Reply to comment

(my id is also not work)

While I agree with Pollan's arguments against the corn industry and how it is becoming responsible for ingredients in so many foods we eat, I think that he is being very unfair towards organic farming and vegetarianism. Perhaps I feel this way because I identify with both 'modes' of living, but I think that Pollan shows a very one-sided argument.
For instance, when taking on "Big Organic", Pollan fails to describe chemical farming and its impacts on water, humans, and soil. I studied organic vs. chemical farming in my AP Environmental Science course last year, it has been proved that since the dawn of chemical fertilizers and the use of pesticides, food production has become more difficult--it requires more fertilizers and more pesticides to get the job done (and in many cases, the pests have become immune or developed a genetic mutation to overcome the poisons in the pesticides, rendering them useless). But does Pollan mention this? No. He simply attacks the organic movement, which I agree is flawed in many ways, such as the use of monocultures and the mode of transportation to supermarkets. But does organic imply carbon neutral? No. Organic means no pesticides and no antibiotics and no chemical fertilizers.
Pollan mentions the use of immigrant laborers working in the california organic lettuce fields. But does he consider the immigrant labor in harvesting non-organic foods? No. It's true that the organic movement is no longer a cultural or ideological way of life, and it now resembles a money-making machine like its non-organic counterparts. But the fact that there is land where no chemicals are pumped into the ground artificially (instead of rotating crops or planting nitrogen-fixing legumes during off season like Earthbound does) and no pesticides poison the underground water aquifers is a cause enough for me. Pollan can eat all the non-organic food he wants, but I won't take his argument.