On:
Belasco, W. (2008). "The Future of Food," pp.105-123 in Food: The Key Concepts. New York Berg Publishers.
Schlosser et al. (2006) "One thing to do about food: a forum." The Nation. http://thenation.com/doc/20060911/forum.
Today, food is taken for granted by the millions of people who have the privilege of picking up dinner at the grocery store, with no thought about how it got there or the process that is went through to be made so readily available to them. Food is available to most people at one flat cost- the price they pay at the register. But for the people responsible for producing the components of that food, there is much greater consideration of the true costs associated with the production of that food. The environmental deficit is one that can not be ignored and will have the greatest impact on the future of our food supply.
In "The Future of Food" by Warren Belasco, the practicality of our food system is examined, and to no surprise, turns out to not be very practical at all. When it takes "57 calories of fossil fuel per calorie of lettuce" (Belasco, 109) to be produced and transported across the country, is that a very reliable efficient system? The environmental impacts of growing and transporting the food we do in the way we do are greatly ignored (or otherwise unrecognized) by far too many consumers.
Grains are the backbone of our food supply, both directly and indirectly as they are used as feed for most of the livestock that provides us with meat and other animal source foods such as eggs and milk. While biologists and other scientists have been working to increase efficiency on the given area of land that is available for farming, the toll on the health of the land continues to increase with increased yields. Over the years, we have been faced with producing on more and more marginal land which has called for the use of more and more chemicals and synthetics to make up for what the land lacks. What people do not take into consideration is that there will come a time when there is no more space for expansion of arable farmland. And that time is not far in the future.
There are innumerable ways that people could have a positive impact on the situation at hand (and who wouldn't want to considering we all need to eat?) In the essays on "One thing to do about food," there seems to be a commonality among most authors: education and public awareness. This includes everything from knowing where food comes from, to how to make the best food choices for your dollar, to understanding the gigantic impact of government involvement in agriculture (through things like the Farm Bill). I agree that public knowledge would greatly effect the health of our population and our remaining land, but we can not depend on people to teach themselves. People are too busy with their day to day lives to care about researching everything there is to know about food. There are always minor groups working to increase awareness of a certain product or diet, but it seems as though there could be more effort put towards helping people fully understand and appreciate the importance of agriculture in their lives. What can be done to help educate people effectively and who would be the best group to get this knowledge spread? Would it be more effective on a regional level or more national/global level?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
What's your take on sustainable?
This blog post is an interesting but somewhat logical take on the idea of sustainable agriculture. It's a nice thought, and has many beneficial aspects- but it isn't going to feed the world. What do you think?
Why Sustainable Agriculture Isn't
Why Sustainable Agriculture Isn't
Nano-foods whether you like it or not!
Nano-technology is fast invading the food industry and our stomachs.... eew. Does this give you the shivers?? Wait until you read the article. It definitely makes you rethink the trust we put into our food system, and what we put on out plates:
Regulated or Not, Nano-Foods Coming to a Store Near You
Regulated or Not, Nano-Foods Coming to a Store Near You
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Is Food Scarce?
On: "The Scarcity Fallacy" (http://contexts.org/articles/winter-2010/the-scarcity-fallacy/) by Stephen J. Scanlan, Craig Jenkins and Lindsey Peterson.
and The One Campaign (www.one.org/us/issues)
The name of this article "The Scarcity Fallacy" is self-explanatory. It argues the simple but commonly unrecognized idea that world hunger is not the result of a food shortage, but rather it is a consequence of many other sociological and environmental factors that result in a shortage of effectively distributed, accessible, affordable foods. Essentially our attention has been turned to the wrong issue, or rather, something that is not the issue at all.
The problem of hunger has been wrongly approached by a method called the "supermarket model," which works to grow dependence on large global food industries. This method has been found to be counterproductive in the sense that there are many increased prices that come along with this market-based mode of production, which in the end makes food unaffordable to people struggling with feeding themselves and their families.
