Overarching Thesis:
Many of the dominant social practices in our society - practices that define a "normal" life - on further investigation turn out to involve nightmares and industrial atrocities.
Argument 1 (Food)
Major Claim:
The processes by which food has been produced for the last 50 years or so were not acknowledged until fairly recently, when it became widely known that industrialized food is unhealthy and even dangerous for everyone involved in its production and consumption.
Supporting Claim 1: There has been a lot of media attention directed at industrialized and processed food in the past few years.
Evidence 1: Food, Inc. and related movies: Food Matters, The Future of Food, Fast Food Nation, Super Size Me.
Evidence 2: Micheal Pollan's book sales in 2009 (Omnivore's Dilemma, In Defense of Food).
Evidence 3: NYT articles - Michelle Obama's food campaign, and the controversy it is causing.
Supporting Claim 2: Industrialized and processed foods are harmful to everyone involved in their making, along with everyone who eats them.
Evidence 1: People who make industrialized foods are not paid fairly, and are subject to illness and unfair treatment (The Omnivore's Dilemma - Chapter 9. Also mentioned in Food, Inc.)
Evidence 2: Most processed foods are made with high fructose corn syrup, because of the surplus of corn - however, these foods are extremely unhealthy (Omnivore's dilemma - Chapter 6).
Evidence 3: How industrialized meat is unhealthy, because of what animals are fed, where they are forced to live, etc. (Omnivore's Dilemma - Chapter 4).
Sunday, October 31, 2010
HW 11 - Final Food Project 1
Chosen Modality: Experiential I chose to change a couple of things about how I ate:
1) Where I bought my food, and
2) How it was prepared.
As opposed to getting my food at a supermarket, or buying it somewhere already prepared, I wanted to buy at least some of my food from the farmer's market in my neighborhood, and cook it myself. The reason I wanted to get some food at the farmer's market was to see if it tasted any different than conventionally grown food (the produce at the farmer's market I went to is grown organically, meaning without pesticides, and locally, in upstate New York), and, as we did in HW 3, to see how the experience of buying food at a farmer's market is different than anywhere else.
I also wanted to prepare it myself to see if that changed the experience of eating it - if the food seemed any more or less valuable, if I spent more time eating it, if it tasted better, etc. Some people would probably laugh at this - "Because cooking your own food is so difficult?"- but one should understand that this isn't something I regularly do. While the cooking I ended up doing was something I had done before, it wasn't anything I ever do frequently - the full extent of my cooking day to day probably never goes farther than making toast.
The first meal I made was breakfast. This didn't use ingredients from the farmer's market, because I hadn't gone yet. I made waffles:
All the meat was grass-fed, and like the produce, grown locally. For lunch, I decided to make grilled chicken, and a salad. I wanted to see if the chicken tasted any different, since it was grass-fed. It didn't. However, the vegetables in my salad did. One of my initial reservations about eating organic food was that it just didn't look as nice as the perfect, picturesque vegetables I was used to seeing. But they made up for it in taste, primarily in the way that they had it - unlike the rubbery green things I was forced to eat as a kid, these actually had some discernible flavor.
Dinner was probably the best: I had a salad, as described above, and a turkey burger, which could only be described as really, really good. Something that remained consistent though out all the organic meals I ate was that they seemed more valuable (probably because they were expensive), and, for the most part, they tasted better. Throughout all the meals I ate, I noticed that I took longer eating them - this may be, as I thought before, that the amount of time taken to prepare a food adds to the enjoyment felt in eating it.Thursday, October 21, 2010
HW 10 - Food, Inc. Response
1. Please summarize the main ideas of the film in a single paragraph succinct precis.
Fast food was created on the premise that it be like an assembly line: each person does one thing over and over again. Because they are only doing one thing, you can pay them less. Now, all our food is being produced this way. Not to mention, it's being processed - corn and soy can be made into dozens of different chemicals and sugars that are added to almost any packaged food in existence. There are only a few companies that produce most of the meat in America, and because it is made on such a large scale, there is a lot of room for error - the meat is made the same way in each place, so if something is wrong in one place, there's probably something wrong with the whole system.
2. What does the movie offer that the book didn't? What does the book offer that the movie didn't?
The movie (Food, Inc.), being a movie, offers a visual representation of everything that is discussed: you can see the animals being killed, you can see the inside of the factories that make processed foods, you can see the assembly line. The book offers details, and insight into a more broad array of topics then the ones discussed in the movie - for example, in The Omnivore's Dilemma, Micheal Pollan discusses the ethics of eating animals, an issue that was not mentioned in the movie.
Another part where the book diverges from the movie would be when industrial organic food is discussed. In The Omnivore's Dilemma, there was a whole chapter about this, and it discussed the history of industrial organic food, and how it differed from organic and conventionally grown food. Micheal Pollan concluded that while industrial organic food was overall better then conventionally grown food (because there were no fossil fuels or harmful pesticides used to grow it), a large amount of oil was still used to ship it across the world.
However, when industrial organic food was mentioned in Food, Inc. it was portrayed more positively: they told the story of how the idea started out on a farm, and now companies such as Stonyfield Farms (a company that makes organic yogurt) sell their products at Walmart. What wasn't mentioned was how much fossil fuel was used to make these products (Stonyfield's yogurt is made in a factory), and used to ship them across the country. Some companies even get their ingredients shipped to them from across the world. This was probably because it was a movie, and there isn't really time to discuss every detail about the food; however, you would think that they would at least be consistent about what types of food they are recommending people eat (both the book and the movie agree that organic, locally grown food is best, but they differ in their opinion about industrial organic food).
3. What insights or questions or thoughts remain with you after watching this movie? What feelings dominate your response? What thoughts?
Even after watching the movie, and seeing how all the food I eat is grown and prepared, I still don't acknowledge this when I'm actually eating. The two things don't seem linked in my mind - the food being processed into a billion pieces in factories doesn't seem to have any relation to the food I eat everyday, perhaps because it isn't actually the exact same food I eat everyday, or perhaps, as they said, it's because food companies have made people think that way: that the chicken I'm eating for dinner has no relation to a real, live chicken.
Fast food was created on the premise that it be like an assembly line: each person does one thing over and over again. Because they are only doing one thing, you can pay them less. Now, all our food is being produced this way. Not to mention, it's being processed - corn and soy can be made into dozens of different chemicals and sugars that are added to almost any packaged food in existence. There are only a few companies that produce most of the meat in America, and because it is made on such a large scale, there is a lot of room for error - the meat is made the same way in each place, so if something is wrong in one place, there's probably something wrong with the whole system.
2. What does the movie offer that the book didn't? What does the book offer that the movie didn't?
The movie (Food, Inc.), being a movie, offers a visual representation of everything that is discussed: you can see the animals being killed, you can see the inside of the factories that make processed foods, you can see the assembly line. The book offers details, and insight into a more broad array of topics then the ones discussed in the movie - for example, in The Omnivore's Dilemma, Micheal Pollan discusses the ethics of eating animals, an issue that was not mentioned in the movie.
Another part where the book diverges from the movie would be when industrial organic food is discussed. In The Omnivore's Dilemma, there was a whole chapter about this, and it discussed the history of industrial organic food, and how it differed from organic and conventionally grown food. Micheal Pollan concluded that while industrial organic food was overall better then conventionally grown food (because there were no fossil fuels or harmful pesticides used to grow it), a large amount of oil was still used to ship it across the world.
However, when industrial organic food was mentioned in Food, Inc. it was portrayed more positively: they told the story of how the idea started out on a farm, and now companies such as Stonyfield Farms (a company that makes organic yogurt) sell their products at Walmart. What wasn't mentioned was how much fossil fuel was used to make these products (Stonyfield's yogurt is made in a factory), and used to ship them across the country. Some companies even get their ingredients shipped to them from across the world. This was probably because it was a movie, and there isn't really time to discuss every detail about the food; however, you would think that they would at least be consistent about what types of food they are recommending people eat (both the book and the movie agree that organic, locally grown food is best, but they differ in their opinion about industrial organic food).
