News in food |
The edible solutions to the plastic-packaging crisis
The Guardian April 9, 2018 By: Christopher Beanland
This article, written by Christopher Beanland, discusses how packaging in the future, especially food packaging is radically transforming. Skipping Rocks Lab, a sustainable packaging start up from the UK, recently created Ooho water pouches. These are edible containers for water made from seaweed. The goal of this package was not to be eaten but to help reduce the amount of plastic that is used and hopefully lead towards a plastic free future. Movements around the world towards the plastic free future are noted by Beanland. Examples include the use of edible capsules like the Ooho water pouch, edible straws, use of recycled plastics, or completely replacing plastic items with alternative materials. Following suit to edible packaging being the solution, Beanland also mentions more edible packaging alternatives like agar seaweed cups, sugar, cornstarch, and jelly straws , millet flour spoons , and wheat-bran plates.
This is groundbreaking for the packaging industry as well as the food industry. Sasha Swerdloff mentions in the article, Composting 101, that the best thing humans can do to help the planet in regards to food, is to reduce food waste. I would argue that all humans should reduce all waste, not just food. This includes the packaging of all the things we purchase. What Beanland highlights in his article are potential solutions to reduce packaging waste in general. Especially if purchasing food, the packaging is also a part of the total attributable waste. What makes edible food packaging even more desirable is that is does not force individuals to go to the extreme of buying unpackaged items as Dave Hall suggests in his article, Throwaway Culture Has Spread Packaging Waste Worldwide: Here's What to Do About It." It is a far more practical solution for consumers although it may not be accessible for everyone. Part of the reason why plastic is so widely used is because it is easy to manufacture and very cheap. These newer packaging options will most likely increase costs and exclude groups from being able to buy items that are better for the planet. Overall, moving towards edible packaging is very positive but there are more things to consider than the environmental impact of the novelty of being able to eat your water bottle.
This article, written by Christopher Beanland, discusses how packaging in the future, especially food packaging is radically transforming. Skipping Rocks Lab, a sustainable packaging start up from the UK, recently created Ooho water pouches. These are edible containers for water made from seaweed. The goal of this package was not to be eaten but to help reduce the amount of plastic that is used and hopefully lead towards a plastic free future. Movements around the world towards the plastic free future are noted by Beanland. Examples include the use of edible capsules like the Ooho water pouch, edible straws, use of recycled plastics, or completely replacing plastic items with alternative materials. Following suit to edible packaging being the solution, Beanland also mentions more edible packaging alternatives like agar seaweed cups, sugar, cornstarch, and jelly straws , millet flour spoons , and wheat-bran plates.
This is groundbreaking for the packaging industry as well as the food industry. Sasha Swerdloff mentions in the article, Composting 101, that the best thing humans can do to help the planet in regards to food, is to reduce food waste. I would argue that all humans should reduce all waste, not just food. This includes the packaging of all the things we purchase. What Beanland highlights in his article are potential solutions to reduce packaging waste in general. Especially if purchasing food, the packaging is also a part of the total attributable waste. What makes edible food packaging even more desirable is that is does not force individuals to go to the extreme of buying unpackaged items as Dave Hall suggests in his article, Throwaway Culture Has Spread Packaging Waste Worldwide: Here's What to Do About It." It is a far more practical solution for consumers although it may not be accessible for everyone. Part of the reason why plastic is so widely used is because it is easy to manufacture and very cheap. These newer packaging options will most likely increase costs and exclude groups from being able to buy items that are better for the planet. Overall, moving towards edible packaging is very positive but there are more things to consider than the environmental impact of the novelty of being able to eat your water bottle.
The Climate Impact of The Food in the Back of Your Fridge
The Washington Post July 31, 2018 By: Chad Frischmann
This articles discusses a overlooked part of our daily lives that is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. It is food waste. Frischmann actually states that food waste contributes about "8 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions" which is huge considering it is just from wasted food! The metric to calculate the emission of food waste included the emissions resulting from "producing and processing, packaging, shipping, storing, picking up and cooking." All this time and energy goes into our food and leads to no nutritional value because it just gets thrown away. The article recommends reducing our own food waste to start taking control of the climate change issue at hand, starting in our own daily lives. It also discusses that food needs are going to increase in the coming decades due to an increasing population. It would be better if we could more efficiently use our current food supply instead of having to find more corners of the Earth to plant crops and graze animals.
