1. Michael Pollan approaches eating as a profoundly ethical act. Do you agree that deciding what’s for dinner is the moral dilemma he argues it is? What questions most concern you about the way we eat and the way our food is produced?
1. Michael Pollan approaches eating as a profoundly ethical act. Do you agree that deciding what’s for dinner is the moral dilemma he argues it is? What questions most concern you about the way we eat and the way our food is produced?
I wholeheartedly agree that deciding what to eat for dinner presents households with a moral dilemma. Each night families have the choice to support local businesses or to buy processed foods, to promote healthy lives or to continue in the trend of allowing obesity to augment. For most Americans dinner no longer represents a time where families can come together but rather it serves as a means to an end-another scheduled time in which we fill our gut past its stopping point with everything from KFC to McDonalds. We need to reverse this trend. Dinner truly helps parents in communication with their children and has been shown to bring families closer together.
I wouldn’t say that it’s entirely moral. For example, if I decided to eat vegetables from a large, commercial farm that produced products that were entirely natural, I’d be eating well without supporting local businesses. Does that mean I made the wrong decision? I think that saying deciding to have a family dinner is a moral decision is a little strong. Who says that every family can have a family dinner? There have been nights for my family that Dad works late, I have an orchestra rehearsal, my sister has softball practice, and my brother has robotics practice. Having a family dinner would require eating at eight o’clock or later. Does eating separately mean we made a bad moral decision? I see where you’re coming from on both of these points, but I think you’re being a little too strong.
Although I may agree that eating is a moral dilemma, I believe that that statement is a little too broad and lacking creativity. I don’t claim to know near enough about morality, or different modes of eating for that matter to decide if eating is a “profoundly ethical act”.
In my personal experience, the only thing I feel comfortable commenting about in regards to morality, I don’t view eating as profoundly ethical. If I am hungry, I eat something. At this time, I don’t see that as being profoundly ethical. I am sure, however, that this can vary from person to person, as demonstrated by Pollan’s belief.
I think choosing what foods to buy for dinner is a moral decision, because it takes your values into account even if you don’t realize it. Every choice we make about food and our eating habits reflects our priorities and what we think is right. Every piece of food we buy is a vote for what we approve of, whether it supports the food industry’s current stance or not. However, I agree with Elizabeth that the choice isn’t always black and white. For instance, not everyone can afford the foods they want to “vote” for. I love family dinners, but I am the oldest of six kids and we all have busy schedules, and it doesn’t always work to eat together. Eating is ethical but everyone interprets what is moral differently, and I don’t know that I am qualified to say what is right for everyone else.
Elizabeth, I agree that my previous comment came across a bit strong. To clarify I don’t think that eating veggies from a super store represents a wrong decision. However, I feel that the best decision would be to buy locally. Likewise, when I promoted a family dinner I sought to advocate families coming together at least once a day in order to build stronger relationships. In your case, it seems that dinner doesn’t represent that time.
Michael Pollan approaches eating as a ‘profoundly ethical act’, because he is taking the role of critical examiner of food and diet. Most people, when sitting down for a meal, or grabbing a bite, eat without as much thought to the ethics surrounding what they are eating. That being said, I think that deciding to eat is most certainly an ethical dilemma. Diet is a key element to culture, and what is culture but a set of ideals we have acquired throughout our childhood and in our everyday life. We get our morals and other ideals primarily from our parents, so when we pick out produce from the store or when we are selecting a brand of chips, we choose according to what we think is important and what we find acceptable.
What most concerns me about the way we eat, is how we are losing the diversity in our diets. The more Western culture and the Western diet expand, the more we lose other traditional cultures, and subsequently, diets. This leaves me with the question: How can we encourage the preservation and growth of traditional cultures and diets? (By the way, I would really love it if people would reply to this question. I’m curious to know how other people think we could solve this problem.)
I find that choosing what to eat for dinner is very much a moral dilemma!! Although I do not consider the dilemma to be about eating habits, rather family intimacy. I found it very interesting when Pollan gave the notion that we are no longer ‘eating’, but ‘feeding’. This change in how we eat is because of the easy access to fattening fast food. Our reliance on fast food also is affecting our family. We should stress sitting down every night and enjoying company instead of swinging by McDonald’s. Eating a meal with others is the only difference between eating and feeding like animals.
