Projects |
Grocery Ethnography
As I begin this entry, I am waiting in line at the Meijer on Lake Lansing Road in East Lansing, MI. Although I’ve been to a grocery store at least once a week for most of my life, I have never analyzed the store that I was buying food from. I always noticed the little things; which store had the best produce, when was a store busiest on Sundays, which had the best deals? These trivial questions were all that grazed my mind. For this grocery ethnography I was tasked with looking deeper and ask: what cultural factors are in effect here?
So here I am in Meijer on a Friday night. Although it’s late, large crowds scatter among the supercenter either coming in for a quick stop or just making their weekly shopping trip like myself. If I could describe this store in one word, it would be heterogeneous. Initially I noticed that the store has very diverse customers. Many are college students due to the close proximity of campus, but there are also families, as well as seniors from all ethnicities shopping throughout the store. Most are dressed casually, wearing sweatshirts, jeans, sweatpants, etc. Also based on appearance, the consumers reflect a middle to lower-class income. But does the store itself reflect its audience?
Within the store there are over twenty main departments from produce to automobiles to health & beauty and even more. Clearly Meijer values its ability to be the only store a customer needs to go to to take care of every need they may have. This allows them to reach the consumers that do not want to waste their time grocery shopping all day long. Additionally, their large range of products makes them reliable to consumers so someone can always trust they will have what they want to buy. Zooming in, most shelves have a variety of products of the same category. While I was picking out milk, I had about 20 options in front of me! The price of just one half gal of “milk” (including vegan options) ranges from higher around $5, (Organic Fairlife) to lower around $1(Meijer brand). This array is visible in every department for nearly every product sold in the store. Based on product variety, Meijer seems to be marketing to an audience that spans all income levels. From a design perspective, they focus on the basics with their white-washed lighting and minimalistic store. It is not as warm and inviting as it could be. But it is clear that they do not need to be warm and inviting. Shoppers go to Meijer to get what they need and leave, they usually do not intend to have some kind of experience while shopping. Meijer is the prime example of a McDonaldized grocery store. George Ritzer first described that something McDonaldized is efficient, predictable, calculable, and controllable. Meijer offers this exact type of experience for shoppers.
A week earlier I had visited the much smaller Foods For Living, a local grocery store in East Lansing, Michigan, and I had a starkly different experience. I went on a Thursday night and my first surprise was that I was one of two customers in the entire store. The store was decorated beautifully and filled with what seemed like high-end foods. The words “fresh, organic, and natural” were plastered everywhere. The store provided food that I would put in an “alternative” category. Organic being the largest sub-category, then vegan, gluten-free, lactose-free, etc. The store seemed like it was made for the health influencers that have millions of followers on Instagram, the ones that always are recommending new diets and fads like vegan, keto, paleo, and Mediterranean. The store also proudly announced its use of local foods throughout the aisles. It seems the niche that Foods For Living is trying to fill is far from what large superstores like Meijer fill. They provide unusual items that may not always necessarily be offered at a larger grocery store. They provide these items for customers who are not satisfied with generic grocery stores. This store seemed less McDonaldized than Meijer because it had so many bells and whistles that were unnecessary. It broke down the quick in-and-out shopping structure and made it more of an experience of browsing and exploring.
After examining the prices in the store, it was clear that this was no Meijer. I decided to purchase what I normally would at Meijer, and it cost me almost double. Even as a middle-class individual, I am wary to every shop there again. The other customer in the store was a white middle-aged man wearing a suit and tie. Although it was just one person, he clearly had a well paying job and perhaps had a higher income. This makes sense because “America's culinary preferences vary by social class” according to “In America, you are what you eat: Education and income matter more than party affiliation.” A person with a higher income can afford more flavors and variety than a lower-income individual and that is exactly what Food for Living was offering. I would not be surprised if this grocery store had many more customers of the same demographic.
After examining the prices in the store, it was clear that this was no Meijer. I decided to purchase what I normally would at Meijer, and it cost me almost double. Even as a middle-class individual, I am wary to every shop there again. The other customer in the store was a white middle-aged man wearing a suit and tie. Although it was just one person, he clearly had a well paying job and perhaps had a higher income. This makes sense because “America's culinary preferences vary by social class” according to “In America, you are what you eat: Education and income matter more than party affiliation.” A person with a higher income can afford more flavors and variety than a lower-income individual and that is exactly what Food for Living was offering. I would not be surprised if this grocery store had many more customers of the same demographic.
