In Warren Belasco’s piece of writing “The Future of Food”, he informs the reader about the current condition of global food consumption and production and the impact this trend will have on future generations if it continues to grow at an exponential pace. He highlights the belief that resources in the world are finite where there is “no free lunch” – the actions we commit to today all have consequences on our children as we are “stealing” from them instead of “inheriting land” from our fathers. This view of finite resources is also incorporated in religion whereby in Genesis, mankind was punished because of Adam and Eve’s urges to eat the apple.
Currently, both food consumption and production are interconnected whereby the former stimulates the latter to increase - as the human population increases there is more labor available to increase production. Humans are consuming more meat and poultry products than ever before, highlighted by the rapid increase of obesity in China. What’s more, the standard of living nowadays has also become significantly more expensive and energy-consuming. This increase in demand and production of food has consequently resulted in the dwindling of natural resources such as land, water and minerals. For example, in order to supply enough grains to feed the expected population in 2025, there needs to be approximately enough water to fill 24 Niles. Rich nutritious soil is also being eradicated due to excessive farming and abuse of the land with artificial chemicals. Although there is a belief that mankind will always find a way to overcome such “natural shortages”, there are always setbacks to the application of manmade inventions to the environment. An example Belasco points out is the use of irrigation to increase the productivity of land – although it can lead to a higher yield of crops, such an approach requires the construction of dams, pipes, etc which can incur conflicts over water rights and increase energy usage.
Belasco also proposes two solutions to this possible catastrophe. The first he points out is the “Technological Fix” whereby technological advancements will help alleviate the situation by overpowering nature. He suggests that technology can be used to make the transportation of food much faster, more efficient and more energy conservative. Other possibilities include “high tech smart farming” and genetic modification/engineering of crops to make more durable. The second solution is the “anthropological fix” where instead of fixing the environment, the problem which needs to be addressed lies in humans ourselves. In this proposal, he suggests that humans need to have their values reevaluated and geared towards more sustainable dietary choices. This includes eating locally and seasonally and getting to know their farmers personally as to have a greater appreciation for sustainable farming. Belasco also proposes that people should learn how to cook in order to promote more sustainable dieting.
In my opinion, there is a serious issue ongoing in the world right now with food waste; the fact that we are capable of producing so much food suppresses our conscience about wasting food and the fact that there are those out there who do not have anything to eat. Realistically, I also feel that the anthropological fix would be an ineffective approach to raising awareness about the current/future food situation due to the fact that because the world is so industrialized and globalized, people would be unwilling to change their dietary habits. People are too comfortable living in such a luxurious lifestyle that their “short term pleasures” from eating foods they want to eat always overpowers their “long term” conscience about the environment. Thus, I honestly feel that technology is the only viable option in terms of sustaining food production in future generations. We have developed such a dependence on technology that there is no way back; the only way forward is the further advancement of technology. Furthermore, I also feel that in the future, there will be the development of artificial foods which will allow us to feel satiated for longer periods of time which will reduce food consumption, which will then lead to a reduction in food production correspondingly. However, until that time arrives, it doesn’t hurt for governments to incorporate more education about smart dietary choices in school curriculums to encourage children to become more aware about their environments from a younger age – the younger they learn, the more likely they are to follow through in their actions.
Questions which I have regarding this reading include:
- 50 years from now, will food be organic or will it all be artificially created/engineered?
- If the growth of the human population did stabilize an plateau off, what will the impacts be on food production in the world?
- What are the effects of increased international trade and globalization on food production?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Too much food.. too little distribution
After reading “The Scarcity Fallacy” by Stephen Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins and Lindsay Peterson, the reader becomes clarified about the erroneous belief that world hunger is rooted in a lack of food supply, as first suggested from Thomas Malthus’ classic 1978 book “An Essay on the Principle of Population”. As a matter of fact, there is more than enough food available in the world today to feed its inhabitants. Rather, the true culprit of world hunger lies in the unjust social dynamics which determine how food is distributed.
