News In Food
Recent news and how it relates to topics explored in class
Recent news and how it relates to topics explored in class
The article I read this week on food technology was The Government’s Role in the Rise of Lab-Grown Meat by Adrienne Rose Bitar. Bitar begins by discussing the definition of meat debate; can lab grown meat or vegetarian burgers be called meat and burgers. She points out that these alternatives to traditional meat options are growing steadily in the market. Multiple articles I found discussed how Tyson Foods, the current reigning meat champion in the US, is taking major steps to change their practices and invest in meat alternatives. This class mostly paints Tyson in a very negative light, but it is ultimately the consumer that drives Tyson’s historical practices. In this article she discusses how Tyson wants to stay ahead of the market distribution. Even if these changes are being made to meet customer demand and continue profits they are still a major step in the right direction – and show that our spending habits are still more powerful than any corporate juggernauts.
Unfortunately other food industry powerhouses are treading water instead of embracing the market shift. Recently, Missouri passed a bill that limits the use of the word meat. It’s insulting legislation created by the industry that truly believes we are dumb enough to not understand the difference between a bean vegetarian burger and a beef burger. While one section of our government is fighting to protect corporate agricultural interests, the rest has historically supported meat alternatives. Government programs have recommended eating other options that are as nutrient rich besides meat, including Hoover’s plan, Churchill’s predictions on the future of sustainable food, and recommendations during WW2. As Bitar discusses how food regulations should ensure food safety and a transparent supply chain, which should be the FDAs focus. Products under attack like Beyond Burger are an ecofriendly plant-based burger that advertise themselves as such and have no major food safety risks and greater transparency than the rest of the industry.
I look at these new food technologies like the Netflix of the movie rental era, with current industry powerhouses ignoring all the signs on the horizon for change as their profits become stagnant. These vegetarian alternatives can be grown in industry gardens like the ones discussed in How Does This Garden Grow. They use 95% less water, and can get 75 times the crop yield with up to 30 harvests a year. These advancements do not seem to have the same negative impacts that industrial pig farming has; there are no major pollutants, less water used, no sacrifice in quality, and no industrial torture of living animals. This type of industry plant based agriculture could also be a massive contributor to carbon sequestration as discussed in Can Dirt Save the Earth.
Unfortunately other food industry powerhouses are treading water instead of embracing the market shift. Recently, Missouri passed a bill that limits the use of the word meat. It’s insulting legislation created by the industry that truly believes we are dumb enough to not understand the difference between a bean vegetarian burger and a beef burger. While one section of our government is fighting to protect corporate agricultural interests, the rest has historically supported meat alternatives. Government programs have recommended eating other options that are as nutrient rich besides meat, including Hoover’s plan, Churchill’s predictions on the future of sustainable food, and recommendations during WW2. As Bitar discusses how food regulations should ensure food safety and a transparent supply chain, which should be the FDAs focus. Products under attack like Beyond Burger are an ecofriendly plant-based burger that advertise themselves as such and have no major food safety risks and greater transparency than the rest of the industry.
I look at these new food technologies like the Netflix of the movie rental era, with current industry powerhouses ignoring all the signs on the horizon for change as their profits become stagnant. These vegetarian alternatives can be grown in industry gardens like the ones discussed in How Does This Garden Grow. They use 95% less water, and can get 75 times the crop yield with up to 30 harvests a year. These advancements do not seem to have the same negative impacts that industrial pig farming has; there are no major pollutants, less water used, no sacrifice in quality, and no industrial torture of living animals. This type of industry plant based agriculture could also be a massive contributor to carbon sequestration as discussed in Can Dirt Save the Earth.
When I think of climate change the first thing that pops into my head is an image of coal burning power plants pumping carbon dioxide and major pollutants into the air. This happens even though I work for Consumers Energy and understand that, while carbon dioxide is still a major issue, we can strip virtually all other greenhouse gas contributors. There are also many other contributors to climate change that we can address today without losing heat to our homes or other niceties brought on my electricity. Annick de Witt discusses in People Still Don’t Get the Link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change that there are the traditional climate impact options that include driving less, saving energy at home, and installing solar panels. Her focus is on food-related options that include eating less meat, eating local, and eating seasonal. Only 6% of the US population understand that these food-related options are also effective at reducing climate change.
