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?