Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Homework #8: Growing Our Own Food
Homework #7c: The Omnivore's Dilemma
Chapter Eleven – The Animals: Practicing Complexity
Précis
In rotational grazing, the animals do all of the work; each animal benefits the other, whether it be sanitizing, fertilizing, feeding, or another process that creates a healthy farm.
Gems
“But Polyface is proof that people can sometimes do more for the health of a place cultivating it rather than by leaving it alone,” (p. 209).
“In nature you’ll always find birds following herbivores...The egret perched on the rhino’s nose, the pheasants and turkeys trailing after the bison – that’s a symbiotic relationship we’re trying to imitate,” (p. 211).
“In an ecological system like this everything’s connected to everything else, so you can’t change one thing without changing ten other things,” (p. 213).
“Farming is not adapted to large-scale operations because of the following reasons: Farming is concerned with plants and animals that live, grow, and die,” (p. 214).
“By contrast, the efficiencies of natural systems flow from complexity and interdependence – by definition the very opposite of simplification,” (p. 214).
“Sometimes the large-scale organic farmer looks like someone trying to practice industrial agriculture with one hand tied behind his back,” (p. 221).
Thoughts
Sustainability is highly present in rotational grazing. The animals all depend on each other to thrive, which I find really interesting. Nature obviously evolved with this codependency in mind; it seems silly to ever change it. What first sparked in Salatin’s father’s mind that made him think this was a good idea? It seems odd that it would occur to so few people. Nature is complex; therefore harvesting nature must also be complex too. By simplifying farming, we are taking away from the farm’s quality. We try to benefit ourselves with simplicity but end up damaging our bodies in return.
Why does the government make it so hard for organic and rotational grazing farms? Should they not be encouraging them? Salatin has a pretty good production rate, and with more farms just like him all over the country, rotational grazing could really blossom. This type of farming may not be able to supply mass production, but with the way our society is right now, we should really be looking towards quality instead of quantity anyway.
It is good that Salatin sends out a letter to make people aware of his farm. Without this small promotion, no one would really know about it, since the mass media revolves around larger producers. Why is more of America not aware of these types of farms? The media is so centered on organic now, you would think that they would advertise grass fed animals too, an even healthier option. But maybe it is because bottom line is they still favor industry because of its efficiency. Rotational grazing really falls apart when it becomes industrialized, possibly not making it as favorable among the media.
Chapter Twelve – Slaughter: In a Glass Abattoir
Précis
Chicken slaughtering is vital but a messy process. Because the slaughter is not performed as often in rotational grazing farming, people are able to maintain their humanity.
Gems
“The problem with current food-safety regulations, in Joel’s view, is that they are one-size-fits-all rules designed to regulate giant slaughterhouses that are mindlessly applied to small farms...” (p. 229).
“Slaughter is dehumanizing work if you have to do it everyday,” (p. 233).
“...The pastoral idyll has always felt itself besieged by malign outside forces, and on this farm that role is played by the government and the big processing companies who interests they serve,” (p. 230).
“...However scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity,” (p. 226/7).
Thoughts
The ways of slaughtering in rotational grazing farming seems much more effective. The chickens are treated much better, and the people are able to keep their integrity. Having the “slaughterhouse” open so that costumers can see how it is done is also a really great idea. It shows the costumer that they have nothing to hide and creates a strong trustworthy relationship between the customer and farmer. Why do large manufacturers tend to hide so much? If they had an honest business, there probably would not be such a strong need for an alternative food system.
The government creates far too many rules for the small farmer. I find it unfair of them to hinder these small businesses when they are actually following the rules of nature. I wonder if they intend to do this for a reason other than the fact that the farms are not so easily industrialized. Knowing America, I am sure somebody has come up with some conspiracy theory that entails the government’s alternative motives. It seems odd to me that they would try to limit something that would actually do some good in our country.
Chapter Thirteen – The Market: “Greetings from the Non-Barcode People”
Précis
Buying food directly from farms insures the integrity of the farm and offers a more communal environment as opposed to a supermarket.
Gems
“He believes the only meaningful guarantee of integrity is when buyers and sellers can look one another in the eye, something few of us ever take the trouble to do,” (p. 240).
“I tell them the choice is simple: You can buy honestly priced food or you can buy irresponsibly priced food,” (p. 243).
“Yet this artisanal model works only so long as it doesn’t attempt to imitate the industrial model in any respect,” (p. 249).
“We can still decide, every day, what we’re going to put into our bodies, what sort of food chain we want to participate in. We can, in other words, reject the industrial omelet on offer and decide to eat another,” (p. 257).
Thoughts
It is good that Salatin sends out a letter to make people aware of his farm. Without this small promotion, no one would really know about it, since the mass media revolves around larger producers. Why is more of America not aware of these types of farms? The media is so centered on organic now, you would think that they would advertise grass fed animals too, an even healthier option. But maybe it is because bottom line is they still favor industry because of its efficiency. Rotational grazing really falls apart when it becomes industrialized, possibly not making it as favorable among the media.
Chapter Fourteen – The Meal: Grass Fed
Précis
Grass fed foods have a higher nutritional and health value as they can help ward off disease, and taste more like themselves. These benefits naturally come from the fact that we have evolved to eat grass fed animals.
