Big Food Strikes Back Analysis

Michael Pollan's piece “Big Food Strikes Back” in October 9, 2016 The New York Times Magazine begins with critique of a lack of the discussion about food system during 2008 U.S. presidential campaigns. Nevertheless, the food topic—being multi-dimensional—is inevitably a part of a larger, and more discussed, themes such as public health, climate change, and nation's' energy requirements, to name a few. Furthermore, the author in this article pinpoints the U.S. food systems' problems. The production of monocrops, which are subsidized by the government, result in high emissivity of the greenhouse gasses and have shown a negative impact on public health and ecology. “Big Food Strikes Back” also familiarizes the readers with the corporate food …show more content…
Basically, as Pollan claims, all the recognition in attempt to change the current food system should go to Michelle Obama, the first lady of the United States, who made a powerful, at least symbolically, step of planting the organic garden in the White House. She also was responsible for establishing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, as well as “Let’s Move” campaign that serves as an educational component regarding importance of the food. After a powerful speech addressing food issues, Michelle Obama also made a “pledge to America’s small farmers and ranchers [and] the administration began an ambitious antitrust initiative against.” Since, a number of small farmers spoke out and reported on the abuse by the Big Food. Consequently, Big Food, after being exposed in the negative light , were forced to spend more money on lobbying to keep politicians and policies on their