thought it was mostly due to poverty and people's limited accessibility to food. The fact that I found interesting was the study that Tina Kassebaum researched in which she learned that program aid is not determined by the country's child hunger percentage, but emergency/project aid is. What determines where program aid is given, if it's not given to those who are starving? In this article, the authors state several solutions to the issue of world hunger. For example, one solution is reducing or eliminating ethnic and gender inequalities. However, how can we help reduce these inequalities?

Has Rationalization Become Irrational?

In "The McDonaldization of Society," George Ritzer defines rationalization and demonstrates how it is impacting American society. He states that "a society characterized by rationality is one which emphasizes efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty" (372). Efficiency has become an important part of American society and is demonstrated through the food that Americans eat. Home-cooked meals are no longer widespread due to the availability and efficiency of "TV dinners", frozen, packaged meals, and fast food restaurants. Predictability is another component of a rational society - people tend to dislike surprises and would prefer to have consistency with their food. Calculability is another term for quantity that defines rationalization. Sometimes, it is very difficult to assess quality, so people switch to quantitative measurements. This becomes a problem in the food industry, because companies care more about the quantity of food produced and ignore the more important component - quality. Because of the desire for efficiency, fast food restaurants have become assembly lines. Every worker learns a simple task to perform repeatedly. Since the task is very simple, we can substitute robots to take the places of humans, putting many people out of work. Finally, large corporations like McDonald's exercise control over their employees and their customers with the way food is prepared and served. Ritzer ends by stating that "rational systems are not reasonable systems."


I agree with the points Ritzer makes in "The McDonaldization of Society." He states that rationalization dehumanizes society, which can be seen through all his examples. People are eating prepackaged, predictable food, instead of making their own food creations. They are eating food that is all the same, tastes the same, and looks the same - all lacking in quality. Food chains have become assembly lines, workers have essentially become robots, and corporations are controlling all of this. Rationalization has forced us to live bland lives in which everything is the same or predictable. Of course, it has benefited our society, but it may have reached the point of irrationality. What can we do to reduce the negative impact that rationalization has on society? Do you think that rationalization is reasonable? Do you think it will last for a long time?

Is Obesity an Epidemic?

Julie Guthman, author of "Can't Stomach It," gives her opinion on the obesity crisis. She states that the evidence for the obesity "epidemic" is ambiguous, because it is based on the average Body Mass Index (BMI). It is often difficult to determine the causes of the increase in the average BMI. For example, "it is unclear whether a relatively small number of people have become extremely fat, or whether many people have put on a few pounds" (77). Guthman continues by stating that this can significantly alter the groups into which people are categorized, causing an illusion of an epidemic. She acknowledges Pollan's effective writing style in convincing people to eat healthier foods, but she disagrees with the way he and others like him portray obese people. She points out that in the documentary "SuperSize Me", fat people are seen from the back and without showing their heads whereas skinny people are shown their heads. She believes that this evokes a sense of shamefulness for those portrayed without heads and pride for those with heads. Also, overweight people are demonstrated "at best...as victims of food, bad genetic codes, or bad metabolism; at worst...slovenly, stupid, or without resolve" (78). Finally, she claims that just because one is skinny does not mean that he/she has healthy eating habits.


I thought Guthman's opinion on the obesity crisis was very interesting, and it made me think about the issue in a different perspective. Even though Guthman states that the obesity problem is not necessarily an "epidemic," I still believe that it is an important issue that needs to be addressed. She states that the increase in BMI can have a false impression due to the way it is measured; however, I feel that it shouldn't matter whether a small group of people are become extremely overweight or whether it is a large group gaining a couple pounds. Weight gain is weight gain, and excessive weight gain causes health issues. What can we do to encourage others to eat healthier foods instead of junk food? If junk food were to increase in price, do you think people would stop buying those foods? Or would they continue to eat them anyway?


Guthman, Julie. "Can't Stomach It: Why Michael Pollan et al. Made Me Want to Eat Cheetos". Gastronomica. 2007. 

Corn-Made Calories

In the fifth and sixth chapters of Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan describes how corn is processed into almost every food product that we eat and how that affects human health. Most of the corn that farmers grow are given to feedlots or passed onto a "wet mill", which breaks down the kernels into many parts that can be used for a variety of ingredients. Some of these ingredients include: glucose, fructose, malodextrin, and high fructose corn syrup. Pollan also states that food industries are now aiming to make consumers eat more food and spend more money on that food. One way of achieving this goal is increasing portion size. This ultimately affects human health by allowing people to overeat. Since portion sizes have increased, the amount of fat, sugar, and other additives in our food has increased. This is the reason for the rise in Type II diabetes and obesity. Pollan also states that "researchers found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips and cookies; spent on a whole food like carrots, the same dollar buys only 250 calories...It makes good economic sense that people with limited money to spend on food would spend it on the cheapest calories they can find" (108). At the end of the chapter, he suggests that the government should subsidize the healthier foods, rather than the foods made from corn-made calories.


I agree with Pollan that the government should change the food that they subsidize. Currently, the government is subsidizing corn, which produces most of our processed foods. However, if the switch was made to subsidize healthier foods, then more people could afford to eat healthier. Those with low income would finally be able to purchase fruits and vegetables instead of eating fast food everyday. This would also cause a decrease in diet-related illnesses, such as Type II diabetes. Obesity would decrease and general public health would change for the better. It may be difficult to change the current policy, but over time, I think that the switch is possible. What can consumers do to encourage a change in the subsidization of corn? It seems that corn is in almost every food product in some shape or form; will there ever be a time when there is no longer any corn in our processed foods?


Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma. New York: Penguin Books, 2007.

American Cuisine: Does It Exist?

Sidney Mintz, author of "Eating American", gives his perspective on the lack of a definitive American cuisine. He emphasizes that just because America does not have a specific cuisine, it doesn't mean that it does not have culture. Americans come from a variety of origins - mostly European, which contributes to our diverse menus. Mintz claims that we have many regional cuisines, but not a national cuisine. As he continues to discuss the American cuisine, or lack thereof, he talks of the problems with Americans and food. Now, Americans eat out regularly, "often choosing fast foods, as well as ordering take-out food to eat at home; eating much prepared and packaged foods, which require only intense heat or nothing at all to be 'cooked'; continuing to eat diets high in animal protein, salt, fats, and processed sugars" (Mintz 29). He also recognizes the rise of junk food and soda, high in fat and sugar content. Finally, Mintz addresses how many Americans use the excuse of not having enough time for the reason why they don't eat as they should. He refutes their argument by stating that they could spend less time watching TV and more time cooking. He believes that if we spent more time caring about how and what we eat, then we could actually have a cuisine.

I agree with Mintz in that America does not really have its specific cuisine. Instead, it is more of a combination of cuisines from several different countries. America has always be known as the "melting pot" and its cuisine is no exception. However, I also agree with the issues that Mintz brings up in his article. All the fast food and "convenient" meals are contributing to America's obesity problem. It is as he says: if we spend less time on unimportant things, we can improve our health just by focusing more on what we eat. Do you think that if we spent more time on cooking, we could create an American cuisine? Because many people would prefer to watch TV than cook, what can we do to persuade them to stop eating convenient meals and cook a healthier meal?

To Eat Meat or Not To Eat Meat?

That is the question that Michael Pollan attempts to answer in the seventeenth chapter of his book, The Omnivore's Dilemma. He discusses Peter Singer's Animal Liberation that calls the practice of eating animals barbaric. Singer points out that we should give equal consideration to humans and non-humans alike. He also brings up the issue of suffering animals. He claims that just because they are non-human does not give humans the right to make them suffer. Singer states that animals have to suffer in their lifetime solely for "the gastronomic preferences of a human being" (312). Pollan considers Singer's ideas, but proposes another solution before converting to a strict vegetarian diet. He talks of Polyface Farm, in which animal happiness is abundant. He emailed Singer and asked him if it was ethical to eat a happily raised chicken. Even Singer replied, "I agree with you that it is better for these animals to have lived and died than not to have lived at all" (327). Pollan also explains how cows are slaughtered on the kill floor. When the cows are killed, usually the "gun" can kill them on the first shot. However, there is always a percent error of live cows still on the rail. Pollan suggests that there should be a law implemented showing the public what happens on the kill floor. Unethical treatment of animals would surely disappear, giving the animals "the consciousness, ceremony, and respect they deserve" (333).


I thought Singer's arguments about the equal consideration of animals was interesting. Singer's main purpose is to encourage the ethical treatment of animals and to persuade people to convert to vegetarianism. While I support the ethical treatment of animals, I find it hard to imagine a world where everyone is a vegetarian. I don't think it is practical, nor desirable, for the world to stop eating meat. Since we will continue to eat meat, I feel that animals should not suffer when being slaughtered on the kill floor. McDonald's five percent error of live cows on the rail should not be tolerated. There should be a law that reduces the tolerated percent error to less than one percent. What can consumers do to change the current tolerated percent error? Also, Pollan states that America is the only country that has this "brutal" food system. So why can't we slowly implement the processes of food industries in other countries?


Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma. New York: Penguin Books, 2007.

The Polyface Farm

This is a picture of the Eggmobile at Polyface Farm.

In the eleventh chapter of Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan spends a week at the Polyface farm, observing their style of farming. He talks of the early morning hours when he has to get out of bed and help Galen and Peter move the pens. The purpose of moving the animals is to keep the animals and the land healthy. Pollan praises the Polyface farm for its self-sufficiency in nitrogen, efficiency, sustainability, and hard-workers. He points out how efficient their farm is because of all the food produced, as well as all that it eliminates (such as the cost of fertilizers and pesticides). He also states how their farm's structure is more of a loop, rather than a linear process like that of industrial farms. One thing affects another - blurring what is the cause and what is the effect. In the thirteenth chapter, Pollan describes the interactions between the farmers of Polyface and the consumers. All the food produced at Polyface travels only a few miles to a half day's drive at most. Many of the consumers explain why they travel to the farm to buy food. They all answer with responses dealing with trusting the farmers and having fresh food that tastes much better than those in the supermarket. Pollan concludes the chapter with a proposal that we need to break off from the mainstream industrial food process and slowly create new alternative food systems.


I think it is remarkable how the Polyface farm is made to be a cycle, almost like wildlife. Because one thing affects the next, the farmers cannot change one thing too drastically. This is similar to nature, in which an imbalance in one part of the food web disrupts the rest of the cycle. The cyclic process of the farm allows it to be sustainable and efficient. I also agree with the consumers when they state that the food tastes much better than that in the grocery store. My family has planted tomatoes, basil, and cilantro in a little garden of our own, in which the grocery store equivalents do not come close in taste. I think that this is one of the many incentives for buying local food. Not only is it healthier and more trustworthy, but it is more delicious than what you can find in the grocery store. Due to this and other benefits, do you think we will ever be able to completely switch to local food systems, like the Polyface farm? More specifically, are other farmers willing to do the arduous work that the Polyface farmers do everyday?