The authors argue there are 4 main social components which are to blame for this famine: poverty, inequality, conflict and corruption. Firstly, there is a strong correlation between poverty and hunger, emphasized by the fact that countries which suffer most severely from poverty also have the highest child hunger rates. With increasing food costs, due to the supermarket revolution, and less income to spend due to job losses, people are unable to afford adequate nutrition to feed themselves and require the assistance of food banks. Inequality is also an issue where people become deprived of food based on their gender, race, or ethnicity, particularly women who are disproportionately likely to suffer from hunger despite composing the majority of the agriculture workforce. Corruption and conflict are also tearing the food distribution system apart due to the fact that food is either used as a political weapon or delivered to those in “less need” of assistance rather than those most desperate. In order to combat these flaws, the authors suggest a host of possible responses which include encouraging local food production, instead of relying on industrialized farming, and empowering competition among local farmers. In addition, governments need to tackle this problem right at its roots by confronting social issues within their respective societies. By ensuring women and minorities are protected by better policies and mandating food as a fundamental human right, world hunger would be greatly alleviated. Only through the elimination of social injustices may the development of production capabilities by effective.
In my opinion, it is just such a shame that humans are unable to realize the extent to which their fellow inhabitants are in desperate need of help; whenever large amounts of money is involved, there is always some form of corruption. I feel that there needs to be a greater emphasis on educating citizens about the myth that there is an inadequate amount of food in the world because until people are more aware about the truth, that social dynamics are the cause, they will continue to throw money/food right into the wrong arms. Government policies and attention need to be less directed at developing faster, more evolutionarily-fit crops and instead, should be spent on ensuring food is cheaper and more accessible to those in need. As a matter of fact, although this may be slightly off topic, a main reason why obesity is such a prominent issue in the US is because the poor do not have access to nutritious food or are unable to afford them – studies have shown that the poor usually reside in neighborhoods filled with convenience stores instead of markets or supermarkets, which influences them to consume junk food accordingly. Thus, it can be seen that the problem of hunger, and even obesity, lies in the flaws of the social construction of society. Creating more jobs and encouraging education are possible solutions which could address poverty, violence and obesity issues.
In addition, I feel that it would be somewhat helpful if food banks all merged into one major organization, which ensures all food distribution is efficient and organized. With smaller, independent food banks, the distribution might be inefficient due to the lack of resources as well as the fact that there is a higher chance of corruption and deception.
Questions which I have regarding this topic include:
- What are some possible policies which can be drafted to reduce social inequalities in relation with food availability?
- Would a transition to a more “socialist” society, instead of a “capitalist” society, alleviate the food distribution system? What are some setbacks of such a transition on food?
- What are some environmental effects on food hunger i.e. does global warming play any role?
The authors argue there are 4 main social components which are to blame for this famine: poverty, inequality, conflict and corruption. Firstly, there is a strong correlation between poverty and hunger, emphasized by the fact that countries which suffer most severely from poverty also have the highest child hunger rates. With increasing food costs, due to the supermarket revolution, and less income to spend due to job losses, people are unable to afford adequate nutrition to feed themselves and require the assistance of food banks. Inequality is also an issue where people become deprived of food based on their gender, race, or ethnicity, particularly women who are disproportionately likely to suffer from hunger despite composing the majority of the agriculture workforce. Corruption and conflict are also tearing the food distribution system apart due to the fact that food is either used as a political weapon or delivered to those in “less need” of assistance rather than those most desperate. In order to combat these flaws, the authors suggest a host of possible responses which include encouraging local food production, instead of relying on industrialized farming, and empowering competition among local farmers. In addition, governments need to tackle this problem right at its roots by confronting social issues within their respective societies. By ensuring women and minorities are protected by better policies and mandating food as a fundamental human right, world hunger would be greatly alleviated. Only through the elimination of social injustices may the development of production capabilities by effective.