My last pit stop was at the East Lansing Farmer’s Market on a brisk Sunday morning. This location was the most unique out of all of my shopping adventures. The market was 30 side by side pop up tents in a vacant parking lot. Groups of people bundled up in winter clothes were mingling throughout the market. There were tents for fruits, vegetables, cheese, meat, fish, honey, baked goods, coffee, juices, pizza etc. I stopped at a stand to buy some peppers and began talking to the farmer selling them. He said that the market’s founding principle was to let vendors sell things they either grow or make themselves. This is the exact opposite of the processed foods found in Meijer and Foods for Living. This farmer's market seemed to be even less McDonaldized than Foods for Living. A lot of hard work was put into each product by each vendor. Having to purchase items at each individual stand that were transported individually was quite inefficient and unpredictable. Nonetheless, this was a heart-warming experience because the vendors shared a surplus of information about each product. Supermarket employees would not be able to do that. The vendors value their hard work and genuinely care about what they are selling and this translates directly into the principle behind the farmer's market. Additionally, the design of the market was fairly simple, and the products were presented very basically in crates and buckets.
I can easily see how the farmer’s market would be palatable to a broad range of incomes. It is attractive overall because you can buy high quality products for a relatively low price. The downfall for lower income individuals is that a lot of the products were perishable which makes it difficult for them to make their groceries last until the end of the week or perhaps the month. Another downfall is that there is not a large amount of variety in the products being sold. You can only find local and seasonal products unlike the massive variety at Meijer and Foods for Living.
So, what is the best place to buy food? Honestly, it depends on the money in your pocket and what experience you want to get out of buying your food. Do you want to shop and simultaneously learn about your products from the person who grew and made them? Maybe you want to mindlessly complete your shopping list in as little time as possible. Or maybe you have decided to splurge on some ingredients that peaked your curiosity. Time, money, and ambitions drive the world; don't be surprised that they drive what food you bring home too.
I can easily see how the farmer’s market would be palatable to a broad range of incomes. It is attractive overall because you can buy high quality products for a relatively low price. The downfall for lower income individuals is that a lot of the products were perishable which makes it difficult for them to make their groceries last until the end of the week or perhaps the month. Another downfall is that there is not a large amount of variety in the products being sold. You can only find local and seasonal products unlike the massive variety at Meijer and Foods for Living.
So, what is the best place to buy food? Honestly, it depends on the money in your pocket and what experience you want to get out of buying your food. Do you want to shop and simultaneously learn about your products from the person who grew and made them? Maybe you want to mindlessly complete your shopping list in as little time as possible. Or maybe you have decided to splurge on some ingredients that peaked your curiosity. Time, money, and ambitions drive the world; don't be surprised that they drive what food you bring home too.
To Meat or Not to Meat?
I recently researched sustainability regarding food for my Topic Explorer Project. A landmark topic I stumbled upon as I began my search was the discussion about the sustainability of meat, or more appropriately, the lack of it. The first source I examined was the documentary, Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret, directed by Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn. The purpose of this film was to expose animal agriculture as the industry that is the number one contributor to global warming, water depletion, deforestation, species extinction, and ocean “dead zones.” This film was considered controversial because it was uncovering a topic that was being closely protected. Very few of the many environmental groups Andersen contacted about this subject would even speak to him. Many were willing to discuss how to reduce damage to the planet by focusing on the oil and energy industry or by making small changes like switching to a low-flow shower head. Most ignored the topic of animal agriculture all together. The film suggested that some organizations have funders that would prefer then to not discuss the topic. The film then goes on to compare the metrics of eating a meat based or plant based diet. It concludes with the very persuading argument to become vegan, which I strongly considered after watching the film.
This film gave me excellent statistics and reasoning behind why animal agriculture is going to ruin our planet if something doesn’t change. It also gave insight into the strong relationship between the government and the animal agriculture industry. While this documentary was fascinating and revealing, it left something to be desired. If the solution to saving the planet was as simple as rejecting meat and turning to plants, then there wouldn’t be so many diverse suggestions for a healthy diet by highly educated individuals. This led me to reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan.
Pollan begins by introducing the idea of the “national eating disorder” (Pollan 2). In the most recent decades, Americans have followed food trends ostracizing carbs and fat just to return to eating carb-loaded or fatty food after the media, diet books, scientific studies, and magazine articles tell them what the perfect diet is (2). The newest trend is that food is merely a combination of nutrients and that there is a magic combination to achieve perfect health. This leads Americans to have constant anxiety and confusion when deciding what to eat. Pollan then introduces the “Omnivore’s Dilemma.” The dilemma is that humans are omnivorous and can eat such a wide variety of food, so what should we eat? Pollan's argument lies in the biological truth that humans are omnivores and are designed to eat both plants and animals. This can be determined by examining our digestive tract, beginning with our omnicompetent teeth, jaws, stomachs and metabolism (289).