Maybe a solution for manufacturers would be to reduce food miles like Michael Pollan suggests in the article The Limits of Locavorism. If people were buying their food locally, their would be less emissions for transportation and perhaps packaging as well. This could lead to less food waste because of the reduced time from farm to table. Another less desirable choice would be to pick up foods that won't go bad such as processed foods. Although Melanie Warner suggests time and time again in her book, Pandora's Lunchbox, that processed food does not lead to improved health, maybe it would be helpful in reducing food waste.
This articles discusses a overlooked part of our daily lives that is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. It is food waste. Frischmann actually states that food waste contributes about "8 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions" which is huge considering it is just from wasted food! The metric to calculate the emission of food waste included the emissions resulting from "producing and processing, packaging, shipping, storing, picking up and cooking." All this time and energy goes into our food and leads to no nutritional value because it just gets thrown away. The article recommends reducing our own food waste to start taking control of the climate change issue at hand, starting in our own daily lives. It also discusses that food needs are going to increase in the coming decades due to an increasing population. It would be better if we could more efficiently use our current food supply instead of having to find more corners of the Earth to plant crops and graze animals.
Maybe a solution for manufacturers would be to reduce food miles like Michael Pollan suggests in the article The Limits of Locavorism. If people were buying their food locally, their would be less emissions for transportation and perhaps packaging as well. This could lead to less food waste because of the reduced time from farm to table. Another less desirable choice would be to pick up foods that won't go bad such as processed foods. Although Melanie Warner suggests time and time again in her book, Pandora's Lunchbox, that processed food does not lead to improved health, maybe it would be helpful in reducing food waste.
The McDonaldization of American Pet Food
The Washington Post February 5, 2015 By: Drew Harwell
This article discusses how the common idea of McDonaldization is now reaching our pets through their food. It notes that J. M. Smucker recently bought out Big Heart Pet Brands for $5.8 billion. This began to be considered to become McDonaldized because sales in pet food have doubled since 2002 to about $22 billion in 2011. This has led to the consolidation and merging of pet food companies like the buy out by J. M. Smucker. The largest reason for this is market control. As discussed by George Ritzer in his book, The McDonaldization of Society, offers consumers "efficiency, calculability, predicatability, and control." This is easier to do when one company controls a large portion of the market.
In my own personal life, I have a dog named Buddy (pictured left) . He is a large part of our family (pictured below). I know that I am touched everyday by McDonaldization, but I never thought he would be. It makes sense that companies want to infiltrate out pets lives because they are just another member of the family. Ritzer discusses how McDonaldization involves spatial and temporal expansion, and now species expansion with pet food. He simply puts that "no aspect of people's lives is immune to McDonaldization." Company actions like this face little opposition from consumers because it will bring more convenience into our lives. This is ideal according to Tim Wu in his article, The Tyranny of Convenience, where he states that "convenience is in fact the supreme value." This makes me wonder what parts of my life have yet to be affected by McDonaldization.
This article discusses how the common idea of McDonaldization is now reaching our pets through their food. It notes that J. M. Smucker recently bought out Big Heart Pet Brands for $5.8 billion. This began to be considered to become McDonaldized because sales in pet food have doubled since 2002 to about $22 billion in 2011. This has led to the consolidation and merging of pet food companies like the buy out by J. M. Smucker. The largest reason for this is market control. As discussed by George Ritzer in his book, The McDonaldization of Society, offers consumers "efficiency, calculability, predicatability, and control." This is easier to do when one company controls a large portion of the market.
In my own personal life, I have a dog named Buddy (pictured left) . He is a large part of our family (pictured below). I know that I am touched everyday by McDonaldization, but I never thought he would be. It makes sense that companies want to infiltrate out pets lives because they are just another member of the family. Ritzer discusses how McDonaldization involves spatial and temporal expansion, and now species expansion with pet food. He simply puts that "no aspect of people's lives is immune to McDonaldization." Company actions like this face little opposition from consumers because it will bring more convenience into our lives. This is ideal according to Tim Wu in his article, The Tyranny of Convenience, where he states that "convenience is in fact the supreme value." This makes me wonder what parts of my life have yet to be affected by McDonaldization.