Gems
“The anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss described the work of the civilization as the process of transforming the raw into the cooked – nature into culture,” (p. 264).
“Taking the long view of human nutrition, we evolved to eat the sort of foods available to hunter-gatherers, most of whose genes we’ve inherited and whose bodies we still (more or less) inhabit,” (p. 267).
“As long as one egg looks pretty much like another, all the chickens like chicken, and beef beef, the substitution of quantity for quality will go on unnoticed by most consumers, but it is becoming increasingly apparent to anyone with an electron microscope or a mass spectrometer that, truly, this is not the same food,” (p. 269).
“When chickens get to live like chickens, they’ll taste like chickens, too,” (p. 271).
“Every meal we share at a table recapitulates this evolution form nature to culture, as we pass from satisfying our animal appetites in semisilence to the lofting of conversational balloons,” (p. 272).
Thoughts
I never realized that grass fed animals were this beneficial, but I guess it makes sense. When people switched over to eating so much corn, did they not get sick really often? I understand that there are a lot of health setbacks, but was there a subtle but effective change? It seems as if we did not realize what we were getting into before it was too late; now we are stuck with this industrial mindset.
Hearing about the “real taste” of chickens makes me really curious. My mother buys her meat from the butcher, but does this mean I have never tasted really meat? Is everything I have been eating corn fed? If so, then this means that I do not know the actual taste of the food. It seems though that it would be really hard to find good quality meat, even in the city. If there was more opportunity to find good quality food, I would definitely make the effort to buy it, even if it was more expensive.
Chapter Fifteen – The Forager
Précis
The hunter/gatherer method would not survive in our society because we would outnumber our game. It is vital though to prepare a meal with full consciousness of how it was created, which the hunter/gatherer method allows.
Gems
“So even if we wanted to go back to hunting and gathering wild species, it’s not an option: There are far too many of us and not nearly enough of them,” (p. 279).
“By contrast the hunter, at least as I imagined him, is alone in the woods with his conscience,” (p. 281).
“For most of us today hunting and gathering and growing our own food is by and large a form of play,” (p. 280).
“We don’t have to go back to the Pleistocene...because our bodies never left,” (p. 280).
Thoughts
The hunter/gatherer method seems sustainable, but probably would not thrive in our world. First of all, there are not even enough animals for us to have a constant supply and that would create even more conflicts because of competition. The method probably died out because it could not supply enough food for everyone with such a growing community.
It does seem though that we are made for this type of food collection. Why could we not have evolved then, to do it in larger quantities to support the society? We are changing the nature of our bodies when we eat a surplus of grain. Hunting also seems as though the individual could be confident in their food choices; they obviously know where their food came from because they made it themselves. In our society, who would not want this reassurance? We focus so much on our health but lack the ability to recognize that there are methods that could really benefit it, ones that our body is fit for.
Chapter Sixteen – The Omnivore’s Dilemma
Précis
The omnivore’s dilemma is that as humans we can eat anything, but with that comes the stress of figuring out what exactly to eat. The American society has built a structure of guidelines to make the process easier, but it is prone to change.
Gems
“The blessing of the omnivore is that he can eat a great many different things in nature. The curse of the omnivore is that when it comes to figuring out which of those things are safe to eat, he’s pretty much on his own,” (p. 287).
“For the omnivore a tremendous amount of mental wiring must be devoted to sensory and cognitive tools for figuring out which of all these questionable nutrients it is safe to eat,” (p. 291).
“Cooking, one of the omnivore’s cleverest tools, opened up whole new vistas of edibility,” (p. 293).
“The same process of natural selection came up with both strategies; one just happens to rely on cognition, the other goes with the gut,” (p. 294).
“Thus a pigeon would die of hunger near a basin filled with the best meats, and a cat upon heaps of fruits and grains, although each could very well nourish itself on the food it disdains if it made up its mind to try some,” (p. 297).
Thoughts
The omnivore’s dilemma is an interesting one; it is something I have never really thought about. In America it is even harder because we do not have a national food. If we did have a national eating custom, such as the Europeans, would we have less health problems? Even if we would not have as many, it is too late to change anything now. People have become too lazy and would most likely be skeptic. Our food system seems to work good enough though, in the ways that it makes our choices a little bit easier, but of course not any healthier.
Why did we evolve to be this way? I do not understand why rats’ and our eating habits cover such a broad area. Why us? Is it that humans were developing faster than other animals, or was it just by accident? I found myself wondering at one point in the text if something like grass or corn had evolved to take over society, and we were at their mercy. But I guess we are, as discussed in the first chapters of the book. We subconsciously promote their production by doing things such as mowing the lawn. Yes of course we do also do it consciously in the creation of farms, but maybe we really are just serving them.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Homework #7b: The Omnivore's Dilemma
Chapter Six – The Consumer: A Republic of Fat
Précis
Like the Alcoholic Republic, the more of something that we have, the more we will consume it. With an abundance of corn, Americans are expanding their diet and become obese.
Gems
“When food is abundant and cheap, people will eat more of it and get fat,” (p. 102).
