Michael Pollan begins the third part of his novel by finally talking about the title of his book, the omnivore's dilemma, and the ethics of eating animals. So, what is the omnivore's dilemma anyways? Pollan explains this concept by telling a story about finding what looked like chanterelles (mushrooms) on a hike in Berkeley Hills. He brings them home with him, thinking that he would eventually boil them up and eat them, but he is hesitant. He refers to his field guide to verify that they are actually chanterelles and not poisonous. The field guide mentions that there are mushrooms that look like chanterelles but can actually kill you, suitably named "false chanterelles." These false chanterelles, it is written, have slightly thinner gills under the cap. Pollan responds, "These were relative terms; how could I tell if the gills I was looking at were thin or thick ones? Compared to what? My mother's mycophobic warnings rang in my ears" (286). Pollan's doubt about eating this mushroom is essentially the omnivore's dilemma. In the next chapter, he says, "The blessing of the omnivore is that he can eat a great many different things in nature. The curse of the omnivore is that when it comes to figuring out which of those things are safe to eat, he's pretty much on his own" (287). The question is: to eat, or not to eat? Humans have a wide variety of foods that we can choose to eat. Through historical trial and error (error being the death of humans), we humans have been able to differentiate what is okay to ingest and what is not. However, like Pollan's mushroom experience, not everyone can differentiate foods from poisons in the wilderness.
So, how does the omnivore's dilemma relate to today's food industry? Most people do not obtain their food from the wilderness, and all of the food we buy in the grocery store is clearly not poison, so it's not like we're in a life or death situation like the omivore's dilemma. Pollan modernizes the omnivore's dilemma by stating, "The omnivore's dilemma is replayed every time we decide whether or not to ingest a wild mushroom, but it also figures in our less primordial encounters with the putatively edible: when we're deliberating the nutritional claims on the boxes in the cereal aisle; when we're settling on a weight-loss regimen (low fat or low carb?); or deciding whether to sample McDonald's' newly reformulated chicken nugget; or weighing the costs and benefits of buying the organic strawberries over the conventional ones; or choosing to observe (or flout) kosher or halal rules; or determining whether or not it is ethically defensible to eat meat..." (289). Because modern Americans do not need to worry about poison in their food, they worry about the kind of nutrients that are in their foods instead. Should I have the double quarter pounder with cheese at McDonald's, or should I have a salad at Whole Foods? The nutrients that are within the double quarter pounder deem the food not as healthy as the salad, and anybody stuck in the dilemma would choose the salad. But anyone else that enjoys the taste of the burger more would choose it, regardless of its unhealthiness. Should the government be able to protect Americans from the unhealthiness by choosing the salad for them? In my opinion, no. Individuals, omnivores, in the land of freedom called America should be able to choose a side of the dilemma and face the consequences.
It was interesting reading about how Pollan had modernized the "omnivores dilemma", its no longer a life or death situation, but now its about choosing a healthy food, or unhealthy food, and weighing to pros and cons or each choice. Towards the end of your post you asked "should the government be able to protect Americans from the unhealthiness by choosing the salad for them?" I agree with you when you said no, but I also think it is appropriate, and sometimes necessary, for the government to put certain restrictions on our food, and the companies that produce it, in order to ensure the health of society. Even thou these restrictions still exist, America is extremely unhealthy and obese. But this is not the governments responsibility. The government makes sure that our food is safe to eat, and then leaves the choice of "healthy vs. unhealthy" to the individual. American society is to blame for the nations health problems, not the government.
ReplyDeleteI mean, of course no one would want to eat poison, but I feel like the economy takes care of food safety, not the government. If word goes around that food from one specific brand is unsafe, then nobody will buy it and it will go out of business. Unsafe food would not be a good product to sell.
ReplyDelete