The
Super Meats: Ozeki Response
According
to the documentary “Food Inc.”, the meat that you eat now is significantly
different than the meat your great grandparents consumed (Food Inc. 2009). The
chickens and cows also look very different than during that time period (Food
Inc. 2009). The reason for this is because animals are now receiving hormone
injections to make them grow faster and produce more fat and muscle tissue
(Food Inc. 2009). This has been in practice for several decades now. While the
idea behind this may sound great (more meat for my money, bigger portion sizes), it has very adverse
consequences. The animals get so big they can barely walk around (some can’t at
all) and their living conditions are horrendous (Food Inc. 2009). This also
increases the risk for contaminated and unhealthy meat. Plus, the animals are
given antibiotics to combat the disgusting living conditions they endure. These
antibiotics can easily be transferred into human systems through consumption.
That increases disease resistance and makes them harder to treat. The hormones
that are injected into the animals can also be transferred to humans. These hormones
do allow more meat to be produced and more money to be made, but these benefits
do not outweigh the bad consequences. The meat increases in quantity, but loses quality because of the way the meat is raised. The meat is not developed naturally so that decreases the quality.
According to Ozeki’s “My
Year of Meats” novel, there has not been any direct proof yet of a connection
between human hormone changes and meat (but I’m sure it’s only a matter of
time). However, in Ozeki’s novel she mentions that men have half the sperm
count they had fifty years ago and that about half of the sperm they do produce
is deformed. It definitely checks out as infertility rates continue to be a
prominent issue. DES is also mentioned in the novel. DES is a hormone that was
deemed illegal in most meat except beef. DES is linked with infertility of
offspring, physically deformed offspring, inability of consumer to reproduce, etc.
Ozeki even tries to link her fertility issues with the DES hormone.
Adams’ “Sexual Politics of Meat” also touches on these areas mentioned above. The first chapter is about the distinctions made between eating meat for men and women. Men are considered men if they eat meat. Women are considered to eat more along the lines of veggies and dairy. The chapter mentions that men NEED meat and become more fertile and manly through its consumption. This theory obviously contradicts the two other sources I’ve mentioned above. In Adams book, meat is also a source of power and is what is believed to have brought the West to prominence (because they had and consumed more meat). Soldiers required more meat than any one because of the complex carbs and proteins it contained. This left little meat for the citizens of the US during the prior wars. Meat is considered a manly food, but yet the women must cook it. In the society’s that rely heavily on meat there is an increase in sexual segregation at work (women do more work than mean, but it has less value), the women are responsible for childcare (a lot more than the men), and a patriarchal system is often present. In plant-based societies things are a bit more equal or at least a bit more egalitarian. Past presidential campaigns included comparing meat and veggies to running candidates (the candidate that was supposed to be the meat was the one that should get your vote).
Adams’ “Sexual Politics of Meat” also touches on these areas mentioned above. The first chapter is about the distinctions made between eating meat for men and women. Men are considered men if they eat meat. Women are considered to eat more along the lines of veggies and dairy. The chapter mentions that men NEED meat and become more fertile and manly through its consumption. This theory obviously contradicts the two other sources I’ve mentioned above. In Adams book, meat is also a source of power and is what is believed to have brought the West to prominence (because they had and consumed more meat). Soldiers required more meat than any one because of the complex carbs and proteins it contained. This left little meat for the citizens of the US during the prior wars. Meat is considered a manly food, but yet the women must cook it. In the society’s that rely heavily on meat there is an increase in sexual segregation at work (women do more work than mean, but it has less value), the women are responsible for childcare (a lot more than the men), and a patriarchal system is often present. In plant-based societies things are a bit more equal or at least a bit more egalitarian. Past presidential campaigns included comparing meat and veggies to running candidates (the candidate that was supposed to be the meat was the one that should get your vote).
Ozeki’s and Adams’
works are not exactly expressing the same viewpoint from the areas of the texts
I have mentioned. But it shows that human perceptions of meat and what is
associated with eating meat is far different from the suspected realities. Eating
meat does not necessarily equal manliness, in fact it can equate to just the
opposite. As far as Biology is concerned, what makes a male is based on how
much he reproduces. The paradox is, if a man is eating meat that is loaded with
hormones he probably will not produce as much sperm and thus not as many offspring.
Eating meat makes him less of a man according to Biology.
References
Food Inc., Kenner, 2009 (Documentary)
Interesting to bring in Food, Inc in relation to Ozeki -- when you're considering the Adams I wonder whether you're seeing any associations between meat and masculinity in Food, Inc.
ReplyDeleteThe chicken photo is a powerful imagery! You bring out a good contrast between what meat symbolizes (masculinity) versus what it is actually doing to consumers (taking "masculinity" away from men biologically). Keep that symbolism in mind for the last part of the class.
ReplyDelete