From the whole food unit, I learned that our industrial food system is a much more complicated and nightmarish system than we imagine or wish it to be. Is there a way to escape this nightmare? It was a bit worrisome that there might be even more life-threatening dangers within the food we eat that the government and huge food corporations hide just for their greed for profit. Joel Salatin’s Polyface farm is then mentioned as a ‘sustainable’ and ‘natural’ local farm that would make any reader of Omnivore’s Dilemma and any viewer of Food Inc. want to look up to in amazement. But, I had to ask myself: Is Polyface farm really that great? I decided than to do an Academic Research to see if Pollen and Salatin’s statements hold true.
I wasn't quite sure how to start, so I began by doing simple searches of Polyface Farm. It was a relief to see that many of the people who actually visited the farm were surprised at how much of the things mentioned about the farm was not very exaggerated. However, I knew I needed other people's opinions and came across a blog that caught my attention. Of course, it's not a credible sourse, but it was a start: (http://postconflicted.blogspot.com/2009/05/recent-trip-to-polyface-farms.html) There was a comment that I wanted to confirm:
"The short of it is that pastoral cows are in fact still a major source of greenhouse gases, and they do not solve environmental issues."
Here is some research I found:
"World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!” (Are cows the cause of global warming? (http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2)
I’m still on Salatin’s side, but it makes sense that even Polyface farm’s way of doing things isn’t ‘perfect.’ The farm takes up a lot of space so animals are free to roam which may cause more CO2...
This obviously wasn’t convincing though; I read in Omnivore’s Dilemma of Salatin’s method of avoiding his farm animals from eating the same leaf repeatedly to avoid the problems of overgrazing. Polyface farm might be emitting some type of CO2, but obviously its a lot less compared to the CO2 emiited from feedlots and industrial farms.
But, most of the research that came up were positive views of Polyface farm. I tried not to check anything the government or 'specialists' would say, rather people who actually visited the farm and their reactions to it. This is connected to what we've been learning in the food unit has helped me confirm that Polyface farm is indeed an example that other industrial farms and corporations fail to consider. This is important because most people (at least in the U.S) are involved and manipulated into this complex food system, and its important to re-consider if we should still fall under the hands of the government. Polyface farm's method is completely different, so it may not be a complete solution, but it is definitly something to think about.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
HW#12: Final Food Project 2-Outline
Thesis:
Many of the dominant social practices in our society-practices that define a "normal" life-on further investigation turn out to involve nightmarish and industrial atrocities.
Major Claim:
The food industry has negatively influenced our dominant social practices regarding food that we assumed to be 'normal.'
Supporting Claim #1:
The food industry abuses and takes advantage of the overproduction of corn.
Evidence: Farmers forced to produce more corn to make a living.
"A farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and if the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn." -Omnivore's Dilemma page 53-54
Evidence:Our food is not as diverse as we believe
"The great edifice of variety and choice that is an American supermarket turns out to rest on a remarkably narrow biological foundation comprised of a tiny group of plants..."-Page 18 of Omnivore's Dilemma
Evidence: Feeding corn to animals that should be eating grass.
"Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal’s digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible." -What About Grass-fed Beef?
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
Evidence: Giving different names to corn to confuse the consumers what's in our food
The following is a list:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pdf/foodinc/foodinc_corn_derived_handout.pdf
Supporting Claim #2:
The food industry values massive production over the health of the people and animals when paying closer attention to the treatment of our meat.
Evidence:Feed lot animals live in their manures.
"Then there's the deep pile of manure on which I stand, in which 534 sleeps. We don't know much about the hormones in it-where they will end up, or what they might do once they get there-but we do know something about the bacteria, which can find their way from the manure on the ground to his hide and from their into our hamburgers."-page 81 Omnivore's Dilemma
Evidence:Animals are forced to eat corn which is unnatural.
"Here, hundreds of millions of food animals that once lived on family farms and ranches are gathered together in great commissaries, where they consume as much of the mounting pile of surplus corn as they can digest, turning it into meat. Enlisting the cow in this undertaking has required particularly heroic efforts, since the cow is by nature not a corn eater. But Nature abhors a surplus, and the corn must be consumed." -Page 64 of Omnivore's Dilemma
"Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.” -page 79
Evidence:Burgers are made from multiple cow meat.
"When the results came back, the lab reported at least four cows had been found in each patty -- and sometimes as many as eight. "Unfortunately, I don't think customers realize what goes into a single hamburger," Sarah Klein of the Center for Public Interest told "GMA." "I think we have a fantasy it's still coming from a single cow."-Keep your meat safe from E.Coli
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/meat-safe-ecoli-dr-richard-besser-tips/story?id=9029942
Evidence:Our food contains deadly chemicals.
"Ammonia kills E. Coli."-(Food Inc Film)
(But, ammonia is harmful for the human body)
"Even in low concentrations, inhaling ammonia or getting the solution on your skin can cause burning, fainting, or death, so always use caution when handling this chemical." -What is Ammonia?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ammonia.htm
Work Cited:
Corn-derived ingredients
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pdf/foodinc/foodinc_corn_derived_handout.pdf
Food Inc. Film
Keep your meat safe from E.Coli
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/meat-safe-ecoli-dr-richard-besser-tips/story?id=9029942
Omnivore's Dilemma By: Michael Pollen
What about grass-fed beef?
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
What is Ammonia?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ammonia.htm
Many of the dominant social practices in our society-practices that define a "normal" life-on further investigation turn out to involve nightmarish and industrial atrocities.
Major Claim:
The food industry has negatively influenced our dominant social practices regarding food that we assumed to be 'normal.'
Supporting Claim #1:
The food industry abuses and takes advantage of the overproduction of corn.
Evidence: Farmers forced to produce more corn to make a living.
"A farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and if the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn." -Omnivore's Dilemma page 53-54
Evidence:Our food is not as diverse as we believe
"The great edifice of variety and choice that is an American supermarket turns out to rest on a remarkably narrow biological foundation comprised of a tiny group of plants..."-Page 18 of Omnivore's Dilemma
Evidence: Feeding corn to animals that should be eating grass.
"Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal’s digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible." -What About Grass-fed Beef?
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
Evidence: Giving different names to corn to confuse the consumers what's in our food
The following is a list:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pdf/foodinc/foodinc_corn_derived_handout.pdf
Supporting Claim #2:
The food industry values massive production over the health of the people and animals when paying closer attention to the treatment of our meat.
Evidence:Feed lot animals live in their manures.
"Then there's the deep pile of manure on which I stand, in which 534 sleeps. We don't know much about the hormones in it-where they will end up, or what they might do once they get there-but we do know something about the bacteria, which can find their way from the manure on the ground to his hide and from their into our hamburgers."-page 81 Omnivore's Dilemma
Evidence:Animals are forced to eat corn which is unnatural.
"Here, hundreds of millions of food animals that once lived on family farms and ranches are gathered together in great commissaries, where they consume as much of the mounting pile of surplus corn as they can digest, turning it into meat. Enlisting the cow in this undertaking has required particularly heroic efforts, since the cow is by nature not a corn eater. But Nature abhors a surplus, and the corn must be consumed." -Page 64 of Omnivore's Dilemma
"Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.” -page 79
Evidence:Burgers are made from multiple cow meat.
"When the results came back, the lab reported at least four cows had been found in each patty -- and sometimes as many as eight. "Unfortunately, I don't think customers realize what goes into a single hamburger," Sarah Klein of the Center for Public Interest told "GMA." "I think we have a fantasy it's still coming from a single cow."-Keep your meat safe from E.Coli
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/meat-safe-ecoli-dr-richard-besser-tips/story?id=9029942
Evidence:Our food contains deadly chemicals.
"Ammonia kills E. Coli."-(Food Inc Film)
(But, ammonia is harmful for the human body)
"Even in low concentrations, inhaling ammonia or getting the solution on your skin can cause burning, fainting, or death, so always use caution when handling this chemical." -What is Ammonia?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ammonia.htm
Work Cited:
Corn-derived ingredients
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pdf/foodinc/foodinc_corn_derived_handout.pdf
Food Inc. Film
Keep your meat safe from E.Coli
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/meat-safe-ecoli-dr-richard-besser-tips/story?id=9029942
Omnivore's Dilemma By: Michael Pollen
What about grass-fed beef?
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
What is Ammonia?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ammonia.htm
Friday, October 22, 2010
HW#10: Food Inc. Response
1. The huge food industries and companies are manipulating and controlling this industrial food chain where they hinder the dark truth from the consumers for their profits. We are being neglected of the information in the products sold in the marketplace and fast-food chains so we continue to fall for these cheap subsidized products that are destroying our health and the environment. The animals in the feedlots are treated as things than living things, letting them live in close dirty quarters in their manure, being fed subsidized corn and grain that are not meant to be eaten by these animals. Consumers and farmers who voice an opinion or take an action that can affect these corporation’s sales can get sued-causing many people to give up halfway because of the costs for court fees. The meats we eat are sprayed in ammonia to kill E. coli and the soybeans are being grown in chemical infested soil full of antibiotics. We are also too dependent on a scarce source of petroleum; some already predict that the ‘peek oil’ will be in the years 2011-2012. We need to make more efforts to change the U.S. food policies, for the goal of changing the high hospital rates for obesity and diabetes.