3. What insights or questions or thoughts remain with you after watching this movie? What feelings dominate your response? What thoughts?
Even after watching the movie, and seeing how all the food I eat is grown and prepared, I still don't acknowledge this when I'm actually eating. The two things don't seem linked in my mind - the food being processed into a billion pieces in factories doesn't seem to have any relation to the food I eat everyday, perhaps because it isn't actually the exact same food I eat everyday, or perhaps, as they said, it's because food companies have made people think that way: that the chicken I'm eating for dinner has no relation to a real, live chicken.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
HW 7d
The Omnivore's Dilemma - Micheal Pollan
Chapter 17:
Precis:
For people who take time to think about it, it doesn't seem right to eat animals: it seems like a past mistake, in the same way that things people used to do in the past - like slavery, for instance - now seem immoral. Some argue that it is "speciest" for humans to care more about their well-being then that of any other species. However, there is also the argument that some species of animals (such as pigs) simply wold not exist if humans did not eat them, as there is no other reason for them to exist. The reason that no one challenges where their food comes from seems to be because of a loss of ritual (such as saying grace before a meal, or preparing that meal, or killing the animal that is the meal...).
Gems:
"The notion of granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal, amoral world of eater and eaten - of predation - but along the way it will entail the sacrifice, or sublimation, of part of our identity - of our own animality."
"But however it may appear to those of us living at such a remove from the natural world, predation is not a matter of morality or of politics; it, too, is a matter of symbiosis."
"Do you really want to base your moral code on the natural order?....we can choose: humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; carnivorous animals do."
Thoughts:
I think most people would rather live in ignorance ("turn away) about where their food comes from - as he said, if more people knew where their food came from, they wouldn't want to eat it, and most people realize this.
The fact that humans are able to eat meat, and have developed special features in order to eat it, seems to imply that we should eat it.
Chapter 17:
Precis:
For people who take time to think about it, it doesn't seem right to eat animals: it seems like a past mistake, in the same way that things people used to do in the past - like slavery, for instance - now seem immoral. Some argue that it is "speciest" for humans to care more about their well-being then that of any other species. However, there is also the argument that some species of animals (such as pigs) simply wold not exist if humans did not eat them, as there is no other reason for them to exist. The reason that no one challenges where their food comes from seems to be because of a loss of ritual (such as saying grace before a meal, or preparing that meal, or killing the animal that is the meal...).
Gems:
"The notion of granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal, amoral world of eater and eaten - of predation - but along the way it will entail the sacrifice, or sublimation, of part of our identity - of our own animality."
"But however it may appear to those of us living at such a remove from the natural world, predation is not a matter of morality or of politics; it, too, is a matter of symbiosis."
"Do you really want to base your moral code on the natural order?....we can choose: humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; carnivorous animals do."
Thoughts:
I think most people would rather live in ignorance ("turn away) about where their food comes from - as he said, if more people knew where their food came from, they wouldn't want to eat it, and most people realize this.
The fact that humans are able to eat meat, and have developed special features in order to eat it, seems to imply that we should eat it.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
HW 7c
The Omnivore's Dilemma - Micheal Pollan
Chapter 11:
Precis: The way Polyface farm (Joel Salatin's farm) works, is biological as opposed to industrial, and ecosystem as opposed to a machine, a circle as opposed to a straight arrow. Every species grown benefits and is benefited by another in some way - each is a holon, both a whole and a part of something. Polyface farm also has a forest: while this would not immediately configure into a typical person's idea of a farm, it helps each species on the farm in some way (for instance, providing shade to animals).
Gems:
"It's all connected. This farm is more like an organism then a machine, and like any organism it has it's proper scale. A mouse is the size of a mouse for a good reason, and a mouse that was the size of an elephant wouldn't do very well."
"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."
Thoughts:
The way all the organisms benefit from each other creates a system where no animal is solely a product or a material - it is both. The fact that doing this makes it so that the farm basically produces no waste is amazing.
I was wondering if a farm like this would employ more people then an industrial farm (After all, they would need people to move all those animals around, along with everything else), or if it would be about even, or it it would be less because the scale of the farm is so much smaller then a huge cornfield would be.
Chapter 12:
Precis:
The USDA has standards for how chickens must be slaughtered, but the same rules apply to both huge slaughterhouses and the ones on small farms. For instance, one rule is that all slaughterhouses must have impermeable walls. Polyface farm's slaughterhouse does not have walls, and anyone who buys chickens there can walk in and watch their dinner being killed. The parts of the chicken that are removed before it is sold (otherwise known as chicken guts) are used to make compost, which is then spread on grass to help it grow.
Gems:
"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity"(Emerson). In other words, no matter how far away your food was killed, and no matter how little you had to do with it, you are still an accomplice in it's murder.
"In a way, the most morally troubling thing about killing chickens is that after a while it is no longer morally troubling."
Thoughts:
I don't really see this whole thing (killing chickens) as that bad, because everyone used to have to do it. Humans are omnivores because they can eat plants and meat, and part of eating meat is having to kill it first (Although technically, someone eating a plant would be killing it as well, in a way).
I like how the author will do something a few times, and think he knows the effect it has on people who do it all the time.
Chapter 13:
Precis: The food on Polyface farm is only sold to the surrounding community, because Joel Salatin believes in keeping it local. Although it is sold to a variety of people and places (restaurants, "buying clubs"), everyone who buys their food from Polyface buys it there for the same reason: quality. Anything Polyface sells would cost less at a supermarket, but price isn't the only thing guiding people's decisions. However, people who buy their meat locally must also buy it seasonally - certain foods are only available at certain times of year (ex. chicken is available in the summer).
Gems:
"Joel recited the slogan of his local supermarket chain: "We pile it high and sell it cheap." What other business would ever sell it's products that way?"
"...The promise of global capitalism, much like the promise of capitalism before it, ultimately demands an act of faith: that if we permit the destruction of certain things we value here and now we will achieve a greater happiness and prosperity at some unspecified future time."
"It's all very Italian (and decidedly un-American) to insist that doing the right thing is the most pleasurable thing, and that the act of consumption might be an act of addition rather then subtraction."
Thoughts:
He seems to be saying that when food can be bought more cheaply from other countries, it will no longer be grown here. This seems rather problematic, considering the United States already depends on other countries for almost everything, and while we can live without Nikes and iPods, we can't live without food - what would we eat if other countries then decide they don't want to sell food to us?
"People will eventually get more pleasure from actual food then a box of McNuggets." This actually seems to be true, at least for people who regularly eat healthy food - they really do enjoy eating a salad more then anything (how, I have no idea).
Chapter 14
Precis: The making and consuming of a meal are just important as the individual plants and animals that are being consumed. Grain fed animals are generally less healthy than grass fed animals, because they have more omega 3 and 6 fatty acids, a balance of which is necessary for basic health. However, industrialized food generally doesn't have as many of these acids, which may be the cause of many modern illnesses. Plants and animals grown the way they are supposed to be grown taste better and are healthier for the people who eat them, and cooking one's own food is sacred in a way that buying food that has already been cooked isn't.
Gems:
"Research in this area [of modern dietary habits] promises to turn a lot of conventional thinking on it's head."
"The chicken smelled and tasted exactly like chicken.....what accounted for it?
Thoughts:
The first quote (above) reminds me of Freakonomics - the whole point of which was to turn conventional thinking on it's head.
As opposed to going on and on about Omega 3s and 6s, couldn't he have just said there were more of them in grass fed meat, (which is what makes grass fed meat healthier) and left it at that? It's not like anyone will ever want to know the precise amount of fatty acids in their food.
