Food: The Key Concepts

As the world’s population grows, so should our concern about food availability in the coming years. In FOOD: The Key Concepts, Warren Belasco predicts what would happen as the population grows and the rest of the world catches up to North America in gluttony and consumerism. Hunger is hardly a new problem for the planet; Jonathan Swift believed that improving agriculture was a worthy endeavor even in the eighteenth century, when the world’s population was a fraction of what it currently is. The population has increased six fold since 1800 and now is a staggering 6 billion people, and we are now close to overwhelming the planet’s resources. Agriculture uses eight percent of this country’s fresh water supply, and of that amount eighty percent goes to the production of meat. Meat production also makes use of copious amounts of corn, soy, and fuel. Furthermore, we are unaware of how much monoculture plantations of destroy the topsoil. Belasco suggests two scenarios that attempt to solve the predicament humans have found themselves in. One alternative relies completely on new technology to provide humans with exactly what they want: unlimited, convenient food that tastes good, but is not necessarily the most nutritious. The demand for this will drive the technology to provide this. In this alternate future, we will ignore the environmental consequences, and form technology that adapts to the deteriorating environment. The other option is an anthropological solution in which people change their mindset about food and become active in sustainable agriculture. However, consumers will have to endure preparing their own food, and higher prices. Utopian agrarian society will become the norm again. Belasco realizes that neither of these extremes will prevail, but a combination is the most realistic solution.
To me, the agrarian utopia sounded like a pretty good idea. I would be more than willing to live on a farm in order to do my part in the second alternative. I have often wondered if there was a way to feed the population without completely destroying the small farmer, and even though this hypothetical situation is very unlikely, it is not impossible. I realize that people will not want to cook for themselves, or do without the conveniences of prepared food but the benefits far outweigh the time commitment. A solution is hard to imagine, but is it possible to drastically change the values of modern society to include sustainable agriculture? I was shocked at how much water agriculture and especially meat production entails, but are people prepared to reduce their meat consumptions? The alarming statistics and predictions for the future are quite terrifying, but I wonder how much of them are merely exaggerations aimed at motivating people to change. This chapter definitely opened my eyes to how detrimental our gluttony is to the environment.

Food Scarcity

Hunger and food scarcity are two problems that affect an enormous percentage of the world’s population. “The Scarcity Fallacy” by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins and Lindsey Peterson explains the many reasons for these issues, who are most likely to be affected, underlying causes of these problems, and possible solutions. There are currently more than one billion people affected by hunger in the world today, but this is not because there is not enough food to nourish everyone, but is largely because resources are being misused. Hunger is on the rise even though there is more food available per capita today than in any other time in history. The supermarket revolution has made food overpriced and unavailable to those in extreme poverty. Increase production has encouraged industries to use food in alternate ways, like bio-fuels, instead of feeding those in need. In low-income food deficit countries, poverty was found to be the main root of hunger, and children accounted for an alarming percent of those suffering from hunger. Gender inequality and food insecurity also go hand in hand. In some places women make up sixty percent of the hungry, even though they are responsible for up to eighty percent of the agriculture labor. In these places, women also do not have access to education or contraceptives, so they are unable to move up in income and also increase the population of hungry children. Many food aid programs are ineffective because they food is not allocated to those in the most need, and is often distributed to favored ethnic groups. Hunger relief programs have also become corrupt, and the food provided cheaply is taken and sold at much higher prices through the black market while inspectors are bribed to look the other way. Food provided at refugee camps is sometimes used as leverage in order to maintain control over the refugees. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, food is used as a weapon in the systematic rape of the female refugees. These issues cannot be ignored by the world. The authors believe that overcoming inequalities is the first step towards solving this problem. The hunger crisis is closely linked to politics, but those who distribute aid must ensure that it gets to those who need it most. Societal changes need to be made before world hunger can be eliminated.

I found this article surprising because who would have thought that hunger is not actually caused by a lack of available food. I did not realize how much food played a part in global politics, and I am shocked that more is not being done to ensure that food ends up in the right hands. I am appalled that food plays a part in the horrible crimes on women in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The crimes against women in the DRC were the subject of this year’s spotlight monologue in The Vagina Monologues, which told the story of a young girl who was kidnapped and became a sex slave. I would like to know why those who provide hunger aid are not doing more to prevent this. Is there a way to make the societal changes come about? How can women suffering from hunger gain more control over their food supply? The changes suggested by the article seem extremely difficult to overcome, but is there a feasible way to gain equality for women or solve the world’s hunger problem?