Other guiding elements of our omnivorous diets are taste buds and a sense of disgust. In a primitive matter, these things helps us decide was it good to eat and keeps us alive or what is bad and can kill us. They also define our food experiences and are stored in our brains for future recognition. For example, humans prefer sweetness over bitterness. Unfortunately this method of food selection is skewed away from highly nutritious vegetables that have a bitter taste when raw. Humans overcame this fault with the ability to cook. Cooking allowed humans to enter what Pollan refers to as “the cognitive niche” (294). It accounts for the dramatic alterations humans made to their food chains originally through cooking and eventually though science.
This leads us deeper into the Omnivore’s Dilemma. With a vast amount of choices, what should we eat? Should we eat the plant-based diet Kip Andersen suggested to save the planet? Should we eat a balance of plants and animals because it’s how our bodies are built? Do we even need to eat meat at all to survive? In this case, having more choices does not ease our decision. This complicated my research even more because I was no longer sure if what was sustainable for the planet would be sustainable for the human body.
I recently researched sustainability regarding food for my Topic Explorer Project. A landmark topic I stumbled upon as I began my search was the discussion about the sustainability of meat, or more appropriately, the lack of it. The first source I examined was the documentary, Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret, directed by Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn. The purpose of this film was to expose animal agriculture as the industry that is the number one contributor to global warming, water depletion, deforestation, species extinction, and ocean “dead zones.” This film was considered controversial because it was uncovering a topic that was being closely protected. Very few of the many environmental groups Andersen contacted about this subject would even speak to him. Many were willing to discuss how to reduce damage to the planet by focusing on the oil and energy industry or by making small changes like switching to a low-flow shower head. Most ignored the topic of animal agriculture all together. The film suggested that some organizations have funders that would prefer then to not discuss the topic. The film then goes on to compare the metrics of eating a meat based or plant based diet. It concludes with the very persuading argument to become vegan, which I strongly considered after watching the film.
This film gave me excellent statistics and reasoning behind why animal agriculture is going to ruin our planet if something doesn’t change. It also gave insight into the strong relationship between the government and the animal agriculture industry. While this documentary was fascinating and revealing, it left something to be desired. If the solution to saving the planet was as simple as rejecting meat and turning to plants, then there wouldn’t be so many diverse suggestions for a healthy diet by highly educated individuals. This led me to reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan.
Pollan begins by introducing the idea of the “national eating disorder” (Pollan 2). In the most recent decades, Americans have followed food trends ostracizing carbs and fat just to return to eating carb-loaded or fatty food after the media, diet books, scientific studies, and magazine articles tell them what the perfect diet is (2). The newest trend is that food is merely a combination of nutrients and that there is a magic combination to achieve perfect health. This leads Americans to have constant anxiety and confusion when deciding what to eat. Pollan then introduces the “Omnivore’s Dilemma.” The dilemma is that humans are omnivorous and can eat such a wide variety of food, so what should we eat? Pollan's argument lies in the biological truth that humans are omnivores and are designed to eat both plants and animals. This can be determined by examining our digestive tract, beginning with our omnicompetent teeth, jaws, stomachs and metabolism (289).
Other guiding elements of our omnivorous diets are taste buds and a sense of disgust. In a primitive matter, these things helps us decide was it good to eat and keeps us alive or what is bad and can kill us. They also define our food experiences and are stored in our brains for future recognition. For example, humans prefer sweetness over bitterness. Unfortunately this method of food selection is skewed away from highly nutritious vegetables that have a bitter taste when raw. Humans overcame this fault with the ability to cook. Cooking allowed humans to enter what Pollan refers to as “the cognitive niche” (294). It accounts for the dramatic alterations humans made to their food chains originally through cooking and eventually though science.
This leads us deeper into the Omnivore’s Dilemma. With a vast amount of choices, what should we eat? Should we eat the plant-based diet Kip Andersen suggested to save the planet? Should we eat a balance of plants and animals because it’s how our bodies are built? Do we even need to eat meat at all to survive? In this case, having more choices does not ease our decision. This complicated my research even more because I was no longer sure if what was sustainable for the planet would be sustainable for the human body.
