The Future of Food

Will the planet be able to feed future generations? This question is by no means a new one, but the context in which it is being asked is. In the past, many worried that the ever-increasing rate of population growth would leave us with simply too many people to feed. However, the combination of huge increases in crop yields and evidence that the rate of population growth is slowing has redirected attention away from the issue. The original question, however, is still hotly debated.

In recent years, many have argued that our food system is not sustainable, meaning it is damaging the environment to such an extent that it will be unable to support the demands of the future. One of the reasons this has become an issue is because of the global transition towards a diet containing more meat, alcohol luxury foods. These types of food take a great toll on the environment because they require more agricultural inputs than they supply to the consumer. For example, Michael Pollan explains that it takes about 10 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of beef. Another problem is that the intensive cultivation of non-rotated crops with large additions of fertilizer severely depletes the soil. Warren Belasco in “The Future of Food” argues that the shifts and innovations that have made possible the unprecedented quantity and variety of our current food system also have unintended consequences that will trouble future generations sooner than we think.

Belasco identifies two types of possible solutions to this crisis. The first is the technological fix. In this solution profit-seeking free enterprise will continue to innovate and will eventually solve sustainability issues with technology. In my opinion, however, we have already done too much damage for this solution to work alone. The second solution is the anthropological fix. In this solution future generations will have to change their attitudes about food. People will adopt more environmentally friendly diets, such as vegetarianism, and forget their desire for unsustainable foods such as cheap beef. Belasco recognizes that the future may need to require a combination of the two options.

I may be a pessimist, but I do not think our planet will adopt solutions until it is too late. I think that only when the negative effects of our food system are already hurting people’s ability to feed themselves will anything be done to fight the problem. And by this time, there will be many years of crisis before any solutions begin to work.

Will the planet step up and work make our food system sustainable before its too late?

Are the current fears just like the fears of population growth from the past? Meaning that the global economy will just naturally find a solution?

The Scarcity Falacy

More people in the world are hungry today than were hungry ten years ago. In 2009, nearly 15% of the world’s population was hungry. At the same time we are producing more food than ever. In “The Scarcity Fallacy”, Scanian, Jenkins, and Peterson argue that poverty, inequality, conflict, and corruption, but not scarcity, are the causes of world hunger. With over 2800 calories available per persons per day, higher than at any other point in human history, its clear that there is enough food out there to feed everyone, it just is not being evenly distributed. This uneven distribution of food is partially because most of the surpluses of the developed world will never make it to the developing world where 95% of the hungry live. For example, international food aid, a US program to remove excess grain from domestic markets, is sent to countries of geopolitical value to the US that do not really need the food. Another problem that prevents food from getting to those in need is the increasing corruption in emergency food delivery programs.

The first thing that needs to be done, according to the article, is a worldwide recognition of food as a human right. Second, inefficiency and corruption must be removed from existing programs to ensure that food aid gets to those in need. Third, direct cash aid should be used more often as a substitute to dumping cheap food into the market. This prevents local farmers from making money and can actually decrease the availability of food. Third, sustainable agriculture should be promoted through education and assistance. Fourth, gender inequalities should be combated. The article argues that, “providing women with control over childbearing, giving them access to education, allowing them the right to own land and businesses, and facilitating the economic activities with micro-credit and other innovations will significantly reduce hunger.”

I was shocked to hear that world hunger was getting worse. This highlights my main point. Hunger needs to be made a bigger issue. Increasing awareness of the problem will not only increase the amount of aid, but will also help improve the aid. It is clear that the system is inefficient, and more people studying it and suggesting solutions will make a difference.

Discussion Questions:

How can we increase awareness of hunger and make it an issue that gets more attention?

Whose responsibility is it to fight world hunger?

"Who Eats Emergency Food?"

Everyday millions of people of differing backgrounds venture to their neighborhood kitchen or food pantry because they have found themselves in a variety of circumstances. Janet Poppendieck, in the “Who Eats Emergency Food?” chapter of Sweet Charity, identifies the types of people most likely to eat emergency food and describes some of the most common reasons people are forced to use emergency food. She shows that the statistics makeup of those living under the poverty line (that is in terms of gender, race, age, ext.) nearly matches the makeup of those who visit pantries and kitchens. This makes sense because the original poverty line was calculated based on food. Any household “that could not afford to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet by allocating a third of is income to food purchase” was considered poor (51). Recent studies, however, find that many pantry clients actually have income around 150% higher than the poverty line. While Poppendieck acknowledges that people above and below the poverty line use emergency food for many reasons, she argues that there are four leading causes.

