HW 17- First Thoughts on Illness/Dying Unit

The subject of illness and dying is something that I unfortunately know very well. The way I was taught about illness and dying was very simple: we as humans have limited time on Earth and when our time is up, we die and disappear forever. Of course I was never told about the world of nightmarish suffering that is involved in one's death, and the fact that this time may come as soon as tomorrow, but unfortunately I found out the reality by what others may call the "hard way".

When my father was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, I was still 13, and in positively no way did I understand the gravity of the situation. He apparently had it for as long as my life (at least), going undetected until he finally gave in to my mother's demands that he go in for a check-up. This brings up my first issue with the medical system: the doctors are so detached that they sometimes carelessly misdiagnose. My father, who was clearly ill and NOT doing well by any means was examined and sent home with high-blood pressure pills. Go figure.

Over the next nine months I never really felt like he was going to die. I knew it was possible somewhere in the back of my mind but I never came to terms with the idea that this could happen to MY father, a man who was well-liked by everyone and good-spirited. In fact, I will never be sure if he ever thought to himself that the so called "game was up" and that he was truly on the path to death. He had just begun a new art collection titled "Something Wonderful is Going to Happen" as if he were sure that the prophecy would hold water.

When I returned from a week at The Island School in Eleuthera, Bahamas, my mother was clearly troubled. I returned home to find my father in his worst state yet. When I had left for the Bahamas, he had been showing alarming signs of recovery, as if the battle were said and done and he had emerged the victor. Later I learned this was simply his "honeymoon with death", a term doctors use to describe a short grace period before one falls into a state of non-recovery. We had all been tricked. This was crushing in every sense of the word. For a moment something wonderful WAS going to happen, but it was just another deception- it was as if death were saying, "Haha! Good one right! You really thought you had a chance! There is no happy ending here."

In his final week of life I witnessed true suffering. My mother refused to allow him to fade away in a hospital because it felt cold and detached from what was important in his life: his art. I wondered how movies can so shamelessly portray illness in its final stages. Nothing is peaceful or attractive in this image. There is no sense of nobility, no sense of closure. People often think of advanced illness as pale skin, withered limbs and weak voice. This could not be any more false. What I witnessed in those final days was horrifying on levels I cannot even do justice to by simply typing words. In this end stage he could no longer speak, let alone eat or drink water. He was left tongue wagging, short spastic movements, falling in and out of consciousness and occasionally muttering indiscernible sounds. Part of me died that week. To watch him fight bravely for 9 months and then see him completely shattered and undone in such a short time was numbing. Nothing is majestic about illness. Having witnessed this however (my mom and I were the only ones who saw/cared for him in this end stage, absolutely no outsiders or other family) I believe it has had a huge influence on my point of view, and I often feel misunderstood by those who know me, but do not know about this moment of anguish I have gone through. I only hope that this unit can shed somewhat of a light toward those who have (thankfully) not gone through the same experience on what true illness and dying looks like.

And I realize that I probably wrote much more than I was supposed to on one subject, but please understand that this was not easy for me.

HW11- Final Food Project 1: Trick or Treat!

For my experiential project I conducted a food experiment on five 6th graders involving jelly beans. The experiment was a simulation of foraging for food in the wild, where one must use their senses of neophilia and neophobia to determine what is good and safe to eat. The setup involved a group of 5 Bean Boozled Jelly Belly jelly beans, the "source of food" the wild had to offer. I told each subject that they had 3 minutes to eat 3 of these jelly beans or else they were to starve to death. I also told them to describe to me what they thought each jelly bean tasted like as and after they were eating it. I let their honest reactions do the rest!

