Food, Sidelined

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.

Pollan reading

Pollan suggests that there exists an undeniable unhealthiness within the American diet. This is not an uncommon claim. However, instead of blaming the problem on any particular part of the diet itself, he points the finger at the concept of scientifically analyzing food in order to determine an optimum dietary course. It is the idea that food can be dissected and scientifically understood to be inherently good or bad for you that is causing the unhealthy symptoms of obesity and anxiety, with all the health problems that they invite. The problem, he says, lies less in the foods that we may choose to eat, but more in the way in which we eat them and the societal influences surrounding their consumption.

This is an interesting opinion to express. It certainly runs counter to the concept that science is the best available means of understanding the world and finding the optimum solutions to problems. However, Pollan blames the scientific community less than he does the anxiety and hyper-reactionary attitude that many consumers have towards the findings of dieticians. The resultant scramble on behalf of food companies to commercialize and monetize the demands of the populace seems a particularly sore point.

The anti-scientific and anti-commercial tone of the article does make me question the contents of the argument somewhat. It would suggest less that Pollan wants people to be healthy and more that he has an axe to grind with certain institutions and those people who follow them. Nonetheless, the fundamentals of his argument are sound, and I do agree with him on many points. I have never paid much attention to the various dietary fads that have come and gone over the years. Part of this is due to the fact that almost all of them concern losing weight, and if anything I require the exact opposite. The other part is that many of the respected "scientific experts" are hardly scientists at all. The field of nutrition is a ridiculously complex and individualized one, and many respected scientists are of the opinion that, honestly, we don't have the technology or understanding required to be able to tell you exactly what kinds of foods you should eat. There are some rough guidelines that we do know, and I try to follow those somewhat. Don't eat nothing but sugary foods. Milk is good for your bones. You need to eat some kind of protein. Vegetables are pretty good for you. Other than these basic pointers, though, I just eat what I want.