Week 2: Who Does the Omnivore Trust? And Why?

 I believe that I can trust Pollan. From what I’ve read, he put a lot of his time in researching where his foods come from. He not only done research alone, but put effort into visiting where the animals come from. This makes me feel that he is a reliable source. He was being very objective in his writing and doesn’t try to push his opinion onto anyone. He also points out two sides to an argument. He points out both sides to an argument about whether eating meat is right or wrong but never did he say which one is better. Like the fact that he present himself as a confused person. He says that after learning about how the system of food works, he decided to temporarily become a vegetarian. 

I trust him.

He is just like anyone of us. he has eaten food all of his life and now he wants to find out where his food actually comes from. We all until recently have lived in blind ignorance when it comes to our food. He like a few others who are stepping out to inform themselves as well as others about the fact that what we think are chicken nuggets are not really chicken nuggets and the corn epidemic is real and the fact that even the organic food movement has been tainted, for what??. I think thats the reason for his book, why would he have to lie about this stuff...I actually don't even think this is a question about trust, I don't think Pollan wants us to trust him, i mean we've trusted so much when it comes to food..I trusted that "happy cows come from California" and that my toast didn't have corn in it..and look were it got us. Pollan doesn't care if we trust him or not but he is giving us the opportunity to learn and develop an understanding into the Truths of our food.

Being a vegetarian has almost become a cornerstone of my identity both as an individual and as someone who belongs to a society where being one is considered “good”. This is not to say that I would judge someone who ate meat; but after really thinking about it I now feel that maybe not judging was my way of avoiding getting into a moral or ethical debate of any sort. In fact, after reading a substantial portion of Pollan’s book I am convinced that I would have gotten into a debate with a lot of people about the topic if I had decided to do any such thing. A topic which in hindsight I knew little or nothing about. I never really gave the idea that man was meant to be an omnivore much thought before I read the portion of the chapter explaining how if everyone of us became vegetarian there would be absolute chaos and pandemonium in the natural world. I had never before realized how intricately man in linked with nature or more accurately how nature is linked to man. When Pollan described how “The bison is a human artifact, for it was shaped by Indians”. The idea finally sunk in. While reading this book I often asked myself if I should really trust Pollan because he was literally almost asking me to judge myself. Sometimes, I almost felt that I had already been judged by Pollan. It was only when I read the part in the book where he decides to become a vegetarian just to see if that can help to answer some of his questions did I really start to trust him. I was amazed that a man who had eaten meat all his life was willing to give it up simply because he wanted gain some insight into the relevance of what he ate. Silly as that might sound, that was exactly when I started to trust him. "For, brief as it is, the life expectancy of a farm animal would be considerably briefer in the world beyond the pasture fence or chicken coop." Prior to reading this I never thought it possible for man to have a sort of symbiotic relationship with animals. Especially a relationship where one participant of the symbiotic relationship would actually be willing to give itself body, mind and soul(Sorry, I do believe that animals have souls, despite what Joel has to say about it.) to the other participant and yet when I think of it both from and evolutionary and survival point of view it makes complete sense. The animal would like to ensure its physical safety and as man is the most highly developed organism in the natural world, the animal would naturally like his protection. This would also ensure that its species continues into the next generation. According to Pollan "If there is any new right we need to establish, maybe this is the one: the right, I mean, to look” and after having done some thinking of my own, I couldn’t agree with him more. For it is only after seeing the entire life and eventual killing of the animal whose meat one is about to consume can one fully understand the magnitude of what is being placed before him. It is not just a slice of meat bought off the supermarket shelf, but an actual animal which was alive at one point of time.

 Honestly, I find Michael Pollan very annoying. Why does he have to make life harder than it already is? Why does he have to make such a hassle of eating? Why can't he let us eat in peace? 

All of the informations and facts that he wrote are currently occupying my mind. Now, I can't really enjoy my food when I'm supposed to. All of the horrifying truths keep haunting me whenever I spoon something into my mouth. Yet, I trust him because what he wrote was not based on his emotional perspective. He provided data and evidence to support his findings. For me, everything must be proven by evidence before I can trust in it and Pollan did a good job in convincing me.