Food Stamps

Food stamps were once considered something only lower class families relied on to get by. A recent New York Times article by R. Deparle and J. Gebeloff entitled “Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades” addresses the latest changes in the number and variety of people using this program to get by. Using food stamps often came with many stigmas attached, and it was believed that those receiving government aid were lazy and did not work hard enough to support themselves. However the recent use of food stamps has increased drastically since the downturn in the economy and people who once held well paying jobs now find themselves struggling to put dinner on the table. In Ohio, people who worked for automobile manufacturers were laid off by the thousands, and people who live comfortable lifestyles have had to adjust to living on unemployment. According to this article, an astounding one in eight people uses food stamps in the United States. This assistance program has expanded since Bill Clinton’s term as president, and recently underwent a name change. Food Stamps is now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It has received criticism for just being another welfare system that does not help reduce poverty, and also because the system has been abused by those who do not need it or misuse the resources they are given. Despite these claims, SNAP has come to the rescue for many people hit by the tough economic times.

I was unaware, like many people, at how broad the range of people using food stamps has begun. From this article, it seems like they are mostly being put to good use, but I would like to know what types of food people are buying with food stamps. I know they are used mostly for basic staples, but is this program encouraging healthy eating habits as well? We learned in the Omnivore’s Dilemma that part of our national eating disorder stems from the fact that unhealthy foods are relatively inexpensive, and that obesity is strongly linked with a low-income (and being eligible for food stamps). This article portrayed food stamps in a positive way, but I have to question how effective the system is. My step-dad owns a butcher shop in a relatively poor community, and has many customers on food stamps. I always heard criticism of food stamps from my parents growing up because people would use their food stamps to buy lobster and expensive cuts of meat from the store. Should this system have more regulations? What changes could make it better?

The McDonald's Effect

“The McDonaldization of Society” is an essay by George Ritzer that explores the ways and consequences of society becoming more efficient. More aspects of everyday life are turning to assembly-line methods to maximize output in the shortest amount of time. Everything from heart surgery to Nazi concentration camps has become more systematic and is influenced by the mentality of extreme organization. The food we eat, the way we eat it, and what we expect from our eating experience has all changed dramatically from the McDonald’s outlook on production. Besides efficiency, predictability is one area that consumers are concerned with. Variance of any sort has been almost eliminated when it comes to meals. Gone are the days of uncertainty and cooking from cookbooks, consumers want their food to be consistent and resort to fast food and TV dinners. Society also takes the risk out of camping, travelling, and amusement parks with the introduction of RV’s, packaged tours, and Disneyland. It is hard to judge the quality of McDonald’s food, so consumers must rely on more quantitative information like size (hence the “Big Mac”). This lack of focus on quality has unfortunately seeped into our education system when arbitrary numbers are assigned as grades, professors are rated with bubble sheets, and students are only viewed as an SAT score. In order for society to become more efficient, we are continually moving away from human involvement in production. Automation in the workplace has replaced jobs that used to be performed by humans, and even drive-through churches are popping up for our convenience. The final aspect of the McDonald’s rationale is control. Genetic engineering attempts to eliminate uncertainty, as does the assembly-line set up of a McDonald’s eatery. The McDonald’s rationale is mirrored in countless aspects of life that are necessarily related to food production, but this means we are affected as a society, not just as consumers. Our lives are more efficient, but at what cost? Have we lost all uncertainty and adventure? Is having an uninteresting society worth the efficiency? After reading this I was surprised at everything that was affected by the McDonald’s rationale. I do not necessarily think that this phenomenon is a problem. I think that if people really wanted to they could avoid fast food and keep the adventure in their lives. I have never camped in an RV, and my family still eats a home cooked meal every night. It is a shame that automation has reduced human to human contact. Is the McDonald’s rational that bad considering all the ways you can avoid it and the benefits of the maximized efficiency?