2. I liked both the movie and the book because they provided different ways of helping me become more aware and conscious about our food ways. The book gave a lot of information with lots of details. I liked the book more in ways that there was a little story for some of these chapters that made me feel more upset about the mistreatments of the feedlot animals. The movie on the other hand, provided intense visuals that made me feel disgusted and sick which helped me further realize the dangers we are so involved in. For example, in chapter 4, The Feedlot the book describes in depth about CAFO’s and the process of how the cows are being fed to later be slaughtered. This helped me raise my knowledge, but what really made me sick was when actually watching the factories visually. I’m really glad I read the book before watching the movie though, because it helped me connect the text to the visuals.
3. I always thought I knew how unhealthy fast-foods were, but I didn’t realize this whole industrial system regarding food. It’s a shock that as a society most people don’t give second thoughts about the products on the market’s shelves, because we put other priorities before food-which is exactly what the government and huge corporations wants us to do. The ones in huge powers know the dangerous affects of their mass production and it’s scary how far people are willing to go for huge profits. Even if I watch the movie or read the book many more times I can’t help but ask, “Why?” Why are we so ignorant about food when we should have the right to know what’s going in our bodies? I know the answer is because the huge powers don’t want us to know, but it’s frustrating and hard to believe still. It’s not easy to change the system, but I think that it would work better if more people know what they’re eating and where it’s coming from. There’s nothing in this food system that can be justified, so more people should know and make the right decisions.
2. I liked both the movie and the book because they provided different ways of helping me become more aware and conscious about our food ways. The book gave a lot of information with lots of details. I liked the book more in ways that there was a little story for some of these chapters that made me feel more upset about the mistreatments of the feedlot animals. The movie on the other hand, provided intense visuals that made me feel disgusted and sick which helped me further realize the dangers we are so involved in. For example, in chapter 4, The Feedlot the book describes in depth about CAFO’s and the process of how the cows are being fed to later be slaughtered. This helped me raise my knowledge, but what really made me sick was when actually watching the factories visually. I’m really glad I read the book before watching the movie though, because it helped me connect the text to the visuals.
3. I always thought I knew how unhealthy fast-foods were, but I didn’t realize this whole industrial system regarding food. It’s a shock that as a society most people don’t give second thoughts about the products on the market’s shelves, because we put other priorities before food-which is exactly what the government and huge corporations wants us to do. The ones in huge powers know the dangerous affects of their mass production and it’s scary how far people are willing to go for huge profits. Even if I watch the movie or read the book many more times I can’t help but ask, “Why?” Why are we so ignorant about food when we should have the right to know what’s going in our bodies? I know the answer is because the huge powers don’t want us to know, but it’s frustrating and hard to believe still. It’s not easy to change the system, but I think that it would work better if more people know what they’re eating and where it’s coming from. There’s nothing in this food system that can be justified, so more people should know and make the right decisions.
Monday, October 18, 2010
HW 7D
Chapter 17: The Ethics of Eating Animals
Précis:
Philosophers like PETA and Singer argue that most people are ‘speciesist’ for grouping people before other animals, and they use excuses to justify their reasons for causing them suffering and eating them. Some people argued that animals unlike humans, do not feel suffering because of the lack of language-however it is clearly obvious when animals feel suffering (the CAFO’s) and when they are full of happiness (Salatin’s farm). There is a clear debate on the issue of considering if animals can feel suffering and if we are indeed ‘speciesist’ for our actions.
Gems:
“Indeed, it is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is for the health of nature-rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls-then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do.” -Page 327
“Few will take up such an offer; many of us would prefer to delegate the job of looking to a government bureaucrat or a journalist, but the very option of looking-that transparency-is probably the best way to ensure that animals are killed in a manner we can abide. No doubt some of us will decide there is no killing of animals we can countenance, and they probably shouldn’t eat meat.” -Page 331
Thoughts:
1. I can understand where the animal people are saying, but I must disagree on the value of the individual animal, and not the species as a whole. Organizations tried to save the almost extinct species of the fox at Santa Cruz by rid of as many pigs and golden eagles-I can somewhat understand why the animal people would be upset, but I think their priorities are out of order...
2. I don’t think it really matters whether people are vegans or eat meat. I guess humans don’t have to eat meat, but as long as we have been fine being omnivorous eaters for centuries it’s okay to choose to eat meat. Carnivores kill other animals for food, so humans have the right to eat meat as well. This idea was disagreed somewhere within the chapter, but it hasn’t convinced me to change my ideas.
3. I like Salatin’s farm and the see-through window idea. I agree that CAFO’s and slaughterhouses should also let customers see the brutality and process of how the animals they’ll be eating would get butchered. What the customer decides is up to them, but its strange that we’re not allowed to see how the food we eat gets processed...
Chapter 18: Hunting-The Meat
Précis:
Some hunters like Angelo hunt simply to eat tasty meat. Even though hunting is now mostly seen as a ‘game,’ Ortega believes that the hunting is perhaps the only way to return to nature. Hunting’s purpose is not necessarily for killing, but at the same time people cannot be considered a hunter without the experience of taking responsibility over the meat they kill. It is a controversy whether the pride hunters feel after killing an animal successfully if we are cruel for being happy over ‘murder,’ or if we are simply happy for success.
Gems:
“Killing is one of those requirements. And although Ortega says one does not hunt in order to kill, he also says that one must kill in order to have hunted. Why? For authenticity’s sake. If for me this venture was about taking ultimate responsibility for the animals I eat, their deaths included, well, I hadn’t done that yet, had I?”-Page 349
“Dreams of innocence are just that; they usually depend on a denial of reality that can be its own form of hubris. Ortega suggests that there s an immorality in failing to look clearly at reality, or in believing that the sheer force of human will can somehow overcome it.”-Page 362
Thoughts:
1. Hunting may be a solution to the problems with industrial agriculture, however I don’t think this is realistic. Like most people, I don’t like the idea of seeing the dead bodies of animals I would eat when they’re hunted and killed. It’ll take a lot to convince most people in industrialized areas (like the city) to go back to the ways of hunting.
2. I don’t think hunting itself is bad at all, when comparing it to the treatments of the cows at the CAFO’s and the fattened overweight chickens. I think I would feel more safe eating meat from animals that has been hunted down from where they roam in natural locations, then from industrial factories where cows are cramped together in their feces.
3. Hunting is controversial because of the pride hunters feel after they killed an animal. But, I think as long as humans can eat meat, they’re allowed to. I don’t think hunters necessarily have joy in the process of killing, but rather to the fact that they have done their hunting successfully. It’s natural for humans to feel pride when they are successful.
Chapter 19: Gathering-The Fungi
Précis:
Most people are reassured about mushroom information mostly through other individuals who went through the gathering experience than reading a book about it. Even in today’s sciences, there are still many mysteries surrounding the functions of mushrooms and if we really need to eat them, but they are necessary in nature to break down organic matter and decomposition. ‘Hunting’ for mushrooms is a difficult thing to do with no clear way to do them, so it really depends on the ‘pop out effect.’
Gems:
“The field guides contain our culture’s accumulated wisdom on the subject of mushrooms. Curiously, though, the process of imparting and absorbing this life-and-death information works much better in person than it does on paper, whether through writing or even photography.”-Page 372
“Mushrooms behave unpredictably, and theories can go only as far in pushing back their mystery. ‘It’s a lot like gambling,’ Ben said. ‘You’re looking for the big score, the mother lode. The conditions might be perfect in every way, but you never know what you’re going to find around the next bend-it could be a sea of mushrooms or nothing at all.” -Page 384
Thoughts:
1. I didn’t know there were only theories about mushrooms, and not actual facts. I just thought I had little knowledge of the functions and nutrients of the mushroom, so I was surprised there’s not much that has been found out yet of the oddness of the species.
2. Maybe mushrooms don’t contain a nutrient that we necessarily need to take in, and their importance only lies in their role in their natural habitats. Mushrooms help life keep going, but they don’t need to be eaten.
3. I didn’t think gathering mushrooms was so difficult to do. I wonder why mushrooms tend to appear a lot after fires?
Chapter 20: The Perfect Meal
Précis:
It’s a huge challenge to create the ‘perfect meal’ because of the seasons each food is grown naturally and the effort to gather all these natural foods on our own. However, cooking is also a way to honor our food that’s been sacrificed to be eaten by us and to thank the producers. (I.e. the farmers and the hunters) A perfect meal involves the help of many people, and the knowledge of where all the food we eat comes from.
Gems:
“Putting a great dish on the table is our way of celebrating the wonders of form we humans can create from this matter-this quality of sacrificed life-just before the body takes its first destructive bite.” -Page 405
“The meal was more ritual than realistic because it dwelled on such things, reminding us how very much nature offers to the omnivore, the forests as much as the fields, the oceans as much as the meadows. If I had to give this dinner a name, it would have to be the Omnivore’s Thanksgiving.” -Page 410
Thoughts:
1. The book in general provided a lot of knowledge and helped me raise more awareness of how clueless most people are about where our food comes from. It’s a bit disappointing that the government only cares about profit more than the people’s health and awareness, but it’s also sad that most of us did not even question the food labels and how these products were being made.
2. I don’t think I’ll be able to eat fast-food in a long while, but I’ll probably eat it again once in a while. It’s unrealistic to eat completely healthy because the society we live in is so industrialized and manipulated by the higher powers. But, it’s always an option that I’m a bit interested in trying at least once.