Out of these three, employment related issues are the most common. The chronically unemployed and those who have recently lost their jobs head to pantries because their lack of income leaves them unable to afford food. She also identifies the rise of part-time employment as a cause because these workers are only able to find one job with too few hours to have enough money for food. The second major reason Poppendieck describes is high shelter costs. The rise in housing and energy costs, especially in urban areas, means that people are paying a larger percentage of their income on shelter and less on food. Also, many choose to use pantries during temporary hard times because they do not want to move to lower cost housing. In addition, many chose to heat their homes rather than pay for food because they know that they can get food for free. Inadequate public assistance is the third reason. Because the government does not provide the chronically ill, injured, and elderly with enough money, medical and other necessary expense take precedent over food, which they can get for free. Programs like GA, SSI and TANF simply do not accurately assess the needs of the poor. Because food stamps do not keep people from using emergency food, Poppendieck contends that they are the fourth major cause. Because one can turn a food stamp into cash by buying then returning food, people use their food stamps to pay for other expenses. In this way government aid that is designed to minimize the need for emergency food actually contributes to it. So should the government take action to prevent this stamp to cash exchange?

In my opinion, Poppendieck fails to recognize the two-sided nature of her high shelter costs example. The availability of emergency food would actually contribute to the increase in the cost of housing. Emergency food allows people to allocate more of their income towards housing, which increases the demand for housing. If emergency food were not available, people would be unable to keep their homes, the demand for housing would decrease, and housing prices would drop. I bring up this issue merely as discussion, not to recommend it as a solution.

Discussion questions:

Does Poppendieck oversimplify a not so simple situation?

Does her analysis suggest anything that can be done to help minimize the need for emergency food?

"Who Eats Emergency Food?"

Everyday millions of people of differing backgrounds venture to their neighborhood kitchen or food pantry because they have found themselves in a variety of circumstances. Janet Poppendieck, in the “Who Eats Emergency Food?” chapter of Sweet Charity, identifies the types of people most likely to eat emergency food and describes some of the most common reasons people are forced to use emergency food. She shows that the statistics makeup of those living under the poverty line (that is in terms of gender, race, age, ext.) nearly matches the makeup of those who visit pantries and kitchens. This makes sense because the original poverty line was calculated based on food. Any household “that could not afford to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet by allocating a third of is income to food purchase” was considered poor (51). Recent studies, however, find that many pantry clients actually have income around 150% higher than the poverty line. While Poppendieck acknowledges that people above and below the poverty line use emergency food for many reasons, she argues that there are four leading causes.

Out of these three, employment related issues are the most common. The chronically unemployed and those who have recently lost their jobs head to pantries because their lack of income leaves them unable to afford food. She also identifies the rise of part-time employment as a cause because these workers are only able to find one job with too few hours to have enough money for food. The second major reason Poppendieck describes is high shelter costs. The rise in housing and energy costs, especially in urban areas, means that people are paying a larger percentage of their income on shelter and less on food. Also, many choose to use pantries during temporary hard times because they do not want to move to lower cost housing. In addition, many chose to heat their homes rather than pay for food because they know that they can get food for free. Inadequate public assistance is the third reason. Because the government does not provide the chronically ill, injured, and elderly with enough money, medical and other necessary expense take precedent over food, which they can get for free. Programs like GA, SSI and TANF simply do not accurately assess the needs of the poor. Because food stamps do not keep people from using emergency food, Poppendieck contends that they are the fourth major cause. Because one can turn a food stamp into cash by buying then returning food, people use their food stamps to pay for other expenses. In this way government aid that is designed to minimize the need for emergency food actually contributes to it. So should the government take action to prevent this stamp to cash exchange?

In my opinion, Poppendieck fails to recognize the two-sided nature of her high shelter costs example. The availability of emergency food would actually contribute to the increase in the cost of housing. Emergency food allows people to allocate more of their income towards housing, which increases the demand for housing. If emergency food were not available, people would be unable to keep their homes, the demand for housing would decrease, and housing prices would drop. I bring up this issue merely as discussion, not to recommend it as a solution.

Discussion questions:

Does Poppendieck oversimplify a not so simple situation?

Does her analysis suggest anything that can be done to help minimize the need for emergency food?

Ritzer's Rationalization

In “The McDonaldization of Society”, George Ritzer examines how rationalization is affecting our society. He defines a rational society as “one which emphasizes efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology” (372). Rationality is changing every corner of our society from theme parks to surgery to the way we eat. For example, the way we eat and obtain food has changed drastically as a result of rationality. In an effort to increase efficiency, people have gone from home cooked meals to fast food, takeout and TV dinners. This saves them valuable time and money, but at the expense of their health. This is because fast-food restaurants, like McDonald’s (hence McDonaldinization), use the cheapest possible ingredients prepared in the least amount of time resulting in food of the lowest quality. Because of the rationalization of our food industry, many have lost sight of the most basic goal of eating: to obtain nourishment. The focus is instead placed on obtaining the highest quantity of food for the least money.

Rationalization also brings predictability at the expense of variety and creativity. Fast food restaurants and food producers work very hard to maintain consistency in all of their products. Individuals learn to like one specific food, packaged and prepared with such predictability that they will reject other possibilities. Ritzer even claims that theme parks and campgrounds that used to be “highly unpredictable affairs” have become predictable (374).

