These two final readings really did an effective job of wrapping up the main ideas learned throughout this course. Both "Food: The Key Concepts" by Warren Belasco and "One Thing to Do About Food: A Forum" evaluated the future of food, and the measures that must be taken to ensure the security of future generations.
These readings looked at all of the factors that contribute to the crisis surrounding food. The food system must be repaired, and to do this, we must recover the deeper relationship we have with food beyond exploiting crops for profit or relying so heavily on factory farming. These methods are not sustainable by any means, and force us to rely on monocultures like corn, soya, and canola, which are destroying biodiversity. This not only affects the environment, but also our own health because diverse diets provide better taste and more nutrition. After all, everything is connected. Additionally, the food industry must work towards making the public aware of what goes on behind the scenes. By knowing where and how the food is made, and what it contains, the consumer would be more motivated to make smarter choices about what they eat. Controls on marketing should be used to solve serious nutrition problems among the United States population, including obesity and type II diabetes.
The truth of the matter, though, is that people rarely listen to these health messages, and change will not by any means occur overnight. That's why we need to seriously devote ourselves to the fixing of this system. The future is created by what happens in the present, and we need to be able to anticipate disasters in this industry in order to prevent them. It is true that convenience defines human identity and demand, but the means that bring about this end are not sustainable. I know that for me, learning about the conditions behind the scenes of the food I eat has really changed the way I think about food. I applaud Cornell for making the change to using local cows. I myself have started making changes in my diet, or at least I've started thinking about it. Now the real question is, how do we get the message out to the American public that the benefit of changing our ways is worth the price of the convenience of our current lifestyle?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Food as a Human Right
Over one billion people now inhabit planet Earth, and a higher proportion of them are facing hunger than ever before. The issue is not merely that there isn't enough food to feed this individuals, but that the available food is not affordable or accessible. This prevalent issue is described by Stephen Scanlan, Craig Jenkins, and Lindsey Peterson in "The Scarcity Fallacy." Although we are now producing more food than ever before, barriers such as inequality, and political and economic instability prevent people from gratifying the most basic need of satisfying their hunger.
The availability of food has outpaced even the most rapid expansion of human population that our world has ever seen, but yet, people still are not receiving the food they require. In order to provide access to this food, it must be distributed more equitably. 96 percent of people who are hungry live in developing countries, providing a clear link between poverty and hunger. Gender,ethnicity, and race are other inequalities that have considerably contributed to the amount of hunger in the world. In order to solve the issue of hunger, we need to focus our attention on the underlying issues that surround hunger rather than the amount of food that is available. Food must be viewed as a human right, and should therefore be distributed to everyone, no matter their background.
Although increasing food yields and new technologies that allow food to be shipped more efficiently are now available, more food for more people is not necessarily guaranteed. This seems to fit in with all of the contradictions surrounding food in society. We have a greater proportion of obese individuals, but also a growing number of people with anorexia and other eating disorders. We have better technology and more food, but more people are hungry. How do we find a balance in society that will provide for food security and eliminate all of these contradictions? It's easy to say food is a human right, but how can we really create a more equitable society where food is ensured for everyone?
The availability of food has outpaced even the most rapid expansion of human population that our world has ever seen, but yet, people still are not receiving the food they require. In order to provide access to this food, it must be distributed more equitably. 96 percent of people who are hungry live in developing countries, providing a clear link between poverty and hunger. Gender,ethnicity, and race are other inequalities that have considerably contributed to the amount of hunger in the world. In order to solve the issue of hunger, we need to focus our attention on the underlying issues that surround hunger rather than the amount of food that is available. Food must be viewed as a human right, and should therefore be distributed to everyone, no matter their background.
Although increasing food yields and new technologies that allow food to be shipped more efficiently are now available, more food for more people is not necessarily guaranteed. This seems to fit in with all of the contradictions surrounding food in society. We have a greater proportion of obese individuals, but also a growing number of people with anorexia and other eating disorders. We have better technology and more food, but more people are hungry. How do we find a balance in society that will provide for food security and eliminate all of these contradictions? It's easy to say food is a human right, but how can we really create a more equitable society where food is ensured for everyone?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Hunger in the United States
Hunger is no longer a distant concept as it is a harsh reality - in fact, today, one in eight Americans require food assistance at some point in their lives. In the New York Times articles, "Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades," Matthew Ericson and Janet Roberts describe this phenomenon.Food stamps are now at a record high, and the number of people who use these is climbing each month. Unfortunately, only about two thirds of the people who are eligible actually receive help to curb hunger through food stamps. As a result, our country is full of hungry people, more hungry than they've been at any other time other than the Great Depression.
Janet Poppendieck further describes the hunger epidemic plaguing our nation in "Sweet Charity." The individuals most at risk are women, children, members of racial and ethnic minorities, and the elderly. Further, single parent household are also more at risk than homes with both parents. Individuals at the poverty line do not possess the adequate resources to bear the costs to eat, and are then officially poor by definition. It is suggested that the typical American family should spend a third of their income on food, and if they can't, they join the ranks of the 39 million Americans below the poverty line. However, the poverty line only reflects the cost, not the standard, of living, and it is therefore much harder to qualify. As a result, even if people are hungry, they cannot always get the help that they need.
These articles really hit home for me - during high school, I became really active volunteering for a local homeless shelter called Operation Hope. I served meals every week, and also helped to raise money to support the program. The mission of Operation Hope is to provide the homeless with the food and support they need to find jobs, and ultimately get back on their feet. Unfortunately, with the struggling economy and insecure job market, this is easier said than done. It doesn't seem right that the people who go to work every day, or even those who don't, need to receive food handouts from the pantry. I guess that's just how social constructionism works though - homelessness is a product of countless human choices. Sometimes it's the choices of others that influence this fate - being fired or unable to find a job, the economy - and sometimes, it's due to personal choices - drugs, gambling, or inability to provide for oneself. Even if someone makes bad choices in their life, should they be denied a meal? At what point should people be cut off and forced to fend for themselves? How can the hungry and the homeless reach stability in their lives?
Janet Poppendieck further describes the hunger epidemic plaguing our nation in "Sweet Charity." The individuals most at risk are women, children, members of racial and ethnic minorities, and the elderly. Further, single parent household are also more at risk than homes with both parents. Individuals at the poverty line do not possess the adequate resources to bear the costs to eat, and are then officially poor by definition. It is suggested that the typical American family should spend a third of their income on food, and if they can't, they join the ranks of the 39 million Americans below the poverty line. However, the poverty line only reflects the cost, not the standard, of living, and it is therefore much harder to qualify. As a result, even if people are hungry, they cannot always get the help that they need.
