Future of Food

In Future of Food, Warren Belasco points out that for hundreds of years there have been people who are concerned that eventually there will not be enough food for everyone. However, with population growth there is also more innovation and there is more than enough food for everyone. This food comes at a cost though. Producing the amount and types of food that we eat now requires large quantities of grain, fossil fuels, water, and soil. Eventually it is very possible that there will not be enough of that. We are enjoying cheap food, but there is a good chance that future generations will suffer the consequences. Belasco proposes two possible solutions. The first relies on technological advancement. So far technology has made it so that the world has enough to eat and maybe technology will continue to be the answer. The future he paints is one were innovation and unnatural food not only feeds everyone, but feeds everyone in a healthy way. The other solution is to essentially go backwards and move away from technology. If people ate locally and worked to produce food at a lower cost to the environment, than food production would be more sustainable. This solution would mean that people are more involved in food production. However, food would most likely be more expensive and there would be less variety.

Currently there is more than enough food and yet there are still hungry people. It seems overwhelming to think that the population will continue to grow and at the same time many of the resources used in food production may run out.  Both solutions make sense, but it is hard to say whether they would actually work. The first solution would require a lot of technological advancements that may not really be possible. The second solution would require that everyone work together and make sacrifices. People like to have choices and low costs. Hopefully we find a way to feed everyone in a healthy, effective way.  

Are either of the two “fixes” plausible?

Are there any other possible solutions?

Will there ever not be enough food to feed the population?

Sweet Charity: Chapter 2

Chapter two of Sweet Charity looks at who is hungry and why food pantries and soup kitchens are used so much. In general, poverty leads to hunger. Those in single-parent households, children, women, minorities, and the elderly are the most likely to be hungry. It is not surprising given that poverty is linked with hunger, because the poverty line is based on households’ ability to purchase enough nutritiously adequate food with 1/3 of its income. However, the poverty line has become more and more of an unrealistic measurement. Proportionally, people are spending less on food, because standards of living have risen in other areas. More is being spent on rent, utilities, transportation, etc. So, those who are actually below the poverty line are poorer then ever. While they can get food for free, they can’t get other things like oil for free, so more pressure is put on soup kitchens, which normally set their eligibility at 150-185% of poverty income. People are hungry and go to food pantries for many reasons including unemployment (long or short term), inadequate salaries, or only having seasonal work. Also, rent and utilities used to make up about 1/3 of expenses, but the costs have risen. With so much being spent on accommodations, there is significantly less to spend on food. Because of such high costs or other things like a fire or mental illness, many people become homeless and being hungry normally follows. Public assistance for the poor has also decreased, putting more pressure on food pantries and soup kitchens. Food stamps were created to make up the difference between a households income and the cost of food. Some people were too proud or unaware of how the program worked, but often people were wrongly denied access or did receive them, but it still wasn’t enough.

It shocked me how small that amount of money that people at the poverty line may have to spend on food. About 15 years ago, the amount spent on each meal at the poverty line was $1.19. I just spent more than that on a cup of coffee. Given how little so many people have to spend on food, it makes sense that so many people are forced to turn to food pantries or soup kitchens. Given that poverty is linked to hunger is seems that the best and most comprehensive way to decrease the number of hungry people is to decrease the number of poor people, but this is no easy task.

What can be done to reduce the number of hungry people in the US?

Are food pantries and soup kitchens the best way to feed the hungry?

Should we try to develop a new way to calculate the poverty line?

McDonaldization of Society and Tomato Trail

As George Ritzer points out in the The McDonaldization of Society, society has become increasing rationalized. Americans strive to eat in ways that are quick and cost efficient, and fast food restaurants are a great way to do this. Chain restaurants are all the same, because then people can get exactly what they expect, no matter where they are. In an effort to be more rational, fast food restaurants focus on quality, instead of quality. Although people do work at fast food restaurants, they are working in a machine-like way with the help of many actual machines. In the industry, employers have a lot of control of their workers, giving them simple, specific tasks, and by providing a similar experience at all fast food restaurants, they have control over customers as well. Although becoming increasingly rational has many benefits, it is also very dehumanizing and makes life less exciting.

