http://health.yahoo.com/experts/eatthis/54828/the-chocolate-milk-diet/
This article is titled "The Chocolate Milk Diet", and it talks about the nutritional power of chocolate milk along side a well balanced diet. Downing three glasses of low fat chocolate milk every day (morning, pre-exercise, and post-exercise) helps people shed fat and build muscle, and this is accredited to four characteristics of chocolate milk. 1) Calcium has been shown to impede the body's ability to absorb fat. 1000 mg of calcium is the recommended daily dose, and you can reach that dose with three glasses of CM. 2) The calcium you get from food is transported to your body by Vitamin D. Most diets are low on vitamin D, and people spend too much time indoors to benefit from vitamin D from sun exposure. Chocolate milk is full of vitamin D. 3) Everyone drinks electrolyte-replenishing sports drinks, thinking this will give them the extra boost in performance that they're looking for. However, studies have shown that the naturally occurring electrolytes and natural sweetness of chocolate milk can give you endurance a boost. 4) The more muscle you have, the more energy you use and the more fat you'll burn, so building muscle is key. The one thing everyone who exercises knows about building muscle is that is requires protein. That's why powdered whey protein has become so popular over the past years. The ideal amount of protein for packing on muscle is around 10-20 grams, split between before and after you work out. With around 8 grams per cup, a glass before and after you work out will give you the right dose of effective whey protein, without having to shovel out tons of money for supplements.
I would consider myself both an avid [weight] lifter and chocolate milk drinker. I have heard from multiple sources that chocolate milk is one of the best things you can drink after a work out. Low fat chocolate milk is obviously the best, as mentioned in the article, but unfortunately, the Cornell Diary isn't a 'low-fat' kind of place. The only chocolate milk available on campus is the Cornell Diary's full fat chocolate milk. I used to down a carton of this day, until I realized that each quart had 800 calories in it. I don't care how good chocolate milk is for you, nobody should be getting 40% of their daily calorie intake from a single food. Variety is the key.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Fast music cues us to eat more
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/food/3-reasons-why-restaurants-are-so-loud-1302266/
This article talks about why restaurants have such a loud atmosphere. It talks about how faster and louder music makes people eat and drink more and faster. Sound waves energize us, altering our brain chemistry and enhancing our senses. Research suggests that the enjoyment of this stimulus is what causes people to eat more.
After participating in a Food and Brand Lab experiment, I re-read the "Mindless Eating" article. Loud music is an example of the hidden persuaders mentioned. It can subconsciously affect the food related decisions we make, causing us to mindlessly eat more food than we would have normally.
This article talks about why restaurants have such a loud atmosphere. It talks about how faster and louder music makes people eat and drink more and faster. Sound waves energize us, altering our brain chemistry and enhancing our senses. Research suggests that the enjoyment of this stimulus is what causes people to eat more.
After participating in a Food and Brand Lab experiment, I re-read the "Mindless Eating" article. Loud music is an example of the hidden persuaders mentioned. It can subconsciously affect the food related decisions we make, causing us to mindlessly eat more food than we would have normally.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Why solve tomorrow's problems if you are living today?
The Future of Food Warren Belasco
This article talks about food production, population, and their impact on each other. The worldwide population had been doubling over smaller and smaller time intervals, while the production of food was growing at an even faster pace. A main concern is the exhaustion of natural resources like farm-able land, and the plague we are forsaking the future inhabitant of Earth with.
On average, well-off people have less children, making some think that prosperity is the answer to slowing down population growth (maybe even bringing it to a complete halt) . However, the more luxurious lifestyles have been proven to leave a disproportional larger 'ecological footprint'. If people from other countries around the world increased their consumption to a level equal to that of Americans, grain, oil, water, soil, and other resource requirements would skyrocket. 67 percent more agricultural land than the world has would be needed, or some even say three planets worth of resources.