“Deep cultural taboos against gluttony – one of the seven deadly sins, after all – had been holding us back,” (p. 106).
“Our bodies are storing reserves of fat against a famine that never comes,” (p. 106).
“But as productive and protean as the corn plant is, finally it is a set of human choices that have made these molecules quite as cheap they have become...” (p. 108).
Thoughts
Over processing needs to stop because it does not help the economy and it has a negative impact on our health. Why has no alternative solution been created? Corn itself may be easily accessible and adaptable to different environments, but it does not mean that we need to make that our main focus. Our society should grow seasonal foods, which will not create abundance and reduce the need for so many pesticides to keep things fresh. There will also be no need to import out of season foods, reducing the amount of fossil fuels used. But then again, our society has developed such a dependency on a wide range of foods, that it seems almost impossible to adopt this method.
Everyone is now concerned with obesity, but it is our own fault. If we keep providing all of this excess food, we are going to consume lots of empty calories causing obesity. Why are more regulations not instilled in order to cut down on the amount of food processed? Why do people not want to accept the fact that industrial farming is taking a serious toll on our society? It seems that nobody is open to change; they only want to diagnose the problem, not solve it.
Chapter Seven – The Meal: Fast Food
Précis
Fast food is all just corn processed into different forms. Corn has colonized the human and become accessible in any environment i.e. a car.
Gems
“These healthier menu items hand the child who wants to eat fast food a sharp tool with which to chip away at his parents’ objections,” (p. 110).
“Whatever it is...for countless millions of people living now, this generic fast-food flavor is one of the unerasable smells and tastes of childhood – which makes it a kind of comfort food,” (p. 111).
“In truth, my cheeseburger’s relationship to beef seemed nearly as metaphorical as the nugget’s relationship to a chicken,” (p. 114).
“But then, this is what the industrial eater has become: corn’s koala,” (p. 117).
“Corn’s triumph is the direct result of its overproduction, and that has been a disaster for the people who grow it,” (p. 118).
Thoughts
Fast food while convenient is just corn represented differently. If the main basis of fast food is that it is easily prepared and cheap, why can we not find another way to provide the same benefits, but in a healthier way? It seems that fast food really has no value at all. There is nothing nutritious about it, and it only seems to hurt us.
Corn really does seem to have taken over any system of food in our nation. With its overproduction, it is obvious that this would happen. If we are to have this abundance, we could at least make something good out of it. The food that we create barely resembles foods. In terms of meat, it does not even seem that we are eating meat anymore, but instead corn in meat form. Is it really that much of an effort to have grass fed animals? If we continue to only think about quantity and not quality, our children will adapt these ways and the cycle will never be broken.
Chapter Eight: All Flesh is Grass
Précis
Pastoral farming is a sustainable alternative to industrial farming. It is all about a coexistence with grass; it feeds animals, and the animals nurture it.
Gems
“But as I would understand by the end of my week on Salatin’s farm, the old pastoral idea is alive and, if not well exactly, still useful, perhaps even necessary,” (p. 125).
“Salatin is the choreographer and the grasses are his verdurous stage; the dance has made Polyface one of the most productive and influential alternative farms in America,” (p. 126).
“A great many animals, too, are drawn to grass, which partly accounts for our own deep attraction to it: We come here to eat the animals that ate the grass that we (lacking rumens) can’t eat ourselves,” (p. 127).
“Salatin was suggesting that the organic food chain couldn’t expand into America’s supermarkets and fast-food outlets without sacrificing its ideals,” (p. 133).
Thoughts
It seems just to run a farm based on the relationship between the human and the earth. But in a society like today, I doubt it would be very likely for this type of farming to dominate. Pollan does state that it may even be necessary, which I find completely true. There will come a time when industrial farming can bring us no further; we will come to an abrupt halt. Before this happens, because it could bring great chaos, we should start a slow transition into a lifestyle that coexists with nature.
Without rumens we depend on the animals that can eat grass to eat it. If they are not eating grass, than we are disturbing the natural process. We too need the nutrients that it in turn supplies the animals. Therefore without this relationship between grass and the being, we are hurting ourselves. Why is pastoral farming not the main farming type in America? Does it thrive in any part of the world? While we like to think of ourselves as a superpower, I believe that in terms of agriculture, we could learn a lot from other countries.
Chapter Nine – Big Organic
Précis
The leading organic farms in our society are industrial organic; they are large suppliers. After investigating them, it can be seen that organic farms might not always be completely truthful or necessarily more beneficial.
Gems
“And so, today, the organic food industry finds itself in a most unexpected, uncomfortable, and, yes, unsustainable position: floating on a sinking sea of petroleum,” (184).
“The inspiration for organic was to find a way to feed ourselves more in keeping with the logic of nature, to build a food system that looked more like an ecosystem that would draw its fertility and energy from the sun,” (p. 183).
“Cuddled by us and our chemicals, the plants see no reason to invest their resources in mounting a strong defense,” (p. 180).
“Seldom if ever stepped upon, the chicken-house lawn is scrupulously maintained nevertheless, to honor an ideal nobody wants to admit has by now become something of a joke, an empty pastoral conceit,” (p.173).
