Michael Pollans Lecture

Thursday of last week I had the pleasure of getting to go a keynote speech by Michael Pollan in "The nature of Things 2008" lecture series that was being put on by the Utah Museum of Natural History. I read his most popular work "The Omnivores Dilemma" last year, and am currently in the midst of reading his latest work; "In Defense of Food : An eaters manifesto"

I went into the event hoping that it wouldn't be merely a rehash of the same lines from his books, and that I would get a better idea of the man, and his opinions. I was not disappointed. Of course a lot of the big points of the lecture were the same ones that he drives home in his writing, but there were a lot of details that you can really only get from having a face to face, or should I say face to capacity crowd, discussion. At the end of the lecture was a Q & A session that gave him the opportunity to expand on some of the detail points, as well as to let more of his personality come out.
As I alluded, the crowd if not sold out was very very close to it, and this was in a facility with a max capacity 2,768. As I sat there and listened, one of the common things he mentioned is that there is a real food movement going on across America. I really felt a part of it that night. In fact it was one of the first times recently that I haven't felt like the oddball in the room for making my own yogurt or raising chickens in my suburban lot.
After the lecture I had the good fortune to have brought my edition of "The Omnivores Dilemma" and to be able to get in a line right at the start to get it signed. He scribed "Vote with your fork". Mr Pollan was a very sincere person, and genuinely seems happy to be doing what he is doing. This picture was snapped just after he finished signing my book. (Please forgive the quality it was taken on a cell phone.)

This brings me to a very good point of the lecture. He kept mentioning that phrase, "Vote with your Fork." What a concept. Think about it. What if more and more people decide to opt out of the industrial food chain and produce more of their own food. What kind of sway could a thousand or a hundred thousand or even a million people have? This thing that so many of us do; this food production at home thing. It is truly the greatest act of rebellion. We are not merely complaining about a problem, we are actively actuating a solution to it. That really is living "A Posse ad Esse", or moving "From Possibility to Reality." Keep it Up!

Namaste

P~

Omnivores Dilemma Reply

Crunchy Chicken has been sponsoring a book club reading the Omnivores Dilemma by Micheal Pollan. She asked some questions to spur the debate, and I hope to continue it here. The following are my answers to here questions as I have finished the chapters.

1. Before reading the first chapter, did you know how pervasive corn and its byproducts were in the foods we eat?
The short Answer is No, I didn’t. I mean I’m no dummy but I really had no idea how pervasive it was. To be honest I was a little shocked.

2. In chapter 2, Michael Pollan claims that modern monoculture corn farming is basically the conversion of fossil fuels into corn, where it takes around 50 gallons of oil per acre of corn. He also states than it takes more than 1 calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of food energy for animal consumption. Do you think that the price of corn and its byproducts should more accurately reflect the true costs of production? Are you willing to pay significantly more to make up for this discrepancy down the line?
Yes and No. Yes, I think that the cost of corn should reflect accurately what it costs to produce it. This is not necessarily because I want to discourage the fossil fuel usage so much as it is because I want to encourage the change of diet from one of nothing but corn derivatives to one that is more nature based and healthier. I am willing to pay more for food down the line, but I would add the caveat that in paying more for food, I hope to be doing it by paying a premium to local farmers that are raising healthy crops be those corn or others.

3. In chapter 3, we find out that 1/3 of all the corn grown in the U.S. is sold to a select few companies, Cargill being one of the biggest (as well as the biggest privately held corporation in the world). These companies also are the biggest winners regarding government subsidies. Do you feel that this should change, or that the subsidies help out the right people?
I am really not a proponent of government subsidies. I think that in the long run, someone is paying for it somehow. The farmers have now become slave to the Dept. of Agriculture subsidies, and we have become slave to a falsely low price for the foods we buy. I look at them in the same way that I do with welfare checks. Unfortunately we humans are a lot like water in that we will always tend to find the path of least resistance. If someone will pay you for a certain behavior, (raising corn, or not working) the majority of people will continue that behavior until it is unsustainable to do otherwise.

4. Chapter 4 exposes the problems with feeding corn to livestock animals that never used to eat it. The benefits are many -- cheap feed, faster growth to market. And, in regards to beef, feeding corn results in a flesh that marbles nicely (as well as in those that eat the beef in turn :). Do the benefits outweigh drawbacks such as increased animal sickness, issues with the feedlot environment (overcrowding, filthy conditions)?
This chapter honestly made me really ill. I was astonished at the denial I have been in with regard to commercial meat production. I certainly don’t think that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. I can’t say enough about this, really, it was abhorrent.

5. In chapter 5, we learn that wet milling of corn for human consumption requires 10 calories of fossil fuel energy burned for every 1 calorie of food produced. The differential is enormous, yet with farm subsidies, the big winners are, again, the manufacturers. For example, it costs approximately 4 cents of commodity corn to product one box of cereal, yet you pay $4 for the processed food. Is this fair? Is it possible that the manufacture of cereal costs that much more than the materials themselves for this sort of margin? Or do you think the consumer is getting fleeced?
I am Mid chapter and will update this post with my responses upon completing it.

6. Chapter 6 states that the farm bills were designed to keep the river of cheap corn flowing, thereby guaranteeing that the cheapest calories will continue to be the unhealthiest. Based on what you've read in this section, will you do anything to change this (e.g. contact your legislators towards creating an equitable farm bill, avoiding or limiting your consumption of these products, etc.)?7. Is it a bad thing that we have become a "race of corn eaters", or do you think, in the grand scheme of things, it really matters whether or not we are "corn chips with legs"?
I will update this post with my responses upon completing it.