This article draws a lot of parallels between the ecosystem and business/investing/marketing (as an engineer, I'm not quite sure the difference between the three). Putting emphasis or investing in something like irrigation will have its benefits (profits) like increased yield and decrease wind erosion. However, it will also have its drawbacks like creating conflicts over water rights, depleting nutrients, and requiring energy. "The only way to treat soil is like a bank account... husband it carefully by careful farming and make a deposit once in a while."
At one point he asks 'In the future will we be competing with our cars for food?'. I don't see this as a concern considering how we are currently producing such a large surplus of grain (corn), we can't even find a use for it all.
One proposed outcome is a technological fix that human creativity and our boundless desires will be the driving force for continuing to develop solutions so that we may all have the desirable lifestyle. Even if this is the case, wouldn't the negative repercussions from our developed solutions eventually be too detrimental to outweigh the benefits? And the features of this technological solution (food that makes you lose weight, completely degradable packaging, green means of transportation) seem more like a dreamed up Utopian than feasible features of society.
The second solution, lowering our standards and expectations of the food industry, seems like a much more feasible goal. However, I feel it is much less appealing than the first solution. Do you think people will ever admit that the technological solution is unattainable and settle for less than what they want?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Why did I notice this.. new sign or new knowledge?
Signs like this one have been popping up all over campus. This one was at the entrance of the Ivy Room in Willard Straight Hall. I also noticed one as you walk into Trillium. There was even a small one on an 8 1/2 X 10 posted on a bulletin board in RPCC. At first I thought it was cool that Cornell was switching '100% Natural Local Beef', also trying to figure out what that specifically meant for how the beef was raised. But then I started wondering if these signs are really all that new, or did I just start noticing them because of all the readings and discussions I've been a part of in DSOC 1200? Anyone know when Cornell made the switch?
America is Fat.. but the World is Hungry
The Scarcity Fallacy by Stephen Scanlan
Today, there are more hungry people in the world than ten years ago. The immediate thought would be that people are hungry because there isn't enough food to go around. This article argues that hunger is more a result of lack of accessibility rather than lack of availability. Organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have solutions aimed towards fixing scarcity. However, food production is at an all time high and globally there is a surplus of food. Famines and food shortages are on local scales.
Poverty is one of the larger factors leading to hunger, for obvious reasons. Other factors include demographics like gender and race. Ethnic discrimination in some countries leads pushes people towards lower income jobs and living in less productive regions. Gender restrictions keep women from being educated in many countries, and this prevents them from having an equal chance of earning enough to afford an adequate amount of food.
Hunger remains persistent in areas because some of the assistance has encountered obstacles. Emergency food delivery can be redirected by corrupt groups who bribe inspectors and officials to claim the food was properly delivered.
The best way to fight hunger is to treat it as a byproduct of underlying causes such as social inequality and organization faults. Only by working to resolve conflict from these other problems can hunger ever be reduced.
Hunger may be a byproduct of problems like inequality, organizational flaws, and social conflict, but it still seems like people will always be labeled as 'hungry'. Personally, I think hearing that someone is going hungry draws more sympathy than someone who is treated unjust socially or doesn't have an equal opportunity for education. Do you think people are given more aid for their hunger than other problems leading to hunger because it is more of a concern or because it is easier to do? When you hear that someone is hungry, its natural to think that they are in poverty. But when you hear someone is in poverty, do you naturally think that they are hungry?
Today, there are more hungry people in the world than ten years ago. The immediate thought would be that people are hungry because there isn't enough food to go around. This article argues that hunger is more a result of lack of accessibility rather than lack of availability. Organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have solutions aimed towards fixing scarcity. However, food production is at an all time high and globally there is a surplus of food. Famines and food shortages are on local scales.
Poverty is one of the larger factors leading to hunger, for obvious reasons. Other factors include demographics like gender and race. Ethnic discrimination in some countries leads pushes people towards lower income jobs and living in less productive regions. Gender restrictions keep women from being educated in many countries, and this prevents them from having an equal chance of earning enough to afford an adequate amount of food.