What I did NOT tell them was that the jelly beans would not necessarily be tasty, and even some of them could be downright offensive to their taste buds. Bean Boozled jelly beans have 10 flavors that could be considered among the best of the Jelly Belly line (which is what convinced them to participate in the first place), but there are also 10 different flavors, each one corresponding with a "good" flavor, that are downright nasty, varying from rotten egg to moldy cheese. So why is this so difficult? As seen in Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma", distinguishing safe and good foods in the wild from the harmful ones is a supremely difficult task. The catch with Bean Boozled is that there is absolutely no way one can distinguish the flavor of a jelly bean before actually ingesting it- they look completely identical. For the 5 jelly beans for each test, I always arranged it so there was one innocent, non-offensive looking jelly bean on one end (something with a color of light blue or creamy white), and two pairs of easily recognizable "good" Jelly Belly flavors. I myself did not know which ones were good or bad, who would get lucky or unlucky, so I sat back and watched nature determine their fates.

As each of the test subjects began their 3 minutes for survival I payed careful attention at what jelly bean they chose first, how they considered their options for the second jelly bean, how they tried to use their senses to determine what was safe, and how long it took for them to make decisions. I would be observing neophobia as they deliberated which food to pick next, and how hesitant they were to actually consume it. In addition, neophilia would occur when they decided to pick a completely different meal from the last, and especially with non-hesitance. At the end I would ask them to rate each meal they had from 1-10.

The first thing that became clear to me was that nobody would starve to death. Each of the 5 test subjects jumped into their hunt immediately, not even taking a second to consider their options. 4 out of 5 times shock was sent into their system as they realized they picked a raw deal. After several twitches and some prolonged chewing, they finally made their decisive move to chew another. Their reluctance to choose another and their fumbling of the remaining beans made it clear that their neophobia was taking effect. The lucky kid (who got a delicious chocolate pudding) savored her first meal and comfortably chose her second, a meal of a different color. All 5 of the subjects chose different types of flavors for their second meal in the wild, yet only two of them showed real hesitation, supporting neophilia. To my surprise nobody tried to dissect any of their second meal to determine its taste, yet even those who examined their selection more carefully still found their senses failing them. All 5 subjects failed to select delectable flavors for their second jelly bean, proving that no matter how keen their judgement or senses were, they did not have the capacity or care to identify their meal before diving in. Was it the urgent need to get the foul taste of the last meal out of their mouths? Was the one lucky girl just oblivious to the existence of foul-tasting meals in the wild? Or were they simply fending for their lives, in order to not starve to death? After carefully examining the footage, I believe it was a combination of the three. The third meal was a fight for some, with a clear relief at the finish line that they had not starved to death.

If I were to re-do this experiment I would probably lower the "starve to death" time limit to something like 1 or 2 minutes, because although the subjects showed conviction for their survival, nobody came close to the established time limit. In addition, I felt it was a huge disadvantage not having any of the "barf" flavored beans in the pack I bought for this experiment. That would have totally changed the game! Other than that, I felt this experiment was very successful in what I wanted to map- the psychological highs and lows involved in foraging food in the wild.

In the end, I learned that although we may not always like the foods we can find, the will to survive is too strong for one to simply give up. In addition, the human's ability to judge a meal's value and taste by pure instinct is simply not discernible enough to differentiate the harmful and offensive from the good. I noticed patterns in behavior, such as sudden twitches, and inexplicable belching as a result of these harmful foods, resulting in neophobia, an involuntary hesitation and reluctancy when approaching future meals. And although everyone at one time will experience these meals, they will immediately aim for a meal more familiar and seemingly harmless (such as the light blue or white jelly bean) that they recognize as less of a risk. These ideas are important to us because all of the time we are searching for meals, and even though most of us do not live in the wild, we all participate in a constant game of neophilia and neophobia that keeps us constantly going for variety and familiarity- foods we can trust, and foods we can no longer trust, our sense for adventure and variety, our fear for disease and disgust. But the most important idea of all is that these two elements of the mind, constantly playing a game of back and forth are the two reasons why we do not starve to death. Even for those in the unfortunate situation of having no edible foods at their dispense, it is likely that these influential mental mechanisms will convince them to consume something. In the end (and conveniently in the theme of halloween), neophilia and neophobia will keep humans in an everlasting game of trick-or-treat.