Chapter 15:
Precis: It made more sense for humans to be hunter gatherers then to be agriculturists - they were healthier, and they actually spent less time per week foraging for food. I don't feel like I should be eating other animals if I have never been responsible for the killing of one, so I will be doing so. Angelo Garro, who grows, kills, and cooks most of his food (and drinks), will be helping me. Forests have begun to look different, now that I am going to be foraging in one: I notice all the different species of plants and animals, and I try to figure out if they are safe to consume.
Gems:
"Being a somewhat accident-prone individual, (childhood mishaps include getting bitten in the cheek by a seagull and breaking my nose falling out of bed), I have always thought it wise to maintain a healthy distance between me and firearms."
"And this, I suppose, points to what I was really after in taking up hunting and gathering: to see what it'd be like to prepare and eat a meal in full consciousness of what was involved."
Thoughts:
This reminded me of an article I read about some people who tried to live the way hunter-gatherers would have- exercising strenuously before a meal to emulate the way a hunter gatherer would have had to in order to catch their prey, and sometimes not eating all day, the way hunter gatherers (apparently) would have if they had trouble finding food for a while.
It seems odd that he would have a gun - this seems relatively modern, something that people who gathered all their own food wouldn't have had.
Chapter 16:
Precis: Part of the Omnivore's dilemma is whether a seemingly safe food item will turn out to be harmful or deadly. Natural selection has equipped humans with tools to eat various types of foods, and senses to help identify a food that may be unsafe to eat. Humans make up their own rules for how to eat (rituals and manners). Because Americans don't have a traditional diet that defines the way we each, we succumb to fad diets, unsure of what to eat without the help of a food scientist.
Gems:
"The beliefs that have guided the American way of eating: taste is not a true guide to what should be eaten, one should not simply eat what one enjoys, the important components of food cannot be seem or tasted, but are discernible only in scientific laboratories, and experimental science has produced rules of nutrition that will prevent illness and encourage longevity."
"Such has been the genius of capitalism, to re-create something akin to a state of nature in the modern supermarket or fast-food outlet, throwing us back on a perplexing, nutritionally perilous landscape deeply shadowed again by the omnivore's dilemma."
Thoughts:
The French paradox doesn't only seem to apply to food. In France, people have more vacation time, not only each year but each week (they work shorter weeks and have longer vacations), and yet are just as (slightly more, actually) productive as people in the U.S. It seems like people there just enjoy life more.
Chapter 11:
Precis: The way Polyface farm (Joel Salatin's farm) works, is biological as opposed to industrial, and ecosystem as opposed to a machine, a circle as opposed to a straight arrow. Every species grown benefits and is benefited by another in some way - each is a holon, both a whole and a part of something. Polyface farm also has a forest: while this would not immediately configure into a typical person's idea of a farm, it helps each species on the farm in some way (for instance, providing shade to animals).
Gems:
"It's all connected. This farm is more like an organism then a machine, and like any organism it has it's proper scale. A mouse is the size of a mouse for a good reason, and a mouse that was the size of an elephant wouldn't do very well."
"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."
Thoughts:
The way all the organisms benefit from each other creates a system where no animal is solely a product or a material - it is both. The fact that doing this makes it so that the farm basically produces no waste is amazing.
I was wondering if a farm like this would employ more people then an industrial farm (After all, they would need people to move all those animals around, along with everything else), or if it would be about even, or it it would be less because the scale of the farm is so much smaller then a huge cornfield would be.
Chapter 12:
Precis:
The USDA has standards for how chickens must be slaughtered, but the same rules apply to both huge slaughterhouses and the ones on small farms. For instance, one rule is that all slaughterhouses must have impermeable walls. Polyface farm's slaughterhouse does not have walls, and anyone who buys chickens there can walk in and watch their dinner being killed. The parts of the chicken that are removed before it is sold (otherwise known as chicken guts) are used to make compost, which is then spread on grass to help it grow.
Gems:
"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity"(Emerson). In other words, no matter how far away your food was killed, and no matter how little you had to do with it, you are still an accomplice in it's murder.
"In a way, the most morally troubling thing about killing chickens is that after a while it is no longer morally troubling."
Thoughts:
I don't really see this whole thing (killing chickens) as that bad, because everyone used to have to do it. Humans are omnivores because they can eat plants and meat, and part of eating meat is having to kill it first (Although technically, someone eating a plant would be killing it as well, in a way).
I like how the author will do something a few times, and think he knows the effect it has on people who do it all the time.
Chapter 13:
Precis: The food on Polyface farm is only sold to the surrounding community, because Joel Salatin believes in keeping it local. Although it is sold to a variety of people and places (restaurants, "buying clubs"), everyone who buys their food from Polyface buys it there for the same reason: quality. Anything Polyface sells would cost less at a supermarket, but price isn't the only thing guiding people's decisions. However, people who buy their meat locally must also buy it seasonally - certain foods are only available at certain times of year (ex. chicken is available in the summer).
Gems:
"Joel recited the slogan of his local supermarket chain: "We pile it high and sell it cheap." What other business would ever sell it's products that way?"
"...The promise of global capitalism, much like the promise of capitalism before it, ultimately demands an act of faith: that if we permit the destruction of certain things we value here and now we will achieve a greater happiness and prosperity at some unspecified future time."
"It's all very Italian (and decidedly un-American) to insist that doing the right thing is the most pleasurable thing, and that the act of consumption might be an act of addition rather then subtraction."
Thoughts:
He seems to be saying that when food can be bought more cheaply from other countries, it will no longer be grown here. This seems rather problematic, considering the United States already depends on other countries for almost everything, and while we can live without Nikes and iPods, we can't live without food - what would we eat if other countries then decide they don't want to sell food to us?
"People will eventually get more pleasure from actual food then a box of McNuggets." This actually seems to be true, at least for people who regularly eat healthy food - they really do enjoy eating a salad more then anything (how, I have no idea).
Chapter 14
Precis: The making and consuming of a meal are just important as the individual plants and animals that are being consumed. Grain fed animals are generally less healthy than grass fed animals, because they have more omega 3 and 6 fatty acids, a balance of which is necessary for basic health. However, industrialized food generally doesn't have as many of these acids, which may be the cause of many modern illnesses. Plants and animals grown the way they are supposed to be grown taste better and are healthier for the people who eat them, and cooking one's own food is sacred in a way that buying food that has already been cooked isn't.
Gems:
"Research in this area [of modern dietary habits] promises to turn a lot of conventional thinking on it's head."
"The chicken smelled and tasted exactly like chicken.....what accounted for it?
Thoughts:
The first quote (above) reminds me of Freakonomics - the whole point of which was to turn conventional thinking on it's head.
As opposed to going on and on about Omega 3s and 6s, couldn't he have just said there were more of them in grass fed meat, (which is what makes grass fed meat healthier) and left it at that? It's not like anyone will ever want to know the precise amount of fatty acids in their food.
Chapter 15:
Precis: It made more sense for humans to be hunter gatherers then to be agriculturists - they were healthier, and they actually spent less time per week foraging for food. I don't feel like I should be eating other animals if I have never been responsible for the killing of one, so I will be doing so. Angelo Garro, who grows, kills, and cooks most of his food (and drinks), will be helping me. Forests have begun to look different, now that I am going to be foraging in one: I notice all the different species of plants and animals, and I try to figure out if they are safe to consume.
Gems:
"Being a somewhat accident-prone individual, (childhood mishaps include getting bitten in the cheek by a seagull and breaking my nose falling out of bed), I have always thought it wise to maintain a healthy distance between me and firearms."
"And this, I suppose, points to what I was really after in taking up hunting and gathering: to see what it'd be like to prepare and eat a meal in full consciousness of what was involved."
Thoughts:
This reminded me of an article I read about some people who tried to live the way hunter-gatherers would have- exercising strenuously before a meal to emulate the way a hunter gatherer would have had to in order to catch their prey, and sometimes not eating all day, the way hunter gatherers (apparently) would have if they had trouble finding food for a while.
