The Future of Food

           The future of food as described by Warren Belasco is a debate between the sustainability of industrial food versus the limitations of nature. Conservationists believe that the earth cannot handle the increasing population and increasing demands of food.  Cornucopians on the other hand believe that humans can outsmart nature and create new technology to make up for the natural resources we lack.  However, even satisfying these demands do not solve the problem of world hunger because greater portion of the food will be distributed to the wealthy. A major problem is the increased consumption of meat, alcohol, and luxury food items which take the most natural resource to produce. These items require the most corn and soy input which in turn requires fuel, water, and soil to grow. The limited amount of oil in the world will cause a fight over how much should be used towards agriculture and how much should be used in transportation among other daily routines. Fresh water is also limited because it cannot be replenished easily. Finally, current farming methods are causing soil erosion and at this rate the land available for agriculture will be depleted soon. In order to prevent this downfall, Belasco suggests a mixture of a technological fix and an anthropological fix. This entails changing people’s values and giving people more freedom to explore options to overcome the damages we created.

The main problem with the way we produce and consume food now is that it is not sustainable. Based on the readings, it is not hard to imagine how just a little increase in a population’s consumption per person or capita can affect worldwide agriculture and the depletion of natural resources. It is a simple idea to tell all the wealthy people to eat and waste less so we can feed the hungry because we have more than enough to feed the world, but it is a hard idea to implement. Although it is sad, most people only care about their own enjoyment in the moment rather than look into the problems of hunger and the problems we are creating for future generations. Like Belasco proposed, we have to change the people’s mindset. This is also a complicated feat. Thus, can it be done? Also, is technology really the fix when it created the problem?

The Scarcity Fallacy

   
      This review attacks the mainstream perspective that world hunger exists because of food scarcity. Most of the public believes that there is a limited supply of food for the exponentially growing population. However, in reality, food production exceeds that of the population growth. Sociologists believe the real roots of world hunger are masked by these assumptions of food scarcity. Instead, they blame social inequalities, distribution systems, and economic and political actors that contribute to poverty.  As solution to these problems, the authors recommend a combination of changing different parts of the corrupt system. To combat inequality, a more democratic government should be put in place to promote human rights. This includes fixing the politics of food aid and the global political economy. They argue that recognizing food as a fundamental human right would help target women and children who lack access to nutritional food. Another focus should be place on distributing food aid to those who need rather than for political favor. The authors also suggest direct cash assistance to help the local economy be more self independent. They also want to promote sustainable agriculture for local farmers to create an accessible market. These solutions are not simple to implement, but if implemented correctly, it can combat not only hunger but the larger issue of poverty.

       The documentary, We Feed the World, enforced the thesis of this article. The unsold bread that was dumped in a warehouse proves that there is not a scarcity of food, but rather a problem with how food is distributed. While some places in the world have an excess of food, not enough of it is going to the people who actually need it.  I agree with the sociologists’ views that we should target poverty as the main problem and thus work towards what we can do as a society to change this. However, the long term solutions they offer are extremely hard to implement and may have adverse effects. For example, many governments around the world would reject a more democratic and free market approach. These governments have already engraved their ideals on their society, so it cannot be easily change. I agree that food aid should be less corrupt, but cash assistance could leads to an even more corrupt system. Although it is hard to say if many of these solutions are a realistic approach, it is giving exposure to the real problems society should be concern about.

1. What are the first steps of implementing these long term solutions?

2. Will world hunger ever be solved?

Who Eat's Emergency Food?

