Are Food Guides Published in the Best Interest of Consumers?

This week's reading, The Politics of Government Dietary Advice, by Jennifer Lisa Falbe and Marion Nestle, discusses the influence the food industry has on the dietary guidelines that are published by various governments. The article focuses on the changes that have taken place in the food guidelines created by governments over time. The trends illustrate that these guidelines have become much more convoluted in an attempt to please the food groups that protest anything that portrays their food as unhealthy. This was seen in Technical Report 916, in which it was suggested that sugar consumption should be less than 10% of your daily caloric intake. Lobbying groups representing the interests of the businesses in the sugar industry fought against this guideline, saying that it was not accurate. They cited the DRI's that established the safe upper limit of daily sugar intake at 25% of calories, while also demonstrating the economic impact this would have on sugar producers. The result: the advice about sugars only says, "limit the intake of free sugars. The controversial 10% goal is not mentioned" (132). Furthermore, dietary recommendations have become more complex in order to satisfy lobbying groups; sugar consumption recommendations have gone from "avoid too much sugar" in 1980, to "choose and prepare foods and beverages with little added sugars or caloric sweeteners, such as amounts suggested by the USDA Food Guide and the DASH Eating Plan" in 2007. This is not only an issue in the U.S., as the same political influences have changed the Canadian dietary guidelines as well. In 1992, Health Canada switched from a "foundation diet" approach to a "total diet" approach, encouraging its citizens to consume more calories. This change was undoubtedly influenced by political forces and ultimately led to increased obesity in Canada. Government issued guidelines may not be offering citizens the optimal advice.

The ideas presented in this article are believable, yet it is shocking to think how much lobbyists can truly impact governmental decisions. Dietary advice is an important matter; it affects the health of a country's citizens, which is critical to the performance of a country as a whole. Yet, even with the health of the people at stake, governments allow political influences to control the decision making process. Is it beneficial to the people to make the guidelines more complex? To remove quantitative suggestions and replace them with generalizations? It is certainly not helpful to the citizens of the nation.

Is it worth sacrificing the health of your country's citizens to please the lobbyists of certain food corporations?
Can laws be made to prevent the political influence on government issued dietary guidelines?

The Impact of Eating American

In this week's reading by Sidney Mintz, titled Eating American, the questions surrounding an "American cuisine" are discussed as well as the impact of American eating habitats in the near future. Mintz decides that there is no true American cuisine, as there is an Italian cuisine or Asian cuisine. This stems from differences in our country's origins; a conglomerate of various immigrants representing differing ethnicities. Mintz describes a social pressure in America to assimilate: "That there are powerful pressures toward sameness, working particularly upon children, may be thought to increase the homogeneity of American food habits...by learning such behavior, people are becoming sociologically more alike, but it is not really clear that they are becoming more culturally alike" (26-27). He claims that Americans, as a whole, eat out a lot, and some foods, such as the hotdog and hamburger can be classified as American, but this does not constitute a cuisine. After he states that Americans lack a national cuisine, Mintz goes on to discuss American eating habits in general and the impact these habits will have in the future. Eating fast food, prepared and packaged food, diets high in salts, fats, and processed sugars, and low in fruits and vegetables, drinking more soda than tap water, and several others. These poor habits, if unchanged, will have a devastating impact on the American way of life in the next 50 years. Shortages and health issues will become a staple of American livelihood.

After reading Mintz's article, I had a very pessimistic feeling about the future of America as a result of our current eating habits. Throughout my education, I have been constantly warned about the ill effects of eating poorly and some popular eating habits among Americans. It is disturbing that the numbers have not been changing drastically over the past few decades; decades in which the message of poor eating habits has been disseminated to all Americans. It seems inevitable that the way in which most Americans act, not just in terms of food, but in general, will lead to events in the near future that will come as a shock to most people, but this will not surprise me.

Do you agree with Mintz that Americans do not have a national cuisine?
How can we take steps to avoid the grim scenario that seems to await Americans in the next 50 years?

The Irrationality of Rationality

In this week's reading, The McDonaldization of Society, George Ritzer provides an analysis of modern society in an unorthodox manner: he uses McDonald's as a paradigm for societal trends. He states that rationalization occurs in any forward thinking society and it stresses "efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty" (372). These trends have positives, as society becomes closer to maximizes its productivity, but the negatives are far more drastic. Ritzer says, "the irrationality of rationality is a seemingly inevitable byproduct of the process" (378). The measures civilization takes to increase output and use more rational procedures end up hurting the individuals the system is supposed to benefit. Just like McDonald's, society is in a process of dehumanizing its people, and making individual lives less exciting and meaningful. Quality takes a backseat to quantity, as the latter is more applicable to the social world. This disturbing trend has even been mentioned in my previous blogs, as commodity farmers have been forced to produce as much as possible, forgetting about quality. When he concludes, Ritzer makes it evident that the solution to this rapid "McDonaldization" of our population is not to return to a less rational form of society, but to gain greater control over the process of rationalization.