In Reversing climate change, one plate at a time written by Chris Lentz, Peter Singer discusses how eating less meat can minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Singer as an animal rights activist will use every piece of ammunition he can to support his cause. Connect meat reduction, protecting animals, and saving the planet develops a strong basis for his argument that can resonate with many groups of people. Lentz discusses how Princeton University is making changes to reduce their impact on the environment through food. They have added a mushroom and beef blended burger that reduces the amount of red meat needed. Campus dining also created a plant-based sauté station. Their goal is to reduce animal-based products while creating fun and tasty dishes for students to enjoy.
In Reversing climate change, one plate at a time written by Chris Lentz, Peter Singer discusses how eating less meat can minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Singer as an animal rights activist will use every piece of ammunition he can to support his cause. Connect meat reduction, protecting animals, and saving the planet develops a strong basis for his argument that can resonate with many groups of people. Lentz discusses how Princeton University is making changes to reduce their impact on the environment through food. They have added a mushroom and beef blended burger that reduces the amount of red meat needed. Campus dining also created a plant-based sauté station. Their goal is to reduce animal-based products while creating fun and tasty dishes for students to enjoy.
In Jeffrey Young’s article How to Bring Innovation to Campus Without Cheapening Education he discusses how colleges are taking similar approaches to education that businesses are taking with McDonaldization. Young interviews Dennis Hayes, a professor of education at the University of Derby, and Kristen Eshleman, director of digital innovation at Davidson College.
Hayes explains that college is becoming McDonaldized by turning free thinking universities into standardized factories. The first thing I think of regarding this topic is the focus on standardized testing in many disciplines for graduation and accreditation. Hayes discusses how school should challenge students to think beyond their existing beliefs. In the existing system students are happy because they aren’t challenged, they are just part of an easy factory educational system, where they should be unhappy due to being outside of their comfort zone. On the opposite spectrum, and creating the same McDonaldization result, is the single ideology that is forced in modern colleges. In the American Life podcast “Tell Me I’m Fat” they discuss a college that forced their students to lose weight or failed them. While in this class there is plenty of room for dissenting opinions, I have experienced in all my most my other classes that there is none. It is an ideological version of forcing fat loss to fit a specific mold. The four dimensions of McDonaldization, according to George Ritzer, are efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control.
Both standardized testing requirements and only a single allowed ideology fit all four dimensions. Eshleman talks about how the problem with innovation in the educational setting is that the faculty is not free to act without any external input. While she is referring to innovating to get away from the factory like standardized testing, her solution of faculty working in a silo would lead to the other extreme of a single ideology. When Ritzer talks about irrationalities in companies that have avoided the McDonaldization label he also discusses how they also incorporate aspects of McDonaldization while still maintaining superior products. Therefore, like In-N-Out burger, the success in education lies somewhere in the middle ground between rational (standardized testing) and irrational (single ideology innovation).
Hayes explains that college is becoming McDonaldized by turning free thinking universities into standardized factories. The first thing I think of regarding this topic is the focus on standardized testing in many disciplines for graduation and accreditation. Hayes discusses how school should challenge students to think beyond their existing beliefs. In the existing system students are happy because they aren’t challenged, they are just part of an easy factory educational system, where they should be unhappy due to being outside of their comfort zone. On the opposite spectrum, and creating the same McDonaldization result, is the single ideology that is forced in modern colleges. In the American Life podcast “Tell Me I’m Fat” they discuss a college that forced their students to lose weight or failed them. While in this class there is plenty of room for dissenting opinions, I have experienced in all my most my other classes that there is none. It is an ideological version of forcing fat loss to fit a specific mold. The four dimensions of McDonaldization, according to George Ritzer, are efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control.