Next I turned to the news for the answer. Allison Eck addresses the population size that can be supported by a variety of diets in her article, “Going Vegan Isn’t the Most Sustainable Option for Humanity.” She summarizes the findings of a simulation conducted by Elementa which modeled vegan, vegetarian, and omnivorous eating patterns. The simulation found that the vegan diet had a smaller carrying capacity compared to the vegetarian and omnivorous diets. This is attributable to the different land use among the various diets. A diet with meat can use all available crop and animal grazing land whereas a vegan diet does not use perennial cropland which puts it at a large disadvantage to being sustainable for a large population. Eck states “incorporating about 20-40% meat in your diet is actually better for the long-term course of humanity than being completely meat-free.” This leads to the question of what is more valuable the sustainability of the planet, or the human race? We might not have to answer this.
Research recently done on the environmental impact of cows is summarized by Tamar Haspel in the article, “Here’s how much giving up beef helps-or doesn’t help-the planet.” The article discussed that trading in one steak per week for beans could save 331 kg of CO2 equivalent. To put that in perspective it could be saving 38 gallons of gas being burned. But this might not necessarily be true in the future. Research done by Michigan State University on carbon sequestering identified that grass-fed beef could potentially become “carbon neutral.” It does not last forever and is not very common but in larger numbers it could decrease the impact of beef and postpone our question of to meat or not to meat.
Or maybe not. This beef would predominantly be coming from “grass-fed, free-range, cage-free and pastured options.” These are the feel-good options of meat that James E. McWilliams describes in “The Myth of Sustainability.” He states that these descriptions are usually associated with small organic farms. While these farming options are more natural, they use resources inefficiently. They use more land and grass-fed cows actually produce more methane than grain-fed. These animals also take longer to become fully mature so they use more water and eat more food than an animal on a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. So does that settle the argument, no meat?
I think the answer may lie in the famous quote by Oscar Wilde, “Everything in moderation, including moderation.” I think Allison Eck had the most reasonable argument to include meat as 20-40% of a person’s diet. But I am still spinning in I still need to do further research to find more sound evidence. This topic is very important. It will be the foundation of the future for both the human race and the planet. Sustainability can not be analyzed by looking at one area exclusively. It is a holistic analysis that is complex and it rarely answered by one documentary, book, or news article. There are still some areas I need to revisit. I want to learn about the benefits of animal agriculture. It is easy to paint it all as negative because of the sheer amount of emissions but there are some benefits as noted by McWilliams. As an Environmental Engineer, this topic is very intriguing to me. Creating sustainable design is a large sector of my industry and this is essentially designing a sustainable food plan. I recognize that is is not easy and therefore I must continue researching to find glimpses of an answer.
Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: Penguin Group Inc., 2006. Print.
McWilliams, James E. “The Myth of Sustainable Meat.” The New York Times 12 April 2012.
Kunzig, Robert. “Carnivore’s Dilemma.” National Geographic 2014.
Haspel, Tamar. “Here’s how much giving up beef helps - or doesn’t help - the planet.” The Washington Post 20 July 2017.
Eck, Allison. “Going Vegan Isn’t the Most Sustainable Option for Humanity.” PBS Nova Next 16 August 2016
Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret. Directed by Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn, Appian Way Productions, 2015. Netflix
Research recently done on the environmental impact of cows is summarized by Tamar Haspel in the article, “Here’s how much giving up beef helps-or doesn’t help-the planet.” The article discussed that trading in one steak per week for beans could save 331 kg of CO2 equivalent. To put that in perspective it could be saving 38 gallons of gas being burned. But this might not necessarily be true in the future. Research done by Michigan State University on carbon sequestering identified that grass-fed beef could potentially become “carbon neutral.” It does not last forever and is not very common but in larger numbers it could decrease the impact of beef and postpone our question of to meat or not to meat.
Or maybe not. This beef would predominantly be coming from “grass-fed, free-range, cage-free and pastured options.” These are the feel-good options of meat that James E. McWilliams describes in “The Myth of Sustainability.” He states that these descriptions are usually associated with small organic farms. While these farming options are more natural, they use resources inefficiently. They use more land and grass-fed cows actually produce more methane than grain-fed. These animals also take longer to become fully mature so they use more water and eat more food than an animal on a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. So does that settle the argument, no meat?
I think the answer may lie in the famous quote by Oscar Wilde, “Everything in moderation, including moderation.” I think Allison Eck had the most reasonable argument to include meat as 20-40% of a person’s diet. But I am still spinning in I still need to do further research to find more sound evidence. This topic is very important. It will be the foundation of the future for both the human race and the planet. Sustainability can not be analyzed by looking at one area exclusively. It is a holistic analysis that is complex and it rarely answered by one documentary, book, or news article. There are still some areas I need to revisit. I want to learn about the benefits of animal agriculture. It is easy to paint it all as negative because of the sheer amount of emissions but there are some benefits as noted by McWilliams. As an Environmental Engineer, this topic is very intriguing to me. Creating sustainable design is a large sector of my industry and this is essentially designing a sustainable food plan. I recognize that is is not easy and therefore I must continue researching to find glimpses of an answer.
Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: Penguin Group Inc., 2006. Print.
McWilliams, James E. “The Myth of Sustainable Meat.” The New York Times 12 April 2012.
Kunzig, Robert. “Carnivore’s Dilemma.” National Geographic 2014.
Haspel, Tamar. “Here’s how much giving up beef helps - or doesn’t help - the planet.” The Washington Post 20 July 2017.
Eck, Allison. “Going Vegan Isn’t the Most Sustainable Option for Humanity.” PBS Nova Next 16 August 2016
Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret. Directed by Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn, Appian Way Productions, 2015. Netflix
From: Hanford, Maddy
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 12:52 PM
To: Mary Beth Hanford
Subject: Pandora's Lunchbox Email
Mom,
As you know, I am taking a class that focuses on the industrialization of food. One of our recent assignments was to read a book called Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner. She is a former New York Times business reporter that investigated the food industry out of her own curiosity. Her search began with her at-home experiments of testing the shelf life of clearly processed and not so clearly processed foods. Her crude discoveries launched her research into what became her book. As I read, Warner peeled back the layers of the food industry; inducing shock and disgust in the process. I want to share some of the things I learned because I think they will surprise you too.
One of the first foods in the book that took me by surprise was Greek yogurt. Normally when we go to the grocery store we choose the cheapest option; for Greek yogurt you may want to be a little more cautious. To make authentic Greek yogurt, companies need straining machines that cost around $10 million (7). Some companies look for a cheaper alternative and find it by adding a milk protein concentrate to yogurt to give it its thickness. And the most astonishing part is that this is still able to be labeled as Greek yogurt because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has no regulations for what yogurt must be to make it “Greek”. This milk protein concentrate is also added to processed cheeses so companies, like Kraft, can put less and less real cheese in their products to “cut costs and yield a more consistent product” (44). This did actually raise some red flags for the FDA in 2002 and Kraft evaded discipline by removing the word “food” from their cheeses and instead calling them “products” (45). While I am not entirely shocked that powerful food companies add things to their products to make them cheaper, I am surprised that it is generally accepted by the FDA as long as its labeled correctly with a few small words on the package. Food packaging is actually even more deceptive than what Melanie Warner reveals, particularly for animal products. After reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Foer, I learned that there are a lot of terms that companies can use to label their products that are actually meaningless. For example, "free range" chicken only indicates that the chickens have access to the outdoors but they can still be temporarily confined which is commonly taken advantage of by businesses. There are so many more terms that do not indicate what consumers normally think they mean.
A common theme in the book was that many of the processed ingredients being added to food are not regulated by the FDA. There are well over 5000 substances that are added to our food and the majority of them have never been extensively tested to determine if they are safe for consumption (99). To regulate food additives, the FDA has a Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) List. It is a list of additives that are allowed to be added to foods, and that will cause no harm when consumed. For a company to add something to the list, it must assess the ingredient themselves and tell the FDA whether it is GRAS or not. Unfortunately, it is voluntary for a company to notify the FDA (107). Why would a company spend time and resources on something that is not required? This often means that no one knows whether a large portion of the substances being added to our food are safe or toxic. Legislation involving food, like the GRAS list, is usually very weak due to the power of large corporations. The revolving door between food companies and the government was acknowledged in Food, Inc., a documentary we watched in class. It is often a reason for these weaknesses. Large food corporations have a great deal to lose from harsh regulations, so they step in when necessary to save themselves.
Another thing I learned is that I shouldn’t always trust the Nutrition Facts on the side of a product. Cereal, for instance, seems relatively nutritious when you see all of the vitamins and minerals and the minimal fat contained in a single serving. What most people, including myself until recently, do not know is that these vitamins are not naturally occurring in the cereal. The process of making cereal occurs at such high temperatures that it damages all the “good stuff” that would normally be in the ancient non-processed version (63). To make up for this, companies fortify their cereal by spraying on synthetic vitamins (58). The best part is that there are no labeling rules to distinguish the nutrient source so as consumers we get to guess (67).
