"The Future of Food" by Warren Belasco
As we have all learned throughout the semester, corn, grain, and soy play major roles in our food system. Without them, we would not be in the same place today. With the world's population growing by six fold in the past two hundred years, changes in corn, grain, and soy production have helped to keep up with the population increase. Because of the technological changes in food production, people have yearned to consume more items produced by corn, grain, and soy including meat, dairy, beer and produce. One study done by the International Food Policy Research Institute has shown that meat consumption in developing countries will double from 1980 to 2020 thanks to the increased use of CAFOs throughout the world. However, even though this will help malnourished people in these countries, it also has the opposite affect of increasing obesity, especially in China. More than sixty million people were obese in China in the 1990s due to more meat and egg consumption. What has allowed this? Mass production of corn, grain, and soy of course. "Corn and soy are the basis of the meat-based convenience food diet." As demonstrated in Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, corn and soy feed the cattle used to produce the meat for big companies such as McDonald's. These mass production methods don't only cause obesity, but sicknesses such as e. Coli infections as well. However, it seems that with the world's constantly growing population that these methods are the only way to keep up.
It seems like this is a topic that is, and will always be discussed. It's something we just can't get away from. There are so many pros and cons to mass production of corn, grain, and soy, but if we were to stop it is evident that the world's population (the part that is not hunger- and poverty-stricken) will not be fed. The social issues from this are major, but there are also environmental issues as well. Fossil fuels in fertilizers and pesticides and oil used in the whole production process affect the environment enormously. Studies have shown that it takes at least fifty gallons of oil to produce one acre of corn. Will there ever be a way to fix these problems in food production?
1. We've talked about organic production methods on the small scale. How long will it take for these methods to potentially be utilized on a larger scale?
2. Hunger is already a serious global issue. If mass production methods were to cease, even more people will become hungry, but other things will be saved or helped. So, how are the pros and cons of mass production weighed in order that we continue to use them?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
More Links to Poverty and Hunger
Sweet Charity? Ch. 3
This chapter, much like the article discussed in my last post also explains the correlation between poverty and hunger. The recession in the 1980s tossed hundreds and thousands of people from their jobs and homes, forcing them into poverty and possible hunger. People were forced to go to soup kitchens and food pantries. The poverty rate rose about four percent from the 1970s to the early 1980s. Meanwhile, in 1981 the Reagan administration passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which reduced poverty programs such as Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and food assistance; it totaled to a reduction of one hundred ten billion dollars in government spending over a three year period. The people losing from this act were referred to as the "New Poor." They went to the soup kitchens and food pantries which were seeing exponential increases in numbers during this time; free meals and food baskets increased fifty percent in one year. The clients of these establishments changed from alcoholics and the homeless to mothers and their children. At the time, the Reagan administration said that they were not the cause of theses problems, even though it is evident that the OBRA reductions were clearly the underlying cause.
Whether speaking of the past, present, or future, poverty and hunger will forever be linked. I find it hard to believe that the Reagan administration made a budget cut during a recession. Government spending is a direct determinant of aggregate demand. When aggregate demand increases, GDP also increases and helps to bring a country out of a recession. A reduction in government spending does the complete opposite. I'm not fully familiar with the Reagan administration's plan to get the country out of the recession, but I've heard of Reagonomics and am guessing that he believed increasing government spending doesn't do the trick. Clearly he was wrong. No wonder he was an actor before he was president.
1. What valid evidence did Reagan have against the world renown John Maynard Keynes that disproved his theory of increased government spending leading to increased GDP?
2. Did the advisors and other people in the administration not realize that a cut in the programs that help the impoverished would make the situation worse?
This chapter, much like the article discussed in my last post also explains the correlation between poverty and hunger. The recession in the 1980s tossed hundreds and thousands of people from their jobs and homes, forcing them into poverty and possible hunger. People were forced to go to soup kitchens and food pantries. The poverty rate rose about four percent from the 1970s to the early 1980s. Meanwhile, in 1981 the Reagan administration passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which reduced poverty programs such as Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and food assistance; it totaled to a reduction of one hundred ten billion dollars in government spending over a three year period. The people losing from this act were referred to as the "New Poor." They went to the soup kitchens and food pantries which were seeing exponential increases in numbers during this time; free meals and food baskets increased fifty percent in one year. The clients of these establishments changed from alcoholics and the homeless to mothers and their children. At the time, the Reagan administration said that they were not the cause of theses problems, even though it is evident that the OBRA reductions were clearly the underlying cause.