Although the issue of what is right or wrong when consuming food is complex, the solution seems to be a little simpler: creating a balance between what needs to be done, and what is realistic. Eating, because of work from “the food industry, journalism, and the government” (80), has become something more than a choice about what to cook for dinner. It affects the community, environment, economy, social structure, and the physical and mental health of the consumers. Industrial produce has an effect beyond the initial consumption, and even the local economy. It also represents practices that harm things, such as the environment, that people in general do not see. Because industrial agriculture is so centralized, the chain reaction of consequences often goes unnoticed by consumers. In this way I agree with Danae that ethics are intertwined in our food because every choice is a vote.
Voting sustainably with your fork and centering meal times around family is easier said than done. I too thought about my own family and our choices with food and meal times. Elizabeth made a good point about the reality of families spending every dinner together, with the “right” choice of food. I do not want to give up soccer, piano, and other events in my life in order to spend every dinner with my family at the same time. This is where the balance comes in. Making a conscious effort to choose food that will benefit areas beyond initial consumption will make a difference. Even if food is purchased from a local farmers’ market once a month, or a few times a year, a change will be made that will become more natural every time. The same can be said for the attitude of meal time. If the focus of eating is spending time with family and friends, food becomes much more than energy and nutrients.
I think that deciding what’s for dinner is a serious issue, but I am not sure if I would call it a “moral dilemma”. Yes, the food needs to be benificial to the eaters and I would hope that my purchasing the food would benifit the farmer who grew it; but that does not mean that it is a moral act. I think that deciding the family should actually enjoy a meal together at an actual table is much more of a moral decission. Pollan was right to point out that the dinner table is where manners and conversation techniques are taught. Food is what brings the family together, but these lessons are equally important.
I agree with Pollan’s idea that eating is a “moral dilemma.” I see it as an act that affects much more than just our stomachs. As Pollan alludes to, what we eat affects not only our health but the wider ecosystem. Also, personally, I see the current way we produce meat as wrong. It’s inhumane and is not sustainable. The mass production of cheap produce also is another moral dilemma. For most “supermarket produce” a lot of pesticides are used and the carbon footprint from travel is rather large. Both the current mainstream meat and produce industries are having wide-ranging adverse affects on the world so I choose not to support them. So, to keep with my moral code, I don’t eat meat and I eat local grown produce as much as a I can. It’s like every of my meals is a little protest against the current industries.
I agree with Amelia, what we place on our table represents our vote of support for either corporate grocery stores or local farmers. Unfortunately, due to the price and accessibility of local produce, most families do not have the opportunity to place a meal that consists of only organic, local food on the table. But, as Amelia suggests, choosing to eat locally once a week or month will make a difference.
Every day, we have the choice of what we will consume. Our decisions ultimately affect the economy, environment, and our health. Parents must choose what quality of food they will feed their children along with themselves. There are different levels of quality in the same type of food, i.e. a carrot that has been grown locally and organically will have a greater economical and nutritional value than a carrot that has been genetically modified and mass-produced. As someone who lives in an agriculturally-rich area, it is not unusual to have local, organic produce and meat readily available to me. This makes my eating decisions a little easier to make than someone who lives in an area where there aren’t many local farms or grocery stores that support them. Pollan argues that people should consider the ethics of their eating decisions because it affects so many areas of our lives. I agree that it is an ethical decision mainly because of the myriad circumstances that affect every bite we take. One must consider animal cruelty when they eat meat, genetically modified produce when they eat vegetables, monster companies that take advantage of us like Monsanto, and their local economies. Just one meal could represent a huge percentage of the problems we face today in this country.
I completely agree that eating dinner as a family is important, perhaps not immoral not to do so though. I do, however, find eating dinner as a family to be a wonderful time to teach and share manner and morals. Families are busy, nobody can argue that point. For many, meals are the only times that a family has to take a moment and share time together.
Food can have very moral impacts though. On page 142 Pollan notes that the medical community is very tied into the economy of the Western Diet, and the Western diseases that accompany it. “You would not expect such a medical community to be sensitive to the cultural or ecological dimensions of the food problem–and it isn’t.” This does seem to have a huge moral impact. The hospital I work at (as a Food and Nutrition employee) has a plethora of healthful options… as well as chocolates, chips, candies, pizzas, and other not-so-healthy options (although thankfully they do not have a fast food establishment anywhere in sight). Hospitals hold respect and reputations for, well, providing good health. It would be wonderful to see medical institutions take a handle on encouraging, and maybe even driving, a change in the American diet.