Almost 40% of Americans Eat Fast Food on Any Given Day, Report Says
TIME October 3, 2018 By: Jamie Ducharme
This article discusses a recent survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted between 2013 and 2016. Its findings suggest that if you "[p]ick a day at random,... you can bet that nearly 40% of Americans will eat fast food during those 24 hours." They defined "fast food" as anything high in calories, fat, and sodium with little nutritional value. Additionally they found some interesting statistics about who is eating the fast food. The most common eaters were black adults followed by white, Hispanic, and then Asian adults. Another trend they found was that consumption of fast food went up with family income. Prior to taking this class this would have taken me by surprise. "Only middle and high class Americans care about what goes into their bodies" is a thought that would have grazed my mind, clouded by ignorance and prejudices.
Now I understand that "everyone wants good food" after reading Eating in America by Tracie McMillan. It is more about the resources someone has and choosing to spend them wisely. Government initiatives like food stamps have portions that are only redeemable at farmers markets. Lower-income Americans need all the food they can take so this forces them to get fruits and vegetables. It makes sense that the higher the income, the more fast food an American consumes. Buying fast food is not covered by food stamps, it comes directly out of the pockets of lower income Americans. Wei-ting Chen discussed how it is also seen as a treat that makes lower income Americans feel like they are a part of society. Additionally middle and high class individuals are more likely to follow the recent wellness movement. This may result in the rebound effect. Where they may eat low sugar, low sodium, low fat foods and therefore rationalize eating unhealthy fast foods as being reasonable because they are mostly "healthy." This article may have surprised me months ago, but now it lines up with all of the facts I have learned.
This article discusses a recent survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted between 2013 and 2016. Its findings suggest that if you "[p]ick a day at random,... you can bet that nearly 40% of Americans will eat fast food during those 24 hours." They defined "fast food" as anything high in calories, fat, and sodium with little nutritional value. Additionally they found some interesting statistics about who is eating the fast food. The most common eaters were black adults followed by white, Hispanic, and then Asian adults. Another trend they found was that consumption of fast food went up with family income. Prior to taking this class this would have taken me by surprise. "Only middle and high class Americans care about what goes into their bodies" is a thought that would have grazed my mind, clouded by ignorance and prejudices.
Now I understand that "everyone wants good food" after reading Eating in America by Tracie McMillan. It is more about the resources someone has and choosing to spend them wisely. Government initiatives like food stamps have portions that are only redeemable at farmers markets. Lower-income Americans need all the food they can take so this forces them to get fruits and vegetables. It makes sense that the higher the income, the more fast food an American consumes. Buying fast food is not covered by food stamps, it comes directly out of the pockets of lower income Americans. Wei-ting Chen discussed how it is also seen as a treat that makes lower income Americans feel like they are a part of society. Additionally middle and high class individuals are more likely to follow the recent wellness movement. This may result in the rebound effect. Where they may eat low sugar, low sodium, low fat foods and therefore rationalize eating unhealthy fast foods as being reasonable because they are mostly "healthy." This article may have surprised me months ago, but now it lines up with all of the facts I have learned.
Illegal immigrants help fuel U.S. farms. Does affordable produce depend on them?
Washington Post March 17, 2017 By: Tamar Haspel
This article discusses the mystery behind who picks our produce; more often then not it is an illegal immigrant. This workforce began to be threatened under the Obama administration and even more when the Trump administration started to strongly enforce immigration laws. The issue highlighted by the article is that when immigrants cannot fill these jobs, the jobs remain vacant. Americans do not apply for jobs in this field because it is difficult work and there is a general perception that it is a lower class job. Haspel said "these jobs are acceptable only to people who have very few, very bad options." If labor in this industry is becoming slim, it will cause wages to go up. In turn this will force produce prices to rise, putting stress on the consumer. This creates more issues for domestic farmers. If big corporations can get cheaper produce from another country then that is their clear choice, which will make things difficult for farmers in the US. A better possibility mentioned in the article was instead of turning to international markets, was to replace the work force with machines, removing the need for the workers altogether.