Whether speaking of the past, present, or future, poverty and hunger will forever be linked. I find it hard to believe that the Reagan administration made a budget cut during a recession. Government spending is a direct determinant of aggregate demand. When aggregate demand increases, GDP also increases and helps to bring a country out of a recession. A reduction in government spending does the complete opposite. I'm not fully familiar with the Reagan administration's plan to get the country out of the recession, but I've heard of Reagonomics and am guessing that he believed increasing government spending doesn't do the trick. Clearly he was wrong. No wonder he was an actor before he was president.
1. What valid evidence did Reagan have against the world renown John Maynard Keynes that disproved his theory of increased government spending leading to increased GDP?
2. Did the advisors and other people in the administration not realize that a cut in the programs that help the impoverished would make the situation worse?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Poverty and Hunger
"The Scarcity Fallacy" by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins and Lindsey Peterson
Poverty and hunger are two global issues that have, and hopefully won't always be linked. Today, the world is home to over one billion starving people. The authors state that the idea of scarcity started with Thomas Malthus and his book An Essay on the Principles of Population. Malthus' thesis was that the world's population would continue to grow exponentially and we wouldn't be able to food ourselves. However, he was quite mistaken. Food production has grown much more than the world's population. Even so, the fact remains that there on still over one billion hungry people inhabiting the earth. Why is this? Food scarcity actually doesn't exist; "on a per capita basis, food is more plentiful today than any other time in human history." The problem is that there are so many underdeveloped and impoverished countries in which most of the population can't afford to feed themselves and their families. Studies have shown that ninety six percent of hungry people live in developing countries. These people also spend well over half of their incomes on food, compared to Americans who spend only fifteen to twenty percent. The authors cite a source that said, "the same amount of grain needed to fill an SUV’s 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol could feed a single person for a whole year." The article also notes that "it would cost less than one percent of the current U.S. stimulus package to save a generation around the world from poverty and its consequences, including hunger." However, this is not the only way to solve this problem; much can be done, but not enough action has been taken.
Hunger is an issue that is very widely talked about today, especially with such world crises in the past decade including the hurricanes in New Orleans, and the problems facing Rwanda and Darfur. Some of the stats that the article presents are mind-boggling. One less gallon filled in an SUV can feed a person for entire year. Even if this seems plausible to correct, will it actually happen? All of the developing, impoverished, and hungry countries of the world are too focused on becoming fiscally stable that they are blind to the fact that their people are starving. People in world powerhouses such as the United States have taken notice to this and have acted, but clearly more action must be taken to save the world from this ongoing, and growing problem.
1. If all SUV-drivers in the United States knew about the statistic in the article, would they switch to driving a sedan or a hybrid?
2. There are many things stated in the article that can be done to help the world's hunger problem. Have organizations been implementing these ideas into their actions to help the hungry?
Poverty and hunger are two global issues that have, and hopefully won't always be linked. Today, the world is home to over one billion starving people. The authors state that the idea of scarcity started with Thomas Malthus and his book An Essay on the Principles of Population. Malthus' thesis was that the world's population would continue to grow exponentially and we wouldn't be able to food ourselves. However, he was quite mistaken. Food production has grown much more than the world's population. Even so, the fact remains that there on still over one billion hungry people inhabiting the earth. Why is this? Food scarcity actually doesn't exist; "on a per capita basis, food is more plentiful today than any other time in human history." The problem is that there are so many underdeveloped and impoverished countries in which most of the population can't afford to feed themselves and their families. Studies have shown that ninety six percent of hungry people live in developing countries. These people also spend well over half of their incomes on food, compared to Americans who spend only fifteen to twenty percent. The authors cite a source that said, "the same amount of grain needed to fill an SUV’s 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol could feed a single person for a whole year." The article also notes that "it would cost less than one percent of the current U.S. stimulus package to save a generation around the world from poverty and its consequences, including hunger." However, this is not the only way to solve this problem; much can be done, but not enough action has been taken.