HW 12 Final Food Project 2 Outline

Selected thesis for argument 1: Many of our culture’s dominant social practices can be further investigated to reveal several nightmarish atrocities, and although many strive to deny and change current “normal” techniques, the overlords of industry make it nearly impossible for any

one person to make a difference.

Major argument/claim for FOOD: The food industry, while it offers many choices and varieties of products one can choose to consume for any meal at any time, is really run by a handful of corporate powerhouses that have power over the consumer, the producer and the government.

Supporting Claim 1: Food overlords (corporations) own most of the industry.

Evidence 1: Major food companies owning many franchises which are often mistaken for different producers

Evidence 2: Major spending by the corporate giants (advertising, sponsorship)

Evidence 3: Sheer amount of fast food establishments

Supporting Claim 2: Food overlords are untouchable.

Evidence 1: Failed lawsuits against McDonald's

Evidence 2: Competition and small family businesses being crushed

Evidence 3: Mass government subsidies

Hyperlinks to (4 major) sources:

-http://verticalresonator.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/mcdonalds-spent-23-cents-on-advertising-for-every-human-on-planet-earth-in-2001-marketing/

-http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1552662-Super-Size-Me

-http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/times_24sep96.html

-http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html

HW 10- Food Inc. Response

Precis: The present day United States is ruled by the food overlords known as industrial corporations. Thanks to the government and subsidies, the food industry has become convoluted almost to a point where we can no longer turn back its negative effects on us, the economy and the environment. So why exactly do these few continue to dominate the food playing field even when we know its numerous horrific aspects? It's because as bad as our imagination can visualize the industrial food chain, we can never actually make first hand observations, and nobody knows better than the producers that people would cease to buy into their business if they saw the truth. In the end, the two things that can possibly create the most change is making the effort to eat healthier, and to change the government's agenda on food.

Because the book can only leave the reader with his imagination, the movie does a much better job at giving actual visual representation, providing the closest thing to first-hand observation we can get. And because one of the film's biggest agendas is to make it clear that if we were able to look into the slaughterhouses we would never support industry again, the use of hidden employee cameras is instrumental in getting that point across. In addition, the movie allows us to hear the tone of voice each author uses, making the connection between viewer and author a more intimate relationship than a book can offer. However, the book can fit a lot more content in 400 pages than a movie can in an hour and a half. This requires the filmmaker to select what in his opinion are the most important pieces of information, which is sort of like a precis.

One negative feeling that lingers in my mind after watching this movie is that I can't help but question the practicality of the suggestions that the movie gives immediately before the credits. Sure, those of us who care enough will make an individual effort to pursue these life changes, but I think most people will choose not to because they come to the conclusion that just one person or a small group cannot overthrow the empire that has been created by the government. I think what WOULD inspire people would be to make it clear that by following these suggestions, they would actually be joining a large group of people, even if they are not in their immediate proximity. So many of us are stubborn in that we like the way we have been living and don't want to give up things such as meat or McDonalds because they would be "missing out" on all of the comforts and convenience that come with industrial food while their friends and family continue to eat the way they do.

HW 7d- Omnivore's Dilemma part 4

Chapter 17: The Ethics of Eating Animals

Precis: As slaughterhouses and CAFO's continue to become more transparent to the general public, eating meat has become a centre for controversy. People are now questioning the ethics involved in such production of meat, which ultimately results in more vegetarians. A core reason for these converts is that we now have a better understanding of the animals' capacity for pain and suffering, but what these people do not consider is the inevitable necessity for the domestication and slaughter for animals. This mutual relationship has actually supported both cultures and although a "vegan utopia" is ideal to some, it is simply impractical. The best that corporations can do is increase transparency in their processing plants- to reassure and comfort consumers that the treatment of their dinner was quite humane during their short life.

Gems:

-"Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us pause to consider the life of the pig- an animal easily as intelligent as a dog- that becomes the Christmas ham."