Dietary Advice

“The Politics of Government and Dietary Advice” goes in to depth on the ways governments set nutrition standards and how these standards have changed over time. Jennifer Falbe and Marion Nestle explain that the purpose of these guidelines is to help consumers make healthier food choices, but the recommendations of the government are influenced by more than just scientific research. When the WHO advised consumers to limit their sugar consumption, lobbyists from sugar organizations bombarded the WHO with criticisms, disclaiming their research and pointing out that this advice would have serious agricultural and economic drawback. After threatening to withdraw funds, the sugar organizations eventually got their way, and the WHO removed the report on sugar. Over the years, the recommended diet has become more vague and wordy, as the USDA tried to avoid telling consumers that certain foods were “bad” or that they should consume less of some things and more of others. They have struggled to keep all of the competing food industries content. The committee that decides on daily nutrient allowances is financially influenced, by the Dairy Industry and other agri-businesses. Unsurprisingly, the recommended servings of dairy increased from two to three in 2003. In 2005, the USDA released a new food pyramid guide that confuses consumers even more. The new pyramid does not include any pictures of food, or any indication of what the colored stripes mean because the goal was to not make certain foods seem bad. In Canada, the food recommendations have been similarly influenced by agricultural industries. The number of servings suggested of all food groups has increased by nearly double in some cases since 1947. One has to wonder whether the government is trying to get us to consume healthier foods, or just more of it. I don’t like the idea that food industries have so much power to determine what is “healthy” for us to eat. This article pointed out that the new food pyramid was confusing for consumers, and I couldn’t agree more. I had no idea that I had to go online to find what I should be eating. By removing the food images from the pyramid, they have essentially made it meaningless. The colored stripes all appear to be about the same size, and I did not know why the stripes tapered at the top before I read this. I would like to know more about the actual health effects of Dairy, and how much influence they have. I remember when the ADADC released their “3-a-Day” campaign in 2003, and heard all about the benefits of dairy. I promoted “3-a-day” myself in every newspaper article, farm meeting, and elementary school I attended, but I was paid by the ADADC which is funded by dairy farmers. I know there is sufficient research that refutes the health benefits of dairy, and I wonder what the true effects of dairy on the diet are.

The Many Faces of Broccoli

I remember steering away from broccoli as a child, but I really have come to appreciate this vegetable. Last night I made broccoli ginger stir fry for dinner, and although I enjoyed it very much, my little sister still stubbornly refused to touch it. If vegetables are prepared correctly, they can be so much more than the tough, bland, tasteless morsels that many children imagine them to be. I guess I have learned to love most vegetables, but I still have not managed to convince my little sister. I was wondering why children are so averse to vegetables. How do all of you feel about broccoli? Do you prefer it raw, cooked, with cheese, with dressing, or in other dishes?
I found this article that you might find interesting about why children dislike vegetables. Check it out at:
http://nutrition.about.com/od/nutritionforchildren/a/bitterstudy.htm

Here is my dinner recipe from last night in case any of you want to try it:
Ingredients (I never really measure, I'm just guessing)-
4 cups of broccoli florets
1/2 a red pepper, sliced into strips
1 large carrot, peeled and chopped
2 cloves of garlic, chopped finely
1/2 teaspoon ginger, minced
olive oil
2 tablespoons soy sauce
2 tablespoons teriyaki sauce
1 tablespoon lemon juice
salt to taste
Directions-
put the broccoli in a microwave safe container with a little bit of water and microwave for 2 minutes. Cook broccoli in olive oil in a wok on medium heat. Add the rest of the vegetables, and once they are cooked (but not mushy) add the sauces. I usually just taste it to tell what I want to add more of. Serve with rice, if desired, and enjoy!

American Cuisine

Sidney Mintz accidently let slip that there was no “American Cuisine” during a lecture he gave. The idea that it did not exist clearly upset members of the class because to them, having a distinguished cuisine is as significant as having American art, music, or literature. This response led Mintz to respond to his comment. He explains in his chapter “Eating American” that this is because of our country’s unique history that blends the culture of several European nations. Our country is vast geographically and has a large population, so in small European countries unified cuisines developed, while American meals can vary greatly because of regional diversity. The author believes that even though there is homogeneity in the American diet, this does not count as a cuisine because they are not creating it. Americans have tried to market regional dishes throughout the country, but diluted the originals in the process. These distorted versions of the original can be found almost anywhere, and in his mind cannot be considered cuisine because it is merely a cheap imitation. Americans also have relied on food transportation to overcome the issue of seasonal foods, and although this has broadened the exposure to different types of food for most American’s it gets rid of the need to develop out own cuisine. Americans eat out more than they cook and when they do cook, it is mostly prepared or packaged. Mintz predicts that in the future, even more food will be mass produced, which will only send us further away from having a unified cuisine.
How important is having an American cuisine to our cultural identity? Would anyone else be offended if they heard his comment during the lecture? Which regional cuisines have been ruined by being diluted and mass produced so much? Mintz mentioned several foods that many people consider “American cuisine” but what thing should it include, or how should this be changed so that we have a respectable cuisine?