It seems odd that he would have a gun - this seems relatively modern, something that people who gathered all their own food wouldn't have had.
Chapter 16:
Precis: Part of the Omnivore's dilemma is whether a seemingly safe food item will turn out to be harmful or deadly. Natural selection has equipped humans with tools to eat various types of foods, and senses to help identify a food that may be unsafe to eat. Humans make up their own rules for how to eat (rituals and manners). Because Americans don't have a traditional diet that defines the way we each, we succumb to fad diets, unsure of what to eat without the help of a food scientist.
Gems:
"The beliefs that have guided the American way of eating: taste is not a true guide to what should be eaten, one should not simply eat what one enjoys, the important components of food cannot be seem or tasted, but are discernible only in scientific laboratories, and experimental science has produced rules of nutrition that will prevent illness and encourage longevity."
"Such has been the genius of capitalism, to re-create something akin to a state of nature in the modern supermarket or fast-food outlet, throwing us back on a perplexing, nutritionally perilous landscape deeply shadowed again by the omnivore's dilemma."
Thoughts:
The French paradox doesn't only seem to apply to food. In France, people have more vacation time, not only each year but each week (they work shorter weeks and have longer vacations), and yet are just as (slightly more, actually) productive as people in the U.S. It seems like people there just enjoy life more.
Friday, October 15, 2010
HW 9 - Freakonomics Response
1. Tools used in Freakonomics:
Looking for patterns/repetition in data: It seemed like they usually had a large set of data at their disposal, and one of the ways they evaluated it was to look for patterns in numbers - for example, they were talking about how a teacher might change some of her students answers on a standardized test. One thing they noticed was that there were a lot of students who got the same ten questions right, even of there were questions before that that they hadn't answered, which would imply that a teacher had simply filled in the same ten circles on each students test, so that they would get a higher score
Looking at how incentives influence people's behavior: Something they looked at was how people responded to incentives. This was shown in the segment where kids were paid each month if they did better in school - they had an incentive to do so - and demonstrated when a sumo wrestler would throw a match - he knew the other guy had more to gain from a win then he had to lose, and that the favor would be returned - basically, he had an incentive to lose the match.
Looking at whether theories are actually right: When they looked at the increase and decrease in crime rates in the 90s, they found that most of the variables that were attributed to a decrease in crime (ex. more police on the streets) actually didn't help that much. They didn't rely on other people's explanations for why things happened, they came up with their own.
2. How was Correlation Vs. Causation addressed?
They talked about how people who bought parenting books were better parents. While the two things are related, it doesn't mean that parenting books cause someone to be a better parent - it means that people who care enough to buy parenting books are better parents because they care - the two things are related, but one doesn't cause the other.
They also mentioned causation when they were talking about names:
People with "black" names had a harder time finding a job, and the data showed that their names were the direct cause of this - two different resumes were sent out, each identical except for the name on it, and the person with the resume that had the "white" name got called back first.
Looking for patterns/repetition in data: It seemed like they usually had a large set of data at their disposal, and one of the ways they evaluated it was to look for patterns in numbers - for example, they were talking about how a teacher might change some of her students answers on a standardized test. One thing they noticed was that there were a lot of students who got the same ten questions right, even of there were questions before that that they hadn't answered, which would imply that a teacher had simply filled in the same ten circles on each students test, so that they would get a higher score
Looking at how incentives influence people's behavior: Something they looked at was how people responded to incentives. This was shown in the segment where kids were paid each month if they did better in school - they had an incentive to do so - and demonstrated when a sumo wrestler would throw a match - he knew the other guy had more to gain from a win then he had to lose, and that the favor would be returned - basically, he had an incentive to lose the match.
Looking at whether theories are actually right: When they looked at the increase and decrease in crime rates in the 90s, they found that most of the variables that were attributed to a decrease in crime (ex. more police on the streets) actually didn't help that much. They didn't rely on other people's explanations for why things happened, they came up with their own.
2. How was Correlation Vs. Causation addressed?
They talked about how people who bought parenting books were better parents. While the two things are related, it doesn't mean that parenting books cause someone to be a better parent - it means that people who care enough to buy parenting books are better parents because they care - the two things are related, but one doesn't cause the other.
They also mentioned causation when they were talking about names:
People with "black" names had a harder time finding a job, and the data showed that their names were the direct cause of this - two different resumes were sent out, each identical except for the name on it, and the person with the resume that had the "white" name got called back first.
Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices.
a. I agree.
b. I agree, because I think the movie did a good job of explaining how the dominant discourse about a subject could often be wrong - for instance, the thing about the parenting books. Most people would think that people who bought them would be better parents because of the books, but in reality, it is simply because they are the kind of people who would buy the books.
c. Correlation and causation was discussed in the movie, and could also be applied to foodways. The Omnivore's Dilemma mentions how people in the United States are less healthy then people in France, even though there is more of a focus on health in the US. You would think that caring about being healthy would make someone be more healthy, but this shows it isn't necessarily so, since there are other variables involved besides the food itself.
3. What sources of evidence do the Freakonomics authors most rely on? Why is this innovative?
They seem to rely on large amounts of data (ex. test scores and answers over a period of years, baby name data from a hospital). As opposed to solely using the results of a study someone else did to prove their point, they also sort through evidence themselves, and try to find patterns that most people wouldn't think about.
This is innovative, because most people would just try to prove their point, and find evidence to support it, as opposed to what the Freakonomics authors did, which was to look at the evidence and data first, and then draw conclusions about it.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
HW 7b
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Micheal Pollan
Chapter 6:
Precis: The last time there was an excess of corn in the United States (during the 18th century), it was made into corn alcohol. Now, extra corn is turned into food, making it possible for Americans to eat more corn then anyone ever imagined possible. Corn is made into processed foods, which account for a large part of the 200 calories Americans have added to their diets since the 1970s (when processed foods became readily available), the main reason for this being that they are the cheapest foods available. People also tend to want to eat energy-dense foods (such as the ones made of corn), because evolution has programmed us to consume as much energy as possible.
Gems:
"The power of food science lies in its ability to break foods down into their nutrient parts and then reassemble them in specific ways that, in effect, push our evolutionary buttons, fooling the omnivore's inherited food selection system."
"Very simply, we subsidize high fructose corn syrup, but not carrots."
Thoughts:
There isn't anything in this chapter that suggests how this could change. Yes, it's bad that the cheapest foods are the most unhealthy, but what can we do about it? (Aside from stopping corn from being subsidized, which would probably have a negative effect on farmers who grow corn).
It seems like the only thing that isn't made with corn would be fruits, which are hardly mentioned. (Actually....corn is probably in the fuel used to transport the fruit. Nothing is safe.)
Chapter 7:
Precis: After the corn is planted, grown, harvested, sent across the country, and processed, it can end up not only in processed foods, but in fast food meals (which are basically the same thing). Food from McDonald's has an aura around it, making it a comfort food, a reminder of childhood, making it different then any other food, perhaps not a real food at all. However, almost every food contains corn or soy in some shape or form, and many foods (such as McNuggets) have ingredient lists that are extremely long, yet are basically the same ingredient repeated over and over again: corn, corn, corn, corn.
Gems:
"Overall, the chicken nugget seemed more like an abstraction than a full-fledged food, an idea of chicken waiting to be fleshed out."
"That is what the food chain does best: Obscures the histories of the foods it produces by processing them to such an extent that they appear as pure products of culture rather then nature - things made from plants and animals."
Thoughts:
The way he describes eating McDonald's as a kid makes me think he sees those times as sacred.
A lot of the ingredients in McNuggets are there to keep them from going bad. This makes me wonder exactly why they need them to last forever - exactly how long (after they're cooked) are they sitting there before they are eaten?
