The Omnivore's Dilemma By Michael Pollan

I chose Omnivore 's Dilemma for various reasons, one being to learn more about current food issues within our economy, ecosystem, and environment; and two, to learn more so I am not a hypocrite to my beliefs. My entire life I have grown up learning and practicing sustainable mannerisms. Learning to turn off the water while I brushed my teeth, using reusable tupperware and grocery bags, and not idling are a few of the many practices I was taught. I spent my middle and high school years surrounded by many individuals whose views about the environment were much different than my personal beliefs. Listening, observing, and learning from those around me drove me to apply for school and pursue a degree in

The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan is a comprehensive look into the present day food culture of the United States. Throughout the book the author tries to find out the true composition of the diet that is consumed by Americans on a daily basis. There is an excessive dependence by the American population on the government to know which food is good for them. This paper will critically analyze the book as well as the stance that the author has taken. Since there is a deluge of information about diets and health available today, the relevance of this well researched book in the present day world cannot be emphasized enough. Its relevance is not limited to the United States alone but to the entire human society which is moving towards homogenous food habits.

Not only with the lack of education that could help the residents see the chemical effects of grooming GM crops and prevent it from harming their bodies, but also in conjunction with the mental pressure to secure money, it leads to “sickness” of the mind and the thoughts of ending their own lives. These two concepts explains the limited social mobility of the people in Monsanto, where many residents face extremely difficult obstacle to move to a higher social class. Despite the drive of obtaining money from globalization, which should help residents move up the social ladder, the high mortality rate instead reverse the effect of globalization, changing the opportunity of making money to being in debt from borrowing money and losing property. This leads the residents, despite moving to a higher social position, digress and possibility shift lower on the social ladder. To further limit social mobility, several aspects of perceived neoliberalism, which should give the farmers the options to choose how to farm, affected the experiences of how farmers in Monsanto attempted to buy GM seed to make

Technology has helped farming for the positive by: increasing yield productivity, using GPS tracking to decrease human error, and using drones to create maps. Now how is technology able to do all these things you may ask, it’s simple. According to the website Pressroom , “A new report by the International Food Policy Research Institute measures the impacts of agricultural innovation on farm productivity, prices, hunger, and trade flows as we approach 2050 and identifies practices which could significantly benefit developing nations” (“ Agricultural Technologies Could Increase Global Crop Yields as Much as 67 Percent and Cut Food Prices Nearly in Half by 2050”, 2014, p. 1). Another website states the following on drones by

People say the most important essence of our lives are clothing, house and food. Among these components that we value the most, food has always been the most significant value even before the civilization. Our ancestors have fought for better location for themselves to gain geological advantages of food production. From many historical contexts one can discover all the great civilizations took places near by the river and rich soil to cultivate crops. They grew what people in the present days would call it ‘organic foods’. Yes, organic food is harder to grow because of pests or weather conditions. Our society has already moved on from that processes. Now we have pesticides to remove insect harming crops and scientists recently developed Genetically Modified Organisms also known as GMOs. GMOs sustain better in harsh climates, their sizes are a lot greater than organic foods. It is true that usage of pesticides and GMOs have allowed the world mass food production in our society. Although, we have enough food to feed billions of populations throughout the world. But, what does it do to our health? Pesticides contain numerous harmful chemicals and insects build up tolerance and we will end up inventing a lot stronger pesticides in the future. Crops aren’t the only the problem when it comes to GMOs. Many of domestic animals are genetically modified to produce larger portion of meats. Think about all those bacon strips and steaming steaks.

Lakshawn Yapa a professor in Geography Department at Penn State University; is a highly known for his article, “What Are Improvised Seeds?” The PhD professor believed that modern poverty is a form of development induced scarcity. According to Yapa’s well known article, he writes modification of crops and how now pesticides are becoming more powerful to withstand the GMO crops. Not only are they changing the crops and pesticides, but it’s also causing illnesses and diseases. In Asia, the groundwater and streams have been contaminated by the use of fertilizer and pesticide. Yapa writes,

Agricultural History characterized capital substitution; land and labor, restructuring of agriculture from the decline of farms and growth of larger ones. The industrial countries such as the United States and Argentina have appreciated crop areas for GMO. “Agricultural development is a broadly shared goal in less developed countries, and the history of agricultural evolution demonstrates unambiguously that technological change is a necessary part of development” (Brush). It is plausible that “GMOs’ negative consequences will be more serious in developing than in developed countries because of the former’s environmental and social conditions” (Brush). “Lack of information or illiteracy may deprive citizens of developing countries of the ability to make informed decisions about food safety” (Brush). Poor countries have “insufficient regulatory infrastructure to develop and enforce bio-safety protocols for GMOs” (Brush). Many people in poverty mean that a negative social impact of GMOs that hurts small farms. Furthermore, the social impact of GMO products is continuously increasing globally.