Sociologist Janet Poppendieck tackles the question of “Who Eats Emergency Food?” in her book Sweet Charity? Statistical data from Second Harvest underlines poverty as the main factor contributing to the rise in emergency food assistance. With evidence from numerous studies and firsthand accounts, Poppendieck summarizes the problems that bring people to use emergency food programs are employment reasons, high shelter costs, and inadequate public assistance and food stamps. Emergency food sources include food pantries and soup kitchens and most of the clients that these places see are unemployed. These programs were initially made for temporary assistance for those who were recently unemployed and needed some help before they got back on their feet. Although many of the clients fall into this category, there are also many part time or migrant workers who cannot afford to allocate the recommended 30% of their income to nutritious food. Poppendieck notes that calculations poverty in poverty assume a third for food, a third for shelter, and the last third for  other necessities. A large portion of one’s income now goes towards rent and utilities and the poverty line does not adjust for this. Those who are not consider poor do not meet the requirement for aid and thus do not eat enough nutritious food because food is not high in priority. Even those who do get food stamps often cannot make it last through the month and need help from food pantries or soup kitchens for the rest of their meals. These programs are there for hungry people, but to define and measure one’s hunger is putting limitations on those who need help.

                This book addressing the rise in emergency food usage and its link to poverty was published over a decade ago, and is still seen today as the country is still in a recession with more people unemployed than ever. These problems continue today not because the government or society is not addressing it, but because it takes a larger reform for progressive change. The recession is still a large problem that cannot be solved in a matter of weeks, and until then many people will still be unemployed or barely making enough to support themselves and their family. Also, the rising prices for housing and utilities will continue to increase if inflation increases and resources such as gas and fresh water become limited.  Finally, the governmental assistance programs can only do so much because there are still many people who do not qualify for aid under their standards of neediness. Although the NY Times article says that the food stamps program is growing to make as many people who need help get it, it is still questionable as to whether it can succeed. The funding is limited and like Poppendieck pointed out, most families on food stamps still need outside sources to fill in the gaps. To solve the hunger problem, we must first solve the poverty problem, but with so many sources contributing to poverty, it is difficult to pinpoint a solution.

1. Is is worth the government and other assistance programs to provide more leeway in eligibility requirements if more needy people benefit than those few who take advantage?

2. Where does the solution begin?

Never Too Rich... Or Too Thin

Karen Way explains the changes in Western society defining beauty in women over the past few decades. The social norm of what media and popular culture portray as beautiful is expressed through thinness. The thinner the model in the cosmetic commercials or actresses on television shows, the more problematic it has been for teens and young adults who want to emanate this quality. Women who were at normal and healthy weights started to question their body image and thus sought refuge in obsessive dieting and exercising. This practice was only fueled by businesses interested in making profits off of insecure women. According to Way, this trend started the “epidemic” of eating disorders. Way argues that anorexia nervosa are blown out of proportion, but she does not deny the fact that the eating disorder is on the rise. She points out that eating disorders not only affect the rich and famous, but normal people as well. Way explains that anorexia is a physical and character stigma. She cited references to psychiatrist who described every anorexic has self-esteem problems as well as a distorted view of reality. Way believes this social problem is still left untouched because society views it as a norm. Although there is public apathy there, there is not enough change.

                One of the most interesting facts I learn through this article was that although thinness has become the new ideal, Western society has seen an upwards trend of obesity and overweight people. This shows that Americans now lie on two extremes with more healthy people shifting to an unhealthy level. This is also caused by the fact that a normal or healthy body weight or image has changed to include a smaller range of what is acceptable in our culture. This to me means that although society is trying to promote healthiness, it is actually causing a counter effect. We need to go back to the basics of the decades before. Although we cannot undo what has already happened, we can learn from our mistakes and prevent this downwards spiral of society's health.

1. What is the most effective solution to reach out to the public?

2. Are eating disorders over stigmatized as character dysfunctions?

Fried Chicken vs. Fresh Apples

                Kwate compiles research about the sources of racial segregation affecting fast food density in predominately Black neighborhoods. She points out that racial segregation branches off to numerous problems in social, economic, and political areas that contribute to the rise of fast food restaurants. Fast food industries target Black neighborhoods because the area is concentrated with low income minorities. Although it cannot be generalized that Blacks fall in the low class spectrum, segregation causes racial categories to be seen as such. Also, Kwate says that segregation attracts fast food companies because they tend to be areas with high unemployment rates. Unequal access to job opportunities and racism make the fast food industry an important labor source for many African Americans. Finally, there is a correlation between political empowerment and Black health. It is hard for Blacks in segregated areas to have a voice in neighborhood policies such as zoning requirements for fast food companies.  Kwate concludes that Black people lack the money, power, prestige, and social connections to keep out fast food companies. She says that efforts to change diet by education and exhortation are likely to be singularly ineffective (Kwate,  41). Rather, the focus should be on changing the system that causes fast food industries to exploit Black neighborhoods.

