The Future of Food

In chapter six of Food: The Key Concepts, Warren Belasco discusses the major complications of the world's food production and consumption, and offers a few scenarios of possible future outcomes. No one can be certain of what the future holds for mankind. While some believe that global population growth will eventually overtake food production and the world will fall into a state of starvation, others believe that the world will be rid of starvation and everyone will be happily well-fed. Belasco asserts that the three main problems with the food production system lie in fuel, water, and soil. These three resources are being depleted at an enormous rate yet the world population continues to increase. This means that we will soon face some extremely difficult problems that will require drastic measures in order to fix.

Belasco describes two different fixes for our dilemma: the technological fix and the anthropological fix. The technological fix predicts that through engineering and research, we will continue to increase efficiency and production output to keep feeding the ever increasing population. Such things as genetic engineering and nanotechnology will likely play a major role in this fix. The anthropological fix goes in the complete opposite direction and redesigns people's values, not their technologies. It would mean the reverse of industrialization and moving back to relying on local farming and seasonal eating. Belasco notes that both fixes are extreme scenarios and the future will probably entail a mix of the two fixes.

Questions:

Is an anthropological fix even viable considering human nature, our desire to move forward, and our love of new technologies?

Who is to blame for all of these problems we face now?

How much longer do we have until these problems start to significantly affect our lives and we have to drastically change the way we live?

The Scarcity Fallacy

"The Scarcity Fallacy" by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins, and Lindsey Peterson discusses the main causes and issues concerning world hunger. Although popular perceptions of world hunger point to food scarcity being the cause of the problem, the authors argue that the less obvious issue of "food security" poses a much greater problem. The World Bank describes food security as "the inability to acquire the food necessary to sustain an active and healthy life." According to the article, the primary cause of hunger is poverty. Other causes include gender and ethnic inequality. About sixty percent of the world's hungry people consist of women. Ethnic discrimination in places such as Eritrea, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Indonesia, and the Sudan can prevent certain people (minorities) from producing or earning money to purchase food.

International food aid was created to assist in feeding the hungry around the world. However, this seemingly beneficial solution is actually quite ineffective and misdirected. Corruption and problems in delivery prevents food aid from helping those who need it most and benefit US shipping companies and agri-business more than those people who the program is supposed to help.

Some possible major solutions to this problem include: a global recognition that food is a fundamental human right, overcoming the corruption and inefficiency of international food aid, and promoting sustainable agriculture emphasizing local food systems. Food scarcity is an issue; however, major societal changes are needed to combat the problem of world hunger and to ensure that all people receive food.

Questions:
If significant societal changes are needed to decrease world hunger, what kinds of costs and societal problems might come about do to these changes? Are there downsides to the suggestions that the article made to solve the global hunger issue?

Emergency Food

Sweet Charity by Janet Poppendieck discusses the major issues of hunger and poverty that has been prevalent for some time. She emphasizes the effects of programs such as soup kitchens and food banks that arose to provide emergency food to people that have trouble feeding themselves and their families. In chapter two, "Who Eats Emergency Food?," Poppendieck explains that the major causes of the need for emergency food is unemployment and underemployment, high housing costs, inadequate public assistance, and reduced food assistance. These problems are worsened by things like a failing economy and recession. The chapter also describes the poverty line and how the system that defines poverty is rather outdated. When the line was first created, people who spent a third or more of their total income were said to be below the poverty line. Fifty years later, people are spending much less of their income on food and the standard of living has changed drastically.

In chapter three, Poppendieck brings up the "social constructionist" perspective on hunger. This view moves away from the individual and looks at the broad spectrum of problems that are associated with hunger. The perspective claims that hunger is thus a societal problem and addresses how larger issues such as politics and economics are some of the major causes of this problem.

Questions:

Should the government redefine a poverty line to accommodate people with specific needs and for changes in living standards? If so, what kinds of changes should be made to help more people in need? What are the consequences of these changes?

The McDonaldization of Society

George Ritzer discusses in his chapter, "The McDonaldization of Society" in Sociological Odyssey, how the process of rationalization has taken over many aspects of human society. Ritzer breaks down rationality into several characteristics which are: efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty. The emphasis on these aspects in our society correlates greatly with how industrialized and mechanized our way of living has become. Constantly improving technologies have been steadily increasing the efficiency of production to allow for greater quantities of goods to be produced and sold at significantly reduced costs. This also leads to lower quality products and uniformity, or predictability as Ritzer calls it.

