On:
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Chapter 5-6.
In these chapters, Pollan tackles the processed food trend in our country. As we have read before, corn and soy beans make up the majority of the processed foods found in grocery stores. Over the years, the industrial food chain has become concerned with the issue of perishable products and therefore perishable profits. Industry has taken it upon themselves to conquer the "dream of liberating food from nature" (90), which would keep their products on the shelf longer, and find a way to mess with people's natural appetites and stomach capacities. What has arisen from this movement is a belief that "food" is more beneficial as a sum of combined nutrients than the whole food itself. One food additive company went as far as to say that people are better off eating synthetics than natural products: "Natural ingredients, the company pointed out rather scarily, are a 'wild mixture of substances created by plants and animals for completely non-food purposes- their survival and reproduction. These 'dubious substances' came to be consumed by humans at their own risk'" (97). I have a hard time agreeing with this statement at all. If whole foods (plants, animals...) weren't meant to be consumed as food sources, what in nature is meant to be the food source? People have become so concerned with the individual nutrients that make up a "healthy diet" that they have forgotten that nutrients interact with other nutrients to be beneficial or destructive to our bodies. In nature, food sources have these nutrients pre-combined for our benefit. Why would we not take advantage?
The next chapter deals with the effects that the food industry has had on national health. Supersizing portions, increasing sugar and fat intake, and production on nutritionally useless "food" items in general has thrown the country into an obesity epidemic. Pollan points to the conflict of interests in government decisions that are made concerning the health of our country. As we see a rise in obesity and other related health issues, the government continues to support an unhealthful production system where commodity crops are subsidized, supporting the use of substances that are not necessarily beneficial to our health (HFCS- Hi fructose corn syrups, and other corn and soy derivatives found in most all processed foods). Pollan further supports the idea that most of our countries issues such as health care and poverty could be diminished if we simply tackled the issue of a faulty food system. Read his "Farmer in Chief" article written to the president-elect in 2008 at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
American Cuisine?
On:
Mintz, Sidney. (2002). “Eating American,” pp. 23-33 in C. Counihan Food in the USA.
This section of writing focuses on the question of American Cuisine. By "American" the author refers to inhabitants of the United States specifically and asks the questions does America have a Cuisine, what has shaped the eating habits of people in the US and what are the consequences of our habits and how might they change in the future?
While most countries identify with a certain type of food, cooking style or tradition surrounding food, the US seems to be a culmination of outsider food traditions that have accompanied immigrants over the years, and have been altered to meet our standards of convenience. The diverse make up of our population has resulted not so much in a shared appreciation for one type of cooking but rather in many regional cuisines defined by the ancestral traditions of the founding groups and local availability of products. The author then points to the decrease in regional cuisines due to commercialization and depletion of local resources. She claims, and I would have to agree that the US is much more susceptible to a commercialized food chain because there is no national cuisine to fall back on, nothing to keep people from the allure of well-marketed, convenient and appealing junk. One could argue that America's "cuisine" could be characterized by hotdogs, hamburgers,soft drinks and apple pie but the author is skeptical that those foods can really be defined as such. America seems to run more according to food fads (Organic, vegetarian, McDonalds, etc...) than tradition, or what we know to be good for us and to us. A person's diet can change dramatically year to year depending on the current popularized food items, but is mostly controlled by what is made available to them in the supermarket. The percent household income that is spent on food is at an all time low, but this doesn't suggest that people are eating less, but that they are spending their money on cheap products that lend nearly no nutritional value. Because (most) Americans live on a strict time schedule, they have become accustomed to buying cheap products that are produced specifically for multi-tasking (hamburgers on the run, coffee in a throw away cup etc...) The author points to the serious health implications of the typical American's diet (which is now well known), but how strikingly, the population as a whole has shown almost no concern about their diets, though the health risks are evident and obvious on an every day basis. As we see the population expanding exponentially, what will this habit of consumption lead to? Will people have to change their habits and if so, will it be voluntary or forced by some major change in the food industry? Will people consider the risks of continuing to consume such "food" and will America ever have or have they ever had a true cuisine that is wholesome and can give the country a way to identify with food culture as others do?
Mintz, Sidney. (2002). “Eating American,” pp. 23-33 in C. Counihan Food in the USA.
This section of writing focuses on the question of American Cuisine. By "American" the author refers to inhabitants of the United States specifically and asks the questions does America have a Cuisine, what has shaped the eating habits of people in the US and what are the consequences of our habits and how might they change in the future?
