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...
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)