More handpicked essays just for you.
The omnivore's dilemma summary
Conclusion of climate change and livestock
Book review on the omnivore's dilemma
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Michael Pollan’s purpose of writing Omnivore’s Dilemma came about when he realizes that society is unbelievably unhealthy due to the abundance of food. The two conflicting logics that Pollan introduces are the logic of nature and the logic of industry; these two logics are reflected through various ways of raising livestock animals. The logic of nature consists of raising livestock animals in a pastoral environment where animals interact with one another and avoid the use of artificial chemicals; whereas, the logic of industry settles on raising livestock animals unnaturally. Growing cattle through the use of corn has allowed meat to be produced in large quantities and in a short time as described in the chapter “Feedlot: Making Meat” Speed, in a word, or, in the industry’s preferred term, “efficiency.” Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and for a half a century now the industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef animal’s allotted span on earth… what gets a steer from 80 to 1,100 pounds in fourteen months is tremendous quantities of corn, protein and fat supplements, and an arsenal of new drugs. (71) Although feeding corn to cattle speeds up the process until they reach slaughter time, evidence shows that feeding corn to cattle that are genetically wired to eat grass produces unhealthy beef which then plays a role in healthy people, minimizing the longevity in Americans. Furthermore, the logic of nature relies on complex mutual relationship where each animal contributes to the sustainability of their environment in a cyclic manner as stated in the chapter “All Flesh is Grass”: Birds follow and clean up after herbivores. And so during their turn in the p... ... middle of paper ... ...the extra use of arsenal drugs due since these cattle are unable to process corn. Raising cattle evidently conflicts with the logic of nature because these cattle are equipped with a very highly complex system that has evolved to transform the nutrients of the plants from photosynthesis to transferring these nutrients to the meat that Americans eat. Growing livestock animals on grass act in mutual relationship because each organism has its own natural way of contributing to the food chain, essentially bettering the health of their own cyclic complex system but also the health of the consumers. Nonetheless, the organic method is far too time and money consuming that farmers are now using a cheap commodity that is used in almost everything, Americans are in fact “walking corn.” Works Cited Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma. New York: The Penguin Group. 2006
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
Lundberg describes how the demand for animal protein was incredibly higher than the production. She quoted Marlow’s article stating, “A nonvegetarian diet requires 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticide than does a vegetarian diet and the greatest difference comes from beef consumption” (Lundberg 483). She then questions: "Do we really want to wait until it’s too late to change our way of eating?” (Lundberg 485). These two points will make readers subconsciously pause to answer this question themselves, put themselves in the situation imagining the products used and having an immediate reaction to it.
During this chapter of The Omnivore’s Dilemma Pollan talks about fast food. This means that he is speaking to people who regularly eat fast food and those who are wondering what is in their food when they order out. As a part of this he asks biologist Todd Dawson to run fast food items through a spectrometer to see how much corn is in the food. His analyses concluded that “soda (100 percent corn), milk shake (78 percent), salad dressing (65 percent), chicken nuggets (56 percent), cheeseburger (52 percent), and French fries (23 percent)” (p. 117). This is part of Pollan educating his audience of what is in their food when they go through the drive through. Speaking of his audience, his main demographic is to the people that are truly wonder
The Omnivore’s Dilemma In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan challenges his readers to examine their food and question themselves about the things they consume. Have we ever considered where our food comes from or stopped to think about the process that goes into the food that we purchase to eat every day? Do we know whether our meat and vegetables picked out were raised in our local farms or transported from another country? Michael pollen addresses the reality of what really goes beyond the food we intake and how our lives are affected.
In today's society, organic food is a giant new thing in which food is produced without any chemicals. In other words, the product must be 100 percent natural. A major food source of the American people is meat, and the way that it is produced today is a major issue. In feedlots, where cattle are fed grain to grow before being slaughtered, the conditions are terrible and horrifying. Cattle are confined to a limited amount of space and not allowed to roam freely. Also in these cattle growing yards, the risk of disease is much higher in these animals than out on the open range grazing on the grass. Beef critics say that there are no cattle breeds that posses the amounts of marbling present to make a good steak. It is a true statement to say that these critics are very indeed wrong. Also, Many people also do not know that that the meat from cattle that are fed grain, is high in fat content and has too much marbling. Grass-fed beef is much leaner than grain-fed beef, has less fats, and is produced all naturally. Therefore, grass-fed beef is much healthier and safer to eat than grain-fed beef.
