Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Over break, I went to a self proclaimed 'Gourmet Burritos and Tacos and Barbacoa' fast-casual dining establishment called Chipotle Mexican Grill. It's basically a high end Taco Bell. As a chain, it's recently gained popularity, and it was even viewed as influential enough to be satirically made fun of in a recent South Park episode (a 2 minute Chipotle segment from the episode can be found here). I noticed that on the menu listing the type of meats that can be used to make a taco, burrito or what have you, each description of meat started with the words "naturally raised". Before taking DSOC 1200, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought, but after talking about the different ways animals can be raised (conventional, organic, etc.) it made me wonder what type of life being 'naturally raised' entails for a cow. 'Naturally raised' means raised in the natural environment they evolved to live in. This means the cows would have to reside in a large open field or meadow area full of grass for grazing, with absolutely no trace of number 2 corn or antibiotics anywhere. This vision is compatible with Chipotle's concept of trying to provide "food with integrity". However, even if they won't admit it, 'better quality food' has become an extremely popular and effective marketing claim. And taking into consideration the current growing size of the chain, I'm personally hesitant to believe all of their claims to the full extent. What do you think?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Three square paychecks a day
Chapter 5 of Omnivore's Dilemma
This chapter spells out how pretty much everything we eat these days has corn (in one of its many forms) as an ingredient.
Wet mills process the kernels of number 2 corn through soakings and grindings. The yellow fibrous skin is turned into various vitamin and nutritional supplements and the germ of the kernel is extracted of oil. The endosperm, rich in complex carbohydrates, is broken down and separated into acids, sugars, starches, and alcohols. Cornstarch, glucose/dextrose, fructose, viscosity controlling agents, and high-fructose corn syrup are all corn products used as ingredients in processed foods sold by General Mills, McDonald's, and Coca-Cola.
In the food processing industry, we are heading towards more and more heavily altered substances, which are resembling natural foods less and less. The term 'processed food' has a bad rep., that's why the industry is now using the phrase 'food-system', and instead of processing foods they are merely 'adding value' to the food system. A heavily processed food or a high-value-added food system.. Which sounds more appetizing to you?
The food industry is faced with the biologically certain obstacle that individuals can only eat so much. In order to keep profit increases at the same pace of other industries, food companies have to either get people to spend more money on the same amount of food, or get them to eat more food. They are working on both. Heavily processed foods like cereal allow companies to charge consumers four dollars for a box of grain they paid cents for. And a new resistant starch that is indigestible by humans will lead to foods which can't be digested into calories, allowing Americans to eat as much as they want without ever getting full. The main purpose of food in America is becoming less about sustenance and more about profit.
??Questions??
1.) Processed foods have numerous claims on the packaging of being nutritious due to all the added minerals and vitamins, but they are never as good for you as unprocessed whole foods. How long until we actually see truth in the claim made by International Flavors & Fragrances that things designed for the express purpose of eating will be more beneficial than natural 'substances'?
2.) Right now, the protein Americans consume comes from petroleum, with corn and cattle as middle men. It takes about ten calories of energy from petroleum to make one calorie worth of food. If it ever became possible, would you be willing to consume protein that was directly extracted from petroleum if it had a much more efficient ratio?
This chapter spells out how pretty much everything we eat these days has corn (in one of its many forms) as an ingredient.
Wet mills process the kernels of number 2 corn through soakings and grindings. The yellow fibrous skin is turned into various vitamin and nutritional supplements and the germ of the kernel is extracted of oil. The endosperm, rich in complex carbohydrates, is broken down and separated into acids, sugars, starches, and alcohols. Cornstarch, glucose/dextrose, fructose, viscosity controlling agents, and high-fructose corn syrup are all corn products used as ingredients in processed foods sold by General Mills, McDonald's, and Coca-Cola.