He did not try to shift our point of view to a particular side. Instead, he gave us all kinds of information regarding it and let us decide what we want to do with it. I like the way he conveys his experience. As for me, he is not biased towards a side (well, at least for me!). He gave the pros and cons of both sides. All that he was trying to do is reveal his findings to us.

Thanks to him, now I know lots of things about the food that I am eating and to be more concious of my diet. But thanks to him too for making me feel guilty whenever I eat meat (I'm not going to be a vegetarian though!).

Yes.

He asks a lot of questions at the end of paragraphs in which he's spewed a lot of evidence that seemingly points in one direction. They are questions that uproot/challenge most of what he just wrote about. They are not preachy phrases-- you will only find preachy phrases ("preachy phrases" is hard to say quickly out loud- try it) used in a playful (though still very astute/fair) manner, like "food faddists, take note". Pollan has a playful voice in general. That makes me trust him, because he knows how to incorporate his personality into his research without A. advocating for his own opinions on food (or even presenting concrete opinions, for that matter), B. straying from solid research and fact/relying only on theory and experience. He really has done his research. Do I trust that the research is true? Well, it seems well-rounded-- he gives info for both sides-- so I trust him. But if I really were skeptical, it would be awfully easy for me to trace Pollan's facts (because he cites them so thoroughly) to see for myself if they're true or not. But the very thoroughness of his citing makes me trust him...; why would he bother to be so transparent if they were false citations?

There you have my reasons for trusting Pollan: 1. his intelligence shines in his ability to playfully show his personality/ideas while still staying appropriately objective. 2. he cites his sources very, very confidently.

Last thing I want to say-- in terms of the whole vegetarianism thing, I am always a believer in "everything in moderation". So, have a few local farms in every state that "peacefully" kill animals for meat, and have people eat less meat. Wasn't it like that before the world became so darn abundant and civilized anyway? That meat was a rarer food item, or at least one that was more difficult to obtain in substantial quantities than carbs, fungi or produce,-- and therefore, when it was obtained, was celebrated (Pollan mentions some traditions based around meat-- Thanksgiving turkey, ballpark franks, your great grandma's brisket...)? Yes, there are a lot of people, and yes, we live in a country of freedom and choice (I can hear the uproar now: "You can't tell me what to eat or not eat!! This is America!!")-- but, well, sorry to sound terrible, but maybe we should just have less people....? (I'm a Maluthusiast). -Emily

After reading the first couple of chapters assigned for class, I was not entirely sure of what I thought of Pollan and his way of presenting information. After ready chapters 16 and 17 however, my view of Pollan changed. In those chapters Pollan shows that he is able to look at different concerns from various view points. Not only did you acknowledge that he was a meat eater, but he then searched out another option and tried to look at what questions could be asked of those that are vegetarian. I thought that this was a very thorough job and the fact the he himself even tried out the vegetarian life made me look at his assertions in a more positive light. The questions that he raises are questions I would not have necessarily thought of if I was trying to think up reasons to eat/not eat meat and because of that, it gave me a better idea of why people think the way they do about the eating animals dilemma.

I think I do. I think one of the reasons why I trust Pollan is because of the way he writes: he has a particular style and voice. I think this helps him relate to his readers -- so they feel like they know him and like him, and thus trust what he says. Another reason why I trust what he writes is because of the amount of sources and information that are backing up what he says -- it's obvious he has done all his research. As some people mentioned in class, it was also nice to see him second-guessing himself, as well as showing us some of the questions HE had (and later on answered). 

One of the main reasons why I trust him is because I already had some similar ideas from previous classes/experiences. I took an APES class in high school, and we learned all about the benefits of organic farming vs. commercial farming, the carbon footprint of our foods (because they need to be transported such great distances, that even if they're 'organic', the fuel used to transport the goods offset any environmental benefits of organic farming), treatment of animals etc. So many of the things Pollan discussed in the chapters were topics I had learned about -- so it made me predisposed to believe it (since i learned about it!)