While most countries identify with a certain type of food, cooking style or tradition surrounding food, the US seems to be a culmination of outsider food traditions that have accompanied immigrants over the years, and have been altered to meet our standards of convenience. The diverse make up of our population has resulted not so much in a shared appreciation for one type of cooking but rather in many regional cuisines defined by the ancestral traditions of the founding groups and local availability of products. The author then points to the decrease in regional cuisines due to commercialization and depletion of local resources. She claims, and I would have to agree that the US is much more susceptible to a commercialized food chain because there is no national cuisine to fall back on, nothing to keep people from the allure of well-marketed, convenient and appealing junk. One could argue that America's "cuisine" could be characterized by hotdogs, hamburgers,soft drinks and apple pie but the author is skeptical that those foods can really be defined as such. America seems to run more according to food fads (Organic, vegetarian, McDonalds, etc...) than tradition, or what we know to be good for us and to us. A person's diet can change dramatically year to year depending on the current popularized food items, but is mostly controlled by what is made available to them in the supermarket. The percent household income that is spent on food is at an all time low, but this doesn't suggest that people are eating less, but that they are spending their money on cheap products that lend nearly no nutritional value. Because (most) Americans live on a strict time schedule, they have become accustomed to buying cheap products that are produced specifically for multi-tasking (hamburgers on the run, coffee in a throw away cup etc...) The author points to the serious health implications of the typical American's diet (which is now well known), but how strikingly, the population as a whole has shown almost no concern about their diets, though the health risks are evident and obvious on an every day basis. As we see the population expanding exponentially, what will this habit of consumption lead to? Will people have to change their habits and if so, will it be voluntary or forced by some major change in the food industry? Will people consider the risks of continuing to consume such "food" and will America ever have or have they ever had a true cuisine that is wholesome and can give the country a way to identify with food culture as others do?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
On: Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alternatives
by Miguel A. Altieri. 2004
I found this book to be a bit more on the personal opinion/emotional side rather than strictly based on fact, although many studies are cited. Nonetheless, I think it provides a good overview of the risks associated with genetically engineered (GE) food sources. Altieri starts off by pointing out that despite the level of poverty, the world is producing far more food than is necessary to feed every inhabitant (though I would like to know if the surplus of food we are producing now is due to GE crops...) - he uses this to claim that the word of GE has developed not to do away with poverty, but rather for profit to the companies who engineer and sell these products (ex. Monsanto). Altieri attributes poverty levels to the lack of access to food (though plenty is produced) and lack of access to land (4). He claims that anything that would increase an impoverished nation's dependence on outside sources, such as GE crops, would not help the issue of hunger, but in turn would increase the nation's instability and therefore poverty. Altieri makes a good argument against the effectiveness of "golden rice", a GE crop, by presenting the evidence that the rice does not address the core problem of malnutrition. The rice is known to contain elevated levels of Beta Carotene and Vitamin A to supplement the diet of vitamin A deficient individuals in Asia. Altieri mentions that the lack of Vit. A in one of these individuals is not due to to lack of Vit. A in normal rice, but the fact that their diets do not contain the protein needed in order for the body to make use of Vit. A. He suggests that the introduction of a more varied diet including greens and a fat or oil source to increase the uptake of beta-carotene.
Altieri states many more arguments against GE foods including the fact that they do not necessarily have a higher yield than conventional crops, the loss of important traits when selecting for others, unintended gene flow from GE crops to non GE plants (organic or wild), the lack of scientific testing on the safety of these food products, the possibility of increased antibiotic resistance, overuse of herbicides leading to weed resistance, pest resistance to BT crops, among others...
Altieri suggests in closing that a "bottom up" approach be implemented in agriculture to help move toward a sustainable system that can adequately feed all people. This approach would involve "using and building on the resources already available: local people, their knowledge, and their indigenous natural resources" (61). I agree that this would be an ideal system for food production, but Altieri's vague "strong body of evidence" (70) that suggests that organic methods could provide enough food to sustain the growing population, is not enough for me to believe it. We have moved away from traditional farming methods due to the expanding population, now what is the most effective way to sustain our food security?
by Miguel A. Altieri. 2004
I found this book to be a bit more on the personal opinion/emotional side rather than strictly based on fact, although many studies are cited. Nonetheless, I think it provides a good overview of the risks associated with genetically engineered (GE) food sources. Altieri starts off by pointing out that despite the level of poverty, the world is producing far more food than is necessary to feed every inhabitant (though I would like to know if the surplus of food we are producing now is due to GE crops...) - he uses this to claim that the word of GE has developed not to do away with poverty, but rather for profit to the companies who engineer and sell these products (ex. Monsanto). Altieri attributes poverty levels to the lack of access to food (though plenty is produced) and lack of access to land (4). He claims that anything that would increase an impoverished nation's dependence on outside sources, such as GE crops, would not help the issue of hunger, but in turn would increase the nation's instability and therefore poverty. Altieri makes a good argument against the effectiveness of "golden rice", a GE crop, by presenting the evidence that the rice does not address the core problem of malnutrition. The rice is known to contain elevated levels of Beta Carotene and Vitamin A to supplement the diet of vitamin A deficient individuals in Asia. Altieri mentions that the lack of Vit. A in one of these individuals is not due to to lack of Vit. A in normal rice, but the fact that their diets do not contain the protein needed in order for the body to make use of Vit. A. He suggests that the introduction of a more varied diet including greens and a fat or oil source to increase the uptake of beta-carotene.
Altieri states many more arguments against GE foods including the fact that they do not necessarily have a higher yield than conventional crops, the loss of important traits when selecting for others, unintended gene flow from GE crops to non GE plants (organic or wild), the lack of scientific testing on the safety of these food products, the possibility of increased antibiotic resistance, overuse of herbicides leading to weed resistance, pest resistance to BT crops, among others...
Altieri suggests in closing that a "bottom up" approach be implemented in agriculture to help move toward a sustainable system that can adequately feed all people. This approach would involve "using and building on the resources already available: local people, their knowledge, and their indigenous natural resources" (61). I agree that this would be an ideal system for food production, but Altieri's vague "strong body of evidence" (70) that suggests that organic methods could provide enough food to sustain the growing population, is not enough for me to believe it. We have moved away from traditional farming methods due to the expanding population, now what is the most effective way to sustain our food security?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)