“Artificial manures lead to artificial nutrition, artificial food, artificial animals and finally to artificial men and women,” (p. 148).
Thoughts
As I have said before, our society does not seem ready to take on the idea of organic. It is apparent through the examination of these organic farms that nothing stays purely organic; something must become industrial. These farms are forced to change their ways, and end up substituting the pesticides with other habits that are not necessarily any better. The regulations for organic farming are so laid-back that the entire system is almost a joke. Why do people not see the significance of organic farming?
Food suppliers should be ready to take on a couple different farms as long as they grow their food organically; quantity should not be their main focus. Because food suppliers have large demands, small farms are required to produce a lot more. Without this high demand, small farms could thrive better; therefore a food supplier needs to branch out and take from many smaller farms. This will help decrease overproduction and also lessen the need for the industrialization of organic farming.
Chapter Ten – Grass: Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Pasture
Précis
Rotational grazing is focused on a more direct consumption of sun energy; first the grass takes it in, which is eaten by the cows, and in turn we eat the cows. It has a hard time in our society because of its inability to be industrialized efficiently.
Gems
“We should call ourselves sun farmers. The grass is just the way we capture the solar energy,” (p. 188).
“Cows eating grasses that had themselves eaten the sun: The food chain at work in this pasture could not be any shorter or simpler,” (p. 195).
“The moment Budger shears the clump of grass, she sets into motion a sequence of events that will confer a measurable benefit on this square foot of pasture,” (p. 196).
“We seldom focus on farming’s role in global warming, but as much as a third of all the greenhouse gases that human activity has added to the atmosphere can be attributed to the saw and the plow,” (p. 198).
“Grain is the closest thing in nature to an industrial commodity: storable, portable, fungible, ever the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow,” (p. 201).
Thoughts
Rotational grazing seems to be the most affective way of farming discussed so far. It is not easily industrialized, as grass cannot be packaged and handled as easily as corn, but maybe that is a good thing. This aspect would lead to less corruption in the rotational grazing community, turning a healthier profit. Why is rotational grazing such a new idea? Is it not based off of prehistoric farming, or nature itself? The situation for the cows seems so natural; it is hard to find a downside to the argument.
Global warming is such a big concern now, why is rotational grazing not being seen as a possible solution? This process eliminates mass amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, as opposed to industrial farming, which creates it. Would our society crumble if we made a transition out of industrial farming to something more sustainable? This must be the case because otherwise I do not see why the transition has not already been made.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Homework #7: Reading Response Monday
The Omnivore’s Dilemma
Michael Pollan
Introduction
Précis
Americans are constantly changing their ideas about food and within that altering their eating habits. Unlike many cultures, America does not have a tradition around food: a certain national food that everyone eats; this suggests that this is the root of our constant change in attitude. The “Omnivore’s Dilemma” is all about the difficult job of deciding which food to eat, as some of it can be harmful and some beneficial. In order to understand the dilemma, we have to consider where the food originally comes from.
Gems
Gems
“Yet I wonder if it doesn’t make more sense to speak in terms of an American paradox – that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily,” (p. 3).
“So violent a change in a culture’s eating habits is surely the sign of a national eating disorder. Certainly it would never have happened in a culture in possession of deeply rooted traditions surrounding food and eating,” (p. 2).
“Omnivory offers the pleasures of variety, too. But the surfeit of choice brings with it a lot of stress and leads to a kind of Manichaean view of food, a division of nature into The Good Things to Eat, and The Bad,” (p. 4).
“Some philosophers have argued that the very open-endedness of human appetite is responsible for our savagery and civility, since a creature that could conceive of eating anything (including, notably, other humans) stands in particular need of ethical rules, manners, and rituals,” (p. 6).
Thoughts
So far the idea of the book is interesting, the idea that we have to trace food all the way back to its origin to fully comprehend it. It seems almost impossible that things such as the supermarket itself start out as a plant. I have questioned before what the “national food” is in America, and have ceased to find an answer. Now reading this, I understand that we do not generally have one, but because of that our eating habits are constantly transforming. Why is it though, that the human body developed in this omnivorous way, while other animals such as koalas have a set diet? This evolutionary happening is as argued both a setback and an advantage: “...responsible for our savagery and civility.”
The idea of “a division of nature into The Good Things to Eat, and The Bad” seems similar to the concept of the dominant discourse in food: food as medicine, or as poison. There are so many choices of food that we become perplexed and struggle with making an informative decision. The book also states that because of our lack of food traditions, we are much more susceptible to the influences of scientists and the media. We then adapt their ideas of what is good and bad. This in turn is a very macro makes micro situation; the institutions are shaping the individuals’ (the Americans’) perspectives on food.
I do not exactly understand his metaphor of an “eating disorder” throughout an entire nation. An eating disorder is generally defined as “any range of psychological disorders characterized by abnormal or disturbed eating habits, “ (Apple Dictionary). The eating habits of the United States are not necessarily “disturbed”, but instead are undergoing constant change. Is it really an abnormality when change is applied to something? It seems almost natural that food habits would change as a result of new discoveries; change is a consistent aspect of life.