This is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a while; not because of the originality of the ideas, but because of the way in which Ritzer conveys these ideas. By using McDonald's, a symbol of the past few decades of global societal change, the author is able to make generalizations about society in a lucid manner. I agree with his idea that it is impossible for our society to try and move backwards to reverse the ongoing trends and that we must learn to control the irrationalization that comes with rationalization. We need to continue to think rationally about moving forward and becoming more productive, but must do this in a way that prevents dehumanization.

If current trends persist, will our society be controlled completely by robots at some point in the future?
How can we improve society and become more productive through technology, while limiting the negative impact it has on our well-being?

Eating Meat: A Question of Morality

In this week's reading of The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, he discussed the ethics of eating animals. Pollan, admittedly a meat eater, brought forth many questions surrounding the killing and consumption of animals. Mainly, he considers the arguments presented by Peter Singer, in Animal Liberation, a book promoting vegetarianism. Throughout the chapter, Pollan tries to refute Singer's argument, but is continuously rebuffed. Pollan concedes that he must "take the steer's interest into account or accept that I'm a speciesist" (309). The vegetarianism argument is "disarmingly simple" (307), and for this reason Pollan slowly begins to question his eating practices. Pollan was most troubled by the idea that someday speciesism might be regarded as an evil comparable to that of racism. This leads him to reluctantly become a vegetarian. Unfortunately, Pollan immediately discovers some of the more and less obvious flaws of being a non-meat eater. He conveys that eating meat is more convenient and sociable, but most importantly, it has alienated him from other people and "a whole dimension of human experience" (314). Pollan speaks of how meat eating is more than just a dietary decision; it is a cultural and evolutionary tradition. Our ancestors ate meat in order to survive, and some evolutionary changes that have occurred, both physically and mentally, involve the hunting and eating of animals. Pollan shows how meat eating is ingrained in the human mind, but the current moral questions surrounding it create an interesting omnivore's dilemma.

The most interesting aspect of the vegetarian argument is the idea that history will judge us meat eaters harshly; that "a crime of stupendous proportions is going on all around us every day, just beneath our notice" (309). I find this perspective from the future intriguing. The idea that we might not even recognize the crimes we are committing daily; that we are just as ignorant as the Nazis participating in the Holocaust or the millions of people who enslaved Africans for centuries, is hard to wrap my head around. It makes me question my eating practices; will I look back one day, as well as my kids and grandkids, and be shameful for the crimes I committed? Eating meat is simply a dietary option in modern times. It is not a necessity, so is eating Earth's animals worth the moral dilemma?

How can we make a rational decision about eating meat?
Is eating meat a crime against nature or is it simply a natural phenomenon?

Get to Know Your Food

This week's reading titled, The Pleasures of Eating, by Wendell Berry, is about the major problem with modern day consumers: a lack of knowledge regarding the food they eat. He describes today's industrial eater as, "one who does not know that eating is an agricultural act, who no longer knows or imagines the connections between eating and the land, and who is therefore necessarily passive and uncritical - in short, a victim" (146). Those who have industrialized the industry do not want the consumer to know the process of how the food gets to their plate. The overriding concerns of this industrialized food industry are not the quality of the food and health of the customer, but are volume and price. In order to overcome the flaws of the modern food industry and be healthier individuals, consumers must make an effort to know their food. Berry believes eating responsibly encompasses seven steps, all of which bring consumers closer to their food. He emphasizes buying food that is produced locally, and even growing your own food, but if not learning as much as possible about industrial techniques. Going back to the title of the essay, Berry intends for the reader to understand how to make eating pleasurable. He believes this can be done through forging a relationship with the food one eats; growing it, knowing it throughout its whole life, and eventually consuming it. "Eating with the fullest pleasure - pleasure, that is, that does not depend on ignorance - is perhaps the profoundest enactment of our connection with the world" (152).

I have seen a constant trend in writing about the modern day food industry and the role of the consumer. All of us, the people who eat the food, at the end of the chain must research and get more involved with the food we eat. To be ignorant, and eat mindlessly, is damaging to all involved except the industrialists. Getting as close to the producer of your food as possible, makes eating much safer. If you can even grow it yourself, eating becomes rewarding. If every consumer makes a stronger effort to eat less food that is produced industrially and get "closer" to the food, the pleasure of eating will become more widespread.

