The human body is dependent on food for survival, but as research shows it now takes both a positive and negative impact on our bodies. Food not only has an influence on our bodies, but on the economy. We find these in the dominant discourses now concerning food. A discourse is a discussion in which a debate is present. There are two types of discourse, a dominant one, which many people believe and follow naturally, and the marginal one, which the minority supports. People have begun discussing food progressively more, further developing the previously existing dominant discourse. Before this “new age” the dominant discourse was that food was basically there for survival. Our bodies required that we ate and therefore we did, without paying much attention to where it came from or the food’s particular impact on our bodies. In this “new age”, the dominant discourse now consists of food as beneficial to the body versus food as damaging to the body, and buying from local farmers, as opposed to from a large wholesaling food company.
Let us first approach the idea of food as the main factor of our health. This discourse has been developed through the opinions of health professionals or significant people of our society such as doctors, pediatricians, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, chief analysts, Michelle Obama, pharmacists, and so on. The average person has no way to express their opinion, but is instead influenced by the discourse of these people. We of course learn about their ideas through the media: The New York Times, talk shows, health magazines, health blogs and websites, etc.. An article in the New York Times states, “Both efforts, high and low, are aimed at the same thing: getting America to eat its vegetables.” 1 The main focus of these professionals is to get Americans to eat healthy foods instead of the fast food that dominates our society: “The vegetable even has the first lady, Michelle Obama, on its side. She planted an organic garden on the White House lawn and talks up vegetables as part of her “Let’s Move” campaign against childhood obesity.” 1 Michelle Obama uses this idea of vegetables and health food as a way to fight obesity; the vegetables are “the cure”. Therefore this dominant discourse presses the notion that something as simple as adding more vegetables to our diets can fix our health problems. She sets an example for others with her creation of an organic garden, trying to enforce a trend with it. Thus food is our medicine is one side of this dominant discourse.
In opposition, many health professionals have voiced that food is instead harmful to the body, a toxicant. These opinions, voiced by the same types of people as before, are also part of the dominant discourse. While discussing dieting, one articles states, “Atkins-style low-carbohydrate diets help people lose weight, but people who simply replace the bread and pasta with calories from animal protein and animal fat may face an increased risk of early death from cancer and heart disease, a new study reports.” 2 As illustrated in this article, the foods associated with dieting can actually take a large toll on our health. Diets supposedly help people lose weight, but instead it is shown that they bring on fatal illnesses such as cancer. A son experienced great trauma when his mother died of contaminated peanut butter. After going to court about it, more deaths are still shown in related areas: “Nearly two years have passed since Shirley Almer’s death. In that time, food contamination involving chocolate chip cookie dough and eggs has sickened thousands more.” 3 Even though the public has been aware of it, deaths and illnesses still come as a result of food contamination. Food therefore also has a negative impact on the body, infecting it and possibly taking lives. On one hand of the discourse, yes, food can benefit our bodies, but at the same time when it is not properly cared for it can also ruin them.
Continuing on the idea of the contamination of food, it all depends on where it comes from and how it is treated. This leads into the controversy of small farms versus a large wholesale food company. Professionals have started pushing the idea of small farms or community gardens. In this form, we know where our food comes from and exactly how it is taken care of. In addition, the turning of profit for small businesses is beneficial to the economy. New York Magazine urges people to return to farming in the city: “Until the mid-nineteenth century, most of New York City was farmland...But a new class of growers is more concerned with bolstering a sustainable food system, and, if possible, turning a profit than with cultivating a peaceful vegetable plot.” 4 The article then goes on to describe the location of local food producers in the city. Through this they encourage people to go out and find these “businesses” and purchase their food through them. These new growers help support the food system that will be able to coexist with nature and society.
While small farms are supposed to be truthful and part of this new “non-processed” mentality, researchers have found that they might not be entirely honest. Because of this one could say that larger food companies are more reliable. In Los Angeles an investigation of the farmers at food markets was made: “We found farms full of weeds, or dry dirt, instead of rows of the vegetables that were being sold at the markets. In fact, farmers markets are closely regulated by state law. Farmers who sell at these markets are supposed to sell produce they've grown themselves, and they can't make false claims about their produce.” 5 With false claims being made, we can never really be sure if we are supporting the cause we want. Clearly, some people feel the need to jump on the bandwagon of small farms, but instead are just deceiving the public. When this deception is discovered, it only encourages one more towards larger manufacturers. What is the point, one might ask, of buying these “organic” foods at higher prices when they actually do indeed come from factories and not small farms? Many would find that a wholesaling food supplier like Trader Joe’s is much more effective: “Trader Joe's is mindful of the ingredients it allows in its products, and the number of organic items has increased noticeably in recent years.” 6 They provide the same organic products, but at a much lower price and reliability. Another article states: “Also interesting to note is Trader Joe’s sells a preponderance of natural and organic offerings which are free of artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. Trader Joe’s clearly competes in the natural and organic grocery marketplace.” 7 This all adds into the dominant discourse of where our food should come from; it all in turn is organic and natural, but some find the pricing and reliability to be the breaking point. Small farms may not always have authentic foods, while wholesaling food companies are at least genuine. In turn the larger companies also charge people much less, making it easier for those who do not want to spend too much.
Food can be looked at through many different perspectives, as in its impact on the human body but also from the idea of who produces it. On one hand we have this ongoing battle of the medicinal benefits of food versus the aspects of it that are slowly (or rapidly) killing us. Then we must also consider the dominant discourse through a more economically sustainable approach. Small businesses are being pushed for their sustainability, their high prices aside. But then if we must also take on the struggle of finding out if they’re being truthful or not, the other discourse discusses the positives of larger companies. Their food is consistent and cheap. Dominant discourses of food impact our opinions, therefore influencing our food habits.
Sources:
4: The New Yorker – What an Urban Farmer Looks Like
No comments:
Post a Comment