I do not believe the moral dilemma has to do with deciding what to eat. I think, as Americans anyway, we have a pretty good idea of what he want to eat versus what we should eat. The issue is convincing ourselves that what we are eating is ‘okay,’ in a politically correct definition of the word. Most of us know what is ‘healthy’ and what isn’t, but that doesn’t stop us from consuming food we know we shouldn’t. I think the problem lies in people blaming others about the options given to them; which really shouldn’t be the case. The way people eat, and what they eat, shouldn’t be dictated by what other people say. Sure, someone can do research and then base their diet on what they believe to be true, but all in all, we control what we eat, and the problem is believing that we really do have the power over our own bodies. Not deciding what to eat, but deciding whether or not we want to decide what to eat, ant to make that change if desired.
I agree with Pollan’s assertion that deciding what kind of food to put on the table is a “moral dilemma,” and the thing that concerns me most about our food industry is the fact that it has become so controversial. When faced with the decision between eating processed “food” versus real, farm fresh FOOD the average consumer is morally torn in a lose-lose situation. Consider a single mother living on limited funds pacing the isles of the supermarket. She is torn between feeding her children a meal that is cheap and efficient, or nutritious, home cooked, and expensive. Whichever path she decides to take, this woman faces guilt. Cheap, efficient Hamburger Helper feeds both of her growing children, however, she knows that it is chalk full of calories and fake ingredients. On the other hand, a home cooked meal, made with fresh and organic ingredients will provide her children with the nutrients they need to grow healthily, but she knows that by spending extra on organic foods, as well as taking the time off work required to cook, eat, and clean up after the meal with her children she simply won’t be able to afford the new pair of Nike’s that her son so desperately wants for his birthday. What is the woman to do?
The fact that eating, an act so simple that it is purely instinctual, has become so difficult is simply a shame. Our modern food industry has capitalized on making fake foods that are bad for the environment and bad for our bodies the most affordable option. Is it any wonder that a 2004 study by the US National Library of Medicine reported that “Obesity is associated with a clear income disadvantage”? It is true that eating has become a “moral dilemma,” and it is plain to see that it is the fault of the food industries and a lack of governmental intervention that have tainted such a pure act.
While I do agree that deciding what’s for dinner is a moral dilemma, I feel as though the larger aspect of the dilemma falls under what types of food we use to create the dinners we decide to place on the table. Many families sit down together every night and have dinner together creating a time in which families are brought closer together, the difference falls under what types of foods they have used to create these dinners. Michael Pollan’s last tip for how to eat is “Cook and, if you can, plant a garden” (197). Under this tip Pollan discusses the importance of cooking meals, which many families do, but he also explains that there is a difference in cooking with fresh foods as opposed to a can of Campbell’s cream of mushroom soup. I feel as though this is where the real dilemma lies because it is much easier to cook using that can of soup and still put a semi-homemade meal on the table for your family. Though this still qualifies as a family dinner, it doesn’t possess the same time, nutrients, or appreciation as cooking a meal from scratch.
I do agree that making food related decisions is a moral issue. A crucial aspect of the food we eat is obviously if it effects our bodies in a healthy or unhealthy way. However I would also say that the moral decision making extends to concidering what impact the growing and processing of that food had on our planet. Effecting our bodies is only one part piece of the issue, and we cannot discount the large other piece of effecting our one and only earth. Often making food choices that are healthy and for choices that are environmentally conscious are one in the same. For example, Pollan stresses the benefits of eating locally or from your own garden. This option would allow you to eat fresh, non-processed food and lowers your environmental impact because the food does not have to be shipped or further processed.
I believe what we choose to eat is a moral dilemma to a certain extent. Every time we purchase anything we make a decision to support a company or corporation. The best way to vote for a product to stay on the shelves is with money. Anyone who can afford to eat local and organic should make it a habit. However, I am not going to feel guilty for eating a fast food cheeseburger every once in a while. Pollan discusses European culture and how they take time to enjoy their meals. Feeling guilty for eating a certain food would go against this concept of appreciating every bite we eat. I agree that we should consume unprocessed food as much as we can, but I am about to become a poor college student and I’m not going to have a moral breakdown every time I go to the grocery store.