These articles really hit home for me - during high school, I became really active volunteering for a local homeless shelter called Operation Hope. I served meals every week, and also helped to raise money to support the program. The mission of Operation Hope is to provide the homeless with the food and support they need to find jobs, and ultimately get back on their feet. Unfortunately, with the struggling economy and insecure job market, this is easier said than done. It doesn't seem right that the people who go to work every day, or even those who don't, need to receive food handouts from the pantry. I guess that's just how social constructionism works though - homelessness is a product of countless human choices. Sometimes it's the choices of others that influence this fate - being fired or unable to find a job, the economy - and sometimes, it's due to personal choices - drugs, gambling, or inability to provide for oneself. Even if someone makes bad choices in their life, should they be denied a meal? At what point should people be cut off and forced to fend for themselves? How can the hungry and the homeless reach stability in their lives?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Passover Update
Keeping kosher for Passover at Cornell this week is quite a challenge! I have been confronted with several obstacles that have made me consider breaking Passover dietary rules to this point. First, my roommate celebrated her nineteenth birthday this past Wednesday with a peanut butter cup Insomnia Cookie cake. It was fresh too, so our whole room was filled with the sweet aroma of freshly made cookies. Further, on Thursday, when it was beautiful outside, my Wellness and Fitness teacher thought it would be the perfect day for a hike - which it was. The ending destination, though, was the Dairy Bar, and she was treating. Saying no to Cornell's fresh ice cream was on the verge of painful. Last night, I also found myself surrounded by my group of friends, eating fresh subs from Louie's Hot Truck. Although we sat outside while they ate them, the smell consumed me, and I found it very difficult to sit there and watch them as they enjoyed their food.
I am facing my toughest challenge today, though. Because it is Easter, my room is now stocked with some of my favorite candies - marshmallow peeps, chocolate bunnies, and Robin's eggs malted milk balls. All of these have corn syrup as their first or second ingredient though, so I must resist. My sweet tooth is not thanking me for denying it all of these goodies. I've made it this far though, so I might as well go all the way. On Tuesday night, I will certainly feel an extra appreciation for the grains I've had to give up. Also, because I will have gone eight days without many of my favorite foods, they are sure to taste even better. Going a week without corn syrup is hard - it's in everything! I guess this week, I've first-handedly witnessed just how dependent our culture is on corn. Looking through lists upon lists of ingredients, it's been difficult to find anything without corn syrup, starch, or just plain corn. How can we limit our dependence on corn when it's in essentially everything?
I am facing my toughest challenge today, though. Because it is Easter, my room is now stocked with some of my favorite candies - marshmallow peeps, chocolate bunnies, and Robin's eggs malted milk balls. All of these have corn syrup as their first or second ingredient though, so I must resist. My sweet tooth is not thanking me for denying it all of these goodies. I've made it this far though, so I might as well go all the way. On Tuesday night, I will certainly feel an extra appreciation for the grains I've had to give up. Also, because I will have gone eight days without many of my favorite foods, they are sure to taste even better. Going a week without corn syrup is hard - it's in everything! I guess this week, I've first-handedly witnessed just how dependent our culture is on corn. Looking through lists upon lists of ingredients, it's been difficult to find anything without corn syrup, starch, or just plain corn. How can we limit our dependence on corn when it's in essentially everything?
"The McDonalization of Society"
Speed, convenience, and efficiency have certainly come to the forefront of American minds in our modern fast-paced society. The "McDonaldization of Society," as described by George Ritzer, explains this exact phenomenon. In the fast food industry, food is created with an emphasis on quantity and predictability of quality from one location to another. Additionally, these institutions are run with elements of routine and structure - leading to control of not only the uniformity of the food, but also of the employees who work there. With this, the autonomy and creativity in fast food industries, as well as in other aspects of our society, is diminishing immensely.
In chapter one of "Across Space and Through Time: Tomatl Meets the Corporate Tomato," the McDonalization of Society becomes further evident. By tracing the journey of the tomato, from way back the the day of the Aztecs to current times, it is clear just how much its production has changed. The standardization and homogenization of tomatoes today is far different from the unpredictability of methods of the Aztec farmers. Back then, tomatoes had character: now, they all have approximately the same shape, color, and taste. If the tomatoes in the supermarket deviate at all from this view we expect, we simply don't buy them. We want to know what to expect when we buy food, and therefore support the processes by which it's made. The tomato is therefore not merely a food, but a representation of our society's values.
The McDonalization of Society has applications in our world far beyond the food industry. It's true, people are eating out more and quickly grabbing meals on the go on a consistent basis, but our focus on efficiency doesn't stop just here. Modern science focuses around achieving efficiency: on the internet, any information is only a click away and contacting all of your friends is a quick text message away. Impatience runs rampant when super efficiency, and therefore, instant gratification takes over. What happens when the desire to achieve productivity goes too far? Will humans be useless in work when a robot can do the job without flaw? Are the majority of Americans even worried about this potential dehumanization, or are we moving too fast to even know what's happening?
In chapter one of "Across Space and Through Time: Tomatl Meets the Corporate Tomato," the McDonalization of Society becomes further evident. By tracing the journey of the tomato, from way back the the day of the Aztecs to current times, it is clear just how much its production has changed. The standardization and homogenization of tomatoes today is far different from the unpredictability of methods of the Aztec farmers. Back then, tomatoes had character: now, they all have approximately the same shape, color, and taste. If the tomatoes in the supermarket deviate at all from this view we expect, we simply don't buy them. We want to know what to expect when we buy food, and therefore support the processes by which it's made. The tomato is therefore not merely a food, but a representation of our society's values.
The McDonalization of Society has applications in our world far beyond the food industry. It's true, people are eating out more and quickly grabbing meals on the go on a consistent basis, but our focus on efficiency doesn't stop just here. Modern science focuses around achieving efficiency: on the internet, any information is only a click away and contacting all of your friends is a quick text message away. Impatience runs rampant when super efficiency, and therefore, instant gratification takes over. What happens when the desire to achieve productivity goes too far? Will humans be useless in work when a robot can do the job without flaw? Are the majority of Americans even worried about this potential dehumanization, or are we moving too fast to even know what's happening?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Super Seder
Ah, Passover. It is once again that time of year where I basically have to cut all of my favorite foods from my diet. I woke up this morning, incredibly hungry, and realized that there was nothing in my room I could have except for a box of matzoh. Overly dry cracker bread really is not appetizing at 9:30 in the morning.
Enough complaints though, this really is an important holiday with a lot of really awesome traditions - the first being, the seder, or the service preceding the Passover meal on the first two nights. True, they can seem to last forever, especially when you're hungry, but seders are a really distinct and cool part of this holiday. My family knows how to do seders - my dad typically steers away from the prayer book to incorporate some more interesting, current issues and my mom makes a feast. Leftovers for a week back at home make the sacrifices of Passover easy.
After eighteen years of that, I wasn't really sure how Cornell's super seder would compare, but I am really pleasantly surprised. I'm talking about the food. Like at home, there was a massive amount of the usual Passover foods, and it was actually really good! The charoset, or ground up apples with cinnamon, nuts, and wine was sweet and excellent on a piece of matzoh. There was matzoh ball soup, beef brisket, stuffed cabbage, and three different types of kougle. Passover desserts are never good, but the ones offered at the super seder at least measured up to the quality of desserts I have back home. This dinner lasted for about 2.5 hours - seders are quite long - and it was an awesome experience. Even some of my christian friends came along for the ride, just to see what it was like. They were all pleased too. Maybe this seder wasn't like home, but it was a nice substitute for now. Now if only there were leftovers...
Enough complaints though, this really is an important holiday with a lot of really awesome traditions - the first being, the seder, or the service preceding the Passover meal on the first two nights. True, they can seem to last forever, especially when you're hungry, but seders are a really distinct and cool part of this holiday. My family knows how to do seders - my dad typically steers away from the prayer book to incorporate some more interesting, current issues and my mom makes a feast. Leftovers for a week back at home make the sacrifices of Passover easy.