Although rational systems provide many benefits, Ritzer argues that rationality comes with a price. First, there are almost always negative byproducts produced in rational systems that people need to remove, or in some cases simply cover up, using some artificial solution. An example of this in the food industry is the massive amounts of chemicals and antibiotics we feed our livestock so that they can consume feed that they would not be able to process otherwise. Another problem with rational systems is dehumanization. Rationalization promotes efficiency in human actions and work. The way people work most efficiently is by doing repetitive simple tasks (i.e. assembly line style of work) and this leads to people acting as robots.

Ritzer clearly states that he is not urging society to become less rational but rather gain greater control of rationalization so that we do not experience its negative consequences. This notion makes sense but is it even possible to do so? With more and more reliance on technology and a huge demand for greater efficiency, will rationality eventually dominate our society? Will we ever reach a point where machines do all the work of humans?

Eating Too Much

In the first chapter of Mindless Eating, Brian Wansink discusses several reasons why people eat more than they should. Surprisingly, what Wansink has found is that the reason we eat so much is not because the food tastes overly good, but because of a multitude of subtle cues that we are subjected to every time we eat. A study conducted in many different states gave out free popcorn to movie-goers in two sizes, medium and large. Even though the popcorn was 5 days old and very stale, people went ahead and ate to their heart's content. The study concluded that the people who were given the large size were likely to eat more than the people who were given medium. Countless studies such as this one are conducted to find factors that make people eat more or less. Some factors, or cues, include container size, labeling, marketing and advertising, etc.

Another topic in this chapter is dieting and why most diets don't work. Wansink points out that most diets are some form of deprivation. The problem with deprivation is that our bodies fight it both physically and mentally. It works for a short time, then the weight comes right back as soon as the diet is over. Wansink suggests that to lose weight, we need to trim off just enough calories so that our bodies don't notice that we're eating less. This makes the point that mindless eating works both ways.

After reading this chapter I realize that all of these small cues do influence how much I eat. Hopefully, I will recognize at least some of the cues while eating in the future. But if so many of these small factors act on us on a subconscious level everyday, is it even possible to recognize and then act differently every time we eat something?

American Cuisine

When you think of American food, what first comes to mind? For most people it is probably hamburgers, hot dogs, apple pies, etc. In his article "Eating American," Sidney Mintz analyzes American eating habits and in the process claims that there is no such thing as the "American cuisine." Looking at our history and the amount of diversity we have in the US, it is obvious that the country is composed of many, many cultures and traditions. Each of these cultures contributes its own cuisines and traditional foods to the countless different foods we Americans consume. Also, since the US is so large in area, there are different foods in different regions spread out all over the country.

Mintz also recognizes some trends in our eating habits in his article. He states that we are eating more and more meat, processed foods, and sugar. We are also cooking in less and eating out a lot more. Perhaps fast food is our national cuisine since so many people eat it. Or maybe it's just the way we eat. It is debatable whether or not we have our cuisine, but is it possible that over a period of time that we could develop a national cuisine? What kinds of cultural or social changes would have to occur for that to happen?

Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alternatives by Miguel A. Altieri provides a critical view of the false benefits and potential problems of using genetic engineering to produce what is promised to be more and better food. Altieri claims that what shapes agricultural production is not environmental concerns or people's needs, as it should be, but rather maximizing profits. He believes that genetic modification of produce is just another way to maximize the efficiency and output of industrial food production. As Michael Pollan and previous posts in my blog mention, theses methods of maximizing this efficiency are usually not environmentally or socially friendly.

Although genetic engineering promises larger yields for crops and less usage of insecticides and herbicides, studies show that this is not always the case. In fact, Altieri makes it seem as though there are hardly any benefits to genetic engineering and that it is far more detrimental than the conventional production methods. He may have a skewed point of view; however, he does have some legitimate arguments. He brings up important topics such as: the cost to farmers, genetic pollution, whether these foods are safe to eat for humans, and the effects on the surrounding ecosystem. As an engineer myself, I understand the drive to discover new solutions to current problems and the thrill of solving these problems using new technologies; however, in agriculture, I believe we need to look at the bigger picture, not just maximizing yield and efficiency but also considering environmental and social issues.

