Sweet Charity

In chapter two of Sweet Charity, the author does a very nice job of crunching big numbers down into meaningful statistics. Living on the poverty line around 15,000 dollars a year may seem difficult to imagine at first.  But an average American spends one third of their income on food, which would be 5000 dollars for the year. This translates into 100 dollars a week and 25 dollars a week for each person in a four-person family. That’s only a little more than three dollars a day for each person. This astonishing statistic gives the author the right to question the poverty line. The author claims that the biggest problem involving the poverty line is that it was established back when clothing, transportation, and shelter were cheap, which enabled people to actually spend one third of their income on food. However, the prices of food, transportation, and shelter have risen, making it increasingly difficult for the poor to allocate one third of their income to food. After discussing the poverty line, the author goes into depth about the rise of food kitchens and why people end up going to them including reasons such as high shelter costs, unemployment, and inadequate public assistance. However, the main reason why people go to food kitchens and pantries is that they have recently become unemployed. And with unemployment rates high, the short-term unemployed become the long-term unemployed causing people to rely even more heavily on food kitchens.

I found this chapter very interesting. I’ve actually volunteered at a food kitchen before and I’ve witnessed the shame and embarrassment people feel. What really surprised me though was the fact that food kitchens would require people to validate that they are actually poor. Coming to the food aid service is embarrassing enough for many but having to prove that you don’t make enough money to provide for you and your family is even worse. In my opinion, giving to all, instead of rejecting a few is a much better philosophy that food aid services should follow.

1.     What can be changed in our society to help people allocate one third of their income to food?

2.     Should there be requirements for people to go to food aid services or should whoever feels the need to go be allowed?

The Roots of World Hunger

Why is world hunger such an issue? Yes, our population has grown exponentially in past years, but our food production has grown at an even faster rate. The Scarcity Fallacy written by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins, and Lindsey Peterson, talks about world hunger and its causes. As you might guess from the title, there is some mistaken belief as to what is the true cause of world hunger. The authors of the text clearly point out that the widely held belief that world hunger is caused by a limited supply of food is wrong. The authors even go so far as to say that “on a per capita basis,” food is more abundant now than any of the years past. In fact, “poverty, inequality, conflict, and corruption” are the true “contributors to world hunger”. The authors give statistics backing up each one of their hypothesized causes of world hunger. For example, countries with higher than 35% poverty rates (extreme poverty), also have child hunger rates above 35%. To make matters worse, people living in or near the poverty line, spend 60% of their income on food compared to the poorest American who spends 15-20%. After the authors identify the causes of world hunger, they propose a couple of solutions. The first is that food must be seen as fundamental human right. This would increase the importance of mitigating world hunger in the eyes of the public and would also protect the poor against the high price of food. Their second solution would be to rid food agencies of corruption thereby guaranteeing that the efforts of these food agencies reach the right people through the right means. They also propose sustainable agricultural practices and fiscal policy.

            “The challenge, in short, is to create a more equitable and just society in which food access is ensured for all.” That’s no simple task. It might seem easy to write that down in a sentence and dream of one day in which everyone is educated, ethnic inequalities are broken down, and money doesn’t rule the world; but we are far from that dream. Some steps have been taken, however, they are only superficial and do not help in the long run. It is as if we have trimmed the branches off a tree but the roots are still there and the branches just grow back. If world hunger is to be fought, we need to fight the roots of the problems that the authors mention in The Scarcity Fallacy.

1)   How do you propose we fight world hunger?

2)   What do you think is the most surprising statistic the authors give in the text?

