To be honest, I did not enjoy reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, for it was extremely dry in the way it presented fact after fact. There came a point in reading this text in where I had to force myself to go back to paragraphs over and over again because the only things my brain was catching were the words corn, nitrogen, and government. Admittedly, The Omnivore’s Dilemma— in my opinion— was a mind-numbing read that could be condensed to half its size. Despite my critical perspective, however, all texts offer something insightful, and so I pushed through to discover the the pressing issues associated with the question "What should we eat?":

            As Americans, we become so obsessed with being health conscious that we lose all ability to make sophisticated choices about nutrition. Certainly, a small percentage pretends to analyze labels and tries to avoid fast food, yet we do not avoid the “American Paradox—that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily” (3). Pollan continues this line of thinking by discussing three aids in making food choices: memory, taste buds, and culture (4), as well as “three principle food chains: the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer” (7). He points out the growing concern for the government’s and technologies’ push to alter the natural process of making food by creating monocultures, adding chemicals, and replacing the sun. All of this, nevertheless, was simply background knowledge serving as the introduction for the beef of Pollan’s argument that corn can either serve as a friend or a foe to farmers. He illustrates this assertion through the testimonies of a farmer in Iowa named George Naylor, who prefers nature over technology, yet who is not blind to pressures other farmers faced when giving into government demands. Certainly, farmers are in need of a “higher yield” (37) in order to earn a high enough profit to support a family and the costs it takes to keep a farm running. So what happened to other crops? Well, with the invention of the tractor, and the overabundance of corn that can be grown over and over again, there grew a lack of necessity for rotating crops and animals at the farm level. Having said this, corn is also a much easier crop to produce in that it only requires “riding tractors and spraying” with the possibility  of “spending the winter in Florida” (40), which is a stark contrast to the typical mindset that views faming as hard labor. Another point Pollan made was the shift from a dependence on the sun to a dependence on fossil fuels. This eventually led to a decrease in diversity on farms as well since things no longer required cultivation but cost. In the later pages of this article, Pollan switches his attention to two influential men in the production of corn- Fritz Haber and Earl “Rusty” Butz. The first mentioned realized the necessity of combining nitrogen and hydrogen atoms to yield life, and it is with this realization that he won a Nobel Prize for the synthesis of ammonia. The second mentioned was a secretary of agriculture who altered the New Deal that was in effect to a more promising deal of direct pay to farmers (52). Despite the potential that was seen at the beginning of this shift, there was a major pitfall in this plan where farmers were stuck with the pay cut.  Finally, The Omnivore’s Dilemma comes full circle with the recurrence of George Naylor’s story in which he presents the Naylor Curve and a prime example of “’Thoreau’s line: Men have become the tools of their tools”’ (56).

            Eric Schlosser’s introduction to his book, Fast Food Nation, is an eye-opening, easy read. I personally appreciated his didactic tone and use of familiar metaphors. In reading the eight-page introduction, I found myself figuratively fumbling the ball, or more literally losing my hold on the knowledge I once considered true in light of new evidence. While the fast food industry makes a ridiculously high profit, provides an immense amount of new jobs, and offers “uniformity” (4) on nearly every corner of the nation, it also has led to the demise of home cooked meals, the extinction of family farms, as well as safe and fair working conditions. Admittedly, the number one fast food chain, McDonalds, has overcome many challenges and should pride itself on its advertising abilities; however, the company should consider the contradiction between claiming that they are “inexpensive and convienent” (8), when in reality they create a reckless receipt and compromising challenges for farmers, workers, and consumers. The following are key excerpt of the Schlosser’s article where the facts were so convincing that I was forced to write “WHAT?!?!” in the margin as I contemplated the fast food industry’s impact on society in comparison to other large-scale issues such as religion, economy, and voice:

• “The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross” (4).
  
  “The United States now has more prison inmates than full-time famers” (8).
  
  “The federal government has the legal authority to recall a defective toaster oven or stuffed animal – but still lacks the power to recall tons of contaminated, potentially lethal meat” (8).
  

If the previously mentioned quotes from Fast Food Nation’s introduction do not spark a need for change, then Schlosser simply proved an unfortunate fact that fast food has become “so commonplace…[it is now] a fact of modern life” (6).