In my opinion, it is just such a shame that humans are unable to realize the extent to which their fellow inhabitants are in desperate need of help; whenever large amounts of money is involved, there is always some form of corruption. I feel that there needs to be a greater emphasis on educating citizens about the myth that there is an inadequate amount of food in the world because until people are more aware about the truth, that social dynamics are the cause, they will continue to throw money/food right into the wrong arms. Government policies and attention need to be less directed at developing faster, more evolutionarily-fit crops and instead, should be spent on ensuring food is cheaper and more accessible to those in need. As a matter of fact, although this may be slightly off topic, a main reason why obesity is such a prominent issue in the US is because the poor do not have access to nutritious food or are unable to afford them – studies have shown that the poor usually reside in neighborhoods filled with convenience stores instead of markets or supermarkets, which influences them to consume junk food accordingly. Thus, it can be seen that the problem of hunger, and even obesity, lies in the flaws of the social construction of society. Creating more jobs and encouraging education are possible solutions which could address poverty, violence and obesity issues.
In addition, I feel that it would be somewhat helpful if food banks all merged into one major organization, which ensures all food distribution is efficient and organized. With smaller, independent food banks, the distribution might be inefficient due to the lack of resources as well as the fact that there is a higher chance of corruption and deception.
Questions which I have regarding this topic include:
- What are some possible policies which can be drafted to reduce social inequalities in relation with food availability?
- Would a transition to a more “socialist” society, instead of a “capitalist” society, alleviate the food distribution system? What are some setbacks of such a transition on food?
- What are some environmental effects on food hunger i.e. does global warming play any role?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Food on a Stamp
In the NY Times article “Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades”, Jason DeParle highlights an important yet often forgotten issue ongoing in the US: poverty and the inability to afford necessities. In particular, the article focuses on food stamps and how they are saving thousands of family from utter starvation. DeParle uses personal examples of families in desperation and sprays out a multitude of statistics concerning the number of different people who depend on these tokens, in which a few really stand out:
- “The richest counties are often where aid is growing fastest. In 2007, Forsyth County, outside Atlanta, had the highest household income in the South. Food stamp use there has more than doubled”
- “Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites”
- “Half of Americans receive food stamps, at least briefly, by the time they turn 20. Among black children, the figure was 90 percent”.
Thus, not only is food shortage an ongoing national problem but it clearly has affected certain races more than others, most notably African Americans. DeParle also raises the issue of how some people have abused these food stamps, despite being fairly well off in comparison to those in more dire situations. He alludes to a woman who dispute owning a Mercedes and a $300000 loan-free home, still qualified for the program. Furthermore, in order to promote the program, a change in its name also took place last year to “the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” in order to encourage people to feel less guilt over requesting help.
In my opinion, I feel that the food stamp program in the US is filled with flaws and a more resolute stance needs to be taken in order to alleviate it. Firstly, states like Ohio should not have ignored the value of cars and home when taking into account membership for the food stamps. Clearly, in the example DeParle uses, the woman could have sold her car in exchange for much needed necessities. For those who are still fairly well off, the obtainment of food tokens only discourages the incentive to work and to help out those worse off those in more critical circumstances. Secondly, I feel that the amount given to people who apply for food stamps should be adjusted based on their previous income such that those who had a higher salary earn stamps with less value than those who only had side jobs. I feel that this is necessary because even though both groups of people are jobless, those who had better jobs have more connections, and networking, to help, which is advantageous. I also think that the government needs to create a list of items which food stamps can only buy i.e. actual necessities such as water, fruits, vegetables and canned foods. Unnecessary produce such as soft drinks or candy should be banned, or a tax should be put on them such that they become so expensive less people will buy them.
Having read the following article, one can understand why not putting a ban on junk foods is unjust for those who don't even have access to food stamps:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77852/food_stamps_supporting_bad_habits.html?cat=25
Finally, in my opinion, I feel that the government needs to put a time limit on how long a person may apply for the food stamp. This can come in the form where within a certain time period, the person needs to find a job otherwise, access to the tokens will be cut. Doing so motivates people to actively search for a job in comparison to just living off the food and merely hoping for something good to happen.