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 12:52 PM
To: Mary Beth Hanford
Subject: Pandora's Lunchbox Email
Mom,
As you know, I am taking a class that focuses on the industrialization of food. One of our recent assignments was to read a book called Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner. She is a former New York Times business reporter that investigated the food industry out of her own curiosity. Her search began with her at-home experiments of testing the shelf life of clearly processed and not so clearly processed foods. Her crude discoveries launched her research into what became her book. As I read, Warner peeled back the layers of the food industry; inducing shock and disgust in the process. I want to share some of the things I learned because I think they will surprise you too.
One of the first foods in the book that took me by surprise was Greek yogurt. Normally when we go to the grocery store we choose the cheapest option; for Greek yogurt you may want to be a little more cautious. To make authentic Greek yogurt, companies need straining machines that cost around $10 million (7). Some companies look for a cheaper alternative and find it by adding a milk protein concentrate to yogurt to give it its thickness. And the most astonishing part is that this is still able to be labeled as Greek yogurt because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has no regulations for what yogurt must be to make it “Greek”. This milk protein concentrate is also added to processed cheeses so companies, like Kraft, can put less and less real cheese in their products to “cut costs and yield a more consistent product” (44). This did actually raise some red flags for the FDA in 2002 and Kraft evaded discipline by removing the word “food” from their cheeses and instead calling them “products” (45). While I am not entirely shocked that powerful food companies add things to their products to make them cheaper, I am surprised that it is generally accepted by the FDA as long as its labeled correctly with a few small words on the package. Food packaging is actually even more deceptive than what Melanie Warner reveals, particularly for animal products. After reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Foer, I learned that there are a lot of terms that companies can use to label their products that are actually meaningless. For example, "free range" chicken only indicates that the chickens have access to the outdoors but they can still be temporarily confined which is commonly taken advantage of by businesses. There are so many more terms that do not indicate what consumers normally think they mean.
A common theme in the book was that many of the processed ingredients being added to food are not regulated by the FDA. There are well over 5000 substances that are added to our food and the majority of them have never been extensively tested to determine if they are safe for consumption (99). To regulate food additives, the FDA has a Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) List. It is a list of additives that are allowed to be added to foods, and that will cause no harm when consumed. For a company to add something to the list, it must assess the ingredient themselves and tell the FDA whether it is GRAS or not. Unfortunately, it is voluntary for a company to notify the FDA (107). Why would a company spend time and resources on something that is not required? This often means that no one knows whether a large portion of the substances being added to our food are safe or toxic. Legislation involving food, like the GRAS list, is usually very weak due to the power of large corporations. The revolving door between food companies and the government was acknowledged in Food, Inc., a documentary we watched in class. It is often a reason for these weaknesses. Large food corporations have a great deal to lose from harsh regulations, so they step in when necessary to save themselves.
Another thing I learned is that I shouldn’t always trust the Nutrition Facts on the side of a product. Cereal, for instance, seems relatively nutritious when you see all of the vitamins and minerals and the minimal fat contained in a single serving. What most people, including myself until recently, do not know is that these vitamins are not naturally occurring in the cereal. The process of making cereal occurs at such high temperatures that it damages all the “good stuff” that would normally be in the ancient non-processed version (63). To make up for this, companies fortify their cereal by spraying on synthetic vitamins (58). The best part is that there are no labeling rules to distinguish the nutrient source so as consumers we get to guess (67).
Synthetic vitamins are added to many products to replace the natural nutrition lost through processing. This is a problem because “nourishment is a complex symphony of not just vitamins and minerals but also phytochemicals, enzymes, fiber, and gut bacteria” (89). Strengthening just one piece of the puzzle does nothing for our nutrition as a whole. If instead we turn to whole foods that naturally include all of these things then there are numerous health benefits. This distinction emphasizes that while “a vitamin is [still] a vitamin,” its value is negligible when considered alone without its important counterparts (85). Be careful if you read the nutrition label, it is more deceiving than you could imagine.
After reading this book, my one recommendation would be to reach for more whole foods and to gradually decrease the amount of processed foods we eat. A website Warner included was 100DaysofRealFood.com (210). It might help you to find some healthier recipes that you will actually enjoy. Another reason to reach for more whole foods is to avoid unhealthy ingredients that are constantly added to processed foods. In another article I read, Michael Moss describes how most processed food companies add fat, sugar, and salt when they need their products sell to more. While it may taste yummy, it is not always worth the negative health effects. This is another reason why eating whole foods is the best option. I will let you know if I find any recipes on the website that I think you would enjoy. I hope you learned something! I would love to lend you the book if you wanted. See you soon.