Hunger remains persistent in areas because some of the assistance has encountered obstacles. Emergency food delivery can be redirected by corrupt groups who bribe inspectors and officials to claim the food was properly delivered.
The best way to fight hunger is to treat it as a byproduct of underlying causes such as social inequality and organization faults. Only by working to resolve conflict from these other problems can hunger ever be reduced.
Hunger may be a byproduct of problems like inequality, organizational flaws, and social conflict, but it still seems like people will always be labeled as 'hungry'. Personally, I think hearing that someone is going hungry draws more sympathy than someone who is treated unjust socially or doesn't have an equal opportunity for education. Do you think people are given more aid for their hunger than other problems leading to hunger because it is more of a concern or because it is easier to do? When you hear that someone is hungry, its natural to think that they are in poverty. But when you hear someone is in poverty, do you naturally think that they are hungry?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Food Assistance
Ch. 2 and 3 of "Sweet Charity" by Janet Poppendieck
Women, minorities, children, and the elderly are the most likely demographics to use food programs because of their higher proportions among people in poverty. The current way of labeling people as poor or below the poverty line has become obsolete because of the many rising costs and a lower portion of total income being spent on food. People who food programs do so for many reasons. Many had recently become unemployed, were unemployed long term, or were currently working, but just couldn't earn enough to provide a nutritionally adequate diet. Food pantries were originally set up to help workers after factories closed. Food stamps were an attempt to close the gaps in income and food needs. Public assistance is another source of aid for those under the poverty level. All of these programs have their flaws. Many people convert their food stamps into money (by buying something with food stamps and returning it for cash). Many of the people in need of assistance are ineligible or don't receive it from food pantries or public assistance. Some of those that do receive the assistance get an inadequate amount. Food is an expense more easily modified than others and many people are more concerned with problems that they consider a higher priority. However, in the end, everyone needs food.
For most people, food has always been available, and they assume it always will be available. A lot of people are used to going straight to the kitchen for something to eat when they are hungry, or quickly stopping by a fast food restaurant or convenience store without giving it a second thought. Can you imagine being hungry and knowing that there is no food in the kitchen and you don't have the money to go buy any? I wrestled in high school, so there were periods of time where I would eat very little in order to make weight. Being hungry is extremely uncomfortable, but at least I always had the option of going to get something to eat if I really needed to. It doesn't matter how tough someone is, everyone needs food. What would you have for breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a budget of $1.19 for each meal?
Women, minorities, children, and the elderly are the most likely demographics to use food programs because of their higher proportions among people in poverty. The current way of labeling people as poor or below the poverty line has become obsolete because of the many rising costs and a lower portion of total income being spent on food. People who food programs do so for many reasons. Many had recently become unemployed, were unemployed long term, or were currently working, but just couldn't earn enough to provide a nutritionally adequate diet. Food pantries were originally set up to help workers after factories closed. Food stamps were an attempt to close the gaps in income and food needs. Public assistance is another source of aid for those under the poverty level. All of these programs have their flaws. Many people convert their food stamps into money (by buying something with food stamps and returning it for cash). Many of the people in need of assistance are ineligible or don't receive it from food pantries or public assistance. Some of those that do receive the assistance get an inadequate amount. Food is an expense more easily modified than others and many people are more concerned with problems that they consider a higher priority. However, in the end, everyone needs food.
For most people, food has always been available, and they assume it always will be available. A lot of people are used to going straight to the kitchen for something to eat when they are hungry, or quickly stopping by a fast food restaurant or convenience store without giving it a second thought. Can you imagine being hungry and knowing that there is no food in the kitchen and you don't have the money to go buy any? I wrestled in high school, so there were periods of time where I would eat very little in order to make weight. Being hungry is extremely uncomfortable, but at least I always had the option of going to get something to eat if I really needed to. It doesn't matter how tough someone is, everyone needs food. What would you have for breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a budget of $1.19 for each meal?