My entire life, I feel I have been extremely fortunate to be in the situation which I’m in now and so, reading this article made me feel sad and remorse. The US government needs to step up and apply firmer policies in regards to the use of food stamps. Only then can justice prevail and help arrive to those who really do need them.
Questions which I have regarding this reading include:
- How easy is it to lie about one’s personal circumstances and still be able to have access to the food stamps?
- Should families who have more children be given more food stamps than those who don’t have any?
- Is it likely that the government would soon impose higher taxes on those with disposable income to help fund this food program?
- “The richest counties are often where aid is growing fastest. In 2007, Forsyth County, outside Atlanta, had the highest household income in the South. Food stamp use there has more than doubled”
- “Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites”
- “Half of Americans receive food stamps, at least briefly, by the time they turn 20. Among black children, the figure was 90 percent”.
Thus, not only is food shortage an ongoing national problem but it clearly has affected certain races more than others, most notably African Americans. DeParle also raises the issue of how some people have abused these food stamps, despite being fairly well off in comparison to those in more dire situations. He alludes to a woman who dispute owning a Mercedes and a $300000 loan-free home, still qualified for the program. Furthermore, in order to promote the program, a change in its name also took place last year to “the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” in order to encourage people to feel less guilt over requesting help.
In my opinion, I feel that the food stamp program in the US is filled with flaws and a more resolute stance needs to be taken in order to alleviate it. Firstly, states like Ohio should not have ignored the value of cars and home when taking into account membership for the food stamps. Clearly, in the example DeParle uses, the woman could have sold her car in exchange for much needed necessities. For those who are still fairly well off, the obtainment of food tokens only discourages the incentive to work and to help out those worse off those in more critical circumstances. Secondly, I feel that the amount given to people who apply for food stamps should be adjusted based on their previous income such that those who had a higher salary earn stamps with less value than those who only had side jobs. I feel that this is necessary because even though both groups of people are jobless, those who had better jobs have more connections, and networking, to help, which is advantageous. I also think that the government needs to create a list of items which food stamps can only buy i.e. actual necessities such as water, fruits, vegetables and canned foods. Unnecessary produce such as soft drinks or candy should be banned, or a tax should be put on them such that they become so expensive less people will buy them.
Having read the following article, one can understand why not putting a ban on junk foods is unjust for those who don't even have access to food stamps:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77852/food_stamps_supporting_bad_habits.html?cat=25
Finally, in my opinion, I feel that the government needs to put a time limit on how long a person may apply for the food stamp. This can come in the form where within a certain time period, the person needs to find a job otherwise, access to the tokens will be cut. Doing so motivates people to actively search for a job in comparison to just living off the food and merely hoping for something good to happen.
My entire life, I feel I have been extremely fortunate to be in the situation which I’m in now and so, reading this article made me feel sad and remorse. The US government needs to step up and apply firmer policies in regards to the use of food stamps. Only then can justice prevail and help arrive to those who really do need them.
Questions which I have regarding this reading include:
- How easy is it to lie about one’s personal circumstances and still be able to have access to the food stamps?
- Should families who have more children be given more food stamps than those who don’t have any?
- Is it likely that the government would soon impose higher taxes on those with disposable income to help fund this food program?
Monday, April 5, 2010
How McDonalds took over our lives
The McDonaldization of Society by George Ritzer addresses an important, yet damaging, transformation in our society: rationalization. In the article, Ritzer uses McDonalds as the epitome to exemplify 5 different aspects in which this is occurring: efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman technology and control.
