Response to Pollan 1

Michael Pollan and his book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, reflect a respectable point of view on our relationship with food. It deeply analysis and responds to the answer of "What should we have for dinner?" Although I have only read the introduction of this book I can tell that it suggests a different perspective on food from what we have seen. This involves of course other cultures and what these have done through time regarding their diet. This book is mainly known because the author "examines the ethical, political, and ecological factors that are intertwined in the industrial, large-scale organic, local, and personal (hunted-gathered) food chains, while describing the environmental and health consequences that result from food choices within these chains". I personally think that this book is rather interesting for discussing such matter. In a day to day bases I do not think much about food. This might be because I do not have to worry on obtaining food. Although I am thankful for the food I get everyday I do not analyze how this is affecting my life. According to this book and other philosophers My physical body has a lot to do with what I consume. As Pollan stated "we are not only what we eat, but how we eat." I have never considered this statement before until i read about this. Even though i have heard "you are what you eat" I did not take it into consideration. Where does this idea come from?
Who decides what to eat and what not to eat?


I am certain that these types of questions were also asked in Pollans book. While reading the introduction I encountered a few of them. For example, While referring to the American choice for food, Pollan asked: "where in the world did it come from?" In order to answer this question it is necessary to study the very beginning of alimentation. Although i have not read the answer to this question yet, I can tell that his answer relates the previous factors mentioned: ethical, political, and ecological.

The world is a competition, even regarding food. At crucial times like this when the world is losing a vast number of resources the world will eventually begin fighting for food. The natural selection will begin and human kind will "appreciate" food at once. Taking food for granted takes the value that it has. Regardless if it is cultural food is not appreciated in America. I think this is due to the availability of food at this moment. However, I do think that this will change in the near future. I wonder, if the world indeed will have to take care of the remaining food then will they come to analyze and reconsider their own actions regarding food as well?
Although this book does teach us about food and our culture I do not think many people will actually learn something from it. At this point food is available for us, therefore there is no need to reconsider anything. This is how most people think about their current life. - If it is there then no need to do anything about it- The value of this book will increase when food becomes more and more needed not wanted.

I am interested in knowing about my choices regarding food and what these bring upon others and myself. I will change my way in my part, but will it be enough?
Analysing human behavior, politics. ethics, etc. How will it change anything if the people who analyze it do not have the will of causing results. Although i am interested I think is also a waste of time. By myself I will not be able to change an entire culture. By reading this book i will not have enough motivation on changing the way people eat in America. There is too much damage done already to make a significant difference. In 10 years from now any culture's way of alimentation or diet will change. Politically speaking the problems between countries will increase and the trading market will become more greedy.

Focusing on the criticism of this book, Omnivore's Dilemma, The economist Tyler Cowen argued, "The problems with Pollan's 'self-financed' meal reflect the major shortcoming of the book: He focuses on what is before his eyes but neglects the macro perspective of the economist. He wants to make the costs of various foods transparent, but this is an unattainable ideal, given the interconnectedness of markets.In addition, some critical food theorists have claimed that the Omnivore's Dilemma is not actually a dilemma" This demonstrates the perspective this culture has on food. It is merely an economic factor rather than a gift, as it is seen in other cultures. Regarding once again the competition in America. It does matter what it is. There will be always economic competition involved. At this point it is not the polluted environment, or the lack of resources, or global warming what is driving us to an end. But the greed of human kind.