                Although, this research paper focuses on fast food density in black neighborhoods, I think this is also applicable to other races and environments. For example, other low income areas that are often exploited for the labor force and often depend on cheap food are densely populated immigrant neighborhoods. However, I do not often hear about a high correlation of obesity with immigrants. This shows that it’s impossible to generalize one contributing factor to the obesity within segregated Black neighborhoods. Also, there is also the trend of obesity within White suburban and rural people. Looking at the overall structure, this could also be explained by many factors such as fast food places being the only source of dining in the vicinity and lack of exercise due to the need to drive almost everywhere. The health problem is on a national scale, but by looking at specific neighborhoods, we can learn about the measures needed to fix the individual structures.

If the individual cannot make an effective difference and the government is unwilling to change policies, how can the nation be put back on a healthy track?

Ultimately, can the structural system be changed? 

The Politics of Government Dietary Advice

The chapter “The Politics of Government Dietary Advice” talks about the history of political involvement in what the public chooses to eat. Over the past decade, the government in the U.S, Canada, and many other countries have released dietary guidelines to improve the health of their people. The initial movement encouraged people to eat less, but lobbying food industries found this a threat to their profit. Food is a huge money making sector and in the last decade, the country has been experiencing an immense increase in the food available. This means more calorie consumption per person, thus leading to health concerns. While the government tried to revise their guidelines for these changing eating trends, the food companies tried to corrupt the system in order to keep guidelines loosely define, so that they could continue expanding. This led to more complicated guidelines where the message conveyed by the government was indirect. One of the guidelines most drastic changes was the push for more exercise to balance out the increased calorie intake. This was one of the ways food companies sought to diverge from the “eat less” advice. The government plays a large role directly and indirectly in its’ countries’ eating trends.

                Although I believe the government should be involved in maintaining the public’s wellbeing, their current advice is more harmful than helpful. Having such ambiguous and confusing guidelines will cause people to either reason and continue their bad eating habits or ignoring the guidelines altogether. For example, I think the “my pyramid” plan is a good idea because it personalizes one’s recommended diet. However, the pyramid itself convoluted. If people need to read an entire book to understand what food belongs in each category and have to note all the little exceptions, they will most likely not follow the diet. I think the government should take charge of the problem at hand instead of talking in circles because they’re afraid of the food companies. Because the government has such a large influence of what we eat, we shouldn’t become dependent on corrupted dietary advice. It is up to each individual to seek out the best diet for themselves if they care about their healths.

Is there a solution that can satisfy the government, the food industry, nutritionist, and most importantly the public?

What should be the next step towards the health revolution?

Eating American

Sidney Mintz is an anthropologist who tackles the question, “Is there such thing as American cuisine?” in his article “Eating American.” Mintz argues that Americans do not have a cuisine because we cannot generalize the whole countries eating habits. As evidence, Mintz says that America is made up of so many cultures and although immigrants have become Americanized, they still keep their traditional foods. Mintz believes that although we have access to so many types of cultural foods, it does not define a unique American cuisine. Rather, this compilation can be seen as “regional cuisines”. Some of these regional cuisines include New England cooking and Southern cooking. Each has its own distinctions and is affected by the types of foods available in that region. However, Mintz says that when some other part of America tries to recreate these dishes, it become simplified and lacks in comparison to the original. Mintz repeatedly reminds us that we cannot represent the American cuisine on a national scale.