The question that most concerns me with the way I eat is that the labels on food products can lie. I thought it was a good idea that the word imitation had to be put on each product that had different ingredients than the original that it was mimicking. From now on I am always going to look at the individual ingredients that are in all of the products I eat.
Emma Ivie,
I like your comment about how Pollan approaches food and diet critically, but I think that the fact that Americans eat dinner, and other meals, without a care is exactly the kind of “immorality” Pollan is talking about. Americans don’t feel they’re making the wrong choice in eating without thoughts of marketing, corporations, local or not, etc. which seems all the more of a problem. There should be more knowledge, more general time, spent thinking about companies, G.R.A.S., or animal abuse when picking out dinner meals. As soon as Americans start paying as much attention to their food as to other products Americans buy, the ethical issues will start to diminish within food companies.
I would not say that choosing what to eat is as much a moral dilemma, as choosing to eat together as a family. Sure eating is an important part of life, but the major decision should be choosing to eat togethet or alone. I know that some families do not have time to eat together, but those who can, should. When families do have the chance to eat together, they usually do not, and they should take advantage of that time that they have together. This can help give the children of the family important values, and they will want to do this later on with vtheir families too. Choosing what to eat is important, but the most important thing is to share that food as a family.
I agree whole heartedly with you that family meals are an important way to instill good morals in children, as well as allowing the family to discuss important subjects. But, I think you’re overlooking this: if someone buys food they are treating it as a product. To me, buying a product is basically an implicit agreement that the consumer accepts the process that made the product.
An example of this is meat. Ignoring the argument of whether it is ethical to eat meat at all, there are also other things to consider. For one, while the animal is being bred to be meat, is it morally sound to treat them in an unduly cruel fashion like keeping them in the dark for most of the life and feeding them a diet that is meant to keeps them alive but not healthy?
The second thing to consider is the people who treat the meat. Safety or sanitation may not be as much of a concern as it should be in their work environment.
I think purchased food is like any other product, and that you have to consider the process by which it got to the store. If you don’t feel that the journey was morally acceptable, than neither is the product.
What do you think?
Eating is a profoundly ethical act, only blissful denial can shield society from this harsh truth. What we eat and what we choose as consumer affects a web of producers that all lead back to to the single greatest one; our earth. This transcends food and carries over to nearly all aspects of living. Whether it’s choosing to buy food that is grown responsibly (and by that I mean the Pollan triad of local, organic, and seasonal), to buying the more expensive but fuel-efficent cars, to even acknowledging that owning a car is environmentally irresponsible (it is important to note that not owning one is extremely unrealistic in this day and age if given the means). The responsibility we have as a consumer is immense, and because of it’s looming immensity our global society tends to shirk it’s duties. And it becomes even more challenging when one tries to make these decisions with a limited knowledge base because of the complexity of the global ecosystem.
The Toyota Prius is one of the most fuel-efficient cars to date and there is a general consensus that that a Prius-adopter is doing right by the environment through “speaking” for this type of car with their dollar. However, would they feel as comfortable knowing that in order to build this advanced car there is a high demand for rare earth, the extraction of which causes long-lasting damage to the environment? How does one begin to have the wisdom to make these utilitarian choices? Now add on the pressures of the society we live in, providing for oneself or even a family, doing well in school and or a job, or even making sure you give a token post on a discussion forum before attending CHC. We simply have more in front of us that we care about than if the McDonald’s we had yesterday might in the long run be killing us, and chance of a healthier life for our children.
Being more responsible with what we eat is the least we can do to fight the tide of caring about the “here and now.” It is going to be hard to eat in a more conscious way when we have been raised in a society that places little value on it. As Pollan points out, many people have the means to eat more responsibly while being economical, having to sacrifice very little in order to do so. Now, is eating a burger going to cause unrepairable harm to the earth? Of course not. But the mindset that we only should look out for ourselves does. If we could all just join in defense of food, real food, than it would return the favor in fighting obesity and long-term health issues.
