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?

Farmer in Chief

Michael Pollan continues to address the food problem that America is experiencing in "Farmer in Chief." He claims that food plays a key role in the health care crisis, energy independence, and climate change. The food system contributes to a large part of fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Pollan also demonstrates how food is affecting America's public health. Heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes, and cancer are among the top ten killers of Americans - all of which are linked to diet and food. Food prices have decreased greatly in the past few decades; however, this has increased the cost of public health. According to Pollan, "spending on health care has risen from 5 percent of national income in 1960 to 16 percent today." In the rest of the article, he provides many suggestions to improve the current food situation. He proposes many alternatives, such as switching back to polycultures, rewarding farmers for planting cover crops, and moving animals off of feedlots. In addition, Pollan recommends that the public should be educated about healthy food choices, schools should be given more money to provide better lunch options, and that we have a food system based on the energy from the sun, rather than from fossil fuels.



Although I agree with Pollan's ideas, I must say that all his suggestions are easier said than done. Actually, some of his recommendations are very impractical. For example, he proposes that the FDA should require a second bar code on all food products that, when scanned, tells the consumer the whole production process, including where it came from, its former diet, where it was slaughtered, and so on. The main purpose of this bar code is to educate the public, but how many people would take the time to read all of that? It is definitely a creative way to provide that information for consumers, but I don't think that many people will stand at the grocery store and read the whole production process before purchasing that food item. So, what other, more effective ways can we educate the public? Is there a way to distribute this information in an interesting, yet time-saving manner?

Responses to Food, Inc.

In support of Food, Inc: 
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938322?refcatid=31


The magazine Variety reviewed the documentary with much support and praise for uncovering the truth of food production. John Anderson, the reviewer, uses precise word choice in order to get his opinion across. He describes corn as a villain, the agricultural business as cut-throat, the meat as corporatized, and states that there is a "greedy manipulation of both genetics and the law." Anderson also praises the filmmakers' clever use of graphics, color, and music to "always subtly [emphasize] the artificiality of the food." He highlights all the problems of food production and agrees with what the filmmakers are trying to show to the public. At the end, Anderson finishes his supportive review of Food, Inc. by claiming that people can make a difference and change the way that food is produced.

Most critical of Food, Inc:
http://www.safefoodinc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=11

This article is from SafeFoodInc.org, which is made up of those who represent the livestock, meat, and poultry industries. The website claims that these associations produce more than ninety percent of U.S. meat, including chicken, beef, pork, and many others. The article states that it separates myth from fact when it comes to food production. A lot of the accusations that the producers of Food, Inc. claimed are listed as myths in this document. The authors of this article state that "'Food, Inc.' contains an astonishing number of half-truths, errors, and omissions." In addition, they wrote rebuttals to all the claims of Food, Inc. and provided evidence to back up their argument. The entire web page is filled with questions about issues that were brought up in the documentary. The authors of this article answer each question, trying to show the public that the process of food production is quite safe and humane.


Most even-handed:
http://www.moviezeal.com/food-inc/

This article is from a movie review website in which the author of the article, Luke Harrington, tells both sides of the story. He states that he understands the producers' intention of educating the public about the truth of food production and describes many of the arguments they have against the food system. However, he also states that the movie can be "a bit emotionally manipulative" and one-sided. The story of Kevin, a two-year-old who died from E.coli, especially appealed to the emotions of the movie watchers. Harrington also gives plenty of counterexamples to why we should not use organic farming. He states that runoff from organic crops is just as bad as others, many people would starve if we switched to organic crops, and that there is no evidence that organic food is more nutritious. Yet, Harrington goes on to describe that he has felt the same way as the producers, trying to find an ultimate solution to the food problem. He agrees that the documentary was an excellent way to inform the public of the situation. This is a very unbiased review of Food, Inc. in that Harrington describes both sides of the situation and lets people decide for themselves.

Food, Inc.

In "Food, Inc.", consumers see what is going on "behind the scenes" of food production. We learn that food production has become a factory system. Each worker is designated to one simple task that they repeat over and over again, creating an assembly line. Due to this, workers are paid low wages, allowing for the price of food to be very cheap. This cheap, heavily subsidized food is the cause of obesity of many people. In the movie, for example, there was a family with a very low income level who could afford fast food's dollar menus, but they could not afford to buy healthier food from the grocery store. Also, the woman pointed out that the food that they ate was actually costing them more money, due to the cost of medicine that her husband needed for his diabetes. This "mass production" of food has also affected the public health in ways other than obesity. Putting cows on a corn diet increases the risk of E.coli - an acid resistant bacteria. Because cows are often standing in manure, E.coli is easily spreadable. In the slaughterhouses, manure often gets on the cows' hides and into the meat that we eat. In addition, the runoff from factories allows for E.coli to spread to other foods, such as spinach. Despite all the E.coli breakouts and related deaths, the government has not been doing a sufficient job of protecting consumers.