What struck me as most interesting was when Mintz said, “I do not see how a cuisine can exist unless there is a community of people who eat it, cook it, have opinions about it, and engage in dialogue involving those opinions.” Some people consider American cuisine to be hamburgers, fried chicken, hot dog, and pizza. However, based on Mintz’s analysis of what cuisine should be, these foods usually seen in fast food settings do not fit the criteria of being a culturally defined array of cuisine. Of course people eat vast amounts of fast food, but no one really stops to create it from scratch or discuss its origins or even sit down to enjoy the meal. This also goes back to the idea of rationalization and how Americans are trying to be efficient by eating fast food.

After reading this article, I was forced to think about the types of food I was putting on my plate for tonight’s dinner. There was Cajun tofu which can be easily placed in the cultural pile. However, there was also roast beef, chicken nuggets, and mashed sweet potatoes. Although Mintz did explain why these dishes were not American cuisine, I’m still left confused as to what these foods can be defined as. If they aren’t American, what are they? Also, isn’t it easier just to call it American cuisine when most other people in the world consider it as such?

The McDonalization of Society

                Rationalization of society is the main topic of George Ritzer’s essay, The McDonalization of Society. Rationalization is a term that characterizes a society by its efficiency, predictability, calculability, substation of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty. Although these characteristics can be applied to almost any sector of society, Ritzer uses the fast food industry as a prime example of how the society is facing what he calls the “irrationality of rationality.” This oxymoron basically takes the rational model and looks at the problems it creates. Ritzer says the trend towards rationalization is inevitable, but the society should put a leash around it so it doesn’t get out of hand. He also suggests trying to eliminate the undesirable outcomes of rationalization.

                Efficieny in the fast food industry is a must. Their goal is to feed as much people in the fastest ways possible. The same can be said for TV dinners. American society is so busy that most people don’t leave time for cooking their meal because they want to use that time for things they deem more important. These alternative meal choices may be more efficient, but they have its costs. Not only is it unhealthier, but it creates a distance from what food really is and how it should be enjoyed. Predictability is found within fast food from one hamburger or order of fries to the next. This leaves no room for creativity or individualization. Another problem is quantity rather than quality. McDonald’s and other fast food places are known to sell billions of burgers on a daily basis, and society disregards the quality of their food because they can get it faster and cheaper.

                I do not frequently eat fast food, but it’s not because of the problems of rationalization that Ritzer points out. I do however agree that sometimes it is just easier to buy from a fast food restaurant because someone is hungry and busy and needs a quick meal. Its undeniable that most people would choose this tradeoff because our society revolves the ideas of rationalization. Even though one may feel satisfied for the time being, eating from these fast food places will lead to future health problems. Because society is pushing for a more efficient present with advanced technology and such, they lose sight of the consequences that will arise in the future.

Questions:

Are the people or is the system to blame?

Is there a way to stop this trend of rationalization?

The Omnivore's Dilemma: Chapter 17

Chapter 17 of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma is a part of a bigger section called The Forest. In this section of the book, Pollan plans to search for his own food as the hunter-gatherers did before the invention agriculture. However, before hunting for his food, Pollan had to consider the implications of hunting and eating meat in general. He took on the challenge of becoming a temporary vegetarian in and this mindset, he developed his own view of the ethics of eating animals. Pollan cites many vegetarians and animal rights activist to explain the problem vegetarians face eating meat. Pollan says this growing trend of vegetarians has changed the society’s eating habits as a whole and redefined our culture. Pollan argues that although humans have been omnivores for several thousands of years, more and more people are becoming conscious about animal suffering and animal happiness. Pollan brings up an important distinction between human and animal suffering. He provides one side of the argument about “specicism”  which is having more moral consideration for the human race than animals. Pollan came to the conclusion that what’s wrong with eating animals is the practice, not the principle. Pollan believes that watching the killing process of an animal will help people decide whether they should become vegetarians or if they can still handle eating meat. This look into animal agriculture will hopefully improve animal treatment and thus people can eat meat with a clear conscience and be more respectful towards their food.