Chapter 8:
Precis:
Joel Salatin is a farmer who, unlike George Naylor, grows a variety of plants and animals on his farm. However, he considers the most important thing on his farm to be grass, because it sustains all other living things on his farm. Humans are partial to grass because it feeds the animals that we eat - is grass is living, we are too. Unlike most farmers, Salatin doesn't ship his meat and plants anywhere: people buy it directly from him, at his farm, because he feels shipping organic food across the world isn't right (Just because we can doesn't mean we should).
Gems:
"This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the fact that this pasture will in no way be diminished by the process - in fact, it will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier underfoot."
"Biophilia - our inherited genetic attraction for the plants and animals and landscapes with which we coevolved."
Thoughts:
The idea Joel Salatin was trying to get across was that shipping organic food across the world diminishes the point of it being organic - what's the point of putting all this effort into a farm so that there isn't any waste created from it, if it's going to be shipped somewhere, which would take a ton of energy and create a ton of waste? However, I think this would be preferable to shipping industrial food across the world, since that would already have created waste just by being grown.
And what about places where people can't buy food directly from a farm? Sometimes food needs to be brought to other places.
Chapter 9:
Precis: The word "Organic", when applied to food, does not have a sole definition - farmers, stores, corporations, and customers all have a different idea of what it means. While most customers would like to think that their organic chicken came from a picturesque farm where chickens are allowed outside and given plenty of space, this usually isn't the truth, especially since many certified organic foods are from "industrial organic" farms, which aren't really all that different from conventional ones, and use just as much fossil fuel to bring food around the world. Organic food also costs more, and while this in worth it in some ways - the food is safer and no one suffered in the process of growing it - it doesn't mean the food is guilt-free, because so much energy is still used to bring it to people.
Gems:
"The problem is that once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else, to assume that what you can measure is all that there is, or at least all that really matters....we mistake what we can know for all there is to know, a healthy appreciation of one's ignorance in the face of a mystery."
"Is industrial organic ultimately a contradiction in terms?"
Thoughts:
If conventionally grown and processed food is unhealthy, and organic food isn't necessarily much better, what option is left? Are we all just supposed to grow our own food?
I don't think most people would see the point of paying more for organic food - the fact is that on the surface, it just seems more expensive and (to some) less appetizing. And even if they know why it's better to buy it, they still might not do so, simply because of cost.
Chapter 10:
Precis: All the plants and animals grown on Joel Salatin's farm depend on grass in some way, especially the animals that eat it. The cattle that graze on the grass are moved frequently (so that the grass is still able to grow), with the length of time in between each move being carefully choreographed by Salatin, as this is an extremely complex system (almost as complex as the one used for industrial-grown cattle). Joel Salatin was taught by his father to grow things the way they were meant to be grown - that is to say, the way they grow in nature.
Gems:
"When poets liken people to blades of grass, it's usually to humble us, to pull the rug out from under our individuality and remind us of our existential puniness."
"As faithful to the logic of biology as a carefully grazed pasture is, it meshes poorly with the logic of industry, which has no use for anything it cannot bend to it's wheels and bottom line. And, at least for the time being, it is the logic of industry that rules."
Thoughts:
This farm seems like the only way to grow food and the only place to buy it that he actually approves of.
Technically, he's right in saying that this is the way everyone should eat - the fact that this is no longer possible (or a priority) for most people is unfortunate.
Chapter 6:
Precis: The last time there was an excess of corn in the United States (during the 18th century), it was made into corn alcohol. Now, extra corn is turned into food, making it possible for Americans to eat more corn then anyone ever imagined possible. Corn is made into processed foods, which account for a large part of the 200 calories Americans have added to their diets since the 1970s (when processed foods became readily available), the main reason for this being that they are the cheapest foods available. People also tend to want to eat energy-dense foods (such as the ones made of corn), because evolution has programmed us to consume as much energy as possible.
Gems:
"The power of food science lies in its ability to break foods down into their nutrient parts and then reassemble them in specific ways that, in effect, push our evolutionary buttons, fooling the omnivore's inherited food selection system."
"Very simply, we subsidize high fructose corn syrup, but not carrots."
Thoughts:
There isn't anything in this chapter that suggests how this could change. Yes, it's bad that the cheapest foods are the most unhealthy, but what can we do about it? (Aside from stopping corn from being subsidized, which would probably have a negative effect on farmers who grow corn).
It seems like the only thing that isn't made with corn would be fruits, which are hardly mentioned. (Actually....corn is probably in the fuel used to transport the fruit. Nothing is safe.)
Chapter 7:
Precis: After the corn is planted, grown, harvested, sent across the country, and processed, it can end up not only in processed foods, but in fast food meals (which are basically the same thing). Food from McDonald's has an aura around it, making it a comfort food, a reminder of childhood, making it different then any other food, perhaps not a real food at all. However, almost every food contains corn or soy in some shape or form, and many foods (such as McNuggets) have ingredient lists that are extremely long, yet are basically the same ingredient repeated over and over again: corn, corn, corn, corn.
Gems:
"Overall, the chicken nugget seemed more like an abstraction than a full-fledged food, an idea of chicken waiting to be fleshed out."
"That is what the food chain does best: Obscures the histories of the foods it produces by processing them to such an extent that they appear as pure products of culture rather then nature - things made from plants and animals."
Thoughts:
The way he describes eating McDonald's as a kid makes me think he sees those times as sacred.
A lot of the ingredients in McNuggets are there to keep them from going bad. This makes me wonder exactly why they need them to last forever - exactly how long (after they're cooked) are they sitting there before they are eaten?
Chapter 8:
Precis:
Joel Salatin is a farmer who, unlike George Naylor, grows a variety of plants and animals on his farm. However, he considers the most important thing on his farm to be grass, because it sustains all other living things on his farm. Humans are partial to grass because it feeds the animals that we eat - is grass is living, we are too. Unlike most farmers, Salatin doesn't ship his meat and plants anywhere: people buy it directly from him, at his farm, because he feels shipping organic food across the world isn't right (Just because we can doesn't mean we should).
Gems:
"This is an astounding cornucopia of food to draw from a hundred acres of pasture, yet what is perhaps still more astonishing is the fact that this pasture will in no way be diminished by the process - in fact, it will be the better for it, lusher, more fertile, even springier underfoot."
"Biophilia - our inherited genetic attraction for the plants and animals and landscapes with which we coevolved."
Thoughts:
The idea Joel Salatin was trying to get across was that shipping organic food across the world diminishes the point of it being organic - what's the point of putting all this effort into a farm so that there isn't any waste created from it, if it's going to be shipped somewhere, which would take a ton of energy and create a ton of waste? However, I think this would be preferable to shipping industrial food across the world, since that would already have created waste just by being grown.
And what about places where people can't buy food directly from a farm? Sometimes food needs to be brought to other places.
Chapter 9:
Precis: The word "Organic", when applied to food, does not have a sole definition - farmers, stores, corporations, and customers all have a different idea of what it means. While most customers would like to think that their organic chicken came from a picturesque farm where chickens are allowed outside and given plenty of space, this usually isn't the truth, especially since many certified organic foods are from "industrial organic" farms, which aren't really all that different from conventional ones, and use just as much fossil fuel to bring food around the world. Organic food also costs more, and while this in worth it in some ways - the food is safer and no one suffered in the process of growing it - it doesn't mean the food is guilt-free, because so much energy is still used to bring it to people.
Gems:
"The problem is that once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else, to assume that what you can measure is all that there is, or at least all that really matters....we mistake what we can know for all there is to know, a healthy appreciation of one's ignorance in the face of a mystery."
"Is industrial organic ultimately a contradiction in terms?"
Thoughts:
If conventionally grown and processed food is unhealthy, and organic food isn't necessarily much better, what option is left? Are we all just supposed to grow our own food?
