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?