3. Is there a way to avoid both extreme ways of feeding ourselves?
Précis:
Philosophers like PETA and Singer argue that most people are ‘speciesist’ for grouping people before other animals, and they use excuses to justify their reasons for causing them suffering and eating them. Some people argued that animals unlike humans, do not feel suffering because of the lack of language-however it is clearly obvious when animals feel suffering (the CAFO’s) and when they are full of happiness (Salatin’s farm). There is a clear debate on the issue of considering if animals can feel suffering and if we are indeed ‘speciesist’ for our actions.
Gems:
“Indeed, it is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is for the health of nature-rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls-then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do.” -Page 327
“Few will take up such an offer; many of us would prefer to delegate the job of looking to a government bureaucrat or a journalist, but the very option of looking-that transparency-is probably the best way to ensure that animals are killed in a manner we can abide. No doubt some of us will decide there is no killing of animals we can countenance, and they probably shouldn’t eat meat.” -Page 331
Thoughts:
1. I can understand where the animal people are saying, but I must disagree on the value of the individual animal, and not the species as a whole. Organizations tried to save the almost extinct species of the fox at Santa Cruz by rid of as many pigs and golden eagles-I can somewhat understand why the animal people would be upset, but I think their priorities are out of order...
2. I don’t think it really matters whether people are vegans or eat meat. I guess humans don’t have to eat meat, but as long as we have been fine being omnivorous eaters for centuries it’s okay to choose to eat meat. Carnivores kill other animals for food, so humans have the right to eat meat as well. This idea was disagreed somewhere within the chapter, but it hasn’t convinced me to change my ideas.
3. I like Salatin’s farm and the see-through window idea. I agree that CAFO’s and slaughterhouses should also let customers see the brutality and process of how the animals they’ll be eating would get butchered. What the customer decides is up to them, but its strange that we’re not allowed to see how the food we eat gets processed...
Chapter 18: Hunting-The Meat
Précis:
Some hunters like Angelo hunt simply to eat tasty meat. Even though hunting is now mostly seen as a ‘game,’ Ortega believes that the hunting is perhaps the only way to return to nature. Hunting’s purpose is not necessarily for killing, but at the same time people cannot be considered a hunter without the experience of taking responsibility over the meat they kill. It is a controversy whether the pride hunters feel after killing an animal successfully if we are cruel for being happy over ‘murder,’ or if we are simply happy for success.
Gems:
“Killing is one of those requirements. And although Ortega says one does not hunt in order to kill, he also says that one must kill in order to have hunted. Why? For authenticity’s sake. If for me this venture was about taking ultimate responsibility for the animals I eat, their deaths included, well, I hadn’t done that yet, had I?”-Page 349
“Dreams of innocence are just that; they usually depend on a denial of reality that can be its own form of hubris. Ortega suggests that there s an immorality in failing to look clearly at reality, or in believing that the sheer force of human will can somehow overcome it.”-Page 362
Thoughts:
1. Hunting may be a solution to the problems with industrial agriculture, however I don’t think this is realistic. Like most people, I don’t like the idea of seeing the dead bodies of animals I would eat when they’re hunted and killed. It’ll take a lot to convince most people in industrialized areas (like the city) to go back to the ways of hunting.
2. I don’t think hunting itself is bad at all, when comparing it to the treatments of the cows at the CAFO’s and the fattened overweight chickens. I think I would feel more safe eating meat from animals that has been hunted down from where they roam in natural locations, then from industrial factories where cows are cramped together in their feces.
3. Hunting is controversial because of the pride hunters feel after they killed an animal. But, I think as long as humans can eat meat, they’re allowed to. I don’t think hunters necessarily have joy in the process of killing, but rather to the fact that they have done their hunting successfully. It’s natural for humans to feel pride when they are successful.
Chapter 19: Gathering-The Fungi
Précis:
Most people are reassured about mushroom information mostly through other individuals who went through the gathering experience than reading a book about it. Even in today’s sciences, there are still many mysteries surrounding the functions of mushrooms and if we really need to eat them, but they are necessary in nature to break down organic matter and decomposition. ‘Hunting’ for mushrooms is a difficult thing to do with no clear way to do them, so it really depends on the ‘pop out effect.’
Gems:
“The field guides contain our culture’s accumulated wisdom on the subject of mushrooms. Curiously, though, the process of imparting and absorbing this life-and-death information works much better in person than it does on paper, whether through writing or even photography.”-Page 372
“Mushrooms behave unpredictably, and theories can go only as far in pushing back their mystery. ‘It’s a lot like gambling,’ Ben said. ‘You’re looking for the big score, the mother lode. The conditions might be perfect in every way, but you never know what you’re going to find around the next bend-it could be a sea of mushrooms or nothing at all.” -Page 384
Thoughts:
1. I didn’t know there were only theories about mushrooms, and not actual facts. I just thought I had little knowledge of the functions and nutrients of the mushroom, so I was surprised there’s not much that has been found out yet of the oddness of the species.
2. Maybe mushrooms don’t contain a nutrient that we necessarily need to take in, and their importance only lies in their role in their natural habitats. Mushrooms help life keep going, but they don’t need to be eaten.
3. I didn’t think gathering mushrooms was so difficult to do. I wonder why mushrooms tend to appear a lot after fires?
Chapter 20: The Perfect Meal
Précis:
It’s a huge challenge to create the ‘perfect meal’ because of the seasons each food is grown naturally and the effort to gather all these natural foods on our own. However, cooking is also a way to honor our food that’s been sacrificed to be eaten by us and to thank the producers. (I.e. the farmers and the hunters) A perfect meal involves the help of many people, and the knowledge of where all the food we eat comes from.
Gems:
“Putting a great dish on the table is our way of celebrating the wonders of form we humans can create from this matter-this quality of sacrificed life-just before the body takes its first destructive bite.” -Page 405
“The meal was more ritual than realistic because it dwelled on such things, reminding us how very much nature offers to the omnivore, the forests as much as the fields, the oceans as much as the meadows. If I had to give this dinner a name, it would have to be the Omnivore’s Thanksgiving.” -Page 410
Thoughts:
1. The book in general provided a lot of knowledge and helped me raise more awareness of how clueless most people are about where our food comes from. It’s a bit disappointing that the government only cares about profit more than the people’s health and awareness, but it’s also sad that most of us did not even question the food labels and how these products were being made.
2. I don’t think I’ll be able to eat fast-food in a long while, but I’ll probably eat it again once in a while. It’s unrealistic to eat completely healthy because the society we live in is so industrialized and manipulated by the higher powers. But, it’s always an option that I’m a bit interested in trying at least once.
3. Is there a way to avoid both extreme ways of feeding ourselves?
Friday, October 15, 2010
HW#9: Freakonomics Response
1. In the film, there were definitely intellectual moves of asking questions. Asking a question that has no clear answer is always a start to find out answers, or at least an idea/theory of the topic. One question that was asked in the film was, “How can I get my daughter to potty train?” An incentive that the economist used to answer this question was to give the girl a pack of M&M’s every time she went to the bathroom. Ironically, the child ended up taking advantage of the situation and ended up receiving many packs of chocolate-which shows that on a bigger scale(connection), the government can never fully be able to monitor a whole country.
Another “tool” that Freakonomics repeatedly used was number data and statistics to support certain theories. For example, an experiment was used to 9th graders if their grades would rise up if paid $50 dollars just for getting average C’s. Results showed a 5 to 7 percent of students passing because of the money idea, which showed that money does not necessarily always motivate and influence students to achieve educational success.
Lastly, the film used “tools” for figuring out topics. The example for this tool goes back to the first scenario I mentioned in the first paragraph: with the incentive of giving an economist’s girl M&M’s every time she went to potty train. When I started watching the scenario, I did not think too deeply about the topic and thought it was a silly experiment. But, in the end, I realized that this connects on a bigger scale when it comes to trying to get people to listen to you by giving them benefits. This small-scale experiment lead to a technique in figuring out a topic-an idea that it is difficult to manipulate a single girl with chocolate, so how can the government ever be able to get the whole country to listen to his incentives?
2. Freakonomics authors addressed the “correlation versus causation” issue with the theory about ‘typical African American names.’ Two speakers with split opinions spoke about if certain names connect to poverty issues. It was hard to distinguish the two different viewpoints until it was discussed in class, so I would say that they support (not necessarily prove) that some correlation is causation. The Indian speaker talked about how names are definitely causative with their poverty because of the statistics showing that workers with unique ‘African American’ names have a less chance to get the job and regardless of experience, gets paid less than White Americans with typical names.
A/B.) I somewhat agree because not only was the film more entertaining and interesting than I thought, but the film taught a few lessons and theories that changed how I look at things slightly. Even with the scenario with the potty-training and paying 50 dollars to raise grades, the film showed how the simplicity of these little experiments connect to life on a bigger scale. We tend to think we can easily get people to do things with simple things like money and food, but really-it isn’t that simple. Nobody has control over other people’s motivation therefore there won’t ever be a solution to get people to do certain things. Therefore, these simple scenarios throughout the film was a good example of the weirdness of our assumptions for simple solutions-the hidden in plain sight weirdness of or dominant social practices.
