Thursday, June 14, 2012

Food Inc. Review

I can’t say that this movie initially drew me in to its argument. At the beginning of the film, it comes off as somewhat melodramatic and biased for no particular reason against the globalization of corporations. It starts out with the same tone that it eventually ends with, before having made its argument as to why such a tone is appropriate. This is probably a result of the authors having dealt with the realities of the food producing operations that have developed in this country for so long that it is difficult for them to relate to the huge masses of people that have yet to “see through the veil” as it were. For example, the notion that so many products within a modern supermarket are simply rearrangement of corn carries little weight until after the argument against the huge monopolies of corn manufacturers has been made, which doesn’t really happen until almost the end of the movie.

That said, the film does become increasingly convincing as it begins to explain the practical human effects of the huge system of food producing industries. The exasperation of dealing with these monolithic corporations on anything close to a personal level is obvious in so many of the examples that are provided that the weight of the whole system is tangible to the viewer. Chicken farmers, production line workers, competing grain farmers, immigrant workers, food safety advocates, and so on and so on all face the same basic problem. The organizations that produce the food that we demand are simply so big that nobody can challenge them in any meaningful way. Nobody. As a result of this, they can step on almost anyone that they choose in the pursuit of their goal: maximum throughput for maximum profit.

The reason that these things are possible is that these corporations essentially control everything that the consumer sees with regard to the products that they are offered. They may not exactly control the media; films like Food Inc. are still being made, but by marginalizing their opposition and refusing to talk about any issues with their food production outside of their own controlled channels, they can effectively control the message that the public sees. The reason that they can do this is because the public lets them. Food production is an uncomfortable topic amongst people. They really don’t want to know about who takes care of their food or how, so long as it’s done. It’s somebody else’s problem, and thus is invisible. The palpable frustration that opponents of the system feel is due to the fact that since nobody can do anything to challenge the status quo, everybody has to. Affecting the wide scale consumer market is the only way effect change. This is very difficult to do, regardless of what the status quo may entail. So long as people stay fed and producers control what is seen of their operations, that it is how it will remain.

You Got Your Peanut Butter in my Salmonella

While in most cases, peanuts provide a healthy source of protein that carries over into the consumption of peanut butter, there are risks involved in the procurement of peanut butter. Peanuts, being essentially tubers, are grown in the ground, and are sometimes subject to contamination from fungal agents and bacteria. While there are procedures in place during the processing of peanuts intended to kill off unwanted pathogens, it is still possible for prepared nuts to become re-subjected to contamination, allowing them to continue on into the food system. Also, there exist some toxins that are left behind by fungi even after they are killed and removed from the peanut which similarly continue to contaminate the supply.

Studies conducted on the propagation of Aflatoxins, toxic metabolites produced by fungi that grow on peanuts, showed that these unwanted elements can and do persist into commercial peanut butter. While these doses are low, sufficient exposure can lead to aflatoxicosis, a condition with an approximately 25% mortality rate, and even low level exposure can lead to increased cases of liver cancer. (Silwela, Mukaro and Nziramasanga) This is particularly troubling, as peanut butter is often given to children, who are at greater than average risk from these deleterious effects. Fortunately, during each phase of the preparation of the peanuts (roasting, blanching, and grinding), the amounts of these toxins is significantly reduced, suggesting that peanut butter is actually less risky than unprocessed peanuts in this regard. Indeed, peanut butter shows an 89 percent reduction in these toxins as opposed to the original, unprocessed peanuts. This is not perfect, but it does suggest that additional processing is a positive when it comes to reducing contaminants.

