Please respond to one of the following questions:
A. Watch this advertisement for Monsanto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVMzVnZ3C8)
and then analyze the add in terms of the message it sends about Monsanto and about the culture the "robots" visit.
B. Pollan writes: “The problem of monoculture may itself be as much a problem of culture as it is of agriculture. Which is to say, it’s a problem in which all of us are implicated…which is to say our desire for control and uniformity. So much of what I’d seen in Idaho…goes back to that perfect McDonald’s French fry at the eating end of the food chain” (227). How we can go about changing the global taste pallet? Or even the American pallat? Is this even possible?
C. How would you classify Pollan's style of writing? Is he a philosopher? A scientist? A Historian? Back up your classification with specific evidence from the text.
Please use the comment link below to respond to the question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
B. Unfortunately, I do not think that it is possible to change the American taste pallet, let alone the global taste pallet. At the end of the day, it is cheaper to eat unhealthy, genetically modified foods than it is to eat organically. And the fact that foods devoid of much nutritional value taste good does not help the issue. One point that Michael Pollan made in one of the press interviews that we watched in class still rings in my head. He said something to the effect that yes, eating healthy foods may cost more monetarily, but are we not paying an even higher price in the long run by eating genetically modified foods? I wholeheartedly believe that this is true. But try convincing a single parent struggling to make ends meet that they should devote even more money to the grocery bill, especially in these rough economic times. If you have three dollars to feed yourself, you are more likely to gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar. Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Fruits and vegetables are quickly becoming luxury goods, let alone fruits and vegetables that are grown organically.
ReplyDeleteA.
ReplyDeleteIf I was Indian, I would find this ad extremely offensive. Firstly, the scene opens up to a few Indians just sitting around next to an open field, kind of making them either look lazy or like they don't know what they're doing. Then they show two very pretty girls in clothing most Indians probably can't afford, showing the girls doing what looks to be like seed saving, an Indian tradition. Then these two robots show up, obviously representing the Monsanto corporation, and act like "higher beings" and "show" the Indians how to grow corn using their "higher" seeds. This is all despite the fact that Indians already KNOW how to grow food; seed saving has been one of the most amazing things about Indian culture that is often overlooked (check out Vandana Shiva, one of the worlds leading Indian culture/seed saving advocate; many books on her in the library). Furthermore, they do not show that you have to spray pesticides on them for them to work.
This is a horrible degenerative process that is ruining Indian culture. In order to afford such seeds that are propagandized to them, they need to take out vast loans. Then, they put aside their seed saving culture of many generations to plant these new seeds, in which they are legally not allowed to save, thus making them have to buy more seed each season. On top of this, unlike the commercial that showed thriving fields of corn, the crops are not guaranteed to grow, and in reality humans have no control over these things. Then, with crops failed, no money to pay back loans, they go into debt. Not being able to pay for their family, the stress of it all, has caused roughly 125,000 Indian farmers to commit suicide, often by drinking a cup of pesticides. This is what the overly propagandized commercial doesn't show us.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
The Ad is definitly sending some mixed messages most likely unknowingly. The robots are quite odd. When watching the ad, all i was thinking that aliens were invading and the people looked very confused. The only happy person i saw in the ad after the robots showed up was the little girl at the end. SHe smiled eventually when she got corn, this could be that she was just hungary.. (that was a mean comment perhaps). I just felt that the ad was not a good representation of the company if gave their enemies some ammunation against them. One more comment, when the robot popped the prepackaged food out of its stuck, totally scared me. Wow so unnatural. Pretty much the entire Ad was unnnatural and pointefd to the future and the culture needed to be modernized.
ReplyDeleteObviously as living organisms we need food to survive. We have however gone above and beyond simply surviving on food. It has become and luxury to some -- eating the best meats, the healthiest vegetables and dishes that take hours to prepare. We don't spend hours making a dish for survival, we (in many cultures) plan around meals, big extravagant meals, family meals etc. And with this planning and eating of certain foods we have a pallet that we have adapted for out lifestyles. At this point I really don't think it is possible to change our pallet unless there is an extreme shortage of a major food group or some disease or virus threatening a main source of food.
