Down With the Sickness

Christopher Olsen and Mike Davis's articles, "The Triangle of Doom" and "the swine flu crisis lays bare the meat industry's monstrous power" respectively, reflect on the causes of disease among animals, such as H1N1. These diseases among animals, in turn, affect the health of the human beings who eat their meat. The issue is that the state in which the animals are kept before they are slaughtered provides a very disease friendly environment. Pigs and chickens are packed together in tigh spaces, so once one becomes ill, the rest become ill, creating a "continual cycle of viruses". So one may ask, why are the animals living in these conditions? lets take it easy here and give them so space. Down With the Sickness!!..right??...Well no. The meat industry can't "take it easy" because the demand for meat and animal products is driving the sytem of mass production in the system today, which in turn requires living environments that promote the growth of sickness. It is a terrible situation to say the least, and somehow we must find a way to solve this dilemma. Would it not make sense that the government makes regulations requiring meat industries to allow a certain amount of space per animal in their industrialized farms? this would only affect large corporations i think because small farmers dont seem to have the issue of the mass spread of disease.

It's All In Our Heads!

Diana Stuart's paper, "The illusion of control: industrialized agriculture, nature, and food safety," puts forth the idea that the industrialization of agriculture in the United States is a pivotal reason for food borne diseases today. The arguement makes sense as she goes on to say that the focus of these huge manufacturing industries is solely mass production for maximum output and maximum profit. As they syphine their focus into one aspect of the business, they lose control over the healthy aspect of their trade. Little care is taken to ensure that foods are clean and healthy, and thus there has been break outs of E. Coli in beef, peanut butter, and also leafy greens. This usually is caused by animal feces that have somehow contaminated the food when they are nearby in the packaging plants. Stuart states her belief that there is no possible way to retain control of food and continue at the level of production that industries are today. She also interestingly notes the "boomerang effect" which she describes as nature evading attempted manipulation but technology can lead to greater problems than it was originally designed to solve. This is releavant to our food system because no matter what is developed to protect our food, the disease mutates to become accustomed to its new environment. Especially in the food industries today which are so vulnerable to diseases.
Stuart ends by saying that the consumer has the mind set that theyhave control over their food because we think trust that the manufacturers are ensuring that the food that they sell is wholesome and healthy. Yet, the reality is the other way around, the industries are in control of the food, because the bond of trust between the consumer and the producer is not really there. The producers are looking to maximize profit.

so if what Staurt says is true, and there can be no control over food while maintaining this enormous production rate, then where do we go from here? how is this problem to be fixed so that both consumers and producers are happy? or is that possible and must there be a compromise of some sort?
Secondly, how seriously would the requirement of more regulations on food testing hinder small or local producers? and would it be worth it in the end?

Ethics on Eating Animals 101

Michael Pollan's seventeenth chaper in "Omnivore's Dilemma" titled, "The Ethics of Eating Animals," sheds some light on the morality of the soncumption of meat in a society like our own, where animals are slaughtered daily. Pollan makes the first point (made before in the book) that people would not eat meat if they had originally known where it came from and how it was obtained. That would explain why the way meat is packaged usually does not in any way resemble the animal from which it was taken, and thus those who buy it dont care to think about its origin. Pollan later quotes the famous Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, who relates animal exploitation to slavery and oppression of women. Singer and Pollan both believe that the main issue when it comes to animal's rights is their ability to feel suffering and pleasure. Since the animals that are slaughtered tend to spend the majority of their lives in suffering, he concluded that the raising and slaughtering of animals for meat was unethical, and thus he became a vegetarian. Yet, he later goes on to point out that the problem is not solved just by avoiding meat altogether, and that there is a necessary level of maintainence for certain species so as to avoid issues with overpopulation.
Personally i agree whole-heartedly with Pollan here. I think for example that it is absolutely terrible the way that baby calves are kept in small containers so that they cant even turn around, solely for the purpose of eating their tender meat when they are slaughtered. This makes me extremely sad. On the other hand, i think that the way the slaughterhouses handle their cattle is humane enough...the cattle are allowed to live and graze for a good amount of their life, and the way that they are killed is by no means a painful process. (Pollan even notes at the end of this chapter that after visiting a slaughterhouse he decided that animal killing is ok as long as it is humane). So my question is, where and when do we draw the line on what we consider humane treatment of animals?

Are you rich enough to eat your wealth?

In class the other day we were talking about Organic foods and an interesting discussion about what kinds of chemicals were put in foods came about. After this discussion i went to look up some more information about the topic because i was not fully aware of teh exact names or number of chemicals that were used in foods that could harm the human body.

