Yellow at the Resurrection | Creation and Food

Yellow at the Resurrection

Written by Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, 02 March 2010 11:23

So I like Michael Pollan, and I like his writing voice. This book promises to be a lot of fun, and very informative. For any who want some more background on Pollan, here isa video clip where he and Hugh Grant (no, not that one) discuss some of these issues. Grant is the head of Monsanto, the Death Star of seed production.

The details Pollan provides in this book are fascinating to me and, as I suspected, the differences we have are at the foundational, paradigmatic level.

The first chapter is on the ubiquity of corn. We here in North America are the corn people. Corn is everywhere. The background assumption here is that we shouldn't be the corn people, and it is not yet apparent to me where that is coming from. "How do we know that?" is a question that I always find myself asking, usually at the point where praise or blame come in.

Pollan begins with supermarkets that seem disconnected with "Nature." But he then goes on to show the actual connection to Nature, and it is usually a corn field in Nature -- or Iowa at any rate. His foil is industrial food (a competitor with Nature, but a competitor which rides on the back of Nature), which he defines as "any food whose provenance is so complex or obscure that it that it requires expert help to ascertain" (p. 17).

The problem is that Nature is mute. Even if accorded the status of a god, it is a god that cannot speak. We cannot derive any oughts from the is. If Nature is a god, it is a god that is an eternal flat plain, having no Mt. Sinai anywhere. There are no stone tablets with the will of this god inscribed on it. Whatever is, is.

The Christian with food interests can appeal to nature (lower case n) as a source of revelation, subservient to Scripture. But the things we derive from nature must be consistent with Scripture, and must not be used to trump Scripture. Nature teaches us that sodomy is out, for example, and so does the Bible, more explicitly and clearly. Nature does not teach us that we should not consume so much corn, and neither does the Bible. At bottom most of my questions about this food business are epistemological. How can we say that? Where did we get that? Self-control I know about, and gluttony, and drunkenness. But where do I get warnings from God about the lawful percentages of corn in stuff? Someone might point to penicillin as something we discovered out in nature, and for which we have no scriptural support. And I grant it -- I believe the scientific method is trustworthy, and we can learn a lot as we exercise dominion. I do not deny the principle. What I question are the facts. Here I am, with lots of corn molecules in my fingernails, likely to outlive almost all of my ancestors. Why is it bad to have my body, which goes into the ground at eighty (say), have lots of corn in it? I know why it is bad to have an affliction that penicillin can treat. But why is the corn bad? Will I be yellow at the resurrection?

One of Pollan's foundational assumptions is his commitment to evolution, which is really odd. "The current thinking among botanists is that several thousand years ago teosinte underwent an abrupt series of mutations that turned it into corn" (p. 27). He does not give us this in a passing reference to evolution, but rather grounds the whole edifice of his argument upon it. And the reason this is odd is that the argument, once grounded this way, collapses.

Like many who look closely at the natural world, he moves smoothly from a raw assertion about the gropings of blind chance to a discussion of the dazzling engineering that went into the corn stalk. For example, a grain of pollen drops from the male organ at the top of the stalk (there are about 14-18 million grains of pollen per plant), and lands on one of the silk tassles. The pollen's nucleus then divides it into two, each genetically identical, but with two different jobs. One of the twins tunnels a microscopic tube down the center of the silk thread. The other twin then follows it down the tunnel to fuse with the egg to form the germ of the kernel. Then the other twin, the first one, follows along to set about forming the big starchy part of the kernel. Ta da! What university did the corn go to in order to learn how to do all that? Blind chance? Heh.

This kind of description is why I intend to enjoy this book. But the odd part of this is that evolution is all about change. And evolution is what evolution does, and so why are mono-crops a problem? What duties does corn have to wheat or peas? Doesn't evolution require the promulgation of your own seed, as much as possible? It seems that the evolutionist should want to let 'er rip, and may the best grain win. Survival of the you-know-whatest. And it seems that the Christian (who wants to learn from an evolutionist like Pollan) has to balance what God built into the world on the one hand, with plants bearing seed after their kind, and the dominion mandate on the other, which gives us the authority to tinker, as Jacob did with the sheep. At the one end we would have the raw foods option, and at the other we would have the most loathsome of all frankenfoods. The Christian has no business at either extreme.