Chapter One – The Plant
Corn’s Conquest
Précis
Most foods can be traced back to some plant that grew in soil, in particular corn; the meat we eat comes from animals who were fed corn, our sodas have corn syrup in them and so on. Mexicans call themselves “maize”, or say they are “corn walking”, because so much of their diet is in turn made up of corn. But Americans now eat on average more corn than Mexicans do. Corn was adapted into American society because of its ability to feed the masses in any environment. The Indians taught the Europeans how to grow it when they came to America, and with that, the Europeans adapted corn, eventually creating an atmosphere where corn was dependent on humans for reproduction.
Gems
“For an American like me, growing up linked to a very different food chain, yet one that is also rooted in a field of corn, not to think of himself as a corn person suggests either a failure of imagination or a triumph of capitalism,” (p.20)
“Corn is the hero of its own story, and though we humans played a crucial supporting role in its rise to world domination, it would be wrong to suggest we have been calling the shots, or acting always in our own best interests. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that corn has succeeded in domesticating us,” (p. 23).
“In the plant world at least, opportunism trumps gratitude. Yet in time, the plant of the vanquished would conquer even the conquerors,” (p. 24).
“Several human societies have seen fit to worship corn, but perhaps it should be the other way around: For corn, we humans are the contingent beings, “ (p. 27).
Thoughts
Corn has formed our society in such a way that without it, it seems that we could not go on. It seems absurd that one crop could take over so dominantly, especially when it is so dependent on humans for survival. It is interesting that humans found such value in it as to continue its reproduction, especially as the humans tend to take the submissive role in the relationship. Corn has become this metropolis that rules in the farming world. Why is it though, that products made from corn are rendered as unhealthy? Corn syrup is supposedly terrible for the human body, even though it is produced from such an organic substance. What is the necessity in making the syrup unbeneficial; or more, how does this happen?
The versatility of corn particularly appealed to the Europeans when they immigrated to America. We would think that when someone values versatility, they might also value variety. It seems though that the Europeans did not see much need for different types of crops, but instead selected one with the most efficiency. I believe this is where the ideology started of corn having a powerful presence. The “worship” of corn was simply passed through different generations, and because of its versatility, people did not consider other crops. With such narrow mindsets, we cut ourselves off from nutritional foods. But since our society has been developing in this pattern for such a long time, it will be difficult to fall out of this pattern. It is a sequence that we have made our society and therefore must live with it, the environmental and health impacts aside.
Chapter Two – The Farm
Précis
As time has gone on, farms have become more specialized, only harvesting specific foods and in George Naylor’s case corn and soybeans. New hybrids of corn have therefore come out, which enable farmers to plant more of the stalks next to each other, creating a bigger surplus in the end. The biggest advancement in the corn industry was in 1947, with the switch to the production of chemical fertilizer by the munitions plant in Muscle Shoals, Alabama; corn became dependent on fossil fuels instead of sun energy. But there are times when corn prices drop, and farmers are left with a surfeit of corn. In order to make up the difference though, they must produce more and more corn.
Gems
“One of every four Americans lived on a farm when Naylor’s grandfather arrived here in Churdan; his land and labor supplied enough food to feed his family and twelve other Americans besides. Less than a century after, fewer than 2 million Americans still farm – and they grow enough food to feed the rest of us,” (p. 34).
“The 129 people who depend on George Naylor for their sustenance are all strangers, living at the far end of a food chain so long, intricate, and obscure that neither producer nor consumer has no reason to know the first thing about the other,” (p. 34).
“Basically, modern hybrids can tolerate the corn equivalent of city life, growing amid the multitudes without succumbing to urban stress,” (p. 37).
“A mere 2 percent of the state’s land remains what it used to be...every square foot of the rest having been completely remade by man. The only thing missing from this man-made landscape is...man,” (p. 38).
Thoughts
The cycle of production that corn farmers follow seems ridiculous. They produce more, in order to sell more, to pay for the mass production, which in turn does not sell enough, meaning they have to harvest more corn in order to make up the difference. There must be a more effective way of producing corn so that it is more beneficial and constant. With the production of more corn, people are also pushed out of farm areas. What is the point of taking up livable space, when the corn that replaces it, is in turn not always sold?
People should understand from where their food comes, otherwise they have no possible way of determining its effect on their bodies. Mass producers can easily use complicated wording to cover up hidden truths. George Naylor produces corn, but does not know any of the 129 people that he feeds. While it may be an indirect sale, he still is the one affecting their health. Our food system has become so complex in such an unnecessary way. In order to reach these 129 people, his corn must be processed in so many different ways, which also has a big impact on the environment. His farm also is harmed through the use of synthesized nitrogen. The runoff poisons his water and possibly the surrounding community. Is it really worth hurting the environment with this dependency on fossil fuels? When his grandfather farmed, it may have been slower, but the sun’s energy had a smaller carbon footprint. People need to wrap their heads around the idea of saving the environment and creating an effective source of food production; things should be efficient, but not so efficient that they begin to take away from other aspects of our world.