Love You,
Maddy
After reading this book, my one recommendation would be to reach for more whole foods and to gradually decrease the amount of processed foods we eat. A website Warner included was 100DaysofRealFood.com (210). It might help you to find some healthier recipes that you will actually enjoy. Another reason to reach for more whole foods is to avoid unhealthy ingredients that are constantly added to processed foods. In another article I read, Michael Moss describes how most processed food companies add fat, sugar, and salt when they need their products sell to more. While it may taste yummy, it is not always worth the negative health effects. This is another reason why eating whole foods is the best option. I will let you know if I find any recipes on the website that I think you would enjoy. I hope you learned something! I would love to lend you the book if you wanted. See you soon.
Love You,
Maddy
My Life - From the perspective of my stomach...
From a young age I have been influenced by time efficient food. As a child, my meals were made by my loving mother who was responsible for feeding my family of five. Simultaneously she worked 40 hour weeks so time was an omnipresent pressure in her daily life. Regardless of whatever demands she faced, she always had a hot dinner on the table at the end of the day. A common variety of meals my mother served did not come from the oven or the stove, but a novel appliance that is now a staple in American homes — the crockpot.
After she had finished waking us all up for school and getting ready herself, my mother would place a slew of ingredients into the crockpot and turn the heat setting to low before she raced out the door for work. The most common ingredients included chicken breasts, canned vegetables, a sauce mixture, and a bountiful amount of spices. The contents slow cooked all day and were ready to be served when we all arrived at home. I would quickly eat my meal and then rush off to soccer practice. Our “crockpot” meals enabled my family to maintain our busy lifestyle without having to stiff our nutrition.
Our family was generally accustomed to these quick home cooked meals during the week, but on the weekend our menu was transformed. My mother, a bold Italian woman, flaunted her heritage on Sundays by spoiling us with her traditional dish of spaghetti and meatballs. This was accompanied by a tray of warm garlic bread and a fresh salad. Her Sunday routine would be to grocery shop all morning long and spend the rest of the entire day in the kitchen. This meal was filled with her love and it tasted delicious. Its taste is one of the fondest memories of my childhood.
Years later when reflecting on these foods, I realize how privileged I was. Infrastructure and technology within the United States made my meals possible. It gave my family options that were not universal around the world or even the country. Refrigeration and long distance transportation were the stage crew of the show. Having spices in my food or a banana as a snack certainly did not come from any domestic source. Additionally, the meat and dairy portions of my childhood diet only made it into my stomach because of the cold air that previously preserved them. Furthermore, the crockpot made my mother’s quick meals possible. Decades prior such a thing did not even exist. This all contributed to the ease with which my mother was able to make a meal. Without them I believe the health of my family would have suffered. If we had to budget more time, meal prep would be an easy thing to go, which would have led to more processed, ready-to-eat food entering our house, followed up by detrimental health effects.
After she had finished waking us all up for school and getting ready herself, my mother would place a slew of ingredients into the crockpot and turn the heat setting to low before she raced out the door for work. The most common ingredients included chicken breasts, canned vegetables, a sauce mixture, and a bountiful amount of spices. The contents slow cooked all day and were ready to be served when we all arrived at home. I would quickly eat my meal and then rush off to soccer practice. Our “crockpot” meals enabled my family to maintain our busy lifestyle without having to stiff our nutrition.
Our family was generally accustomed to these quick home cooked meals during the week, but on the weekend our menu was transformed. My mother, a bold Italian woman, flaunted her heritage on Sundays by spoiling us with her traditional dish of spaghetti and meatballs. This was accompanied by a tray of warm garlic bread and a fresh salad. Her Sunday routine would be to grocery shop all morning long and spend the rest of the entire day in the kitchen. This meal was filled with her love and it tasted delicious. Its taste is one of the fondest memories of my childhood.
Years later when reflecting on these foods, I realize how privileged I was. Infrastructure and technology within the United States made my meals possible. It gave my family options that were not universal around the world or even the country. Refrigeration and long distance transportation were the stage crew of the show. Having spices in my food or a banana as a snack certainly did not come from any domestic source. Additionally, the meat and dairy portions of my childhood diet only made it into my stomach because of the cold air that previously preserved them. Furthermore, the crockpot made my mother’s quick meals possible. Decades prior such a thing did not even exist. This all contributed to the ease with which my mother was able to make a meal. Without them I believe the health of my family would have suffered. If we had to budget more time, meal prep would be an easy thing to go, which would have led to more processed, ready-to-eat food entering our house, followed up by detrimental health effects.