One of the points that Pollan brought up that I definitely agree with is the idea that if we were 'closer' to the animals that end up on our dinner table, then we would be more 'bothered' by the idea of slaughtering them (and more involved in the humane treatment of them). Last year I watched a youtube video called 'The Truth about the Meat Industry' and since I haven't been able to look at meat the same way. Before watching the video, I had NO idea about the atrocities that occur in the raising/slaughtering of Chickens, Cows, Pigs, etc. I didn't think much about the meat I was eating. After watching that video, it makes it a lot harder to eat meat  because I think of the unnecessary pain/suffering the animals went through (I only eat chicken now -- I would cut it out, but it's been a staple in my diet, so I'm not sure how to yet)

     I'm not quite sure why I trust Pollan. It might be because I feel kind of obligated to believe things written in books. But he sounds trustworthy, like he's only doing all this research to inform his own decisions and that he is just letting us know as something extra.
    When I make a decision about anything while reading this book, like whether organic is good or if I should stop eating meat, his argument changes and so does my mind. I feel like he is giving us both sides of the story because I can't make up my own mind about these issues.
    My parents get chicken from a halal slaughterhouse that I've only been to once because it disgusted me so much. I do like supermarkets better because the meat there doesn't really look like it ever came from an animal. Pollan says that is the problem because we're so far removed from where our meat comes from, we can't make informed choices about what to eat. And it's true, I eat without thinking about where my food came from and what it was before it became my food. I don't think I could look an animal in the eye and watch it die, then still be able to eat it.

 

 Although I am a Vegetarian and do not plan on changing my eating habits, I am convinced by Pollan’s claims and trust many of the points he makes.  Nothing I have read in The Omnivore’s Dilemma has fully convinced me that being a Vegetarian is really that bad- only that there a few problems with it and ways in which it is harmful to the environment.  Many of the points Pollan makes support being a Vegetarian, such as the descriptions of the chickens and cow farms.  I understand Pollan’s views and agree with his idea that Vegans and Vegetarians often fail to understand the way the natural world works, but I still believe that being a Vegetarian is a good thing for the environment and myself, and nothing Pollan says makes me feel guilty about it.  I trust what Pollan says because every claim he makes is supported by extensive facts and research.  In some ways, I feel that Pollan is like a food detective and journalist.  He went through all the steps- researching locations of different farms and visiting them, comparing animal treatments, talking to different people and getting quotes from different farmers, workers, other experts, etc.  Trusting Pollan’s claims in The Omnivore’s Dilemma is like trusting what one reads in The New York Times.  You might not always agree with what you read or want to believe it, but you know you can trust it because all the facts are there to prove it. 

For the most part as I have been reading Pollan's book I have found myself trusting his argument. But that does not mean that I necessarily agree with all of it. While reading the chapter about vegetarians, the part of Pollan's argument that sturck me the most was that being a vegetarian "alienates [him] from other people and, odd as this might sound, from a whole dimension of human experience" (314). As a a vegetarian I will admit that there have been more than a few times when I have wished that I ate mean for the sake of it being convenient. This occurs most often when I am traveling and I am eating according to another culture's dietary norms. However, despite the fact that once in a while it would be easier if I could just eat some chicken or steak, I do not agree with Pollan that bein a vegetarian forces isolation from cultural traditions. Over the years my sister and I have both become vegetarian (she was vegan for a few years as well). These dietary choices have allowed my family to create our own traditions. I have never felt like I missed out on Thanksgiving because I wasn't eating Turkey or that skipping the fish at Passover seder meant I was skipping out on the entire holiday. Just because I trust that Pollan's arguments are well-supported and carefully researched, does not mean that I am entirely convinced that his views are right.

I feel that Pollan is reliable. I am convinced that he definitely put great thought into what he criticized and researched. The way that he manages to tie in stories into the facts he presents are quite interesting to me. There is a possibility that I find him more reliable and credible because he is using scientific research and he actually names and visits the places he accuses of not being entirely organic. I feel that the arguments he makes are extremely well-researched. In some ways, I find Pollan to be quite sarcastic and playful with the subject. Nonetheless, I feel inclined to trust him. He not only criticizes meat-lovers, but also the people that choose to keep meat and animal by-products out of their meals. 