Firstly, the rationalization of our society focuses on efficiency; getting things done as fast as possible in an organized manner. In doing so, quantity is often substituted for quality which can be shown by the fact that slaughterhouses and production mills mass produce without much attention into the quality of their produce. Secondly, society focuses on making sure things are done in a predictable progressive manner, to ensure that efficiency can be accomplished. It attempts to eliminate any unnecessary unpredictable variables which could obstruct things being produced as quickly as possible and thus, emphasizes discipline, routine, consistency and such. In attempting to quantify variables in daily life, encouraged by the development of modern technology, society enforces numbers on many things which are ambiguous and cannot easily be confined to a single category such as the quality of a physician or teacher. This can be related to the assembly line in a production mill where each step is carefully calculated to ensure that it progresses as swiftly as possible with the most gain. Society also attempts to eliminate human autonomy in the labor force by implementing certain techniques, methods and machines on them; in doing so, this dehumanizes humans and turns them into “robots”, which ensures that predictability is present. Finally, the rationalized system was designed to control one particular factor – people. It’s geared to making sure everyone does things in a certain manner so that as a whole, it is quick, efficient and most importantly, profitable – for both consumers and producers.
In my opinion, I do not perceive rationalization as a progressive step in society’s evolution; rather I see it as a setback. Being in a “McDonalized” society means that life is less appreciated; it feels as though we are just puppets in its show. People fail to forget that having free will and autonomy are what makes life so beautiful and without this sense of uniqueness in the world, everyone appears the same and mundane. Sooner or later, there would be no need to create mechanical robots to replace humans in jobs as essentially, we ARE the robots.
In relation to food, it is a shame that such an art is being thrown away in preference for more time doing other things. Here in the US, meals are considered a “waste of time” as people rush through them to proceed to other activities. Even family meals are now seen as a “mandatory sit-together” rather than an enjoyable time. In contrast, back in Thailand, it is required that the entire family stays at home, cooks the meal, and eats it together together rather than just going out to a restaurant or making a frozen meal just to get it “over and done with”. Being from a different culture, I sometimes have difficulty enjoying my own meals with peers as they seem to be able to finish so much quicker than I do, usually pressuring me to gulp my food down so that they don’t have to wait for me. I feel that if we are to survive as a species in the future, we need to overcome this spreading obsession for “speed, mass producing, and efficiency”, which will only let to our downfall as with it come greed and corruption. We need to stop quantifying things which can’t be put into numbers and rediscover originality and creativity. Although this may be a bit off topic, an example of this rediscovery in architectural planning is called New Urbanism where planners aim to reconstruct communities so that they resemble old towns. They aim to deemphasize the notion of modern skyscrapers, traffic, and overcrowding and bring back the simplicity of life in past decades. It is proven that such a lifestyle brings about more happiness than in an overpopulated populated city. The emphasis is on quality rather than quality. A link to what this topic is all about is on the following link:
Nevertheless, although I’m not a supporter of it, an advantage I do see in this rationalization transformation is that it reduces starvation. The fact that food at fast-food chains , such as McDonalds, is produced so efficiently means that it is cheap and can be afforded by those who live below the poverty line. As the world becomes increasingly populated, it is important that everyone is fed so that famine and violence do not become an everyday issue.
Questions I have regarding “McDonaldization” include the following:
- Can the obesity pandemic in the US be mainly blamed on this rationalization?
- Is rationalization driven more by technological advancements or human desire to control things?
Firstly, the rationalization of our society focuses on efficiency; getting things done as fast as possible in an organized manner. In doing so, quantity is often substituted for quality which can be shown by the fact that slaughterhouses and production mills mass produce without much attention into the quality of their produce. Secondly, society focuses on making sure things are done in a predictable progressive manner, to ensure that efficiency can be accomplished. It attempts to eliminate any unnecessary unpredictable variables which could obstruct things being produced as quickly as possible and thus, emphasizes discipline, routine, consistency and such. In attempting to quantify variables in daily life, encouraged by the development of modern technology, society enforces numbers on many things which are ambiguous and cannot easily be confined to a single category such as the quality of a physician or teacher. This can be related to the assembly line in a production mill where each step is carefully calculated to ensure that it progresses as swiftly as possible with the most gain. Society also attempts to eliminate human autonomy in the labor force by implementing certain techniques, methods and machines on them; in doing so, this dehumanizes humans and turns them into “robots”, which ensures that predictability is present. Finally, the rationalized system was designed to control one particular factor – people. It’s geared to making sure everyone does things in a certain manner so that as a whole, it is quick, efficient and most importantly, profitable – for both consumers and producers.