To begin with, in the ESS lecture of Oct.1st, a debate between Dr. Thomas and Dr. Patel presents a conflict caused by GMOs. On Dr. Thomas’s position, we can find the direct advantage of GMOs food comparing to the traditional agriculture by scientific analysis, such as the ability to resist disease, and yields of the field. GMOs food had already spread out over the world- which was saying the technique had already mature enough to benefit people efficiently, especially the poor. Besides, the improvement of GMO technology can also accelerate some of the other industries like international trade, education in the Third World Country. On the other side, the social problem that was found by Dr. Patel was different: if it was necessary for the poor to plant GMOs. On his position, the media was telling people that GMO food was helping the poor, however, the fact was the farmers only received a little knowledge about the current

This greatly increases the risks for many diseases and health issues (“10 Reasons”). Some of these health issues can arise from the combination of genes, that alter the effects of the original organism. The science behind GMOs and mixing of species and seeds can create harmful side effects, and release germs that have not yet been present in the foods being altered. This can create foreign genes, which are not a product of nature. In Michael Pollan’s novel, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he writes, “The lack of steadying culture of food leaves us especially vulnerable to the blandishments of the food scientist and the marketer ,”(5). The food scientists have greatly influenced the development of America’s food industry, and GMOs. Rather than preparing and eating foods that have been grown or produced from products of nature literally or straight from nature itself, the production of GMOs progresses the idea of abandoning natural foods, and creating new organisms. These scientists alter foods, which in result harms the consumer, and their health. The foods and seeds food scientists and geneticists produce are not in fact good for the future as some point out. GMOs will eventually result in the loss of ecosystems, species, human lives, and nature. GMOs have led to a society based more on the science and ease of eating, rather than nature and the “authentic” way of creating food. This idea will lead to more processing and artificial ingredients

Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales, authors of “Genetically modified crops: hope for developing countries?”(2001) argues for genetically modified food to be grown in developing countries in attempt to alleviate starvation and assist those countries in joining the developed world. The author supports this by immediately identifying and addressing prominent counter-arguments, displaying a localized need of the technology (soon to be globalized), and examining how harshly GMOs are criticized with specific comparisons to deforestation and other climate change variables. The authors ' intended audience is educated voter populations and politicians, in order to make an impact on the GMO debate. Herrera-Estrella 's and

Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales, authors of “Genetically modified crops: hope for developing countries?”(2001) argues for genetically modified food to be grown in developing countries in an attempt to alleviate starvation and assist those countries in joining the developed world. The author supports this by immediately identifying and addressing prominent counter-arguments, displaying a localized need of the technology (soon to be globalized), and examining how harshly GMOs are criticized with specific comparisons to deforestation and other climate change variables. The authors ' intended audience is educated voter populations and politicians, in order to make an impact on the GMO debate. Herrera-Estrella 's and Alvarez-Morales ' article serves its purpose, to educate and persuade those involved in the politically charged topic with a researched and defended opinion, one they hope will carry into the polling place and be spread further than its scientific publishing 's beginnings. The article manages to persuade by structuring the discussion in order to narrow the reader 's thoughts, citing research supporting their thought process, using the reader 's sense of global community, and a both humanitarian and scientific mindset on the issue.

Throughout the world, the effects of the Green Revolution can be seen in the dramatic increases in crop production of multiple developing countries. This has in turn, allowed these developing nations to be able to feed their populations, but at a cost. As discussed in lectures the Green Revolution has its benefits, but also has its cons that many have expressed concern about. Some of these concerns are why opponents reject the Green Revolution as they state it is more harmful than any benefits it brings. In the US News article “The Toxic Consequences of the Green Revolution”, a group of these rejectors are shown to be farmers from the small Indian state of Punjab who state that the usage of Green Revolution

As Lehrer writes in the article “ We, Robots”, compared to expectation on each other, people are extremely eager to take sides on technology (Lehrer, n.d.). In the 21st century, Technology has an extremely significant effect on the lives of individuals. Technology shows people a more efficient way to do things; Medical discoveries occur at an increasingly fast rate and agricultural processes that once required a plenty of human workers can now be automated. Technology also has a profound effect on World Hunger. Hunger is a crucial problem in the world. Cowen (2012) writes that 14.1% of the world 's population starved to death and around 930 million people died because of hunger per year. As a result, scientists have found that genetically modified food is the possible answer for Hunger Problem. However, some scientists announce that because there are certain undiscovered dangers that come along with genetically modified food, it is not the best approach to end world hunger. On the other hand, others claim that the benefits of transgenic food overweigh its negatives. Because of its larger yields of products at more acceptable costs, genetically modified food allows people of different economic levels to access and benefit from the food and in turn, prevents world hunger.

With the introduction of urbanization and improved health care, humans are able to live longer lives and produce more children. However, a population boom does not necessarily indicate a rapid increase in food production. In fact, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, “as a result of food deficits, nearly 1,000 million people do not get enough to eat” and within the next ten years the human population will increase by 56 million. With traditional farming methods, how can the agricultural industry expect to feed an additional 56 million with the next ten years? This issue has prompted scientists to opt for the genetic altering of organisms in order to produce better yields and overall a more heartier crop. Genetically modified plants can be altered to withstand fluctuating temperatures, contain essential vitamins and even taste like candy. While GMOs may provide the agricultural industry a solution to future famines, dependence on GMOs raises several ethical concerns. The effect of GMOs on health, the potential risk of facing unintended consequences and even the right to personal choice are all issues that challenge the developing field of

An article written by Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset (1999) addresses certain potential issues and misconceptions about biotechnology. For instance, this article suggests that biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, and will not reduce poverty in the developing world.