World Hunger

In the chapter “World Hunger:  Its Roots and Remedies,” by Frances Moore Lappé, the causes of world hunger are explored.  World hunger is a global issue, affecting more than 854 million people.  Many people think that world hunger is caused by a lack of food, but there is plenty of food in the world.  This is now as the scarcity fallacy.  The article, “The Scarcity Fallacy,” by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins, and Lindsey Peterson, explores why people feel that world hunger is only caused by a lack of food.  There is plenty of food, but it is not affordable or accessible to people in developing nations, where the majority of hungry people are concentrated.  Poverty and hunger go hand in hand.  There are many other things that contribute to hunger.  Hunger is also more likely depending on gender and ethnicity.  Many more women are hungry than men.  Many have realized that food aid, directed by the government, is not actually doing that much to help the problem.  While the government tries to help, they also use the aid as political clout, aiding the countries that they think are the most valuable to them politically.  This unfair distribution of aid does nothing to eradicate the problem of world hunger.  One organization that is trying to help is the ONE organization, meant to help alleviate poverty.  Poverty is the root of many problems and ONE works through many issues to help eradicate poverty, such as by getting developing countries out of debt and improving water availability and sanitation.

World hunger is a very frustrating issue to think about.  First of all, many people are not aware of the real issues behind world hunger.  If people were aware that there was enough food in the world and it just wasn’t being distributed properly, they would encourage the government to help with food distribution, not with growing more food.  It is very frustrating to realize that there is enough food in the world  but it is not being distributed properly.  It is horrible that we have enough food to feed everyone but the food isn’t available or affordable.  This problem can only be fixed through governments working together.  I hope that world hunger will one day be eliminated but at this moment I think there will always be hungry people.  These articles have lead me to question:

     1.       How will people become informed of the real reasons why there is world hunger?

     2.       As the standard of living increases in many developing countries, how will this affect world hunger in third-world countries?   

Rationality

The McDonaldization of Society, by George Ritzer, in Sociological Odyssey, explores how society has become rationalized.  Rationality is emphasized by efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman technology, and control.  One of the biggest examples of rationality is a fast food restaurant.  A fast food restaurant is efficient, moving customers through in a matter of seconds.  Customers are even able to pull the the drivethrough window, never having to leave their cars.  This is one of the most efficient systems.  Fast food restaurants are also predictable.  When people go in, they expect the same thing every time and receive it.  The menu is small so there is little variation in the product.  Another characteristic is the focus on quantity rather than quality.  McDonald's focuses on how many hamburgers they sell, not how good their burgers are.  There has also been a large substitution of nonhuman technology.  Many processes are now automated, not requiring humans.  This makes the product more predictable.  And even when there are humans working, they are controlled so much that they seem like robots.  They have to follow a strict set of rules.  The final aspect of rationality is control.  The people working in the fast food industry have to follow a strict set of rules.  Restaurants also attempt to control how long customers stay at their establishment, by their lack of waiters and lack of seating.  America, and many other countries, are becoming more rationalized.

Rationalization is an interesting concept.  Rationalization has made much of America extremely homogeneous, we can find the same restaurants anywhere.  Many parts of America look exactly the same.  I think it is a problem that rationalization has taken individuality away from many parts of America.  We are losing our separate identities for different parts of America.  Soon there will be no need to travel to other parts of America because they will all be the same.  I hope that America will continue to have regional identities and not just turn into one big America blob.  These fears lead me to question if:

1.  Will America regions be able to keep their identities with such a push by companies to spread throughout the country and take over?
2.  How have other countries experienced rationalization and will they ever become as rationalized as America?

The Black Obesity Problem

In the article “Fried Chicken and Fresh Apples”, by Noo Oyo A. Kwate, obesity is examined as a reflection of race.  Obesity is much more prevalent in African-American individuals, especially those of lower income.  Kwate argues that this is due to the fast food density in black neighborhoods.  These neighborhoods are a result of racial segregation.  This issue is examined through population characteristics, economic characteristics, physical infrastructure, and social processes.  The population of a black neighborhood is primarily black and African-Americans are targeted by fast food companies.  This is why there are more fast food restaurants in black neighborhoods.  Black neighborhoods are also generally poorer and fast food is a cheap alternative to food.  In terms of economics, there is a poor retail environment in black neighborhoods because of the poverty, and this makes black neighborhoods a good place for fast food restaurants to establish.  In terms of physical infrastructure, residents lack the power to overthrow zoning rules and therefore aren’t able to outlaw fast food restaurants.  There are also social processes that contribute to the high concentration of fast food restaurants in black neighborhoods.  Black neighborhoods have the stigma as a place for undesirables and in our current culture, fast food restaurants are also an undesirable addition to an upper-class white neighborhood.

