Too close to eat..

In both of his writings, Mike Davis raises a startling issue concerning global health and fulfilling global demand for food. As a result of the population boom, and consequently a surge in demand for meat, specifically swine and poultry, the food production industry has undergone a transformation from traditional farms to becoming a large-industrial production machine. This change has become necessary in order to process large quantities of meat sufficient enough to satisfy consumers' demands, especially in developing countries such as China. However, with this growth comes increasing health concerns. Mass-storage of swine and poultry in small enclosed spaces encourages the transmission of pathogens from one organism to another, providing the perfect niche for these strains to mutate into more fatal and infectious versions. As a result, a pandemic could potentially be conceived.

In my opinion, what makes this issue somewhat controversial is that a choice has to be made: if the industry is to produce meat fast enough to feed people's demands , potentially, the only way of doing so is to process meat on an industrial scale. However, the risk of doing so involves having to confront the constant threat of pathogens and disease. Nevertheless, if the industry were to cut down on mass-producing meat and rely more on traditional farms, this could start a public complaint in that supply of meat is too low, which based on economic mechanics, causes the price to soar, making it hard for the poor to feed themselves. World hunger issues would then have to be confronted.

With the constant introduction of new vaccines and medicine in the scientific field, there is hope that scientists can soon stall the rapid evolution of these pathogen strains, suppressing potential pandemics. Nevertheless, what makes this issue of utmost importance to the global community is that because the human population is expeditiously growing as well, if a pandemic does arise, it will eventually become harder and harder to control it simply due to the sheer number of people and the rate at which it can be transmitted - quarantining overcrowded cities would become an instant nightmare for medical professionals.

This leads me to raise the following questions:
- Can diseases such as Avian Flu be passed through by-products of poultry such as eggs?
- Why have governments not put regulations on the maximum number of animals which can be stored in enclosed spaces on meat-processing sites?

Meaty Infections

In the articles "The illusion of control: industrialized agriculture, nature, and food safety" by Stuart, D and "E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection" by Moss, M, both authors expose the flaws with the American Meat Processing Industry. As a result of a lack of attention to safety procedures and the desire to use technology to "solve" nature's problems, eating meat no longer is only a past time; it has become a source of concern for many Americans, such that many are becoming vegans simply to avoid this problem.

Although this is indeed unacceptable, from a business perspective, many of these firms have little resources to improve this situation. Rough competition from fellow competitors in addition to a collapsed economy have caused many of these meat processing companies to abandon costly safety procedures purely to cut back on costs and survive in the industry.

Nevertheless, although the development of technology is a problem in that it is encouraging us to abandon examination of the meat in preference of engineering it, future advancements and discoveries, particularly in the chemical field, may be developed in the near future to eliminate E-coli.

Questions I have based on these readings include:
- Is it possible for the USDA to inject more funding into the industry so that firms have more resources to conduct safety tests with?
- How long can E-coli survive on meat for?

You are what you eat!

In chapter 17 of The Omnivore's Dilemma, we run head-first into the ever-sophisticated dilemma: whether or not one should eat meat.
An obvious opposition to this habit is that we shouldn't due to the fact that animals are cruelly killed just so we can fill our bellies up. Animal activists believe that animals are organisms capable of experiencing pain and thus, should be spared a torturous (and short) life. As philosopher Peter Singer argues, animals have just as much right to live as do mentally-ill people or babies.

Although I do not support the maltreatment of animals, I'm a believer of the fact that it is not as easy for some people to convert to be a vegan as others. From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, we were built as meat-eating machines and thus, it may not be as easy for some to just abandon the mindset of eating meat. Yes, some people become disgusted with what they see in a slaughterhouse and can easily recall this image whenever seeing a steak to stop themselves but for others, this simply isn't as easy as a memory-trick. As a matter of fact, eating meat for some can even possibly be called an addiction, which takes a long painful time to adjust.

Thus, in my opinion, whether or not to eat meat is a complex social issue on many different levels.
2 particularly interesting questions which I have on this issue is:

- what would happen to the economy if more and more people ate meat?
- can vegetables/fruits be grown at a fast enough pace to fulfill the population's dietary needs?

The hidden secrets..

Chapters 11 & 13 of The Omnivore's Dilemma explores the treasures which come with producing food organically rather than on an industrial scale. Specifically, Pollan allows us to explore the hidden benefits which come from raising livestock naturally in an "ecosystem" rather than raising one species "unnaturally". With the former, the farm's success is dependent on the interaction of all life forms for e.g. the role chickens play in picking pests from cow manure and spreading rabbits' urine into fertile land. If one component changes, the whole ecosystem changes and thus, the whole system is only healthy if each component is thriving. Meanwhile, with industrial farming, the same process is repeated over and over again with a limited diversity. As a result, biological issues such as disease arise, ruining the quality of the meat.