            Stephen Schneider’s article, Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of the Slow Food Movement, is dynamic and discerning. He provides a strong foundation and framework with which to explore the Slow Food Movement, and he is not afraid to showcase contradictions and criticisms. My understanding of Schenider’s assertions including the origin, mindset, concerns, goals, and criticism are as follows:

            The Slow Food Movement was started by Carlo Petrini in the 1970s and traces back to Bra, Italy due to its ideal location. The motivation behind this movement is based in educating and shifting the mindset of the public to reflect a stronger connection between consumers and producers. Carlo Petrini urges people to consider “food [as the] primary defining factor of human identity” (388). He argues this claim based upon food’s ties to economic, political, and social acts. Specifically, Petrini admires Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin for the angle she takes on gastronomy, for she considered a complete study of food to include things beyond nutrition like “agriculture, cooking, and tasting” (391). Having said this, the Slow Food Movement is not against science so long as it complements tradition; likewise, this movement does not stand in opposition to globalization, for it finds globalization necessary to the extent that it promotes relationships between the varied partners in food production and consumption. It is important, however, to continue the discussion of the Slow Food Movement to include its main concerns and goals. As a result of food being tainted with alterations for efficiency, “the small landowner gives way to the factory farm, which churns out food that is fast, cheap, abundant, and standardized” (394). Clearly, the word fast is a stark contradiction to the objective of the Slow Food Movement. Carl Honore offers a clear distinction between fast and slow:

Fast is busy, controlling, aggressive, hurried, analytical, stressed, superficial, impatient, active, quantity-over-quality. Slow is the opposite: calm, careful, receptive, still, intuitive, unhurried, patient, reflective, quality-over-quantity. It is about making real and meaningful connections—with people, culture, work, food, everything (395).

Admittedly, the food production industry, alongside many consumers, prefers to follow Bill Gates’ “desire to do business at the speed of thought” (393). This is detrimental to the idea of changing the perspective on food as well as goes against the core values of the Slow Food Movement. For one, this movement begs both producers and consumers to consider three principles when describing the quality of food- flavor, environment, and farmers (390). Pursuing this further, Petrini strives to use his movement to promote small-scale farmers and regionally grown food. All things considered, the Slow Food Movement has not escaped criticism. Critics claim that there is a lack of structure, an inability to see the big picture, and an ignorance toward realistic thinking; yet the Slow Food Movement continues to push forward, educating and advocating for the death of the disconnect and fast-paced food production.

This is a combined effort of Lindsey Clay and Abigail Parks

What is the discrepancy between the appearance and the reality of the health associated with Vitamin Water?

1. What is the public’s perception of Vitamin Water’s nutrition?

2. What is Coca-Cola’s claim on Vitamin Water’s nutrition?

3. Why is it called Vitamin Water?

4. What is the nutrition facts compared to other drinks?

5. Is there potential to do a blind taste test between Vitamin Water and a nutritionally sound drink? We could possibly ask participants to determine which drink tastes better as well as which drink they think is healthier without depending on labels.

6. What is the message that Vitamin Water’s advertisements are sending?

7. Who is to blame for being misinformed? Is it Coca-Cola’s lack of integrity or the public’s growing ignorance?

8. What are the implications of the public knowing the truth?

9. Once the public is informed, what is their attitude toward Vitamin Water and Coca-Cola?

10. Do we value the appearance or reality more? (“looks driven society”)

            Wendell Berry’s article, The Pleasure of Eating, is a painfully honest and accusatory article, yet Berry has every right to make his argument because while he targets the ignorant he provides a solution. His Berry’s claim rests upon the fact that the public, who can be seen as either “passive” (1) or “victim[s]” (1), lacks the desire to connect their role in the production of their food. Berry uses this article to express his concern for the g rowing disconnect between the farm and the supermarket. He continues to imply that food producers would eat the food for the consumer if they could make money off of it (1), for they are already disguising the food through means that are better for income than integrity. Furthermore, Berry explores shifts the public can make in order influence the food market and protect their health. He suggests such things as growing one’s own food, cooking at home, supporting local farmers, and educating oneself. Above all, however, Wendell Berry was more concerned with promoting “pleasure, that is, that does not depend on ignorance” (3) than pointing the finger at the food industry or the public.