After reading all the buzz about The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollanin various food blogs, I decided to give in and read it. I should start off by disclosing that I’m pretty politically and environmentally apathetic. If there’s a recycling bin near the trash can, I’ll throw my cans/bottles into the recycling bin. Otherwise, forget about it. I am, however, much more concerned about what I eat these days from a health (both nutritional and medical) perspective.
Pollan organizes his book by the four meals he decides to consume: McDonald’s; a meal made from ingredients purchased at Whole Foods (aka Big Organic); a meal consisting of truly free-range (unlike the loophole construction of the term “free-range”) chicken and local ingredients sold by small farmers; and a meal of wild boar that he hunted himself and foraged foods. It’s actually very well structured so the reader can actually see how these sub-ingredients factor into the meal as a whole.
The first meal of McDonald’s is pretty much a lot like the expose material you’ll read in Fast Food Nation. You read about the absolutely horrible conditions of an industrial feedlot and slaughterhouse. It’s really revolting, and it’ll definitely make you paranoid about eating conventional beef for a while. Even if you’re not concerned about drastic things like mad cow disease, the descriptions of dried manure caked onto the cows’ hides as they are sent through the processing plant will make you want to cook your steaks thoroughly to kill off the more conventional food borne parasites.
The second and third meals raise a very interesting personal dilemma. Do you want local, organic, or both? Pollan is definitely more of a local eater — ie, the more local, the fresher and theoretically the “better.” Implict in this label is that you’re buying from a smaller seller and thus enforcing the local economy. The chapter about the farmer who actually does raise grass-fed cows and has implemented unconventional methods for pigs and chickens to feed raises some neat, nostalgic feelings for the ways things used to be. He sells to local restaurants and residents. The case for organic, non-feedlot meats and eggs is a lot more compelling, in my mind, than for produce. There seems to be a fair amount of tangible evidence demonstrating the benefits of meat and eggs raised this way. The beef has a better marbling and the egg yolks are apparently so rich in proteins that they’re a bright orange.
The organics that you’re likely purchasing from national grocery chains are sourced from one of two big organic companies. Pollan goes on to describe how both of these companies started off like any other small, hippie organic farm in the 1960s and 70s. They seem to have made their peace will becoming heavily industrialized. There are also obviously several loopholes in how you can describe things that are labeled organic. japadamus mentioned the “free-range chicken eggs,” which basically mean that the chickens have the opportunity to shove their way through the packed hen house and to a doorway leading to a very small patch of grass. I’d guess a good rule of thumb would be “if you see it in a big chain, you have to assume it came from a big chain supplier.” Big chain suppliers work on such a large scale, it just seems stupid to imagine a chicken clucking around green pastures.
I think organics are good for certain produce, but I really can’t afford to buy all organic, nor do I think that it’s necessary. I mainly buy organic because I somehow think that it’s going to have less health problems for me in the long run with pesticides. I’m really buying it for a smidgen of peace of mind. You could reasonably think I’m foolish for this rationalization, but that’s fine with me.
I also endorse local to a certain degree, too, but the argument to buy local and get even more absurd the more extreme you go. Pollan’s fourth meal is about hunting and foraging, and this is seriously when you realize what a Berkeley hippie he can be. There is absolutely no reason to ever really need for forage or hunt for your goddamned food. You want to plant a garden and eat your veggies? great. You want to walk around Berkeley neighborhoods looking for fruit trees in the public areas so you can pick the fruits? No. Don’t you have some dignity? I understand that this meal was more about adding a section to a book discussing the natural history of food and food chains, but it’s absolutely ridiculous from a feasibility standpoint. He seems to have derived the most satisfaction from this meal that he made with ingredients that he himself found (very caveman like pride).
I understand the idea that local can taste much better than something that’s been genetically bred to withstand the travails of transit to grocery stores and longer storage times sitting on the shelves. I haven’t found a single pint of strawberries in a grocery store that tastes better than any pints you directly get in the months of May-June from local farmers. It’s one of the best things about living in California, in my opinion. But, that being said, I’m also willing to suck it up, buy a pint from the grocery store in November, and not be disappointed when it doesn’t taste nearly as good as a pint of strawberries in the summertime. I’m too spoiled to be willing to let the seasonality of produce inconvenience me, and I accept that it will have diminished quality.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma. It makes you think about where your food comes from and what you’re endorsing when you eat. From a health perspective, I’m really trying to realize what I’m eating calorically, and I think an appreciation of the food and where it came from goes hand in hand with this thought process. It’ll make you think of your food as not just something that magically appeared at the grocery store or restaurant and as the final product of a long process. Given the amount of crap that I eat, I think that’s a good thing.