What is an omnivore? An omnivore is a creature that consumes both plants and animals for nutrition. In Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma he explains just as the title suggests, the omnivore’s dilemma. In it he describes how omnivores, such as ourselves, came to eat the way we do now. After he discusses the basics of that, he proceeds to talk about Americans and how they eat. Pollan divides his writing into four main areas: introducing what the omnivore’s dilemma is, explaining how we decide what to eat, introducing our anxieties towards eating, and the problem with how Americans decide what to eat. Pollan calls on the expertise of Paul Rozin and other specialists to help back up his claims.
Omnivores are very interesting creatures. We are able to digest most plants and animals and therefore have a wide range of food available to us. However, when faced with new potential foods we are “torn between two conflicting emotions” (Pollan 288). These two emotions are neophilia and neophobia. Pollan defines neophilia as “a risky but necessary openness to new tastes” (288) and neophobia as “a sensible fear of ingesting anything new” (288). These two emotions are easily seen in humans, especially myself. Whenever I am introduced to a new food I immediately feel both of these. I am very tempted to try the new food since it might taste good, but on the other hand it may not taste good and may even give me a stomach-ache or food poisoning. The final decision when trying a new food usually depends on how it looks. In Rozin’s studies, he observed these two emotions in rats. The rats would nibble on the new food and wait to see if it affected them negatively, learning not to eat it if it hurt them. Pollan believed that Rozi...
... middle of paper ...
...quote by Daniel Bell that the “tendency of capitalism, in its single-minded pursuit of profit, to erode the various cultural underpinnings that steady a society but often impede the march of commercialization” (302). He means that if it will stop the flow of money, the capitalist government will do all it takes to remove it. If we are to fix the way Americans eat and think, we need to move back towards pleasurable eating and diets not ruled by capitalistic attempts to make more money. The only way this will ever be accomplished is if the government worries less about money and more about the health of the people. That will control the markets and what is sold, but the problem will still continue unless people change the way they eat as well. If we follow the French example of longer dinners and smaller entrees, we may be able to solve this omnivore’s dilemma.
Many families in America can’t decide what food chain to eat from. In the book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan lists four food chains: Industrial, Industrial Organic, Local Sustainable, and Hunter-Gatherer. The Industrial food chain is full of large farms that use chemicals and factories. Industrial Organic is close to it except it doesn’t use as many chemicals and the animals have more space. Local Sustainable is where food is grown without chemicals, the animals have freedom and they eat what they were born to eat. Lastly, Hunter-Gatherer is where you hunt and grow your own food. The omnivore's dilemma is trying to figure out what food chain to eat from. Local Sustainable is the best food chain to feed the United States because it is healthy and good for the environment.
The Omnivore’s Dilemma opens with Michael Pollan posing the question: “What should we have for dinner?”(1) He uses this question to demonstrate his belief that Americans are no longer able to make that decision for themselves. Instead, they must turn to experts to tell them what the best option is and journalists to uncover where it came from.
Niman, Nicolette H. "The Carnivore's Dilemma." Food. Ed. Brooke Rollins and Lee Bauknight. 1st ed. Southlake, TX: Fountainhead, 2010. 169-73. Print.
The Omnivore’s Dilemma In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan challenges his readers to examine their food and question themselves about the things they consume. Have we ever considered where our food comes from or stopped to think about the process that goes into the food that we purchase to eat every day? Do we know whether our meat and vegetables picked out were raised in our local farms or transported from another country? Michael pollen addresses the reality of what really goes beyond the food we intake and how our lives are affected.
In the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan talks about 4 different models that we consume, purchase, and add it to our daily lives. Michael Pollan travels to different locations around the United States, where he mentions his models which are fast food, industrial organic, beyond organic, and hunting. I believe that the 3 important models that we need to feed the population are fast food, industrial organic, and beyond organic. Fast food is one of the most important models in this society because people nowadays, eat fast food everyday and it is hurting us in the long run. We need to stick to beyond organic or industrial organic food because it is good for our well being. Ever since the government and corporations took over on what we eat, we have lost our culture. In the introduction of the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan states that we have lost our culture:
Our current system of corporate-dominated, industrial-style farming might not resemble the old-fashioned farms of yore, but the modern method of raising food has been a surprisingly long time in the making. That's one of the astonishing revelations found in Christopher D. Cook's "Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis" (2004, 2006, The New Press), which explores in great detail the often unappealing, yet largely unseen, underbelly of today's food production and processing machine. While some of the material will be familiar to those who've read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or Eric Schlosser's "Fast-Food Nation," Cook's work provides many new insights for anyone who's concerned about how and what we eat,
Richard Balko and Mary Maxfield discuss personal responsibility, and choices in one’s health in their essays “What You Eat Is Your Business,” and “Food as Thought: Resisting the Moralization of Eating” respectively. Balko feels the government should not intervene in people’s food intake because it is an individual preference. Instead, Balko asserts that the government should foster a program to assist the American people to take on personal responsibility and ownership of their own health. Similarly, Maxfield paints the same picture that our culture now finds it immoral to eat what our body needs, therefore believing in the idea of eating less is healthier. Maxfield points out the multi-billion dollar campaign of corporations into advertising false hope into consumers by buying into eradication of fatness. Why has food have suddenly become a risky subject at the dinner table? And who is to blame? Is it everyone else or do we blame ourselves?
