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?