The Tomato Trail, discusses the production of tomatoes, which has become increasingly rational. Now, countless people in many different locations play a small, machine-like role in production. Growth is no longer natural, but instead controlled at each step. All of the tomatoes in each box look the same. Although it may seem efficient, the quality of a tomato produced this way is worse than one produced locally and the costs to the environment are great.

I think that the entire food system has become rationalized. Corporations want efficiency and predictability. There are benefits to rationalization and mass production, but there is a great loss of quality as well. If Americans moved away from this type of eating to actually cooking their own food, we would benefit greatly. Actually caring about the food we eat and putting in the time may be less efficient, but we would be healthier and have a better experience.

Do the benefits of McDonaldization and rationalization out weight the costs?

If the food industry continues to become increasingly rational, what is the next step? 

"Can't Stomach It" and "Fried chicken and fresh apples"

Julie Guthman discusses the way that obesity is viewed in America. As she points out, we constantly hear about the epidemic of obesity and the many social problems that obesity causes. Society has become so obsessed with the concept of weight and many political solutions, like “Snack taxes, corporate-sponsored exercise breaks, stronger food labeling laws, and, most troublingly, state-mandated student weigh-ins at public schools” have been suggested (1). Obesity has become profitable for many industries, and advertisements for weight loss, fitness, and health foods are increasingly common. Guthman fells that Pollans and authors like him are a part of the fuel for America’s obsession with obesity.  Although she agrees with Pollan that the overproduction of corn is a problem and subsidies should be removed for social and ecological reasons, she does not agree at the points where Pollan brings up obesity. Blame is put on those who are obese and negative self-images are forced on them. By labeling obesity as an epidemic, disease, or problem, overweight people are looked down on by society. Yet, very little is actually known about the relationship between food, exercise, obesity, and health. Guthman believes that government policy should focus on subsidies, protecting the environment as well as the rights of workers, but the choices of individuals should not be up for debate. But, as Kwate points out in Fried chicken and fresh apples, there are some undeniable facts about obesity. It can’t be a coincidence that obesity, poverty, and the presence of fast food restaurants are highly correlated. Fast food is cheap and high in, calories, fat, and cholesterol, but lacks nutrition. Partly because of racial segregation, some areas have significantly higher levels of obesity and more health problems. These areas often lack the resources and/or opportunities to obtain healthier food

            I think Guthman raises some good points, but unlike her, I believe that there is a real obesity problem in America. The exact cause and effect relationship between food and health may not be understood fully, but I don’t think it is jumping to conclusions to say that the way many American’s eat now is harmful to their health. However, the idea of focusing on government policy related to production, not consumption as well as protecting the environment and worker’s rights may be a good way to go about creating change. On the other hand, considering that the current system puts some people at a disadvantage, without adequate information about or access to healthy food, I think the government may have a responsibility beyond that. Obesity is not entirely based on personal preference, but on personal circumstance as well.

Does America have an obesity problem? And if so, whose responsibility is it to fix it? 

Omnivore's Dilemma: Chapter 5

In this chapter of Omnivore’s Dilemma Pollan looks at corn and the production of processed food. Most of the corn that enters our bodies isn’t actually eaten as corn. Wet mills turn corn into the building blocks for large companies to make processed food. This whole process is invisible to consumers, taking place in “sealed vats, pipes, fermentation tanks, and filters” (86). Although he is not allowed in the processing plants, Pollan does get to visit the Center for Crops Utilization Research at Iowa State University. Here new uses for surpluses of corn and soybeans are developed. In wet mills, kernels are broken down in a process like digestion, “complex food is reduced to simple molecules, mostly sugars” (87). Different from the digestion that takes place in animals, there is no waste at the end of this industrial process. One thing produced is high-fructose corn syrup, now the most valuable food product made from corn.

Processing food has been happening forever. By salting, drying, and pickling, we are able to prevent food from going bad and to eat foods from different seasons and locations Following World War II, processing food went beyond preservation. Now, almost all processed food contains either corn or soybeans in some form.