Although I have no problems with vegetarians, I believe this lifestyle choice isn’t for everyone. I would like to think that the meat I’m eating comes from an animal that was humanely treated and killed, but this isn’t always true. Because of this, I would sometimes rather not think too much about how the animal was killed which might make me ignorant and thus make ill informed decisions about my eating habits. However, it would drive me crazy if I had a devil on my shoulder making my conscience guilty everytime I ate meat. I believe that Pollan is right about the complicated but dependent relationship between humans and animals. Therefore, eating meat should not be condemned, but omnivores should respect the animal that gave them the food.

Questions:

Will more vegetarians be willing to convert if animals were treated more humanly?

Do animals suffer more in their natural habitats or under human confinement?

The Pleasures of Eating

In the essay The Pleasures of Eating, Wendell Perry criticizes American consumers for forgetting the root of their food. He believes consumers are trapped in ignorance when it comes to the act of eating. Perry is very critical of the commercial aspect of the food industry and he believes consumers are a victim to the industrial food chains profit motive. He says that most Americans can’t even tell what their foods came from or what’s in it because of the obscure way prepared foods and other fast foods look.   He puts part of the blame on how Americans want to achieve a high quality lifestyle. He explains it as a paradox where people want to improve their quality of life by making time for everything else besides enjoying the pleasures of eating healthy and thus end up facing health problems among other societal issues.

            He promotes eating responsibly by finding the connection between the food they eat and the land it comes from.  He suggests participating in food production by growing something so we can better understand the cycle of our food. He also advises to prepare our own food so we are in control of what we eat. His other suggestions revolve around buying local produce and in turn helping the local economy.

            What it all comes down to is having the knowledge to back up what we choose to eat. I agree with Perry consumers should be aware that their eating habits have political, economical, and environmental consequences, but I do not think it is as bad as Perry exaggerates. I don’t think we need to eat all organic and locally produced food to understand where our food comes from and how is produced.When Berry blows up the problem of our ignorance of where our food comes from and how it is produced, it really does take some of the pleasure out of eating.

Questions:

 1. What kind of background in food does Berry have?

2. How can we prevent the food industry and technology from spiraling out of control?

The Omnivore's Dilemma: Chapter 8

                In this section of the novel, Pollan visits an organic farm, Polyface Farm that prides itself on its grass. Pollan meets a farmer named Joel Salatin who preaches the importance of grass in the food chain. Pollan explains that flesh is grass and evolution has created it so animals could convert this energy for human consumption. Pollan praises the sustainability of the farm and Salatin explains that it’s the animals doing all the work. Salatin’s farm recycles resources and puts back into nature as much as he takes out.

                Pollan also introduces a new term called the industrial organic. When comparing Naylor’s farm to the Polyface farm, Pollan lays out an obvious difference in the effects of industry on agriculture and the all organic farming techniques. Pollan has an obvious bias towards the organic model. However, Salatin says that it’s not possible for the organic food chain to expand to American supermarkets and fast-food outlets without sacrificing its ideals.

                I agree with Salatin’s practical outlook of the future of agriculture. As an “beyond organic farmer, “ Salatin holds high values for the food he produces. It is hard for this strict guideline of how food should be produce to be used on all farms. Also, Salatin only believes in selling his produce locally which means cutting out the energy to transport it to urban areas where it is more populous. This ideal of not damaging the environment is hard to follow if organic food were to supply supermarkets and other venues. I believe the big question comes down to if organic farming can keep up with feeding America like industrial farming can.

Discussion questions:

What is industrial organic?

How does the government define organic farming?

                

The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals

                Blake Hurst is a farmer in Missouri and his article attacks the ideas of the critics of industrial farming. He believes that the critics should not blame industrial farmers for their practices based on what they read in a book or heard from another person. He in turn criticizes the critics for being ignorant. He explains that farmers take into account the environment, food safety, and costs when determining their farming practices because they care about the wellbeing of their crops or livestock and the society.

Hurst uses his knowledge as farmer to clear up misunderstandings and debate the criticism from who he calls the “agri-intellectuals.”  In particular, Hurst attacks Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Hurst says the solutions Pollan have for using renewable energy to farm are unrealistic. Farmers have already been trying to protect natural resources, but commercial fertilizer is still needed. Pollan also suggests using cover crops to increase nitrogen output. Hurst agrees that this would be for the best, but it is not realistic because of weather and other factors. Hurst puts down all of Pollan’s ideas as impractical because he does not consider other problems that may arise.

After reading Hurst’s first-hand account of what farming is really like, it makes me more objective of Pollan’s novel. I realized that although Pollan emphatizes with the farmers and offers solution to modern day industrial farming, he is not a farmer. Pollan’s solutions do not always work because he doesn’t realize all the negative consequences of changing a farming practice. I don’t think industrial farming is necessarily a bad thing because I now have a better understanding of why farmers use industrial tools and other technological advances to aid them. However, I don’t agree with Hurst when he says “we have to farm “industrially” to feed the world.” With Pollan's example of commercial corn, there is a huge surplus of crops because of industrial farming. Therefore, industrial farming can be harmful at the same time if not controlled properly. Also, just because farmers yield more food, there will still be people who starve.
Questions
1.  Who should be in charge of changing farming practices: the farmers, the government, critics like Pollan?
2. Do other industrial farmers agree with Hurst?

Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan Chapters 1-3

           
             In the first few chapters of the novel, the author introduces to the reader the concept that “corn is king.” He illustrates that corn is involved in a multitude of foods and other consumer products. He then hones in on the industrial aspect of corn and explains how it is failing as a commodity by taking the reader through his experience with a corn farmer from Iowa.

            The first chapter focuses on the biological, cultural, and historical aspects of corn. The author took time to explain the importance of corn and the biological survival of it over other plants. This also ties into why it continues to be in abundance and why Americans as the author likes to put it are “walking processed corn.” The author indicates a strong connection between the human interaction and the evolutionary abilities of corn. He says that Americans are dependent on corn and vice versa.

            The second chapter explores how rapidly corn production has increased over the past decades. The author looks into the economical and political effects due to the overproduction of corn. After the discovery of synthetic nitrogen as a fertilizing agent, corn and other crops began to rapidly increase in yield. This changed society as a whole causing prices of corn to fall and thus the farmers could not support their lifestyles anymore. Although prices continue to fall to an all time low, the farmers continue to overproduce because they have no other option if they want to make ends meet. The author describes it as a cycle that disobeys the standard economic model. The author also connects this economic problem to the government’s involvement with subsidizing the farmers.

            In the third chapter, the author goes to the grain elevators where the corn is stored and distributed to other companies. The author paints a picture of how the overproduction of corn exceeds the ability to hold it in the storage vessels. The author tries to explain where most of this commodity corn ends up and explains that no matter how cheap the corn is, Americans can only consume so much of it. Therefore, the problem of overproduction cannot be easily fixed.

As a journalist, the author gives the reader a larger amount of research as well as his own passionate stance on his discovery of industrial corn. The author’s writing style is enjoyable because he is able to include facts in an interesting way using humor. He is also very descriptive, which allows the reader to paint a mental picture of the situation. For example, the first scene in the supermarket was very realistic and his description of the corn pyramid was creative.

The way the author approached industrial corn with a sociological eye made me see the connection described in the previous readings by Collins and Mills and “Exploring the Social Appetite.”  The author was able to connect food to society through culture, history, economy, and politics. Also, by following one farmer’s life, the author was able to see how an individual’s problem also displayed a trend of societal issues in the farming community.

Questions:

Although the author focuses on commodity corn, do the same problems apply for the raw corn that we eat?

Why does the government continue to practice subsidizing farmer’s wages when they know it’s not benefiting them in the long run?