Global shortage of food is not the problem- in fact, today, there is more food available per person in the world than ever before. The issue is the making this abundance of food available to the people who need it most. Scanlan, Jenkins and Peterson identify underlying causes of hunger as poverty, gender and ethnic inequalities, conflict and corruption of food aid programs. These factors come into play most often in developing countries but are also prevalent in developed countries such as the US. The One Campaign also cites factors such as HIV/AIDS, Education, Climate and Development, and trade investment as playing a role in world wide hunger.
In "The Scarcity Fallacy," the authors claim that "food must be upheld as a human right." While I agree that hunger is an unfortunate consequence of many of the factors mentioned, and that ideally everyone should have the right to food, it is hard to comprehend how exactly this right would be up held. Could this actually work? How would we guarantee this right to everyone and how might people react if their right is not fulfilled? Who would be responsible if food availability came to a halt? And how would this right be enforced/ distributed to the rich (buy their own food) and the poor who can not afford to purchase or grow their own food source?
and The One Campaign (www.one.org/us/issues)
The name of this article "The Scarcity Fallacy" is self-explanatory. It argues the simple but commonly unrecognized idea that world hunger is not the result of a food shortage, but rather it is a consequence of many other sociological and environmental factors that result in a shortage of effectively distributed, accessible, affordable foods. Essentially our attention has been turned to the wrong issue, or rather, something that is not the issue at all.
The problem of hunger has been wrongly approached by a method called the "supermarket model," which works to grow dependence on large global food industries. This method has been found to be counterproductive in the sense that there are many increased prices that come along with this market-based mode of production, which in the end makes food unaffordable to people struggling with feeding themselves and their families.
Global shortage of food is not the problem- in fact, today, there is more food available per person in the world than ever before. The issue is the making this abundance of food available to the people who need it most. Scanlan, Jenkins and Peterson identify underlying causes of hunger as poverty, gender and ethnic inequalities, conflict and corruption of food aid programs. These factors come into play most often in developing countries but are also prevalent in developed countries such as the US. The One Campaign also cites factors such as HIV/AIDS, Education, Climate and Development, and trade investment as playing a role in world wide hunger.
In "The Scarcity Fallacy," the authors claim that "food must be upheld as a human right." While I agree that hunger is an unfortunate consequence of many of the factors mentioned, and that ideally everyone should have the right to food, it is hard to comprehend how exactly this right would be up held. Could this actually work? How would we guarantee this right to everyone and how might people react if their right is not fulfilled? Who would be responsible if food availability came to a halt? And how would this right be enforced/ distributed to the rich (buy their own food) and the poor who can not afford to purchase or grow their own food source?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Emergency Food
On:
Poppendeick, J. (1998). Sweet Charity? Excerpts from chapters 2 and 3: “Who Eats Emergency Food?” and “The Rise of Emergency Food,” pp. 49-74 and 81-98
Deparle, J. and R. Gebeloff. (2009). Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?scp=1&sq=food%20stamps%20stigma&st=cse
Many people may automatically assume that emergency food programs are only utilized or required for the most needy of the needy. The fact of the matter is that emergency food programs are more common than many might think, as Poppendieck, DeParle and Gebeloff explain in these readings. Users of food aid programs in the U.S. include all ages, genders, races and social ranks including the recently laid off (previously well off), chronically unemployed, underemployed, and disabled (to name a few) with the majority of users being women and children. Poppendieck says "The pool of people who might realistically find themselves in need is much larger than the number of officially poor," (54). By definition, any household that is unable to allocate one third of its income to to food purchase would be considered poor (Poppendieck, 51).