Some questions to consider: Who actually benefits from genetically engineered products? Are we using this technology to feed starving people around the world, or are the rich benefiting more? Is it safe to eat these modified foods?

Swine Flu

Mike Davis discusses in his article "The Swine Flu Crisis Lays Bare the Meat Industry's Monstrous Power" yet another major problem with the meat production industry. The recent outbreak of the virus strain H1N1, commonly known as the swine flu, has infected countless people around the world. It is very probable that swine flu originated and grew in industrial pig farms where the animals live crammed in tiny pens that aren't even large enough for them to turn around in. Having such a large number of animals living in such a small area (covered in their own feces) provides a perfect environment for a virus like swine flu to generate.

As of now, there is no way of predicting when this kind of pandemic will happen in the future or what kinds of viruses may arise. There is strong evidence that the food production industry is making this problem worse. Although measures are being taken to relieve the short term issues through antivirals and vaccines, the more difficult long term issues are not being looked into as much. If this type of large-scale, industrial food production continues and grows, what kinds of problems are we going to have in the future? Will there be more viruses like the swine flu that will cause periodic crises killing innumerous people around the globe?

The Omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 12: Slaughter

In this rather grotesque chapter, Michael Pollan explores and describes in detail the process of slaughtering chickens at Polyface Farm. On processing day at the farm, they gather up a few hundred chickens and bring them to the processing shed where they prepare the birds for slaughter. I found it surprising that the chickens are relatively calm during most of this procedure. Pollan remarks that the birds are completely oblivious to what is happening while they are in the killing cones waiting to be slaughtered. The work in the shed is much like an assembly line where workers build up a sort of mechanical rhythm which allows them to get through this rather unpleasant process.

The processing shed at Polyface Farm as no walls; which means that customers can watch their chickens being slaughtered. Unlike the industrial meat production operations, Salatin does not hide the slaughtering process. He believes that people have the right to see all that goes on in these facilities. He also thinks that the strict regulations that the government places on his farm severely impede his production of organic food. Small farms such as Polyface are forced to abide by the same regulations and rules as the big industrial farms do. Since these small farms operate so differently from these industrial farms, shouldn't they have different regulations? Also, should all slaughter houses be like Salatin's processing shed where anyone can see what goes on inside?

The Omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 17: The Ethics of Eating Animals

I love eating meat. Steak, hamburger, chicken, turkey, ham, sausage, lamb, etc. you name it, I'll eat it. Reading this chapter of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma opened my eyes to some things. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to eat meat but I'll probably look at it differently. Pollan presents a fairly unbiased (in my opinion) discussion of the moral dilemmas involved in eating animals. Taking the point of view of an animal rights activist, he talks about how animals are mistreated before we slaughter and eat them. He actually becomes a vegetarian for some time as he contemplates the morality of eating meat. A major reason people give up eating meat is that they learn about how animals are maltreated and brutally slaughtered, and believe that the animals are suffering from this. Pollan explains that while the animals do feel pain, it is uncertain if they suffer.

Looking at individual animals on the farm also can skew the view that some people have on this subject. The chapter discusses that it is likely that these domestic animals would not have survived if it wasn't for humans. Looking at the animals as entire species, we see that humans are allowing these animals to thrive by feeding them and protecting them from predators (other than ourselves). We also provide them with swift and painless deaths. In the wild, animal predators tear apart their prey resulting in a very painful and drawn-out death. Pollan describes these topics, and several others, in great detail but it is ultimately up to the individual consumer to decide whether or not they want to eat meat.

This chapter brings up a myriad of questions, to name a few: Do the animals we eat have souls? Can they suffer or feel happiness? Do they deserve the same rights that humans have? Is speciesism comparable to racism? If the mistreatment of animals in industrial farms is the moral problem, is hunting animals in the wild ethically sound?

The Omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 11: The Animals

In chapter eleven of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan focuses on the details of how Polyface Farm raises its animals. Industrial farming runs on the basis of producing extremely large quantities of one product through monocultures, which require the assistance of man-made chemicals (antibiotics, hormones, etc.) to keep them from collapsing. On Joel Salatin's farm; however, all of the animals and plants live in a single ecological system where these symbiotic relationships between organisms are essential to producing efficient, yet high-quality food.