I don't think most people would see the point of paying more for organic food - the fact is that on the surface, it just seems more expensive and (to some) less appetizing. And even if they know why it's better to buy it, they still might not do so, simply because of cost.
Chapter 10:
Precis: All the plants and animals grown on Joel Salatin's farm depend on grass in some way, especially the animals that eat it. The cattle that graze on the grass are moved frequently (so that the grass is still able to grow), with the length of time in between each move being carefully choreographed by Salatin, as this is an extremely complex system (almost as complex as the one used for industrial-grown cattle). Joel Salatin was taught by his father to grow things the way they were meant to be grown - that is to say, the way they grow in nature.
Gems:
"When poets liken people to blades of grass, it's usually to humble us, to pull the rug out from under our individuality and remind us of our existential puniness."
"As faithful to the logic of biology as a carefully grazed pasture is, it meshes poorly with the logic of industry, which has no use for anything it cannot bend to it's wheels and bottom line. And, at least for the time being, it is the logic of industry that rules."
Thoughts:
This farm seems like the only way to grow food and the only place to buy it that he actually approves of.
Technically, he's right in saying that this is the way everyone should eat - the fact that this is no longer possible (or a priority) for most people is unfortunate.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
HW 8 - Growing Our Own Food
On the third day or so after placing the sprout seeds in the jar, little green things started to pop out of the brown seeds. This is the part I remember most whenever I have planted something- the second it actually starts to grow. This has always seemed magical to me, even though I know how it happens, it just seems like such an odd thing, that plants appear out of nowhere, and keep growing. So, in summation, I liked growing the sprouts. Eating them? Not so much. It wasn't that I didn't like them, I just couldn't taste them - they didn't have any flavor (apparently that isn't the point - they're supposed to be really healthy - or not.). However, they did add a crunchy texture to the wrap I was eating them on.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
HW 7
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan
Introduction:
Precis: In American, a national eating disorder seems to have left us bewildered about what exactly we should eat - the more healthy we try to be, the less healthy we actually are. This is because we are omnivores (we can eat meat and plants), and because we have such a variety of foods to choose from, we don't know what to choose - unlike other animals, we aren't hardwired to want a particular food. This book is about three main food chains that connect us to what we eat: the industrial food chain, the organic food chain, and the hunter-gatherer food chain.
Gems:
"...Such a culture would be shocked to find out that there are other countries, such as Italy and France, that decide their dinner questions on the basis of such quaint and unscientific criteria as pleasure and tradition, eat all manner of "unhealthy" foods, and, lo and behold, wind up actually being healthier and happier in their eating then we are."
"The Koala doesn't worry about what to eat: If it looks and smells like a eucalyptus leaf, it must be dinner. The Koala's culinary preferences are hardwired in it's genes. But for omnivores like us, a vast amount of brain space and time must be devoted to figuring out which of all the many potential dishes nature lays on are safe to eat."
Thoughts:
Throughout the introduction, he seems to be saying that food is important, and that Omnivores are supposed to put a lot of thought into it. However, he mentions that people in the US eat a lot of fast food, which would imply that they aren't thinking about the food that much, but then says that we put a lot of time into being healthy, which would imply we do think about what we eat. I think his point is simply that we don't think about food the right way - we either don't think about it at all or we think that we don't know what to eat and therefore need the help of experts.
Chapter 1:
Precis: Supermarkets in the United States have an astounding variety of different species in the produce department, and the meat department. However, almost everything else throughout these stores is composed of, made with, or contains some variation on a single plant - Corn. Throughout history, corn has been prevalent in people's diets, mostly because it is easy to grow (and genetically modify) and versatile. However, because of this, the main thing we eat (in various forms) is corn.
Gems:
"Not very long ago, an eater didn't need a journalist to answer theses questions ("what am I eating?"). The fact that today one so often does suggests a pretty good start on a working definition of industrial food: Any food whose provenance is so complex or obscure that it requires expert help to ascertain."
"For modified or unmodified starch, for glucose syrup and maltodextrin, for crystalline fructose and ascorbic acid, for lecithin and dextrose, lactic acid and lysine, for maltose and HFCS, for MSG and polyols, for the caramel color and xanthan gum, read: corn."
Thoughts:
The second quote (see above) surprised me - I didn't know that all those ingredients were made of corn. It also reminded me of a cartoon I saw in Mad magazine, in an issue from the eighties: A woman standing at the supermarket, looking at a shopping list. As opposed to the list reading "milk, eggs, bread", it listed maltodextrin, soy lecithin, and maltose.
This chapter also mentions how soft drinks that used to be made with sugar are now made with HFCS. I had heard about this before, and I did an "experiment" to see if Coke made with real sugar tasted any different then the regular kind made with corn syrup. The kind I got was in a glass bottle, and seemed fizzier then regular coke, but maybe that was just since there wasn't sweetness covering up the taste of the actual soda. The other thing I noticed was that once I swallowed it, I didn't taste it anymore. This was different then the regular soda, the taste of which seemed to linger, as if the corn syrup had coated my teeth and tongue.
Chapter 2:
Precis: George Naylor is a farmer in Iowa, where he can grows more corn every year (has a higher "yield," meaning he can plant more corn in the same amount of space), but can still barely make a living. Back in the fifties and sixties, a farm in Iowa would have been more diversified: aside from corn, there would have been cows, chickens, hay, oats, potatoes, apples, pears, and more. However, by the eighties, it was cheaper to feed animals corn then grass, so more and more farmers started growing corn (which also became easier to grow because of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which eliminates the need for legumes), and now that is the only thing most of them grow. Because there is so much corn (which makes the price of it go down, year after year), new ways are found to use it (and the government subsidizes it), which creates the need for farmers to grow even more corn, even though they are selling it for less money then it costs to grow it.
Gems:
"...Naylor, raising nothing but corn and soybeans on a fairly typical farm, is so productive that he is, in effect, feeding some 129 Americans. Measured in terms of output per worker, American farmers like Naylor are the most productive humans who have ever lived."
"Beginning in the fifties and sixties, the flood tide of cheap corn made it profitable to fatten cattle on feedlots instead of on grass....Iowa livestock farmers couldn't compete with the factory-farmed animals...in their place, the farmers planted one crop: Corn."
Thoughts:
Cows aren't really supposed to eat corn. How does eating it have an effect on their health, and the health of the people that eat them?
Corn can't be everything we eat - what about other vegetables? Are they not produced in the US, and instead imported from other countries? Or are they simply not produced on such a large scale?
Chapter 3:
Precis: In the 1850s, the invention of the grain elevator changed the way corn was sent out across the country: as opposed to each sack bearing the name of the state it was grown in, all corn grown is essentially the same, which means that the only thing farmers now have to focus on is making more and more of it (as opposed to being careful of it's quality). Farmers are paid by both the USDA and the US government, which means that the price of the corn gets lower and lower, meaning more and more needs to be planted to make up for the reduced price. This corn goes straight to the companies that use it (Cargill, ADM), where it is used to feed animals.
Gems:
''Before the1850's, corn was bought and sold in burlap sacks. More often then not the sacks bore the name of the farm where the corn had been grown. You could follow a sack from a farm in Iowa to the mill in Manhattan where it was ground into meal, or to the dairy in Brooklyn where it was fed to a cow....for better or for worse that burlap sack linked a corn buyer anywhere in America with a particular farmer cultivating a particular patch of the earth.''
''The place where most of these corn kernels end up - about three of every five - is on the American factory farm, a place that could not exist without them.'
Thoughts:
I thought it was odd that the two farmers in chapter 2 both had different ways of growing corn (one kind was genetically modified, one kind wasn't) and both thought their way was superior, but in the end, all of the corn ends up in the exact same place.
Again - how does eating corn affect the animals that wouldn't normally eat it?
