Can You Really Save the Planet at the Dinner Table?

             While reading "An economist’s critique of the Omnivore’s Dilemma" I should emphasize that Tyler Cowen brought up several examples which supremely opposed to Michael Pollan’s beliefs regarding the question, “How should a responsible person eat in the modern world?” Pollan’s suggestion such as eating “free-range” chickens is heavily criticized by Cowen since he points out that those “free-range” chickens often receive only a few inches of additional space than their peers. Also, he states that most of “free-range” chickens prefer to stay inside due to a fear of the unknown waiting outside of those tiny doors of factory farms. Moreover, Cowen invalidates Pollan’s another argument on “guzzling” petroleum for the transportation of Chilean grapes (mentioned in Omnivore’s Dilemma). Cowen believes that from economists’ precise point of view the conservation of energy should be cut from where it is highly effective and makes most sense, not from grape-shipping as mentioned by Pollan in Omnivore's Dilemma. Also, Cowen argues against Pollan stating the fact that New Zealand’s free trade in agriculture policy has flourished the country which is a complete opposite instance to what Pollan argues; Pollan argues about the negative impacts of “free trade in agriculture” towards family farms and markets in his book. Without mentioning any other occasions where Cowen firmly opposes Pollan's argument, I should say that Tyler Cowen makes the strongest case against Pollan's arguments mentioned in Omnivore’s Dilemma by providing several cases at which Pollan's arguments may not be effective or valid. idk