Omnivore\'s Dilemma, Michael Pollan Focuses

Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan focuses on the way humans consume food. He uses both an anthropological and historical basis for his analysis, and yet finds a psychological conundrum in the seminal question for the study -- What is the omnivore's dilemma? In general, the dilemma is that humans are omnivorous -- we can eat mean, grain, vegetables -- a wide variety of what nature has to offer. Deciding what to eat, what bounty of nature to utilize, becomes a dilemma due to the differences in geography, physical culture, social pressures, and even the simply availability of products. The anxiety is compounded based not only on choice, but also on taste, preference, and ability to "tame" that particular cuisine. Now, though, with the advent of the post-Industrial economy, humans are capable of doing tremendous damage to the planet based on the decisions of what to eat. In fact, this is so serious, that Pollan notes that we now have the added dilemma of potentially devastating the ecology of some areas simply to provide a certain "taste" for x cuisine. To show us these ecological issues, Pollan reviews three principle food chains: Industrial, Organic, and Hunter/Gather and looks at the historical, economic, and sociological consequences of each chain.

The Omnivore's Dilemma is a broad overview of the four basic models of food production that arose that help society deal efficiently with the growing needs of food production: the large scale industrial system, the big 'organic' operation, the local, self-sufficient farm, and the old-fashioned hunter-gatherer society. Rather than taking a simple geographical or historical approach, however, Pollan uses each of these broad categories to examine the way plants grow into part of the food chain, and the relationship they have with animals -- and the tension cause within. It is this tension, though, that Pollan finds almost illogical, since it is often counterproductive to both sides of the equation, with a number of negative consequences to the interrelationship between humans and our environment.

Corn, for instance, is now a model for the large scale, modern version of the agribusiness. In a more eco-friendly model, livestock and crops are part of the cycle; we grow corn to eat, use as feed, plow into the ground, and there is a balance between all in providing food. In the contemporary world, though, this is out of balance. Because of economics, the small corn farmer has typically been overtaken by large agribusiness and again, because of economics (re: finding ways to use this surplus corn), corn is now used to fatten cattle, produce corn oil, high-fructose corn syrup, and so many derivatives that if one stripped the shelves of anything made with corn, the shelves would be quite bare. Corn is, in fact, a very adapting plant, but also very greedy, it "consumes prodigious quantities of fossil fuel energy and turn(s) out ever more prodigious quantities of food energy" (p.45). Corn is so dominant that we now use it for more than just food. Instead, we use any leftover product for chemicals like ethanol, glucose, the xanthan gum used in candy and ice cream, even to fatten up the chickens that spend their lives in a small cage before becoming the McNugget. Corn as a sweetener -- yes indeed, ketchup and to cook French fries -- all without providing the basic nutritional needs and taking more from the environment that is given back (pp. 109-19).

Today, my epiphany began with a Sunday morning ritual -- a trip to Starbucks for a Caramel Breve and pastry, while working on the Sunday crossword puzzle. It occurred to me that this would be an interesting test of the Pollan theory; trace the ingredients for a simple breakfast. First, the coffee plant certainly benefits from human consumption because of the vast amounts now used for the megagiant roasters. Second, Starbucks is one of those companies that puts the richest countries in contract with the poorest countries to mass produce the goods and services necessary. This $3.00 drink probably produced less than a percentage of a penny to the local farmer; then even less to the roaster. At the same time, purchasing the coffee keeps the kid employees at the kiosk, dozens of marketing and sales personnel at SB headquarters, a few peasant growers, their families, and the interesting bleed off of growing the bean to selling the product. Pollan would certainly see the interrelationship between the long history of coffee beans and the developed world; but in particular the "selling" of the Starbuck's experience, which has little to do with nutrition, and only marginally with coffee.