C.) One of the theories (even though it didn’t support what the theorists hoped for) was that if we pay money or give something to the person’s benefit, we may be able to get them to do certain things. (i.e. paying money to students to raise their grades) This idea connects to our investigation of U.S. food ways. Omnivore’s Dilemma repeatedly goes back to the idea of corn being the root of all problems. So, an incentive would be to have the government subsidize corns, so farmers are willing to get rid of all that corn if they are going to end up receiving money. This may actually work a lot better than the theories used in the film, since industrial farmers are already overproducing corn for these subsidies-meaning they’ll most likely do anything as long as they get paid.
Another “tool” that Freakonomics repeatedly used was number data and statistics to support certain theories. For example, an experiment was used to 9th graders if their grades would rise up if paid $50 dollars just for getting average C’s. Results showed a 5 to 7 percent of students passing because of the money idea, which showed that money does not necessarily always motivate and influence students to achieve educational success.
Lastly, the film used “tools” for figuring out topics. The example for this tool goes back to the first scenario I mentioned in the first paragraph: with the incentive of giving an economist’s girl M&M’s every time she went to potty train. When I started watching the scenario, I did not think too deeply about the topic and thought it was a silly experiment. But, in the end, I realized that this connects on a bigger scale when it comes to trying to get people to listen to you by giving them benefits. This small-scale experiment lead to a technique in figuring out a topic-an idea that it is difficult to manipulate a single girl with chocolate, so how can the government ever be able to get the whole country to listen to his incentives?
2. Freakonomics authors addressed the “correlation versus causation” issue with the theory about ‘typical African American names.’ Two speakers with split opinions spoke about if certain names connect to poverty issues. It was hard to distinguish the two different viewpoints until it was discussed in class, so I would say that they support (not necessarily prove) that some correlation is causation. The Indian speaker talked about how names are definitely causative with their poverty because of the statistics showing that workers with unique ‘African American’ names have a less chance to get the job and regardless of experience, gets paid less than White Americans with typical names.
A/B.) I somewhat agree because not only was the film more entertaining and interesting than I thought, but the film taught a few lessons and theories that changed how I look at things slightly. Even with the scenario with the potty-training and paying 50 dollars to raise grades, the film showed how the simplicity of these little experiments connect to life on a bigger scale. We tend to think we can easily get people to do things with simple things like money and food, but really-it isn’t that simple. Nobody has control over other people’s motivation therefore there won’t ever be a solution to get people to do certain things. Therefore, these simple scenarios throughout the film was a good example of the weirdness of our assumptions for simple solutions-the hidden in plain sight weirdness of or dominant social practices.
C.) One of the theories (even though it didn’t support what the theorists hoped for) was that if we pay money or give something to the person’s benefit, we may be able to get them to do certain things. (i.e. paying money to students to raise their grades) This idea connects to our investigation of U.S. food ways. Omnivore’s Dilemma repeatedly goes back to the idea of corn being the root of all problems. So, an incentive would be to have the government subsidize corns, so farmers are willing to get rid of all that corn if they are going to end up receiving money. This may actually work a lot better than the theories used in the film, since industrial farmers are already overproducing corn for these subsidies-meaning they’ll most likely do anything as long as they get paid.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Hw#7C
Chapter 11: The Animals-Practicing Complexity
Précis:
Most farmers follow the conventional way of farming, which is unhealthy and dangerous but breaks down agriculture in simple steps to follow. However, the right way is to follow the complexity of the natural way, by being able to do the physical and mental challenges of real farming. (I.e. moving the cattle every day) Unlike industrial farming, Saltin’s way of farming repeats a certain cycle every day where every living thing is connected to one another.
Gems:
“By contrast, the efficiencies of natural systems flow from complexity and interdependence-by definition the very opposite of simplification...To measure the efficiency of such a complex system you need to count not only all the products it produces but also all the costs it eliminates: antibiotics, wormers, parasiticides, and fertilizers.”-Page 214
“Relations are what matters most, and the health of the cultivated turns on the health of the wild.” -Page 225
Thoughts:
1. Salatin’s way of farming sounded very tedious and tiring, so I actually would understand why many farmers end up turning to the simple industrial way of farming.
2. The recommended solution to the pig’s tail chewing in the CAFO’s was a shock and disappointment personally. The gap between this and Salatin’s contented pigs makes me feel as though farm animals are born into a lottery like society-they either get lucky or unlucky in the farms.
3. Industrial farmers should not even be considered a farmer. Clearly, they are just lazy and like the idea of simplicity. Surely, they would be able to save up more money for a living if they turned their backs at the government’s agricultural policies.
Chapter 12: Slaughter-In a Glass Abattoir
Précis: The USDA are speechless when it comes to local farmers like Salatin’s, since the way they regulate their farms are a lot healthier than those growing under government policies. No matter what farm is raising the animals, killing them is inevitable for us to be able to eat them, but it is a lot cleaner and less cruel than the methods of those industrial farmers. The customers of Polyface’s farm are free to watch the process of their dinner being killed since it so clean and reassuring that their slaughtering technique doesn’t use things like antibiotics.
Gems:
“Imagine if the walls of every slaughterhouse and animal factory were as transparent as Polyface’s-if not open to the air then at least made of glass So much of what happens behind those walls-the cruelty, the carelessness, the filth-would simply have to stop.” -Page 235
“We do not allow the government to dictate what religion you can observe, so why should we allow them to dictate what kind of food you can buy?” He believes “freedom of food”-the freedom to buy a pork chop from the farmer who raised the hog-should be a constitutional right.” -Page 236
Thoughts:
1. It is ironic how the USDA is ‘supposed’ to inspect for the health of how the animals are taken care of, but they are actually trying to put local farms out of business. It was mentioned in class of how we always have a part of us that wants to believe the government is there in support of us, but this just shows that they could really care less unless it benefits in their interests.
2. It would be a great incentive if factories and slaughterhouses of industrial farmers are also see through walls. Customers are less likely to continue eating unhealthy foods if they actually see with their own eyes how their foods are being processed. (This may be a naïve solution, but it could work...even though I wouldn’t know if anybody can get the government to let the process be revealed to the public).
3. Money and benefits easily gets people (i.e. industrial farmers) to do whatever the government tells them to do. This makes a lot of sense, so I wouldn’t be sure if there can ever be a solution to make foods healthier unless corn just disappeared.
Chapter 13: The Market-“Greetings from the Non-Barcode People”
Précis:
Most customers who buy from markets are ignorant with their knowledge of food and cheap prices. Local farmers like Salatin’s have no choice but to try having better connections with customers (and chefs) to educate and further our knowledge about food (i.e. seasonal foods and about prices). Local farmers like these aren’t necessarily trying to destroy the industrial food ways, but rather further this food-movement to raise awareness of food and health for customers like us.
Gems:
“Society is not bearing the cost of water pollution, of antibiotic resistance, of food-borne illnesses, of crop subsidies, of subsidized corn oil and water-of all the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer that make cheap food seem cheap. No thinking person will tell you they don’t care about all that.” -Page 243
“We have to battle the idea that you can have anything you want any times you want it. Like ‘spring lamb.” What the hell does that mean...But the market’s become totally out of sync with nature.” -Page 252
Thoughts:
1. I do think that this food-movement will impact a lot of people to change their food choices, but I honestly doubt that it will cause a major change in today’s society. The government and CAFO will definitely react to any changes in people’s ideas about food ways and say something to distract our beliefs. (Like talking about bioterrorism as mentioned once in the book).
2. I’m not too sure if it would work, but perhaps having food ways classes as a mandatory curriculum in public schools would help students make better food choices and raise awareness. (But, then again being able to convince the D.O.E to change class curriculums is unlikely)
3. U.S. society is too lazy that we tend to go to more convenient choices, so it is also a cultural obstacle that local farmers would have to confront. Even if most Americans get informed deeply about our foods, what is the likelihood that they will all go out of their way to buy local foods?
Chapter 14: The Meal-Grass Fed
Précis:
Most consumers assume all food is the same (‘chicken is chicken and beef beef’) so they do not realize the changes between the balance of quantity and quality. Even with the assumption of fish being healthier than meat, can work in reverse if the steer is fed grass and the salmon is fed grain. The process of cooking these natural foods causes many complex chemical reactions, creating a strong distinct taste.
Gems:
“The needs of a long industrial food chain might justify such a trade-off, but when you can eat corn picked a few hours before dinner, there’s no reason for it. Unless of course an industrial diet of easy sugars has dulled your taste for the earthy sweetness of corn, now that it has to compete with things like soda.” -Page 266
“As in the case of our imperfect knowledge of soil, the limits of our knowledge of nutrition have obscured what the industrialization of the food chain is doing to our health. But the changes in the composition of fats in our diet may account for many of the diseases of civilization-cardiac, diabetes, obesity, etc-” -Page 268
Thoughts:
1. I had no clue about the omega-3 and omega-6. I was pretty shocked to read the importance of the balance between different types of fats. It just shows that the reason today’s society has so many people with serious diseases...goes back to the idea of the unhealthy corn.
2. I also thought that fish was generally healthier than meat. It’s sad that industrialization has obscured my sense of knowledge as well.
3. Even if I (or anybody else) attempts to change to a more local diet, I think we would all give up easily. We’re just too used to convenience.