Monday, April 5, 2010
3.14159265...
The McDonaldization of Society from VISIONS OF SOCIETY: The Bureaucratization of Society
Americans' desire for rationality has shaped modern day dining, entertainment, shopping, and other things into their current day forms. A society striving for rationality puts an emphasis on efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty. This article focuses on irrational consequences that result from striving for a rationalized world; in other words, the 'irrationality of rationality'.
Fast food restaurants, TV dinners, packaged tours, RV camp grounds, and assembly lines are unprecedentedly popular. They have allowed an optimization of eating, vacationing, and production, offering the convenience and consistency valued by so many Americans today. However, everything is becoming quantified and dehumanized in the process of rationalizing society. Students are rated by their GPA, rather than the quality of student they are. McDonalds advertises how many burgers they have sold instead of the quality of their burgers, and their signature burger is called the 'Big Mac' instead of the 'Good Mac'. Ritzer warns against the acceleration of disadvantageous byproducts of rationalization unless we start exercising greater control over the process.
Ritzer puts too much of an emphasis on the negative results of rationalization. I know that is the point he is trying to make, but he uses some examples that make it difficult to think about the negative affects because you can't help thinking about the advantages. He should make a point to agree that rationalization has its advantages and point out one that is well known or can be easily observed. That would make it seem like he's trying to raise awareness about the negative effects, where as he currently comes off as against rationalization all together.
??Questions??
Do the negative effects of irrationality outweigh the benefits to you personally? (would you be willing to sacrifice the drive through and get up to go into the restaurant every time?)
Do you like the GPA system and do you consider it an accurate way to compare yourself to other students, or is it just a number missing way to many factors that help determine the quality of a student?
Americans' desire for rationality has shaped modern day dining, entertainment, shopping, and other things into their current day forms. A society striving for rationality puts an emphasis on efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty. This article focuses on irrational consequences that result from striving for a rationalized world; in other words, the 'irrationality of rationality'.
Fast food restaurants, TV dinners, packaged tours, RV camp grounds, and assembly lines are unprecedentedly popular. They have allowed an optimization of eating, vacationing, and production, offering the convenience and consistency valued by so many Americans today. However, everything is becoming quantified and dehumanized in the process of rationalizing society. Students are rated by their GPA, rather than the quality of student they are. McDonalds advertises how many burgers they have sold instead of the quality of their burgers, and their signature burger is called the 'Big Mac' instead of the 'Good Mac'. Ritzer warns against the acceleration of disadvantageous byproducts of rationalization unless we start exercising greater control over the process.
Ritzer puts too much of an emphasis on the negative results of rationalization. I know that is the point he is trying to make, but he uses some examples that make it difficult to think about the negative affects because you can't help thinking about the advantages. He should make a point to agree that rationalization has its advantages and point out one that is well known or can be easily observed. That would make it seem like he's trying to raise awareness about the negative effects, where as he currently comes off as against rationalization all together.
??Questions??
Do the negative effects of irrationality outweigh the benefits to you personally? (would you be willing to sacrifice the drive through and get up to go into the restaurant every time?)
Do you like the GPA system and do you consider it an accurate way to compare yourself to other students, or is it just a number missing way to many factors that help determine the quality of a student?
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?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Contrary to what you may believe, Swine flu did not start at Cornell
"The Triangle of Doom"
"The Swine Flu Crisis Lays Bare the Meat Industry's Monstrous Power"
Similarly, "The Swine Flu" article also blames flu outbreaks on a lack of surveillance and prevention. It claims that the largely concentrated populations of pigs by today' suppliers of pork are also at fault. Only in such a large population of pigs, having weakened immune systems and being in such close contact with each other, could swine flu's evolution have been propelled to such an extraordinary rate.
??Questions??
