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?

A Painting Worth More Than 1000 Words

Look what I found in the Cornell Daily Sun today!

How appropriate that this was published today after we just read Wansink's "Mindless Eating." This article is about how our increased portion sizes have been reflected in depictions of The Last Supper over the last 1000 years. Professor Wansink and his brother found a growing dominance of food in this famous painting as further proof of growing food quantities in our daily life. Who knew this change in our diets could make such a big impact in the world?

The Government's Food Pyramid

When we ask, "What kinds of food should we eat to maintain a healthy lifestyle?" most of us would not expect the answer to be buried in the depths of lobbyists' pocketbooks. In "The Politics of Government Dietary Advice" by Jennifer Lisa Falbe and Marion Nestle the true nature of the food pyramid's creation is explored. The authors assert that this icon stamped on numerous food products has been transformed into a marketing device controlled by political lobbyists. Since human beings can consume only so many calories daily, it has become the job of the government to influence what we choose to fill our plates with. Recent issues with the industry have included an opposition to recommending people to eat less of specific foods as no company wants their product to be labeled "unhealthy." For example, large amounts of sugar consumption can lead to serious health problems such as diabetes and obesity. However, the government does not tell the public to avoid such foods because "such a recommendation...would be likely to produce serious, detrimental and long-lasting effects of the agriculture and the economy of [sugar producing] countries."

Also, the food recommendations have become increasingly convoluted and lengthy so that it is difficult to see what is truly healthy and what is not. I find it unreasonable that a tool such as the food pyramid that we use to teach our children how to live healthy lives has morphed into something so unapproachable. Shouldn't transparency in a staple as basic as food be of utmost importance? Is it fair to the public to promote exercising in place of eating healthy foods?

Look at MyPyramid for more food intake suggestions.

Not So Mini Meals

While driving on the freeway yesterday I saw a billboard advertising McDonald's new "Mini Meals" for only $2.99. I found this very interesting that a company infamous for its high-calorie food was trying to attract customers by appealling to their healthy and economic sides. I looked up this new phenomenon expecting to see a drastic decrease in calories as the name suggests. However, some research into the subject showed that a mini meal contains up to 820 calories! Yes, this is much less than a super-sized value meal, but people should know that they are not making the healthy choices they think they are. For more information, click here.

What is American food?

This week’s readings consisted of “Eating American” by Sidney Mintz and “Consumer Culture and Participatory Democracy: The Story of Coca-Cola During World War II” by Mark Weiner, both of which explored the idea of American identity in food. Weiner claims that Coke provided a sense of familiarity and companionship on the battlefield and also created a community at home for the Allies’ cause. This is particularly interesting because I have never thought of this soda as American since it is so present on the international stage. However, it makes sense to appeal to the masses on something so basic a level as good and evil- Coke being the good in the evil of the war. But would Coke be as well-known as it is today had it not been accompanied my such an accepting market as the years around the war were? Who knows, maybe we would all think of Sprite as the national soda.

It is difficult for me to see that Coke is truly symbolic of American culture. In other countries, traditional foods are the pride of the nation and are usually dishes particular to a region. For example, white sausages in Germany, borscht in Russia, and gnocchi in Italy, are all associated with generations of a specific people. Mintz asserts that the reason the United States does not have a similar national food is due to the fact that our lifestyle is fast-paced and more centered around snacks or eating out than sit-down meals. Another interesting point is that America was established on immigrants who came to start a new life in a new country and did not continue their old food culture in their transition. We do, however, have what Mintz calls “regional cuisines” such as TexMex in the Southwest, Cajun in the South, and European (Italian, German, and Russian) in the East. These are no longer specific to these areas because of mass transportation and the ability to ship packaged foods all around the globe so that anyone in any place can try almost any food, even if it is nothing close to the authentic version. But is it bad that we are losing some food culture through large-scale manufacturing? In some respects I believe it is a small tragedy, but I am not one to complain when I can buy New England clam chowder in a can from any supermarket in the country. I guess I am American.

Bagged greens

This was one of the top stories on Yahoo's lineup tonight which is interesting because we just talked about it in class. Check it out!.

Cloning is Bad! Cloning is Bad! Cloning is Bad?

