THE OMNIVORE’S DILEMMA MISREPRESENTS SCIENCE AND ECONOMY
Introduction
Scientists and economists spend few hours in their beds always thinking of how to feed and ensure safety for the ever increasing world’s population. In his argument however, Michael Pollan is selective of the articles and facts he refers to regarding the way food is preserved, transported, hunted, planted, prepared and consumed. In essence, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals presents a view that the present food is not only unhealthy but also carries unethical and immoral philosophies. However, if we were to consider the food issue by referring to the scientific work done and the economic concepts applied, then Pollan should redesign his argument.
Michael’s argument in The Omnivore’s Dilemma fails in appreciating that good science isn’t bad for our diet and that with the current economy, the dinner table will be difficult to control. This article thus criticizes his work from a scientific and economic side to demonstrate that there are many facts that the writer left out. Pollan has opened the readers’ eyes to facts that we have an ill modern food system. He has applied his writing ability to transform agricultural policy matters to match moral philosophy which has resulted to an excitement sprouting from his book. On economical aspects, the demand for food has risen, there are inadequate resources; the ethical thing to do therefore is to increase supply to save humanity. Traditional methods of attaining food such as a home garden and hunting are not in a position to rescue the population. The thing left is to ensure families have something on their dinner table; the end justifies the means.
Incorrect facts about science
Pollan has been selective on scientific sources and readings. He has associated the issues of poor health in modern society and environmental concerns to the scientific methods applied. Michael holds the view that developments in agricultural science have done more harm than good to the nation. He claims that plants require nitrogen, potassium and nitrogen to grow. Today, scientists have redesigned this and controlled the amount plants absorb for growth. He pushes for the point that we need to pay attention to what compost and humus contain that is good for our health. He adds in his work that when it comes to nutrition, there is need for overconfidence and reductionism; foods need to be reduced to the basic constituent nutrients.
It is critical no understand that what scientists mean when they embark on scientific methods. It implies that, they start by gathering and organize knowledge. They then progress to applying systems that seek to get the truth from their knowledge and eventually engage in trial and error processes. While they do all this, they are under supervision by human rights groups and other government agencies. Therefore, when then decide to reduce the amount of nitrogen a plant absorbs as it grows, they have analyzed the suitable content that the human body requires. The nutritionists are there as well to guide the population of the quantity and quality of food appropriate for individuals. Pollan ought to have given the scientists some credit for they are cautious in food production and advice on what is healthy and what is not. It is through science that planes fly at a high speed and land on the ground safely. The Omnivore’s Dilemma then should include more scientists who talk of the argument put across so that the million readers can access the both sides of the coin.
Economic Perspective
Pollan puts a point across that food is currently cheaper, more plentiful than it used to be but our environment, health and animals have been on the suffering end. This is true until he complicates the matter by responding to the issue on what a responsible person should eat. He is of the view that benefits and costs of a meal should be transparent. He contradicts himself when he narrates of how he gathers mushrooms by himself, hunts and then cooks a wild boar. What if everyone in this nation decided to hunt? In the end, we would eat even the kangaroos. This self-financing meal is not applicable in the current generation. The macro perspective of an economist has been neglected.
Pollan further argues against free trade in agriculture. He is afraid of bankruptcy in family farms and destabilization of the market. New Zealand operates under free trade and the family farms have flourished admirably. Pollan’s work failed at considering the future of the nation in relation to what they will place on the table.
Conclusion
The Omnivore’s Dilemma demonstrates that Pollan contains sophisticated arguments and knowledgeable facts. However, he faces fuzzy nostalgia on considering the preindustrial past. If the scientists and economists paid less attention to some actions that Pollan talks against, the nation would be in a big mess. He may be complaining of obese citizens but if the scientists and economist relax on their mandate, then tomorrow will have to face hunger and malnutrition.
References
Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore's dilemma: a natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin Press.