So what do we need in order to sort this all out? For starters, we need a commitment to the authority of reason. By this I do not mean autonomous reason, Enlightenment style, but an approach to data (whether in Scripture or from nature) that is willing to have a pet idea be falsified, and knows what constitutes falsification. Evolution doesn't give us this, while a Creator God does.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Tammy - BT corn

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:42 pm

I've not read anything by Michael Pollan. I don't have anything against corn in general, but I do have something against BT corn, which is the type of corn grown by most farmers in this country. BT is a naturally occurring organism that kills caterpillars, mosquito larvae and some other insects. By itself, it is allowed to be sprayed on an organic crop. But, the BT corn has the BT genetic material spliced into the corn plant itself, thus altering the genetic makeup of the food. This isn't just using our brains and improving plant varieties by selecting those that do well under certain conditions and propagating it. This is as you call it "frankenfoods" imho. There has been some research that shows that BT corn does in fact harm people, by changing the natural environment in the bowel. I can't recall the details to that study and don't have time to find it right now but I'm sure if you google BT crops and adverse effects, you will probably find lots of information on it.

John Caneday - Appreciation for Pollan

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:59 pm

Pastor Wilson,

I applaud you for taking the time to interact with Pollan. I too like Pollan, despite his belief in evolution.

I have two thoughts regarding where Pollan is taking the argument, having read Omnivore's Dilemma in the past six months.

First, the predominance of corn in our diets is "bad" because it demonstrates a lack of a diverse, well-rounded diet. This leads to a deficiency in certain nutrients and vitamins.

Second, mono-crops are bad, the argument goes, because of their destruction upon the soil, and the increased likelihood of crop failure--like the Irish potato famine.

This is where Pollan is going to take the argument, and I do think there is some wisdom there.

One of the things I really appreciate about Pollan is, as you pointed out in your first post--the "American Paradox." Pollan argues that America has lost its wisdom about food--what to eat and how much. This is one of his greatest insights, in my opinion.

The industrialization of food has led to a the marketing of food, ultimately leading to confusion about what is "good food."

I think it is Pollan's "In Defense of Food" where he discusses "nutritionism," but this idea of "health food" has gotten out of hand and has led to much confusion.

There is a Pollan interview, with Nightline, I believe it was, that had a commercial from the '50s or '60s labeling Twinkies as health food. It is this sort of marketing that led to a loss of food wisdom that we are now trying to reclaim.

Josh Reighley

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:26 pm

I have read that if humans stopped planting modern corn, it would no longer exist. It would be gone from the planet. Corn is an entirely dependent on Human breeding and cultivation.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Where you draw the line between genetically engineered and "bred" is kinda hazy in this case.

David Hendrix - Crazy for Corn

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 2:03 pm

Let us appeal to reason. Natural corn consumed in abundance without traditional methods of preparation to release nutrients leads to pellagra, a horrific modern disease characterized by diarrhea, dermatitis and dementia. We need to be careful with what we eat. Even natural food can kill you slowly.

Brian C. - just eat it.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:27 pm

Tammy,

I appreciate your in depth knowledge concerning food and I really think you have contributed a lot to this conversation. But don't you think you know a little too much about food? One warning sign that you may be a little too zealous is the fact that you have an opinion on corn. Before I read your comment, all I knew about corn is that it tastes really good with lots of butter and salt.

I think these conversations on food are slowly turning into meaningless quarrels that Christians should avoid. Not sure. But you have made some very strong points. Thank you.

Tammy - No, I don't

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:29 am

No, Brian, I don't think I know too much about food. I think it is unwise to just go to the grocery store and think that the large corporations only have our best interests at heart. I know what I do, because I have read a little on the subject. I just happen to have been gifted from God with tremendous recall. I remember most everything I read. So, I know about BT corn and Roundup Ready soybeans. The internet has made it very easy to re-find the information that I read long ago.

As Christians, we should be taking dominion over every area of life, that includes the process of making food. Do you want to eat meat from cloned animals? I don't. But that is one of the things that BIG AG is working on. I also don't want to eat tomatoes that have hog genes spliced into their genetic makeup, or corn with BT spliced in or Soybean products that have been produced solely so that the farmer can plant them, then after the plants come up, go out and spray the whole field with Round Up, an herbicide. The herbicide kills every other plant in the field, except the Round Up ready soybeans. Monsanto has spliced something into the genetic makeup of their soybean so that it will continue to grow, even after being slathered with their herbicides.