In the food processing industry, we are heading towards more and more heavily altered substances, which are resembling natural foods less and less. The term 'processed food' has a bad rep., that's why the industry is now using the phrase 'food-system', and instead of processing foods they are merely 'adding value' to the food system. A heavily processed food or a high-value-added food system.. Which sounds more appetizing to you?
The food industry is faced with the biologically certain obstacle that individuals can only eat so much. In order to keep profit increases at the same pace of other industries, food companies have to either get people to spend more money on the same amount of food, or get them to eat more food. They are working on both. Heavily processed foods like cereal allow companies to charge consumers four dollars for a box of grain they paid cents for. And a new resistant starch that is indigestible by humans will lead to foods which can't be digested into calories, allowing Americans to eat as much as they want without ever getting full. The main purpose of food in America is becoming less about sustenance and more about profit.
??Questions??
1.) Processed foods have numerous claims on the packaging of being nutritious due to all the added minerals and vitamins, but they are never as good for you as unprocessed whole foods. How long until we actually see truth in the claim made by International Flavors & Fragrances that things designed for the express purpose of eating will be more beneficial than natural 'substances'?
2.) Right now, the protein Americans consume comes from petroleum, with corn and cattle as middle men. It takes about ten calories of energy from petroleum to make one calorie worth of food. If it ever became possible, would you be willing to consume protein that was directly extracted from petroleum if it had a much more efficient ratio?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
I recently joined a fraternity, and I was required to drop my regular Cornell meal plan for a half-meal plan at[fraternity] house. The house is full of athletic guys that many might stereotype as 'meatheads'. In an attempt to cut back on spending, our chef made chicken salad for dinner. This was unusual for our house, where there is typically at least one dish of solely meat (chicken parm., barbecue chicken, meatballs, steak, did I mention chicken?) and the vegetables are optional. After some of the articles and essays I've read for class, I couldn't help but noticing the complaints from the brothers, unsatisfied with the fact that there was no pure meat dish readily available. It made me think about how meat has only become so available because of conventional techniques of raising animals, and it really has engraved the stereotype that men are supposed to eat meat and potatoes, only occasionally consuming 'dainty' foods like vegetables. I wondered if any of the brothers would show interest or concern if they knew what I've learned in DSOC1200... but I'm pretty sure I know the answer, and this is exactly why I never brought up the subject.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
America has a cuisine of bad habits
Eating American by Sydney Mintz
The author flashes back to when they made a statement at a lecture about how America does not have a cuisine. Some students take offense to this, considering the statement an insult to American culture in general. This chapter is the author's defense of his statement that America does not have a cuisine.
Mintz begins by explaining what sets America apart from other nations. He talks about the large population and vast area of land, not referencing food in any way. He also talks about the origins of American people, predominantly being descendants of Europeans, and the unique characteristics of individual areas in the U.S.
When he finally talks about food, he claims that pressure for immigrants and new comers to America to assimilate has established homogeneity. Frequently eating out, and certain foods like pizza and hot dogs being expected in the diet of adolescents are characteristics of social habits more than a cuisine. Also, our regular consumption of other cultures' food (e.g. Italian, Mexican, and Chinese food) would be considered a national cuisine, but wouldn't contribute at all to a cuisine of our own.
The most important point Sydney stresses is the effects of our consumption as a nation. We try to imitate any and all types of food and tastes. We also seek convenience in everything we do, especially food, making fast food and microwavable meals as popular as ever. For these reasons, whenever a new style or taste arises, we provide it in a cheap knock off version of the actual thing. And now, our sugar and fat consumptions are extremely high.
By the end of the chapter, Mintz is warning about the dangers of our wastefulness, pointing out how people eat healthy food to make up for the shitty food they eat, and thus buying much more than they should. I'm not sure what the book is about, but this chapter goes from an argument about why America doesn't have a cuisine to a preaching about how American habits need to change.
The author flashes back to when they made a statement at a lecture about how America does not have a cuisine. Some students take offense to this, considering the statement an insult to American culture in general. This chapter is the author's defense of his statement that America does not have a cuisine.
