PBS documentary FAT

In my class, we finished the semester watching a PBS documentary called FAT. It highlighted our nations acceptance of discrimination of obese people and how this affects the daily lives of many Americans. We constantly label obese people as lazy and unmotivated, but is this fair? Hearing the responses of many overweight Americans made me reevaluate our approach to fighting childhood obesity. Instead of labeling it with negative terms, we should provide the support that our nation needs to fight this epidemic.

Wegmans taking a step in the right direction for healthy change

In my nutrition class this Monday, a head nutritionist came to discuss what Wegmans is doing to make healthy changes in the public. The family owned business has a strong connection to their communities and want to make eating healthy as easy as possible. Check out their website, its basically a free diet plan. It includes nutritional facts, special diets and the eat well. live well. challenge.

http://www.wegmans.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10052&identifier=CATEGORY_546

Much more than one thing...

“One thing to do about food: a forum” presents multiple solutions to our nation’s current food industry. The overall trend away from industrialized farming is a solution shared by many of these authors. The three main issues that are focused on are eliminating the purchasing of factory farm products, making the public aware and increase desire to become involved in the policy, and ultimately finding a solution to the childhood obesity epidemic. To have the public reduce their consumption of factory food, they need to become aware of the processes associated with industrialized food production. Due to the billions spent on marketing the taste benefits of the product, little attention is placed on the conditions in which the products are made. But does the public even want to know this? Does the public even care? We have authors like Schlosser emphasizes the importance of knowing what is behind what you are eating, but does the public really want to know? Some of the public is fully content with trusting the FDA and keeping the rest of the details in the dark. Our society has created documentaries and novels describing the secrets of industrialized food industries, but has this caused a significant change in the people of America? Even after watching Supersize Me, I am still guilty of my craving for McDonald French fries. So maybe public awareness isn’t the solution.

Similarly to the beliefs of Wendell Berry, there needs to be a label on the problems associated with food. The most common terms we here associated with food are hunger and obesity. Even though they are opposite problems in many ways, there ability to gain public attention is significantly similar. When people hear of such a problem, especially dealing with children, they feel a sense of responsibility to change. Even though there are many more problems just these two, I believe that our society needs to label food problems with an issue that they are compassionate about. Maybe it needs a label like childhood obesity that will eliminate the advertisement targeted at children who do not know the difference between fact and persuasion.

Hunger is not a result of food scarcity.

As the number of people hunger in the world continues to increase, people place blame on a number of different factors. One cause of hunger that is constantly emphasized is the issue of food scarcity. This belief stems from the idea there isn’t enough food to feed the amount of people living in the world. “The Scarcity Fallacy” by Stephen J. Scanlan places hunger in a larger theory of “food security” rather than scarcity. There isn’t evidence showing that our food production does not supply an adequate amount for our population size. Instead, food production actually grew much faster than our exponential population growth.
By defining the problem of hunger with food scarcity, it has allowed our policy makers to create a “supermarket revolution.” This emphasizes larger corporate agriculture businesses and long commodity chains. While there is an easier access to food at supermarkets, the long list of middle men increases the cost of the food, which in turn makes them less attainable to the lower class. “Scarcity is largely a myth.” Today, there is enough food, but it isn’t easily accessible or equally distributed. By solely focusing on the scarcity issue, we continue to not fix the problem by missing many key factors. The attainability of the food is connected with poverty, sex and ethnic background. With a limited income supply, priority usually goes to electric bills, transportation and prescriptions with hope of the government providing food assistance. Females and ethnic minorities are more likely to suffer from hunger. How do we fix these inequalities? We need to see food as a basic human right. We need to eliminate the corruption and ensure that the people who are hungry get the food that they need.

I do agree with the myth that scarcity of food is the cause of world hunger. There is enough food for the people to consume, we just need to take the next step and make sure it gets to these people. During high school, I volunteered for Island Harvest, which focused on bringing excess food in the community to the people in need. These people included low income after school centers, families facing economic problem as well as battered women’s shelters. The problem is the accessibility that our policy makers need to change.

Similarly to how our previous reading labeled poverty with hunger, hunger is now labeled with food scarcity. If you had one label for hunger, what would it be? How would this label change enact different changes from the government?

It's much more than just hunger.