-"Surely the suffering of a man able to comprehend the full implications of castration, to anticipate the event and contemplate its aftermath, represents an agony of a different order."

-"That fate is reserved for the American laying hen, who spends her brief span of days piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage the floor of which four pages of this book could carpet wall to wall."

-"This is another example of the cultural contradictions of capitalism- the tendency over time for the economic impulse to erode the moral underpinnings of society. Mercy toward the animals in our care is one such casualty."

Thoughts/insights:

-Although this chapter made a pretty strong case for giving up meat... I really don't see myself giving it up anytime soon, or anytime at all for that matter. Call me a speciesist, but I really must agree with the idea of it being a necessary evil. And a pleasurable one.

-Speaking of evils, I am wondering who or what represents the lead villain of this story. My lead suspect is capitalism as a whole, because it creates a dog-eat-dog environment where people who really shouldn't be cutting corners (such as the people in charge of what we ingest multiple times a day) do anyway for money. What good can money possibly be when you have Mad Cow?

Chapter 18: Hunting (The Meat)

Precis: Nothing could have possibly prepared me for my first outings as a beginner hunter. It took some tries and bouts of major concentration, but finally I managed to kill my first pig (or so I believe it was actually me who killed it). At first I felt like a champion, an overwhelming sense of pride that I had triumphed greatly, but as the food chain took its next steps- into the actual treatment and preparation, I felt horror and disgust of a higher degree than I ever had felt before. What at first felt like a great victory turned into a nightmare, and as I looked at myself posing with my "trophy" from the day's efforts I could not bring myself to accept that the hunter, with the glorious grin on his face could possibly be human, let alone me.

Gems:

-"...in many hunter-gatherer societies, the first portion of meat belongs not to the hunter who kills the animal but to the one to whom it first appeared. These pigs were mine."

-"Since the successful hunter often ends up with more meat than he or his family can eat before it spoils, it makes good sense for him to, in effect, bank the surplus in the bodies of other people, trading meat for obligations and future favors. Chimps will do the same thing."

-"I felt a wave of nausea begin to build in my gut. The clinical disinterest with which I had approached the whole process of cleaning my pig collapsed all at once: This was disgusting."

-"I felt as though I had stumbled on some stranger's pornography. I hurried my mouse to the corner of the image and clicked, closing it as quickly as I could. No one should ever see this."

-"Sun-soil-oak-pig-human: There it was, one of the food chains that have sustained life on earth for a million years made visible in a single frame, one uncluttered and most beautiful example of what is."

Thoughts/insights:

-Because of Mr. Pollan's mental reaction of horror and disgust toward the hunt, I have to wonder if the human has partially lost their primal stomach for such a simple food chain that has provided us with life for almost all of our existance.

-Adding on to that, what exactly has happened that turned us all into such wusses? Why be so freaked out about the killing and treating of one pig when there's a concentration camp doing that to thousands of pigs every day? Why aren't people so freaked out about the food they find on the supermarket shelves?

-Oh yeah, because they don't see it first hand.

-And what an accomplishment! The entire food chain of hunter can actually fit on a single photograph. Image a photograph that could sum up the industrial food chain! What's that? That's impossible? Pshaww!!

Chapter 19: Gathering (The Fungi)

Precis: Hunting and Gathering, two terms that are often paired together could not be more different from each other. Foraging for mushrooms in the wild, as I found out in my expeditions for chanterelle, has become an exclusive skill that for the most part leaves people on their own (for fear of telling others their "secret spot"). After many tries, I finally came to learn that in fact the proof is in the pudding and it takes a special mindset and motivation to successfully gather such fungi, let alone ones that are nontoxic to humans. Mushrooms, as mysterious as they are, happen to be one of the very few things left that are collected almost entirely in the wild for mainstream produce.

Gems:

-"Without fungi to break things down, the earth would long ago have suffocated beneath a blanket of organic matter created by plants; the dead would pile up without end, the carbon cycle would cease to function, and living things would run out of things to eat."