Chapter 15: The Forager
Précis: Agriculture already took away the choice of foraging as a viable technique because there isn’t enough to feed the whole population today. Today, foraging is considered more of a teaching than something economic/political. To become a legal hunter, a license is required, where it involves taking hunting courses and a long test. Hunting is also risky because sufficient knowledge is needed to distinguish what is edible, and what is poisonous.
Gems:
“Agriculture brought humans a great many blessings, but it also brought infectious disease (from living in close quarters with one another and our animals) and malnutrition (from eating too much of the same things when crops were good, and not enough of anything when they weren’t).” -Page 279
“Like other important forms of play, it promises to teach us something about who we are beneath the crust of our civilized, practical, grown-up lives. Foraging for wild plants and animals is, after all, the way the human species has fed itself for 99 percent of its time on earth; this is precisely the food chain natural selection designed for us.” -Page 280
Thoughts:
1. I never even thought about aquaculture. (Page 279-280) This is actually a shock to me, since I love going fishing and eating them when I have the chance. It really is a depressing reality that we rely so much on a convenient, yet unhealthy, system for food.
2. Hunting seems so distant and old-fashioned, and it’s sad that in today’s society, we can’t go back to hunting just because there isn’t enough for everyone...
3. Why are there so many people (population) today than when there were mostly hunters and gatherers?
Chapter 16: The Omnivore’s Dilemma
Précis: Humans and rats deal with struggles and benefits unknown to other specialized eaters (like the monarch butterfly) when it comes to food choices, because our diet is so vast and requires a wide range of nutrients. Cuisines and taboos of different cultures have some biological senses that helps supports our health (even though there are some don’t make biological sense), and reduces ingestion tensions because of the familiar flavors/tastes. America has the most health problems, not necessarily because of the food itself, but because of the lack of a culture.
Gems:
“The cow depends on the ingenious adaptation of the rumen to turn an exclusive diet of grasses into a balanced diet; we depend instead on the prodigious powers of recognition, memory, and communication that allow us to cook cassava or identify an edible mushroom and share that precious information.” -Page 294
“Instead of relying on the accumulated wisdom of cuisine, or even on the wisdom of our senses, we rely on expert opinion, advertising, government food pyramids, and diet books, and we place our faith in science to sort out of us what culture once did with rather more success. Such had been the genius of capitalism, to re-create something akin to a state of nature in the modern supermarket or fast-food outlet...” -Page 303
Thoughts:
1. I agree with the culture theory, because America doesn’t have a cuisine necessarily, so their bound to get themselves involved with the ‘diets’ and ‘nutrition’ advertisements. I personally ignore these ads, because they sound so fake but perhaps that’s because I have a cultural cuisine I eat most of the time, which balances my healthy diet.
2. I wondered why people used rats for experiments often. I knew there were some similarity between us and rats, but I didn’t know quite what that was. The similarities grossed me out a bit, because it means that as long as there are lots of people living everywhere, there’s going to be mice and rats.
3. Human beings are weird when I think about it. Unlike most living species, we don’t have one specific food we eat, like grass and eucalyptus leaves. We have to think through our food choices the most, but at the same time these complicated traits has helped us be able to live almost anywhere in the world.
Précis:
Most farmers follow the conventional way of farming, which is unhealthy and dangerous but breaks down agriculture in simple steps to follow. However, the right way is to follow the complexity of the natural way, by being able to do the physical and mental challenges of real farming. (I.e. moving the cattle every day) Unlike industrial farming, Saltin’s way of farming repeats a certain cycle every day where every living thing is connected to one another.
Gems:
“By contrast, the efficiencies of natural systems flow from complexity and interdependence-by definition the very opposite of simplification...To measure the efficiency of such a complex system you need to count not only all the products it produces but also all the costs it eliminates: antibiotics, wormers, parasiticides, and fertilizers.”-Page 214
“Relations are what matters most, and the health of the cultivated turns on the health of the wild.” -Page 225
Thoughts:
1. Salatin’s way of farming sounded very tedious and tiring, so I actually would understand why many farmers end up turning to the simple industrial way of farming.
2. The recommended solution to the pig’s tail chewing in the CAFO’s was a shock and disappointment personally. The gap between this and Salatin’s contented pigs makes me feel as though farm animals are born into a lottery like society-they either get lucky or unlucky in the farms.
3. Industrial farmers should not even be considered a farmer. Clearly, they are just lazy and like the idea of simplicity. Surely, they would be able to save up more money for a living if they turned their backs at the government’s agricultural policies.
Chapter 12: Slaughter-In a Glass Abattoir
Précis: The USDA are speechless when it comes to local farmers like Salatin’s, since the way they regulate their farms are a lot healthier than those growing under government policies. No matter what farm is raising the animals, killing them is inevitable for us to be able to eat them, but it is a lot cleaner and less cruel than the methods of those industrial farmers. The customers of Polyface’s farm are free to watch the process of their dinner being killed since it so clean and reassuring that their slaughtering technique doesn’t use things like antibiotics.
Gems:
“Imagine if the walls of every slaughterhouse and animal factory were as transparent as Polyface’s-if not open to the air then at least made of glass So much of what happens behind those walls-the cruelty, the carelessness, the filth-would simply have to stop.” -Page 235
“We do not allow the government to dictate what religion you can observe, so why should we allow them to dictate what kind of food you can buy?” He believes “freedom of food”-the freedom to buy a pork chop from the farmer who raised the hog-should be a constitutional right.” -Page 236
Thoughts:
1. It is ironic how the USDA is ‘supposed’ to inspect for the health of how the animals are taken care of, but they are actually trying to put local farms out of business. It was mentioned in class of how we always have a part of us that wants to believe the government is there in support of us, but this just shows that they could really care less unless it benefits in their interests.
2. It would be a great incentive if factories and slaughterhouses of industrial farmers are also see through walls. Customers are less likely to continue eating unhealthy foods if they actually see with their own eyes how their foods are being processed. (This may be a naïve solution, but it could work...even though I wouldn’t know if anybody can get the government to let the process be revealed to the public).
3. Money and benefits easily gets people (i.e. industrial farmers) to do whatever the government tells them to do. This makes a lot of sense, so I wouldn’t be sure if there can ever be a solution to make foods healthier unless corn just disappeared.
Chapter 13: The Market-“Greetings from the Non-Barcode People”
Précis:
Most customers who buy from markets are ignorant with their knowledge of food and cheap prices. Local farmers like Salatin’s have no choice but to try having better connections with customers (and chefs) to educate and further our knowledge about food (i.e. seasonal foods and about prices). Local farmers like these aren’t necessarily trying to destroy the industrial food ways, but rather further this food-movement to raise awareness of food and health for customers like us.
Gems:
“Society is not bearing the cost of water pollution, of antibiotic resistance, of food-borne illnesses, of crop subsidies, of subsidized corn oil and water-of all the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer that make cheap food seem cheap. No thinking person will tell you they don’t care about all that.” -Page 243
“We have to battle the idea that you can have anything you want any times you want it. Like ‘spring lamb.” What the hell does that mean...But the market’s become totally out of sync with nature.” -Page 252
Thoughts:
1. I do think that this food-movement will impact a lot of people to change their food choices, but I honestly doubt that it will cause a major change in today’s society. The government and CAFO will definitely react to any changes in people’s ideas about food ways and say something to distract our beliefs. (Like talking about bioterrorism as mentioned once in the book).
2. I’m not too sure if it would work, but perhaps having food ways classes as a mandatory curriculum in public schools would help students make better food choices and raise awareness. (But, then again being able to convince the D.O.E to change class curriculums is unlikely)
3. U.S. society is too lazy that we tend to go to more convenient choices, so it is also a cultural obstacle that local farmers would have to confront. Even if most Americans get informed deeply about our foods, what is the likelihood that they will all go out of their way to buy local foods?
Chapter 14: The Meal-Grass Fed
Précis:
Most consumers assume all food is the same (‘chicken is chicken and beef beef’) so they do not realize the changes between the balance of quantity and quality. Even with the assumption of fish being healthier than meat, can work in reverse if the steer is fed grass and the salmon is fed grain. The process of cooking these natural foods causes many complex chemical reactions, creating a strong distinct taste.
Gems:
“The needs of a long industrial food chain might justify such a trade-off, but when you can eat corn picked a few hours before dinner, there’s no reason for it. Unless of course an industrial diet of easy sugars has dulled your taste for the earthy sweetness of corn, now that it has to compete with things like soda.” -Page 266
“As in the case of our imperfect knowledge of soil, the limits of our knowledge of nutrition have obscured what the industrialization of the food chain is doing to our health. But the changes in the composition of fats in our diet may account for many of the diseases of civilization-cardiac, diabetes, obesity, etc-” -Page 268
Thoughts:
1. I had no clue about the omega-3 and omega-6. I was pretty shocked to read the importance of the balance between different types of fats. It just shows that the reason today’s society has so many people with serious diseases...goes back to the idea of the unhealthy corn.
2. I also thought that fish was generally healthier than meat. It’s sad that industrialization has obscured my sense of knowledge as well.
3. Even if I (or anybody else) attempts to change to a more local diet, I think we would all give up easily. We’re just too used to convenience.
Chapter 15: The Forager
Précis: Agriculture already took away the choice of foraging as a viable technique because there isn’t enough to feed the whole population today. Today, foraging is considered more of a teaching than something economic/political. To become a legal hunter, a license is required, where it involves taking hunting courses and a long test. Hunting is also risky because sufficient knowledge is needed to distinguish what is edible, and what is poisonous.