On the other hand, additional processing and removal of the final product from the original crop can be problematic when it comes to salmonella contamination. While peanuts are roasted at sufficient temperatures to kill salmonella bacteria, this is only the first step in the process, and it does not prevent re-contamination from the peanuts’ surroundings as goes through any additional steps. In 2008-9, such secondary contamination occurred due to shabby conditions in peanut processing facilities which may have let contaminated rainwater fall into the roasted peanut supply. (Cavallaro, Date and Medus) This resulted in huge recalls of peanut products and 9 deaths. One of the largest problems in tracing the cases back to their original source was the huge number of peanut butter products that these peanuts were processed into. The generic peanut butter sold to other large corporations for use in their own product proved very difficult to trace. Peanut butter in our society has become so generic and so prevalent that it is difficult to confirm anything about the original source of any given secondary or tertiary product that contains it. Furthermore, due to the specific conditions that peanut butter provides and how it is stored, salmonella in particular have no difficulty in surviving almost indefinitely in a given sample. In this case, the additional production steps inherent in the making of peanut butter are detrimental.

Peanut butter is not in and of itself dangerous. It is a generally healthy and nutritious additive to many of the foods that we enjoy. However, it’s generally best to avoid products which contain peanut butter from an unknown source. The best course of action to avoid widespread contamination hazards is to buy your own peanut butter. The product that is intended for direct consumer use tends to be processed more carefully, and is more easily traceable directly to its source. As a general rule, simply knowing where your food comes from is a good policy, and should you have any doubts, simply re-cooking the butter should remove most harmful contaminants.

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cavallaro, Elizabeth, et al. "Salmonella Typhimurium Infections Associated with Peanut Products." The New England Journal of Medicine (2011): 601-610.

Silwela, Andrew H., Kudzayishe J. Mukaro and Nozipo Nziramasanga. "Aflatoxin Carryover during Large Scale Peanut Butter Production." Food and Nutrition Sciences (2011): 105-108.

A Cheesy Essay

Cheese is something that we all tend to take for granted in modern American society. It is not really considered food in and of itself, but more as a condiment. It is perceived as something that goes “on” food in order to enhance it, rather than its own dish. There certainly exists the knowledge that this is not true everywhere, and that cheese making has a rich history, but these are things that many people would ascribe more to the past or to distant places, like Europe (and especially France). Yet cheese making is still alive and well, even in America, and even in its traditional, artisanal, hand-made form.

The idea that American-made cheese is tasteless, bland, and inherently less worthy of consideration than other varieties stems largely from the widespread industrialization of its production since mass production became viable. (Paxton) Many people envision something more akin to Kraft singles than a personalized, artfully made product worthy of connoisseurship when it comes to American cheese, and for the most part, they are correct. Cheese is a form of food that does not accommodate well to one-size-fits-all manufacturing techniques: decisions as to how long each phase of the process should take for each individual batch have no set standard. The development of good cheese requires not exacting specification, but the delicate touch of an experienced cheese maker. Many would say that the practice exceeds that of craftsmanship and is closer to an art. (Paxton) Understandably, this does not mesh well with the emergent method of food production in America, which focuses above all on the efficient production of a reliable product in as large amounts as is possible. This mentality gives rises to the plastic-like, shrink-wrapped types of cheese that we more readily associate with America.

In contrast, European cheeses have the rightful connotation of being gourmet creations, never quite the same from producer to producer. Cheese-makers in Europe often have the luxury of direct access to dairy farms that have surrounded their workshops for centuries, allowing them to create cheese from unpasteurized, grass-fed cattle milk before it begins to spoil. (Haas) In Switzerland, for example, while the government dictates and provides the strains of bacteria that cheese makers must use in order to ensure the safety of the resultant product, many techniques that might be used to preserve the shelf life of the milk before it is used are not allowed, forcing the cheese to be made from local milk. (Haas) The cheese maker is given the freedom to decide with each individual batch how long to soak the curds, how long to age each cheese, how many holes he allows to form as a result of residual bacteria, and so forth. This has the effect of keeping the cheese of each operation distinct from others, each having its own local flavor without compromising the safety of the cheese. In addition, the bacteria provided by the government for each cheese has a particular genetic marker, which allows for the detection of copycat cheeses and imitations upon testing. Only genuine, certified cheeses make the grade in the exacting European market.