Nature has made it so that companies’ profits can only grow so much. Prices of raw materials (like corn) will continue to fall, but the amount each consumer can eat stays fixed. Growth in the food industry can only come as a result in growth of population. For food companies to make more profits they can encourage people to spend more in proportion to the cost of production and/or get people to eat more food.  Cheap corn helps companies achieve both.

This chapter reminded me how much our food production has moved away from nature and towards both science and economics. Companies are focused on the bottom line. For them to be more profitable, they need to find ways to produce more food for less money, often at the expense of quality and health. The General Mills cereal headquarters is so far from what I think food production should be like. Essentially food is coming from board meetings and laboratories instead of nature. Before, finding a way to process food was a necessity for survival. Now food is being processed in new ways simply so that corporations can make profits.  

What does it mean for our health that so much of our food comes from corn?

How much further can processing food go? Will there ever be a point where we stop trying to alter food even more? 

"Consumer Culture and Participatory Democracy: The Story of Coca-Cola During World War II" and "Eating American"

During a class discussion, Mintz said in passing he “did not think that there is such thing as American cuisine”. Some students took offense. A student pointed out that maybe eating food from all over the world is American cuisine. “Eating American” is a very broad topic, partly because America is large in both size and population. Different regions started to develop slightly different diets, variation of natural environments. Some differences are still there, but they have been diluted due to commercialization. People who move to the US are encouraged to “forgo their traditional cultures in order to ‘become American’”. Even if the first generation holds on to their culture, as time passes each generation becomes more “American”. Foods like hot dogs, hamburgers, ice cream, PB and J sandwiches, barbecues, and pizza may be a part of a “list of favorite foods,” but that does not qualify as a cuisine.There is not much actual cooking takes place in America, leading to a reliance on premade food, take out, and restaurants. There is also too much variety, “class, regional, and ethnic” differences, for us to have a true cuisine.

            Mark Weiner identifies an American food, Coca Cola. Mintz says standardization and commercialization lead to a lack of American cuisine. Coke is American for that very reason. It is ALWAYS the same and accessible. During WWII, coke became an important symbol of America. The best way to make a profit during wartime was to tie product to patriotism. Coke sent things to solders and tried to make it so that every solder could buy a bottle of coke for 5 cents anywhere in the world. Politicians and Military leaders defended this effort. Bottle plants and distillers were set up where troops went. At home, ads showed Coke as a part of American identity and tied daily life to war efforts. Solders, feeling alone and homesick, saw coke as “a symbol of the United States or their own identity.” Coke is something common to the American experience, a truly American food.

So much of our reading has pointed out that there is a priority on efficiency and availability instead of true quality. This focus on efficiency and commercialization in the food industry has made it so that we are left with what Mintz thinks of a lack of cuisine.  In other countries there is pride in their food and time is spent cooking. Americans seem to lack this. America, whether or not we have what can be defined as a cuisine, would benefit from spending more time and energy (and possibly money) into the food we eat.

Do you think there is an American cuisine?

Is not having a cuisine necessarily a bad thing? 

Omnivores Dilemma: Chapter 17

In this chapter of Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan looks at the idea of vegetarianism and himself becomes a temporary vegetarian. The food industry recognizes that if people were fully aware of what is going on in meat production, less meat would be consumed. Currently we are separated from animals. Almost able to convince ourselves that the meat in the grocery store was never a living thing, but vegetarians and animal rights activists are becoming more common. People now seem to have two choices. They “either look away or become vegetarians” (307). 

Pollan examines the ideas raised by Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, a book that converted many to vegetarianism The basis of Singer’s argument is that as a species we are concerned with equality, which is based on interests, not characteristics. It is undeniable that it is in the interest of animals and humans alike to avoid pain. We should, therefore, at least be willing to give animals equal enough treatment, that we don’t subject them to pain. We treat people below the mental capacity of animals (like the retarded, insane, and children) equally, so why don’t we treat animals equally? Pollan raises many questions, most of which the animal rights activists have no trouble counter arguing and it all comes back to the concept of equality and pain.