This weekend I read Miguel A. Altieri’s book called "Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alternatives." He asserts that the government’s claim that genetically modified crops and conventional crops are essentially equivalent is incorrect and “profoundly flawed.” Altieri maintains that the government has prematurely allowed this food to go to market without sufficient testing. He backs up this point by giving the example of a genetically modified tomato that interferes with human antibiotics. Also, he furthers his opinion by showing the ever-increasing cycle of technology and explains that our production of insect resistant crops leads to insects evolving to be immune to our pesticides.

Although I agree with Altieri to some extent, I think that genetically modified crops are more useful than he lets on. For example, I believe that having all uniform crops is not a good system because it would make the world’s food supply more susceptible to destruction should something go after that specific genetic strain. However, some uniformity could greatly help production and efficiency so as to create the best or most ideal crop possible. As with all technology there are pros and cons, but genetically modified crops do not deserve to be completely written off. As generations that consumed genetically modified food develop we will gain a greater understanding as to the long term effects of this type of lifestyle.

Are the risks to society of genetically modified crops worth their economic appeal?
Does it make a difference to you to eat cloned meat? If so, why?

Temple Grandin

Tonight I saw Temple Grandin guest lecture on the topic of Animal Behavior and Welfare. She is Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University and is one of the most well-known adults with autism. I found her insights into the thought process of animals to be incredibly interesting and different. Her main message was that animals think in pictures, not words, and associate feelings with memories they have. She has done a large amount of work with designing humane slaughterhouses so that the animals are not in a constant state of fear. Also, Grandin explained that some animal behaviors can be attributed to reactions to visual associations they retain. To learn more about her you can visit her personal website here.

The Threat of Avian and Swine Flu

Mike Davis’s book entitled The Monster at Our Door explains his view on the pandemic of the avian flu. He asserts that the underlying cause of this virus lies in industrialized pork and poultry production in which thousands of animals are bred in close quarters. This issue stemmed from developed countries’ demand for meat and developing countries’ response in the form of large-scale farms. Because of this sway in the economy, many small farms have been shut down, only to have the larger corporations consolidate their manufacturing plants. He calls this new development “production density” and blames the incredible speed of transmitted diseases on the close contact between animals. Furthermore, Davis makes the observation that “the superurbanization of the human population…has been paralleled by and equally dense urbanization of its meat supply.” (84)

Since we have linked fatal viruses to our ever-increasing demand for meat, would it be possible to eliminate the threat of swine or avian flu by changing the system that has brought us these plagues? But is it even possible to return to the safer small-farm ways? I do not think that the world will “unindrialize” itself and lessen its demand for meat by changing society’s eating habits. However, maybe there is a way to better control outbreaks of viruses around the globe since these situations are aggravated by mass-distribution long-distance transportation of food.

The Delusion of Control

Diana Stuart’s “The Illusion of Control: industrialized agriculture, nature, and food safety” argues that industrializing agriculture has lead to a pandemic of food borne diseases. She explains that companies have become manufacturing giants with the goal in mind to optimize benefits at any cost to society. However, she believes that it is impossible to retain the control needed on food and continue at the enormous level of production we operate at in the United States. This high-volume production has lead to numerous breakouts of E. coli O157:H7 in items such as leafy greens, peanut butter, and beef. Usually caused by contamination from feces of nearby animals, companies do little to test meat before processes and dilute the bacteria to undetectable amounts- but it is still there.

She describes something called the “boomerang effect” in which “nature can evade and complicate attempted manipulation…[but] technological innovations can lead to greater problems than they set out to fix.” (180) This means that no matter how much humans try to create ways of protecting food from contamination, the disease will change to accommodate its environment. Especially in our system where a few contaminated leaves can affect thousands of packages, we are incredibly vulnerable to fatal illnesses. Stuart then moves on to the consumer and asserts that we have the illusion of control over our food and trust that manufacturers make the best decisions with our health in mind when, in fact, it is the complete opposite. Until companies quit their profit-maximizing techniques, society will be subject to harm in the form of the sustenance we need to survive.

Would people tolerate the risk they are taking in eating certain foods if they knew how prevalent lethal bacteria were in their daily diet?
Should the government regulate more testing in food, even at the cost of small producers?

