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.