In the first third of the book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, he draws the reader in by bringing to light many interesting facts about corn that most individuals may not realize. He states that the majority of food that people consume contains corn. Although people of Mexican descent are usually referred to as the “corn people”, Americans have now surpassed them in the amount of corn consumed in their daily diet. Corn is consumed in a variety of forms and many of the animals that are eaten by Americans, such as the chicken, pig, turkey, and lamb are fed corn. When a person eats these animals, he or she is essentially increasing their corn intake, and in most cases without even realizing it. The corn crop has spread vastly and is massively produced because it is efficient. Unlike other crop plants, corn can survive in harsh weather conditions and it is light and easy to transport. Maize is also self-fertilized and pollinated by wind, and it has evolved over time and continues to evolve, into new forms and new uses.
A growing issue in the world today is the use of antibiotics and growth hormones in the animal production industry. However, for over sixty years, Americans have been exposed to hormones on a regular basis when they consume beef. Organic Consumer Association: On average, eighty percent of all feedlot cattle are given hormones to help them grow at an increased rate. (Communication Foundation) “In 1988 the European Union banned the use of all hormone growth promoters.” (Organic Consumer Association)
The next time you go to sit down and enjoy a nice juicy steak, take a moment to think about how that piece of meat came from a cow and became your rib eye steak. Many people in our nation have no idea where their food comes from, what exactly is in the food they consume, and the effects it has on their health and the health of our environment. This is largely due to the industrialized, factory farming way of producing our meat and poultry. It has left our bodies sickened and our earth battered but with an elimination of animal products and an addition of a more plant based diet we can begin to restore …..
...oss’ paper. Therefore, this objection is not sound because the number of naïve people are rapidly dwindling. The second objection stated that one person has no effect on the factory farming industry, so giving up meat is pointless because the industry is too large to feel the effects of someone converting to vegetarianism. I refuted this objection by saying that, yes, one person alone will not make a difference, but when more and more people become vegetarians, the industry will be forced to respond by producing less animals, therefore, preventing more animal suffering. Although these two objections were strong and valid, I believe I was able to successfully defend Norcross’ argument that factory farming is wrong and cruel.
“An Animals’ Place” by Michael Pollan is an article that describes our relationship and interactions with animals. The article suggests that the world should switch to a vegetarian diet, due to the mistreatment of animals. The essay includes references from animal rights activists and philosophers. These references are usually logical statement that compare humans and non-human animals in multiple levels, such as intellectual and social.
In the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan talks about 4 different models that we consume, purchase, and add it to our daily lives. Michael Pollan travels to different locations around the United States, where he mentions his models which are fast food, industrial organic, beyond organic, and hunting. I believe that the 3 important models that we need to feed the population are fast food, industrial organic, and beyond organic. Fast food is one of the most important models in this society because people nowadays, eat fast food everyday and it is hurting us in the long run. We need to stick to beyond organic or industrial organic food because it is good for our well being. Ever since the government and corporations took over on what we eat, we have lost our culture. In the introduction of the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan states that we have lost our culture:
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
grain market increasingly merged and gained stronger lobbying powers, the government began to encourage corn feeding of cattle. When the US department of Agriculture first made its meat grading system it designated “choice” meat as that which was marbled, meaning it had more intramuscular fat, which corn fed beef had much higher levels of than grass fed beef. This marbling creates the taste that consumers are used to in “high quality” meat today, however as Winson mentions “such “taste” was conditioned by the economic interests of corn-producers and persistent pressures to dispose of grain surpluses” (Winson, pg 140). Corn and other grain fed cattle are able to reach slaughter weight in just sixteen months, whereas grass fed cattle can take
In order to feed the growing population of the world, nontraditional farming and ranching techniques have been used to increase food production. For example, animal mass harvesting systems and feed lots used for chickens and cows allow for faster growing and harvesting of the animal. But are these practices moral? In Paul Taylor’s “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, he illustrates how this treatment of animals is immoral, because of his biocentric view. Bonnie Steinbock would disagree with Taylor due to her speciesic view, illustrated in her article “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”, that places human needs over animal needs in this case.