After eighteen years of that, I wasn't really sure how Cornell's super seder would compare, but I am really pleasantly surprised. I'm talking about the food. Like at home, there was a massive amount of the usual Passover foods, and it was actually really good! The charoset, or ground up apples with cinnamon, nuts, and wine was sweet and excellent on a piece of matzoh. There was matzoh ball soup, beef brisket, stuffed cabbage, and three different types of kougle. Passover desserts are never good, but the ones offered at the super seder at least measured up to the quality of desserts I have back home. This dinner lasted for about 2.5 hours - seders are quite long - and it was an awesome experience. Even some of my christian friends came along for the ride, just to see what it was like. They were all pleased too. Maybe this seder wasn't like home, but it was a nice substitute for now. Now if only there were leftovers...
Saturday, March 27, 2010
A Society of Extremes
What is going on in our society?! I just read the articles due March 30th, which spoke about the obesity epidemic that is plaguing our nation. "Never Too Rich... Or Too Thin: The Role of Stigma in the Social Construction of Anorexia Nervosa" by Karen Way demonstrates the far opposite end of the spectrum. Eating disorders have become another prevalent issue in today's society, to the point where the lines between what is "normal" and what is "anorexia" have become vastly blurred. True, it is normal for women to worry about their weights and their appearances, but it seems as though this level of vigilance has exceeded what is healthy. This fact makes sense too - Miss America Pageant contestants and Playboy models have both gotten smaller, while the average woman has gotten heavier. In fact, even Marilyn Monroe would be considered heavy today! When a woman compares herself to the women in a magazine, it is no wonder that she feels insecure, unworthy.
Additionally, women are concerned with fitting in with what is socially acceptable in regard to their appearances. They feel compelled to meet social norms, and fear rejection if they can't do this. Women who are overweight are often connected with negative stigmas - of being lazy, incapable, and less intelligent. Also, they have lower life chances and a smaller chance of getting married. Who wants this fate that comes along with being overweight? This is where anorexia and bulimia stem from - the idea that being thin is superior in every aspect of life.
In a society where approximately one in five individuals is obese, and up to twenty percent of people have eating disorders, how is it even possible to define what is normal? How is it possible that we can be both more overweight than ever, and also more food conscious and more prone to eating disorders than ever? How do we fix this society of extremes that we've created?
Additionally, women are concerned with fitting in with what is socially acceptable in regard to their appearances. They feel compelled to meet social norms, and fear rejection if they can't do this. Women who are overweight are often connected with negative stigmas - of being lazy, incapable, and less intelligent. Also, they have lower life chances and a smaller chance of getting married. Who wants this fate that comes along with being overweight? This is where anorexia and bulimia stem from - the idea that being thin is superior in every aspect of life.
In a society where approximately one in five individuals is obese, and up to twenty percent of people have eating disorders, how is it even possible to define what is normal? How is it possible that we can be both more overweight than ever, and also more food conscious and more prone to eating disorders than ever? How do we fix this society of extremes that we've created?
Industrial Eaters
Why does our country suffer so much from obesity? Michael Pollan points out the obvious factors that have brought about this change - we now lead more sedentary lifestyles, and additionally eat diets that are higher in fats and carbohydrates. Further, clever marketing devices trick omnivores into buying more cheap calories found in processed foods. Pollan explains that the central root of the problem, though, is the excess of cheap corn, which accounts for the majority of surplus calories that we intake. Michael Pollan states that we have become masters at "freeing food from nature's limitations and seducing the omnivore into eating more of a single plant than anyone would ever have thought possible" (91) Our creativity on what to do with the mountains upon mountains of corn has given us a cheap and unhealthy source of calories in our diets. As a result of this, we have evolved into industrial eaters, specializing in the consumption of processed foods.
It's true that all of these factors play a role in the rising obesity in our nation - in fact, one in five people in the United States is obese - but Brian Wansink believes that there is more to the equation. How much we eat doesn't depend only on how hungry we are or how good it tastes, but also on the cues around us - the size of the portion, the name on the label, the presentation, or even the lighting in the room. Unfortunately, it is tough to control, or even realize these outside sources are having such a large effect on our intake, hence, "Mindless Eating."
This first chapter really fascinated me. Often, we are preached to about eating smaller portions, leaner meats, and less saturated fat, but rarely do we consider how distant cues may have such profound effects on us. Thinking about my own eating habits, Wansink is definitely correct in his assertions. Back at home, I would fill my dinner plate and that would be it. At Cornell, on the other hand, where every meal is buffet style, it's really difficult to stop myself there. Instead of filling my plate, I fill my tray, and because there's more, I definitely eat more. I think I might try out eating until I'm no longer hungry rather than eating until I'm full. It's true, there is a big difference. I know it won't bring about instantaneous results, but it will make me healthier in the long run. Knowing that this is true, is it possible for me to commit to skimming a few calories off and being healthier all around? The more important question: Is this possible for America's obese population?
It's true that all of these factors play a role in the rising obesity in our nation - in fact, one in five people in the United States is obese - but Brian Wansink believes that there is more to the equation. How much we eat doesn't depend only on how hungry we are or how good it tastes, but also on the cues around us - the size of the portion, the name on the label, the presentation, or even the lighting in the room. Unfortunately, it is tough to control, or even realize these outside sources are having such a large effect on our intake, hence, "Mindless Eating."
This first chapter really fascinated me. Often, we are preached to about eating smaller portions, leaner meats, and less saturated fat, but rarely do we consider how distant cues may have such profound effects on us. Thinking about my own eating habits, Wansink is definitely correct in his assertions. Back at home, I would fill my dinner plate and that would be it. At Cornell, on the other hand, where every meal is buffet style, it's really difficult to stop myself there. Instead of filling my plate, I fill my tray, and because there's more, I definitely eat more. I think I might try out eating until I'm no longer hungry rather than eating until I'm full. It's true, there is a big difference. I know it won't bring about instantaneous results, but it will make me healthier in the long run. Knowing that this is true, is it possible for me to commit to skimming a few calories off and being healthier all around? The more important question: Is this possible for America's obese population?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Critic in Disguise
This blog post is going to be a bit different than all the others. Rather than discussing prevalent issues or interesting ideas pertaining to the food industry, I will be examining those who examine what we eat when we go out - namely, restaurant critics. The readings for this blog are in preparation for my next essay in which I write a review on Cornell dining hall food.
In "An Appetite for Disguise," Ruth Reichl describes the measures she must take as restaurant critic of The New York Times. If people knew what she looked like, they would surely treat her differently than the rest of the customers, which would not give her an accurate representation of the restaurants she visited. To solve this problem, Reichl decided that she would put on disguises when she ate out - and oddly enough, she really morphed into the people she pretended to be. With each alter-ego, from the "brazen blonde," Chloe, to "frumpy old" Betty, she not only had different appearances, but also different tastes. This doesn't seem possible to me, but if that's how she kept her true identity a secret, all the more power to her.
What this article teaches at its core is that everybody is a potential food critic. This means that restaurants must always put their best effort into their dishes, must always be kind and polite to customers, must always provide the best service they can. It's sad that restaurants feel like they need to convey a better image of their facility when a critique comes to town - why don't they always give forth their best effort? This week when I critique RPCC dining, I am hoping for nothing but the best of service and quality. They don't know I'm a critic, though, so we'll have to see how it goes.
