In Wendell Berry's 1989 essay, 'The Pleasures of Eating,' the author expands on the
advice and a challenge he gives city dwellers on how to stem the decline of American farming
and rural life. To most urban dwellers, the decline may be of no concern, and they may have
little knowledge or emotional engagement in the food supply chain they participate in. In the
authors words, when it comes to food, most urban dwellers 'think of themselves as consumers'
instead of participants in an agricultural act (Berry 124). This essay cleverly illustrates what can
happen to an important part of our life if we become passive and lazy in our pursuit of quality in
our food supply. The author provides information in the essay on how to eat responsibly,
improve our quality of life, and even have some fun as we pursue it.

To engage the reader, the author makes a proposal that 'eating is an agricultural act'
followed with several questions and observations (Berry 124). The essay provides solutions to
many of the questions posed including a list of tasks to perform to improve the reader's eating
experience. The list is clear, and the author appears to be knowledgeable of farming and
agriculture, lending credibility to the story. However, the author does not end the essay with the
list of tasks; he instead goes on to describe the benefits and pleasures of eating responsibly. The
last task on the list is the most important in his eyes because of the pleasure derived from it. He
uses this as the transition to reach the reader at more of an emotional level. Specifically, he
challenges the reader to learn as much as possible about the food species because 'there is such
pleasure in knowing them' (Berry 127). At this point in the essay, the author asks the reader to
consider the conditions that the animal and plants experience to be calculated in the pleasure
derived from the consumption of the food products. This is a clever use of enargeia, and it works.
After reading this passage, it has already raised curiosity on my behalf of the living conditions of
the animals, and vegetables I am consuming.

An interesting observation the author uses is his portrayal of the typical urban consumer
as 'in short - a victim' of the food supply system (Berry 125). He uses the victim portrayal to
play on the reader's emotions and to motivate them into thinking about their food supply and
making a change in their food sourcing activities. His advice to 'eat responsibly' sounds logical
and seems obvious and beneficial to all parties involved (Berry 124). Using a dialectic style, he
asks, and answers his questions. Is the American public determined to not 'eat responsibly' or is
being a victim of the food supply a trap with no escape (Berry)? In what appears to be a cynical
view of the public and their knowledge of the food chain and how food makes it to the
marketplace, the author offers this observation of the typical food consumer in America, 'For
them, then, food is pretty much and abstract idea ' something they do not know or imagine '
until it appears on the grocery shelf or the table' (Berry 124). To take some of the sting out of
what may feel like an insult to many urban food consumers, the author also portrays the
American food industry as part of the problem with statements like, 'The consumer, that is to
say, must be kept from discovering that, in the food industry- as in any other industry ' the
overriding concerns are not quality and health, but volume and price' (Berry 126). The author
also acknowledges that in many cases, the choices the urban consumer has are limited. The
average food consumer in America, according to the author, has a limited choice in part because
of what the food industry is willing to offer and because they (the consumers) are passive about
exploring other options. The author's vivid description of the system appears to be designed to
make the urban consumer mad enough to question the motives and information provided by the
food suppliers.

As already mentioned, the author supplies a list of tasks to help the reader evaluate and
escape from the trap even if the reader was not aware they are in the trap. The author uses his
farming experience as a solid basis to reveal the truth about the food supply industry and the
inherent traps that exist. As the author continues to point out, the lack of awareness of the limited
choice for the consumer is part of the trap. This lack of awareness is a gradual process resulting
in the agribusiness marketing machinery getting away with camouflaging their processed food
and their motives to the point where our food 'wears as much makeup as the actors,' presumably
in the advertisements (Berry 126).

In yet another interesting use of the portrayal of the consumer as a victim, the author
introduces politics and freedom. The author makes the jump from food to freedom with a well
thought out deductive sentence: 'There is, then, a politics of food that, like any politics, involves
our freedom' (Berry 125). The author has done a good bit of work to bring the reader to this
point by describing the consumer not only as a victim of his own passive nature, but also as a
victim of agribusiness, processors, marketing, and technology. In a refreshing observation the
author states, 'one reason to eat responsibly is to live free' (Berry). By making the connection to
freedom with eating, the author makes a strong emotional appeal to be a responsible eater so we
can break free from the grip of food politics. The author is again arguing deductively that
responsible eating is a path to better life, in this case freedom.