Pollan then goes on to reveal the reason that organic food is cheaper is due to the hidden subsidization which accompanies industrial food. As a result, people are rarely aware of the fact that the food which they buy have hidden external costs such as pollution, wastes. Nevertheless, on a more positive note, the numbers of farmers market are rising from "1755 a decade ago to 3137 at last count" (P248). Artisanal production is also rising and thus, more people are becoming aware of this fact.

Personally, I feel that the government is actually cheating its people by hiding these costs from them - consumers have the right to know the facts of the goods which they buy, which include its origin and how it is transported. In addition, much of the global warming blame is pinned on our (general public) usage of energy when in reality, the government is actually plays a great role in this catastrophe by hiding this industrial process from us.

Questions which I have concerning this troubling topic is:
1) Is it legally wrong that the government deprives us of information concerning the food we buy?
2) Instead of "trucking food" would it be possible to "fly" large packages of food (which will be more ecologically friendly as more food is delivered in a faster amount of time)?

To Be Organic or Not to Be..?

Whether or not to eat organic foods has become one of the most controversial contemporary issues, as evidenced in Chapter 9 Big Organic of The Omnivore's Dilemma. In this chapter, one of the issue Pollan reflects heavily on is the difficulty with which self-proclaimed organic farms compete with conventional farms on a producing scale. As stores such as Walmart & Whole Foods prefer the economic costs of buying from one large producer than from multiple smaller ecologically-friendly farms, the latters are pressured to industrialize their methods to become more efficient. As a result, the term "organic" becomes more opaque in that these new industrial shipping methods burn enormous amounts of fossil fuel - What then is to become of this term if it damages the world in which it was supposed to benefit?

Another arising issue which Pollan highlights is whether eating organic food really is beneficially - and if so, for what purposes? Studies done by UC Davis suggest that naturally grown produce contain more vitamins and polyphenols in comparison to conventionally grown ones. However, in my NS 1150 class, Professor Levitsky suggests otherwise, debunking this statement as a mere myth - there is no difference between organic and conventional food. Thus, it is nearly impossible to eventually settle on a more "accurate" side. As consumers, we should not make the fatal mistake of thinking that what we know about food is all we need to know, an example being Justus von Liebig. We should appreciate the complexity of food, be patient and invest more time investigating these issues before a more solid conclusion can be made.

Nevertheless, interesting questions I have which stem from this reading include the following:
- With demand for ethanol & the global population increasing simultaneously , more fields are being used to grow corn for energy purposes instead of dietary. Thus, in a decade or so, wouldn't artificial fertilizers and genetically-modified crops be essential in order to produce crops at a faster rate to sustain the hunger of the population?
- Can stale and wasted food be used to fertilize and enrich soil?
- Is it possible to organically grow crops indoors? - i.e. transfer rich soil from one location to another and grow crops from the latter location?

A Meaty Dilemma..

Ever since reading chapter 4: The Feedlot in The Omnivore's Dilemma by Micheal Pollan, I have been a bit stunned in regards to what I have learned about the meat processing industry - it was truly an eye-opening experience, especially since I have been a beef lover my entire life. Now however, I'm starting to doubt whether eating all that meat was such a smart decision.

Nevertheless, I'm thankful that Pollan has revealed the truth behind how meat is made. Little did I know that cattle were force-fed corn, which actually is damaging to their rumen. As a result of such actions, bacteria in this organ seep into the cows' blood stream and tissue, contaminating them. In addition, corn-fed cows have more saturated fat (which is unhealthy) and less omega fatty acids (which are more desirable health-wise).This however, is not the main reason why I'm horrified to the extent I'm at now. It's actually the fact that ruminant remains (which include blood and fat) are mixed into the cows' feedlot in order to fulfill the cows' protein requirements. The thought of this really sickens me from a hygienic standpoint, and in turn, has made me think really critically about whether I should continue eating beef frequently. In addition, the fact that manure on the cows’ hide also slips into the meat during the slaughtering process is repulsive.

I really do hope that knowing about these unsanitary conditions really doesn’t ruin other meats for me too, as then, I might have problems with eating my usual diet. It’s just such a shame that one crop, which looks harmless, can have such a devastating effect on other foods which we eat – not only plants but animals.

However, we must not overlook the benefits which come with force-feeding cattle with corn - doing so means beef will be cheaper and more affordable for many people. With the economy in shambles these days, many people would rather eat meat which is contaminated, than eat nothing at all. In addition, with an ever-growing population, more and more food will be required and perhaps one day, the only way to slaughter enough beef to sustain the population will be growing cows at a faster rate.