In "An Appetite for Disguise," Ruth Reichl describes the measures she must take as restaurant critic of The New York Times. If people knew what she looked like, they would surely treat her differently than the rest of the customers, which would not give her an accurate representation of the restaurants she visited. To solve this problem, Reichl decided that she would put on disguises when she ate out - and oddly enough, she really morphed into the people she pretended to be. With each alter-ego, from the "brazen blonde," Chloe, to "frumpy old" Betty, she not only had different appearances, but also different tastes. This doesn't seem possible to me, but if that's how she kept her true identity a secret, all the more power to her.
What this article teaches at its core is that everybody is a potential food critic. This means that restaurants must always put their best effort into their dishes, must always be kind and polite to customers, must always provide the best service they can. It's sad that restaurants feel like they need to convey a better image of their facility when a critique comes to town - why don't they always give forth their best effort? This week when I critique RPCC dining, I am hoping for nothing but the best of service and quality. They don't know I'm a critic, though, so we'll have to see how it goes.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Spread of Superbugs
Today, my dad sent me another article from the New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof about the use of antibiotics in the food industry. Agricultural businesses vastly overuse antibiotics in the feeding of their animals, leaving human beings vulnerable to disease. The industrial use of antibiotics does serve a purpose - as we learned in Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma," medicating livestock helps them to grow faster. Additionally, cattle are put on an all corn diet - a food which their stomachs cannot properly digest. By adding antibiotics into the mix, the cows do not experience as much pain. In essence, we are drugging up the animals on industrial farms to benefit ourselves - we can produce more and produce it faster.
As we are learning, though, this exploitation of animals can potentially have immense consequences on us as consumers. As the article states, 70 percent of antibiotics in the United States is used to feed healthy animals and 14 percent are used to treat sick livestock. A large majority of our drugs is being pumped into the food business, which is leading to disease that we cannot control. Despite this, Congress and the Obama Administration are refusing to cut down on the use of antibiotics in the raising of livestock. The agricultural industry is far too dependent on these drugs.
True, the resulting cheaper meat is very convenient, but is this worth the toll on human health? With no sign of slowing in the use of antibiotics in the food industry and the consequent resistance to them, is a lethal pandemic inevitable?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07kristof.html?emc=eta1
As we are learning, though, this exploitation of animals can potentially have immense consequences on us as consumers. As the article states, 70 percent of antibiotics in the United States is used to feed healthy animals and 14 percent are used to treat sick livestock. A large majority of our drugs is being pumped into the food business, which is leading to disease that we cannot control. Despite this, Congress and the Obama Administration are refusing to cut down on the use of antibiotics in the raising of livestock. The agricultural industry is far too dependent on these drugs.
True, the resulting cheaper meat is very convenient, but is this worth the toll on human health? With no sign of slowing in the use of antibiotics in the food industry and the consequent resistance to them, is a lethal pandemic inevitable?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07kristof.html?emc=eta1
America: A Melting Pot of Cuisines
In Sidney Mintz's article about "Eating American," he critically evaluates American habits of consumption. He starts off by stating that there is no such thing as an American cuisine; rather, we all individually choose the foods we wish to incorporate into out diets. Because there is no clear, communal identity of what makes up an American diet, Mintz argues that our nation does not have a cuisine, but instead, a culture surrounding our eating choices.
America is a land of great regional, ethnic, and class differences, and with this comes a very diverse cuisine. Of course, we do have staple foods, such as hamburgers, hot dogs and apple pie. In Mark Weiner's piece entitled "Comsumer Culture and Participatory Democracy: The Story of Coca-Cola During World War II," he describes Coca-cola as a "totem-drink" in American Culture that brings about patriotism and triggers memories. At the same time, others find comfort in parts of the melting pot that is America that remind them of their own homes and ethnicities. An example of this is found in "Best Food Writing 2008" as E. Tai explains how regardless of her American lifestyle, she finds much solace in consuming her ancestors' foods.
America is home to so many people of such different backgrounds that the lines of what exactly constitutes an American diet has been blurred. Surely, when we thing "American" these days, we think of fast food, microwave meals - foods we eat due to immense time constraints and excess hurry. We think of foods high in fat and sugar, a nation of obesity. The point is that what's great about our nation has surely come at a price. Being in a place of such diversity has taken away our ability to form a distinct cuisine for the United States. We are constantly going out to eat - Mexican, Italian, Chinese - but when do we ever go out to eat "American?" Instead, the foods we eat are centered around a collective culture. But I need to ask, what's wrong with that? In other countries, where only a select number of foods are available, the options of what to eat aren't as large. So I guess we have given up a definite American cuisine, but we've done this with the awesome benefit of choice. A melting pot of cuisines. Indian food one day and Thai the next? I have no problem with that.
America is a land of great regional, ethnic, and class differences, and with this comes a very diverse cuisine. Of course, we do have staple foods, such as hamburgers, hot dogs and apple pie. In Mark Weiner's piece entitled "Comsumer Culture and Participatory Democracy: The Story of Coca-Cola During World War II," he describes Coca-cola as a "totem-drink" in American Culture that brings about patriotism and triggers memories. At the same time, others find comfort in parts of the melting pot that is America that remind them of their own homes and ethnicities. An example of this is found in "Best Food Writing 2008" as E. Tai explains how regardless of her American lifestyle, she finds much solace in consuming her ancestors' foods.
America is home to so many people of such different backgrounds that the lines of what exactly constitutes an American diet has been blurred. Surely, when we thing "American" these days, we think of fast food, microwave meals - foods we eat due to immense time constraints and excess hurry. We think of foods high in fat and sugar, a nation of obesity. The point is that what's great about our nation has surely come at a price. Being in a place of such diversity has taken away our ability to form a distinct cuisine for the United States. We are constantly going out to eat - Mexican, Italian, Chinese - but when do we ever go out to eat "American?" Instead, the foods we eat are centered around a collective culture. But I need to ask, what's wrong with that? In other countries, where only a select number of foods are available, the options of what to eat aren't as large. So I guess we have given up a definite American cuisine, but we've done this with the awesome benefit of choice. A melting pot of cuisines. Indian food one day and Thai the next? I have no problem with that.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
GM Foods: The "Magic Bullet"
Wow, speaking of incredibly biased readings... Mike Davis has nothing on Miguel Altieri. In his short book, "Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alternatives," he completely shuts down the idea of genetically modified foods for the time being. Altieri explores the effects of GM crops on the health of people, crops and animals, the welfare of farmers, and the upkeep of thousands of ecosystems, and basically concludes that we'd be better off without GM foods.
Altieri talks about how biotechnology companies are merely making false promises pertaining to the effects of genetically engineered crops. This innovation in technology is NOT a "magic bullet," and cannot reduce our dependence on pesticides, reduce environmental problems, or even solve world hunger. GM foods are NOT "substantially equivalent" to standard crops, and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) research on these foods is not adequate enough to start stocking our shelves with them. Also, we have plunged into making these genetically modified foods without fully investigating short and long term effects that they will have on us and the world around us. In essence, we are the rats in a giant experiment, testing these foods before its even entirely positive if they are safe. This is not fair to us, and there are many alternatives available - so why even consider genetically engineered foods?
Even more so, Altieri talks about how these technological innovations are profit driven rather than created for the good of mankind and our ecosystems. As a result, we cannot expect GM foods to truly benefit us, or solve problems with foods scarcity in other nations. Altieri states, "The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to make agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits" (5). I view this take as WAY too cynical - sure, profit is always a consideration in making choices, but that doesn't mean that decisions can't also be made to help others.