Janet Poppendieck’s “Sweet Charity” helps provide the reader with a better understanding of “emergency foods.” When does our nation classify it as an emergency to have food? Poppendieck describes how these emergency needs were first addressed as a response to the early 1980s economic recession. First, she describes what types of people qualify for this emergency food. Some people are at higher risk for needed this assistance such as females, minorities, single parents and the elderly. But the way that people get this food assistance is determined by our government’s definition of poverty. The government’s outdated definition does not take into account the “new poor.” These are people who used to be employed and could afford dinner for their family, but no longer cannot. With people losing their jobs as well as the standard of living costs increasing, more people do not have enough money to provide food for their family. Where we used to see “derelicts and alcoholics” at food pantries, now we are typically seeing “mothers and small children.” More people need assistance but our government, especially during the Reagan presidency, is reducing the rate of growth of these programs that our country needs. But with economic problems, there are many more issues that just hunger. What about shelter, health coverage or employment? Poppendeick describes the “social constructionist” perspective of defining these problems as solely hunger. The social constructionists believe that our society labels the problem, instead of fixing the underlying conditions. So why did we define the economic problems with hunger? First, even though there are other needs, “the need for food arises sooner.” Another reason is people are more willing to ask for food than other needs. For example, someone will ask you for money to get dinner, but they aren’t going to ask you to stay in your guest bedroom. One positive result from identifying the problem as hunger has been the abundant amount of food drives and pantries, increasing the attention for anti-hunger support. But is this enough? We are trying to feed the people, but are we taking any policy changes to prevent this hunger? What changes need to be taken in our society?

It is hard to say that food drives and pantries aren’t a good thing. They focus on the now problem, but I do agree with the readings that they aren’t looking to make permanent changes. This is something that requires a broader definition of what the problem is. It isn’t just hunger; it is much more than that. If the government is going to implement policy change, they need to look at all aspects of this problem in order to correctly address it.

Can we really blame Ronald?

What has McDonald’s done to our culture? According to George Ritzer’s, The McDonalization of Society, fast food chains like McDonald’s have caused trends in what drives our nation. The people of the United States place value on rationality, efficiency and speed, which are values that are perfected by McDonald’s campaign. We want our food quick and cheap, but Ritzer argues that we apply these values to much more than just food. Ritzer connects his idea of rationalization through fast food chains to Weber’s description of how bureaucracy was shifting societal views. One component he focuses on is our nation's need for efficiency. Americans don’t have time to cook their own dinners, instead they rather go through a drive-thru and not even have to get out of their cars. This efficiency of McDonald’s is connected to its predictability. You go to McDonald’s knowing exactly what number on the value menu you are going to order. The limited menu options allow the customer to receive the same product every time they go there. Ritzer uses a camping example to highlight how our society has removed the uncertainties by having specific camp grounds that are enclosed with fences. This is an example of turning uncertainties into predictabilities. One of the most important aspects in my mind was his argument on calculability. We want quantifiable results. We want to know how much food we can get for that buck, aka the dollar menu. All these options of what you can get for $1. Ritzer describes the damaging effects of McDonaldization. I think this is best illustrated through our academic emphasis on grades, rather than the importance of understanding the knowledge. We have huge, money making business for standardized testing such as Kaplan and Princeton Review that take advantage of our society’s value on calculability.

While Ritzer did highlight other aspects of his theory, these three were the most important to me. I do agree with Ritzer that McDonald does provide an example of the American lifestyle, but I do not think it is McDonald’s fault for the way that America is run. Sure, McDonald’s does give other companies an example of successful marketing and business strategies, but it’s the public that drives demand. I don’t believe you can put all the blame on the fast food structures in our society. Are we really going to say that Ronald McDonald should be accounted for SAT and MCATs?

How has McDonaldization influenced your life? Why can’t we blame other organizations such as Wal-Mart for our societal values?

Eating Disorders in Male Athletes?

We constantly hear about eating disorders in females, but what about the men?

Eating disorders have been under the radar for men, especially the macho athletes.

Are athletes taking it too far to have a competitive advantage?

Here's an article describing the current eating disorder problem in male athletes:

http://www.fitsugar.com/Male-Athletes-Struggling-Eating-Disorders-2674219

Portion size, then vs. now

Here is an article showing the changes in portion size over the years. Just another example of how external cues have impacted our food choices.

http://www.divinecaroline.com/79975/49492-portion-size--vs--now

Our loss of control

Today our daily lives are indirectly influenced by the different external cues that we encounter. Through the impressive work of marketing and advertisement companies, our society has lost control over their eating habits. We no longer listen to internal hunger signals, instead our food choices are persuaded by external cues from our environment. This phenomenon is what Wansink refers to as “mindless eating.” Not only do we eat when we aren’t hungry, we also eat food that isn’t appealing to us solely because it is around us. But has this always been the case in the United States? I believe that there has been a dramatic increase in mindless eating, evident through our current obesity epidemic. Why are people continuing to gain weight, when they are aware of the health conditions associated with obesity? Maybe it is because they have lost control over their eating habits, or maybe it is our environment’s fault. If you compare the size options at McDonald’s today to 50 years ago, there is a significant increase. But whose responsibility is to change this? Business is driven by consumer demand. If consumers want more food, the companies are willing to give it to them. Now the question for the future health of our country is, do we focus on controlling external cues or help the public regain their power to use their minds when eating?