In my opinion, I do not perceive rationalization as a progressive step in society’s evolution; rather I see it as a setback. Being in a “McDonalized” society means that life is less appreciated; it feels as though we are just puppets in its show. People fail to forget that having free will and autonomy are what makes life so beautiful and without this sense of uniqueness in the world, everyone appears the same and mundane. Sooner or later, there would be no need to create mechanical robots to replace humans in jobs as essentially, we ARE the robots.
In relation to food, it is a shame that such an art is being thrown away in preference for more time doing other things. Here in the US, meals are considered a “waste of time” as people rush through them to proceed to other activities. Even family meals are now seen as a “mandatory sit-together” rather than an enjoyable time. In contrast, back in Thailand, it is required that the entire family stays at home, cooks the meal, and eats it together together rather than just going out to a restaurant or making a frozen meal just to get it “over and done with”. Being from a different culture, I sometimes have difficulty enjoying my own meals with peers as they seem to be able to finish so much quicker than I do, usually pressuring me to gulp my food down so that they don’t have to wait for me. I feel that if we are to survive as a species in the future, we need to overcome this spreading obsession for “speed, mass producing, and efficiency”, which will only let to our downfall as with it come greed and corruption. We need to stop quantifying things which can’t be put into numbers and rediscover originality and creativity. Although this may be a bit off topic, an example of this rediscovery in architectural planning is called New Urbanism where planners aim to reconstruct communities so that they resemble old towns. They aim to deemphasize the notion of modern skyscrapers, traffic, and overcrowding and bring back the simplicity of life in past decades. It is proven that such a lifestyle brings about more happiness than in an overpopulated populated city. The emphasis is on quality rather than quality. A link to what this topic is all about is on the following link:
Nevertheless, although I’m not a supporter of it, an advantage I do see in this rationalization transformation is that it reduces starvation. The fact that food at fast-food chains , such as McDonalds, is produced so efficiently means that it is cheap and can be afforded by those who live below the poverty line. As the world becomes increasingly populated, it is important that everyone is fed so that famine and violence do not become an everyday issue.
Questions I have regarding “McDonaldization” include the following:
- Can the obesity pandemic in the US be mainly blamed on this rationalization?
- Is rationalization driven more by technological advancements or human desire to control things?
Monday, March 29, 2010
What? I ate that much?
Reading Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink was entertaining yet educational. As much as we (and I) hate to admit it, I very much agree with the fact that we all overeat based on unknown cues, which Wansink provides some solid evidence for. In his writing, he explains a study which showed that the size of the food container can have a profound effect on how much we eat; the larger the popcorn bucket, the more the movie-goers ate, despite the fact that it was stale popcorn. The name of the brand of food can even psychologically affect our eating habits. If we predict food to be bad, it is very likely that we will eat less as we predispose ourselves to do so; this is backed by the fact that the people who drank "California" wine ate more food and spent more time eating than the people who drank "North Dakota" wine. As unbelievable as it may sound, what we drink can ruin the food we eat! Wansink then precedes to explain to us the "Mindless Margin" which is the amount of food we can overeat or under-eat without noticing any side effects. He suggests that the problem with many diets is that people are too impatient and have unrealistic expectations - cutting out your favorite food is never a good idea. If everyone ate 20% less food, then within 10 month period, people could lose up to 10 pounds. The secret to dieting is patience and cutting down the amount of food you eat rather than the type of food.
On another note,one important factor which I feel Wansick fails to discuss in depth is the biological influences of eating. I learned in my NS 1150 course that contemporary science is still unable to find a biological mechanism which controls our dietary decisions - in other words, "a feeding center". The closest thing scientists have discovered has been the hormone leptin, which is produced from adipose tissue. They found that the more people ate, the more leptin was produced which signals to the brain that the body is full. However, recently, there has been evidence against leptin, as it had been found that obese people had more leptin than non-obese people, which is contradictory. As a result, science is back on the search for a biological mechanism which controls eating. One thing is certain however: whoever makes this discovery is going to be a very rich person.