1)What do the H and N in HXNY influenza's stand for? and what do the numbers (X and Y) mean?
2) Are there any laws requiring people to notify a health department or some other organization about a contraction of some of the types of influenza?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Industry Regulations
The Omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 12 and 'E.Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection' Article
Both readings focus on regulations in the meat processing industry.
Both readings focus on regulations in the meat processing industry.
OD looks at the regulations from through the eyes of a small company. Joel Salatin claims that the regulations are designed with large companies in mind and keep small suppliers, such as himself, from being able to slaughter or preserve their own meat. Certain requirements such as a private bathroom for the USDA inspector are expenses that only large companies can bear the burden of. With such a large production, they can spread out similar costs of meeting regulations through all the meat they process. Small suppliers such as Polyface Farms can't afford these expenses. Characteristics that you think would matter, like bacteria thresholds, aren't taken into consideration, but facility layouts are.
The E.Coli article focuses on the U.S.D.A.'s regulations' effects on large companies. With an introduction through a woman who became paralyzed due E. Coli from a hamburger, this article suggests that regulations for large scale meat processors are not strict enough. According to the article, the U.S.D.A. does less actual regulating, and more suggesting. Large companies commonly don't test their incoming meat from slaughterhouses, have self imposed E.Coli safety programs, and even deviate from their own safety programs. When companies are caught breaking the rules, they are 'highly encouraged' to meet regulation standards, but meet no repercussions when they don't. Large slaughterhouses will refuse to sell to processing companies if they test the incoming meet for food born pathogens. With no fines or penalties, it usually takes an E.Coli epidemic, and ruined lives, to cause a company to make any changes.
??Questions??
1.)How can the U.S.D.A. be pressured by large meat companies to allow them to self impose safety programs?
2.)If these conditions and lack of enforcement are as bad as the E.Coli article says, why aren't food born pathogen epidemics a more common occurrence?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Intelligent Roast Beast
The Omnivore's Dillemma Chapter 17
In this chapter, Pollan looks at opposing arguments about eating meat. He examines views from both extremes, including those of strict animal rights activists and vegans to CAFO workers. Pollan struggles with a self-imposed status of temporary vegetarianism as he combs through all possible reasonings that would allow him to continue to eat meat guilt free.
Many people think that livestock and domesticated animals should be liberated from their restricted lives in cages and behind fences. However, life as a liberated chicken living in the wild may not be all its cracked up to be (No Pun Intended!). Captivation by humans results in longevity when compared to how long they would last facing the elements of the wild. Some evolutionists believe we are doing animals a favor by raising them (even if only for the purpose to be eaten at a later date), which controls their populations and shields them from the harshness of nature.
Animal rights activists' philosophize about individual animals' fates, with argument that being raised only to get slaughtered is an inhumane life for that single animal. This is difficult to refute, considering no individual would benefit from being killed. Others argue that humans have evolved to the point where we can obtain food to survive without the need to kill animals for meat, therefore it is wrong for us to do so, even if animals kill in nature all of the time.
Despite mentioning some convincing arguments supporting the consumption of meat, Pollan recedes to the fact that human beings are creatures intelligent enough to have the capability of reasoning, and therefore have the ability to reason themselves into thinking what they desire.
??Questions??
1) How can it be argued that a smart chimpanzee deserves more attention than a three day old infant. Although the chimp may have a higher capacity for understanding, the newborn has the potential to become more intelligent. Without caring for our young, the human species would die out. I could go on for days about how this makes no rational sense, logically or morally, for their side of the argument. To me, this comparison is the philosophers shooting themselves in the foot.
2) If we do have to treat the more intelligent animals with more consideration, where do we draw the line? Chimps, Dolphins, and Pigs would be included. What about Horses and Cows. Deer and Sheep? Rabbits and Turkeys. Chickens and Fish? We would have to draw the line somewhere, and what would the determining factor be?