I really found this book to be interesting, but I do not agree with Altieri's close-minded attack on GM foods. Sure, he considers both sides of the debate, but writes the benefits off almost immediately. Now that I've read his take, I feel like I should read up on the other side that is pro-GM foods. I agree that more research should be conducted, but GM foods could potentially help us out in so many different ways. I'm sure we could use alternatives, but the idea of a "magic bullet" just seems too good to pass up.
Altieri talks about how biotechnology companies are merely making false promises pertaining to the effects of genetically engineered crops. This innovation in technology is NOT a "magic bullet," and cannot reduce our dependence on pesticides, reduce environmental problems, or even solve world hunger. GM foods are NOT "substantially equivalent" to standard crops, and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) research on these foods is not adequate enough to start stocking our shelves with them. Also, we have plunged into making these genetically modified foods without fully investigating short and long term effects that they will have on us and the world around us. In essence, we are the rats in a giant experiment, testing these foods before its even entirely positive if they are safe. This is not fair to us, and there are many alternatives available - so why even consider genetically engineered foods?
Even more so, Altieri talks about how these technological innovations are profit driven rather than created for the good of mankind and our ecosystems. As a result, we cannot expect GM foods to truly benefit us, or solve problems with foods scarcity in other nations. Altieri states, "The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to make agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits" (5). I view this take as WAY too cynical - sure, profit is always a consideration in making choices, but that doesn't mean that decisions can't also be made to help others.
I really found this book to be interesting, but I do not agree with Altieri's close-minded attack on GM foods. Sure, he considers both sides of the debate, but writes the benefits off almost immediately. Now that I've read his take, I feel like I should read up on the other side that is pro-GM foods. I agree that more research should be conducted, but GM foods could potentially help us out in so many different ways. I'm sure we could use alternatives, but the idea of a "magic bullet" just seems too good to pass up.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Factory Farming Causes Spread of Disease
In "The Triangle of Doom" by Christopher Olsen and "The swine flu crisis lays bare the meat industry's monstrous power" by Mike Davis, conditions of mass production of meat are shown to have widespread effects on our health. More specifically, the conditions on feedlots are conducive to the spread of diseases, such as H1N1. "Old fashioned pig pens" have been transformed into industrial animal farms in order to maximize production. The result is a high density of highly packed animals, exchanging sicknesses due to weakened immune systems. In fact, the crowding of animals has brought about a "continual cycling of viruses," which resulted in catastrophic events for both animals and humans.
Terrible impacts of industrialization in pork and poultry markets reached an all-time high during the Livestock Revolution, during which "the (global) share of mean and milk consumed in developing countries rose from 37 to 53 percent and 34 to 44 percent, respectively from 1983 to 1997." Corporate production has greatly been influenced by the urbanization and high demands of human population, and our need for these animals has created the necessary conditions for viral spread and infection. After all, the chance of disease spreading is far greater on a farm with 5,000 pigs than on a farm of the same size with only 100 pigs. If we realized how factory farming is so bad for humans and animals alike, wouldn't we just change our ways? With demand at such a high level, is this ideal even possible?
Terrible impacts of industrialization in pork and poultry markets reached an all-time high during the Livestock Revolution, during which "the (global) share of mean and milk consumed in developing countries rose from 37 to 53 percent and 34 to 44 percent, respectively from 1983 to 1997." Corporate production has greatly been influenced by the urbanization and high demands of human population, and our need for these animals has created the necessary conditions for viral spread and infection. After all, the chance of disease spreading is far greater on a farm with 5,000 pigs than on a farm of the same size with only 100 pigs. If we realized how factory farming is so bad for humans and animals alike, wouldn't we just change our ways? With demand at such a high level, is this ideal even possible?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Not Grass Fed, But At Least Pain-Free
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19shriver.html?emc=eta1
My dad, who has been keeping up with my blog, sent me a fascinating article today regarding the pain of animals on feedlots. With an increasing population and American demand at more than 100 pounds of red meat per person per year , it looks as though there is no end in sight to mass production in the meat industry. For greater efficiency, cattle on feedlots are barely given any room to graze and are fed corn instead of grass at the expense of their comfort. Although there is no solution at present to changing these factory farms, scientists are beginning to look into ways to reduce the discomfort of animals.
Recently, neuroscientists have gathered new information regarding how animals process pain. There are two separate pathways for perceiving this pain in the brain, and scientists believe that by damaging one of these cortexes, they can also eliminate the pain that an animal feels. Even more incredible, scientists are beginning to discover how to genetically engineer animals in such a way where they lack proteins that allow them to feel this pain in the first place. Although experiments on pain have only been conducted on mice at this point, neuroscientists doubt the results will be much different if performed on cattle or chickens.
Now the question is: Is this innovation a good idea? Is it ethical to take away pain that animals feel just so that we can exploit them without guilt? Or is it just to free them of pain if we're going to continue our consuming ways? Will this change exacerbate our over-consuming ways?
My dad, who has been keeping up with my blog, sent me a fascinating article today regarding the pain of animals on feedlots. With an increasing population and American demand at more than 100 pounds of red meat per person per year , it looks as though there is no end in sight to mass production in the meat industry. For greater efficiency, cattle on feedlots are barely given any room to graze and are fed corn instead of grass at the expense of their comfort. Although there is no solution at present to changing these factory farms, scientists are beginning to look into ways to reduce the discomfort of animals.
Recently, neuroscientists have gathered new information regarding how animals process pain. There are two separate pathways for perceiving this pain in the brain, and scientists believe that by damaging one of these cortexes, they can also eliminate the pain that an animal feels. Even more incredible, scientists are beginning to discover how to genetically engineer animals in such a way where they lack proteins that allow them to feel this pain in the first place. Although experiments on pain have only been conducted on mice at this point, neuroscientists doubt the results will be much different if performed on cattle or chickens.
Now the question is: Is this innovation a good idea? Is it ethical to take away pain that animals feel just so that we can exploit them without guilt? Or is it just to free them of pain if we're going to continue our consuming ways? Will this change exacerbate our over-consuming ways?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
To Kill a Chicken
Michael Pollan is a very brave man. In fact, anybody who has the courage to slaughter an animal must be brave - either that, or highly disturbed. In chapter twelve of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," though, Pollan describes the slaughtering process as "economic, ecological, political, ethical, and even spiritual." Who knew all of that was behind the slaughter scene?
Because Michael Pollan had already experienced every other part of the food production process first hand, he felt it necessary to personally kill a chicken for consumption. As he looked into the chicken's eyes, he did not see any signs of fear, and the death was quick and hopefully painless. Pollan notes that after slaughtering about a dozen chickens, the work began to feel almost mechanical - which is a scary thought. How could such an act become almost perfunctory so quickly? Nobody should have to kill animals on a daily basis - but doing it once in a while, or even just once, gives a sense of appreciation, respect, and knowledge.
In addition to describing the slaughter processes, Pollan also talks about the obstacles imposed by the USDA in regard to the "clean food movement." The USDA is so concerned about preventing the spread of illness and blood-borne pathogens that they squelch safe methods of production that allow for richer flavors. Very unfortunate. And even worse, this gives smaller farms a lot of trouble, preventing us as consumers from tasting richer meat that hasn't been mass produced. Is this government involvement really necessary to ensure our safety? Despite USDA approval, can foods that are chemically enhanced for safety really be considered natural and fit for use?