Ithaca Chili Festival

On Saturday I went to the annual Ithaca Chili Festival with some friends to see what the tradition was all about. We got there when it opened to avoid the long lines (we had learned our lesson from arriving late to the Apple Festival in October), and immediately bought our tickets to try the food. Ithaca incorporated its message of sustainability into this festival as well by adopting the mantra "Reuse your spoon!" Surrounded by mouth-watering aromas, we glanced over the map we were given to navigate our way around- red balloons for meat chili, green for vegetarian, and yellow for wings. I thought it was great that they made such an effort to accommodate all types of "eaters" and was very happy with all varieties. We even made it to the famous Moosewood restaurant to try their vegan/vegetarian chili which was loaded with local vegetables. After a few hours of wandering around we decided to avoid the crowds and left with full stomachs and fun stories.

To Meat, or Not to Meat

In Chapter 17 of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma he explores “The Ethics of Eating Animals,” as the section is named. He explains both the arguments for carnivores and vegetarians alike and brings up more than a few thought-provoking questions. Pollan opens by claiming that more people would not eat meat if they saw what happens in the slaughter houses. I can only imagine how witnessing the deaths of many animals might put you off meat for a while. However, we have become so desensitized by buying processed food from the supermarket that seeing where the meat actually comes from is a shock. I am torn between the part of me that calls for humanity in a seemingly chaotic slaughter and the logic that tells me that not admitting the origins of the meat is naïve.

Pollan goes on to the next argument for eating meat for those who cannot stand the cruelty involved and sympathize with the animal: scientists are genetically engineering animals without the suffering gene. This is fascinating to me not only because of the advancements in technology, but also because the basis for vegetarianism is that the animals suffer for our pleasure. But if they do not suffer is it acceptable to eat them? Or does it even matter since if not for humans preying on them they would be subject to other predators? He goes further along the thought process of the Animal Rightists’ by asking if we should do anything about animals eating other animals. Now this has gone too far. I believe that it is our choice as humans not to eat meat, but where is it our right to decide for other animals?

In concluding he poses one last question: why is the hunter frowned upon and not one who buys meat at the store when the animal raised on a CAFO probably suffered more than one who lived in the wild? Wow Michael Pollan, thanks for messing with my thought process. Before reading this I was totally against hunting for its barbaric nature- how hypocritical. In the end, I do not think it matters one way or another if you eat meat, but it should matter that the animal you eat did not live a miserable life.

Do you know your food's area code?

One of the articles we read this week was “Miles to Go Before I Eat” by Mark C. Anderson. His experiment was to eat only food from a 150-mile radius of his home for two weeks. What he gained was more than just a story, but a life-changing experience. Okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but he did learn a lot about food from his challenge. As you can probably guess it is not easy to eat solely local foods; even if something is grown nearby it can be processed hundreds of miles away. The drastic change in his consumption not only showed the limitations of such an experiment, but also opened his eyes to Farmers’ Markets and locally grown alternatives to supermarket stocks. In addition, he was able to give back to his community instead of feeding the industrial food monster.

Anderson’s experience made me think about trying the challenge myself. I am lucky enough to live in an area with small farms and fresh produce, but would this idea of “eating local” be feasible for urban dwellers? In a world where eating seasonally has almost decreased to the point of extinction, it is difficult for me to believe that society would give up having anything at any time. However, would people be more willing to change if they knew how much oil is used to ship their food around the country? A large portion of our fossil fuels are used for food transportation, but is this really necessary? I definitely do not advocate a lifestyle change as drastic as Anderson’s (as an ice cream lover myself I think I wouldn’t last more than a week), but if everyone made an effort to eat more locally grown food we would significantly decrease our carbon footprint and take a step towards sustainability.

The Monsanto Monster

Here is an interesting blog post about the monopoly of the Monsanto corporation of most of America's corn and soy beans:

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/02/04/monsanto-the-evil-corporation-in-your-refrigerator/?icid=main|hp-desktop|dl6|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2010%2F02%2F04%2Fmonsanto-the-evil-corporation-in-your-refrigerator%2F

What's in a name?

In Chapter 8 of the Omnivore’s Dilemma entitled “All Flesh is Grass” Michael Pollan assesses the true meaning of the word organic in contrast with what it has become today. He meets with old-world-organic chicken farmer Joel Salatin to enlighten him on the subject. Salatin represents the ideals of growing organic that many other growers seem to have abandoned. For example, he refuses to ship his product and use fossil fuels to spread his goods to market. This is a concept I had never even considered- using resources to transport organically grown food undermines the point of sustainability at its core.