-""Mushroom frustration" is what you feel when everyone around you is seeing them and you're still blind- until, that is, you find your first, thereby breaking your "mushroom virginity.""

-"You can forage in the garden, in the way Adam and Eve presumably did, but there isn't much to it: no dilemmas, no hunting stories."

Thoughts/insights:

-Being someone who absolutely HATES mushrooms in my food, I can confidently say that this chapter did really make me want to give them another try (not)!

-I'm surprised at just how elitist people are when it comes to mushroom hunting. I'm pretty sure there are enough mushrooms around for everyone who wants to go hunting for them (a reasonably small amount of the earth's population).

-I really admire the idea that this kind of meal really gives something for nothing. But is it really nothing? What about the physical and mentally tasking activity it takes to harvest this much?

Chapter 20: The Perfect Meal

Precis: After hunting and gathering all of my various foods from the earth, it was finally time to compose a meal made entirely by me, entirely from ingredients I foraged as a celebration of the foods that nature provide us, omnivores with. It was more difficult than I ever could have anticipated, and I soon realized that such a meal is simply unrealistic as I was forced to cut corners on my own rules. What truly makes this the perfect meal above all others is not the taste, but the fact that the people who ate it had all collaborated in the orchestration of the meal in their own way, and everyone at the table could talk about where the meal came from and how the meal came to be from a first-person perspective. Impossible as it is to follow this food chain consistently for all of our meals, it truly sums up what we as human omnivores were meant to eat when mother nature placed us here, and it no doubt extinguishes the curse of the omnivore's dilemma.

Gems:

-"I suddenly felt perfectly okay about my pig- indeed, about the whole transaction between me and this animal that I'd killed two weeks earlier. Eating the pig, I understood, was the necessary closing act of that drama, and went some distance toward redeeming the whole play."

-"I went around the table and spoke of each person's contribution to my foraging education and to this meal that, though I had cooked most of it myself, was in the deepest sense of our collaboration."

-"The fact that just about all of those hands were at the table was the more rare and important thing, as was the fact that every single story about the food on that table could be told in the first person."

-"The meal was more ritual than realistic because it dwelled on such things, reminding us how very much nature offers to the omnivore, the forests as much as the fields, the oceans as much as the meadows. If I had to give this dinner a name, it would have to be the Omnivore's Thanksgiving."

Thoughts/insights:

-Enlightening. That's my one-word review for this book. Not only do I now know far more than I ever could have (or even should have), I can no longer look at food the same way, with the same comfort, or the same mindlessness that I have toward most things I take for granted. I thank you, Mr. Pollan, for enlightening me to the point where the Omnivore's Dilemma may no longer even be a problem!

-And on one comical note, I was laughing to death at his miserable attempts at gathering the abalone. What terribly funny conditions for hunting such a precious yet unusable (after a short amount of time) source of food.

HW 9- Freakonomics Response

This movie's got moves!

Perhaps the biggest "move" that the filmmakers of Freakonomics used was the technique of presenting data. Simply presenting statistics is helpful when one goes about making an argument, but the way the protagonists used humor and cartoon-like visuals made it particularly easy to get across. This way the viewer thinks, "well, if they can handle it with humor, it must be legitimate!"

Which brings me to the second greatest move they used, the use of skits. Reenacting real life situations and stories that helped better their arguments takes place of giving the viewers a first hand experience. If 'seeing is believing', then a viewer is sure to buy a premise that is faithfully recreated.

Finally, I believe the third strongest technique or "move" that the filmmakers used was the focus on specific subjects, such as the two students during the segment about getting paid for grades. This creates a more intimate experience between the viewer and the subject he is watching, because in this case the subject (for all intents and purposes) IS real! This will lead the viewer to believe one of two things: they wish they were getting paid for grades, or they are glad that they are not in their shoes.