Because Michael Pollan had already experienced every other part of the food production process first hand, he felt it necessary to personally kill a chicken for consumption. As he looked into the chicken's eyes, he did not see any signs of fear, and the death was quick and hopefully painless. Pollan notes that after slaughtering about a dozen chickens, the work began to feel almost mechanical - which is a scary thought. How could such an act become almost perfunctory so quickly? Nobody should have to kill animals on a daily basis - but doing it once in a while, or even just once, gives a sense of appreciation, respect, and knowledge.
In addition to describing the slaughter processes, Pollan also talks about the obstacles imposed by the USDA in regard to the "clean food movement." The USDA is so concerned about preventing the spread of illness and blood-borne pathogens that they squelch safe methods of production that allow for richer flavors. Very unfortunate. And even worse, this gives smaller farms a lot of trouble, preventing us as consumers from tasting richer meat that hasn't been mass produced. Is this government involvement really necessary to ensure our safety? Despite USDA approval, can foods that are chemically enhanced for safety really be considered natural and fit for use?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Salvation Army
What better way to spend Valentine's Day than to start my community service project for the final paper? Last semester, my roommate and I volunteered at the Salvation Army, and even without this class I planned to continue this service. It really is nice though to be able to share my experiences at this place.
The final paper is a long time away, so I decided to jot down a few things about today's experience to jog my memory later. First, I should start off by explaining exactly what we do when volunteering at the Salvation Army. We prepare meals from scratch, serve them to the needy individuals in the Ithaca community, and then clean up the mess. This process usually takes about three hours, which is extraordinary considering that the meal is typically for fifty to seventy people.
Today's menu was outstanding: homemade meatloaf with mashed potatoes and gravy, fresh vegetable and tofu stir fry, a large salad, and blueberry crisp with coconut ice cream for dessert. The meatloaf had ground beef, onions, spices, and spaghetti sauce on top. I've never seen such a large pan of meat loaf in my life - and there were two of them! The mashed potatoes were made from fresh ingredients - potatoes, butter, milk, and chives and salt for flavor. At home, we typically only eat the powder mashed potatoes, and honestly, the difference between these two styles is tremendous. The gravy was unbelievable - beef broth with slightly sauteed mushrooms and corn starch for thickness. It was a very nice complement to the meatloaf and mashed potatoes. The vegetable stir fry contained red, yellow, orange and green peppers, celery, mushrooms, onions, and tofu - it was incredibly colorful, and although I didn't get to sample this, I'm sure it was also quite tasty. The blueberry crisp comprised of frozen blueberries, and a topping made of oatmeal, butter, and brown sugar. I would not have imagined this combination to be any good, but coconut ice cream on top was actually a great addition to an already delicious dessert.
The people we served were very appreciative and the kitchen staff was a lot of fun. Three hours done, and two to go for this project. I plan on doing much more than that this semester though - it was a lot of fun and it was great learning how to prepare these dishes for myself and others.
The final paper is a long time away, so I decided to jot down a few things about today's experience to jog my memory later. First, I should start off by explaining exactly what we do when volunteering at the Salvation Army. We prepare meals from scratch, serve them to the needy individuals in the Ithaca community, and then clean up the mess. This process usually takes about three hours, which is extraordinary considering that the meal is typically for fifty to seventy people.
Today's menu was outstanding: homemade meatloaf with mashed potatoes and gravy, fresh vegetable and tofu stir fry, a large salad, and blueberry crisp with coconut ice cream for dessert. The meatloaf had ground beef, onions, spices, and spaghetti sauce on top. I've never seen such a large pan of meat loaf in my life - and there were two of them! The mashed potatoes were made from fresh ingredients - potatoes, butter, milk, and chives and salt for flavor. At home, we typically only eat the powder mashed potatoes, and honestly, the difference between these two styles is tremendous. The gravy was unbelievable - beef broth with slightly sauteed mushrooms and corn starch for thickness. It was a very nice complement to the meatloaf and mashed potatoes. The vegetable stir fry contained red, yellow, orange and green peppers, celery, mushrooms, onions, and tofu - it was incredibly colorful, and although I didn't get to sample this, I'm sure it was also quite tasty. The blueberry crisp comprised of frozen blueberries, and a topping made of oatmeal, butter, and brown sugar. I would not have imagined this combination to be any good, but coconut ice cream on top was actually a great addition to an already delicious dessert.
The people we served were very appreciative and the kitchen staff was a lot of fun. Three hours done, and two to go for this project. I plan on doing much more than that this semester though - it was a lot of fun and it was great learning how to prepare these dishes for myself and others.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
When's the last time YOU saw a pig in person?
As the title of this post suggests, this entry will be about the ethics of eating animals. I am responding to chapter eleven of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," in which Michael Pollan conveys both sides of the carnivore-vegetarian dilemma. Simply put - is it morally wrong to eat meat?
Because of the inhumane treatment of animals on industrial farms, it seems as though we either gain knowledge and become vegetarians, or simply remain ignorant to these conditions and continue eating meat. Because animals are living creatures, don't they receive fair treatment and equality? Just because we are capable of expressing thoughts and conveying our intelligence as human beings, does that mean that we can rightfully exploit other creatures?
Unfortunately, we have been left deeply confused about our connection to animals - on one end, eating meat is traditional, sociable, delicious, and it provides us with protein and other nutrients. But the industrial slaughter is inhumane! Surely if we were able to look a pig or a cow in the face, we'd change our minds about eating meat.
Michael Pollan displayed this dilemma in a way that I never thought of before - a way that even more so justifies the idea of eating meat in my mind. Pollan states that domesticated animals cannot survive in the wild , and without us, they would have become extinct by now. So, we're actually allowing these animals (with the exception of pigs) more time to live! And this is where meat-eaters should make the change: people who really care about the treatment of animals should ensure that their meat products come from farms that treat their animals with care. True, meat would be much more expensive, but isn't it worth it give money to organizations that to regard animals with respect?
Because of the inhumane treatment of animals on industrial farms, it seems as though we either gain knowledge and become vegetarians, or simply remain ignorant to these conditions and continue eating meat. Because animals are living creatures, don't they receive fair treatment and equality? Just because we are capable of expressing thoughts and conveying our intelligence as human beings, does that mean that we can rightfully exploit other creatures?
Unfortunately, we have been left deeply confused about our connection to animals - on one end, eating meat is traditional, sociable, delicious, and it provides us with protein and other nutrients. But the industrial slaughter is inhumane! Surely if we were able to look a pig or a cow in the face, we'd change our minds about eating meat.
Michael Pollan displayed this dilemma in a way that I never thought of before - a way that even more so justifies the idea of eating meat in my mind. Pollan states that domesticated animals cannot survive in the wild , and without us, they would have become extinct by now. So, we're actually allowing these animals (with the exception of pigs) more time to live! And this is where meat-eaters should make the change: people who really care about the treatment of animals should ensure that their meat products come from farms that treat their animals with care. True, meat would be much more expensive, but isn't it worth it give money to organizations that to regard animals with respect?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Pleasures of Eating
I really enjoyed Wendell Berry's essay entitled "The Pleasures of Eating," in which we are initially encouraged to view eating not merely as a daily action, but an agricultural act. We mustn't think of ourselves solely as "consumers," but instead as participants in a biological cycle.
