Changing Our Food

This week’s reading in The Nation entitled “One Thing to Do About Food: A Forum” was especially interesting because it highlighted different themes from the course. It asked prominent names involved in the state of food what one thing they would change about food in the world. A few comments stood out to me from the rest. Eric Schlosser called for public awareness and transparency in the food industry because “the obligation to endure gives us the right to know.” Marion Nestle would stop marketing food to kids (an issue I brought up in my last post about McDonald’s Happy Meal toys) in an effort to curtail childhood obesity. Along those same lines, Michael Pollan argued against government decisions to subsidize overproduction as it leads to cheap, unhealthy food. Troy Duster and Elizabeth Ransom went as far as to compare unhealthy food to alcohol and drugs and the need for their regulation around schools. Lastly, Peter Singer urged the avoidance of factory-farm food because of its negative impact on the environment. This is very appropriate in a time when people are buying fuel-efficient cars to decrease their carbon footprint but could have an even greater impact if they limited their mass-produced food purchases.

I believe that all these points are valid and only with the combination of them will we achieve a better food system. However, I would also stress the importance of buying local and supporting community economies. Not only does this help small farms, but also leads to better eating habits as this food has more nutrients (and often tastes better!) than those produced for mass market. And did I mention that they do not have to be shipped around the country, a tragic waste of fossil fuels? Maybe if everyone changes at least one thing in the way they buy/eat we will see a great change in the world’s food system.

What would you change? Or do you think anything needs to be changed at all?

Would it be better to educate adults about the food industry or focus on the children in hopes that they will make better choices?

I just came across this video about a county in California where Happy Meals were just outlawed. Those in favor of the law say that the toys included in the meal promote the unhealthy food included. However, those opposed argue that it is the parent's responsibility to choose the healthier options provided and not penalize McDonald's itself. This new law was inspired by the statistic that one in every four children in Santa Clara County are overweight or obese. Whose responsibility is it for unhealthy food choices: the consumer's or the business's?

Food as a National Security Threat

This article discusses the new problem of overweight children/teens because of unhealthy diets and the inability to serve in the military. This group claims that this habit must be caught early or we will be without anyone to defend us should a catastrophe occur. This is an especially interesting article because usually the government is in favor of all freedom of food, but this is taking the opposite stance.

Where's the Food?

Did you know there are more than one billion hungry people in the world? I didn’t’. But why is hunger so common when in the United States, for example, where we are producing more calories than we as a country can consume. The authors of “The Scarcity Fallacy” claim that “world hunger has less to do with the shortage of food than with a shortage of affordable or accessible food.” They explain further that this has been caused by the production of food moving from small local farms to large corporate chains. Also, developing countries house most of the hungry population (about a quarter of them children). This is largely due to widespread poverty and continuous civil wars so no gains in human rights issues can be dealt with, because, after all, “food…[is] a human right.”

Again the theme is brought up that people pay for everything else before food because that is where the greatest aid is provided. However, some aid programs like one established by the US government to “remove surplus grain from domestic markets and assist military allies- has long been ineffective and misdirected.” In the end, it is not the hungry that benefit from these programs- it is the shipping and producing companies that profit.

The authors provide a solution of giving money to the hungry to use in their own regions, thus stimulating local economy. Solving world hunger would not only benefit those directly in need, but also help stabilize politics in many countries.

After reading this article it is difficult to believe that we have the means to end the pandemic of world hunger and we have not implemented them. It is our job as global citizens to help one another because everyone’s success is truly key to our own. I agree that giving assistance to local economies is better than feeding big business, but there would have to be a way to control what the money is used for, which is close to impossible. But we can each do our part, at least in our own communities, to stop people from going hungry. I will leave you with a quote from the article which I found astounding: “The same amount of grain needed to fill an SUV’s 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol could feed a single person for a whole year.”

Should we restrict our luxuries (cars, for example) in order to feed the hungry?
Is it feasible to control aid given to other countries? Or is there a better alternative?

Hungry for Change

When I think of the recent economic crisis I envision foreclosed houses or stock losses, but an issue just as prevalent is the rising need for food stamps. In a New York Times article entitled “Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades,” the authors highlight the fact that food programs are more common than most people might think. It includes a staggering statistic too: food welfare programs “feed one in eight Americans and one in four children.” This in a time when we are producing so much food we don’t know what to do with it! Now that is ironic.

It is also saddening to see that “food stamps reach about two-thirds of those eligible.” So who uses this system? Janet Poppendieck claims that it is mostly poor people who qualify for these services, and even then, to be classified as poor a household must not be able to spend a third of its income on food. It used to be the case that emergency food services were mostly used by single males, but now many women and children are finding that they too do not have the ability to adequately feed themselves. Also, an increasing number of unemployed workers are turning to food programs to fill the gap their wages would have covered, which is exactly why these programs were created- to fill the gap, not to depend on for survival.

Poppendieck’s perspective is one of a “social constructionist” in which the blame is not put on the individual for their plight, but on society as a whole for its environment. I believe this is true to some extent because food stamp guidelines are not based on a standard of living. She uses the example that government assistance is given to those who cannot buy food, but not those who cannot pay for heat, so people allocate their money accordingly. However, I think the food stamp system could stand a change. To begin with, government funding should only be allowed to be used on fundamental nutrition (i.e. milk, meat, bread, eggs). It is a waste for malnourished people to provide junk food meals to their families. Also, after these readings it seems that the criteria for food stamps should be reevaluated as many who are hungry to not have access to food because they are not “qualified.”

Is fear of abuse of the food stamp system a valid reason for such restrictive guidelines?

What can we change in society to help people get food without directly giving it to them? (e.g. increased minimum wage)

Sustainable Beef

It seems like there have been a lot of articles about food in the Cornell Daily Sun lately. This one caught my eye today because Cornell Dining has decided to incorporate local beef into four dining locations. It amazes me that this beef will travel "less than 65 miles" from farm to fork. This is an incredible accomplishment and a major decrease in the university's carbon footprint! (Not to mention beneficial to the community too!)

Time is Money

George Ritzer’s argument in “The McDonaldization of Society” can be summed up in one of his own sentences, “Speed, convenience, and standardization have replaced the flair of design and creation in cooking, the comfort of relationships in serving and the variety available in choice.” Wow, what a claim! He goes on to explain that fast-food restaurants like McDonald’s thrive because of the simple fact that it is easier to buy food from businesses that ensure efficiency than waste more time by preparing it yourself. He also asserts that consumers want predictability. For example, a ‘Big Mac’ will be the same at any location around the globe, so one can find familiarity almost anywhere that there is civilization. Ritzer makes a compelling argument as well by stating that “McDonald’s expends far more effort telling us how many billions of hamburgers it has sold than it does in telling us about the quality of those burgers.” After all, he points out; it is called “the ‘Big Mac’…not the ‘Good Mac.’” He sees this trend as irrational because we are moving toward a society of expectedness and certainty when, in reality, it is only an illusion of assuredness.

I tend to agree with Ritzer’s point of view because in the present day the skill and knowledge of cooking are fast being lost or traded in for simpler alternatives like fast-food. This is a travesty to cultures that take pride in generations of perfected family recipes and quality time spent around the dinner table. However, I also see that convenience can be appealing in Americans’ increasingly busy lives. Most of us know what it’s like to not have time for dinner and grab something to eat on-the-go. We count on that option always being there when we need it, but the problem comes when people frequently substitute fast-food for homemade meals. Unfortunately, this option is sometimes difficult to ignore when prices are so low and budgets are tight. Is it harmful to society for fast-food to play such a large role in our lives? Why do people sacrifice quality for convenience?