How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Agri-Hogs

2007_03_slim.jpgIt looks like the Tribune has more than just money and stockholder problems these days. Glommed from the Reader's Food Chain blog yesterday is this article about the politics of modern eating. In her attempt at writing a humorous piece (vegetarians are acid casualties with their own bad eating habits, haven't heard that before), Emily Nunn comes across instead as obstinate toward and proudly ignorant of what we would know about where our food comes from if we only PAID ATTENTION TO THE WORLD AROUND US!!! Essentially, Ms. Nunn gives voice to the person whose idea of a moral food dilemma is deciding on a Diet Coke to wash down that blue cheese-smothered black angus burger.

The kicker comes about eleven paragraphs in, when Ms. Nunn traces the current climate of "food fear and loathing" to Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation and Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. The former is a book she admits that she's never read, nor has any intention of doing so. The latter she gleefully writes "seems impractical to somebody like me, which is to say someone too cynical and lazy to do anything but read a few really interesting chapters then skim the rest because it didn't really seem to have all that many answers for the mainstream population, now less popularly known as 'poor people.'" As long as you're comfortable with that, Ms. Nunn, then by all means, play to your strengths. The Reader's Martha Bayne thinks that the Tribune might have a new book critic in their ranks.

That aside, this could have been an opportunity for Ms. Nunn to encourage the reader to give more thought about agricultural sustainability, where we get our food, and how that food may affect our health. Instead, we get a story in which the author can't be bothered to look up some basic facts for herself, which sometimes can be as simple as reading the ingredients on a label, all thinly cloaked as "satire." The moral of Ms. Dunn's piece is, "I'm in my forties and already set in my ways. Why should I change now?" As someone reaping the benefits of removing high fructose corn syrup from our diet, Chicagoist might say that you should change because you still can, because it's never too late to change and educate yourself on the subject. And we're far from being food Nazis. There are reasons why people passionately debate these issues, and curtly dismissing one perspective in generalized terms from a position of blissful ignorance is where Ms. Nunn's article ultimately fails.

We know that old adage about a little knowledge sometimes being a dangerous thing. Ms. Nunn's article is a case where a little knowledge would have actually been useful.

Email This Entry


Comments (3) [rss]

it's amazing to me that an article that rife with ignorance and self-impendence even got printed. what was her point exactly?

she reminds me of my mother, who regularly predicted a fascist food war resulting in people having to hoard potatoes and steaks hidden deep in secluded forests. ...that is, until she developed adult-onset diabetes. i wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens to ms. nunn, and will she ever be howling then.

Seems like this post contains an interesting idea worth talking about, yet I couldn't get past this passage: " ... Emily Nunn comes across instead as obstinate to and proudly ignorant of what we would know about where our food comes from if we only PAID ATTENTION TO THE WORLD AROUND US!!!"

Did you actually write that, or was it a riff off Nunn's article? If you did write it, do you get paid by the preposition? I mean, after trying to read that sentence, I am reminded of how my head hurt after smoking all that ditch weed in high school. That's not even saying anything about the CAPS AND MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION POINTS, which should be used only by eight-grade girls on the verge of a heartbreak, or cranky right wingers pissed off at Gore and his satanic gang of followers.

Now, if this passage was meant as a parody--perhaps you are making a comment about writers who try to write smarter than they actually are by using big words when small ones would make the point more efficiently, one or more ill-serving adjectives, and the annoying stop-start rhythm created by the prepositions --it was brilliant, really, and I bow to your experiments with language.

By the way, when did Chicagoist become a "he"? Does Chicagoist change gender from time to time like those mythical creatures of yore? That would actually be rather interesting.

Seriously, if this was your own writing and not some satirical statement, I'd be glad to send Chicagoist--he, she, it, us or we, whatever the case may be--a copy of Strunk & White. I suspect the financial and ego rewards of writing for this site are tiny, but you are all proud writers, correct?

You might want to check the dictionary definition of "obstinate." [firmly or stubbornly adhering to one's purpose, opinion, etc.; not yielding to argument, persuasion, or entreaty] I don't think one can be "obstinate to" something. One can be obstinate "about" or "regarding" an issue, but not "to."

However, it even doesn't seem like that's what you were trying to say in the first place. Perhaps "indifferent to" or "hostile to" (or a fancy synonym) is closer to what you meant.
/END/lexigeekery

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About Chicagoist

Chicagoist is a website about Chicago. More

Editor: Marcus Gilmer
Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:

KOI ... pet fish you can really pet !
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Chicagoist.

All Our RSS