Omnivores Dilemma Profits Over People

¶ … Omnivore's Dilemma

In Michael Pollan's book he touches on many issues relative to what humans eat, and in the process he spends time covering the poor eating habits of Americans and the likely reasons for the obesity crisis in the United States (think carbohydrates). His narrative includes animal flesh that is produced on so-called "factory farms" -- including pig meat he proudly kills himself -- and in doing so he raises moral and psychological issues in a very well-presented book. His moral perspective comes through between the lines and between the issues, but his approach to the subject of vegetarianism comes with a sprinkle of cynicism and a splash of cryptic tokenism for good measure. Thesis: A broader view of vegetarianism -- and the reasons why millions of people (including 15-year-old Matthew) eschew animal flesh -- would have given Pollan's book more contemporary vitality and could have addressed the obesity crisis in America more realistically.

Morality and Vegetarianism

Strangely yet interestingly, Pollan discusses the gourmet chicken dinner he prepared with food from an idyllic organic farm in Virginia shortly after describing the way factory farms sever the artery of the chicken, not the head. Was the real point of his chronology the dramatic juxtaposition of the two approaches to killing chickens? Maybe he used that contrast in killing styles to justify his passion for animal flesh. Meanwhile, Pollan suggests that killing one chicken that has been raised in a place "…of almost classic pastoral beauty" is healthier and more moral than the slaughter of myriad chickens in a factor farm, and he certainly could be correct.

His description of the organic Virginia farm -- it is pristine because the farmer introduces zero pesticides, antibiotics or synthetic fertilizers to the soil -- seems to make the food taste better. But notwithstanding his reasons for the contrasts in slaughter techniques, and for the glowing positives he presents vis-a-vis the self-sustaining farm, at the dinner table Pollan gives short shrift to fifteen-year-old Matthew and Matthew's decision to pass on Pollan's chicken dinner -- a meal that Pollan calls "out of this world." An alert reader wonders why Pollan didn't take the time to explain why Matthew became a vegetarian. Okay, Matthew is "…fifteen and currently a vegetarian" (italics by writer), which seems to suggest that Matthew may not be a vegetarian for long, that it is likely a teenager's phase.

The implication is that Matthew may not be a vegetarian in a week, or a month; but who's to say that Matthew won't in fact be a vegetarian for life? In making that point, Pollan is basically critiquing adolescence in a negative way. He may be a brilliant professor at the University of California at Berkeley and his book is no doubt extremely well crafted (and has received positive critical response), but his narrative smacks of elitism when he addresses the youthful vegetarians of this world.

If conventional wisdom has it that young people that embrace vegetarians are just going through a phase, or that they have eating disorders and are obsessed with their weighty, that is disappointing and it is a generalization that won't hold up to scholarly scrutiny.

A recent study published by Time (Cloud, 2009) surveyed the eating habits of 2,516 young people in Minnesota (ages 15 to 23). Of those 2,516 participants, only 108 said they were vegetarians (that's just 4.3%). And while the study showed that youthful vegetarians are just as likely to be concerned about weight gain as they are uneasy over the slaughter of animals, the fact is that "vegetarians were healthier" (Cloud, p. 1). Vegetarian young people tended to consume "less than 30% of their calories as fat" and the exact opposite is true of teenagers (they get more than 30% of their calories from fat) (Cloud, p. 1-2).

Another survey (conducted by the respected Harris Interactive polling organization and contracted by The Vegetarian Resource Group) reflects that about 7% of youth between the ages of 8 and 18 "…never eat meat" (Stahler, 2010). Moreover, the survey shows that 12% of males between the ages of 10 to 12 "…don't eat meat" (Stahler, p. 1). Another group -- 3% of "all U.S. youth" -- report that the "never eat meat, poultry, and fish/seafood," while only 1% of American youth (and 1/3 of all vegetarians) never eat "dairy, eggs, and honey" (or meat) (Stahler, p. 1).

The authors suggest that about 1.4 million young people in the U.S. are vegetarian (in the strict sense, which is to say beyond eschewing meat they don't use dairy, or eggs or honey) and "…about three million never eat meat" (Stahler, p. 1). As to the youth who never eat meat, the Harris Poll shows that 12% of males 10-12 years of age, and 3% of females 10-12 never eat meat. Of those who never eat meat between the ages of 13-15, 9% are female and just 5% are male (Stahler, p. 2).

Meanwhile, Pollan actually tried vegetarianism for a month and discovered he didn't like this style of nutritional sustenance because it "…alienates me from other people." That is, telling the host that he doesn't eat meat forces the host to prepare something special -- albeit Pollan doesn't mention that most meals prepared at home for guests include salads and other vegetables so there is really no need for a vegetarian guest to rudely announce that he doesn't eat meat.