Hunger is an issue that is very widely talked about today, especially with such world crises in the past decade including the hurricanes in New Orleans, and the problems facing Rwanda and Darfur. Some of the stats that the article presents are mind-boggling. One less gallon filled in an SUV can feed a person for entire year. Even if this seems plausible to correct, will it actually happen? All of the developing, impoverished, and hungry countries of the world are too focused on becoming fiscally stable that they are blind to the fact that their people are starving. People in world powerhouses such as the United States have taken notice to this and have acted, but clearly more action must be taken to save the world from this ongoing, and growing problem.
1. If all SUV-drivers in the United States knew about the statistic in the article, would they switch to driving a sedan or a hybrid?
2. There are many things stated in the article that can be done to help the world's hunger problem. Have organizations been implementing these ideas into their actions to help the hungry?
Monday, March 14, 2011
Well Somebody Hates Pollan
"Can't Stomach It" by Julie Guthman
Some people think that "the obesity epidemic is one of the greatest public health threats of our times, perhaps rivaling AIDS or avian flu." In her article "Can't Stomach It," Julie Guthman argues quite the contrary. She talks about how shows like The Biggest Loser gives society the perception that obesity is a disease that can be cured through dieting, exercising, and using pharmaceutical drugs. She also criticizes authors like J. Eric Oliver, Marion Nestle, Anna Lappe, Jane Goodall, and most of all Michael Pollan. Although Guthman does cede that Pollan is a great and enticing writer, she disagrees with most of his points. She refers to these authors talking about the rising obesity rates and the abundance of fast food in order to define real food. These points make her pose the question of why are these authors not fat if the junk food they speak of is so pervasive and irresistible. Guthman believes that these authors and people like the trainers in "The Biggest Loser" see themselves as superior to fat people and are full of wisdom and knowledge that they must teach to the obese population. Pollan, for instance, thinks if people eat like he does (perhaps only eating organic foods like those produced on Joel Salatin's farm) the obesity problem in the United States will be eliminated. Guthman satirically replies that Pollan's thesis and The Omnivore's Dilemma altogether makes her crave Cheetos.
I think all Guthman is doing is going on a radical rant opposing a topic that has been statistically researched and proven. I'm not sure what past Guthman has with Pollan or the other authors mentioned above, but she clearly is out to get them. In the article she says sarcastically, "Some people - in this case thin people - clearly must have seen the light that the rest are blind to. Even though she wants it to seem sarcastic, I think that is completely true. There is information out there against obesity and yet the numbers continue to increase year by year. Either people are simply ignoring the information or they don't want to change the way they currently are.
1. Why is Guthman so against what these authors propose when they have all done substantial research?
2. Why does the obesity rate continue to grow when more and more different types of information on the "disease" is released each year?
Some people think that "the obesity epidemic is one of the greatest public health threats of our times, perhaps rivaling AIDS or avian flu." In her article "Can't Stomach It," Julie Guthman argues quite the contrary. She talks about how shows like The Biggest Loser gives society the perception that obesity is a disease that can be cured through dieting, exercising, and using pharmaceutical drugs. She also criticizes authors like J. Eric Oliver, Marion Nestle, Anna Lappe, Jane Goodall, and most of all Michael Pollan. Although Guthman does cede that Pollan is a great and enticing writer, she disagrees with most of his points. She refers to these authors talking about the rising obesity rates and the abundance of fast food in order to define real food. These points make her pose the question of why are these authors not fat if the junk food they speak of is so pervasive and irresistible. Guthman believes that these authors and people like the trainers in "The Biggest Loser" see themselves as superior to fat people and are full of wisdom and knowledge that they must teach to the obese population. Pollan, for instance, thinks if people eat like he does (perhaps only eating organic foods like those produced on Joel Salatin's farm) the obesity problem in the United States will be eliminated. Guthman satirically replies that Pollan's thesis and The Omnivore's Dilemma altogether makes her crave Cheetos.
