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?

The Other White Meat

The idea of cloned meat has definitely not appealed to all consumers, but The Other White Meat sheds some light on the issue. According to Ben Paynter, milk from a cloned dairy cow is just as delicious as the original. Even though food from cloned animals is exactly the same and just as safe, the FDA is putting forth its best efforts to prevent cloned milk or meat from getting into grocery stores. Don Coover, who manages SEK Genetics, believes that this only because of strong public opposition to cloned food. Coover knows that cloned animals make their way into the food chain anyway. Cloning presents an advantage over regular breeding because there is no chance of getting undesired traits, but cloned animals can sometimes have fatal conditions like sudden death syndrome and large offspring syndrome. Cloning animals also presents an economic advantage to farmers, and ultimately consumers cannot tell the difference. I can understand why consumers are wary of food that comes from cloned animals. I do not have a problem with cloned animals being in our food, but I think consumers should still know if their food does come from cloned animals. When I worked as a representative of the dairy industry, I was told to tell consumers that the FDA mandated that milk from cloned cows was dumped and not put into the milk supply, but if it ended up in stores, then consumers should not be deceived.

Swine flu, bird flu, people flu, oh my!

The reading by Mike Davis addresses the concern of flu viruses being spread throughout food. The chapter The Triangle of Doom gives a brief overview of how viruses have been spread in between humans, swine, birds, and other species in recent history. Since the H1N1 virus of 1918, there have been countless documented cases of humans becoming infected with different flu virus strains that were transferred to them from animals. This is partly because meat consumption in developing countries has increased since 1987, and pork and poultry make up seventy six percent of that meat. Davis writes that one of the reasons that the flu is being spread so easily and rapidly is possibly because of “production density”, the need to produce more meat in smaller confined spaces. In March 2003, production density proved to be dangerous when a flu outbreak in Holland spread from birds in a large factory farm to birds and pigs all across the region. Countless animals thought to be infected were all slaughtered, however the workers who culled them were at risk for the flu even though they wore protective masks and goggles. Over two thousand people ended up being infected with the flu, and put even more at risk as it spread from person to person rather than directly from the animal to the person. This is frightening news considering all the viruses that are being spread across the country by swine. Davis documented swine outbreaks in the past few years, and that they have increased since 1997. This could be reason for concern, but I am not entirely convinced. Is the swine flu or bird flu a legitimate reason to panic? The symptoms, for the most part, did not seem that serious. The article said that the flu was spread from individuals, but did not say that it was dangerous to eat pork or poultry. Haven’t we already survived the swine flu at Cornell?

Temple Grandin

I just attended Temple Grandin’s presentation about animal behavior. She is a professor at the University of Colorado and is a bestselling author and has designed slaughter houses to make sure animals are calm before they are killed. Tonight, she began by explaining the connection between animals and people with autism. Animals are visually oriented, have associative memories, and are unable to express their emotions through language. Temple shared some of her own experience dealing with autism, and said that this allowed her to notice details of slaughter houses that frightened animals, but would normally be overlooked. She said simple things like chains hanging down, horizontal shadows, sudden movements, reflective things, unfamiliar objects, and loud noises could scare an animal. Temple said that some of the most import ways to see if animals are scared before they are slaughtered is to document the number of animals that bellow, back up in the gate, slip on the floor, or need to be prodded with an electric tazer. If a slaughter house exceeds the number of any of these incidents, then they need to change their system. After her presentation, the audience was allowed to ask questions and one person mentioned the Polyface Farm that we read about in The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Temple said that his method of slaughter was great, but that it just not a practical way to produce meat on a large scale. Temple thinks that the stun gun is the best way to slaughter an animal because it is quick, and she had seen some horrible religious slaughtering with knives that were not effective. She also shared her opinion on being vegan. She thinks that it is unnatural because the majority of vegans have to take supplements in order to be healthy, but one vegan in the audience disagreed with her and said that she and her whole family were vegans and she was not nutrient deficient. When asked about comparing slaughter houses to the Holocaust, Temple said that killing humans was a line she refused to cross. She had been asked if she could fix the electric chair during the 90’s, Temple said she could but she would not. Finally, she said that she is a reformer in the industrial food system, not someone who is trying to get rid of it. I enjoyed her presentation because she was friendly, matter of fact, and did not sugar coat anything that she had seen. I was surprised that someone who designs slaughter houses cares so much for their welfare, so even though I do no eat meat, I respect her for trying to change a flawed system.