Both standardized testing requirements and only a single allowed ideology fit all four dimensions. Eshleman talks about how the problem with innovation in the educational setting is that the faculty is not free to act without any external input. While she is referring to innovating to get away from the factory like standardized testing, her solution of faculty working in a silo would lead to the other extreme of a single ideology. When Ritzer talks about irrationalities in companies that have avoided the McDonaldization label he also discusses how they also incorporate aspects of McDonaldization while still maintaining superior products. Therefore, like In-N-Out burger, the success in education lies somewhere in the middle ground between rational (standardized testing) and irrational (single ideology innovation).
Barlow leads in America's Harvest of Shame with a sensory activating statement about the fall feasts that most of us are familiar with. He immediately follows by stating that over 1 in 10 households in the US suffer from food insecurities, nearly 2 in 10 households that have children, bringing the roller coaster of an article back down to the bottom of the hill. What that means is that a large percentage of our population struggles to maintain consistent access to food due to poverty. Food insecurities is a topic that we have seen in many shapes throughout this semester, and it is not just found in minority groups or certain sections in the country. The good news, according to the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, is that we have reduced the number of insecure households down from the recent high of 15%, but we are still above the pre-recession 11%.
Barlow goes on to discuss that the Department of Agriculture attempted a program that gave families extra money during summer for food that resulted in the number of houses in food poverty dropping by a third. In Revenge of the Lunch Lady, Jane Black finishes the article with the same type of slap in the face Barlow attempts. Black discusses how the current Republican political objective may reverse funding to school lunch programs and force heroines like McCoy to abandon all her work. Barlow discusses how the current Republican administration ignores the successes that were had in the 1960s on poverty and ignores the failures that Ronald Reagan had in the 1980s. The Trump administration’s stance on food access and poverty may increase food insecurity in the home as well as in schools.
Barlow goes on to discuss that the Department of Agriculture attempted a program that gave families extra money during summer for food that resulted in the number of houses in food poverty dropping by a third. In Revenge of the Lunch Lady, Jane Black finishes the article with the same type of slap in the face Barlow attempts. Black discusses how the current Republican political objective may reverse funding to school lunch programs and force heroines like McCoy to abandon all her work. Barlow discusses how the current Republican administration ignores the successes that were had in the 1960s on poverty and ignores the failures that Ronald Reagan had in the 1980s. The Trump administration’s stance on food access and poverty may increase food insecurity in the home as well as in schools.
This week we read an excerpt from Tracie McMillan’s The American Way of Eating that focused on her time working as a migrant farmer in California. As she was discussing her time harvesting grapes and sorting peaches the one thing I focused on was how volatile the availability of work was. Not only was in seasonally dependent but it could vary greatly from week to week as we saw in the delay of the grape harvest. To miss a day or a week of pay when you’re already living on scraps as is sounds terrifying. While working to sort grapes, McMillan came down sick and had to miss additional days with no pay as well. I know a lot of factory workers and physical laborers who make decent money now but have the same fears that the migrant workers to with regards to injuries, illness, or even work demand changing. It is hard to imagine that a small temporary event could completely erode an entire family's livelihood, especially in an industry that American's depend on at a basic human level.
The article by Ayana Byrd, which you can read here, brings up even another factor that workers do not have control over. Hurricane Florence recently tore through the Carolina’s leaving a trail of destruction. The news since has been about the flooding, the damaged buildings, and the death toll. Byrd discusses how not only have farmers also lost crops, with North Carolina being the country’s largest sweet potato supplier, but the fact that an estimated 150,000 migrant farm workers will not receive no pay for the entire rest of the season. For most of these migrant families, already at an annual salary of $16,000 per year, losing the most profitable time of the year will be devastating. McMillan outlines how the farm labor is just a small portion of the actual cost of produce and other products that we pay in the store, and even raising their wages and benefits by more than 40% would have only a minor impact on the cost. It is difficult for me to walk through the grocery store and think that the few pennies I am saving on a 5 pound bag of potatoes is worth neglecting 150,000 hardworking individuals. An estimated 75,000 of these workers are undocumented, and seeking government help through the Federal Emergency Management Agency could result in them being detained and deported.