Another thing which is saddening is the percent of American children who are obese. Nowadays, many children are being raised in an unhealthy manner by their parents, who give them the freedom to gulp down gallons of sodas or fatty foods. The government needs to inject funds into educating parents to become more conscious about healthy parenting. Yes, the failing economy does have a role to play in this "pandemic" as with less disposable income, the only food people can afford to feed their families with is "fast food". Nevertheless, a possible solution is for the government to subsidize fruits and vegetables to make them more affordable.
What particularly intrigues me is why some people are able to maintain a thin BMI and cannot gain weight, despite overfeeding themselves. What are some possible explanations to why this occurs? I'm one of these people and so, it has also intrigued me why I don't become more fat, even if I overloaded myself with calories.
Other questions which I have include:
- Can obesity be hereditary?
- What has been the most "successful"/popular diet to date?
On another note,one important factor which I feel Wansick fails to discuss in depth is the biological influences of eating. I learned in my NS 1150 course that contemporary science is still unable to find a biological mechanism which controls our dietary decisions - in other words, "a feeding center". The closest thing scientists have discovered has been the hormone leptin, which is produced from adipose tissue. They found that the more people ate, the more leptin was produced which signals to the brain that the body is full. However, recently, there has been evidence against leptin, as it had been found that obese people had more leptin than non-obese people, which is contradictory. As a result, science is back on the search for a biological mechanism which controls eating. One thing is certain however: whoever makes this discovery is going to be a very rich person.
Another thing which is saddening is the percent of American children who are obese. Nowadays, many children are being raised in an unhealthy manner by their parents, who give them the freedom to gulp down gallons of sodas or fatty foods. The government needs to inject funds into educating parents to become more conscious about healthy parenting. Yes, the failing economy does have a role to play in this "pandemic" as with less disposable income, the only food people can afford to feed their families with is "fast food". Nevertheless, a possible solution is for the government to subsidize fruits and vegetables to make them more affordable.
What particularly intrigues me is why some people are able to maintain a thin BMI and cannot gain weight, despite overfeeding themselves. What are some possible explanations to why this occurs? I'm one of these people and so, it has also intrigued me why I don't become more fat, even if I overloaded myself with calories.
Other questions which I have include:
- Can obesity be hereditary?
- What has been the most "successful"/popular diet to date?
Monday, March 8, 2010
Eating like an American
As an international student, reading Eating American by Sidney Minte was particularly interesting as it gave me a perspective into how an American views their own national foods and dining trends. The message came across clear however, that Americans do have to be more conscious about their eating habits as "over half of their calorie consumption comes from sugars", in comparison to what it was decades ago. In addition, many Americans prefer to eat "convenient" foods which can be made quickly and tend to forgo nutrition value for more time for other activities. A capitalist mindset has also increased the frequency in which Americans dine out. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all Americans are becoming unhealthier by the day. Demand for organic foods is growing in addition to the vegetarianism movement, which now has a membership of 7% of the population.
On another note, I also feel that the introduction of other national foods into America still needs some improvement. Living in NYC the last 2 years, I was not able to find find a single Thai or Vietnamese restaurant that served authentic dishes and had not replaced the original ingredients with something more "Westernized". Adding cream to a dish, instead of using coconut milk, or replacing fish sauce with salt are 2 common trends, which in my opinion, totally ruins the food. Yes, I understand that in order to stay in business, restaurants have to adjust the food so that it fits more to the liking of their customers but at the same time, I feel that doing so abandons the identity of the food. I would prefer to see more restaurants try and maintain the authenticity of their national foods instead of allowing it to become Westernized or made into a "fusion" dish. I feel that once customers are exposed more to what the dishes would really taste like, they would appreciate the food much more.
In order to promote better eating, I think it is crucial that Americans be taught how to eat a nutritious diet at a younger age, not after they have suffered the consequence of an unhealthy diet. By educating at a young age, children will be more determined to maintain a healthy diet and eventually, this approach will continue onto adulthood. Stricter government regulations on fast food commercials would also help reduce the incidence of Obesity in this country.