Chapter 4:
Precis:
Cows used to be raised on farms and fed grass, but now they live on CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) and eat corn (which is mixed with lots of antibiotics to keep the cows from getting sick from the corn, and with "beef tallow", which is basically cow fat). This has many environmental implications, the most pressing of which is that the manure the cows make doesn't have anywhere to go (it used to be used to fertilize crops, which are now fertilized with petroleum). There are also many health implications, both for the cows (whose stomachs are meant to process grass, not corn - doing so can cause illness) and for humans (who eat the unhealthy cows).
Gems:
"How much petroleum it takes to grow my steer to slaughter weight: Assuming he continues to eat 25 pounds of corn per day and reaches a weight of twelve hundred pounds, he will have consumed in his lifetime the equivalent of thirty-five gallons of oil - nearly a barrel."
"I was curious to know what feedlot beef would taste like now, if I could taste the corn, or even, since taste is as much a matter of what's in the head as much as it is about molecules dancing on the tongue, some hint of the petroleum."
Thoughts:
This makes me glad I don't eat that much beef, as it seems illogical and somewhat dangerous to eat an animal that has been fed something it isn't supposed to eat, and that has stood in it's own manure for a significant part of it's life.
Why is it so important that the cows get fat quickly, and thus need to be fed corn as opposed to grass? Considering the impact that this has on the environment and our health, wouldn't it benefit everyone to just wait a few more months?
Chapter 5:
Precis:
Today, Americans consume a huge amount of corn each year, but little of it is consumed in the form of an actual ear of corn - most is consumed in the form of corn syrup, xanthan gum, dextrose, fructose, maltose, corn starch, and more (not to mention, the animals we eat also eat corn). Each part of a corn kernel is used, and the entire thing is broken down until it is nothing more then a sum of it's nutrients: a gram of sugar, or a carbohydrate. It is then built into processed foods, which have vitamins and minerals added to give an illusion of health. However, this has made it cheaper for food companies to make processed food then to sell actual food, because processed food can be sold for a much higher price then the ingredients that are in it, and it has a much longer shelf life.
Gems:
"Natural ingredients, the company pointed out, are a "mixture of substances created by plants and animals for completely non-food purposes- their survival and reproduction." These dubious substances can be consumed by humans "at their own risk.""
"The dream of liberating food from nature is as old as eating....in the third age of food processing, merely preserving the fruits of nature was deemed to modest: the goal was now to improve on nature."
Thoughts:
They're making it seem like eating food (actual food) is in some way dangerous, because it exists for more reasons then for humans to eat it. I guess they're ignoring the fact that humans have, in fact, eaten it for hundreds of years, and for the most part, we have been fine.
(After reading the cereal thing) I will never look at cheerios the same way again.
Introduction:
Precis: In American, a national eating disorder seems to have left us bewildered about what exactly we should eat - the more healthy we try to be, the less healthy we actually are. This is because we are omnivores (we can eat meat and plants), and because we have such a variety of foods to choose from, we don't know what to choose - unlike other animals, we aren't hardwired to want a particular food. This book is about three main food chains that connect us to what we eat: the industrial food chain, the organic food chain, and the hunter-gatherer food chain.
Gems:
"...Such a culture would be shocked to find out that there are other countries, such as Italy and France, that decide their dinner questions on the basis of such quaint and unscientific criteria as pleasure and tradition, eat all manner of "unhealthy" foods, and, lo and behold, wind up actually being healthier and happier in their eating then we are."
"The Koala doesn't worry about what to eat: If it looks and smells like a eucalyptus leaf, it must be dinner. The Koala's culinary preferences are hardwired in it's genes. But for omnivores like us, a vast amount of brain space and time must be devoted to figuring out which of all the many potential dishes nature lays on are safe to eat."
Thoughts:
Throughout the introduction, he seems to be saying that food is important, and that Omnivores are supposed to put a lot of thought into it. However, he mentions that people in the US eat a lot of fast food, which would imply that they aren't thinking about the food that much, but then says that we put a lot of time into being healthy, which would imply we do think about what we eat. I think his point is simply that we don't think about food the right way - we either don't think about it at all or we think that we don't know what to eat and therefore need the help of experts.
Chapter 1:
Precis: Supermarkets in the United States have an astounding variety of different species in the produce department, and the meat department. However, almost everything else throughout these stores is composed of, made with, or contains some variation on a single plant - Corn. Throughout history, corn has been prevalent in people's diets, mostly because it is easy to grow (and genetically modify) and versatile. However, because of this, the main thing we eat (in various forms) is corn.
Gems:
"Not very long ago, an eater didn't need a journalist to answer theses questions ("what am I eating?"). The fact that today one so often does suggests a pretty good start on a working definition of industrial food: Any food whose provenance is so complex or obscure that it requires expert help to ascertain."
"For modified or unmodified starch, for glucose syrup and maltodextrin, for crystalline fructose and ascorbic acid, for lecithin and dextrose, lactic acid and lysine, for maltose and HFCS, for MSG and polyols, for the caramel color and xanthan gum, read: corn."
Thoughts:
The second quote (see above) surprised me - I didn't know that all those ingredients were made of corn. It also reminded me of a cartoon I saw in Mad magazine, in an issue from the eighties: A woman standing at the supermarket, looking at a shopping list. As opposed to the list reading "milk, eggs, bread", it listed maltodextrin, soy lecithin, and maltose.
This chapter also mentions how soft drinks that used to be made with sugar are now made with HFCS. I had heard about this before, and I did an "experiment" to see if Coke made with real sugar tasted any different then the regular kind made with corn syrup. The kind I got was in a glass bottle, and seemed fizzier then regular coke, but maybe that was just since there wasn't sweetness covering up the taste of the actual soda. The other thing I noticed was that once I swallowed it, I didn't taste it anymore. This was different then the regular soda, the taste of which seemed to linger, as if the corn syrup had coated my teeth and tongue.
Chapter 2:
Precis: George Naylor is a farmer in Iowa, where he can grows more corn every year (has a higher "yield," meaning he can plant more corn in the same amount of space), but can still barely make a living. Back in the fifties and sixties, a farm in Iowa would have been more diversified: aside from corn, there would have been cows, chickens, hay, oats, potatoes, apples, pears, and more. However, by the eighties, it was cheaper to feed animals corn then grass, so more and more farmers started growing corn (which also became easier to grow because of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which eliminates the need for legumes), and now that is the only thing most of them grow. Because there is so much corn (which makes the price of it go down, year after year), new ways are found to use it (and the government subsidizes it), which creates the need for farmers to grow even more corn, even though they are selling it for less money then it costs to grow it.
Gems:
"...Naylor, raising nothing but corn and soybeans on a fairly typical farm, is so productive that he is, in effect, feeding some 129 Americans. Measured in terms of output per worker, American farmers like Naylor are the most productive humans who have ever lived."
"Beginning in the fifties and sixties, the flood tide of cheap corn made it profitable to fatten cattle on feedlots instead of on grass....Iowa livestock farmers couldn't compete with the factory-farmed animals...in their place, the farmers planted one crop: Corn."
Thoughts:
Cows aren't really supposed to eat corn. How does eating it have an effect on their health, and the health of the people that eat them?
Corn can't be everything we eat - what about other vegetables? Are they not produced in the US, and instead imported from other countries? Or are they simply not produced on such a large scale?
Chapter 3:
Precis: In the 1850s, the invention of the grain elevator changed the way corn was sent out across the country: as opposed to each sack bearing the name of the state it was grown in, all corn grown is essentially the same, which means that the only thing farmers now have to focus on is making more and more of it (as opposed to being careful of it's quality). Farmers are paid by both the USDA and the US government, which means that the price of the corn gets lower and lower, meaning more and more needs to be planted to make up for the reduced price. This corn goes straight to the companies that use it (Cargill, ADM), where it is used to feed animals.
