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".

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

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?

The Fight Over the Future of Food

This is an short but thought provoking article that contrasts the benefits of "eco-sustainable" farming practices, such as that of a man growing cereals and legumes near Milan, and the need for another Green Revolution (pros and cons of GM as seen by many different interest groups) as the world's population continues to increase exponentially...
The Fight over The Future of Food

Food or a sum of its parts?

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

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?

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?