I think all Guthman is doing is going on a radical rant opposing a topic that has been statistically researched and proven. I'm not sure what past Guthman has with Pollan or the other authors mentioned above, but she clearly is out to get them. In the article she says sarcastically, "Some people - in this case thin people - clearly must have seen the light that the rest are blind to. Even though she wants it to seem sarcastic, I think that is completely true. There is information out there against obesity and yet the numbers continue to increase year by year. Either people are simply ignoring the information or they don't want to change the way they currently are.
1. Why is Guthman so against what these authors propose when they have all done substantial research?
2. Why does the obesity rate continue to grow when more and more different types of information on the "disease" is released each year?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Everything Goes Back to Corn
Omnivore's Dilemma: Chapter 5
As we already know, corn plays a significant role in our food system. In fact, it is so important that we hardly eat real corn products (corn on the cob or baked into muffins, tortillas, and chips). Out of the ten million bushels of corn harvested each year, the actually corn we eat comes out to less than a bushel per person per year. Even so, majority of the rest of the harvested corn ends up in our bodies one way or another (in meat, drinks, snacks, and other foods). The breakdown of corn is actually very interesting. Each part of the kernel is used differently. The skin is processed is vitamins and nutritional supplements. The dark part close to the cob, scientifically known as the germ, holds to embryo for a new corn plant and is crushed for oil. Lastly, the endosperm is stripped for carbohydrates. These carbs are broken down even further and then rearranged into many ingredients that we know of such as citric and lactic acid, glucose, fructose, maltodextrin, ethanol, sorbitol, mannitol, xanthan gum, and monosodium glutamate (MSG). Breaking down the corn is an intricate step-by-step process. Processing it into our foods in another operation. In the end, it is corn that plays a big part in making most of the foods we commonly eat today.
I was very intrigued by the process of breaking down the corn. The parts are all chemically divided. The kernels are soaked in an acid bath for about thirty-six hours and then ground to be separated. Once the parts are separated, they are operated on differently to obtain the needed product. I also found the concept of "substitutionism" very interesting as well. It's amazing how a producer can switch from hydrogenated fat or lecithin from corn one day to soybeans the next and not change the taste of the product. This is why some ingredient labels say "contains one or more of the following: corn, soybean, or sunflower oil." The food system is truly a complex industry.
1. How do products taste the same when using the process of "substitutionism?"
2. What is it about each separate part of the kernel that allows them to be used to make different ingredients and such?
As we already know, corn plays a significant role in our food system. In fact, it is so important that we hardly eat real corn products (corn on the cob or baked into muffins, tortillas, and chips). Out of the ten million bushels of corn harvested each year, the actually corn we eat comes out to less than a bushel per person per year. Even so, majority of the rest of the harvested corn ends up in our bodies one way or another (in meat, drinks, snacks, and other foods). The breakdown of corn is actually very interesting. Each part of the kernel is used differently. The skin is processed is vitamins and nutritional supplements. The dark part close to the cob, scientifically known as the germ, holds to embryo for a new corn plant and is crushed for oil. Lastly, the endosperm is stripped for carbohydrates. These carbs are broken down even further and then rearranged into many ingredients that we know of such as citric and lactic acid, glucose, fructose, maltodextrin, ethanol, sorbitol, mannitol, xanthan gum, and monosodium glutamate (MSG). Breaking down the corn is an intricate step-by-step process. Processing it into our foods in another operation. In the end, it is corn that plays a big part in making most of the foods we commonly eat today.
I was very intrigued by the process of breaking down the corn. The parts are all chemically divided. The kernels are soaked in an acid bath for about thirty-six hours and then ground to be separated. Once the parts are separated, they are operated on differently to obtain the needed product. I also found the concept of "substitutionism" very interesting as well. It's amazing how a producer can switch from hydrogenated fat or lecithin from corn one day to soybeans the next and not change the taste of the product. This is why some ingredient labels say "contains one or more of the following: corn, soybean, or sunflower oil." The food system is truly a complex industry.