Animals feel pain, but there is a difference. For people, “pain amplified by distinctly human emotions” (316) Some animals, like those on Polyface, don’t suffer through their lives. This may be more justified. After all domesticated animals would not be able to survive alone. Pollan seems to come to the conclusion that if we can make the lives of animals more humane, it is easier to justify eating them

I think I agree with Pollan’s conclusion. Instead of changing the way that humanity eats, we should change the way the food we eat is produced and raised on farms. So many problems with the food industry seem to be moving away from natural cycles. I wonder if vegetarianism is not just another one of these instances. However, the suffering that animals endure on industrial farms is unjustified. We have reached the point where eating meat is no longer necessary for our survival. It is a preference. Given that it is a choice, we should be willing to make sacrifices in both quantities produced and costs to ensure that animals do not suffer so greatly.

Is eating meat justified?

Given that humans evolved eating meat, is vegetarianism unnatural? How would an increase in the number of vegetarians impact the food chain? 

Chapters 11 and 13 and The Pleasures of Eating

As The Pleasures of Eating points out, consumers know very little about their food. Consumers have become “passive, uncritical, and dependent” on the current industrial system, not link their food to the agricultural processes taking place. Majority of consumers chose premade food, dressed up by advertising. Food is not looked at as a product of nature, but instead a product of industry. Things will only change is consumers to take responsibility. Berry gives seven suggestions about what consumers (even those living in cities) can do: participate in the production of food, cook, buy local and know where food comes from, when possible buy directly from the farmer, learn about the economy and technology of production, learn what is involved in the best farming, and learn as much as you can about the life histories of food.

            Chapters 11 and 13 in Omnivore’s Dilemma show exactly what it means to know where food is coming from. Pollan visits Polyface Farm in Virgina. Here chickens, cows, rabbits, turkeys, and pigs are raised in a way different from the many monocultures that exist in the industry. Here the processes of nature are taken advantage of and technology is used to help instead of completely change the way animals are raised. Animals are rotated on the farm. Instead of having waste, the waste is used by other animals or in some way to benefit the farm. Joel, one of the farmers, describes himself as an “orchestra conductor, making sure everybody’s in the right place at the right time” (212). People often complain about food prices, but Joel says that clean food like his is actually the cheapest, because all the prices are factored in. There are no additional costs of water pollution, antibiotic resistance, food-borne illness, crop subsidies, or of subsidized oil and water. We should be willing to pay for what’s best when it comes to food. After all, we do that in so many other parts of life.

            It is very true that as a consumer I know little about where my food is coming from. I only see the final product, so it is easy to separate what I am eating from any sort of agricultural process. The systems that have been developed on Polyface Farm seem so ingenious. Many times farmers are portrayed as unintelligent, but this showed how much thought can be involved in running a farm. Instead of seeing natural processes as problems, like often happens in industrial monocultures, Polyface uses natural processes to its benefit. The ecological loop remains intact and as a result, clean food can be produced and profitable. 

Is it really possible for large cities to rely on locally produced food, when so much of our countries farming takes place far away from cities? 

Would eliminating government subsidies or making stricter rules about using fossil fuels and creating pollution benefit us? If so, is that possible to do?

Farmer in Chief, Ominvore's Delusion, and Farmers: What do you think of Michael Pollan's Ideas?

In a letter to the president, Michael Pollan urges change in the food industry. Problems with health care, energy, and climate change are all liked to food. Producing cheap food, instead of quality food, has become the goal. Leading to use of vast amounts of fossil fuel and green house gas emissions. Cheap food also leads to health problems, because it is not as healthy. On farms, we have separated crops and animals in monocultures, creating problems that don’t exist in nature. Creating sustainability within farms and moving from fossil-fuel-based fertility to sun-based fertility would be much more beneficial. Pollan feels we need to change food culture, and move to a decentralized system.

Blake Hurst argues against many of Pollan’s ideas, saying his solutions are oversimplified and lack understanding of the industry.  Hurst feels technology has changed farming, but it has changed the rest of the world as well. Both consumers and farmers benefit from cheap food. Using additives prevents mold, fungus, and bugs from getting in our foods. Keeping animals enclosed keeps them safe.  Technological advancements made producing more food possible by putting nitrogen in the soil. He says Pollan is right in arguing that farmers use chemical fertilizer because it is easier and cheaper. Hurst thinks those are perfectly valid reasons.