Mintz begins by explaining what sets America apart from other nations. He talks about the large population and vast area of land, not referencing food in any way. He also talks about the origins of American people, predominantly being descendants of Europeans, and the unique characteristics of individual areas in the U.S.
When he finally talks about food, he claims that pressure for immigrants and new comers to America to assimilate has established homogeneity. Frequently eating out, and certain foods like pizza and hot dogs being expected in the diet of adolescents are characteristics of social habits more than a cuisine. Also, our regular consumption of other cultures' food (e.g. Italian, Mexican, and Chinese food) would be considered a national cuisine, but wouldn't contribute at all to a cuisine of our own.
The most important point Sydney stresses is the effects of our consumption as a nation. We try to imitate any and all types of food and tastes. We also seek convenience in everything we do, especially food, making fast food and microwavable meals as popular as ever. For these reasons, whenever a new style or taste arises, we provide it in a cheap knock off version of the actual thing. And now, our sugar and fat consumptions are extremely high.
By the end of the chapter, Mintz is warning about the dangers of our wastefulness, pointing out how people eat healthy food to make up for the shitty food they eat, and thus buying much more than they should. I'm not sure what the book is about, but this chapter goes from an argument about why America doesn't have a cuisine to a preaching about how American habits need to change.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Vegetable Intolerance
Genetic Engineering in Agriculture Ch. 2
Since health is a big interest of mine, I chose to blog about chapter 2, titled 'Genetically Modified Crops and Human Health'. Miguel Altieri addresses the concerns about if genetically engineered crops are equivalent to natural breeds.
Altieri puts a large emphasis on how genetic engineering techniques of putting 'alien' rDNA' into an incompatible species is a completely forced practice, compared to conventionally bred plants, which are the result of putting very similar plants in close proximity sothey will reproduce sexually or asexually on their own.
If you're at the grocery store, and you pick up an carrot, you won't be able to tell if it's genome was engineered or the result of natural reproduction. If you had one of each next to each other , they could look exactly the same. These two carrots have been labeled 'substantially equivalent', but there is no scientific evidence supporting equivalence. There is concern that genetically engineered (GE) food could contain foreign substances introduced during the alteration process. And since no scientific testing can prove that there weren't any critical changes that could cause adverse health affects, the consumers have basically become guinea pigs.
If GE is proven less healthy, that doesn't only mean having less nutrition. It could also be referring to possible new proteins that could cause allergic reactions in humans, a much more serious health concern.
??Questions??
1.) In vitro testing was mentioned, but do GE foods also undo in vivo testing for allergenics?
2.) Has there ever been an incident where a widely distributed GE food did cause severe allergic reactions?
Since health is a big interest of mine, I chose to blog about chapter 2, titled 'Genetically Modified Crops and Human Health'. Miguel Altieri addresses the concerns about if genetically engineered crops are equivalent to natural breeds.
Altieri puts a large emphasis on how genetic engineering techniques of putting 'alien' rDNA' into an incompatible species is a completely forced practice, compared to conventionally bred plants, which are the result of putting very similar plants in close proximity sothey will reproduce sexually or asexually on their own.
If you're at the grocery store, and you pick up an carrot, you won't be able to tell if it's genome was engineered or the result of natural reproduction. If you had one of each next to each other , they could look exactly the same. These two carrots have been labeled 'substantially equivalent', but there is no scientific evidence supporting equivalence. There is concern that genetically engineered (GE) food could contain foreign substances introduced during the alteration process. And since no scientific testing can prove that there weren't any critical changes that could cause adverse health affects, the consumers have basically become guinea pigs.
If GE is proven less healthy, that doesn't only mean having less nutrition. It could also be referring to possible new proteins that could cause allergic reactions in humans, a much more serious health concern.
??Questions??
1.) In vitro testing was mentioned, but do GE foods also undo in vivo testing for allergenics?
2.) Has there ever been an incident where a widely distributed GE food did cause severe allergic reactions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)