In “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables”, Mark Bittman suggests that the people of America should stop eating unhealthy foods so often. In the article, Bittman tells his audience that people have “heart disease, diabetes and cancer are all in large part caused by the standard American Diet” (page 35). He also states that eating healthy can result to a better health care system saving millions of lives. The big issue is Americans eating unhealthy every day, but proposing a plan to help stop it from happening.
Michael Pollan’s purpose of writing Omnivore’s Dilemma came about when he realizes that society is unbelievably unhealthy due to the abundance of food. The two conflicting logics that Pollan introduces are the logic of nature and the logic of industry; these two logics are reflected through various ways of raising livestock animals. The logic of nature consists of raising livestock animals in a pastoral environment where animals interact with one another and avoid the use of artificial chemicals; whereas, the logic of industry settles on raising livestock animals unnaturally. Growing cattle through the use of corn has allowed meat to be produced in large quantities and in a short time as described in the chapter “Feedlot: Making Meat”
This concedes that now America is creating health issues from consuming unhealthy foods. According to, “The battle against fast food beings in the home”, by Daniel Weintraub, “Kids eat unhealthy food and sit in front of the television or computer for hours at a time”. The article states that now obesity has affected many kids in America. Due to obesity affecting many kids in America the argument here is that, parents are not thinking about their child’s health and how it affects their body. Their main worry if the food is cheap and that it’s reasonable to buy for their family; which is understandable. Thus, many kids health are in danger from the lack of a nutritious diet. At the same time, fast food companies believe that it’s not their fault. According to Daniels Weintraub’s article, it states that “ It’s the parents, not the government, not the fast food companies who are responsible for teaching kids unhealthy habits” (Weintraub 1). The argument here is that parents need to try to feed their kids much healthier diets such as vegetables. Feeding them fast food is going to wreck their health. For this reason, fast food companies should try to sell healthier food for a reasonable price. Having produce companies sell more affordable fruits and vegetables will clear this problem. This will allow people who don’t have much money be able to provide a healthy dish
We make personal choices about what and where to eat. The government is not going to eliminate the unhealthy food because we think it is the cause of obesity. Ultimately, we must decide to either stay away from unhealthy food or eat them in moderation. Despite all the efforts of education, media and guidance it doesn’t prevent us from grabbing that cheeseburger with fries on the way to work. In his essay “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that society should take full responsi...
Similarly, those who showed reluctance to unfamiliar situations also ranked higher in neophobia. Also it was found that adults were more willing to try novel foods than their younger counterparts. From this, it has been concluded that pre-exposure to food neophobia may reduce its levels as it decreases anxiety within a participant because they become more relaxed when faced with the prospect of trying something unfamiliar.
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
Why people do not eat their pets? Many people will not eat an animal, which they have either named or shared some food with. However, it makes no difference between a person who does not eat dogs and the one who does not eat chicken, cows, or even rabbits. Most people rarely encounter the animals they eat because if they did, then they will see the same characteristics found in this animals. Much of Jonathan Saffron Foer’s teenage and college years were spent oscillating between omnivore and vegetarian. As he grew old, there was an increasing moral dimension of eating animals, which were day by day becoming important to him. He became more interested in the subject and that is when he became convinced that eating animals is not ethical.
American culture is changing dramatically. In some areas it’s a good thing, but in other areas, like our food culture, it can have negative affects. It is almost as if our eating habits are devolving, from a moral and traditional point of view. The great America, the land of the free and brave. The land of great things and being successful, “living the good life.” These attributes highlight some irony, especially in our food culture. Is the American food culture successful? Does it coincide with “good living”? What about fast and processed foods? These industries are flourishing today, making record sales all over the globe. People keep going back for more, time after time. Why? The answer is interestingly simple. Time, or in other words, efficiency. As people are so caught up in their jobs, schooling, sports, or whatever it may be, the fast/processed food industries are rapidly taking over the American food culture, giving people the choice of hot