Review: The Omnivore's Dilemma, Part II

I found the second half of The Omnivore’s Dilemma to be eminently readable and entertaining, but somewhat less informative than the first. Pollan’s stories about acquiring a rifle and his first pig, hunting for wild mushrooms, and freezing his fingers in search of a tasty abalone are amusing, but as he acknowledges himself, we are way past the point of supporting the earth’s population on hunting and gathering lifestyles. More interesting were further details about the efforts of local, sustainable food producers like Joel Salatin, their tricks for taking advantage of natural food webs, and their struggles with federal policies designed for the advantage of big agribusiness.

As a biologist, I appreciated Pollan’s point about natural systems having a very different sort of efficiency than industrial ones, an efficiency in which coevolutionary relationships and reciprocal loops permit the waste of one organism to sustain another (p. 214). The sort of manmade efficiency that eschews natural complexity for the simplicity of monoculture may allow for more mechanization of production and standardization of product, but it also demands both constant consumption of additional resources – notably pesticides and nitrogenous inputs – and perpetual disposal of nitrogenous outputs. But even if every person in America could see the real costs, suffering, and waste entailed by the modern food industry, would much of what happens – “the cruelty, the carelessness, the filth” – simply have to stop (p. 235)? Or would the vast majority of consumers still opt for the lowest price, even if they would strongly prefer the cruelty-free option if identical in short term cost and efficacy? If so, then sound governmental policy rather than consumer education will be most effective at changing our behavior.

While the first half of The Omnivore’s Dilemma described some of the policies designed to encourage overproduction of cheap industrial commodity crops, I had not realized how related policies actively discouraged organic and sustainably minded local farmers from competing with big agribusiness. This 3/1/08 New York Times op-ed written by a small Minnesota grower further revealed that not only will landowners lose their federal subsidies for growing something other than commodity crops, they are also penalized the market price of the forbidden fruit. The demand for local organic food is already high and growing, and eliminating the preferential treatment of big business by governmental programs would go a long way towards leveling the perceived cost differential for the individual consumer.

This change in policy is especially critical for low-income families, who are required to purchase the cheapest food options available in order to use WIC food vouchers (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children). Once designed to improve nutrition, WIC encourages the purchase of high-calorie foods, especially dairy products, and only in 2006 began providing more fresh produce vouchers in recognition of the obesity and related chronic diseases now disproportionately affecting the poor. Moreover, a recent UCLA study in the American Journal of Public Health indicates that WIC mothers who shop at farmers’ markets buy more produce than those who shop at grocery stores. To promote public health as well as environmentally sustainable farming practices, we should encourage the government to increase the WIC budget and provide more than the $8 per recipient and $6 per child now allotted each month, as well as to permit local organic foods to be purchased with WIC vouchers.

While The Omnivore’s Dilemma provides a wealth of information, captivatingly conveyed, it raises as many questions as it answers regarding What to eat? As Pollan himself admits at the end of the book, the two framing meals – one a fast food frenzy from McDonald’s eaten in an automobile, the other a slow food feast of ingredients painstakingly hunted and gathered, aged, and lovingly prepared for friends – stand at the extreme ends of human eating. One might say that the main point of The Omnivore’s Dilemma is to show us that “the pleasures of the one are based on a nearly perfect knowledge; [sic] the pleasures of the other on an equally perfect ignorance” (p. 410). But if we discard both of these options as unreal and unsustainable, how can concerned consumers find some happy medium that would still allow us to know what we’re eating, where it came from, how it got to our tables, and what it really cost?

The Lone Star State

I just read in the NY Times that Texas has become the first state in the union to require vaccination against HPV for preteen girls enrolled in the 6th grade. This will protect them from the sexually transmitted virus, long known to cause cervical cancer. It's critical that the vaccine be given to girls before they have a chance to be exposed to the virus through sexual abuse or experimentation, although the deadly consequences of infection will not be evident for decades.

Frankly, I'm amazed that conservative Texas has gotten past the religious right's outrage over a vaccine that could (gasp) make sex safer for women and thus (in their nonsensical view) promote promiscuity in their teenage daughters. The state will even provide free vaccinations for all girls and young women eligible for public assistance. Hooray for Governor Perry and a huge step in preventative healthcare for women!

Drug Pushers

On Thursday, the NY Times ran this scary article on the increasing use of multiple psychotropic drugs by children. Over 3.5 million kids in the US are being medicated with stimulants (mainly for A.D.H.D.), which can cause stunted growth and sleeping problems. Nearly 2 million are given antidepressants, which have been shown to trigger suicidal thoughts and behaviors in some children. Others receive anticonvulsants, which can cause liver and pancreas damage and fatal skin rashes, or antipsychotics, which can cause rapid weight gain, diabetes, and irreversible tics. And fully 1.6 million are given at least two drugs in combination, either because a single drug is not effective enough or in order to treat its side effects, even though there is virtually no scientific evidence showing that such combinations are helpful in young patients.

Coincidentally, on Friday night the Wallingford Neighbors for Peace and Justice hosted a film/discussion on "Big Bucks, Big Pharma," an expose of the pharmaceutical industry. If you've ever wondered why health care in America costs so much and yet ranks only 37th in effectiveness worldwide, alongside impoverished Cuba, consider the fact that 100,000 Americans die each year of adverse effects from prescription drugs administered at recommended doses. How much more morbidity is being created by the ubiquitous use of costly and often unneeded drugs instead of more effective - but far less profitable - healthy lifestyle changes and preventative care?

How has legal drug pushing become so prevalent in our society? Relaxation of laws in recent years have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to market their products directly to consumers in magazine and television ads, creating consumer curiosity and even brand loyalty for products that may not even be appropriate, much less necessary. Add to this the $8 billion spent each year on medical journal ads and promotional gifts and trips for physicians under the rubric of "education," the effectiveness of which has prompted the American Medical Student Association to promote a Pharm Free Pledge to its members stating they will "accept no money, gifts, or hospitality from the pharmaceutical industry" and "seek unbiased sources of information."

I am not trying to downplay the existence of serious illness and suffering that could be helped by medication. But it seems clear to me that pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with creating demand for their products, charging all that the market will bear, and keeping sick people alive but dependent on their drugs, than they are with providing safe, effective, affordable healthcare. And it doesn't surprise or upset me - it's just as any big business would behave in a capitalistic society. It is our responsibility to reign them in, to raise our voices against their huge lobbying forces in Washington and our state capitals and demand more rigorous regulation, to ask for fewer and less expensive drugs from our doctors, and to refuse the medicalization of natural human variation in our society - particularly in our schools, where our most vulnerable citizens are paying the price.