Sources

It seemed to me that while many of the sources of information that the filmmakers of Freakonomics used were historical statistics accumulated over time, they for the most part (to me) leaned on the side of the "expert opinion and experience" sources such as life stories. The statistics certainly help (especially in "It's Not Always Such a Wonderful Life", where it was all about nuance), but I found my opinions to me molded toward what people were saying and the stories the filmmakers were telling. This was notably successful when one of the protagonists related to his daughter. This might just mean that I am gullible, but I just found the abstract more convincing than the hard numbers.

Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices.

Absolutely! This picture took what I thought I knew, and brought a dynamic to several subjects that we all passively think about but never look into. As they brought up each segment, such as the one about paying students, I found myself to already have an opinion. This wasn't because I had open discussion with my peers about it beforehand, but simply because of my world views and what I consider acceptable. Many people, especially when it comes to the segment on names, are quick to judge, but never quick to analyze, which Freakonomics did elegantly. In much of the same way, very few of us delve deep into studying the habits and foodways of the United States people, but when the subject is brought up, most of us have things to say. Nothing about foodways seems weird on the outside, just like naming a child or a drop in crime rate, but when we study why things are the way they are and just how they got to be most of us have that special moment where nothing makes sense. This is what the filmmakers strive for, and in my humble opinion, they succeeded!

HW 7c- Omnivore's Dilemma part 3

Chapter 11: The Animals (Practicing Complexity)

Precis: Joel Salatin is not a slave to his animals, he is merely an orchestrator who lets the job get done by the ones most capable of doing it- the actual animals. In the eyes of this rare breed of farmer the animals are not simply a machine for the produce they give, but caregivers and nurturers toward the health of the other animals, and in turn, themselves. So why doesn't every farmer strive for what Salatin has? Because it not only takes real physical and mental input, but it simply does not net the profit nor efficiency that most industrial farmers live for. It takes innovation, a true passion for the message and belief that Joel and his father established, and other farmers today are simply too lazy and greedy to give something so "unconventional" (by today's standards) a try.

Gems:

-"Unfolding here before us, I realized, was a most impressive form of alchemy: cowpatties in the process of being transformed into exceptionally tasty eggs."

-"With the industrialization of agriculture, the simplifying process reached its logical extreme- in monoculture."

-"The idea is to not slavishly imitate nature, but to model a natural ecosystem in all its diversity and interdependence, one where all the species "fully express their physiological distinctiveness.""

-"...in one long, beautiful, and utterly convincing proof that in a world where grass can eat sunlight and food animals can eat grass, there is indeed a free lunch."

Thoughts/insights:

- The bit about the pig's tails was very disturbing to me. Beating a pig who had his tail cut off and didn't even know a good life to death? Ouch.

-Being a city person, I get incredibly uncomfortable with the outdoors... I think Joel Salatin might actually convince me that the farm life can be quite comfortable!

-Also, I envy those locals who get his food... why can't we get such tasty eggs or produce in the city? Wait... it's the city...

-I really admire Joel's philosophy and innovation toward his passion. His inventions of the eggmobile and the Gobbledy-Go show a passion and love for his profession that very few other farmers out there possess.

Chapter 12: Slaughter (In a Glass Abattoir)

Precis: Whether he likes it or not, Joel Salatin still must have his animals slaughtered. However, instead of shipping them out to let someone else perform this necessary evil, he decides that he not only thinks slaughtering his own chickens extends his own world view, but is a political statement and a guarantee to his consumers that the full cycle of the chicken on their plate was on his very farm. I didn't much enjoy my turn at slaughtering chickens, but in the long run it is far better than letting a pulverizer do the job, where all of the chicken's insides (which are important to remove) are reengineered to be fed to future chickens. In fact, Joel sees the leftover blood and guts as a trophy of satisfaction, that on his very land he sustained the full cycle from birth to death and decay.

Gems:

-"Joel had once told me he regarded the willingness of neighbors to work for a business as the true mark of its sustainability, that it operated on the proper scale socially and economically, as well as environmentally."

-"In a way, the most morally troubling thing about killing chickens is that after a while it is no longer morally troubling."