In this chapter, Pollan looks at opposing arguments about eating meat. He examines views from both extremes, including those of strict animal rights activists and vegans to CAFO workers. Pollan struggles with a self-imposed status of temporary vegetarianism as he combs through all possible reasonings that would allow him to continue to eat meat guilt free.
Many people think that livestock and domesticated animals should be liberated from their restricted lives in cages and behind fences. However, life as a liberated chicken living in the wild may not be all its cracked up to be (No Pun Intended!). Captivation by humans results in longevity when compared to how long they would last facing the elements of the wild. Some evolutionists believe we are doing animals a favor by raising them (even if only for the purpose to be eaten at a later date), which controls their populations and shields them from the harshness of nature.
Animal rights activists' philosophize about individual animals' fates, with argument that being raised only to get slaughtered is an inhumane life for that single animal. This is difficult to refute, considering no individual would benefit from being killed. Others argue that humans have evolved to the point where we can obtain food to survive without the need to kill animals for meat, therefore it is wrong for us to do so, even if animals kill in nature all of the time.
Despite mentioning some convincing arguments supporting the consumption of meat, Pollan recedes to the fact that human beings are creatures intelligent enough to have the capability of reasoning, and therefore have the ability to reason themselves into thinking what they desire.
??Questions??
1) How can it be argued that a smart chimpanzee deserves more attention than a three day old infant. Although the chimp may have a higher capacity for understanding, the newborn has the potential to become more intelligent. Without caring for our young, the human species would die out. I could go on for days about how this makes no rational sense, logically or morally, for their side of the argument. To me, this comparison is the philosophers shooting themselves in the foot.
2) If we do have to treat the more intelligent animals with more consideration, where do we draw the line? Chimps, Dolphins, and Pigs would be included. What about Horses and Cows. Deer and Sheep? Rabbits and Turkeys. Chickens and Fish? We would have to draw the line somewhere, and what would the determining factor be?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Ignorance is Bliss
The Omnivore's Dillemma Chapter 13
In Chapter 13, Michael Pollan shifts gears away from the process of conventional agriculture and begins to focus on the market for and consumption of these goods. Just as Joel's Polyface
Farm is self-sustaining with energy initially from the sun, conventional agriculture is as big of an industry as it is because of the the gigantic market demanding cheap food.
Pollan points out that people don't buy cheaper food just because they can't afford the more expensive, yet higher quality, foods. Today, people of the U.S. choose to indulge in luxuries such as TV, iPods, and designer clothing. The shift in spending on food is due to choice, not financial instability.
Over simplification of agriculture has led to the diminishing health of food sources. Cramped monoculture farms leave crops and livestock susceptible to disease, while diminishing the land. This is why so much chemical fertilizer and pesticides are used by the agriculture industry. However, most Americans are not concerned with this, usually because they are unaware. With nothing more than a price communicating some of the food's history, customers are able to remain in the dark, as many of them prefer. Customers today are less concerned with how their food was grown and where it came from, and more concerned with being the availability of out of season dishes. Ignorance is Bliss.
Even though all of Joel's colorful euphemisms for describing an increasingly globalized economy may suggest otherwise, he is not aiming for the downfall of conventional agriculture. All he wants is consumers to have the option of alternative foods sources like local markets.
?? Question ??
1) Is reverse industrialization of food sources noticeable with the growth in localized farming and markets?
2) What are the drawbacks of local suppliers and markets for food?
In Chapter 13, Michael Pollan shifts gears away from the process of conventional agriculture and begins to focus on the market for and consumption of these goods. Just as Joel's Polyface
Farm is self-sustaining with energy initially from the sun, conventional agriculture is as big of an industry as it is because of the the gigantic market demanding cheap food.
Pollan points out that people don't buy cheaper food just because they can't afford the more expensive, yet higher quality, foods. Today, people of the U.S. choose to indulge in luxuries such as TV, iPods, and designer clothing. The shift in spending on food is due to choice, not financial instability.