Chapter Three – The Elevator
Précis
Corn is grown to a certain standard: acceptable insect damage, appropriate moisture and cleanliness. Corn then is not specialized and farmers instead compete with who can produce the biggest bulk of corn. The farmers then receive profit through their Farmers Cooperative and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Gems
“To be honest, I felt a revulsion. In Mexico, even today, you do not let corn lay on the ground; it is considered almost sacrilegious,” (p. 58).
“I should have known that trading any single bushel of commodity corn is as impossible as tracing a bucket of water after it’s been poured into a river,” (p. 63).
“But nature abhors a surplus, and the corn must be consumed. Enter the corn-fed American steer,” (p. 64).
Thoughts
The idea of corn being filtered into one big “golden river” of corn seems a little odd to me. Farmers should be recognized for their work and should not be forced to meet simple standards. This entire idea of commodity corn stifles creativity in production. I do agree though that all the corn produced should at least be healthy and edible. Or why not just make the standards a little better, so all food products created by corn are of the highest quality?
Corn is dominating our society, but it seems as though it is making it have less worth. First of all, with the way it is strewn across the dirt roads in Illinois, we find it no longer a sacred food, but take it for granted. But also with so much corn circulating in the economy, its price is going down, putting new pressures on the farmer to create more, to earn more. Why does our society not introduce a new crop that can substitute as corn? Maybe even a healthier one.
Thoughts
Chapter Four – The Feedlot: Making Meat
Précis
Cows live no long on farms but in feedlots where they eat a diet consisting of corn and added protein. This can sicken the cows, as they are naturally herbivores. We in turn eat this meat and can also therefore be exposed to diseases, such as E. Coli.
Gems
“Industrial meat takes an almost heroic act of not knowing or, now, forgetting,” (p. 84).
“He has, of course, another, quite different identity – as an animal, I mean, connected as all animals must be to certain other animals and plants and microbes, as well as to the earth and the sun,” (p. 81).
“Hell, if you gave them lots of grass and space, I wouldn’t have a job,” (p.79)
“One of the most troubling things about factory farms is how cavalierly they flout these evolutionary rules, forcing animals to overcome deeply ingrained aversions. We make them trade their instincts for antibiotics,” (p. 76).
“In any city it’s easy to lose track of nature – of the transactions between various species and the land on which everything ultimately depends,” (p. 73).
Thoughts
If it is so unhealthy for cows and for us, why does the agricultural industry continue to feed cows corn? I understand that it is cheap and fattens them up, but isn’t our health more important? It seems to me that cows are no longer considered animals, only food sources. We need to draw the line somewhere to keep our humanity. It’s fine to eat the cows, there is no way to stop an entire nation from doing it, but improvements in the care of them could be reached.
I wonder if the people at slaughterhouses feel any remorse about the cows’ lives. At the feedlots they seem to care more about their jobs that anything else, as the one man states, “...I wouldn’t have a job.” But if he continues to feed his cows in this way, he may even contract some disease. The whole idea of going against nature seems odd; everything evolved this way for a reason. When we counteract the ways of evolution, it is impossible to have a positive outcome.
Thoughts
Chapter Five – The Processing Plant: Making Complex Foods
Précis
The corn that is not fed to animals at feedlots is sent to food processors, which break it down into various chemical compounds. This allows us to separate food from nature. These chemicals are then used to replace the natural ingredients in food, making them artificial and cheaper.
Gems
“But the underlying reductionist premise – that a food is nothing more than the sum of its nutrients – remains undisturbed,” (p. 98).
“As Tyson understood, you want to be selling something more than a commodity, something more like a service: novelty, convenience, status, fortification, lately even medicine,” (p. 96).
“Like every other food chain, the industrial food chain is rooted at either end in a natural system: the farmer’s field at one end, and the human organism at the other,” (p. 94).
“Step back for a moment and behold this great, intricately piped stainless steel beast: This is the supremely adapted creature that has evolved to help eat the vast surplus biomass coming off America’s farms...” (p. 90).
Thoughts
Why do people shy away from nature so often? The way nature has evolved has given us food options, without the need for artificiality. Preserving foods is understandable; people should be able to keep food for a while, and taste foods from other countries. But in the way that they load chemicals into the food in order to substitute so many natural tastes, it becomes too much.
There is a lot of pressure now to come up with the next big food product. As demonstrated by General Mills, there is heavy competition because anyone can knock off the food that you create. While this competition may be good as it stimulates the economy with new products and more consumerism, the health of actual consumers is being hurt.
The food is being processed to the point where it is indigestible. What is then the point of food when no nutrients are being absorbed? Because a special starch cannot be broken down into glucose, it is supposedly healthy for diabetics. This is unnecessary though, when they are so many more much healthier alternatives. Our corn could be put to much better use.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Homework #6: Food Diary
For breakfast yesterday I had 2 small pancakes. I don’t usually like to eat in the mornings but my mom has started making big breakfasts for my exchange student, so I usually just have some too. In total that was about 147 calories.
Right before gym I had a small fruit snack from the vending machine in the cafeteria. It was almost like a fruit roll up; I think it was about 10 calories.
We went to the Mexican place by our school for lunch and I got a chicken burrito. It probably consisted of about 377 calories.
Before my College Now course I went to get an ice coffee. This had about 0.5 to 3 calories in it.