Food aid programs became prevalent during the recession of the early 1980s with food pantries, soup kitchens, and food stamps (now technically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program- SNAP). "Emergency food" became a necessity for some people who were struggling to make ends meet while on food stamps, who had been unfairly denied stamps, or were in need but not eligible for food stamps. Taking advantage of these programs has since become a less stigmatized act, although some hard workers still see their use of food aid as embarrassing or shameful. Now, one in eight Americans and one in four children are benefited by food stamps. (DeParle, 1)
The "social constructionists" as Poppendieck describes, place the blame of hunger on society as a whole, rather than any individuals lack of self-help or ability. I agree that there are many underlying problems of the system that cause people to be hungry- even if they are well respected, working individuals. It was daunting (but not surprising) to find that so many people are refused federal food aid for one reason or another, though they are truly in need of help. How can other circumstances besides the typical requirements for poverty be incorporated to allow people in need to receive food aid? Also, How are federal food aid programs funded and who loses out when food is "given away".
Poppendeick, J. (1998). Sweet Charity? Excerpts from chapters 2 and 3: “Who Eats Emergency Food?” and “The Rise of Emergency Food,” pp. 49-74 and 81-98
Deparle, J. and R. Gebeloff. (2009). Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?scp=1&sq=food%20stamps%20stigma&st=cse
Many people may automatically assume that emergency food programs are only utilized or required for the most needy of the needy. The fact of the matter is that emergency food programs are more common than many might think, as Poppendieck, DeParle and Gebeloff explain in these readings. Users of food aid programs in the U.S. include all ages, genders, races and social ranks including the recently laid off (previously well off), chronically unemployed, underemployed, and disabled (to name a few) with the majority of users being women and children. Poppendieck says "The pool of people who might realistically find themselves in need is much larger than the number of officially poor," (54). By definition, any household that is unable to allocate one third of its income to to food purchase would be considered poor (Poppendieck, 51).
Food aid programs became prevalent during the recession of the early 1980s with food pantries, soup kitchens, and food stamps (now technically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program- SNAP). "Emergency food" became a necessity for some people who were struggling to make ends meet while on food stamps, who had been unfairly denied stamps, or were in need but not eligible for food stamps. Taking advantage of these programs has since become a less stigmatized act, although some hard workers still see their use of food aid as embarrassing or shameful. Now, one in eight Americans and one in four children are benefited by food stamps. (DeParle, 1)
The "social constructionists" as Poppendieck describes, place the blame of hunger on society as a whole, rather than any individuals lack of self-help or ability. I agree that there are many underlying problems of the system that cause people to be hungry- even if they are well respected, working individuals. It was daunting (but not surprising) to find that so many people are refused federal food aid for one reason or another, though they are truly in need of help. How can other circumstances besides the typical requirements for poverty be incorporated to allow people in need to receive food aid? Also, How are federal food aid programs funded and who loses out when food is "given away".
Thursday, April 8, 2010
No more fast food joints on military bases??
This short article reminded me of discussing the role of Coke as a comfort food/ symbolic food for soldiers during WWI. (From Weiner, Mark. 1996. “Consumer Culture and Participatory Democracy: The Story of Coca-Cola During World War II.” Food & Foodways, 6(2):109-129.)
Apparently, fast-food restaurants such as Burger King and Pizza Hut are due to be removed from military bases in Afghanistan- following the argument that the outlets take up too many valuable resource (water and energy)on the bases. Sounds reasonable enough... but I'm interested to know if these food joints hold as much sentimental value to soldiers now as Coke did during WWI?... Are these places really "unnecessary luxuries" or should soldiers be provided with a little extra- considering the sacrifices they make for us??
Check it out:
No fries with that: fast food axed at Afghan bases
Apparently, fast-food restaurants such as Burger King and Pizza Hut are due to be removed from military bases in Afghanistan- following the argument that the outlets take up too many valuable resource (water and energy)on the bases. Sounds reasonable enough... but I'm interested to know if these food joints hold as much sentimental value to soldiers now as Coke did during WWI?... Are these places really "unnecessary luxuries" or should soldiers be provided with a little extra- considering the sacrifices they make for us??
Check it out:
No fries with that: fast food axed at Afghan bases
Sunday, April 4, 2010
McDonald's Society
On:
Ritzer, G. “The McDonaldization of Society” pp. 371-379 in Sociological Odyssey:
Contemporary Readings in Sociology.
