• At the top of page 289 in the Omnivore's Dilemma the author quotes Claude Levi-Strauss. He said food must be "not only good to eat, but also good to think." What does it mean for a food to be good to think? Do we consume enough foods that are "good to think?"—JB

• My question comes from page 289. The article talks about how much humans rely on variety of foods for life. We need vitamins from both plants and animals. The contrast is koalas and cows which only need to eat one thing to live. There are distinct advantages and disadvantages to these lifestyles as presented in the article. But looking through the picture puzzle pattern door, Food Inc presented the concept of our variety being an illusion. Do you think we have too much or too little variety and how does this affect us?—CD

• Q: pg 291 discusses how the way foods taste are linked to certain aspects such as a warning or a need for carbs. Have you guys ever viewed it in this way?—ER

• On page 293 Pollan mentions that when we find more convenient ways to eat we free our minds to other pursuits. Later he mentions the capitalist marketing convenience in their food (e.g. the one-handed Campbell's soup-cup). So where is the convenience in food bad and where is it good?—JP

• Pg 298. Do you guys think that other countries have as severe of an "eating disorder" as America is said to have in this section?—RA

• On p. 300-301, the author speaks of how the French eat unhealthy foods, yet are still able to stay healthy by living by unspoken rules: no seconds, no snacking, communal meals, etc. Do you think this is all it really takes, if so why is it so hard for Americans to adapt this style. If not, what makes the French lifestyle work while ours doesn't?—KW

• On p. 302, the VP of marketing at General Mills sets up the "American family dinner". Do any of you guys have a similar type of dinner with your family?—RS

• On p. 302, the author talks about the studies food companies conducted on families. What do you think about this apparent manipulation of people?—SM

• On the 2nd to last page of the article, the author states "The family dinner...appears to be the latest such casualty of capitalism." He later states that cultural norms for food have been replaced by what science tells us is good. Is is possible to establish a culinary culture/customs based on science?—KM

• In the third paragraph [of "Natural Born Mutants" in "Ears of Plenty"], there is one part that says about the mutated wheat: "No safety tests are done; nobody protests." Some kinds of artificially mutated wheat can actually fight against pests themselves, and can produce more than ever before. However, do you think that what we are doing against nature? and what can be the consequences? I believe that whenever a new kind of mutated wheat produced, the pests will also mutate to cope with the change and survive. Do you think human is undergoing genetically modification gradually by absorbing those wheat? (Not only wheat, but also corn and rice).—KT

• Do you guys agree that localized agriculture would benefit society, such as solve many health and environmental problems?—SC