You wont believe what i found during my search. Check it out.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/01/16/why-the-rich-like-to-eat-gold/tab/article/

"The Pleasures of Eating" by Wendell Berry

What are the pleasures of eating? Is it good tasting food? food that fills you up? or maybe sitting down with family at dinner time? Although all of these may be potential answers to the question, Wendell Berry has a different point of view. In his article "The Pleasures of Eating", Berry addresses the issue of "eaters" in this country being consumers rather than "participants in agriculture." He spends the first half of his paper describing how this is an issue because the majority of people dont realize (or even care to realize) where the food that is on their plate came from, how it was made, or what is in it. Most people get their knowledge of food based on the advertisements of the food industry, "where the food where's as much make up as actors." Berry is telling us that this is not a legitamate, or even safe, way to gain information about our food. He then offers 7 things that we as "participants in agriculture" can do to make ourselves realize that eating is "inescapably an agricultural act that determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used."
1. Participate in food production as best you can (garden or farm the food that you can)
2. Prepare your own food (Revive in your mind the art of cooking and give yourself quality control when it comes to your food)
3. Learn the origins of the food you buy (buy food that is closest to you for the freshest meals)
4. Deal directly with a farmer or gardener when possible)
5. Learn about additives that the food industry may use in their products (for your own safety and well being)
6. Learn how to best farm and garden to be most efficient
and 7. Learn about the life histories of the food species.

"The pleasure of eating should be an extensive pleasure, not that of the mere gourmet. People who know the garden in which their vegetables have grown and know that the garden is healthy and remember the beauty of the growing plants, perhaps in the dewy first light of morning when gardens are at their best. Such a memory involves itself with the food and is one of the pleasures of eating." (perfectly sums up the article)

Omnivore's Dilemna Chapter 9: "Big Organic"

Michael Pollan's ninth chapter in the book focuses mainly on, as the title would suggest, the popularity of organic foods in our society and how they are becoming "big" in industry. Pollan makes the realization that the labels on most dairy and organic products cannot possibly have flawless truth to them. he essentially decides that what isnt necessarily true, is typed on the label in order to give him the inspiration to imagine where he wants his food to come from, which makes him more compelled to purchase that product. However, reading a label with fancy words is, as Pollan says, "an imperfect substitute for direct observation of how a food is produced."

It becomes impossible we realize for an industry such as whole foods to maintain the simple and agricultural foundation on which it was built while industrializing the industry which makes it possible to mass produce their organic products (or really any of their products for that matter). This issue is supplemented by the high demand for fresh, healthy, came-from-a-good-place food at low prices. There is no way that everyone is happy here, because it is impossible to accomplish all of these goals within one industry.

Reading this chapter made me wonder, if people were really adamant about feeling good about where their food was coming from then would they be willing to pay even more for it? because it seems as i said before that there must be some sort of compormise when it comes to this issue.

Omnivore's Dilemna Chapter 8: "All Flesh is Grass"

In chapter 8 of the book, Omnivore's Dilemna written by Michael Pollan, the author gets the oppurtunity to pay a visit to Polyface Farms. He describes the unique way that the farm is run, which exploits the cirlce of life, if you will; most notably refering to the relationship between the grass and the animals.

Polyface farms raises about half a dozen different animals to establish this natural circle of life, which makes living much more efficient and easier for the animals and human beings as well. Pollan specifically talks about certain aspects of this style of farming. Polyface will have graze on the grass all day which in turn supplies beef for the human population. When the cattle are done grazing for the day, the chickens are let out to to peck at the nicks and crannies in between the grasses, eliminating any grubs, mosses, weeds, fly larvae, parasites, and also spreading manure. The chickens' fecal matter in turn supplies the fields with large quantities of nitrogen and also produce eggs. After the end of the season, Polyface farms unique life cycle will have created quite a multitude of beef, pork, eggs, turkeys, rabbits, etc.

After reading this chapter in the book, I began to think that this multi-species animal farming is probably a good way to go about running an efficient farm. So i was wondering why exactly it is not as prevalent as it deserves to be in our agricultural system?

"Meat and Potatoes": Where the Beef has Been.

This article, by E. Schlosser, sketches in our minds an idea of what exactly occurs in the high plains where cattle are kept and raised and in the slaughterhouses where they are killed for their meat, packaged, and shipped away. he begins his article with a quite thorough overview of the history of the meat packing industry and its development since the early to mid 1900's. he establishes that the competition was high and the business was very cutthroat, which took its toll on union members and eventually consumers. He recalls interviews with several employees at a slaughterhouse, describing the low pay and poor conditions that they suffer everyday. He then twists the focus slightly and goes into intense detail on the actual slaughterhouses themselves. He gives accounts from his time spent visiting a slaughterhouse and mentions the heinous conditions that he encounters (pools of blood ankles deep, the dangerous machinery, and the disgusting nature of the killing of cattle). He finishes the article by addressing issues with the cleanliness of the meat that is being packaged.

After reading this article i was left with one question that really stood out to me... Schlosser is addressing all of these issues about meatpacking and slaughterhouses in general, but which one seems to be most important to him? or even the general public? It seems like he is trying to attack too much at once with this article (could you even say he has a little too much on his plate?) And if there is one that is more important, is it possible to go about finding a solution for that specific issue without addressing all of the issues mentioned in the article?