This has been the second time I have seen "Food, Inc.", yet the facts are still unbelievable. I think it is ridiculous how artificial food has become. It seems that nothing that we eat is natural anymore. The chickens that we eat are living in horrible, tight spaces with no sunlight, while fish are being forced to eat corn. Cows and pigs have similar treatment, and all of the animals take many antibiotics to keep them from getting sick off of the unnatural diet. Also, chickens are gaining weight so fast that their bodies cannot keep up. It amazes me that these chickens are to the point where they cannot even walk properly. In addition, hamburger meat has been cleansed with ammonia to kill bacteria. There seems to be so many chemicals and unknown products in food that consumers need to know about. However, I am sure that there are people who would rather be in the dark about what goes on in food production. So, would it be better to tell the public the ugly truth about food production or keep it to those who are interested? Also, the government seems to be more influenced by corporations, so what can we do to give more power to the people and ensure food safety and public health?

Following Steer Number 534

In Chapter 4 of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan describes the consequences of using corn in the diets of cattle. He also shows the readers the process of growing cattle by following a specific cow: one which he calls steer number 534. For the first sixth months, the calf lives a normal life, eating grass and living with its mother. After that, the calf is separated from its mother, distressing both animals. The calf then lives a miserable life, eating nothing but corn, eating from a trough, and living in a much smaller space. Feeding corn to cows is beneficial to farmers, because for them, corn is "cheap calories." It allows cows to gain an enormous amount of weight in a very short period of time. However, corn in cows' diets are harmful to both cows and consumers. The large quantities of corn can lead to bloating, acidosis, weakened immune systems, and many other diseases in cows. In response to all these sicknesses, farmers give the cows an excessive amount of antibiotics. But, these antibiotics can cause resistant bacteria to emerge that can one day affect humans. Also, the living conditions of cows can be detrimental to human health. There are often piles of manure in the areas they live in, which can find their way into the meat we eat. Pollan states that the "cheap" feed that farmers use may actually turn out to be quite expensive. If one takes into consideration the cost of the consumers' health and the effects that corn has on the environment, corn is not very cheap at all.

Every fact that Michael Pollan stated in the chapter greatly surprised me. It is unbelievable to think that the time for cows to reach slaughter weight has decreased so dramatically. I was shocked to learn that cows only have a life span of fourteen to sixteen months, compared to the four or five years that they used to have. It also disgusts me how these cows grow from 80 to 1,100 pounds in such a short amount of time. The rapid gain weight is not healthy for the cows, and all the antibiotics, corn, and other supplements that cows ingest are not beneficial to public health. In addition, farmers and industries use irradiation to sterilize the meat we eat. But, what are the consequences of using irradiation? How does that affect the health of humans? We must also ask: what can we do improve the lives of these cows - the living conditions, the feed, and so on - without sacrificing production?

The Naylor Curve

In the second chapter of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan discusses the paradoxical nature of corn prices in Iowa. He states that it "costs roughly $2.50 to grow a bushel of Iowa corn [while]...in October 2005 Iowa grain elevators were paying $1.45" (53). The production of corn increases every year in order for farmers to pay for their losses, but this results in a decreased price of corn. Therefore, farmers tend to grow even more corn - trapping themselves in a never-ending cycle. This phenomenon is called the Naylor Curve. Pollan describes the reason for this unusual economic activity by stating that the food demand is not elastic. People will eat the same amount of food, no matter what the supply is. Therefore, there is often an excess supply of corn. This ultimately drives the prices down, putting farmers into deeper debt. Since farmers desire to increase their production, they often invest in new technology to raise their yield. However, the technology is usually very expensive, forcing farmers into further poverty. George Naylor gives an example of a fellow farmer, Billy, who is in this situation and is "in debt up to his eyeballs" (55). However, Billy is only occupied with his yield and bragging rights; he ignores the serious consequences of his actions. He does not realize the problems associated with the production of corn.


When reading this chapter, I thought it was really interesting how the laws of economics do not apply to the production of corn. It surprised me that farmers would continue to grow corn, despite knowing that prices will decrease even more. Curious about the current corn production, I looked on the internet and found this graph: http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/graphs/Crops/Corn/cornprod.html. In the past six years, once can see a dramatic increase in the production of corn. This graph made me question: Will there ever be a point when production can no longer increase? There has to be a point when production cannot be any more efficient, so what will happen to farmers at that time? Also, I understand that farmers have to increase production to sustain their families and their standards of living, but do many of them leave their work to look for other jobs? Or are they stuck forever in this never-ending cycle?


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