1. How do products taste the same when using the process of "substitutionism?"
2. What is it about each separate part of the kernel that allows them to be used to make different ingredients and such?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The American Cuisine: Does it Exist?
Eating American by Sidney Mintz
In this article Sidney Mintz talks about whether or not America has it's own cuisine. He went to a colleague's class to lecture on a completely different subject and was asked about American eating habits by the students. He responded by saying that he believes there is no such thing as an American cuisine. Students then wrote a reply about the lecture in which a couple students claimed the opposite of Mintz. So begins Mintz's argument as to why there is no American cuisine. Mintz believes that there may be cuisines in different regions of the United States (New England, Southwest, Gulf Coast, Northwest Pacific), however, they don't combine to form one American cuisine. People also believe that the American cuisine is not only a combination of different cuisines of different regions in the country, but also different countries themselves. When walking down a street you might see a Chinese restaurant, an Italian restaurant, a Japanese restaurant, and a French restaurant lined up next to each other. People think that this is the American cuisine. Mintz begs to differ. He believes having a cuisine is having one category of food that is eaten on a regular basis, not having different kinds of food eaten whenever you're in the mood for it. For instance, Mexicans eat Mexican food, the Chinese eat Chinese food etc. It is also thought that the American cuisine includes such foods as hamburgers, hot dogs, fried chicken, steak, and baked potatoes. However, these foods still fall under regional cuisines, and not a whole national cuisine.
I think after weighing out all of the key points, I agree with Mintz. As Americans we don't have our own distinctive cuisine. Just think about it. A Japanese family eats Japanese probably every day. That's a cuisine. I eat Japanese, Italian, and Mexican food among others almost every week. Sure I also eat foods under the category of the "American" cuisine, but the combination of different national cuisines does not form our own national cuisine; it never will. New foods classified as American don't are not invented every day, so I don't think that there will ever be enough different kinds of food that are part of one national American cuisine.
1. If by some miracle an American cuisine was formed, would Americans switch to strictly eating American food and no longer eat foods of other national cuisines?
2. If an American cuisine were formed, would it be integrated into restaurants in other countries as other national cuisines have been integrated into restaurants here?
In this article Sidney Mintz talks about whether or not America has it's own cuisine. He went to a colleague's class to lecture on a completely different subject and was asked about American eating habits by the students. He responded by saying that he believes there is no such thing as an American cuisine. Students then wrote a reply about the lecture in which a couple students claimed the opposite of Mintz. So begins Mintz's argument as to why there is no American cuisine. Mintz believes that there may be cuisines in different regions of the United States (New England, Southwest, Gulf Coast, Northwest Pacific), however, they don't combine to form one American cuisine. People also believe that the American cuisine is not only a combination of different cuisines of different regions in the country, but also different countries themselves. When walking down a street you might see a Chinese restaurant, an Italian restaurant, a Japanese restaurant, and a French restaurant lined up next to each other. People think that this is the American cuisine. Mintz begs to differ. He believes having a cuisine is having one category of food that is eaten on a regular basis, not having different kinds of food eaten whenever you're in the mood for it. For instance, Mexicans eat Mexican food, the Chinese eat Chinese food etc. It is also thought that the American cuisine includes such foods as hamburgers, hot dogs, fried chicken, steak, and baked potatoes. However, these foods still fall under regional cuisines, and not a whole national cuisine.
I think after weighing out all of the key points, I agree with Mintz. As Americans we don't have our own distinctive cuisine. Just think about it. A Japanese family eats Japanese probably every day. That's a cuisine. I eat Japanese, Italian, and Mexican food among others almost every week. Sure I also eat foods under the category of the "American" cuisine, but the combination of different national cuisines does not form our own national cuisine; it never will. New foods classified as American don't are not invented every day, so I don't think that there will ever be enough different kinds of food that are part of one national American cuisine.
1. If by some miracle an American cuisine was formed, would Americans switch to strictly eating American food and no longer eat foods of other national cuisines?