ReplyDeleteWe have become accustomed to eating that perfect french fry and now I feel like there is no turning back. With the developing technology and GMO's it is possible to keep our pallet the same so why wouldnt we? "Dont fix it unless it's broken" is the motto we are following unconciously. Our desire for control has made it so that we must keep our control and uniformity or crumble.
My first reaction to this commercial was one of amusement. The advertisement in itself (as in quality) is well done. The picture is bright, the people seem happy, and the music is great. However, as I kept watching my amusement turned into confusion. What is the point of this commercial? When the "story" begins everyone seems happy enough, but when the robots begin to take over everything the people feel as if they are not needed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with Donnelle, there are definitely some offensive parts of the commercial. There are so many questions and not enough answers. Is it a commercial with racial undertones? That other cultures are constantly invading their (the Indian) own? Or is it an environmental commercial? (that we, as the human race, are not holding our own anymore. That we are letting machines do all the work. In the commercial the robots even drive the wagons and the ploughs. In that sense I do believe that it's ridiculous.)
I feel as if you could analyze this commercial in many different ways and come up with just as many different answers. I'm not sure how much sense this post made or if it was just the ignorant rambling of a liberal environmentalist.
The ad that Monsanto created has one purpose. The purpose being to personify the company as more than a corporation. They are making a cartoon or a more ficticious account of using genetically modified foods in farms. They are making the company seem as though it will work with local farmers by just using their seeds. The problem with this ad is that it does not put into reality what farmers are subjected to. It is ridiculous to think that this is what Monsanto actually does. These robots are fun and appealing, a little creepy as well. They are seen working on a farm, however if Monsanto is truly just a company thats supplying seeds for local farmers where are the corporate millionaires helping the farmers in the fields? This is a more hands on approach saying, " We give you the seeds, We make the food and we are all happy," however this is false. The truth behind this commercial is that these farmers will soon face changes where they go bankrupt or starve.
ReplyDeleteThere is no question as to whether or not monoculture is a cultural decision. As Pollan writes, we have become a world where our food is an ideal. This is not something that could have happened quickly, and it certainly isn’t confined to just the United States. I believe the beginning, or at least a major turning point, for this issue was when people decided that food could be used like currency. Once this happened, every different species received a monetary value. We already learned in previous chapters that these values might not accurately represent their nutritional worth. The tulip for example, is technically worthless, yet was once worth more than gold.
ReplyDeleteTo some farmers, it would clearly make more sense to only grow the most valuable plants possible, in the most efficient manner. The short-term effect of a monoculture is quick money. The long-term effects are overuse of pesticides, stronger insects and diseases, land overuse, and in some cases (Ireland) starvation. This seems to be the exact opposite of “feeding the world.” It’s hard for anyone to accept that they can’t control or make nature uniform. Yet after so many generations of farmers just trying to make a living, this is the cultural ideology that results.
It wouldn’t be impossible to change the world pallet, but before people can learn to change their diet, they have to change their beliefs. This is why, especially in America, this seems almost impossible. There are still some cultures in the world that only eat certain foods during certain months, or even less, and they accept this as a way of life. It clearly is possible, just very difficult. People don’t like things that affect their money.
A. Watching this ad for the first time would convince me that Monsanto could help me grow corn easier. I’m aware of advertisement exaggeration, but if I’m a farmer at least I’ll try their product. This advertisement frustrates me because I know for a fact that Monsanto are known for spraying pesticide, and in this commercial it shows that the product can grow corn faster and in a more natural way. I understand the idea of having the robots, because they’re faster and more efficient, but I did not like it at all, it seems unrealistic. I believe at the end of the ad, when the robot gave the little girl a corn, this might show that Monsanto helping the needy. When people find out the true story about Monsanto and how they operate, many would get disappointed.
ReplyDelete