Final answer:
Pollan's statement is a metaphorical critique of the inefficient and environmentally damaging use of fossil fuels in corn and biofuel production, suggesting we might as well drink petroleum directly due to the input-output imbalance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Michael Pollan suggests that it would be better if we could just drink petroleum directly rather than eat corn as a metaphorical critique of corn-dependent diets. His argument highlights the extensive use of fossil fuels in the production of corn and other biofuels, stating that these processes are inefficient and have significant environmental repercussions. The concept that we might as well drink petroleum underscores the absurdity of this reliance on an energy-intensive system where the input (in this case, fossil fuels used in corn production) can be seen as less efficient than if we simply used the fossil fuels directly for energy. This ties to the broader debate on land use for food versus biofuels, and potential nutritional losses when prioritizing ethanol production over food crops.