The author also uses another portrayal in which he describes the consumer as the
'industrial eater' (Berry 125). He explains the potential conflict between technology and quality
when it comes to responsible eating. The reader experiences another round of deductive
reasoning as we first learn what he means by the term, and then we must decide if we are in fact
an industrial eater and what we need to do to escape from that classification if necessary. In a
wonderful twist of irony, he describes how technology in the food supply chain and our kitchens
can quickly disconnect us from responsible eating. Instead of using technology to improve the
quality of our food experience, our laziness and passive approach to our food sourcing can easily
degrade into a gradual dependency of quick and easily microwaved processed food at home.
One can easily see this happening as we continue to pursue our 'dream homes' with high
technology kitchens and 'effortless shopping' experiences with online selection and delivery of
food stuffs (Berry 125). In the same light, he challenges us to look closely at our restaurants, and
other food choices made outside the house. His observation about our restaurants 'resemble
filling stations' that are moving highly processed and attractive food ever more quickly, is
concerning and unfortunately true (Berry). It is interesting that his predictions have come true.
The author is clearly a visionary and does a good job revealing what is lost with the industrial
eating experience. Filling stations for people and vehicles are merging, as we now see drive
through coffee service and hamburger/ submarine sandwich counters appearing in vehicle filling
stations in urban areas. Now a consumer can get a meal and a drink at the same location they fuel
up their vehicle. They may save a minute or two by having the locations merged, but as the
author points out, the experience is industrial, synthetic, and sterile. All this is done, as the author
points out, to allow us more time to hurriedly pursue our next industrial, synthetic, and sterile
activity. Again the author provides a good commentary on our cultural norms and how they can
degrade our quality of life if we become caught up in the rush. Thankfully, the author's list of
tasks again helps to mitigate the risk of us becoming an industrial eater, and hopefully it may
even help us to eat responsibly.

Moving on the list of tasks, the author makes several practical points in his guide for
consumers to eat responsibly such as reducing intake of processed foods, growing food at home,
and pursuing locally farmed food products. This expertise and insight appears to come from his
farming knowledge and proficiency. He continues to make his points both deductively and
inductively by presenting perspectives of the food chain from the consumer, producer (farmer),
processor, animal, plant, and even the earth's perspective. In the cleverly described linkage of all
the participants, he proposes that harmony in all stages of the linkage will create a better eating
experience for the consumer. A clever use of enargeia depicts a happy cow in a beautiful
meadow as the precursor to a better tasting cut of meat. Clearly this is designed to develop
compassion for the animals living condition regardless of the fact that in either case the animal
will still be slaughtered. In the same manner, he seeks 'sympathy for the slaw' as he condemns
the environmental impacts of the large cabbage fields utilized by agribusiness (Berry 126). The
reader is left to decide if a smaller field would provide better cabbage with less impact to the
environment. The author offers no evidence or facts to validate the claims and throughout the
essay, the author chooses to not make scientific references and expects the audience to agree
with his deductive and inductive reasoning without facts. The essay provides images of the small
farm as a vestige of utopia for plant and beast and with deductive rhetoric, the author anticipates
the reader will conclude that the quality of the food from a small farm will be vastly superior to
the large farms and feedlots. At this point it is clear that the author is portraying himself as an
expert in agriculture (particularly in small farm settings). The reader has no way to determine
this; however, the writing style is packed with practical, logical and visually pleasing scenarios.
It would be hard to fathom that the author was not in fact knowledgeable and an expert in the
field of agriculture.

The lack of economic information may slightly weaken the author's argument because
depending on the audience he is trying to reach, this may be crucial. By not addressing or at least
recognizing the economic picture, the author's message may be at odds or dismissed by some
urban dwellers as a luxury that is out of reach for them. As a college student and an urban
dweller, the two issues that come to mind as barriers to responsible eating are time and money.
As a student on a meal plan with a full academic load, there is not time or money for me to grow
my own or pursue local food supply options. However, with a microwave and a small
refrigerator I can manage to consume reasonably healthy light meals and snacks in my dorm.
Changing my behavior would be expensive and time consuming.

Initially, the essay felt like a self serving appeal from a small Kentucky farmer to
encourage urbanites to purchase food from small businesses like his for his financial survival. Or
perhaps, this is his way of fighting to continue his lifestyle as the large agribusinesses threaten to
eliminate small farmers, such as himself, across America. But after reflection, the appeal is more
than that. It is warning America to be knowledgeable of the entire food supply chain. This is
common sense to folks that have grown food and grow food to this day. The author does a good
job engaging the folks that have not grown food by tapping a compassion for animals and life in
general to draw them into a new perspective about food and its consumption. Overall, the advice
and challenge offered by the author was great and accomplished its goal because I now feel the
need to eat more responsibly. For me, a more palatable message would be something like: do
yourself a favor, and prepare yourself for when you have more time and money, to eat more
responsibly. It is good to know where the food came from and how it was produced. It is good
for our health, the economy and our happiness' Bon appetit.