No food nation

The perils of eating in America are the abilities to each all different types of cuisines. One night you can each Asian food and the next night you can have Mexican. No problem. Our access to different cultural foods symbolizes the melting pot that our nation represents. But when you eat “American” cuisine, what types of food come to your mind? Sidney Mintz’s “Eating America” emphasizes the reasons to why our nation does not have a typical cuisine. Mintz questions why our nation feels the need to have our own cuisine. Shouldn’t we be proud that we represent all different types of cultures, not just one? The history of our country provides many reasons to why we do not have typical American food. The United States is heavily populated with immigrants from all over the world with a majority of descendents from Europe. While these immigrants bring their culture to America, many of the aspects are lost due to the strong pressure to change to their surroundings. But to become American do you really need to give up your cultural values? Does our nation not believe that you can be who you want here? Most immigrants gain a significant amount of weight when they move to America. This is due to the change of diet in America. While many older generation immigrants try to maintain their cultural values, the “cultural identity of their children…is changing rapidly.” There are many social influences that have changed the cultural identities of immigrants. When the world thinks of American food, ice cream, pizza, hot dogs and hamburgers come to mind. And we wonder why there is currently an obesity epidemic. Most of our citizens rather eat out or go to a fast food chain than cook a well- balanced meal at home. Are we too embarrassed to acknowledge that these foods are our national cuisine? I surely am.

Are you ready for cloned meat? Unfortunately, you have no choice.

Ben Paynter's "The Other Other White Meat," makes the reader aware that it is possible they have eaten cloned meat without knowing it. Supporters of cloned meat believe that “God gave man dominion over animals,” which has led to the entrance of clones into our food chain. Many farmers want to maintain the beneficial traits that their current animals posses, and in order to do so they turn to artificial cloning. While we hear about all these tight regulations of the FDA, where are they in their stand against cloned meat? In 2002, the FDA described cloned meat “as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals,” but at the same time requested to keep these products out of supermarkets. But why does the FDA care about keeping cloned meat out of supermarkets, if there isn’t any harm with consumption?

The scary part of this issue is the FDA’s inability to police the regulation of cloned meat into our food system. Paynter’s trial of cloned products revealed that he couldn’t tell the different between the traditionally raised meat and the artificial product. Since consumer’s cannot tell, “the likelihood that anyone could credibly say ‘our animals are not descended from clones’ is zero.” While different public health groups ask the FDA to ban the artificial cloning of animals, the FDA has little control over this. Besides seeing the health problems with the cloned animals, such as sudden death syndrome, there hasn’t been enough time or research to evaluate the effects of artificial meat on humans. If eating cloned animals have the ability to make the consumers sick, who is responsible for fixing this issue?

Blame the industry, not the pig.

Mike Davis’s article focusing on swine flu makes me remember coming home from studying abroad in Argentina on a plane with the flight attendants all wearing masks over their mouths. I was surprised by these preventive measures that were be taken to reduce one’s risk of getting the swine flu. This swine flu “outbreak” appeared to the public as a problem that the government knew little about. But was this really true? Was there previous knowledge of this problem but a lack of initiatives taken? As citizens of the United States, we put our trust into the hands of the government to make sure they are doing whatever they can to keep us safe. But sometimes the government knows about a potential problem but doesn’t fix it before it is too late. The government’s inability to manage risk reduces the chance of taking effective, preventive measures. While the government was warned by scientists to increase specialized technology to other countries that were in “direct path of likely pandemics”, nothing was done. Since Mexico didn’t have this technology, it took a week to get the positive results that they did have a case of swine. How does the public accept these conditions? Shouldn’t we expect more?