After having read Chapter 17, I for one, was disgusted with the concrete description of the way a cow is stunned and slaughtered. In class, I had said that I took pleasure in not knowing where my meat comes from. I would rather just leave that in the back of my mind when I have a big, juicy sirloin steak on my plate. I have heard all of that facts before, but I just tend to put it all aside. I was disturbed by those images as I was reading, until I just grew speechless. It made me truly think that I may just be living in denial or that there is something in me that tells me that it is okay to eat meat, possibly my culture.

I do trust Pollan, but I'm not entirely sure why. It is probably because of all the evidence he brings to the table. He could write a whole other book with just his references and acknowledgments alone! It could also be the fact that he dedicated so much time into unearthing these hidden facts about organic food. Since he has so much evidence, I get the impression that he truly believes in his work, which in turn makes me believe him. This is probably pretty naive of me since plenty of people have written books on horrible subjects that they believed in. But his perseverance and fervent desire to reveal the hardcore facts make me trust him. I could be wrong in doing so, and its very possible that I should be more critical while reading these passages, but I can't help it. Pollan has turned me into a believer!

I have been a vegetarian for three years. This is mostly because I consider any meat to be, well, meat! Whether it's chicken or cow or dog or human, it's an animal to me. To eat any of those plainly creeps me out.
Pollan suggests that vegetarians don't understand how the natural world works, and though this doesn't offend me personally I keep thinking about the phrase "humanely slaughtered", because this is an oxymoron in my book! If Pollan were a cow, I guarantee you that he would not want to be slaughtered, no matter how "humane" it might sound.
 

Slaughter is slaughter is slaughter, no matter how many positive adjectives you place in front of it. Go vegetarians!
 

After reading these three segments, I at first felt confused. Questions were prompted from Pollan's answers. Is organic really as bad as I read it to be? What about the section in which Pollan relates the changes the organic movement has brought to farming industry? What about the rest of the chapter, which relates the changes farming industry has brought to the organic movement? I can't help but think that Pollan is trying to get me, the reader and consumer target, to step back and think; okay, this is what has been done up to this point in order to realize the original intent of the organic movement, but it is still a long way from our ideal. In the case of his claims about animals and their various degrees of treatment and suffering, I now question if not eating meat from an industrial animal farm can morally justify blatant ignorance of the symbiotic relationship of domestication that Pollan brings up. Then, images of the Dish of the Day from Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (a talking cow-like animal that was happy to be eaten and offered information to customers on its tastiest parts) appear in my mind's eye. Has capitalism outweighed culture in justifying slaughter? Has profit been traded for respect not only of the animals, but of the consumer as well? With the secretive nature of industrial animal husbandry that Pollan reports, its little wonder some people do not trust the meat market for his or her moral fulfillment. Perhaps Vegetarians and Vegans are naive, but only because they may lump the "principle" of eating meat with the "practice" of obtaining it. Becoming a Vegetarian or Vegan would send a consumer message to factory farms, yet, like Pollan, I do not want to stop eating meat. He does offer a solution in the form of small, humane, and public farms, but how obtainable are these ethical meats when the only convenient, nearby market is a supermarket?  How can I obtain the "right to look"? Pollan writes, "If our concern is for the health of nature-rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls-then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do." Thinking about his argument, I can only agree, partially because I am a biased omnivore, but mostly because he makes a very good point in describing the evolutionary relationships of domestication.

But what makes me so sure I can trust him? First, check out the "Sources" section in the back of the book. The sources Pollan uses are numerous and relevant. It shows a certain work ethic and level of integrity to have a bibliography that credits used works accordingly and with appropriate additional information. Perhaps more importantly, he appeals directly to me, and while that is a dangerous basis for trust, the citations and bibliography help to strengthen his believability. Pollan's written reactions and questions that he proposes are reactions and questions I experienced while reading through his observations.  I felt a connection between what he was saying, and what he anticipated my reactions to be. It brought a more personal, human tone to the book.