Gems:
“Agriculture brought humans a great many blessings, but it also brought infectious disease (from living in close quarters with one another and our animals) and malnutrition (from eating too much of the same things when crops were good, and not enough of anything when they weren’t).” -Page 279
“Like other important forms of play, it promises to teach us something about who we are beneath the crust of our civilized, practical, grown-up lives. Foraging for wild plants and animals is, after all, the way the human species has fed itself for 99 percent of its time on earth; this is precisely the food chain natural selection designed for us.” -Page 280
Thoughts:
1. I never even thought about aquaculture. (Page 279-280) This is actually a shock to me, since I love going fishing and eating them when I have the chance. It really is a depressing reality that we rely so much on a convenient, yet unhealthy, system for food.
2. Hunting seems so distant and old-fashioned, and it’s sad that in today’s society, we can’t go back to hunting just because there isn’t enough for everyone...
3. Why are there so many people (population) today than when there were mostly hunters and gatherers?
Chapter 16: The Omnivore’s Dilemma
Précis: Humans and rats deal with struggles and benefits unknown to other specialized eaters (like the monarch butterfly) when it comes to food choices, because our diet is so vast and requires a wide range of nutrients. Cuisines and taboos of different cultures have some biological senses that helps supports our health (even though there are some don’t make biological sense), and reduces ingestion tensions because of the familiar flavors/tastes. America has the most health problems, not necessarily because of the food itself, but because of the lack of a culture.
Gems:
“The cow depends on the ingenious adaptation of the rumen to turn an exclusive diet of grasses into a balanced diet; we depend instead on the prodigious powers of recognition, memory, and communication that allow us to cook cassava or identify an edible mushroom and share that precious information.” -Page 294
“Instead of relying on the accumulated wisdom of cuisine, or even on the wisdom of our senses, we rely on expert opinion, advertising, government food pyramids, and diet books, and we place our faith in science to sort out of us what culture once did with rather more success. Such had been the genius of capitalism, to re-create something akin to a state of nature in the modern supermarket or fast-food outlet...” -Page 303
Thoughts:
1. I agree with the culture theory, because America doesn’t have a cuisine necessarily, so their bound to get themselves involved with the ‘diets’ and ‘nutrition’ advertisements. I personally ignore these ads, because they sound so fake but perhaps that’s because I have a cultural cuisine I eat most of the time, which balances my healthy diet.
2. I wondered why people used rats for experiments often. I knew there were some similarity between us and rats, but I didn’t know quite what that was. The similarities grossed me out a bit, because it means that as long as there are lots of people living everywhere, there’s going to be mice and rats.
3. Human beings are weird when I think about it. Unlike most living species, we don’t have one specific food we eat, like grass and eucalyptus leaves. We have to think through our food choices the most, but at the same time these complicated traits has helped us be able to live almost anywhere in the world.
Monday, October 11, 2010
HW#8- Growing our own Food
Putting aside the fact that I spit out the sprouts the moment I put it in my mouth, I think it was a good experience regardless. Watering and watching my sprouts grow made me realize that this may be the only food where I know how its being grown. Before reading the Omnivore's Delimma, I did not know much about the process of how food is processed and sent to the markets for us to eat. Anything we eat can be deadly and unhealthy-for the exception of the foods we grow ourselves. Growing our own food is easier to say than done, (especially if we're living under a Capitalist nation) but it may be the only way to know if we're truly eating whats good for our bodies. The only reason why the process did not seem sacred, was because it seemed so tedius to water it every so often and it was more like homework to me. I consider the experience itself sacred though because I grew the plants naturally, but it just didn't feel that way-because we live in a society where we depend on the markets and the Capitalist system to get our food since it's so much easier.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
HW 7B
Chapter 6: The Consumer-A Republic of Fat
Précis: The true cause behind obesity lies in the fact that there is too much corn being produced. Abundance and cheapness simply leads people to eat more and get fat. Soft drink and fast-food companies took advantage of this mountain of corn by not only putting it in their products, but to also sell them in bigger portions so hungry customers do not feel like pigs when they order second servings. Food (corn) abundance leads to tragedy when the stored fat in our bodies are left for a famine that will never come.
Gems:
“And while the gene presents a useful adaptation in an environment of food scarcity and unpredictability, it’s a disaster in an environment of fast-food abundance, when the opportunity to feast presents itself 24/7.” -Page 106
“While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.” -Page 108
Thoughts:
1. Does the government not care about the health problems within the people? Do you think the government would rethink about these bills if death rates (instead of obesity/sickness rates) started rising suddenly because of corn?
2. Would obese people be able to survive longer if there were to be a famine? (Since their bodies would be storing lots of fat).
3. Before reading this book, I never knew that corn was the main reason for obesity, especially because of the HFCS. (High fructose corn syrup). Would obese people be able to lose lots of wait if they avoid HFCS/corn?
Chapter 7: The Meal-Fast Food
Précis: On a McDonalds (fast food chain)’s menu most of the meals consist of corn: the McNugget has up to 13 ingredients derived from corn. Humans make huge sacrifices for corn, whether it is the farmers who grow lots of corn to get little money, or the consumers who eat these foods that can cause diseases like diabetes and obesity. People seem to continue to eat fast food because it seems like a comfort food, but usually we get regrettably full after a while.
Gems: “That perhaps is what the industrial food chain does best: obscure the histories of the foods it produces by processing them to such an extent that they appear as pure products of culture rather than nature-things made from plants and animals.” -Page 115
“Of all the species that have figured out how to thrive in a world dominated by Homo sapiens, surely no other has succeeded more spectacularly-has colonized more acres and bodies-than Zea mays, the grass that domesticated the domesticator. You have to wonder why we Americans don’t worship this plant as fervently as the Aztecs; like they once did, we make extraordinary sacrifices to it.” -Page 119
Thoughts:
1. It upsets me how the only ones who could really benefit from overproduction of corn is the ones involved with the business aspect-since they can make so much money. It’s cruel when looking at the hard work farmers go to, the mistreatment of the animals we eat, and the health problems that are brought to the consumers.
2. Is becoming a vegetarian the only way to avoid obesity and diabetes?
Chapter 8: All Flesh is Grass
Précis: Any farm depends on grass to feed on animals, even though many farmers are also involved with the complex system involving corn and distribution. Some farms actually have alternative ways to agriculture, like growing things in the natural way they should be grown, and having a variety of animals and plants. Even the word ‘organic’ has sub meanings according to the government because industrial organic farms also uses corn sprayed with chemicals.
Gems: “If I said I was organic, people would fuss at me for getting feed corn from a neighbor who might be using atrazine. Well, I would much use my money to keep my neighborhood productive and healthy than export my dollars five hundred miles away to get ‘pure products’ that’s really coated in diesel fuel.” -Page 132
“A great many animals, too, are drawn to grass, which partly accounts for our own deep attraction to it: We come here to eat the animals that are the grass that we (lacking rumens) can’t eat ourselves. “All flesh is grass.” -Page 127
Thoughts:
1. Do farmers (like Salatin) make more money than farmers who actually follow the government’s standards for agriculture?
2. What does the government exactly mean when they say ‘organic?’ Would it still be the same as any other farm that follows their regulations?
3. Why can’t all farms be like Salatins’?
Chapter 9: Big Organic
Précis:
Popular organic markets like whole foods use stories/words to make customers feel they are buying products that are safe and natural-when really animals fed in “organic farms” are not so different than any other industrial farm. There was a movement for ‘organic’ food, however the government ended up making the organic requirements very low, therefore leading to no dramatic changes toward food regulations. Pesticides and antibiotics are avoided; however animals (like chickens) are still in close quarters (despite the little door they can go through to a little lawn). Either way, it is difficult to make a simple conclusion as to whether “organic” foods can be considered “better” than those that are made conventionally.
Gems:
“As in so many other realms, nature’s logic has proven no match for the logic of capitalism, one in which cheap energy has always been a given. And so, today, the organic food industry finds itself in a most unexpected, uncomfortable, and, yes, unsustainable position: floating on a sinking sea of petroleum.” -Page 184
“Once that leap has been made, one input follows another, so that when the synthetic nitrogen fed to plants make them more attractive to insects and vulnerable to disease, as we have discovered, the farmer turns to chemical pesticides to fix his broken machine.” -Page 148
Thoughts:
1. I didn’t even know about the term ‘organic’ as much before, and assumed it was the healthiest thing out there-however it seems that it’s not that simple.
2. Any successful business thinks mainly about profit before health-I should have realized before reading the chapter that whole foods is under that same idea.
3. What does it mean to eat ‘good food?’
Chapter 10: Grass-Thirteen ways of looking at a pasture
Précis: Grass and sunlight is the source of the energy we as humans depend on, therefore we should obtain those nutrients by either eating vegetables or the animals that eat grass. However, farmers tend to turn to fossil fuels and petroleum because the whole process is so tedious and tiring. It is also because America’s civilization is strict on keeping things industrial and “cheap” even though cheap corn actually costs a lot when thinking about healthcare, welfare, and the environmental damages. The only rare farmer who does farming the most natural ways, are local farmers like the Saltin’s.