Can't Stomach It

Julie Guthman in her cleverly titled essay “Can’t Stomach it” poses some valid thoughts about why we must be hesitant while reading and listening to people such as Marion Nestle and Michael Pollan. Julie introduces us to the problem we face with measuring obesity. Our current system of using BMI to measure obesity has many flaws. First we have no way of telling if people have gained lean mass in the form of muscle instead of fat gain. Secondly, it is difficult to tell whether a couple of people have gained a lot of weight or whether many people have gained a couple of pounds. She warns us that we must pay careful attention to the startling statistics that Pollan and others use to catch our attention. She then turns to talk about the way Pollan and others expose obesity to our society. She comments on the way overweight people are always filmed from the back and with no heads claiming, “headlessnesss invokes mindlessness.” She is somewhat annoyed that Pollan, Nestle, and other writers consider themselves “as super-subjects while relegating others to objects of education, intervention, or just plain scorn”. These writers see themselves as superior to fat people because they are able to resist the temptation to over eat when presented with an overabundance of food. Finally, Julie ends her essay with the complaint that Pollan’s solution to fixing our obesity problem relies solely on individual change and nothing on policy. She is worrisome that her students believe they can change the food industry by spreading the word to individual people instead of focusing on the structural and political aspects our food industry faces.

This essay was very interesting to read. Julie did a very good job pointing out the flaws of Pollan’s and Nestle’s work. I personally love reading about how statistics can be framed to make you believe something when it might actually not be accurate. The BMI is a great case of giving a statistic without all the information in order to create a convincing argument. However, what Julie finds most offensive (that Pollan sees himself as superior to others) I have no problem with. I believe Pollan is a role model to many. He has a great knowledge in the subject matter and presents it to the public in very well worded and fluid way. In many ways he is superior to others in the topic of food. I have no problem giving him my full attention on order to learn from someone who I consider a master of the subject.

1)   Did this essay make you question Pollan at all?

2)   Do you think we should focus more on how to change the structure of our food industry instead of educating individuals of the industry’s problems?

Processed Foods

In his 5^th and 6^th chapter of Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan discusses the role of corn in processed foods and the impact it has on our society. To someone who doesn’t know much about food ingredients, it is a surprising fact that most of the corn we digest looks and tastes nothing like corn. The reason why our nation produces so much corn is because of its multiple uses in our society. With modern technology and an understanding of chemistry, corn is sent to “wet mills” where it is transformed into artificial sweeteners such as high fructose corn syrup. The popularity of processed foods came hand in hand with the ability to turn corn into an artificial sweetener. Pollan describes our generation as the republic of fat. One would think that artificial sweetener would take the place of sugar since it is cheaper to produce. However this didn’t happen. Pollan informs us that we ate just as much sugar if not more on top of our incredibly high consumption of artificial sugars. Pollan correlates this issue to the fact that our generation is faced with so many health issues. Adult onset diabetes’s name was changed to type two diabetes because it began to affect children due to the high intake of sugar. In fact, 1 out of 3 children born after year 2000 will be affected with the disease.

            Technological advancements are often thought of as improvements to the world. However, often the benefits of technology mask the harmful side effects they produce. High fructose corn syrup was a great invention that has enabled our society to become what it is today. However, 1 in 3 children born after year 2000 will be affected with type 2 diabetes. That is an unacceptable percentage. The food industry needs to spend more time working on health risks instead of doing anything to make a profit.

1)   Is our society too dependent on high fructose corn syrup to change?

2)   What solutions do you think would work to help our society become more health conscious? 

America's Cuisine

The question of the American cuisine is an interesting topic that Sidney Mintz finds herself in the middle of during a class lecture. Her belief is that Americans do not have a so-called national cuisine but instead many regional cuisines. This is due to a couple of reasons. The first is that America is such a young country made up of immigrants from around the world. The immigrants came to America with predisposed national cuisines, which then turned into regional cuisines. Her second point is that America is too vast and too geographically diverse for there to be an agreed upon national cuisine. The environment of specific areas grows different foods than the environment of other areas. This further continues to split the American cuisine into many regional cuisines. Although this might sound like a disadvantage too many, Sidney claims that this is what makes the food of America American. Not having a cuisine doesn’t mean one is missing out on some important aspect of culture. Certainly America has a very distinct culture. Perhaps, missing a specific cuisine is an identity of America itself.