Over simplification of agriculture has led to the diminishing health of food sources. Cramped monoculture farms leave crops and livestock susceptible to disease, while diminishing the land. This is why so much chemical fertilizer and pesticides are used by the agriculture industry. However, most Americans are not concerned with this, usually because they are unaware. With nothing more than a price communicating some of the food's history, customers are able to remain in the dark, as many of them prefer. Customers today are less concerned with how their food was grown and where it came from, and more concerned with being the availability of out of season dishes. Ignorance is Bliss.
Even though all of Joel's colorful euphemisms for describing an increasingly globalized economy may suggest otherwise, he is not aiming for the downfall of conventional agriculture. All he wants is consumers to have the option of alternative foods sources like local markets.
?? Question ??
1) Is reverse industrialization of food sources noticeable with the growth in localized farming and markets?
2) What are the drawbacks of local suppliers and markets for food?
Monday, February 8, 2010
If you can't find organic food in your produce section.. then where can you find it?
The Omnivore's Dillemma Chapter 8
In this chapter, Pollan's primary focus is the word organic, and the many misconceptions about its value. Foods labeled organic are done so to add what he calls pastoral value. Its the type of thing where customers think the food is better quality because they imagine produce being grown in "well composted soils on small farms", or animals being raised in open rolling hills of grass. Pollan reveals that there are not that many requirements to be able to label your food organic. Besides the absence of certain chemical pesticides and antibiotics in feed, many organic foods are grown/raised in environments not so different from that of their conventional counter parts.
The organic movement and the organic industry are two completely separate entities. The organic movement is the attitude that mimicking the polyculture of nature is the best way to grow produce. This includes chemical free farming and alternative modes of consumption. The organic industry is a combination of farmers that were previously a part of the organic movement but have now drifted away due to the tug of capitalist values, and large conventional food corporations that are attempting to make a profit on the market for organic foods. "The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary [of Agriculture] Glickman said.
After reading this chapter, Organic makes me think of the Verbal section of the SAT I test. If someone asked me if I know what the word organic means, I would confidently answer 'yes'; but if they asked me to define it, I'd probably have a considerably tough time finding the right words.
??Questions??
1)Since plants grown using chemical pesticides are not considered organic, is there a better word to describe them? They're obviously more 'organic oriented' than the infamous twinkie so often mentioned.
2) Whenever a new nutrition fact is unveiled, its seems a new phad diet is in hot pursuit. Why isn't this the case with the polyphenols mentioned?
In this chapter, Pollan's primary focus is the word organic, and the many misconceptions about its value. Foods labeled organic are done so to add what he calls pastoral value. Its the type of thing where customers think the food is better quality because they imagine produce being grown in "well composted soils on small farms", or animals being raised in open rolling hills of grass. Pollan reveals that there are not that many requirements to be able to label your food organic. Besides the absence of certain chemical pesticides and antibiotics in feed, many organic foods are grown/raised in environments not so different from that of their conventional counter parts.
The organic movement and the organic industry are two completely separate entities. The organic movement is the attitude that mimicking the polyculture of nature is the best way to grow produce. This includes chemical free farming and alternative modes of consumption. The organic industry is a combination of farmers that were previously a part of the organic movement but have now drifted away due to the tug of capitalist values, and large conventional food corporations that are attempting to make a profit on the market for organic foods. "The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary [of Agriculture] Glickman said.
After reading this chapter, Organic makes me think of the Verbal section of the SAT I test. If someone asked me if I know what the word organic means, I would confidently answer 'yes'; but if they asked me to define it, I'd probably have a considerably tough time finding the right words.
??Questions??
1)Since plants grown using chemical pesticides are not considered organic, is there a better word to describe them? They're obviously more 'organic oriented' than the infamous twinkie so often mentioned.