There are a number of issues arising with the shortage of immigrant farm-workers. As a consumer, it might mean a slight increase in produce prices. As a middle-class college student, this is not a significant issue for me. But for a lower income individual, this might alter their entire diet. This will strip healthy choices from people who already have a limited number of choices. It is already seen as a huge obstacle to eat healthy on a budget and increasing the prices of healthy fruits and vegetables makes this even worse. Hopefully technology can be invented to make produce significantly cheaper. This is the ideal solution to have a stable market. Although it is not ideal to replace all farm-workers, if the jobs can't even be filled, is it really such a bad thing?
This article discusses the mystery behind who picks our produce; more often then not it is an illegal immigrant. This workforce began to be threatened under the Obama administration and even more when the Trump administration started to strongly enforce immigration laws. The issue highlighted by the article is that when immigrants cannot fill these jobs, the jobs remain vacant. Americans do not apply for jobs in this field because it is difficult work and there is a general perception that it is a lower class job. Haspel said "these jobs are acceptable only to people who have very few, very bad options." If labor in this industry is becoming slim, it will cause wages to go up. In turn this will force produce prices to rise, putting stress on the consumer. This creates more issues for domestic farmers. If big corporations can get cheaper produce from another country then that is their clear choice, which will make things difficult for farmers in the US. A better possibility mentioned in the article was instead of turning to international markets, was to replace the work force with machines, removing the need for the workers altogether.
There are a number of issues arising with the shortage of immigrant farm-workers. As a consumer, it might mean a slight increase in produce prices. As a middle-class college student, this is not a significant issue for me. But for a lower income individual, this might alter their entire diet. This will strip healthy choices from people who already have a limited number of choices. It is already seen as a huge obstacle to eat healthy on a budget and increasing the prices of healthy fruits and vegetables makes this even worse. Hopefully technology can be invented to make produce significantly cheaper. This is the ideal solution to have a stable market. Although it is not ideal to replace all farm-workers, if the jobs can't even be filled, is it really such a bad thing?
What, Exactly, Is Meat? Plant-Based Food Producers Sue Missouri Over Labeling
New York Times August, 28, 2018 By: Amie Tsang
This article discusses the recent opposition facing a Missouri bill that was passed in May that " prohibits companies from 'misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.'" Four organizations: Tofurky, the Good Food Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund sued the state of Missouri in hopes to stop the law from being enforced. The intent of the law was to keep consumers informed about the content of the so called "meat" that they are ingesting.
Over recent decades the food industry has shifted from consumer ignorance to transparency. This has been ushered by laws and regulations that have forced companies to comply. Regulating companies by law has recently become the standard. It has yet to be decided what is considered over-regulating companies. This Missouri bill is a prime example. It would prevent companies from comparing their plant-based products to familiar foods like bacon or chicken. This could hurt the marketing of these companies because the comparison to normal meats is the foundation of their products. They try to give consumers the option to not eat meat but also not give up "meat." It might be even more misleading to consumers if a plant-based product is referred to as "textured protein." As a consumer this leads me to ask, What does this taste like? How do you cook it? Is this real food? Companies are not attempting to disguise their products to trick consumers. It is important to understand the motives of an industry as a whole before drafting bills like this one, that can cause serious harm to the companies within.
This article discusses the recent opposition facing a Missouri bill that was passed in May that " prohibits companies from 'misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.'" Four organizations: Tofurky, the Good Food Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund sued the state of Missouri in hopes to stop the law from being enforced. The intent of the law was to keep consumers informed about the content of the so called "meat" that they are ingesting.
Over recent decades the food industry has shifted from consumer ignorance to transparency. This has been ushered by laws and regulations that have forced companies to comply. Regulating companies by law has recently become the standard. It has yet to be decided what is considered over-regulating companies. This Missouri bill is a prime example. It would prevent companies from comparing their plant-based products to familiar foods like bacon or chicken. This could hurt the marketing of these companies because the comparison to normal meats is the foundation of their products. They try to give consumers the option to not eat meat but also not give up "meat." It might be even more misleading to consumers if a plant-based product is referred to as "textured protein." As a consumer this leads me to ask, What does this taste like? How do you cook it? Is this real food? Companies are not attempting to disguise their products to trick consumers. It is important to understand the motives of an industry as a whole before drafting bills like this one, that can cause serious harm to the companies within.