While this specific style of production may not be an option in American cheeses, with dairy farms being far enough removed from cheese makers to require pasteurization, the idea of artisan craftsmanship is still not as foreign to America as the current market might suggest. Many cheeses have in fact been developed here, cheese making techniques having been passed down and adapted from the original European techniques of settlers and immigrants. Original American cheeses include Jack cheese, Colby cheese, Colby-jack cheese, Monterey jack cheese, Pepper jack cheese, and yes, American cheese. While this innovation in cheese making may have died down following the industrialization of the market, artisan cheese makers have rediscovered older means of production via associations with European cheese makers in an increasingly global economy. While the techniques used in traditional European cheese making provide a starting point, American cheese makers are less restricted by the onus of exactly recreating the traditional cheeses of their forefathers. As such, they have much more room in which to experiment and innovate with new flavors and new types of cheeses. Traditions may provide helpful pointers, but they are not the objective in and of themselves, as is the case in many European operations. With the rising backlash against factory produced food in America, in favor of “green”, “sustainable”, or “organic” methods, and the vast difference in quality from mass-produced cheeses, there may be room in the coming generation for large growth in the American demand for artisan cheese. I certainly intend to sample some.

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Haas, Scott. "The Cultural Diversity of Cheese." Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture (2011): 112-115.

Paxton, Heather. "Cheese Cultures: Transforming American Tastes and Traditions." Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture (2010): 35-47.

Food, Sidelined

For the purposes of this essay, I observed the behavior of patrons at the Sidelines Pub, a small restaurant tucked away in the student center here at the University of Denver. The establishment is run by the food services company that organizes the rest of the dining facilities on campus, however the business is unlike those of the dining halls in several ways. For example, it is open to the public, operates on different hours, serves the same menu all day long, and has alcoholic beverages available for purchase. This last item is what truly makes it a “pub”, and the atmosphere is designed to emphasize this point, whether successfully or not. Televisions are displayed around the establishment, muted, showing sporting events. Popular music is played at a medium level throughout. Jerseys of the various school sporting teams are displayed in frames on the walls. Seating is primarily small, wooden tables with two to four chairs at each, but there are also couches arranged around the television sets for larger groups. A small stage occupies a rear corner, presumably used in various events that are held here. Ordering is done via a checklist of the menu, which is passed to the cooks directly. To-go orders are served in plastic boxes and paper cups, while other patrons are given a number and have their food brought to their table on a plate with a plastic cup. The food itself is traditional, greasy pub food for the most part. Burgers and curly fries are the most common fare. Milkshakes are available, as are breakfast options such as omelets and cinnamon rolls. Salads are also provided for the more “health-conscious” patrons.

I observed the patrons of this establishment at roughly 3:00 P.M. on a weekday. At this time, the “lunch rush” had subsided, and the customers were mostly those who were still finishing their orders from that time. Most of these were students studying on laptops, paying very little attention to any food that they had, or much of anything else around them. There were also a few small groups chatting to each other over the last of their lunches. The couches around the televisions were mostly empty in favor of the wooden tables. Primarily the crowd was composed of men, but there were a few females around. They appeared more likely to be in the small groups than alone and to have ordered salads rather than the greasier foods that most of the men had chosen. The customers were mostly college-age, but there were a few older customers. Like the females, they appeared to be more often in small groups than alone.

From these observations, what can we conclude about the values of the college students that make up the base of this pub’s customers? To be blunt, we can conclude that they do not much care for the food served at this pub. The pub itself is designed to stimulate the customers and to increase the amount of food that they purchase and consume. Upon analysis, everything from the inclusion of televisions to the choice of music to the warm colors of the room and the attempt at invoking school spirit is intended to engage the consumer and increase the sale of the food here. (Stroebele and De Castro) Younger patrons’ observed preferences are specifically targeted to encourage them to stay and eat. (Stroebele and De Castro) Yet they don’t. Those patrons who do come here for the food are generally observed to order it to go, avoiding the stimuli provided to encourage consumption. Those that stay do so as a result of the fact that the pub is tucked out of the way and generally empty. They avoid the attempts at engagement provided, (such as the televisions, the music, or the stage) and instead concentrate on their own business, be it the people they came with or their own work. Also, while men seem mostly indifferent to the actual food served, the women that come here appear to actively dislike it, choosing the least appropriately themed dish for the institution, the salad, and only staying if they have some other person to talk to. The proposal that this is due to health concerns is not unreasonable, but probably beyond the scope of the limited observations I had.