I found the majority of this article very disturbing.  First of all, it is disturbing that at the present time, fifty years after the Civil Rights movement, there are still black neighborhoods that do not have the same social standing or prestige as their white counterparts.  Because these neighborhoods are seen as lower and less desirable they do not have the same political power as their white counterparts.  This prohibits the neighborhoods from banning fast food restaurants.  This is especially disturbing.  Even if people do not want fast food, they have no way to stop it from entering their neighborhood.  This all helps to contribute to the obesity problem among African-Americans.   It is disturbing that there is a racial divide in obesity, even though everyone in America is supposed to be treated as equals.  This leads me to question:

1.  Will the obesity problem ever be a personal problem, not determined by race or social situation?

2.  Will fast food always be relegated to the poorest, least popular neighborhoods?     

A Republic of Fat

In chapter 6 of Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan explores America as “a republic of fat”.  Pollan begins by showing the similarity of our obsession with fat now to early America’s obsession with alcohol.  In the early 1800s, as America expanded westward into better farmland, there was an abundance of corn, which was turned into cheap liquor.  America’s began to drink nearly five gallons a year, compared to the less than one gallon that people consume now.  This is similar to now.  There is an overabundance of corn, and it is being used to fatten our meat and make fattening processed foods.  A lot of corn is being turned into high fructose corn syrup, which is used to sweeten food.  Americans consume the most high fructose corn syrup through soda.  Soda has grown from 8 ounces to 20 ounces, as Americans demanded more soda.  This is known as supersizing.  Americans want more food but don’t want to pay for two sodas or two burgers.  Companies began making food bigger and charging more for it.  Another problem with the processed food in America is that it is very energy dense.  For people with diabetes, the body is not able to process this extra glucose.  Many problems have led to the obesity epidemic in America. 

The amount of obesity in America is exceptionally disturbing.  According to Pollan, it is expected that one in three children born in 2000 will be overweight.  Americans really need to think about what they are eating and if it is really good for them.  People cannot keep eating hamburgers and other forms of fast food and expect to live healthy lives.  The problem is that this food is much cheaper than healthy, whole foods.  I think there has to be a change in our society, where healthy food becomes less expensive than fast food.  While this would cost the government a lot of money right now, in the long run, it would save on healthcare and other costs related to the unhealthiness of the American population.  This leads me to question:

         1.       Will Americans ever become healthy or return to a healthy way of eating?

         2.       Will the government take a stand and begin to subsidize healthier food that is better for the American public?    

American "Cuisine"

In the articles, “Eating American” by Sidney Mints, and “Consumer Culture and Participatory Democracy:  The Story of Coca-Cola During World War II” by Mark Weiner, American food culture is explored.  The article bye Weiner explores how Coke become a national symbol, synonymous with America.  During World War II, the government made an effort to make sure that Coke was available to the soldiers.  They did this by building bottling plants wherever the soldiers were fighting.  This is how Coke came to be an international product.  But America’s food symbol is very different than those of other countries.  An example is France and their wine.  The wine is made from the grapes grown right in France, as opposed to Coke which can be made anywhere, because it is only chemicals.  This ties in with the other article, “Eating American.”  The author feels that Americans have no food culture, like those of other countries.  But this idea was disturbing to many people.  They feel that the diversity of American cuisine is what makes it American.  Americans enjoy the privilege of being able to whatever type of cuisine they want whenever they want.  Yet, even with America’s appreciation of different types of food, their favorite foods remain very bland.  Americans favor hamburgers, white bread and pasta.  That would seem to be the American cuisine.  The author also feels that Americans do not have a cuisine as a whole but there are many examples of regional cuisine, food made with ingredients that can only be found in that region.  But, with globalization, regional cuisines are disappearing as people demand they be able to eat what they want whenever they want.

The ideas posed in both of these articles are very interesting to me.  I would agree that America as a whole does not have a cuisine, like other countries do.  We are a very new nation and made up of many different types of nationalities.  This makes having one type of food that everyone makes and likes very difficult.  At this point, I do not think Americans will ever have their own cuisine.  There are too many different types of people in America, with too many different styles.  Americans are also fad-crazy.  They follow whatever diet is in style at the time, regardless of how healthy it is.  This prevents Americans from developing one style of cooking and eating as well.  These readings have brought about a couple of questions:

        1.       Will Americans ever have their own cuisine?

        2.       Should Americans try to develop their own cuisine or should Americans continue to appreciate the diversity of their food?

