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?      

Farmers vs. Authors

In The New York Times article, entitled “Farmer in Chief, by Michael Pollan, Pollan writes a letter to the President-Elect, informing him of the problems in the American food system and how he feels the problems should be fixed.  Problems that concern Pollan include the amount of fossil fuels used to grow and transport food, the health of the American public, and soaring food prices.  His suggestion to fix this include returning to growing food using the power of the sun, encouraging the purchase of locally-grown food, and creating a federal definition of food (only allowing food stamps on food that is deemed healthy).  In response to this article, Blake Hurst, a farmer, wrote his own article in The Journal of American Enterprise Institute.  He criticizes Pollan’s ideas about how to fix the American food system.  Hurst feels that farmers should be able to take advantage of the newest technology, and not be forced to farm using “1930s technology.”  Hurst says that a lot of the new technology has been advantageous to farmers, and a lot of it is more humane for the animals, such as pig cages.  He also feels that farmers have a choice in how they raise their food, that they are not just pawns of the government or corporations.  Hurst’s final response to Pollan’s essay is that many of Pollan’s suggestions are not feasible for farmers.  An example of this is the planting of cover crops.  Pollan and Hurst have very different ideas about the way farmers should be raising food in modern society.

An example of the spreading of harmful nitrogen fertilizers by farmer.  Much of the fertilizer runs off into rivers.  Image from:  http://www.dreamstime.com/farm-fertilizer-spreader-thumb8074488.jpg

Personally, I think my ideas align much more with Pollan’s ideas than with Hurst’s.  One of Pollan’s most interesting ideas is that farmers have to reduce their fossil fuel consumption.  I agree with Pollan’s idea that food should be produced using less fossil fuels and fertilizers.  Agriculture is the second largest user of fossil fuels, following transportation.  The consumption of fossil fuels leads to climate change, one of the biggest problems facing our generation.  Reducing fossil fuel use is better for the environment and, therefore, better for the people.  But I understand Hurst’s position that it is very difficult for farmer’s to reduce their fossil fuel usage.  It is much more economically advantageous for farmers to use the latest technology.  But I think farmer’s need to think more about the long-term implications of their fossil fuel usage.  In the future, having a lot of money won’t matter if we are all suffering from the problems caused by climate change.              

Food, Inc. Review

Positive Review:  For Health or Profit, But Not Necessarily for Both http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105152916

The most positive review of Food, Inc. was given by National Public Radio (NPR), a generally neutral news source.  The reviewer, David Edelstein, had nothing negative to say about the movie.  The title gives readers of the review a clue at Edelstein’s opinion, “For Health or Profit, But Not Necessarily for Both.”  The title shows that Edelstein completely agrees with the ideas expressed in the movie.  Edelstein feels that the movie is thought-provoking, even saying that “Every line, every frame makes you choke on your popcorn…”  Edelstein also calls the scale of Food, Inc. “mind-blowing.”  The words he uses throughout the article proves his opinion about Food, Inc. and the ideas expressed in Food, Inc.

Neutral Review:  Meet Your New Farmer:  Hungry Corporate Giant http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/movies/12food.html

The most neutral review, highlighting both positive and negative aspects of the movie, was in The New York Times, a slightly left-leaning newspaper.  The reviewer, Manohla Dargis, seems to completely agree with the content of Food, Inc. but does not always agree with how the content is portrayed.  This reviewer again references popcorn in proving that the movie is mind-blowing, saying, “Nothing says horror like one of those tubs of artificially buttered, nonorganic popcorn…”  She also refers to the lessons learned in Food, Inc. as “unappetizing.”  A third example of Dargis’ feelings about the content of the movie is calling the documentary “informative” and “often infuriating.”  But Dargis does not agree with how this content is portrayed.  She calls the graphics “dopey” and refers to speakers in the movie as “talking heads.”  She also feels that a lot of the content in Food, Inc. is glossed over; that it could be covered much more in depth.  Dargis describes her feelings by saying “…the movie stops before it really gets started…”  Dargis’ review is inherently neutrally, agreeing with all of the content but not with how the content is portrayed.

Negative Review:  Bean There, Bun That http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/bean_there_bun_that_MzisT9ExiKm8XF4nwWzdYM

The most negative review of Food, Inc., by Kyle Smith of the New York Post, finds the movie to be unoriginal and predictable.  From beginning to end, Smith disagrees with the portrayal of the content in the movie.  In the second line of the article, Smith states that the movie relies on “now-familiar gross-out tactics.”  He even goes so far as to call parts of the movie “shrill and pointless.”  He also feels that the movie presents no new information, saying that “the movie offers very little that food radicals don’t already know.”  Smith also takes issue with the fact that issues aren’t pursued deeply enough, similar to the feelings presented by Dargis in her New York Times’ review.  Smith concludes his article by disagreeing with what he feels is the take home message of the movie:  that everyone should buy expensive organic food.  This review is very against Food, Inc., both in subject and how content is portrayed.                      

Food, Inc.