Why then, does this institution continue to exist? If it serves only as a sub-par spot for socialization and study, with patrons that are less than enthusiastic about the food that is served, logic would dictate that it would not last long. The answer lies in the few people that I observed carrying out their food orders and in the time of day that I chose to observe. Upon repeat visits, I discovered that the frequency of these types of customers increased later in the day, and that after 5:00 or so, they began to purchase alcohol. This also helps explain why the pub engages in many special events after dinner, when it is more socially acceptable to engage in drinking, yet few people are hungry. As previously mentioned, the pub is the only place on campus where it is legal to purchase alcohol. It would appear then, that the pub food and the environment in which it is served are simply excuses in the minds of many of its patrons to keep open a place where a college student can buy a beer or two. Despite its attempt at being a casual restaurant, the pub remains primarily that: the place where people go to buy booze.

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Stroebele, Nanette and John M. De Castro. "Effect of ambience on food intake and food choice." Nutrition (2004): 821-838.

Dupuis and Pollan reading 3

One thing that both Dupuis and Pollan agree on is that we, as a society, have become used to the idea that rules about what to eat come from “on high”, as it were. Whether this is from religious authorities (“Angels”, as Dupuis puts it), or from distant scientists whose exact studies we generally never even get to see, from nutrients in our food that we are told exist and are supremely important but can never really observe ourselves. This message is then filtered down through intermediaries and messengers to us, the common people. Preachers tell us what we should eat. Nutritionists tell us what we should eat. Doctors tell us what we should eat. Families tell us what we should eat. The messages are confused, and the authority behind each has become increasingly suspect. So what should we eat?

Pollan suggests a rather simple answer: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” It should be rather self-evident by now that overconsumption leads to obesity and various related detrimental health effects, and that eating more plants than animals generally avoids this fate. The real key here, though, is the first part. Eat food. Don’t go out in search of the perfect well-balanced, ideal diet. It probably doesn’t even exist. Just eat things that you recognize as food. This is, after all, where most traditional guidelines came from in the first place. Just eat what didn’t kill your father and didn’t kill your grandfather before him was the basic idea. Of course, anymore, what your father ate just might have killed him, but you get the idea. Does this mean to ignore the latest findings on what horrible new fats people have found in who knows what; does it mean to ignore those trendy nutritionist voices from “on high” warning you about sodium and telling you to get more omega-3’s? For the most part, yes, it does. Just eat some food.