While we could just blame the government for not listening to the warnings, there are other people to blame. The way that industrialized agriculture is managed, may I say, encourages the spread of outbreaks. The overcrowded, cramped conditions leads to a “continual cycling of viruses.” This can result is mutations of the virus that can increase the “efficiency of human to human transmission. “ Since the power of these industries is so concentrated, these methods are rarely questioned. We trust the food industry to keep our food safe, but do they deserve this credit? The pandemic strategy of WHO is to contain an outbreak with “rapid responses of medical buracreacies,” but maybe the solution should focus on listening to potential risks and making the changes we need in the industrial agriculture system to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Stop this war, nature is going to continue to win.

We constantly hear that “our food is the safest in the world.” But is it really true, or is that just what they want us to believe? Diana Stuart’s “Illusion of Control” explains how recent outbreaks with leafy greens are indicators of a much bigger problem. The goals of industrial agriculture are focused around profit and control, but these are at the expense of consumer health and nature’s ecosystem. The basis of industrial agriculture is the manufacturing model. The reason this model doesn’t work is because the industry cannot control nature. They may be able to control the media, but not nature. They have created a war with nature, by reducing the “wildlife” aspect of farming, and increasing the use of ground buffers. These standards have caused an increased risk to the health of the consumer. These changes have resulted in the reduction of natural solutions to pathogens and loss of diversity. When we have natural solutions to fight off pathogens, why remove them? While these standards create a belief of industrial control, it is just an illusion.

Since there have been outbreaks, the industries respond with new technologies and increased money being spent on public relations. There are many different types of technology that are supposed to regain the consumer’s confidence in the product. But this confidence couldn’t be achieved without the help of the PR staff. It is their job to make you believe that your food is safe, and they do a pretty good job at it. I know I still find myself eating spinach, even after it was recalled. But these outbreaks continue to occur, so is it our fault for believing the media? These new technologies that are made will never be strong enough to fight the ever- changing natural ecosystem. The only way there will be a reduction of outbreaks is for the industry to acknowledge the importance of nature and to treat agriculture in a non-manufacturing way. It is time to stop paying the PR staff and focus the resources on nature.

The new vegetarianism

Christine Lennon’s article, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” exposes a new shift away from vegetarianism. As the number of vegetarians reconsiders their food decisions, they turn to humanely raised meat as an option. Vegetarianism isn’t just a dislike of meat; it is a way of life focused on ethical beliefs and moral consciousness. But maybe removing meat totally from one’s diet isn’t the best option for one’s health and the environment. Lennon highlights the benefits of eating sustainable meat purchased from local farmers.

There are many different ways to raise cattle. One way, which is the reason for many vegetarianism beliefs, is the factory farm. These farms are characterized by overcrowded, unsanitary and “inhumane conditions that produce innumerable tons of environmentally destructive animal waste.” The distrust of these factory farms connects vegetarians nationwide. But there is another option to farming, the local sustainable farmers. The local farms that don’t care just about profit, instead they see their farms as an example of their life values. They believe in “grass fed” cattle, because it’s natural and easy to digest for the animals. Lennon discusses her interactions with Greg Nauta, a small-scale organic rancher who prides himself on sustainable farming. Nauta explains how he has met many vegetarians who are starting to see his type of farming as a better option than removing meat from their diet completely. In what ways was Lennon’s interaction with Nauta similar to Pollan’s visit to Salatin’s farm? He refers to the grass-fed beef as “beef with benefits.” This meat has been associated with less fat, higher omega-3 fatty acids and helpful to the environment. For these reasons, even Mollie Katzen, famous vegetarian author, is turning towards sustainable meat. There are many reasons people remove meat from their diet, but if sustainability and industrial farming is of any importance to them, they may want to consider this other option. What are some reasons traditional vegetarians will not consider this new diet?

Do you participate in agriculture daily?

“The Pleasures of Eating” by W. Berry emphasizes that “eating is an agricultural act.” I don’t know about you, but when I sit down for dinner I do not question where my meat came from or under what conditions my vegetables were grown. This article analyzes how people see themselves as consumers, rather than participants in agriculture. But what is the difference between the two? Berry describes the ignorance behind the consumer. Sure, people know that the food they consume comes from a farm. What they don’t know, is where the food came from? How far did it travel before coming onto their plate? What costs did the transportation add to the product? Without knowing the answers to these questions, consumers have become “passive, uncritical and dependent.” This is what industrial production wants from its consumers.