2. If an American cuisine were formed, would it be integrated into restaurants in other countries as other national cuisines have been integrated into restaurants here?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Right Way to Produce Food
Omnivore's Dilemma: Ch. 11
Finally, a producer of not only chickens, but cows, hogs, rabbits, and turkeys that does it old natural way. Not only does Polyface Farms raise its animals without using any chemicals such as pesticides and antibiotics, they are also extremely cost-efficient. Every animal they raise at the farm helps each other in growing the best possible way they could. For instance, chickens graze the grasslands of Polyface daily (different parts of the farm each day) to reap the benefits of the vitamins and minerals in the greens and to fertilize the soil with their manure. The highly nitrogenous chicken manure allows Polyface to be completely self-sufficient in nitrogen, a large cost that is saved. Usually efficiency refers to doing things in a more concise, simpler way, but at Polyface their efficiency comes from "complexity and interdependence." The species help each other out; for instance chicken eggs are produced by cow manure and beef is produced through the chicken's secretions thus eliminating the use of chemicals. The chickens also help out the rabbits as well. At Polyface they have Raken Houses (Raken = half rabbit, half chicken and no it's not a genetically engineered animal). The rabbits live in cages above some hens on a bedding of woodchips in these houses. Rabbits have powerful ammonia-filled urine which is usually a large problem with raising rabbits indoors. However, the hens scratching away at these woodchips somehow turns the rabbit urine into a carbonaceous bedding which in turn creates a rich compost with earthworms that the hens eat. Quite an interesting phenomenon.
The Salatin family at Polyface Farms are today's innovators in raising farm animals. By raising several types of animals they are able to produce chemical-free food and still reduce costs. It's incredible how they are completely organic and extremely efficient at the same time. Who knew that chicken and cow manure and rabbit urine could turn into beneficial materials for the other animals around them. In many ways disgusting, but that's food science, isn't it? Different animals living together in harmony and not knowing how their actions are benefiting the other animals. Truly amazing.
1. What sort of chemical reaction takes place between the chicken's scratching of the woodchips and the rabbit's urine that earthworms are born from this newly created compost?
2. What is it in the chickens' manure that keeps the soil so fertile?
Finally, a producer of not only chickens, but cows, hogs, rabbits, and turkeys that does it old natural way. Not only does Polyface Farms raise its animals without using any chemicals such as pesticides and antibiotics, they are also extremely cost-efficient. Every animal they raise at the farm helps each other in growing the best possible way they could. For instance, chickens graze the grasslands of Polyface daily (different parts of the farm each day) to reap the benefits of the vitamins and minerals in the greens and to fertilize the soil with their manure. The highly nitrogenous chicken manure allows Polyface to be completely self-sufficient in nitrogen, a large cost that is saved. Usually efficiency refers to doing things in a more concise, simpler way, but at Polyface their efficiency comes from "complexity and interdependence." The species help each other out; for instance chicken eggs are produced by cow manure and beef is produced through the chicken's secretions thus eliminating the use of chemicals. The chickens also help out the rabbits as well. At Polyface they have Raken Houses (Raken = half rabbit, half chicken and no it's not a genetically engineered animal). The rabbits live in cages above some hens on a bedding of woodchips in these houses. Rabbits have powerful ammonia-filled urine which is usually a large problem with raising rabbits indoors. However, the hens scratching away at these woodchips somehow turns the rabbit urine into a carbonaceous bedding which in turn creates a rich compost with earthworms that the hens eat. Quite an interesting phenomenon.
The Salatin family at Polyface Farms are today's innovators in raising farm animals. By raising several types of animals they are able to produce chemical-free food and still reduce costs. It's incredible how they are completely organic and extremely efficient at the same time. Who knew that chicken and cow manure and rabbit urine could turn into beneficial materials for the other animals around them. In many ways disgusting, but that's food science, isn't it? Different animals living together in harmony and not knowing how their actions are benefiting the other animals. Truly amazing.
1. What sort of chemical reaction takes place between the chicken's scratching of the woodchips and the rabbit's urine that earthworms are born from this newly created compost?
2. What is it in the chickens' manure that keeps the soil so fertile?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)