Three day food journal

Thursday

10:00 A.M. Slice of bread with peanut butter

Glass of milk

12:00 Noon Slice of pepperoni pizza

Cup of cheesy potato soup

Buttered roll

Glass and a half of milk

Small salad with ranch dressing

6:30 P.M. Slice of French bread with butter

Slice of lasagna

Glass of milk

8:00 P.M. Bowl of mint chocolate chip ice cream

Friday

12:00 Noon Energy bar

4:30 P.M. Chicken sandwich with bacon, ham, and egg

Curly fries with ketchup

Glass of Mountain Dew

Saturday

11:00 A.M. Slice of bread with peanut butter

Glass of milk

2:30 P.M. Citrus burst Sobe

4:00 P.M. Blackberry Izze

Chicken quesadilla with sour cream and guacamole

Tortilla chips

7:30 P.M. Slice of pepperoni pizza

Glass of Milk

9:30 P.M. Bowl of mint chocolate chip ice cream

Polland reading 2 + "tomatoland" intro

I found the most troubling parts of these readings to be the ill treatment of human workers in the production of these massive amounts of food. While the plight of the animals involved in the chicken industry and so forth is not something that should be overlooked, it pales in comparison to the importance of the mistreatment of the workers. Like Pollan, I admittedly care more about the conditions of humans than I do of animals. However, it does certainly seem like the attitude with regard to the treatment of the product by those in control of such massive operations does translate into a similar attitude towards the workers that are employed in creating it. Just as those in charge care little for the well-being of chickens, or the taste, quality, and nutritional content of their tomatoes because they do not need to experience the realities of production first-hand, they also never need see the predicament of the workers. They are treated as disposable parts of the machine. The use of immigrant and extremely poor workers allows for flagrant disregard for safety, reasonable working conditions, hours, or livable wages. Used up labor is then discharged without need for further compensation by exporting it to another country or blackmailed into staying due to the withholding of welfare money should a worker decide to quit. Even in the cases where this rampant exploitation is discovered and curbed, the organizations responsible, at the very least by silently encouraging any means necessary to increase production, go unpunished and continue to thrive on these same practices.

Horwitz reading

Horwitz argues that with the advent of increasing globalization and technology-fueled multitasking, society is reverting to a state in which eating is dictated by one’s individual needs. This is as opposed to a more concrete schedule, be it dependent upon eating at certain times, in certain places, or with certain people. The end result of this shift towards smaller, individualized meals is greater productivity, possibly at the cost of traditional social structures and healthiness.

The author here tends to illustrate his points by providing in-depth analysis of examples. In order to describe the efficiency of the emerging “on-the-go” system of eating, he describes a Campbell’s Soup At Hand can, and details the large number of ways in which this seemingly simple object is designed to promote the efficiency of the user. When he talks about the declining importance of mealtime gathering, he provides the space station example, wherein the designers assumed that a communal meal table was essential, only to have the astronauts using it gradually come to the conclusion that it was increasingly unnecessary. To illustrate the greater importance of a personal schedule in comparison to the actual time of day, he describes how society has adapted to globalization in order to make time-displacement due to air travel virtually irrelevant, especially in regards to eating. He uses these examples to conclude that we, as a society, are fulfilling our needs with regards to food individually, and as such, are free to free to follow our own natural work cycles, leading to an increase in productivity.

I must admit that my own experiences do mirror the conclusions to which Horwitz comes. In particular, I sometimes substitute an energy bar for lunch or breakfast when I am rushed. While dinner remains a family affair in my house, other meals are permissible to skip, and this does allow me much greater freedom in my schedule. It gives me the freedom not only to work through these times, but also to be where I choose when I eat them, as they are very portable. As such, they provide the increase of in productivity, the “timeless time”, and the “freedom of place” that Horwitz describes.

Cate and O'Donnell readings

The two communities that Cate and O’Donnell describe are very different with regards to their attitudes towards the foods that they eat. In many ways, they represent complete opposites. The prison community exists as an isolated center of hardship within the context of a flourishing, rich society. Meanwhile, the city of Shenzhen is becoming an island of urban cosmopolitanism within the surrounding poor, rural areas of undeveloped, agrarian China. As a result of this, the prison inmates cherish the few innovations and luxuries that they have while incarcerated, while “Old Shenzheners” reflect with nostalgia the times of self-sacrifice and adversity that they willingly endured to make the prosperity of the emerging society possible.

The prisoners are used to eating much more comfortably than they do in jail, the freedom to eat as they choose having been largely taken away from them, like most other freedoms. This makes the few freedoms that they do enjoy much more important to them. The small amount of control and luxury that they can enjoy comes largely in the culture of “spread” that the author describes. Even though it is admittedly less desirable than the “real food” on the outside, making do with the little that remains to them becomes a large part of a prisoner’s life. The small privilege of making this spread becomes worthy of complicated nuances of social customs, the etiquette of sharing out this small comfort.

In contrast, the “Old Shenzheners” are quite used to hardship, having come from backgrounds in which a small, regulated staple of bland food was the norm, if not a luxury in itself. The idea of sacrificing one’s culinary stability and freedom was considered noble, a gesture to help improve the lot of the country as a whole. The newer generations’ cosmopolitan idea of food as a given, available in quantity and variety is still a somewhat alien concept to them, as is the emerging capitalist culture in which they live.