The question that most concerns me is how do we as the human race (and not a minority of it) try to become less self-oriented with the way we eat, and have a greater care for how our food is produced? That was an answer that I doubted would be in the book but hoped to hear Pollan’s opinion anyway. Sadly, we didn’t get one. We are going to have to come up with our own. One message was abundantly clear however, eating responsibly is a bite in the right direction.
After reading this book I 100% believe that deciding what’s for dinner is a moral dilemma. The way people treat food in America has changed very dramatically since industrialization. People have started giving food less attention than it deserves. American’s haven’t stopped caring but rather they have lost their way. Culture was no longer the decider, average consumers became Americas decider. People started buying mass produced foods and stopped having genuine family meal times. In the 3rd section Pollan brings up the fact that what we buy is a “vote”. Because we live in a capitalistic country, buying food is a very important decision because it is a vote for the kind of food we want to see more of! So clearly, we have accidentally voted for the wrong type of food ever since the industrialization.
In these modern times I am most concerned about the fact that it is more expensive to buy “real food”. The more expensive food is the less likely people will want to buy it. The reason unhealthy food is everywhere is because producers can make a lot of it and sell it cheaply. I believe that for now, if you can afford the organic foods, you should buy them, because eventually they will become easier to access for everyone.
Being raised by a family that has stressed the importance of “you are what you eat” leads me to agree that deciding what’s for dinner, along with the other meals of the day, is a moral dilemma. The way I see it, to a certain extent, what and how a person chooses to eat reflects a certain amount of respect they have for their own body. When a person knows “junk foods” are not good for their health but chooses to eat those foods on a regular basis, it seems like a lack of self-respect and laziness have taken control. However, I do think there are a few exceptions to this dilemma. The first includes people who do not have the money to buy the finest ingredients on the market. I am guessing a family struggling to pay the bills and trying to support each member would be more focused on eating rather than the quality of what they are eating. Another exception to the dilemma includes people who are rushing and do not have the necessary time to make a complete sit-down meal. I would rather go on eating something that is not necessarily the healthiest choice than doing activities on an empty stomach. What concerns me the most are fresh fruits and vegetables becoming more of a luxury and having the prices on these natural goods inflate. I am also worried that if the Western diet continues and gets worse, our culture will become more drug dependent to help reverse the effects of eating poor quality meals.
When I read this question, I was reminded of stories I have heard about in the news of parents having their children taken away from them because the kids had become severely overweight. With this in mind, I would say that deciding whats for dinner is a moral dilemma, because although these children’s parents haven’t outright killed their kids or intentionally done them harm, they have nurtured a lifestyle that has made their children very unhealthy and at risk for a whole array of diseases.
Now, as for the claim that “the Western diet is immoral because it robs our society of culture and community that would otherwise flourish,” I don’t know. I suppose I would say that I would agree with that statement, but I haven’t thoroughly thought through my reasons as to why. Get back to me.
Deciding what’s for dinner does not present a moral dilemma for Americans, that’s the problem. In today’s bustling society, people rarely care to concern themselves with the healthfulness of their food, let alone the moral implications of what they are consuming. Cost still remains the most important issue, and as many experts and previous posts on this thread have pointed out, these ‘food imitations’ cost next to nothing. Pollan can talk all he wants about how people should build their lives, but until he fully grasps their perspective he should not hope to simply reach them, let alone influence their behavior. He also cannot expect to completely berate the way one lives, and then successfully convince this person that he can fix all of their problems. People do not typically respond well to that approach, I certainly did not. Americans, being as fixed and proud as Americans are about their beliefs, need far better persuasion.
I agree that deciding what is for dinner is a moral dilemma. It represents a large part of what our body eats as well as social developement during our younger years. Michael Pollan talks in length about how nutritionism and the current focus of food composition is destroying our bodies. The intricacies of the food produced by nature is far beyond our knowledge at this point. We try to improve our “fake” foods so that they are better for us, but they just seem to be making things worse. He also mentions how families do not even eat dinner together anymore. In the past, dinner was a social gathering, but now it is just a time to consume nutrients to produce energy. It is no longer a time for families to connect and be together. What we have chosen to eat and how we have eaten it has made a large impact on our culture and we are starting to see the results. The question that bothers me the most is at what point are they going to stop adding things to the “fake” foods? They can add all sorts of vitamins and nutrients, but where is it going to stop? How long before we see a bag of chips that can cure a headache or a loaf of bread that can help with acne problems?