2) Whenever a new nutrition fact is unveiled, its seems a new phad diet is in hot pursuit. Why isn't this the case with the polyphenols mentioned?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Cheap Red Meat
Chapter 4 of The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan
In an attempt to continue his tailing of corn to the dinner table, Pollan introduces the beef industry, the biggest destination of the plentiful biomass. Pollan's recollection of a visit to Poky Feeders feedlot in 'nowhere', Kansas is part of his observation of the raising of a young black steer, referred to throughout the chapter as 534. Pollan had bought 534 when it was eight months old, knowing it's destiny was to be a protein-rich meal.
Pollan continually refers to his steer as 534, never giving it a name after purchase. He also packs the chapter full of statistics: it takes ten acres of land to produce a calf ready for the feelot, a steer can grow from 80 lbs to 1,100 lbs in 14 months, 534 will convert 32 lbs of feed into 4 lbs of gain everyday up until his slaughter. Pollan continually uses numbers in order to objectify cattle, specifically 534. All of this is a setup to enable the reader to see the steer the same way the industry does, "as a most impressive machine for turning number 2 field corn into cuts of beef" (pg 80).
After the first two chapters, it was easy to be left with questions about the backwards relationship between corn prices and corn production. Pollan continually connects back to corn in order to demonstrate its intertwining relationship with feedlots and beef production. By demonstrating the dependency of the feedlots on corn, it is easier to see the slippery slope cheap beef has made farmers a part of.
The path the book seems to be following is the efficiency of the food industry in supplying cheap food.. but at what other costs? How many of you are willing to eat meat from cattle that has been pumped full of food unnatural to their diet and then antibiotics to deal with that foreign diet, if it costs half the price as grass fed beef? You answer this question every time you go to the grocery store and purchase cheap red meat. Although it may not be monetarily expensive, you are paying a price in terms of the petroleum used during production and possible health effects later in life.
?? Questions ??
1) Is beef sold in grocery stores labeled with where cattle came from or some other way to determine how the cattle were raised?
2) Are there similar health concerns with chicken, salmon, and other animals raised on corn?
In an attempt to continue his tailing of corn to the dinner table, Pollan introduces the beef industry, the biggest destination of the plentiful biomass. Pollan's recollection of a visit to Poky Feeders feedlot in 'nowhere', Kansas is part of his observation of the raising of a young black steer, referred to throughout the chapter as 534. Pollan had bought 534 when it was eight months old, knowing it's destiny was to be a protein-rich meal.
Pollan continually refers to his steer as 534, never giving it a name after purchase. He also packs the chapter full of statistics: it takes ten acres of land to produce a calf ready for the feelot, a steer can grow from 80 lbs to 1,100 lbs in 14 months, 534 will convert 32 lbs of feed into 4 lbs of gain everyday up until his slaughter. Pollan continually uses numbers in order to objectify cattle, specifically 534. All of this is a setup to enable the reader to see the steer the same way the industry does, "as a most impressive machine for turning number 2 field corn into cuts of beef" (pg 80).
After the first two chapters, it was easy to be left with questions about the backwards relationship between corn prices and corn production. Pollan continually connects back to corn in order to demonstrate its intertwining relationship with feedlots and beef production. By demonstrating the dependency of the feedlots on corn, it is easier to see the slippery slope cheap beef has made farmers a part of.
The path the book seems to be following is the efficiency of the food industry in supplying cheap food.. but at what other costs? How many of you are willing to eat meat from cattle that has been pumped full of food unnatural to their diet and then antibiotics to deal with that foreign diet, if it costs half the price as grass fed beef? You answer this question every time you go to the grocery store and purchase cheap red meat. Although it may not be monetarily expensive, you are paying a price in terms of the petroleum used during production and possible health effects later in life.
?? Questions ??
1) Is beef sold in grocery stores labeled with where cattle came from or some other way to determine how the cattle were raised?
2) Are there similar health concerns with chicken, salmon, and other animals raised on corn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)