Gems:
“The ninety-nine cent price of a fast-food hamburger simply doesn’t take account of that meal’s true cost-to soil, oil, public health, the public nurse, etc., costs which are never charged directly to the consumer but, indirectly and invisibly, to the taxpayer (in the form of subsidies), the health care system (in the form of food-borne illnesses and obesity), and the environment (in the form of pollution), not to mention the welfare of the animals themselves.” -Page 201
“Grass farmers, who buy little in the way of pesticides and fertilizers (none, in the case of Joel Salatin), do little to support agribusiness or the pharmaceutical industry or big oil. A surplus of grass does nothing for a nation’s power or its balance of payments...”-Page 202
Thoughts:
1. It makes more sense to just have a biodiversity, natural farm like the Salatin family but sadly most people do not realize how absorbed and manipulated they are into America’s industrial food system.
2. Farmers who are uninvolved with the government’s agricultural regulations earn more money than most typical farmers who just grows unhealthy corn.
3. Can America ever change the whole industrial system so we can eat healthy again?
Précis: The true cause behind obesity lies in the fact that there is too much corn being produced. Abundance and cheapness simply leads people to eat more and get fat. Soft drink and fast-food companies took advantage of this mountain of corn by not only putting it in their products, but to also sell them in bigger portions so hungry customers do not feel like pigs when they order second servings. Food (corn) abundance leads to tragedy when the stored fat in our bodies are left for a famine that will never come.
Gems:
“And while the gene presents a useful adaptation in an environment of food scarcity and unpredictability, it’s a disaster in an environment of fast-food abundance, when the opportunity to feast presents itself 24/7.” -Page 106
“While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.” -Page 108
Thoughts:
1. Does the government not care about the health problems within the people? Do you think the government would rethink about these bills if death rates (instead of obesity/sickness rates) started rising suddenly because of corn?
2. Would obese people be able to survive longer if there were to be a famine? (Since their bodies would be storing lots of fat).
3. Before reading this book, I never knew that corn was the main reason for obesity, especially because of the HFCS. (High fructose corn syrup). Would obese people be able to lose lots of wait if they avoid HFCS/corn?
Chapter 7: The Meal-Fast Food
Précis: On a McDonalds (fast food chain)’s menu most of the meals consist of corn: the McNugget has up to 13 ingredients derived from corn. Humans make huge sacrifices for corn, whether it is the farmers who grow lots of corn to get little money, or the consumers who eat these foods that can cause diseases like diabetes and obesity. People seem to continue to eat fast food because it seems like a comfort food, but usually we get regrettably full after a while.
Gems: “That perhaps is what the industrial food chain does best: obscure the histories of the foods it produces by processing them to such an extent that they appear as pure products of culture rather than nature-things made from plants and animals.” -Page 115
“Of all the species that have figured out how to thrive in a world dominated by Homo sapiens, surely no other has succeeded more spectacularly-has colonized more acres and bodies-than Zea mays, the grass that domesticated the domesticator. You have to wonder why we Americans don’t worship this plant as fervently as the Aztecs; like they once did, we make extraordinary sacrifices to it.” -Page 119
Thoughts:
1. It upsets me how the only ones who could really benefit from overproduction of corn is the ones involved with the business aspect-since they can make so much money. It’s cruel when looking at the hard work farmers go to, the mistreatment of the animals we eat, and the health problems that are brought to the consumers.
2. Is becoming a vegetarian the only way to avoid obesity and diabetes?
Chapter 8: All Flesh is Grass
Précis: Any farm depends on grass to feed on animals, even though many farmers are also involved with the complex system involving corn and distribution. Some farms actually have alternative ways to agriculture, like growing things in the natural way they should be grown, and having a variety of animals and plants. Even the word ‘organic’ has sub meanings according to the government because industrial organic farms also uses corn sprayed with chemicals.
Gems: “If I said I was organic, people would fuss at me for getting feed corn from a neighbor who might be using atrazine. Well, I would much use my money to keep my neighborhood productive and healthy than export my dollars five hundred miles away to get ‘pure products’ that’s really coated in diesel fuel.” -Page 132
“A great many animals, too, are drawn to grass, which partly accounts for our own deep attraction to it: We come here to eat the animals that are the grass that we (lacking rumens) can’t eat ourselves. “All flesh is grass.” -Page 127
Thoughts:
1. Do farmers (like Salatin) make more money than farmers who actually follow the government’s standards for agriculture?
2. What does the government exactly mean when they say ‘organic?’ Would it still be the same as any other farm that follows their regulations?
3. Why can’t all farms be like Salatins’?
Chapter 9: Big Organic
Précis:
Popular organic markets like whole foods use stories/words to make customers feel they are buying products that are safe and natural-when really animals fed in “organic farms” are not so different than any other industrial farm. There was a movement for ‘organic’ food, however the government ended up making the organic requirements very low, therefore leading to no dramatic changes toward food regulations. Pesticides and antibiotics are avoided; however animals (like chickens) are still in close quarters (despite the little door they can go through to a little lawn). Either way, it is difficult to make a simple conclusion as to whether “organic” foods can be considered “better” than those that are made conventionally.
Gems:
“As in so many other realms, nature’s logic has proven no match for the logic of capitalism, one in which cheap energy has always been a given. And so, today, the organic food industry finds itself in a most unexpected, uncomfortable, and, yes, unsustainable position: floating on a sinking sea of petroleum.” -Page 184
“Once that leap has been made, one input follows another, so that when the synthetic nitrogen fed to plants make them more attractive to insects and vulnerable to disease, as we have discovered, the farmer turns to chemical pesticides to fix his broken machine.” -Page 148
Thoughts:
1. I didn’t even know about the term ‘organic’ as much before, and assumed it was the healthiest thing out there-however it seems that it’s not that simple.
2. Any successful business thinks mainly about profit before health-I should have realized before reading the chapter that whole foods is under that same idea.
3. What does it mean to eat ‘good food?’
Chapter 10: Grass-Thirteen ways of looking at a pasture
Précis: Grass and sunlight is the source of the energy we as humans depend on, therefore we should obtain those nutrients by either eating vegetables or the animals that eat grass. However, farmers tend to turn to fossil fuels and petroleum because the whole process is so tedious and tiring. It is also because America’s civilization is strict on keeping things industrial and “cheap” even though cheap corn actually costs a lot when thinking about healthcare, welfare, and the environmental damages. The only rare farmer who does farming the most natural ways, are local farmers like the Saltin’s.
Gems:
“The ninety-nine cent price of a fast-food hamburger simply doesn’t take account of that meal’s true cost-to soil, oil, public health, the public nurse, etc., costs which are never charged directly to the consumer but, indirectly and invisibly, to the taxpayer (in the form of subsidies), the health care system (in the form of food-borne illnesses and obesity), and the environment (in the form of pollution), not to mention the welfare of the animals themselves.” -Page 201
“Grass farmers, who buy little in the way of pesticides and fertilizers (none, in the case of Joel Salatin), do little to support agribusiness or the pharmaceutical industry or big oil. A surplus of grass does nothing for a nation’s power or its balance of payments...”-Page 202
Thoughts:
1. It makes more sense to just have a biodiversity, natural farm like the Salatin family but sadly most people do not realize how absorbed and manipulated they are into America’s industrial food system.
2. Farmers who are uninvolved with the government’s agricultural regulations earn more money than most typical farmers who just grows unhealthy corn.
3. Can America ever change the whole industrial system so we can eat healthy again?
Monday, October 4, 2010
HW#7: Reading Response
The Omnivore's Delemna-A Natural History of Four Meals By: Michael Pollan
Chapter 1: The Plant-Corn's Conquest
Precis:
The marketplace seems as though there are many food biodiversity, but in actuality most of these food originates from the same thing: corn. Corn is an unique plant that makes an extra carbon compound than other plants, providing humans the second most common element in our bodies. Corn also reproduces in a complex way that humans has helped in by taking one corn's pollen and dusting it on the silk of another corn. Humans have heavily inpacted the traits of corn by their intervention in sex arrangements, and made corn adaptable to their climate.
Gems:
"without the "fruitfulness" of Indian corn, the nineteenth-century English writer William Cobbett declared, the colonists would never have been able to build "a powerful nation."-page 26
"Mexicans today consume a far more varied carbon diet: the animals they eat still eat grass; much of their protein comes from legumesl and they still sweeten their beverages with cane sugar. So that's us: processed corn, walking."-page 23
Thoughts:
1. What is NOT made out of corn? On page 19, the author says that more than a quarter of marketplace goods has corn in them...what's the three-fourths of the items?
2. Why is it that most people in today's society do not even seem to care where our food comes from?
3. Is the reason for high obesity rates today have a connection with these corn?
Chapter 2: The Farm
Precis:
Agriculture has changed so much over time: at first farmers in Iowa grew a variety of plants and animals, but now farmers have no choice but to grow corn for American Capitalism. Most farmers today are broke because everyone thought about planting the popular corn by government policies, except overproduction lead to a decline in prices. Also, ammonia nitrate (which was used in explosives during WWII)-is now used as fertilizer as an excellent source of nitrogen for plants. Corn produces itself very easily, so places like Churdan are like ghost towns with no sign of people.