You, as an individual, can't buy BT corn, so you can grow your own and still enjoy the corn you love. It is only commercially grown corn that has BT spliced into the genetic structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_corn
"Bt corn resists certain insects and commercial growers have access to sweet corn seed bred with this artificial trait. Bt corn and other transgenic varieties are not available to the home grower due to protocols that must be followed in their production."

Brad Donovan

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:15 pm

Brian, Like you I really enjoy this series of articles and responses. I would just like to chime in on the "get-along-theme" Corn is also really good in home-made salsa. My wife does a killer salsa. And it doesn't kill me, I "kill" it and with thanksgiving. That is kinda the point here. I come to the table with thanksgiving, not grousing about whos barn the hog was in before it died to satisfy my craving for bacon.

Bob Mothershed - Good Stuff

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:03 pm

Really enjoying it. I have been circling the agrarian camp for a few years and have often lamented that there are not reformed folk doing a lot of talking on the issue.

I am now reading the entire string on the subject that you have posted.
Many thanks, and I am glad that I found it.

Gianni

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:19 am

"It seems that the evolutionist should want to let 'er rip, and may the best grain win. "

Yes, that is a should of consistency.

Although (out of consistency!) the evolutionist cannot justify, give an account for, and afford even "should's" of consistency.

What is, is.

Tammy

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:27 am

Just new this morning, an article on GMO corn and allergies.

http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2010/03/03/genetically-engineered-corn-may-cause-food-allergies.aspx

"The biotech industry is fond of bragging about their genetically modified (GM) crops that “resist pests.” This conjures up images of insects staying away from GM fields. But resisting pests is a euphemism for contains its own pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin from the plant splits open their stomach and kills them.

The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly appetizing. But the biotech companies insist that the pesticide, called Bt-toxin, has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for example, have used solutions containing the natural form of Bt-toxin—produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria—as a method of natural insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants. Moreover, they claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach; and even if it survived, it won’t cause reactions in humans or mammals. Studies show otherwise.

Bt spray is dangerous, the GM version is worse

Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.1,2,3

Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin,45678 and authorities acknowledge that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”9 In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.10,11 Now, thousands of agricultural workers in India exposed to GM Bt cotton varieties are reporting those exact symptoms; they don’t react to natural cotton.12

The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn’t wash off the plants like the spray does,1314 and it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.15 In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.16

GM pollen may cause allergies

Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in pollen, which can be inhaled. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people was stricken by a disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever, and allergies, as well as respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first in those living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by proximity. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, the symptoms returned in all four areas—only during the time of pollination.

The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in a letter to the FDA in 1998 by a UK government committee. They had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.17 Although no studies were done to verify this risk, years later UK scientists confirmed that after consuming GM soybeans, the foreign inserted genes transferred from the soy into the DNA of human gut bacteria. If Bt genes from GM corn chips, for example, also transfer, it might convert our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—continually producing Bt-toxin inside of us.

Lab animals react to GM crops

Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to produce built-in pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat study on Bt corn showed a significant increase in blood cells related to the immune system.18 Pesticide producing GM peas19 and potatoes20 (not Bt) also provoked immune responses in rodents.

Allergic reactions are a defensive, often harmful immune system response to an external irritant. The body interprets something as foreign, different, and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. According to GM food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, “A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, . . . indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods.”21

In addition to immune responses, several studies and reports suggest that GM foods are toxic."

Billie Hallman

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:11 am

From page 94 of _You Can Farm_ by Joel Salatin, published in 1998: "Recent data compiled by agricultural economists show that in order to produce a $15,000 salary, a Midwestern grain farmer must grow 1,000 acres of corn or 3,000 acres of wheat. Harvesting alone is a major nightmare both economically and logistically. That is not a realistic option for the would-be farmer. In fact, if the truth were told, it's not a realistic option for most of the farmers who are doing it."