Once I got home I ate a little hummus and pita bread. The hummus was about 45 calories I think and the pita bread was 77 calories.
We ordered in Indian food for dinner because my parents weren’t home. I had Tikka Masala. 10 oz is 200 calories, but I’m not sure if I had a complete 10 oz of it.
In total it seems that I only ate about 859 calories. It is of course possible that the calorie readings weren’t entirely correct, because I wasn’t sure how big my serving was or the “calculator” didn’t give the right estimate.
Today for breakfast I had a bowl of oatmeal with brown sugar in it. This was maybe 173 calories.
At my internship they had gone apple picking the weekend before, so they offered me one. It was really crisp and juicy. The calorie count for this apple was 77 calories.
While out making copies for internship, I bought a sandwich from a deli. It consisted of turkey, lettuce, tomato, oil, vinegar, salt, pepper, mayonnaise, and Swiss cheese. I can’t find that exact sandwich online, but I’m guessing it had about 400 calories in it.
When I got home I had a lemon zest Luna bar. An entire bar consists of 180 calories.
For dinner I had lemon chicken, which was about 210 calories. As a side there were potatoes and other vegetables. They probably added up to about 384 calories.
I ate about 1.424 calories in total today, which is significantly more than yesterday. But these calories came from much healthier foods as opposed to food prepared by a restaurant.
Now examining the food that I’ve eaten for the past two days, I realize that I may not always be eating the healthiest food. For one thing, it does not even seem to be that I reached a thousand calories in the first day. I’m not sure if that is necessarily a bad thing, but as an athlete I probably should be eating a little more. But in turn, the food from which I received the calories could have been more nutritional. Pancakes in the morning are fine but I think something with less sugar might be a little better. I used to just eat an apple or banana, but would still feel hungry by second period. I did not have a choice that morning of what to eat, because my mother was already in the process of making it. Since my exchange student is a boy, she realized she needed to make more food to fill him up. I simply receive more for breakfast as a result of that. The fruit snack that I had before gym was the only thing that I had exact change for, therefore it was the reason that I bought it. It was pretty nutritional though, as the school has changed their vending machine options. The burrito for lunch maybe wasn’t the greatest choice. The actual location is a little dirty and I’m not sure how sanitary the food is kept. It made me feel overly full, not in an enjoyable way at all. Caffeine is also not a great thing, especially for a teenager, but I really needed the boost before my college class. I don’t drink ice coffee that regularly, so I believe it is fine to treat myself once in a while. As for the hummus and pita, I am happy that I chose to snack on that. Normally I’ll grab a candy bar on my way home, but I feel that the hummus was a healthier alternative. Lastly, the Tikka Masala, while a lot of food, was in general pretty healthy. Indian food tends to consist of a lot of vegetables and spices; it’s very natural. I don’t think it was a bad choice, especially since the next option was Chinese food; the American imitation tends to be extremely unhealthy. While only an analysis of the foods for the first day, I do believe it suffices for a general interpretation of my eating habits.
Looking at these foods, they are all something that I ate because of the way they tasted. Even if in a rush, I do at least pick something that I am going to want to eat. The things my mom makes I do eat because I have no other option, not really depending on the taste. It is never anything terrible, just not what I would prefer. But when I only go for taste, I have noticed through these two days that I occasionally do not feel the greatest.
After the first day I was extremely tired, and while I’m sure part of it had to do with school, I think it came a lot from the food. When I eat heavier foods such as a burrito, I tend to tire out easily. I realize now that my mood and energy depends a lot on the foods I eat. During internship today I was starting to get a little worn out until I had an apple. By providing calories it gives you a boost. (Not only this, but where the food comes from in particular). The burrito as mentioned before came from a dingy little fast food restaurant. I believe that if it had been prepared differently, I wouldn’t have felt so affected by it. The ingredients might have been lighter; the chicken might have been less greasy and the beans better quality. The apple, besides the fact that it is fruit, came from an independent farm and was hand picked. It is therefore understandable that it gave a boost of energy instead of slowing me down. But nonetheless the heavier foods do tend to have a good taste. Sometimes it makes up for the fact that I do not always feel so great afterwards, or adds to it, as I want to eat more.
Where and with whom I am around seems to affect the foods I eat. As previously stated, my mother tends to cook more because of our exchange student. Therefore when he’s around, I have a bigger selection of food from which to choose. During lunchtime when I am out with friends and have just had 4 periods of school, I tend to want to eat a lot. I do not seem to look at nutritional value but instead something that will suffice for the rest of school time. But then when I look at the food I got during internship, I see that under time pressure I also do not pay much attention to what I am eating. The turkey sandwich was not terrible for me, but there were definitely healthier alternatives that I chose to ignore because I just wanted something quickly. Normally my mother cooks dinner, generally resulting in something nutritional and healthy like tonight’s lemon chicken. But again, when I was just at home with my exchange student and ordering in, we decided to go for Indian. This is not necessarily unhealthy, but when the amount of food eaten is factored in then yes maybe it was not the greatest. I feel that I can not help eating more when food is ordered, because it just has a more exciting quality to it than “your mom’s cooking”.