The chapter explores these symbiotic relationships more closely. Of these relationships, Pollan puts the spotlight on the cows and chickens. As the cows graze, they leave behind waste. The waste then provides food to the chickens that in turn produce waste that fertilizes the soil. This fertilized soil allows for grass to grow and feeds the cows. Although this loop is much more complicated than what I described it to be, it ultimately generates excellent beef and eggs without the use of any chemicals, drugs, etc. In fact, every component of the farm (even the forest) plays an important role in this amazing cycle of raising and producing food.

Though natural farms like Polyface can be very efficient, they require a lot more man power than the labor required at an industrial farm, as Pollan describes from first-hand experience. This raises the questions: is this type of farm practical on a large scale? and if so, would it be able to compare to the colossal system of industrial food production?

The Omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 8: All Flesh is Grass

In this chapter of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan talks about an alternative method of producing food that is being overshadowed by the big, industrial system we have in place to provide consumers with sustenance. He visits Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm, where a half dozen types of animals are raised through a cyclic system involving the seemingly simple food chain of grass. I say "seemingly" because, in fact, the grass eco-system is a very complex community comprised of many, many organisms (living and dead), as Pollan describes. What I find really astounding about Salatin's 100 acre Farm is how much it produces: 25,000 pounds of beef, 50,000 pounds of pork, 30,000 dozen eggs, etc. Although it is not as efficient as the huge industrial farms, this is still quite impressive.

Near the end of the chapter, Pollan brings up the topic of what the words "sustainable", "organic", and "natural" really mean. Although supermarket produce and goods may have the label of organic, it has been shipped all around the country in vehicles powered by fossil fuels. So, are these foods really "organic?" Joel Salatin would not call those foods sustainable or organic since he does not even believe in shipping his products. Though the foods may be grown organically (without pesticides, etc.) it takes a considerable amount of energy and resources to constantly stock out stores with the vast selection of food that we as consumers enjoy. Taking this into consideration, can we label any of the foods in our supermarkets as "organic?" Also, are the people who go out of their way to buy these "organic" foods truly taking a stand against the industrialization of food production?

On a side-note, the portable henhouse, or Eggmobile, that Pollan mentions caught my eye so I looked it up on google and this is what I found:

The Omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 4: The Feedlot

Michael Pollan discusses in this chapter of The Omnivore's Dilemma the great many things that go into feeding and raising livestock (cattle in particular) so that consumers like us can have a delicious, tender steak (or any other form of beef) for dinner. Pollan begins the chapter by briefly describing the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, or CAFO for short. For over half a century, our livestock have gradually become more densely populated. CAFOs are these areas of high livestock density. Unsurprisingly, Pollan puts the blame for this urbanization of food animals on the federally subsidized corn that has become so cheap and abundant.

To get a better and more intimate understanding of the process in which livestock are raised and fed, Pollan purchases a calf from a ranch and follows its life in the feedlot. What he finds is that people will go to the very extremes to maximize the efficiency of their meat production.

Part way through the chapter Pollan outlines the digestive system of a cow and its most important feature, the rumen, which allows cattle to digest grass into protein. Though grass is the cow's natural food, we have found that feeding them corn is much more efficient and provides a higher quality cut of meat. What goes into the feed is not only corn, however. Pollan notes that liquefied fat, protein supplements, liquid vitamins, synthetic estrogen, and antibiotics are also included in the feed to increase efficiency and allow the cattle to process this food that is abnormal to them. He then describes the problems associated with this feeding method that affect not only the cattle but the environment and even the consumers. His main arguments include increased acidity in the cow's digestive system, environmental pollution, and bacteria such as E. coli.

Discussion Questions:

1. I personally like the fat on my steak, but I know a lot of people that do not like the taste of a fatty steak. If consumers do not prefer this type of meat, why is marbling so highly sought after in the industry?

2. Pollan kept mentioning that the meat industry is taking all of these extreme measures to maximize the efficiency of production. Is there a point where efficiency can no longer be increased? and what happens when we do reach that point?

Introduction

I have created this blog for a class at Cornell University called "Having a Lot on Our Plates: An Introduction to the Sociology of Food and Nutrition." The posts on this blog will consist mostly of short summaries of readings from various sources followed by a few questions that pop into my mind as I read the articles or chapters. Hopefully, I will provide some interesting insights and opinions on the various food topics that this course covers. Stay tuned and enjoy!