Synthesis (W10)

In the article, “The Moral Crusade Against Foodies” by Myers, he seems to lash against anyone who speaks on the behalf of food. He addresses both sides of the spectrum, talking about Pollan and especially his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which talks about natural ways of obtaining food, as well as criticizing Anthony Bourdain and his exotic eating habits. Myers takes everything about a foodie and uses it against them, but there are so many things that are flawed in his writing.

The pompous way that Myers addresses foodies is just sickening. He comments on the fact that it seems like foodies just talk in order to hear themselves talk about food to one another. He compares reading foodies’ books to a “crowded, fetid restaurant” in the beginning. What he clearly does not realize is that he is just as awful. He has this superiority complex in his writing that is just terrible to read.  To top it all off, there seems like there is really no point to his article except that foodies are bad. However, the way he talks about the topic, he does not say what is truly best. Is he advocating that people should eat solely for nutrition and that any indulgence is wrong? His argument is not clear to me. All it seems like is just one big rant how any way addressing food that is anything other than its nutritious value is a crime.

When he talks about Pollan’s book, he addresses everything negative about it. Myers refuses to talk about it in a light because since Pollan is solely talking about food and taking the natural way. It is true that The Omnivore’s Dilemma addresses how food is over-processed and how people should eat more natural foods even though it is a little more expensive. But what is wrong with that? What is the problem with bringing to light the fact that most of the food that Americans consume is corn in some shape or form? Overall, he is teaching people things that they might not know about their food and what is the shame in that? When Pollan wrote about his friend who watched a goat get slaughtered for the food, sure that may have seemed like a little bit offensive and unnecessary, but I am sure if people watched what their food had to go through before they ate it, I am sure that people would think more about the food they eat.  

Myers continually talks about Bourdain and the way that he goes around the world and eats the most exotic foods just because he can. The price ranges for the foods that he eats is mostly out of many Americans’ price ranges, but it is mostly entertainment for viewers. I understand that people who define themselves by the food they eat seems a little absurd. The fact that Guy Fieri defines his personality by going around and filming all this food that he consumes at different spots is a bit gluttonous. No one should be known solely for the amounts of food they eat and what they eat, but in America, that is who we are. We enjoy watching shows about food. So if anything, Myers should be angry at Americans for letting this happen. These people who make money off what they eat are only the products of their viewers.

I understand where Myers is coming from in some parts. Yes, people that go to other countries and make others observe their religious beliefs and their culture is rude. Yes, the fact that people use the exotic foods they eat as their résumé and personality definer is ridiculous. Sure, people who claim that cooks are gods and that food is heavenly or any other religious connotation is being blasphemous. Of course, gluttony is unhealthy and shows and books promoting that are not helping the overeating/obesity crisis in America. However, there is a classier way to address the topic than to be completely bombastic and rude. Clearly, Myers does not know that.