In this piece, Ritzer makes many parallels between the "rationalization" of American society and the infamous McDonald's, suggesting that "The model of rationalization, at least in contemporary America, is no longer the bureaucracy, but might be better thought of as the fast-food restaurant," (372). He elaborates on the characteristics of the so-called "rationalized" society: "efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty" (372). It's not surprising that our society has come to function similarly to a fast-food restaurant, since the two have evolved simultaneously and seem to play off of the values of one another.
Ritzer makes many connections that are fairly self explanatory and easily recognized in society- people want convenience, consistency (no surprises when it comes to their food or daily routine), technological advancements that lessen the personal work load, and an emphasis on quantity or quality. All of these traits can be seen put to work at a place like McDonald's. None of this is new to us.
He then goes on to mention the "irrationality of rationality"- the downside to the routine that we have found ourselves in. "Dehumanizing aspects" and "disenchantment...lives without any mystery or excitement" were among the downfalls, concluding that "a fully rational society would be a very bleak and uninteresting place" (378). (As of now it looks like we're headed in that direction). The kicker is that despite recognition of these problems, Ritzer does not suggest a return to "less rationalized" society, but the need for "greater control over the process of rationalization involving, among other things, efforts to ameliorate its irrational consequences" (379), suggesting that we're not controlling enough! Ironic.
I agree that a complete return to a earlier way of life is not reasonable, but I do think that there are valuable characteristics that have been lost in the population as a whole due to the dependence on this McDonald's way of living. However, I don't think that increased control is what will help to alleviate these consequences. Are there really more pros than cons when it comes to the fast-paced demanding way of life that we have come to know and depend on? Does it matter that we are slowly losing the "old" way of life where people cooked for themselves and could survive camping a night in the woods without electricity or running water? What can be done to keep society from becoming the "bleak and uninteresting place" that Ritzer predicts?
Ritzer, G. “The McDonaldization of Society” pp. 371-379 in Sociological Odyssey:
Contemporary Readings in Sociology.
In this piece, Ritzer makes many parallels between the "rationalization" of American society and the infamous McDonald's, suggesting that "The model of rationalization, at least in contemporary America, is no longer the bureaucracy, but might be better thought of as the fast-food restaurant," (372). He elaborates on the characteristics of the so-called "rationalized" society: "efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty" (372). It's not surprising that our society has come to function similarly to a fast-food restaurant, since the two have evolved simultaneously and seem to play off of the values of one another.
Ritzer makes many connections that are fairly self explanatory and easily recognized in society- people want convenience, consistency (no surprises when it comes to their food or daily routine), technological advancements that lessen the personal work load, and an emphasis on quantity or quality. All of these traits can be seen put to work at a place like McDonald's. None of this is new to us.
He then goes on to mention the "irrationality of rationality"- the downside to the routine that we have found ourselves in. "Dehumanizing aspects" and "disenchantment...lives without any mystery or excitement" were among the downfalls, concluding that "a fully rational society would be a very bleak and uninteresting place" (378). (As of now it looks like we're headed in that direction). The kicker is that despite recognition of these problems, Ritzer does not suggest a return to "less rationalized" society, but the need for "greater control over the process of rationalization involving, among other things, efforts to ameliorate its irrational consequences" (379), suggesting that we're not controlling enough! Ironic.
I agree that a complete return to a earlier way of life is not reasonable, but I do think that there are valuable characteristics that have been lost in the population as a whole due to the dependence on this McDonald's way of living. However, I don't think that increased control is what will help to alleviate these consequences. Are there really more pros than cons when it comes to the fast-paced demanding way of life that we have come to know and depend on? Does it matter that we are slowly losing the "old" way of life where people cooked for themselves and could survive camping a night in the woods without electricity or running water? What can be done to keep society from becoming the "bleak and uninteresting place" that Ritzer predicts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)