-"More than any USDA rule or regulation, this transparency is their best assurance that the meat they're buying has been humanely and cleanly processed."

-"Beyond the stench in my nostrils, the pile offered an inescapable reminder of all that eating chicken involves- the killing, the bleeding, the evisceration."

Thoughts/insights:

- I was waiting for this chapter! It may sound kind of sick but I think I would be one of those people who arrive early to watch what the process looks like.

- The process of removing the insides reminded me of all of the dissections we've had to do in the past few years. Both were with pigs, and identifying and carefully removing each organ was a very interesting and enlightening operation.

- I completely agree with Joel on that being able to watch your food slaughtered should be a constitutional right (although I am not sure how many people would actually take advantage of it), this would encourage less cruelty and more efficiency under the public eye.

Chapter 13- The Market (Greetings from the Non-Barcode People)

Precis: The greatest difference today between the consumer who buys into the Total Economy and the "non-barcode" people (as Joel Salatin calls them) is effort. Because food comes so easily and is so widely available, people simply do not give as much thought or care into perhaps the most vital of human needs when compared to buying a new car or finding an architect. These "bar-code" people play into the industrial economy's hand because of their need for instant gratification, which means that they can buy a tomato, for a bargain price any time of the year. Others, such as Joel Salatin's customers (whether they are parents or local chefs) are willing to pay a premium price for quality because it saves them when it comes to the cost of oil, water pollution and disease that are all in correlation with the industrial food chain.

Gems:

-"Already the desire on the part of consumers to put something different into their bodies has created an $11 billion market in organic food. That marketplace was built by consumers and farmers working informally together outside the system, with exactly no help from the government."

-"Whether Polyface's customers spend their food dollars here in Swoope or in the Whole Foods in Charlottesville will have a large bearing on whether this lovely valley- this undulating checkerboard of fields and forests- will endure, or whether the total economy will find a "higher use" for it."

-"We don't have to beat them. I'm not even sure we should try. We don't need a law against McDonald's or a law against slaughterhouse abuse- we ask for too much salvation by legislation. All we need to do is empower individuals with the right philosophy and the right information to opt out en masse."

-"The important thing is that there be multiple food chains, so that when any one of them fails- when the oil runs out, when mad cow or other food-borne diseases become epidemic, when the pesticides no longer work, when drought strikes and plagues come and soils blow away- we'll still have a way to feed ourselves."

Thoughts/insights:

-This is my favorite chapter so far. I think it really encompasses all of what I thought I knew about and really taught me more about each individual aspect.

-I was really moved by the idea that striking a balance between two entities brings out the worst of both worlds. Does this mean that we should all think black and white, that there is no gray? That there are no exceptions? Or can there be, but this simply is not the ideal?

-Although I was slightly insulted about Joel's saying "what good is New York City", he sure as hell has a point. There are no farms (ones that compare to Joel's or George's) on Manhattan Island, or ANY borough for that matter. We are extremely reliant on the interstate highway system!

Chapter 14: The Meal (Grass Fed)

Precis: As my week at the Polyface farm came to a close, it was time to fully experience the end of the pastoral food chain- the bite of a wonderfully juicy chicken and fabulously rich soufflé. I gathered ingredients from Joel's farm: chickens, eggs, corn, and concocted a meal to celebrate the chicken with friends of mine. All components of the meal were of a higher nutritional standard not only because of their lack of monoculturous breeding, but the benefits such as omega-3s and vitamin E that the chickens gained from being raised on a grass-centralized ecosystem.

Gems:

-"Both literally and metaphorically, a saltwater bath cleanses meat, which perhaps explains why the kosher laws- one culture's way of coming to terms with the killing and eating of animals- insist on the salting of meat."

-"Researchers report that pregnant women who receive supplements of omega-3s give birth to babies with higher IQs; children with diets low in omega-3s exhibit more behavioral and learning problems at school; and puppies eating diets high in omega-3s prove easier to train."