The typical American views food as an abstract idea, one that he does not even consider until he sees it in the grocery store or on a dinner plate. No longer do we imagine deep connections between what we eat and its origins, detracting from the overall eating experience. Because we rely so heavily upon commercial suppliers, we have become commercial consumers - focused on price and quantity over quality and knowledge.
Rather than deeply enjoying meals, we hurry through them, moving too quickly to savor each bite or appreciate the underlying beauty of our food's connection with the world. This method of eating meals seems to reflect a much bigger problem in society - we have become a perfunctory nation of haste, neglecting to pay attention to detail. Just as commercial suppliers use as much technology to create as much food as possible, we move quickly and attach ourselves to our cellphones and blackberries to try get as much done in our waking hours as we possibly can. Unfortunately, with this efficiency comes the loss of simple enjoyment of life.
Just like everything else, Wendell Berry states that eating can only be fully enjoyed if its fully understood. Unfortunately, most people - including me, I have to admit - have remained ignorant to the profound connection we, and our food, has with the rest of the world.
I am a bit skeptical about this idea, though. I may not know where all my meals come from or how each ingredient was produced, but I still love to eat more than just about anything. With a little extra effort and information, can the overall experience really improve? Is the extra cost, time, and energy needed to learn about and buy purer items really worth it?
The typical American views food as an abstract idea, one that he does not even consider until he sees it in the grocery store or on a dinner plate. No longer do we imagine deep connections between what we eat and its origins, detracting from the overall eating experience. Because we rely so heavily upon commercial suppliers, we have become commercial consumers - focused on price and quantity over quality and knowledge.
Rather than deeply enjoying meals, we hurry through them, moving too quickly to savor each bite or appreciate the underlying beauty of our food's connection with the world. This method of eating meals seems to reflect a much bigger problem in society - we have become a perfunctory nation of haste, neglecting to pay attention to detail. Just as commercial suppliers use as much technology to create as much food as possible, we move quickly and attach ourselves to our cellphones and blackberries to try get as much done in our waking hours as we possibly can. Unfortunately, with this efficiency comes the loss of simple enjoyment of life.
Just like everything else, Wendell Berry states that eating can only be fully enjoyed if its fully understood. Unfortunately, most people - including me, I have to admit - have remained ignorant to the profound connection we, and our food, has with the rest of the world.
I am a bit skeptical about this idea, though. I may not know where all my meals come from or how each ingredient was produced, but I still love to eat more than just about anything. With a little extra effort and information, can the overall experience really improve? Is the extra cost, time, and energy needed to learn about and buy purer items really worth it?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Original Nilla Banana Pudding
Ever since I've been at Cornell, I have wanted to make the homemade banana pudding recipe on the back of the Nilla Wafer Box. Unfortunately, I would always find excuses as to why not put forth effort - I had other work to do, I could just as easily eat pudding in the dining hall, or simply, I was much too lazy.
What better way to spend the afternoon on Superbowl Sunday than to finally complete the task I've been meaning to do for months now. I guess this is kind of a pointless blog, but after only eating packaged or dining hall pudding my entire life, the end result was amazing. Honestly, I was not expecting the difference between store-bought and homemade pudding to be this significant, but putting forth the effort really made a difference. We ate the dish while it was still slightly warm, and the Nilla wafers layered within the mix melted into the freshly sliced bananas and custard that surrounded it.
We intended to save this dish for the Superbowl, but it was really much to good to wait. For anyone who wants a delicious, warm treat on a cold winter day, here it is:
Prep: 30 mins - Cook: 15 mins - Cool: 15 mins
3/4 cup
sugar, divided1/3 cup all-purpose flour
Dash salt
3 eggs, separated
2 cups milk
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
45 NILLA Wafers, divided
5 ripe bananas, sliced (about 3 1/2 cups), divided
Additional NILLA Wafers and banana slices, for garnish
1. Mix 1/2 cup sugar, flour and salt in top of double boiler. Blend in 3 egg yolks and milk. Cook, uncovered, over boiling water, stirring constantly for 10 to 12 minutes or until thickened. Remove from heat; stir in vanilla.
2. Reserve 10 wafers for garnish. Spread small amount of custard on bottom of 1 1/2-quart casserole; cover with a layer of wafers and a layer of sliced bananas. Pour about 1/3 of custard over bananas. Continue to layer wafers, bananas and custard to make a total of 3 layers of each, ending with custard.
3. Beat egg whites until soft peaks form; gradually add remaining 1/4 cup sugar and beat until stiff but not dry. Spoon on top of pudding, spreading evenly to cover entire surface and sealing well to edges.
4. Bake at 350°F in top half of oven for 15 to 20 minutes or until browned. Cool slightly or refrigerate. Garnish with additional wafers and banana slices just before serving.
Makes 8 servings
Nutritional Info Per Serving:
287 calories, 6 g protein, 50 g carbohydrate, 7 g total fat, 2 g saturated fat, 117 mg cholesterol, 134 mg sodium, 1 g dietary fiber
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Food Industry's Ultimate Contradiction
In chapters of eight and nine of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Michael Pollan traces a delicious meal of roast chicken, roasted vegetables, and a spring salad back to its origin. A very simple, supposedly organic meal, with an underlying complexity of industrial processes - this is the food industry's ultimate contradiction: Organic Industry.
Here, the battle between capitalism and protecting nature takes center stage. Is a compromise between these two realistic? Certainly, the industrialization of organic products comes at a price. In fact, organic farming has unfortunately come to resemble industrial farming systems. This truly is unfortunate - for the word "organic" was initially intended to stand for everything in opposition to industrialization.
Yes, it's true that "organic" chickens get slightly more space to move around, and due to lack of hormones and antibiotics in their diets, they live a few days longer. It's also true that organic foods contains no pesticides or chemicals which harm the soil and could potentially affect our health. However, the only way organic produce can be sold at a reasonable price is by chilling, washing, packaging, and transporting it as one would a nonorganic food. This means shipping food around the country with diesel fuel - further exacerbating our dependence on fossil fuels and our harm to the planet around us. The organic food industry thus functions in an environmentally unsustainable manner, making us question if the added expenses and hassle is truly worth it.
Here, the battle between capitalism and protecting nature takes center stage. Is a compromise between these two realistic? Certainly, the industrialization of organic products comes at a price. In fact, organic farming has unfortunately come to resemble industrial farming systems. This truly is unfortunate - for the word "organic" was initially intended to stand for everything in opposition to industrialization.
Yes, it's true that "organic" chickens get slightly more space to move around, and due to lack of hormones and antibiotics in their diets, they live a few days longer. It's also true that organic foods contains no pesticides or chemicals which harm the soil and could potentially affect our health. However, the only way organic produce can be sold at a reasonable price is by chilling, washing, packaging, and transporting it as one would a nonorganic food. This means shipping food around the country with diesel fuel - further exacerbating our dependence on fossil fuels and our harm to the planet around us. The organic food industry thus functions in an environmentally unsustainable manner, making us question if the added expenses and hassle is truly worth it.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Hidden Costs of the Feedlot
All of this week's readings seem to tie together very well, so I'm going to comment on them collectively in this post. The readings I'm referring to are "Tenderloin's a Steal, but at What Moral Price?" by John Kessler, "Meat and Potatoes" by E. Schlosser, and Chapter Four of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan.
