"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?
Monday, March 14, 2011
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)