The irony that calling food organic has become a marketing ploy is truly astounding. As a consumer, I admit to have fallen into that trap on multiple occasions. There is a connection in buying “organic” that makes you feel like you are making the world a better place and symbolically shoving it in Big Business’ face. But the joke is on you. Pollan continues by explaining that industries have taken to mass-producing “organic” which comes down to growing the crops without pesticides. From there the food is shipped to all corners of the country where you can find virtually any fruit or vegetable year-round. But is the amount of energy need to stock our supermarkets with global produce something we take for granted? And is it truly feasible to return to eating seasonally in urban cities? Although this would come closer to the originally meaning of “organic,” I do not think that society is willing to give up the luxury of choice when it comes to food.

Prime Rib with a side of E. Coli, please?

The subject matter for this week’s readings concerned the process involved in getting beef to the table- literally from a calf’s birth to the purchase of its meat from the local grocery store. In order, the readings were a chapter called “The Feedlot” in The Omnivore’s Dilemma; “Where the Beef has Been,” an excerpt from the “Meat and Potatoes” article of Rolling Stone; and “Tenderloin’s a Steal, But at What Moral Price?” from Best Food Writing 2008. I, of course, did not think that this order had any significance (which it did, as it would chronologically follow the life of a cow), and effectively read them “backwards.” However, I am glad that I made this mistake because I started my journey in the familiarity of the supermarket, only to be astounded as I traced the meat’s path back through time.

Although even John Kessler, the author of “Tenderloin’s a Steal, But at What Moral Price?,” admits that questioning the ethics of his beef in the meat aisle seems somewhat ludicrous, he brings up a valid point that all shoppers should consider: should we think about more than just the price in our purchasing decisions? He weighs the benefit of cheap beef and the ability to indulge our carnivorous side more often against the inhumanity of a cow force-fed a diet it was not created to digest. He decides to buy the meat. I have to admit when I read his decision I was slightly annoyed. Not only because here was one more individual contributing to a cycle I so vehemently disagreed with, but also because I would have done the same thing. It is difficult to see that one little action could really make a difference in the whole scheme of life, but that is just an excuse to choose the easy path. As a lover of variety myself, I can appreciate his justification that this purchase would allow him to buy other food items as well. That is, however, until I read on and fully understood what that piece of meat consisted of.

The next article from Rolling Stone was a detailed description of a meat-packing plant. This struck a particularly tender chord with me because I had read Upson Sinclair’s The Jungle in high school which chronicled the squalid life of a meat-packer in Chicago at the turn of the 20^th century. I was horrified to see that slaughterhouses are little better now than they were then. Specifically, the article discusses the high rate of injury and the all-together filthy environment in which freshly slaughtered beef is often contaminated with its own excrement. It goes on to explain that many consumers become ill simply because “there is shit on the meat.” I find this appalling and am brought to ask, in the 21^st century, how is this excepted as common practice and allowed in our “developed” society?

Finally, we arrive at the place where it all begins- the cattle farm. Here calves with specific genetic traits are bred and then moved to feedlots for the duration of their growth. This is the part that shocks the scientist in me. Since corn is cheap and ideal for fast growth, the cows are forced to eat it combined with pharmaceuticals and fat products (usually remnants of bovine fat from slaughterhouses) even though their systems are compromised because of it! This diet is truly awful and leads to the spread of fatal viruses such as E. coli. How can the government subsidize an environment that breeds viruses and compromises the welfare of society? Not to mention feeding beef to cows is wrong in and of itself.

I never really ate beef before reading this, but I can now say with confidence that I will not be consuming it in the future.

Hello!

I am a freshman at Cornell University and have started this blog for a class called "Having a Lot on our Plates: An Introduction to the Sociology of Food." Here I will post my reactions to the readings and pose questions to be discussed in class. Our materials consist of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, Best Food Writing 2008 edited by Holly Hughes, and various other articles. I am very excited to learn more about why we eat what we eat and, more specifically, how our diets are influenced by society.

I have to admit, food is the best part of my day and I contemplate what I will be feasting on for lunch or dinner during classes when I should be taking notes. As an avid cook, I love to try new recipes and frequently browse Cooks Illustrated magazine in my spare time. (Recently I have made their Best Blueberry Muffins and Perfect Lemon Cookies which were both excellent!) I will end my first blog entry with a quote I find entertaining:

Avoid fruits and nuts. You are what you eat. ~Jim Davis