-"I offered thanks first to my hosts-cum-guests, then to Joel Salatin and his family for growing the food before us (and for giving it to us), and then finally to the chickens, who in one way or another had provided just about everything we were about to eat."

Thoughts/insights:

-This is a true parallel to the final chapter of the industrial food chain where his family eats at McDonald's. Instead of eating with his own family, he eats with another family and brings the food to them. In addition, there seemed to be a more connected dynamic between the diners during the grass fed meal than at the McDonald's. More of the conversation had to do with each other than the food itself.

-Also, it struck me that the diners were more curious and asked more questions about how the food was raised than anyone would at a fast food place- no questions asked.

Chapter 15: The Forager

Precis: Having already followed two of the major food chains from beginning to end, it was time for the ultimate challenge: composing a personal meal from foraged food in the wild. My prior experience and knowledge with hunting and gathering compared to the agricultural based childhood I had leaves me with a general sense of discomfort when it comes to the wild. Frankly, the idea of killing an animal not doomed to a life on a farm or identifying one mushroom for another gives me stress that ultimately sends me back to another food chain. However, as I think about this meal more and more, I begin to see the world around me with a different mentality, through a new lens, that points out the nuances of nature I had not fully appreciated before.

Gems:

-"The prevailing theory as to why, as a species, we left off hunting and gathering is that we had ruined that perfectly good lifestyle by overdoing it, killing off the megafauna on which we depended."

-"Foraging for wild plants and animals is, after all, the way human species has fed itself for 99 percent of its time on earth; this is precisely the food chain natural selection designed us for."

-"I realized that this had been the ultimate destination of the journey I'd been on since traveling to an Iowa cornfield: to look as far into the food chains that support us as I could look, and recover the fundamental biological realities that the complexities of modern industrialized eating keep from our view."

Thoughts/insights:

- I imagine that this would be the most difficult and effort-demanding food chain to sustain. It literally requires over 50% of the day to fulfill its needs.

- This really reminds me of "Into the Wild", the story of Christopher McCandless. He was able to maintain this meal for a good amount of time, but in the end he failed due to a minute, careless mistake- which is exactly what stopped Pollan from eating that mushroom!

- Did anyone else imagine the scene of him sitting in front of the mushroom and deliberating whether or not to eat it as a hilarious bit for a sitcom? I can imagine him sitting there nearly debating with the mushroom, asking if he'll hurt him.

Chapter 16: The Omnivore's Dilemma

Precis: In a world where human beings have the conscience to cook and have the freedom of selecting their meals and the setting it takes place in- we truly suffer from the omnivore's dilemma. Because us humans have brains that overcompensate for our small intestines, we suffer anxiety when choosing our meals because we always question ourselves, "is this the right choice?". America is perhaps the greatest culprit of them all, with its relative absence of standard foodways. When our senses collide with our conscience, and that collides with the fact that science has replaced instinct in our culture, the omnivore's dilemma turns what in some countries is a uniform meal into a mad house of contradictions, ultimately leading to an unhealthy community.

Gems:

-"What began as set of simple sensory responses to food (sweet, bitter, disgusting) we've elaborated into more complicated canons of taste that afford us aesthetic pleasures undreamed of by the koala or cow."

-Rousseau's passage on the omnivore's dilemma

-"That orthodoxy regards certain tasty foods as poisons (carbs now, fats then), failing to appreciate that how we eat, and even how we feel about eating, may in the end be just as important as what we eat."

Thoughts/insights:

-So when it comes to disgust, how are certain foods (for me, it's mushrooms) hardwired into our minds under this category? I don't like seafood, and I know that it can be good for me, but what makes me shudder whenever I come near it?

-Having a condition, I have learned what sort of foods to avoid at certain times, so I guess you could say this kind of eases the omnivore's dilemma off of my shoulders. However, because my case is mild, I will still spring to eat things I really love (like bacon).

-What HAS happened to the family dinner? Am I missing something here? When I raise a family the family dinner will ALWAYS be at the same table, and at he same time. Anything else kind of bugs me.