The Omnivore's Dilemma: Part III

       My other posts on Pollan’s book have focused on economics. I’ve decided to try to leave economics out of this post as much as I can. But, I would like to point to a quote from Singer regarding small farms being practical on a large scale: “The pressures of the marketplace will lead their owners to cut costs and corners at the expense of the animals.” This idea supports my thoughts on how capitalism (and its “single-minded pursuit of profit”) resists changes in the food industry.

     My opposition to some of the points made by Pollan and Singer may lead some to label me as a speciesist. If a belief that humans are at the top of the food chain makes me a speciesist, then so be it. Humans are entitled to coexist in the worlds ecosystem in the same way as a lion, cow or giraffe. Singer addresses the point, but I still wonder why we must be subjected to moral obligations to animals when a food chain exists that all species of animals take part in? Do not mix up my point as supporting the American Factory farm. Opposition to carnivorous practices is much different than opposition to factory farms. It is possible to support one and refute the other. I see no moral issues in eating animals for meat. They provide necessary nutrients and sustenance. If humans are arguing against hunting animals because it removes a sense of freedom from the animals, then how can we sit back and watch animals inflict violence on others in the wild? Perhaps we need to institute a new branch of police to monitor wild animal relations. Forget that this would destroy many species and ecosystems, at least all animals’ individual freedoms would be protected. Furthermore, what allows humans to own animals? I would imagine that some of the same people arguing for these “animal rights” own pets. Why can people own and control daily lives of animals, but not eat them? Pollan notes that there are ten thousand wolves in North America compared to fifty-million dogs. Although dogs are not being killed or suffering in any way, they still do not enjoy a complete freedom. If we are in fact equal to dogs, then owning them as pets is a moral dilemma. 

     I think it is a pretty bold statement by Pollan to suggest that making the meat industry transparent would change the entire meat-eating culture in the United States. Consumers have the ability to educate themselves on slaughterhouse practices right now. Some of these places may attempt to keep everything behind closed doors, but with a constant journalist push, the public can see and understand almost anything assuming they can take their sources as legitimate. 

     Another idea Pollan points to earlier is that part of American food culture is based on fads and fashion.  This is what separates humans from any other species on earth. Many humans are self-conscious about their eating choices due to public image and this effects the eating habits of people everywhere. This self-consciousness is partially what makes humans so susceptible to marketing practices that are constantly looking to change the national cuisine of the United States.