E. Coli in Beef

An article from The New York Times entitled “E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection” sheds light on some aspects of meat inspection that may frighten consumers. Michael Moss begins his report with the story of Stephanie Smith, a woman who is now paralyzed from the waist down because she ingested ground beef tainted with E. Coli. Although Smith was extremely unfortunate, these severe rare occurrences are becoming more frequent. After four children died after eating contaminated ground beef in 1994, more attention was brought to the standards of food safety in the beef industry, but after reading this article, I am not convinced that beef is safe to eat. Companies like Cargill cut costs by combining trimmings of meat from various plants and getting the ideal percentage of fat in the meat. However, these trimmings are more likely to come into contact with feces, and after being combined, it can be difficult to trace a contamination, which is why Cargill requires as few inspections as it possible can. It was found that Cargill was violating its own food safety regulations by ignoring complaints of inspectors, and leaving rancid meat near production lines. The safety precautions recommended for preparation are not effective, and the beef consumers are eating could be dangerous. The Times tested the specified safety instructions for cooking meat, and still found that bacteria were left on cutting boards and towels afterword. Cargill agreed to stop cutting so many corners, but it is uncertain how much this will affect the quality of meat.
This reading once again makes me wonder why large corporations are continually allowed to get away with giving consumers dangerous products. It does not seem right that Cargill can get off relatively unscathed even after a lawsuit without making major changes in its hygiene practices. Besides refusing to by Cargill products, what can consumers do to get changes made in food safety policies?

The Ethics of Eating Animals

”The Ethics of Eating Animals” explores the reasons consumers chose to eat or restrain from eating meat. Michael Pollan starts off by juxtaposing eating steak and reading a book called Animal Liberation. This book, by Peter Singer, outlines philosophic reasons not to eat meat. Pollan struggles with some of the concepts that Singer has: is an intelligent animal a higher level of being than a mentally handicapped person? Singer raises questions about animal equality. Why are dogs pampered and treated well when pigs, which are just as intelligent, are slaughtered? Are humans really that much different from other animals? Pollan cited an English writer who believed that humans lost their contact with animals, and the respect they once had for the creatures they ate. Now consumers either chose to ignore what happens to the animals they eat or become vegetarian, so Pollan took that step and temporarily stopped eating meat. Pollan documented his experience as a vegetarian, but did not like that his food takes more time to prepare, that he seems to be an inconvenience to others, and that he was missing out on some social aspects of eating. He also wonders to what degree animals suffer before they are slaughtered, or if they have any idea of the fate that awaits them. Temple Grandin told him in great detail what was going to happen to the steer he purchased at the slaughter house, and it did not seem that inhumane, although Grandin did design the system at that plant. Pollan speculated on what would happen to animals if everyone became a vegetarian or a vegan, and it odd to think that the survival of these species depends on humans eating meat because they have been domesticated and breed for those purposes. He thinks that a solution other than turning a blind eye to what happens to meat or not eating it at all is to raise consumer awareness of how meat is produced, so that the animals might get the respect they deserve.
I found Pollan’s experience as a vegetarian interesting, but I do not feel like I am missing out on important cultural aspects. Eating meat is part of many meals, but I still sit at the table with my family on Thanksgiving and eat the other delicious things on the table. As for the ballpark Frank, I really couldn’t think of anything I find less appealing, and I’m not upset for missing out on that. Cooking vegetarian is not necessarily more intensive, but I do enjoy chopping, and a large kitchen knife is definitely my favorite utensil. I was wondering of anyone in the class finds vegetarians inconvenient or has had negative experiences trying to accommodate them. I try to be as unimposing as possible, and I am content to eat anything that doesn’t have meat. After reading this chapter is anyone considering trying vegetarianism? Vegetarianism was the right choice for me, and is the way I respect other living creatures.

The Pleasures of Eating

Wendell Berry laments over consumer ignorance of food in the essay “The Pleasures of Eating” from his book What are People for? Urban consumers have no idea where their food comes from, but are content in their lack of knowledge, as are the industries that supply them food. They might have a basic idea that food comes from a farm somewhere, but know nothing about the path the food took to get from the farm to the table. Berry argues that eating food is in fact an agricultural process, and consumers don’t often realize it. Food all starts as something living, but industrial farming has made it more difficult to see this connection. Berry says that food industries want to keep consumers in the dark, because if they knew that the meat they are eating was an animal that used to stand in its own feces, and the vegetables were covered in pesticides that polluted waterways, then they would be less likely to buy their food. Food industries have made eating more convenient for consumers. They processed, prepackaged, and disguised food to the point where it isn’t recognizable as something that was once living. People can be passive eaters because industrial food allows them to eat without cooking or preparing it, but this passive mindset must be stopped. Berry outlines steps we can take to be more active in our food choices, which include: cooking the food yourself, composting, gardening, knowing where your food came from, and buying directly from farmers.
After reading this, I wondered how feasible these steps are for someone living in an urban setting to follow. As part of my job as a spokesperson for the dairy industry, I brought a calf to a festival in a city only 15 minutes away from where I live. I was surprised at the number of people who thought it was a dog, or had never even seen a cow before. They truly had no idea where their food came from. There is little space to grow a garden in the city, and many of the low income families did not have the opportunity to go and meet their local farmers. Is there a way to get low income families to buy locally grown food when processed food is so much cheaper? I also wonder if people are willing to give up eating bananas, pineapples, and mangoes because they certainly would not grow in upstate New York. Would consumers also be willing to go without fresh fruits or vegetables in the winter as well? I take pleasure in knowing where my food came from but how do we make it easier for consumers to make better food decisions?