The movie, "Food, Inc." explores how American corporations have completely taken over the American food system.  One example of this is chickens.  The problems associated with chicken production are numerous.  Many companies, such as Tyson, own birds from birth to slaughter.  This is cheaper for the companies than buying them from outside sources.  But because companies own their own chickens, there is no one regulating how the chickens are treated.  Many of the chickens raised by Tyson have never seen the sunlight.  The chickens are constantly surrounded by dust and feces.  Antibiotics and growth hormones are given to the chickens, causing them to experience rapid growth.  The image below shows how much larger chickens have become and how much more quickly they reach their ideal size.

Because chickens grow so rapidly, their internal organs and bones cannot keep up with the growth and many of these chickens are unable to walk.  Another problem with giving chickens antibiotics is that bacteria is becoming resistant and creating superbugs.  There are many other problems associated with chicken raising.  Chickens are usually collected for slaughter by undocumented workers who will not complain about the type of work they are doing.  Another reason that farms won't complain about the conditions that their chickens live in is because they are in debt to the companies.  The problems associated with chickens are numerous and are an excellent example of how the corporation has corrupted the American food system.  "Food, Inc." touches on many other problems, including the overproduction of corn and the cost of healthy food, but the chicken production system is an excellent example of the problems caused by American food production companies.

Personally, I was horrified by the contents of "Food, Inc."  I knew that there were problems in the American food production system but I did not realize how big the problem had become or how little the government was doing to correct the problem.  I think the most memorable story was the death of the two-year-old from tainted meat.  I'm not sure if I was more disturbed that it took the company two weeks after the two-year-old's death to recall the tainted meat or that it has been seven years since the incident and the government still hasn't passed the law that is supposed to correct the problem.  This had led to me question:
1.  How aware are people of who controls the production of their food?
2.  What is the best way to correct the problem in the American food production system?

The Feedlot

In chapter four of Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he explores how cattle are raised to be made into meat.  Pollan follows a calf from birth to feedlot to show this process.  When calves are first born, they are allowed to remain with their mothers for the first six months.  These calves are raised on ranches, with cows having access to fields and fresh grass.  After the first six months, the calves are sent to feedlots.  Feedlots are like large cities, holding hundreds of cattle, all being fattened for slaughter.  Every day, the cows are fed a mixture of corn, antibiotics, and a source of protein.  This mixture is intended to fatten the cattle as quickly as possible, disregarding the fact that this diet is actually terrible for the cows.  Cows are meant to eat grass; it is much healthier for them.  Corn is too high in acid for the cows, they are not capable of digesting it.  This causes many problems for the cows, including bloated stomachs and liver failure.  Because of the corn diet and the fact that cows are kept so closely penned together, the cows require many unnatural antibiotics.  Most veterinarians agree that cows can only live on a feedlot diet for 150 days.  After this amount of time, a cow’s system begin to shut down and they will die.

I was aware of a lot of these facts before reading this chapter.  This is why I have chosen not to eat red meat, unless it is organic and grass fed.  Besides the high fat content of this meat, making it exceptionally unhealthy, I am also disturbed by the amount of unnatural products that cows have to eat at feedlots.  All of the chemicals in beef cannot be good for people.  While I am also concerned for the animals health and wellbeing, I find the diet that the animals are fed is the most disturbing and detrimental to humans.  This leads me to question:

1.   1.   How many people are aware of cattle’s complete diet?  And if they become aware, do they plan on changing their eating habits?

2.  How can this situation be corrected?  Is there a way to economically produce grass-fed beef, which is healthier for both the cows and humans? 

The Farm

In Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, he traces kernels of corn from farm to table.  In Chapter Two, "The Farm," Pollan follows an Iowa corn farmer, George Naylor, as he plants his farm.  As Pollan tracks Naylor, he learns about the surplus of corn that has developed over the years.  Because corn farmers are subsidized by the government, it is profitable for them to grow as much corn as they can, regardless of how much corn is actually needed.  Because of this, corn has completely taken over the Iowa countryside, taking the place of people.  Many towns are almost completely deserted, with middle schools not even having enough students to make a baseball team. 

Iowa Population Graph.  Source:  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_population_map.png

The few people left in town are almost completely broke.  Farmers feel the need to have the newest technology to remain competitive with their neighbors.  With the newest technology, they are able to produce more bushels of corn per an acre of land, the measure of how successful a farmer is.  The only reason George Naylor is not completely broke is because he has not gotten the newest technology, holding on to his tractor from 1975.  But because of this, Naylor is not seen as successful by his neighbors.  The volume of corn grown is a measure of social status but this is not how the system should be.

I feel that the current economic system is not conducive to farmers or the American population.  I think that the system that was used during the New Deal was much better for the farmers.  This system kept the price of corn steady, holding some corn off the market if the market was already weak.  This system was superior for the farmers and the government.  The current system needs to be amended to reach this old ideal.  Farmers should not feel forced to plant more corn even as prices keep falling.  This leads me to question how we will reach this old standard, where the price of corn was kept steady.  Another question is why no one has taken action to correct the system, especially when it was realized that falling corn prices hurt the government and the farmers.  Corn farmers should be rewarded for their hard work, not forced to plant more corn without hope of repayment.