The NPR interview explores issues effecting farming today. Many farmers feel that Pollan attacks them and that many of his ideas are either unrealistic or ill-informed. Pollan claims that he is not critical of farmers, but does question some practices and the current system, which he feels gives farmers limited choices. Hurst feels he has choice in this competitive industry. Both Hurst and Pollan do, however, agree that current farming is harming the environment. As Hurst points out, farming relies on technology and specifically the ability to synthesize nitrogen has enabled us to feed the world. This comes at a cost to the environment though. Pollan urges innovation in farming; using sunlight, putting animals back on farms, and new crop rotations. Currently we don’t know if we can feed the world in a more sustainable way, but we have to try.

It is hard to decide where exactly I (and other consumers) should stand in this debate. Obviously I want my food to be healthy, but I also want it to be a cheap as possible. Farmers struggle enough already and making harsh regulations may only make their lives harder. It is clear though, that something needs to change. We can’t keep relying on fossil fuels to produce our food. Something must be done. Like all other industries, the farmin industry should move forward and benefit from technology, but maybe not in the way that it is now. Indusrty should work to use what nature has provided instead of looking at the production of each product separately.

Who is more right in this debate, Pollan or Hurst?

Are the solutions proposed by Pollan plausible?

How much responsibility does the government have in making changes in the food industry? 

Reviews of Food, Inc.

Meet Your New Farmer: Hungry Corporate Giant

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

In this supportive review from the New York Times, liberal newspaper, Manohla Dargis refers to the movie as being “informative” and “infuriating”.  One problem that the review points out was that it was slightly too ambitious and therefore did not necessarily go into enough detail about every section. Dargis says that the movie often “stops short before it really gets started”. Debates are not full developed in the movie. This review is fully behind the movie in blaming corporations for all that has gone wrong.

Movie Review: Food, Inc.

http://screencrave.com/2009-06-11/movie-review-food-inc/

This review comes from a movie reviewing sight, as opposed to a news source with a known political tilt. I have to say that none of the review I came across can actually considered in the middle. Although this one does try not to lean to far, it seems to favor the movie and its ideas. It points out the good like how the information was a “mixture of interesting and completely disturbing” and that the people interviewed were knowledgeable and presented different views of the industry.  It also points out the bad, the fact that the other side is missing and like the New York Times article, that topics were sometimes rushed.

Artificially Fattened Chickens, New Strains of E. Coli-Film Seeks to ‘Expose’ U.S. Food Industry

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525646,00.html

This critique of Food, Inc comes from Fox, a relatively conservative news source, and points to the fact that the movie was very one sided. It points out that all through large companies refused to be interviewed for the movie, they have not stayed silent. Those in the industry are working together to counter the claims of the movie, creating websites like Safefoodinc.com. The article claims that the movie delivers misinformation about the industry, which consists of 98% family owned farms, is very interested in the well-being of animals.

Omnivores Dilemma: Chapter 4

In chapter 4 of Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan tracks one cow’s life. The meat industry has changed, because it is economically logical to keep more animals together, feeding them corn. Making meat cheaper and more readily available comes with an environmental and health costs. By feeding animals corn products and keeping them pent up, we broke an ecological loop. Pollan first visits a ranch in South Dakota where the stage “least changed by the modern industrialization of meat” takes place (69). Beef cattle, born on independent ranches throughout the West, eat grass and milk. When allowed to live naturally, cows help to sustain the grass (as long as they are moved around) and with the help of bacteria in the cows’ stomachs, the grass sustains cows. At 6 months cows are weaned and prepared for feedlots.

Feedlots have problems with disease and sanitation. Cows are forced to eat in ways that evolution did not intend (like cows eating cows). In comparison with other things they eat, corn seems great, but it is still not what cows are made to eat. Almost all of the health problems can be traced to food. It’s so unnatural that, cows could only survive on the feedlot diet for 150 days. To keep them healthy enough, cows are given antibiotics, leading to new antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

Manure now can’t be used as fertilizer, because it would kill plants. So feedlots have to look for ways to get rid of it. Cows live in their own manure, which gets caked onto their hides and can get into the meat we eat, leading to things like E. coli. It may be cheaper for corporations to raise animals this way, but there are many other costs, like taxes, disease, and hurting the environment. From birth to slaughter weight, a cow costs approximately a barrel of oil.