Billie Hallman

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:23 am

With those kind of profit margins, is it any wonder farmers are trying to cut out some of the variables that make their job difficult? I certainly can't fault anyone for trying to take dominion by eradicating weeds or crop-eating bugs. The results of these attempts, as Tammy states, can be frightening however. But that is just a fraction of the problem.

My real question here is what are we doing to the farmer when we demand that he produce enough corn per acre to feed 100 people, and we only want to pay him pennies to produce it (and let the government take up the slack through subsidies)? When we sit down to thank God for our meal, after we show little to no gratitude to the farmer by the pittance we give him for his labor, can we do that in good conscience? Additionally, can we rightly criticize other government handouts when most of the food we buy in the store is dependent on those very same handouts?

Billie Hallman

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:36 am

Likewise, can we say we're against statism when every meal we eat supports those pushing for more government regulation of who produces food and how? There are already some ridiculous regulations in place if we want to see what comes of this lunacy: Your dairy products have to be bottled with a $30,000 machine (in some states) and cooked to be safe to drink. Your eggs have to come from someone with a candler's license and they have to be washed with a chlorinated detergent. Your meat has to be processed in a building with x, y, and z specifications... It's certainly overstepping the bounds of Scripture. Can we rightly ignore that?

Chris Donato - A few nits

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:39 am

1) "Nature does not teach us that we should not consume so much corn…."

Absolutely wrong. Others (Tammy, at least) in this thread have shown why. Add to this the economics of corn-industry subsidies (i.e., corporate welfare) and technological "advancement" and how this too goes against nature (insofar as it leads to unnatural outcomes), and you've got a pretty good case against its ubiquity.

2) "The problem is that Nature is mute."

Hardly. As you yourself say just a paragraph later: We can "appeal to nature"; we can "derive [things—oughts] from nature"; "nature teaches us that [fill in the blank] is out."

Nature is not mute. It is muted by fideists; or, admittedly, by everybody just when it's convenient.

Moreover, inscribed tablets are not needed to bolster an "ought." An "ought" is an "ought," whether or not it has been inscripturated.

3) "What university did the corn go to in order to learn how to do all that? Blind chance?"

Your speaking of evolutionary theory, with respect to corn at least, as if it's necessarily equivalent to something called "blind chance" (regardless of Pollan's particular views), is unhelpful.

Nature has a purpose; there is a purpose for nature. But divine purpose is not necessarily discernible within it. That would betray at times a less-than admirable intelligence.

No doubt your intent when discussing the fertilization of corn was meant to portray its complexity (and thus some kind of divine intervention, i.e., special creation of the cornstalk). To be sure, it's complex. But surely the creator God could have done a better job? Can no greater fertilization process be conceived? It most certainly can (with apologies to Anselm).

All you're saying on this point is that you can't conceive of a world in which God uses mutation processes and natural selection to bring his creation to that which he has promised—a very good end, a wonderful future.

Billie Hallman

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 am

We are a society that thinks more about our entertainment than our food. We, in Reformed circles, take issue with worship services that are all entertainment and no communion. Perhaps if we had more opinions on corn (since we seem to be eating so much of it) than we do on the most recent movie down at the cinemaplex, our lives would be a better reflection of how we worship. When one farm is tasked with producing the needs of 10,000 people, exactly how much are the rest of those 10,000 people going to be thinking about it? Especially if the price they pay to purchase it is nothing close to a representation of the amount of work that went into growing it?

Billie Hallman

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:45 am

I realize that all my posts here may make me sound a bit bitter about food prices, since I am also a hobby farmer. Not at all. I also benefit from cheap corn, and if all of a sudden I was told I'd have to pay 3 times as much to feed my family and my livestock (egg and milk producing animals require more than grass), I'm not sure what I'd do. I don't sell my eggs for any more than most grocery stores because I see it as more of a ministry than a business--I hope for sales to pay for expenses, but my labor is free. Call me simple, but for the life of me, I can't see how the farmer who depends upon his farm for his own livlihood can exist in our economy. So while I think monocropping leads to an out of balance disconnect with our food, I think it is a symptom of bigger problems. The athiest foodie recognizes that something is wrong, but just can't get it right what that something is. We certainly don't want to follow him based on his premises, but we ought not say it's no matter of concern and let him be the only one who is trying to correct the problems with the current system.

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll