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?