"Big Organic"

In Chapter 8 of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma¸ he takes the reader to a farm that is out of the ordinary in modern agriculture. Joel Salatin from the Polyface farm explains to Pollan how grass is the backbone of his farm. The animals that graze the pastures are able to convert the grass into beef, pork, turkey, eggs, and much more. What seems even more extraordinary is that the grass is not harmed from grazing, and can continue to be an essential part of the food chain. Pollan compares this system in which the animals graze and fertilize the grass with the industrial corn farms that we learned about earlier in the book. Although the Polyface farm is seemingly ideal, it is not certified organic. Joel the farmer shared his many opinions on the organic industry which led Pollan to further explore what it means to be organic. In chapter 9, the author explains how we can no longer think of the word “organic” as being as unquestionably wholesome as it used to be. Organic products can be found in the grocery store, tempting consumers with misleading labels. Pollan retraced the steps that the organic products took from the farm to the grocery store and found that the grocery stores have had to turn to industrialized farms to meet their demand, and that the local farm ideal that is presented is not anything close to what is truly happening. The chicken could hardly be “free range”, but people buy it anyway. He explains the origins of the organic movement and how it was viewed when it first started compared to what it is today. He also takes an in-depth look at Earthbound, a large organic produce company, which does its best to be mindful of the environment despite its large scale, but still raises the question if organic is really the best choice to make.
This reading made me wonder how much of what we read on our food labels is true. What does organic really mean? The manager of a local CSA told me that her farm followed the guidelines of organic farming, but that the work involved in becoming certified organic was too expensive and time consuming. I also would like to know if people only buy organic because it makes them feel better about their purchases, or if it is because “organic” just become a popular fad. Is there an easier way than investigative journalism for consumers to find out more about where their food really comes from?

Industrializing Beef

After reading Eric Schlosser’s article "Meat and Potatoes" I found myself asking many questions about why such a flawed system for producing cheap meat exists. Schlosser explains that over the last few decades, the meat packing plants in this country have become increasingly industrialized, but the consolidation has had a negative impact on the people these companies employ. A meat packing job used to be a respectable position that could earn someone a middle class wage, but the working conditions decreased drastically as more and more unskilled laborers were hired for this job, which has the highest rate of injury at work. The workers, trying to keep up with the nearly impossible pace of the meat packing plant, neglect some measures of cleanliness. He goes on to gruesomely describe how the cattle are slaughtered and eviscerated. Schlosser witnessed the swinging carcasses being disemboweled by workers who were standing ankle-deep in blood. This system, which is required to feed the demand of consumers, creates a meat product that is much more dangerous because of the higher risk of contaminated meat. Out breaks of E. Coli have become more frequent in recent years, and one has to wonder what the true costs of eating cheap meat are.
I was pretty shocked at some of the information that I learned in this article because it seems that industrializing beef production has negatively impacted both the people who have to work in the plants, but also the consumer. Is there any way to meet the demand for meat without having to exploit workers at a meat packing plant? I was wondering if this article is truly representative of all meat packing plants, and Schlosser found similar conditions in other plants, or if the was chosen only to shock readers. My step dad owns a butcher shop, and what I have seen is not nearly as horrific as what was described in the article. I would like to know where people buy their meat from and what things they take into consideration when they consume it, because even more so after reading this, I think we need to be mindful of what we eat.

Having a lot on our trays

It's kind of sad that at college, most of my social eating happens at RPCC dining hall. It is a place that seemed so magical at first, with never-ending choices of what seemed like good food, but whatever it was that enchanted us first semester appears to have rubbed off. Now, I almost think of a trip to the dining hall as a challenge filled with so many obstacles. Where will we sit? Is there a long line at the mongo bar? When are they going to refill the chocolate milk? Should I go for the tasteless lettuce because it seems healthier, or have one of the mysterious dishes that they serve in the vegetarian station? Where are all the cups? Why aren't there any cookies? Do you think I can sneak out four bananas, two apples, and an ice cream cone without Carmelo noticing? I can't help but notice that no matter what I get, the food all just seems to taste the same day after day. And yet we still go back, because we are locked into our meal plans. I hate how easy it is to stuff yourself on things that you didn't really want to eat in the first place. My friend is a student supervisor at RPCC and has given us the scoop on some of what we're eating. The pastries they set out on Sunday brunch were just removed from the package that they came in, and the scrambled eggs are powdered. No one is back there lovingly making the cookies from scratch, and apparently we don't ever want to see what is behind the giant dish carousel. I don't know where most of the ingredients from Purcell's Green Harvest come from, and I doubt the green feild depicted in the sign actually exists. Well, maybe I'm being a little harsh, it's not all that bad. I do enjoy eating with my friends every night and I like when they have themed dinner nights, but mostly because they have balloons. Tonight the bananas looked edible, and I'm not sure what a Po Boy is, but I enjoyed it, and every Wednesday I take cones from the ice cream station because it is Ice Cream Night at Eco House. If there is one thing I like about Cornell Dining, it is the ice cream, because atleast we know where that milk comes from. Before I go I would like to know if any of you share my thoughts on the dining halls. Well, I guess this is the end of my rant, I have to go eat ice cream now.