Questions I have based on this reading include:
- Should the government add higher tax rates specifically to fast foods?
- How significant is the fast food industry to the countries' GDP?
- Will importing more exotic foods from other countries have any effect on American's dieting?
On another note, I also feel that the introduction of other national foods into America still needs some improvement. Living in NYC the last 2 years, I was not able to find find a single Thai or Vietnamese restaurant that served authentic dishes and had not replaced the original ingredients with something more "Westernized". Adding cream to a dish, instead of using coconut milk, or replacing fish sauce with salt are 2 common trends, which in my opinion, totally ruins the food. Yes, I understand that in order to stay in business, restaurants have to adjust the food so that it fits more to the liking of their customers but at the same time, I feel that doing so abandons the identity of the food. I would prefer to see more restaurants try and maintain the authenticity of their national foods instead of allowing it to become Westernized or made into a "fusion" dish. I feel that once customers are exposed more to what the dishes would really taste like, they would appreciate the food much more.
In order to promote better eating, I think it is crucial that Americans be taught how to eat a nutritious diet at a younger age, not after they have suffered the consequence of an unhealthy diet. By educating at a young age, children will be more determined to maintain a healthy diet and eventually, this approach will continue onto adulthood. Stricter government regulations on fast food commercials would also help reduce the incidence of Obesity in this country.
Questions I have based on this reading include:
- Should the government add higher tax rates specifically to fast foods?
- How significant is the fast food industry to the countries' GDP?
- Will importing more exotic foods from other countries have any effect on American's dieting?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Wait... is my meal real?
Paynter's article "The Other Other White Meat" informs the reader about the growing influence cloning is having on our meat industry. Contradictory to what many people may think, cloned meat is as safe to consume as that of conventionally bred animals. Cloning is used to ensure that animals with favorable genes do not become extinct and continue to be survived by a clone - this allows for the continuous production of high valued produce. Paynter also is put under an experiment where he attempts to distinguish clone meat from regular meat, in which he fails; the results of the experiment underlines the fact that clone meat is essentially identical to real meat and that the difference is all in one's mind.
Although there has been controversy as to whether cloned meat should be introduced to the public, I personally feel that cloned meat should not be introduced into supermarkets until it is 100% verified that there are no defects with the cloning process and therefore, the meat itself. We have not developed enough biological advancements in order for us to treat cloning as though it is 100% safe.
A pro to cloning animals with favorable traits is that someday, we might have have cheap high quality meat to eat, rather than fake "trimming" meat. This will reduce the frequency of illnesses from the consumption of unsanitary meat which came from multiple different cows. Nevertheless, a con to the cloning business is that because large transactions of money are involved, cloning scandals and embezzlement can easily surface, which could be dangerous. Mutations of cloned animals can occur as a result and this could have large societal and environmental implications.
Questions which I have are:
- Can a cloned embryo be conceived in different species of cows?
- Is it possible to successfully clone cloned animals?
- Do cloned animals have any advantages over their counterparts?
Although there has been controversy as to whether cloned meat should be introduced to the public, I personally feel that cloned meat should not be introduced into supermarkets until it is 100% verified that there are no defects with the cloning process and therefore, the meat itself. We have not developed enough biological advancements in order for us to treat cloning as though it is 100% safe.
A pro to cloning animals with favorable traits is that someday, we might have have cheap high quality meat to eat, rather than fake "trimming" meat. This will reduce the frequency of illnesses from the consumption of unsanitary meat which came from multiple different cows. Nevertheless, a con to the cloning business is that because large transactions of money are involved, cloning scandals and embezzlement can easily surface, which could be dangerous. Mutations of cloned animals can occur as a result and this could have large societal and environmental implications.
Questions which I have are:
- Can a cloned embryo be conceived in different species of cows?
- Is it possible to successfully clone cloned animals?
- Do cloned animals have any advantages over their counterparts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)