The main point that ties these pieces together so well is this: We often make choices about what to eat based on price, but fail to consider the reasons behind why these foods are cheaper. We look to maintain a low budget at the cost of our morality. We remain ignorant to - or simply try to forget - how our food gets from its original source to our dinner plates, pushing past knowledge of animal cruelty and instead focusing on lower costs.
There's only so long we can remain in the dark on this issue, so let me explain. Beef is often cheap because of so called "factory farming" on cattle feedlots. America's animal population is gathered together in cramped quarters for the sake of fulfilling economic logic. It is true that placing so many cows together in a small area and feeding them cheap, federally subsidized corn, is the quickest and most profitable way to run the meat business. It is also true that this method assures the cheapest price of meat for us.
However, the term "cost" does not take into account anything beyond the economics textbook definition of the word. Cheap meat has brought about a large share of environmental and healthy problems, from polluted air and water to the deadly E. Coli diseases that have inflicted out population. We feed cows on feedlots cheap corn because its serves as a cheap form of calories, but this choice has had considerable costs to the health of the cows, and consequently on our own health. Because we inhabit the same ecosystem as the animals we eat, whatever happens to them consequently happens to us.
Additionally, concentration in the meatpacking industry has lowered prices for us, the consumers. This also comes at a great cost. In fact, according to E. Schlosser, the injury rate among meatpackers is the highest of any occupation in the United States. The high speed of production lines may turn large profits, but it also unfortunately is the leading determinant for slaughterhouse injuries. And the pay is next to nothing.
So all of of that leads me to this question: If people did know of the terrible treatment of cows on feedlots, of the inhumane environment in meatpacking plants, and of all the hidden costs that come with buying cheaper meat, would they still make the same decision? Now that I'm aware, will I?
The main point that ties these pieces together so well is this: We often make choices about what to eat based on price, but fail to consider the reasons behind why these foods are cheaper. We look to maintain a low budget at the cost of our morality. We remain ignorant to - or simply try to forget - how our food gets from its original source to our dinner plates, pushing past knowledge of animal cruelty and instead focusing on lower costs.
There's only so long we can remain in the dark on this issue, so let me explain. Beef is often cheap because of so called "factory farming" on cattle feedlots. America's animal population is gathered together in cramped quarters for the sake of fulfilling economic logic. It is true that placing so many cows together in a small area and feeding them cheap, federally subsidized corn, is the quickest and most profitable way to run the meat business. It is also true that this method assures the cheapest price of meat for us.
However, the term "cost" does not take into account anything beyond the economics textbook definition of the word. Cheap meat has brought about a large share of environmental and healthy problems, from polluted air and water to the deadly E. Coli diseases that have inflicted out population. We feed cows on feedlots cheap corn because its serves as a cheap form of calories, but this choice has had considerable costs to the health of the cows, and consequently on our own health. Because we inhabit the same ecosystem as the animals we eat, whatever happens to them consequently happens to us.
Additionally, concentration in the meatpacking industry has lowered prices for us, the consumers. This also comes at a great cost. In fact, according to E. Schlosser, the injury rate among meatpackers is the highest of any occupation in the United States. The high speed of production lines may turn large profits, but it also unfortunately is the leading determinant for slaughterhouse injuries. And the pay is next to nothing.
So all of of that leads me to this question: If people did know of the terrible treatment of cows on feedlots, of the inhumane environment in meatpacking plants, and of all the hidden costs that come with buying cheaper meat, would they still make the same decision? Now that I'm aware, will I?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Corn Walking
I've never blogged before, so this experience is entirely new for me. I felt really energized by class discussion today, and decided to post an entry just to kick things off.
Just a few things to start with: already I feel as though I'm looking at things differently through the "sociological eye." I really enjoy the idea of a "sociological imagination," or a tool that connects individual biographies with societal history, and how easily it can be connected to what we've learned in class so far. As Pollan explains in "The Omnivore's Dilemma," our country truly is suffering from a national eating disorder. With all the food choices available and the constant bombardment of advertisements about restaurants, diet plans, and fitness, we have become obsessed with - and even plagued by - food. It has gotten to the point where even the simple question of, what should we eat for dinner tonight, is a great challenge. Individual choices and mindsets about what to eat, why and how reflects a larger picture of how our nation approaches such issues. It is ironic that, despite large media focus on health and fitness, our country is the most obese in the world.
I would also like to say a few words on the beginning few chapters of "The Omnivore's Dilemma." It is no wonder that it was ranked one of the ten best books of the year by The New York Times Book Review. Michael Pollan takes a seemingly simple question - what should I eat for dinner tonight - and creates a novel out of it, describing the processes by which we make and choose items from the three principal food chains - the industrial, the organic, and the hunter gatherer. First, he focuses on the industrial, and specifically, on corn.
Who knew that an author could write an entire chapter on corn that is actually captivating! Of the forty-five thousand items in an average grocery store, more than a quarter of them contain corn. This staple food is able to survive and flourish in just about every climate, and creates more organic matter than most other crops on the same amount of sunlight and water. Furthermore, corn is easy to transport and difficult to destroy. It is no wonder that this crop is so important.
Come to think of it, when I read the ingredients on the foods I consume, I ALWAYS see corn as one of the key components. Peanut butter, ketchup, fruit snacks - you name it, corn's in it. So I guess that leaves me wondering, what do people with allergies to corn even do for their diet? As the saying goes, if we truly are what we eat, is it safe to call ourselves "corn walking?"
Just a few things to start with: already I feel as though I'm looking at things differently through the "sociological eye." I really enjoy the idea of a "sociological imagination," or a tool that connects individual biographies with societal history, and how easily it can be connected to what we've learned in class so far. As Pollan explains in "The Omnivore's Dilemma," our country truly is suffering from a national eating disorder. With all the food choices available and the constant bombardment of advertisements about restaurants, diet plans, and fitness, we have become obsessed with - and even plagued by - food. It has gotten to the point where even the simple question of, what should we eat for dinner tonight, is a great challenge. Individual choices and mindsets about what to eat, why and how reflects a larger picture of how our nation approaches such issues. It is ironic that, despite large media focus on health and fitness, our country is the most obese in the world.
I would also like to say a few words on the beginning few chapters of "The Omnivore's Dilemma." It is no wonder that it was ranked one of the ten best books of the year by The New York Times Book Review. Michael Pollan takes a seemingly simple question - what should I eat for dinner tonight - and creates a novel out of it, describing the processes by which we make and choose items from the three principal food chains - the industrial, the organic, and the hunter gatherer. First, he focuses on the industrial, and specifically, on corn.
Who knew that an author could write an entire chapter on corn that is actually captivating! Of the forty-five thousand items in an average grocery store, more than a quarter of them contain corn. This staple food is able to survive and flourish in just about every climate, and creates more organic matter than most other crops on the same amount of sunlight and water. Furthermore, corn is easy to transport and difficult to destroy. It is no wonder that this crop is so important.
Come to think of it, when I read the ingredients on the foods I consume, I ALWAYS see corn as one of the key components. Peanut butter, ketchup, fruit snacks - you name it, corn's in it. So I guess that leaves me wondering, what do people with allergies to corn even do for their diet? As the saying goes, if we truly are what we eat, is it safe to call ourselves "corn walking?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)