Gems:
''Before the1850's, corn was bought and sold in burlap sacks. More often then not the sacks bore the name of the farm where the corn had been grown. You could follow a sack from a farm in Iowa to the mill in Manhattan where it was ground into meal, or to the dairy in Brooklyn where it was fed to a cow....for better or for worse that burlap sack linked a corn buyer anywhere in America with a particular farmer cultivating a particular patch of the earth.''
''The place where most of these corn kernels end up - about three of every five - is on the American factory farm, a place that could not exist without them.'
Thoughts:
I thought it was odd that the two farmers in chapter 2 both had different ways of growing corn (one kind was genetically modified, one kind wasn't) and both thought their way was superior, but in the end, all of the corn ends up in the exact same place.
Again - how does eating corn affect the animals that wouldn't normally eat it?
Chapter 4:
Precis:
Cows used to be raised on farms and fed grass, but now they live on CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) and eat corn (which is mixed with lots of antibiotics to keep the cows from getting sick from the corn, and with "beef tallow", which is basically cow fat). This has many environmental implications, the most pressing of which is that the manure the cows make doesn't have anywhere to go (it used to be used to fertilize crops, which are now fertilized with petroleum). There are also many health implications, both for the cows (whose stomachs are meant to process grass, not corn - doing so can cause illness) and for humans (who eat the unhealthy cows).
Gems:
"How much petroleum it takes to grow my steer to slaughter weight: Assuming he continues to eat 25 pounds of corn per day and reaches a weight of twelve hundred pounds, he will have consumed in his lifetime the equivalent of thirty-five gallons of oil - nearly a barrel."
"I was curious to know what feedlot beef would taste like now, if I could taste the corn, or even, since taste is as much a matter of what's in the head as much as it is about molecules dancing on the tongue, some hint of the petroleum."
Thoughts:
This makes me glad I don't eat that much beef, as it seems illogical and somewhat dangerous to eat an animal that has been fed something it isn't supposed to eat, and that has stood in it's own manure for a significant part of it's life.
Why is it so important that the cows get fat quickly, and thus need to be fed corn as opposed to grass? Considering the impact that this has on the environment and our health, wouldn't it benefit everyone to just wait a few more months?
Chapter 5:
Precis:
Today, Americans consume a huge amount of corn each year, but little of it is consumed in the form of an actual ear of corn - most is consumed in the form of corn syrup, xanthan gum, dextrose, fructose, maltose, corn starch, and more (not to mention, the animals we eat also eat corn). Each part of a corn kernel is used, and the entire thing is broken down until it is nothing more then a sum of it's nutrients: a gram of sugar, or a carbohydrate. It is then built into processed foods, which have vitamins and minerals added to give an illusion of health. However, this has made it cheaper for food companies to make processed food then to sell actual food, because processed food can be sold for a much higher price then the ingredients that are in it, and it has a much longer shelf life.
Gems:
"Natural ingredients, the company pointed out, are a "mixture of substances created by plants and animals for completely non-food purposes- their survival and reproduction." These dubious substances can be consumed by humans "at their own risk.""
"The dream of liberating food from nature is as old as eating....in the third age of food processing, merely preserving the fruits of nature was deemed to modest: the goal was now to improve on nature."
Thoughts:
They're making it seem like eating food (actual food) is in some way dangerous, because it exists for more reasons then for humans to eat it. I guess they're ignoring the fact that humans have, in fact, eaten it for hundreds of years, and for the most part, we have been fine.
(After reading the cereal thing) I will never look at cheerios the same way again.
Friday, October 1, 2010
HW 6 - Food Diary
Day 1 (Wednesday):
Breakfast - A Nutri-grain granola bar. The TV commercials for these annoy me. These commercials show a woman who decides to eat a Nutri-grain granola bar as opposed to a doughnut, and then continued to chose healthy meals, because apparently "one good decision can lead to another." This makes me question exactly how a single granola bar has the power to change someone's eating habits.
As for the actual experience of eating the granola bar, it was okay. I normally really like those particular granola bars, but I had just brushed my teeth, so that made it taste weird.
Lunch- Pizza. When I got this, I was really hungry, so it tasted better then it would have otherwise. It was really greasy, and I tried to wipe the grease off with napkins but that didn't really help much. I didn't end up finishing it. There was also the Snapple, which just tasted really sweet. I think if I had eaten a more substantial breakfast, I would have gotten something at least a little healthier for lunch, but in both cases I was pressed for time, so the priority was to get the most food I could in the smallest amount of time. Also, I may have wanted to prove that one good decision doesn't necessarily lead to another.
Dinner - Campbell's chicken noodle soup. This was the one thing all day I actually had to "cook" - it had to be heated over the stove.
Overall, I wasn't really happy with my food choices on this day. Normally I would have had a larger breakfast, something like cereal and fruit, and at all three meals, I would have chosen more well-rounded meals. This was also the day I counted calories:
Breakfast (140) + Lunch (530) + Dinner (250) = 920
I looked up how many calories I am supposed to eat everyday, and on various websites I got answers ranging from 1800 - 2300. So obviously, I didn't eat nearly enough. Normally I would eat much more, but this was a rushed day.
Day 2 (Thursday):
Breakfast - Cheerios cereal and milk, with strawberries. I chose this because I had the time to make it, and I wanted to try to eat a little better then the day before. This was a good choice because I wasn't hungry later on, and I had more energy.
Lunch - Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I had this because I needed to make my own lunch, and this was what I could find to make. I also had another Nutri-grain bar, and a bottle of water.
Dinner - Pasta with marinara sauce, and grilled chicken. This was really good, and I was glad I took the time to make it (Sort of. I didn't make the sauce, it came in a jar). My mouth actually watered before I started eating.
Overall:
I learned a lot from keeping track of what I ate, because I realized how much food affects my energy level.
Breakfast - A Nutri-grain granola bar. The TV commercials for these annoy me. These commercials show a woman who decides to eat a Nutri-grain granola bar as opposed to a doughnut, and then continued to chose healthy meals, because apparently "one good decision can lead to another." This makes me question exactly how a single granola bar has the power to change someone's eating habits.
As for the actual experience of eating the granola bar, it was okay. I normally really like those particular granola bars, but I had just brushed my teeth, so that made it taste weird.
Lunch- Pizza. When I got this, I was really hungry, so it tasted better then it would have otherwise. It was really greasy, and I tried to wipe the grease off with napkins but that didn't really help much. I didn't end up finishing it. There was also the Snapple, which just tasted really sweet. I think if I had eaten a more substantial breakfast, I would have gotten something at least a little healthier for lunch, but in both cases I was pressed for time, so the priority was to get the most food I could in the smallest amount of time. Also, I may have wanted to prove that one good decision doesn't necessarily lead to another.
Dinner - Campbell's chicken noodle soup. This was the one thing all day I actually had to "cook" - it had to be heated over the stove.
Overall, I wasn't really happy with my food choices on this day. Normally I would have had a larger breakfast, something like cereal and fruit, and at all three meals, I would have chosen more well-rounded meals. This was also the day I counted calories:
Breakfast (140) + Lunch (530) + Dinner (250) = 920
I looked up how many calories I am supposed to eat everyday, and on various websites I got answers ranging from 1800 - 2300. So obviously, I didn't eat nearly enough. Normally I would eat much more, but this was a rushed day.
Day 2 (Thursday):
Breakfast - Cheerios cereal and milk, with strawberries. I chose this because I had the time to make it, and I wanted to try to eat a little better then the day before. This was a good choice because I wasn't hungry later on, and I had more energy.
Lunch - Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I had this because I needed to make my own lunch, and this was what I could find to make. I also had another Nutri-grain bar, and a bottle of water.
Dinner - Pasta with marinara sauce, and grilled chicken. This was really good, and I was glad I took the time to make it (Sort of. I didn't make the sauce, it came in a jar). My mouth actually watered before I started eating.
Overall:
I learned a lot from keeping track of what I ate, because I realized how much food affects my energy level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)