Gems:
"In corn's case, humans have labored mightily to free it from either constraint, even if that means going broke growing it, and consuming it just as fast as we possibly can." -page 56
"A farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and if the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn....Yet the more bushels each farmer produces, the lower prices go, giving another turn to the perverse spiral of overproduction." -page 54
Thoughts:
1. Why can't farmers just revolt against the government? My mother made a remark that in Japan, farmers are free to grow whatever they want and can make a fair living-there are even rich farmers for planting rare plants and food.
2. Why does it seem as though in today's society-people really don't care about the issues surrounding them unless the gov't or professional says its a huge problem?
3. What would happen if lots farmers decide to quit and find other jobs?
Chapter 3: The Elevator
Precis:
Million leftovers of corn gets piled up in grain elevators, then dumped in a railroad car. Many types of corn is piled together in this mess, where quantity is valued more than quantity. Farmers are used in a system where the only way to earn a living is to produce more corn-which leads to even more of a decrease in prices. Even previous farm animals are fed corn for their meals.
Gems:
"What is much harder to see is that all this corn is also the product of government policies, which have done more than anything else to raise that mountain and shrink the prices of each bushel in it." -page 61
"Both companies declined to let me follow the corn river as it passes through their elevators, pipes, vats, tankers, freighters, feed-lots, mills and labratories on its complex and increasingly obscure path to our bodies." -Page 64
Thoughts:
1. It is ironic that companies that are involved in these corn productions (Cargill) do not let people learn the process of how our food is processed due to "food security." Dosn't this mean that the process of our foods is extremely unhealthy?
2. It was surprising that previous farm animals are now gathered and fed corn-a diet that is unnatural for them. Isn't this a major cause of animals getting sick?
3. How would things change if corn just stopped growing?
Chapter 4: The Feedlot-Making Meat (54,000 Kernels)
Précis:
CAFO’s converted America’s river of corn into feed-lots for gathered animals, (which causes several health/environmental problems) all because of the mountain of corn and their cheap calories. Cows were very healthy for being able to digest the grass we can’t into high protein-the only reason their diet changed was because eating grass took too long to reach slaughtering weight and to increase the protein in corn. Cows suffer from the unnatural diet of corn and the dirty environment of feed-lots.
Gems: “You are what you eat” is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil.”-page 84
But the use of antibiotics in feedlot cattle confounds this distinction. Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.” -page 79
Thoughts:
1. I felt disgusted at the thought of these mistreatments towards cattle/cows, all for the purpose of profit and “efficiency.” Why can’t this be considered animal cruelty?
2. The sad reality is that even after reading where the food I eat comes from, I would still continue to eat the food that came from corn sprayed with fossil fuels and cows that aren’t supposed to be eating corn.
3. What is safe to eat then? Don’t humans need protein and some amount of starch?
Chapter 5: The Processing Plant-Making Complex Foods (18,000 Kernels)
Précis:
The corn that isn’t fed to the poor feed-lot animals are taken to “wet mills,” which breaks down corn in multiple parts to create infinite products science has figured to do. Corn has helped liberate ourselves from the restrictions and limitations of nature. Food industries are continuing to get people to buy or eat more corn by using cheap corn to create complicated food systems. Corn has helped industrialize what we eat.
Gems:
“When fake sugars and fake fats are joined by fake starches, the food industry will at long last have overcome the dilemma of a fixed stomach: whole meals you can eat as often or as much as you like, since this food will leave no trace. Meet the ultimate-utterly fantastic!-industrial eater.” -Page 99
“One of the truly odd things about the 10 billion bushels of corn harvested each year is how little of it we eat.” -page 85
“The primary difference between the industrial digestion of a corn and an animal’s is that in this case there is virtually no waste at the end of it.” -Page 90
Thoughts:
1. It’s disgusting to even imagine how corn is in almost everything we eat just because there are mountains of it and their price is so cheap.
2. Corn has ruined the flow of nature, because corn itself has made people dependent and greedy for this plant.
3. Is the government regulating these corn uses so that people can get sick?
Chapter 1: The Plant-Corn's Conquest
Precis:
The marketplace seems as though there are many food biodiversity, but in actuality most of these food originates from the same thing: corn. Corn is an unique plant that makes an extra carbon compound than other plants, providing humans the second most common element in our bodies. Corn also reproduces in a complex way that humans has helped in by taking one corn's pollen and dusting it on the silk of another corn. Humans have heavily inpacted the traits of corn by their intervention in sex arrangements, and made corn adaptable to their climate.
Gems:
"without the "fruitfulness" of Indian corn, the nineteenth-century English writer William Cobbett declared, the colonists would never have been able to build "a powerful nation."-page 26
"Mexicans today consume a far more varied carbon diet: the animals they eat still eat grass; much of their protein comes from legumesl and they still sweeten their beverages with cane sugar. So that's us: processed corn, walking."-page 23
Thoughts:
1. What is NOT made out of corn? On page 19, the author says that more than a quarter of marketplace goods has corn in them...what's the three-fourths of the items?
2. Why is it that most people in today's society do not even seem to care where our food comes from?
3. Is the reason for high obesity rates today have a connection with these corn?
Chapter 2: The Farm
Precis:
Agriculture has changed so much over time: at first farmers in Iowa grew a variety of plants and animals, but now farmers have no choice but to grow corn for American Capitalism. Most farmers today are broke because everyone thought about planting the popular corn by government policies, except overproduction lead to a decline in prices. Also, ammonia nitrate (which was used in explosives during WWII)-is now used as fertilizer as an excellent source of nitrogen for plants. Corn produces itself very easily, so places like Churdan are like ghost towns with no sign of people.
Gems:
"In corn's case, humans have labored mightily to free it from either constraint, even if that means going broke growing it, and consuming it just as fast as we possibly can." -page 56
"A farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and if the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn....Yet the more bushels each farmer produces, the lower prices go, giving another turn to the perverse spiral of overproduction." -page 54
Thoughts:
1. Why can't farmers just revolt against the government? My mother made a remark that in Japan, farmers are free to grow whatever they want and can make a fair living-there are even rich farmers for planting rare plants and food.
2. Why does it seem as though in today's society-people really don't care about the issues surrounding them unless the gov't or professional says its a huge problem?
3. What would happen if lots farmers decide to quit and find other jobs?
Chapter 3: The Elevator
Precis:
Million leftovers of corn gets piled up in grain elevators, then dumped in a railroad car. Many types of corn is piled together in this mess, where quantity is valued more than quantity. Farmers are used in a system where the only way to earn a living is to produce more corn-which leads to even more of a decrease in prices. Even previous farm animals are fed corn for their meals.
Gems:
"What is much harder to see is that all this corn is also the product of government policies, which have done more than anything else to raise that mountain and shrink the prices of each bushel in it." -page 61
"Both companies declined to let me follow the corn river as it passes through their elevators, pipes, vats, tankers, freighters, feed-lots, mills and labratories on its complex and increasingly obscure path to our bodies." -Page 64
Thoughts:
1. It is ironic that companies that are involved in these corn productions (Cargill) do not let people learn the process of how our food is processed due to "food security." Dosn't this mean that the process of our foods is extremely unhealthy?
2. It was surprising that previous farm animals are now gathered and fed corn-a diet that is unnatural for them. Isn't this a major cause of animals getting sick?
3. How would things change if corn just stopped growing?
Chapter 4: The Feedlot-Making Meat (54,000 Kernels)
Précis:
CAFO’s converted America’s river of corn into feed-lots for gathered animals, (which causes several health/environmental problems) all because of the mountain of corn and their cheap calories. Cows were very healthy for being able to digest the grass we can’t into high protein-the only reason their diet changed was because eating grass took too long to reach slaughtering weight and to increase the protein in corn. Cows suffer from the unnatural diet of corn and the dirty environment of feed-lots.
Gems: “You are what you eat” is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil.”-page 84
But the use of antibiotics in feedlot cattle confounds this distinction. Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.” -page 79
Thoughts:
1. I felt disgusted at the thought of these mistreatments towards cattle/cows, all for the purpose of profit and “efficiency.” Why can’t this be considered animal cruelty?
2. The sad reality is that even after reading where the food I eat comes from, I would still continue to eat the food that came from corn sprayed with fossil fuels and cows that aren’t supposed to be eating corn.
3. What is safe to eat then? Don’t humans need protein and some amount of starch?
Chapter 5: The Processing Plant-Making Complex Foods (18,000 Kernels)
Précis:
The corn that isn’t fed to the poor feed-lot animals are taken to “wet mills,” which breaks down corn in multiple parts to create infinite products science has figured to do. Corn has helped liberate ourselves from the restrictions and limitations of nature. Food industries are continuing to get people to buy or eat more corn by using cheap corn to create complicated food systems. Corn has helped industrialize what we eat.
Gems:
“When fake sugars and fake fats are joined by fake starches, the food industry will at long last have overcome the dilemma of a fixed stomach: whole meals you can eat as often or as much as you like, since this food will leave no trace. Meet the ultimate-utterly fantastic!-industrial eater.” -Page 99
“One of the truly odd things about the 10 billion bushels of corn harvested each year is how little of it we eat.” -page 85
“The primary difference between the industrial digestion of a corn and an animal’s is that in this case there is virtually no waste at the end of it.” -Page 90
Thoughts:
1. It’s disgusting to even imagine how corn is in almost everything we eat just because there are mountains of it and their price is so cheap.
2. Corn has ruined the flow of nature, because corn itself has made people dependent and greedy for this plant.
3. Is the government regulating these corn uses so that people can get sick?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)