Reply to comment

After reading these three segments, I at first felt confused. Questions were prompted from Pollan's answers. Is organic really as bad as I read it to be? What about the section in which Pollan relates the changes the organic movement has brought to farming industry? What about the rest of the chapter, which relates the changes farming industry has brought to the organic movement? I can't help but think that Pollan is trying to get me, the reader and consumer target, to step back and think; okay, this is what has been done up to this point in order to realize the original intent of the organic movement, but it is still a long way from our ideal. In the case of his claims about animals and their various degrees of treatment and suffering, I now question if not eating meat from an industrial animal farm can morally justify blatant ignorance of the symbiotic relationship of domestication that Pollan brings up. Then, images of the Dish of the Day from Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (a talking cow-like animal that was happy to be eaten and offered information to customers on its tastiest parts) appear in my mind's eye. Has capitalism outweighed culture in justifying slaughter? Has profit been traded for respect not only of the animals, but of the consumer as well? With the secretive nature of industrial animal husbandry that Pollan reports, its little wonder some people do not trust the meat market for his or her moral fulfillment. Perhaps Vegetarians and Vegans are naive, but only because they may lump the "principle" of eating meat with the "practice" of obtaining it. Becoming a Vegetarian or Vegan would send a consumer message to factory farms, yet, like Pollan, I do not want to stop eating meat. He does offer a solution in the form of small, humane, and public farms, but how obtainable are these ethical meats when the only convenient, nearby market is a supermarket?  How can I obtain the "right to look"? Pollan writes, "If our concern is for the health of nature-rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls-then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do." Thinking about his argument, I can only agree, partially because I am a biased omnivore, but mostly because he makes a very good point in describing the evolutionary relationships of domestication.

But what makes me so sure I can trust him? First, check out the "Sources" section in the back of the book. The sources Pollan uses are numerous and relevant. It shows a certain work ethic and level of integrity to have a bibliography that credits used works accordingly and with appropriate additional information. Perhaps more importantly, he appeals directly to me, and while that is a dangerous basis for trust, the citations and bibliography help to strengthen his believability. Pollan's written reactions and questions that he proposes are reactions and questions I experienced while reading through his observations.  I felt a connection between what he was saying, and what he anticipated my reactions to be. It brought a more personal, human tone to the book.