The Choice of Vegetarianism

                In chapter 17 of Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, entitled “The Ethics of Eating Animals,” Pollan explores why people eat vegetarian.   In the first section, Pollan reads an animal rights book while eating a steak.  It is the day before his steer is supposed to be slaughtered.  Through reading, Pollan decides that he needs to become vegetarian to decide if eating meat is the right thing to do.  He feels he cannot be impartial while still eating meat.  Once vegetarian, Pollan explores why people choose to stop eating meat and how vegetarians justify their choice.  One reason why people go vegetarian is that they believe that eating meat makes them a speciesest, being humans are superior only because they are humans.  There are many reasons why Pollan says people choose to be vegetarian. 

In this chapter, Pollan also explores the dilemmas of being vegetarian.  What animals can he justify eating?  Do milk and egg production really hurt cows and chickens?  How can a filling meal be made?  And going along with these questions, Pollan explores the notion of animal happiness vs. animal suffering.  Pollan says many vegetarians can convert to carnivorism when they see animals that are raised in good conditions, like those at the Polyface farm.  Pollan feels that the vegetarian question has only been brought to light because people have lost touch with animals.  Up until the past couple years, people could see animals being raised on farms and were able to appreciate the animals and their sacrifice.  Many people now want our food to look as unanimal-like as possible and prefer not to think about where our food comes from.

I feel that I definitely fall into the category of not wanting to think about where our meat comes from.  I choose not to eat meat with bones because it reminds me that the animal was once alive.  But this chapter posed new ideas that challenged my views.  It was very interesting to think about how we used to view our animals and appreciate them for their sacrifice.  Our culture has completely changed.  I think if we returned to the whole system, people would have no problems eating their animals.  I have always wondered how farmers were able to eat their own animals, but after reading, I think this is why.  They appreciate the animals that they raise and appreciate their sacrifice.  For many vegetarians, as long as animals were treated alright, they have a hard time justifying why they can’t eat them.  Pollan’s chapter on vegetarianism brought up many interesting ideas.

     1.       Would vegetarianism still exist if people were more connected to their meat?

     2.       Will vegetarianism decline as America moves more toward small farms that treat their animals humanely?   

Sustainable Growth

In chapters 11 and 13 of Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan explores an integrated farm and showcases people who only shop locally.  In chapter 11, entitled “The Animals,”  Pollan visits a diverse farm, which incorporates multiple species on the same farm.  The processes on the farm are cyclical, all relying on each other.  An example of this is the cows and the chickens.  Cows are moved around the pasture and the chickens follow them a few days later.  The cows help the chickens by shortening the grass and the chickens then clean the field by eating grubs from the cow manure.  This process reduces the amount of purchases that the farmer needs to make.  If a farmer was only raising cows, without chickens, he would need bug killer and many other things to take care of the cows.  But having animals work together on a farm makes the farm more efficient and reduces costs.  In chapter 13, entitled “The Market:  ‘Greetings from the Non-Barcode People’,”  Pollan showcases the same farm, the Polyface Farm, which only sells its products locally.  While the product from Polyface Farm is more expensive, people realize that the quality is better and that the product is better for the environment.  Polyface raises its animals sustainably and the produce is not transported far, reducing fossil fuel consumption.  Both of these chapters illustrate the sustainability that should be used on all farms.

I completely agree with Pollan that this “new” style of farming should be adopted by all people.  It is better for the environment and for the food quality if all types of animal and produce are produced on the same farm.  Integrating everything into one system reduces costs for the farmer.  This type of farm is also more environmentally friendly.  Because animals have different functions on the farm, very little needs to be purchased.  There are also very few chemicals needed because animals performing their natural behaviors clean up after other animals.  This type of farm is so much better for the environment.  I agree with Pollan that it takes a lot of hard work and ingenuity to come up with so complicated a farming system.  I think it is important to encourage any who wants to farm sustainably to farm, regardless of intelligence.  Having a farm like this requires dedication.  These chapters have raised a couple of questions.

 Is it possible for every farm to follow this new integrated farm system?

             Do people realize that even their organic produce and animals may not have been raised naturally or sustainably, unlike those raised on the Polyface Farm?