What are some ways in which the average consumer can gather more information about the food they eat?
Can raising the food we eat create moral dilemmas that prevent us from truly enjoying the food to the extent that we should?

An Oxymoron: Industrial Organic

This week's reading in The Omnivore's Dilemma, written by Michael Pollan, discusses the reality of the rapidly growing organic foods industry. He brings the reader to Polyface Farm, owned by Joel Salatin, a farmer who triumphs over the industrial system through his natural methods. The relationship between humans and grass is highlighted, as this mutualistic partnership has enabled each species to flourish. On Salatin's alternative farm, "by the end of the season, his grasses will have been transformed by his animals into some 25,000 pounds of beef, 50,000 pounds of pork, 12,000 broilers, 800 turkeys, 500 rabbits, and 30,000 dozen eggs" (126). Pollan comments on how this productive farm amazingly enriches the soil and surrounding environment. He contrasts Salatin's Polyface Farm and George Naylor's farm in Iowa; the former is pastoral, diversified, biological, and functions in a local market, among other things, while the latter is industrial, specialized, mechanical, and is entrenched in the global market. Salatin's natural ideals were exhibited in his strong opinions shared with Pollan. He believed that industrial organic was a contradiction in terms, so Pollan set out to decide if this opinion was valid; he discovered Salatin "hit the nail on the head." Joel Salatin's argument against the organic food industry was confirmed after researching the products at Whole Foods, the number one seller of organic foods in the supermarket industry. Pollan viewed the labels, reading in-depth stories of each animal and the farms they came from: "Rosie, a sustainably farmed, free-range chicken" who came from a company whose "farming methods strive to create harmonious relationships in nature, sustaining the health of all creatures and the natural world" (135).  The other foods all contained the same verbose, pleasant-sounding labels, and when Pollan visited the places that were described, he discovered the labels were far from the truth. Rosie's farm in Petaluma, was more of an animal factory than farm. She lives in a shed with about "twenty thousand other Rosies, who, aside from their certified organic feed, live lives little different from that of any other industrial chicken" (140) and rarely walk outside the shed. Salatin was correct; industrial organic was a euphemism for industrial.


No other novel I have read has been even close to as informative as The Omnivore's Dilemma. The questions it raises about the organic food industry, affect the decisions I make everyday. I realize I have had so many false notions about this food industry, but Pollan has helped unveil the realities of industrial organic. It all begins to make sense after reading this book; the wordy labels, the emphasis on the pure, all cover up the industrialized nature of the industry. It makes me more aware of the food I am eating and  the novel teaches the reader to ask questions and really research the food that is being sold.

How can the everyday consumer differentiate between the falsely advertised organic products, and those that are truly natural?
Is it inevitable that every natural industry eventually falls to the power of industrialism?

The Case for Industrial Farming

This week's reading in The American entitled The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals, written by Blake Hurst placed an emphasis on the criticisms that modern day industrial farmers face. Hurst brings the reader into the mind of the industrial farmer and gives substantial reasons for the actions of himself and others like him. Unfortunately, most of the public thoughts today about industrial farming have negative connotations and Hurst rebuffs a lot of this common thinking. He quotes several authors from Matthew Scully to Michael Pollan, and specifically with the latter, he explains why their statements are far from the whole story. In much of his article, Hurst focuses on the claims made by Pollan and proves to the reader that Pollan presents an extremely biased perspective; "Pollan should talk to some actual farmers before he presumes to advise a president". Hurst conveys to the reader that many of the fertilizers, pesticides, and other farming methods currently employed by many of today's farmers actually provide more benefits than negatives, contrary to the public opinion. This goes beyond positives on the farm and increase in sheer output of crops; he explains that current farmers' methods also benefit the ecosystem and our globe as a whole in the long run.

Having read the beginning of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, I have seen both sides of the issue. As I think about the cases presented by each author, I believe Hurst's are stronger, especially because he is an industrial farmer himself. The knowledge he has accumulated from his experiences on the farm since childhood are invaluable. Although we must account for the bias Hurst must have, being that he is an industrial farmer being attacked for his methods, he presents his perspective confidently and succinctly in the article. He brings the reader to the farm, figuratively, and explains to us why the methods he uses benefit us, him, and the world through specific examples and reasons only a farmer so close to the source itself could present.

When two sources present both sides of an issue, with strong evidence for each case, how do we determine who is more correct in the situation?
Are industrial farmers, through their methods, benefitting or hurting the ecosystem and economy in the long run?