Food has an interesting presence in our lives that we do not even realize. Now examining my food I understand that it is affected by my mood, but in turn affects my mood right back. I eat what I feel I need at that moment, whatever is fitting. Because of the food diary, I was much more conscious after eating every meal. It made me more aware of its nutritional value. I did not want to change my eating habits just for this, but it did help me recognize the way that I eat and if it truly is beneficial. I do think I eat an okay diet, not amazing, but not particularly harmful. I am a little surprised though that I am eating so little calories; I am positive I did not calculate falsely on the servings when I did the addition. I think that is what I need to work on now: maybe taking in a couple more calories, but instead of unhealthy ones such as a burrito, ones that come from fruit or vegetables. This will probably help me keep up my energy more and hold me longer through the day so I do not feel the need to snack so much in between my meals. All in all, my eating habits are acceptable, but there is always room for improvement.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Homework #5: Dominant Discourses Regarding Contemporary Foodways in the U.S.
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
Monday, September 27, 2010
Homework #4: Your Families' Foodways
Our parents initiate our first experiences with food, as they cook meals for us during our time at home. But their own parents also influenced how they ate when they were growing up. So on goes the cycle of influence and food ways. In the time of talking to both my mother and father, I was able to have insight into their eating habits. My mother shared with me her newfound (as of 20 years) awareness of food and its health benefits. She tries to learn a lot about the food she is eating, checks if it has too much sugar or salt. When at the supermarket, she looks for fresh food, not the packaged or frozen items. Instead of buying meat from the supermarket, she uses the butcher as her meat supplier, where she feels the meat is much fresher.
Having grown up in the suburbs in New Jersey, her family did not have all of the opportunities that New York City has to offer. Therefore she takes advantage of having access to much fresher foods and spends her money on them as opposed to lots of processed or modified food. Her own mother she stated was the typical housewife who bought the branded foods. In New Jersey the supermarket was simply where you would go. With all of the new advertising, her mother believed that by buying the most advertised food she would therefore be buying the healthiest and best quality. Her mother was a good cook who tried to make balanced meals, but she never thought about where the food came from. This is where my own mother chose to differ from her mother in eating habits, as my mother made more conscious choices about her food and where it came from. Her father on the other hand came from a very poor family, and they ate typically what they could afford. Therefore growing up she only saw unhealthy eating habits in her father, such as foods with a lot of starch and sugar. But in the terms of influence, he did not do any cooking, so she was mainly affected by her mother’s idea of food. My mother believes that the main reason that she and her mother differ is simply because my own mother has many more opportunities for fresh food in this new era. Living in NYC provides benefits for healthier eating habits.
My father on the other hand has a different approach to food. Like my mother he too does try to eat healthy enough, at least around the house. Living in NYC he does feel that he has the chance to eat much healthier foods, but also uses it as a way to go out to dinner much more. He sees eating as a sort of event, one where the candles are lit and everyone eats slowly. His father would do the same when he was growing up, and he adapted this attitude towards food. As a child my father had 5 other siblings, the oldest of which would eat all of the food. Therefore when he was younger my father would have to scarf down food before his brother did, making food a much more enjoyable and relaxing thing for him now. Living with my mother he does eat healthily and is all for that attitude, but when under time pressure he does not hesitate to grab a slice of pizza or buy processed food. During the day food is all about fitting into his schedule, while at night when he’s not working dinner becomes more of an event. He described his mother as a mediocre cook who really did not care enough about the food she was making to understand anything about it. With such a large family they were lucky if they had all the kids at one table. When this would happen the meal would usually revolve around chicken or hamburgers. He stated that his mother would basically cook to keep the children alive. On the other hand, my father said, “ I live so I can eat.” He loves food and its taste and therefore exercises a lot more so that he can eat as much as he does. My father now takes the time to enjoy his food and experiment with it, but does not forget the factor of health, no matter how much he finds joy in eating a bag of pretzels.
Growing up with two parents who were generally health food oriented, I ate many balanced meals. I’ve always been a particularly picky eater, where from this comes I’m not sure. I do find though that my eating habits are more similar to my father’s, in that I enjoy eating to a large extent. Possibly one of my favorite things as a kid was going out to dinner and making a big deal out of the meal. As I’ve gotten older I experiment more with my foods and am open to trying new things, probably as a result of my mother. Neither of my parents found much interest in fast food and therefore I too never really made a habit of going to those restaurants. My mother would never serve hamburgers when I was younger and as I result I did not even really recognize their existence. We once went to a small town diner and I ordered a hamburger “without that brown thing in the middle”. My parent’s food ways had a much larger impact on me though when I was younger. Now that I’m older I eat out a lot with friends and have the option of going out to lunch everyday. I therefore get to pick the meals that I eat and unlike my mother I do not always consider where they are coming from. I go for convenience like my father, or whatever I’m in the mood for that day. Their parents impacted their ideas about food much more heavily because of where they came from. Growing up in NYC as opposed to New Jersey creates these generational differences. From an earlier age I’ve been able to choose the food I eat more freely, therefore lessening the influence of my parents on me. Meanwhile their parents cooked most meals for them everyday, limiting what their children were able to eat. These generational differences may be subtle, but they all seem to depend on where one comes from, as in where they live, and their access to food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)