Before the system of producing meat worked so well. The process made ecological sense, but the industry claimed it was not efficient enough. I find what has happened appalling and I’m shocked that I didn’t know more about it before. Logically it does not make sense. I understand that it is cheaper for the corporations, but it comes at such a cost to consumers and the world in general. The food we are eating is causing great harm to our health and to the environment. We are so concerned with speed and efficiency that we have moved away from focusing on the quality. It is great that meat is now more affordable, but that has only happened by reducing the quality, putting our health and the environment at risk.

If so many problems stem from the production of corn, would reducing production force the meat industry to change?

All the problems were clearly created by changes in the industry. At this point, is it possible for us to go back?

Food Inc

            Food Inc examined the food industry and tried to expose the often hidden interworking of the industry. It showed the inhumane ways in which many “farmers” in America raise their animals. Chickens, pigs, and cows are kept in close unsanitary quarters. Farmers have become reliant on huge corporations and have limited say in how they run their farms. The changes in the food industry are having a very negative effect on health. Food poisoning is becoming more prevalent as we increase the amount of technology used. Diabetes is also increasing. Families find it more cost efficient to eat fast food meals, than to buy vegetables. Cheap food is replacing healthy food.

It is not surprising that as the rest of society becomes increasingly rationalization, so has the food industry. Companies work to make a profit. That is their only real concern. As long as they are making money, large companies have no regard for the impact they have no society. Processing animals in a factor setting makes economic sense, so of course they do it. Part of me completely understands this. Why shouldn’t companies maximize their profit? Even when it comes to food that makes people sick, companies main concern is money. As long as the cost of lives (and I mean the actual monetary cost to the company) doesn’t exceed the cost of making a change, companies will not make a change.   

Now while what is happening in the industry does in many ways make sense, it makes me sick at the same time. I feel like as an individual consumer, I have little control over what I eat. I can walk into a supermarket and have 47,000 choices, but the big companies have complete control over what almost every single item is. Majority of the beef is coming from the same place and produced the same way. With increasing choice, there also seems to be increasing standardization. 

Omnivores Dilemma: Chapters 2 and 3

       In the second chapter and third chapters of Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Polan discusses the history of the production of corn.  In supermarkets today, almost everything comes either directly or indirectly from corn. Polan visits a farm in Iowa and talks with George Naylor, a corn farmer. Over the years there has been and increase in technology enabling more corn to be produced per acre. With a new type of seed, corn can now be planted closer together. Polan points out that “hybrids can tolerate the corn equivalent of city life” (37).  As corn production increased, the production of other plants and animals on many farms decreased. The number of people also decreased, because new technology allowed fewer people to produce more corn. In addition to new seeds, the tractor revolutionized production. Another key factor was chemical fertilizer, which put nitrogen into the soil, enabling farmers to plant corn year after year instead of rotating crops. The invention of this fertilizer means that now earth can support more life. Farming has basically become turning fossil fuel to food, which although seemed economically smart at first, is most definitely ecologically inefficient. Although technology has allowed production to increase, many problems have accompanied this development. It now costs more to produce corn than it is worth, but it is still produced. Naylor points out that with such low prices farmers can give up or produce more, but as more is produced, prices drop further. The government pays if the price drops too far, making it possible to always have high production and low cost. In corn production, the focus has shifted from quality to quantity. 

       Although I knew that corn was key to the production of so many different things, I was unaware of the extent. I was completely unaware of how harmful the current production of corn is to the environment and how terrible things are for corn farmers. There seems to be so much waste and not nearly enough profit. It would make sense to think that producing less corn would solve the problems in the corn industry, yet given how little corn farmers earn, this is not a possibility. They all produce more, because they see it as their only chance of survival.

Is there anything the government can do to help farmers and prevent constant overproduction?

Overall, have improvements in technology been beneficial or harmful?