When writing a paper, I take quotes and facts from multiple sources. I use those quotes and facts to blend in with my own words to form my own essay. When my paper is done, if I looked specifically at direct quotes or paraphrases I could not say that the words belonged to me. However, If I looked at the combination of all my quotes mixed in with my own sentences it forms a paper that I can call my own. The same applies to the American cuisine. If you look regionally you will find Chinese cuisine, Italian cuisine, Mexican cuisine, etc…. But if you broaden your approach and look at the combination of all those cuisines, you will be able to see the American cuisine; one that takes the aspects of all those cuisines and offers them to the American people whenever and wherever they want it. Sidney is wrong that America does not have a cuisine. The American cuisine is a modern variation of all cuisines combined into one country. It could possibly be the greatest cuisine out there.

1)   

Do you think America has a cuisine?

2)   Is America missing a piece of its culture by having a cuisine that’s a combination of other cuisines?

Chapter Eleven In Omnivore's Dilemma

Michael Pollan, in his 11^th chapter of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, describes a farm, which is nothing short of amazing. This farm is an ecological, environmentally friendly, and efficient masterpiece. Pollan describes the farm different than any other farm I ever heard of before. This is not your regular monoculture or feedlot farm; it is an ecological system that interweaves and connects all parts of the farm together to form somewhat of a hand-made ecosystem. Pollan describes it as a loop of activities that all play a role in the previous and proceeding events. During the chapter, he informs us of all the jobs that he did to make sure the farm ran smoothly. Every day he had to move the ten by twelve chicken pen to a new ten by twelve foot area of grass, which cows had just grazed on three days prior. The chickens would eat larva out of the three day old cows dung and thus ingest a great deal of protein, which lead to healthier, better tasting eggs. Then the chickens would fertilize the grass with their own feces until sunrise the next morning when they were moved to a next patch of grass that the cows had recently grazed on. This was just one process in the whole loop of the farm, but Pollan found it fascinating how everything was so interconnected. He marveled at the fact that for corn farms he could easily start by describing them as a farmer planting a seed, growing it, then harvesting it. However, for Joel’s farm, Pollan had no idea where to start; the cow’s waste was the chicken’s food and the chicken’s waste was the land’s fertilizer. This was truly much more than just a farm. It was an efficient way of producing food that actually helped the land instead of destroying it.

I found this technique of farming very fascinating. This was what Pollan was talking about in his Farmer and Chief. We don’t need to resort to some crazy science with biologically engineered plants or some new and improved fertilizer. This is true science. Joel’s farm was not just a farm, it was an ecosystem; it mimicked characteristics of animals in real life and brought them to a place that could use those techniques to produce food efficiently and in a way that was helpful to the land. However, this seemed like no easy task to me. Joel is a brilliant man and if we want other farms to be like this one in the future, farmers need to be educated how to do it.

1)                   Doctors have to go through medical school, Lawyers have to go through law school, should farmers have to go through some sort of farm school in order to learn how to properly take care of land like Joel?

2)                   How realistic is it, regarding price of food, increased employment, and other factors, for more farms to switch to how Joel farms?

The Omnivore's Delusion

“In his book Dominion, author Mathew Scully calls “factory farming” an “obvious moral evil so sickening and horrendous it would leave us ashen.” Before reading Blake’s article, The Omnivores Delusion, I would have had to agree with Scully. Having animals walk around in their own waste, so crowded they can barely move around, seemed to me an “evil” that was “ so sickening and horrendous” that it made me feel sick. Blake, however, points out what it would be like if this style of factory farming weren't used. He goes into a short anecdote about a neighbor he once had who raised “free ranging” turkeys. Everyone would most likely agree that the conditions when letting animals free range are a lot better than the ones during factory farming. Blake agrees with that as well but mentions an evil about free-range farming that is much worse than factory farming. There was a night in which it rained and it happens that turkeys are not smart enough to come in and take shelter from the rain. Instead, they open their beaks and look upwards and end up drowning. After that night, Blake’ neighbor had to go pick up 4000 dead turkeys. Surely, that seems like a much bigger disaster than having turkeys walk around in their own waste. That anecdote really opened up my eyes to making sure I have all the facts before judging something. Documentaries and texts such as Food, Inc. and The Omnivores Dilemma give a very biased and one sided picture. As I continue studying in this course I will make sure that I pay close attention to the source of the article or film to understand who is writing it and where they stand on the issue. 