One way to ensure predictability and increase efficiency is to replace human labor with nonhuman technology. Skilled workers that practiced their individual techniques and knowledge on every meal once prepared food. McDonald’s now employs workers who use procedures where every move they make is planned out and every piece of food receives the exact same treatment. By standardizing every step and minimizing customer interaction with workers, McDonald’s maintains control over its employees and customers.

While rationality may be a good business model, it often has very negative effects on customers as well as the laborers within the system. Rationalization takes away the individuality that makes us human. It also pushes important issues, such as nutrition, to the side in favor of more marketable, but less important, issues, such as size. Because of this, “rational systems are not reasonable systems” (378). Can we really blame this rationalization or is rationalization really the result of some other force that actually causes the problems? Furthermore, can Ritzer really claim that rationalization has an overall negative effect? In his examples he tends to ignore possible benefits, such as feeding people on low budgets. I do agree with Ritzer, however, when he claims that rationalization makes our society uninteresting.

Is rationalization the result of people’s preferences or the economic advantages that make it successful?

How Corn Makes Us Fat

In “The Consumer”, Michael Pollan explains how corn has contributed to the obesity epidemic in the United States. He recognizes that the corn industry is a not direct cause of the increase in the rate of obesity. Instead he argues that the price of corn products as well as their poor nutritional values is a major “cause behind the causes” that have left us more obese (102). Corn is so abundant in our foods for many reasons: corn yields per acre are the highest of any crop; the government subsidizes corn; corn can be turned into many useful products, and corn products are cheaper than the alternatives. Because of these reasons corn is the main ingredient in a wide variety of foods including chips, soda, supplements, candy, chicken, and beef. If we look at the process step by step the problem becomes clear. The government subsidizes corn, an already high yielding crop, so it is produced in massive quantities. It is then turned into its unhealthy subunits. We then turn these subunits into unhealthy foods such as chips, candy, soda, beef, chicken, and pork. As a result of cheap corn prices these products are the cheapest calories on the market. People then buy these products because they are cheap and taste good (because they are sweet and high in fat). And because people buy these products so often they become obese and suffer from diseases such as diabetes. As a result, government subsides of the corn industry actually “guarantee that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest” (108). At the same time the surgeon general is leading efforts to fight the obesity epidemic.

Does this mean we should stop subsidizing corn? Or is a continued effort to discourage people from eating unhealthy food the best solution? In my opinion, the best way to fight this problem is from the source. The government should shift corn subsidies to healthy nutrient rich foods such as carrots or rutabagas. They should continue this shift until the cheapest food choices are healthier than the current ones containing corn. Because it is so well established, corn based foods will still be prevalent. We still need to answer the question, how can we discourage people from eating unhealthy foods without simply making it more expensive relative to healthy foods?

Is There An American Cuisine?

Cuisine is an aspect of culture, but does every culture have a cuisine? Sidney Mintz, in “Eating America”, explores whether or not the United States has its own cuisine. When I think of nations with distinctive cuisines I usually think of Italy, China, India, Thailand and France, because these are the nations that restaurants in my area use to identify with. A cuisine, however, is more than just styles of cooking practiced by restaurants. In my opinion, a cuisine is a group of foods and style of cooking them. Mintz, however, argues that, “a cuisine cannot exist unless there is a community of people who eat it, cook it, have opinions on it and engage in discussions involving those opinions” (29). Using this definition, can we say that the United States has its own distinct cuisine? It’s clear that the US has regional cuisines, such as Cajun cooking, but Mintz maintains that there is no true American cuisine. Some think of hamburgers, hotdogs, barbecue, fried chicken, and French fries as the American cuisine, but this group is too narrow and does not have the same type of root in our culture as the cuisines of other nations.

Sidney Mintz goes into great detail to attempt to explain why the US does not have a cuisine. She traces the absence back to the way in which the US was created and populated. When people migrated to America, they brought with them their cultures. This created what is often described as the melting pot of cultures. It would then follow that the cuisines of these immigrants would all melt together to form a new cuisine. Because these cultures were coming together in an industrial era with a growingly commercialized food system, these cuisines did not melt together. Instead they formed a tossed salad of cuisines, where each maintains its own identity. Nations develop cuisines when they have access to a limited number of ingredients and cooking techniques for a very long period of time. This promotes a homogenized style of cooking that with time becomes a cuisine. The US, however, has access to an unprecedented number of ingredients and techniques. On top of that, the commercialization of the food industry, that is the switch from home cooked to prepared food bought from sellers (everything from hotdog stands, to restaurants, to TV dinners), has also prevented the developed of an American cuisine. In my opinion, it is not possible for a country as large as the US, founded as recently as the US, which was populated by people who totally rejected the culture of the natives and came from a huge variety of backgrounds, to develop a cuisine.