The “industrial eater” is one who doesn’t see the connection between eating and agriculture. One who doesn’t see the struggles behind their food. A consumer ordering food from Peapod, an online grocery store that delivers the food to your door, isn’t considering the obstacles the farmers faced. Berry believes that most consumers will not change the problems associated with the economy of food, until they take an active role in attaining more knowledge about their food. Because consumers turn their head away from the food industry, the focus on health has been lost due to an obsession with volume. The food industry has dramatically increased the volume to reduce the costs, but this chain reaction doesn’t stop there. As the volume continues to increases, the diversity of products decreases as well as the health. By increasing profits, the dependence of drugs and chemicals needs to increase. When consumers are trapped by the influences of industrialism, we lose the ability to eat responsibly. If one wants to experience pleasure from eating, they need to understanding the world that their food came from.

Question for discussion:
In what ways is Berry’s explanation of this industry similar to Salatin’s view of “industrial organic”?

Beyond Organic

“All Flesh is Grass” by Michael Pollan describes Joel Salatin’s approach to sustainable farming. Even though he raises beef, chicken and turkey, he refers to himself as a “grass farmer.” He views grass and the foundation of his farm, and his methods of farming has made his farm one of the most “productive and influential alternative farms in America.” His farm, Polyface, is run in a manner where animals are raised together and work in a symbiosis manner. Salatin tries to create a natural ecosystem with interdependence between the animals. He doesn’t need to use chemical parasiticides on his farm, by having hens on his farm they act as his “sanitation crew.” But it needs to be emphasized that none of this could happen without grass.
Even though Polyform isn’t technically organic, it is much more sustainable than many other organic farms. He is so strict about his beliefs, he refuses to ship his product. Pollan was intrigued by these values, forcing him to visit the farm himself. When the media discusses organic foods, farming without chemicals comes to my mind. But it is much more than that to Salatin. What started off as a healthy way of farming has turned into an industrial empire. It has become this new fad that is defined by rules created by the USDA. After reading this chapter, do you think that these USDA rules for federal organic certification should change? I do. Salatin believes that farming is much more than avoiding certain chemicals, it should include everything the farmer does. He explains that his farming methods are an “extension of his worldview.” This is why he refers to himself as “beyond organic,” and considers “industrial organic” as a contradiction in terms. Do you agree that the term “industrial organic” is really a contradiction in terms? Is it possible for organic farmers to keep their ideals and expand into the American supermarkets?

Who really is behind that cheeseburger and fries...

“Meat and Potatoes” by Eric Schlosser discusses the different ways that fast food has transformed American agriculture, specifically the potato and beef industry. Due to the power of a couple corporations, the way that our food supply is produced has been changed for the worse. Small farms have been shut down and the amount of profit farmers receive for their product has significantly decreased. Not only has this been detrimental to the small farm owners, the conditions at these processing plants are prone to disease and illness for the workers and consumers.

Before reading this article, I never thought about what went behind the making of my cheeseburger and fries. Now, my attention focuses on a few main men. J.R. Simplot success in taking risks in the potato business has made him partially guilty for my love of french fries. He grew up working on his family farm in Idaho and decided that school wasn’t for him at the age of 15. By the age of 36, he owned a farm where he controlled the growing, fertilizing, processing and shipping of potatoes. He even took it to the next level by mastering the frozen french fry. This eight-grade dropout turned into one of the richest men in the US. He became the biggest supplier of french fries to McDonalds. Today, frozen french fries are consumed in abundant amounts and most of them are purchased at fast-food restaurants. Schlosser emphasized that it is only the “three company giants” that have contracts with fast food chains, not the small potato farms in Idaho. The small farm owners haven’t come together to join forces to fight against this oligopsony. Without their combined support, these big companies will continue to control the potato business with their connection to fast food companies.

Similarly to Simplot, Monfort controls one of the largest cattle feedlots in the nation. Since the meat industry is also controlled by a few key competitors, the conditions for the cattle and the workers have gone down the drain. The most dangerous occupation in the United States is meatpacking, but the way these workers are treated doesn’t compensate for the risk. The employees include mostly immigrants(some illegal), who live in poverty due to their low wages and receive no training in their position. The lack of training and dangerous speed of the slaughterhouses leads to injury and illness. Because these slaughterhouses continue to run in this manner, it is no surprise me to me that our nation experiences outbreaks of E.Coli.

Questions of discussion:

1- What are some similarities between the potato and meat industry?

2- It was highlighted by Schlosser that the small potato farmers refuse to join forces against the 3 main competitors. Do you think if these farmers came together the government would actually change the potato industry?

3- When we hear about the great family business run by Rich Conway it gives us hope that our nation’s problems can be changed. Are we too far into this mess to have more businesses like Rich Conway’s?