The article by Ayana Byrd, which you can read here, brings up even another factor that workers do not have control over. Hurricane Florence recently tore through the Carolina’s leaving a trail of destruction. The news since has been about the flooding, the damaged buildings, and the death toll. Byrd discusses how not only have farmers also lost crops, with North Carolina being the country’s largest sweet potato supplier, but the fact that an estimated 150,000 migrant farm workers will not receive no pay for the entire rest of the season. For most of these migrant families, already at an annual salary of $16,000 per year, losing the most profitable time of the year will be devastating. McMillan outlines how the farm labor is just a small portion of the actual cost of produce and other products that we pay in the store, and even raising their wages and benefits by more than 40% would have only a minor impact on the cost. It is difficult for me to walk through the grocery store and think that the few pennies I am saving on a 5 pound bag of potatoes is worth neglecting 150,000 hardworking individuals. An estimated 75,000 of these workers are undocumented, and seeking government help through the Federal Emergency Management Agency could result in them being detained and deported.
While reading Pandora's Lunchbox by Melanie Warner the one reoccurring theme from chapter to chapter that has really stood out to be is that the industrial food system does not want you to know what you're eating or how it is processed. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the drive for food industrialization was mostly benevolent. Both industry and society genuinely wanted easily available and long lasting products to provide consistent sustenance. The transition from showcasing a golden standard of high production methods to hiding in the shadows happened due to stakeholders and profits became more important that the customer. One of the big battles the food industry has always fought to maintain some semblance of integrity with their products is the definitions of the product itself and ingredients within. All the products that are investigated in Pandora's Lunchbox hide actual ingredients or trace chemicals that may still be present, most have very little of what made them what they were in the first place, and continue to fight against anything to expose them. Soy oil, for example, can be stated simply as soil oil without including processing chemicals like hexane. The biggest problem with this, in my mind, is that the FDA and USDA does not have the consumer's best interest in heart when regulating definitions and labeling.
These definitions and limitations also carry over to product names and marketing. In Gene Baur's article on CNN, located here, he discusses the dairy industry's battle against soy milk and almond milk sharing the name milk with them. The milk industry has been decreasing over the past couple decades and they believe that attacking other products using the milk title can help them bolster sales. It seems to be a common theme in the modern food industrialized world to attack definitions and common sense regulations instead of addressing inherent problems. Gere states that one of the main reason for the shift from cow milk towards alternatives is that society is becoming more aware of animal abuses in factory farms, the negative environmental impacts, and people are seeking sustainable and victim-less alternatives. No one mistakes "Almond Milk" or "Soy Milk" as coming from cows, there is no misdirection and no cause for a logical person to think that the dairy industry is harmed from them sharing the milk moniker. However the government organizations involved with industrial food are compromised and corrupted from the industries they are meant to oversee. Baur points out that the milk industry is heavily subsidized by the USDA, even allowing gross overproduction to occur and the USDA to purchase any excess to keep operations running. As a result, instead of tackling hexane laced soy beans or nutrient stripped cereals, our protective food agencies focus on semantic issues with healthy alternatives.
These definitions and limitations also carry over to product names and marketing. In Gene Baur's article on CNN, located here, he discusses the dairy industry's battle against soy milk and almond milk sharing the name milk with them. The milk industry has been decreasing over the past couple decades and they believe that attacking other products using the milk title can help them bolster sales. It seems to be a common theme in the modern food industrialized world to attack definitions and common sense regulations instead of addressing inherent problems. Gere states that one of the main reason for the shift from cow milk towards alternatives is that society is becoming more aware of animal abuses in factory farms, the negative environmental impacts, and people are seeking sustainable and victim-less alternatives. No one mistakes "Almond Milk" or "Soy Milk" as coming from cows, there is no misdirection and no cause for a logical person to think that the dairy industry is harmed from them sharing the milk moniker. However the government organizations involved with industrial food are compromised and corrupted from the industries they are meant to oversee. Baur points out that the milk industry is heavily subsidized by the USDA, even allowing gross overproduction to occur and the USDA to purchase any excess to keep operations running. As a result, instead of tackling hexane laced soy beans or nutrient stripped cereals, our protective food agencies focus on semantic issues with healthy alternatives.