1) Who do you agree more with? Blake or Pollan?

2) What do you think are some of Blake's best points against the Omnivores Dilemma?

Food, Inc. Reviews

            Supporting:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105152916

This article, For Health Or Profit, But Not Necessarily For Both, by David Edelstein shows a lot of support of the documentary, Food, Inc. All you need to do is read his opening paragraph to see how he feels about this movie as he relates it to the Matrix. He believes that this documentary opens the eye of the public to the hidden world of the food industry. In his opinion, the documentary does and outstanding job exposing the unethical practices of giant food corporations. Mr. Edelstein was actually so inspired by this film, that afterwards he got his movie theatre to switch from the “giant agribusiness popcorn with the fake small-farmer figurehead” to something organic.

Neutral:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/movies/12food.html

This article, Meet Your New Farmer: Hungry Corporate Giant, by Manhola Dargis presents a relatively neutral critique of the documentary Food, Inc. She presents complements about the movie but also complaints that go hand in hand with those compliments. For example, she praises Food, Inc. for Michael Pollan’s narration of some parts of the film. However, she also says that he is never identified when he is speaking which makes it hard to know that it is Pollan’s voice you are hearing. Manhola also complains that this film is no different than previous texts written about the food industry. However, she praises Kenner for his eye catching film and horrific images. In the end, Manhola is somewhat disappointed with the film. She says that it never goes into depth and that it leaves the viewer depressed and powerless with the film’s small, final checklist of things we can do to help.

Negative:

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/item_MzisT9ExiKm8XF4nwWzdYM;jsessionid=7181E154DB04421EF8BEAA8A34E713E9

This article, Bean There, Bun That, is written by Kyle Smith for The New York Post. His opinion of the documentary is that it is repetitive of what books have been saying over the past years and that it is essentially useless because it only reaches a selective audience, those of whom already know about the horrors of the food industry. He attacks many points of the documentary. For instance, he states that the interesting points such as subsidizing corn, fail to reach beyond the surface level.

Mr. Smith is allowed to have his own opinion but I believe he is wrong about the movie’s purpose. He thinks that only people who already know about the food industry will go to watch this movie and learn nothing new. I strongly disagree with him. Every movement starts with education. This movie provides the basic knowledge to start up conversation and then proceed to go into further research of topics involving our food industry. Many of my friends in high school watched this documentary knowing nothing about the food industry beforehand. If our generation is learning about it now, we will be able to do something about it in the future. 

Feedlots

            What people imagine a cow’s life to be like may be very different than what it actually is nowadays. Michael Pollan writes about this in his fourth chapter of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The old fashion image that pops up in peoples’ mind of a cow grazing on a farm is no longer true. Now it is more like the picture below, with cows lined up front to back, standing in their own feces, and eating corn all day.

            What happened to the old fashion cows grazing on grasslands? It all relates back to corn. Sixty percent of corn produced in America goes to feeding cows. But cow’s stomachs are not meant to digest corn. They have an organ called the Rumen, which transforms grass into protein. They have evolved into a species that feeds on grass. Making their diet consist of only corn is very disruptive to cows. Corn contains a lot of carbohydrates. By feeding the cows a diet rich in carbohydrates, they get very large very quickly. They develop diseases such as E-coli and have to be treated by many antibiotics in order to live up to the optimal date for slaughtering.

            What aggravates me the most about this whole system is the fact that I myself am stuck between two decisions. On one hand I strongly believe in sustainability. Cows should be allowed to graze, their feces should fertilize the grass, and the environment should sustain for years to come. But our population is growing. We need food to feed the people of our world. Cows don’t grow fast enough on a grass fed diet to fulfill our demands for meat. So what do we do? Do we help the environment and produce better quality meat? Or do we sacrifice quality and the health of our environment in order to satisfy the demands of the people? How about that dilemma, Pollan?

1)   What’s your answer to my question posed in my last paragraph?

2)   Do you think we should be worried about the long-term effects the antibiotics cows eat will have on us?

Response questions for food inc.

1) Why do you think the FDA doesn't crack down on the inappropriate treatment methods of animals by companies like Tyson.

2) What actions can be taken to make vegetables and other healthy foods more affordable to the U.S. consumer?

Food Inc.

The problems with the food industry are vast and difficult to keep track of. As a consumer, many of us don’t worry how the items in the aisles of the supermarket got there as long as they’re not expired and reasonably priced. But to delve into the process of turning raw materials into the foods we see in the supermarkets, reveals a process that some might wish they never knew. The documentary, Food Inc. helps remove the curtain that hides the food industry’s processes and techniques. It uncovers a trail of actions that some might consider unethical and unmoral.

Comparison of the size of the chicken

The film takes us through many examples of how the food industry might be seen as morally wrong. The most shocking example however, deals with the production of chicken. American food production industries, such as Tyson, are highly involved in the production of chickens. In fact, Tyson owns the chicken from when its born to when its packaged and sold in the market. In the documentary, representatives from Food Inc got turned down from 11 chicken growers before they came across one that would let them into the chicken coup. That was the first signal that something was very wrong. After Food Inc showed the events that occur inside the chicken coup, a sense of disgust and guilt came over me. The chickens were packed in unsanitary conditions and given antibiotics so that they would grow faster and bigger. In fact, these chickens would grow so quickly that they would be too heavy to take just 3 steps. As seen in the picture above from Food Inc., chickens now are much bigger than what they used to be in 1950. Food Inc also showed the abuse and maltreatment of the chickens by the employees.

99 cent bag of chips

Although I was outraged by how the chickens were treated and unethically grown, the family in Food Inc, which could not afford healthy meals, also caught my attention. Everyone always jokes about how Americans are so obese, but it’s pretty obvious to me why that is- the American government subsidizes carbohydrates that are bad for us. When you can go out and by a big bag of chips for 99 cents or you can get one head of broccoli for 2 dollars, it’s a pretty simple decision to make when your on a tight budget. Americans want the most “bang” for their buck, and the government guides them to unhealthy junk foods that are made from commodities that are heavily subsidized. Our food system needs a desperate makeover. People need to be educated about the problems we face and the solutions we offer. Food Inc. was an excellent start to my education about the issues involving our food industry. 

Corn: The Farmer's Nightmare.

            It’s hard to imagine corn in one fourth of all products in the supermarket. If you think that’s hard now try imagining that corn is in our toothpaste, trash bags, cleansers, matches, batteries and many other non-food items. It’s even in the walls and structures of the supermarket itself! Michael Pollan starts off with this “wow factor” and gives us the impression of corn as the greatest thing this world has ever seen. Pollan, however, is perplexed by this omnipotent feeling of corn in our supermarkets. In chapters two and three of The Omnivores Dilemma, Pollan takes a trip to Iowa to see where corn first starts in it’s process from the fields of Iowa to the markets of the city.

            Pollan takes us through a brief history of the agriculture industry starting with the invention of synthetic nitrogen. The introduction of nitrogen created fertilizers, which then made possible the idea of monocultures; Monocultures then helped our society to start overproducing corn and soybeans. The reason why corn is the most widely grown crop is because of its many uses. It can be used as feed for cattle, fuel for cars, and sweetener in many drinks and food products. After Pollan talked to a farmer, George Naylor, about his thoughts about corn, I was left with somewhat of a different feeling than my original high hopes.

            A couple of generations ago farmers were making about 20 bushels of corn per acre. Nowadays, farmers yield close to 200 bushels per acre. You would think with a 900 percent increase in productivity famers would be making a very decent living. It’s the exact opposite of that however. Farmers are stuck in an endless cycle of poverty and bankruptcy. With corn prices so low, they can barely make a living. The facts just don’t make sense to me. Were we better off in the old days where farmers were yielding such a smaller percentage of crops? It’s a scary thought when the basis of human survival relies on farmers who are probably better off quitting than continuing farming under their current conditions.

Do you think there might be any side effects of humans having their diet consist of so much corn?

What measures should be taken to help farmers make a better living for themselves and their families?