Moving forward to the present, my aging taste buds still remain stimulated by a series of quick meals and snacks that are my main source of sustenance. All of which are enabled by the same things which enabled my mother’s home cooked meals, As a time-pressed college student I do not dedicate the time to make even my mothers simple crockpot meals but I do make meals derived from hers. Most of what I currently eat contains unprocessed food—with peanut butter being a delicious exception. With these unprocessed foods such as spinach, bananas, eggs, and chicken, I make a meal for myself in 15 minutes or less. If it takes any longer then it is not a recipe I care to look up or store in my brain. This is made possible for me by the InstaPot; a modern pressure cooker. It is my generation’s time saving version of the crockpot.
When cooking simple meals for myself I still follow the unsaid rules my mother cooked with. Our meals always included a source of protein and a starch. When choosing a protein, I tend to stick to meats I learned were safe while growing up like chicken or ground beef. My parents never thought fish was a clean food so it never entered our home unless it happened to be Friday dinner during lent where a fish fry was a fundamental meal. At that point the meal no longer even resembled fish so it was acceptable and tasty. Where I diverge from my mother’s model is I replace the starch with a vegetable. Although I wish she implemented more veggies in her cooking when I was younger, I understand it was because my brothers were so picky and would only eat chicken nuggets and pizza. With the food education I have accumulated thus far I understand how fundamental vegetables are to nutrition. For this reason I try to incorporate as many as I can into my meals.
When cooking simple meals for myself I still follow the unsaid rules my mother cooked with. Our meals always included a source of protein and a starch. When choosing a protein, I tend to stick to meats I learned were safe while growing up like chicken or ground beef. My parents never thought fish was a clean food so it never entered our home unless it happened to be Friday dinner during lent where a fish fry was a fundamental meal. At that point the meal no longer even resembled fish so it was acceptable and tasty. Where I diverge from my mother’s model is I replace the starch with a vegetable. Although I wish she implemented more veggies in her cooking when I was younger, I understand it was because my brothers were so picky and would only eat chicken nuggets and pizza. With the food education I have accumulated thus far I understand how fundamental vegetables are to nutrition. For this reason I try to incorporate as many as I can into my meals.
Also following in my mother’s footsteps, I divert away from spicy foods such as peppers or hot sauce. Spicy was not ever a category of food I ate growing up so I am very sensitive to even the smallest trace. In fact there was one instance when my family was eating at a restaurant and my father dared me to eat raw jalapenos for five dollars. I accepted the challenge and wolfed some down. I quickly realized that I had made a mistake and my mouth was on fire. This ended with me making a horrific scene in the restaurant and subsequently never trying to eat something that spicy again. I truly wish I had the palate to tolerate it because it can deepen a flavor profile, but unfortunately I do not. Other flavor profiles I avoid are widely from Asian culture. While growing up, American culture became more and more accepting of Asian flavors, especially Indian or Thai, but they still send me running in the other direction.
Although I love experimenting with cooking and making complex dishes or baked goods, the bottom line is that I do not have the time to be creative and stray from the norm. Luckily my mom taught me how to be efficient in the kitchen without sacrificing taste and nutrition, and for that I am grateful. It allows me to make delicious meals that fit into my lifestyle. Nevertheless, I always go back to the taste of my her spaghetti and meatballs, and that is something that will never change.
Although I love experimenting with cooking and making complex dishes or baked goods, the bottom line is that I do not have the time to be creative and stray from the norm. Luckily my mom taught me how to be efficient in the kitchen without sacrificing taste and nutrition, and for that I am grateful. It allows me to make delicious meals that fit into my lifestyle. Nevertheless, I always go back to the taste of my her spaghetti and meatballs, and that is something that will never change.
Updated Food Autobiography
I live a McDonaldized life, always have, and always will. This is one of the many benefits, or detriments, of living in America. It is quite ironic that one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world also has one of the most efficient, predictable, and controllable societies. Obviously this is not true for every American, but it is very true to me and how I was raised. Now, after taking this class, I am actively trying to make better decisions, but still remain time conscious. To best understand my McDonaldized life, I will share the tale through the hub of digestion—my stomach.
From childhood through young adulthood, my meals were made by my loving mother who was responsible for feeding my family of five. She worked full time but outside of that she was the caretaker of myself, my two brothers, my father, and our dogs. Regardless of whatever demands she faced in her life, she always had a hot dinner on the table at the end of the day for our family. A common variety of meals my mother served did not come from the oven or the stove, but a novel appliance that is now a staple in American homes — the crockpot.
After she had finished waking us all up for school and getting ready herself, to make the McDonaldized meal, my mother would place a slew of ingredients into the crockpot and turn the heat setting to low before she raced out the door for work. The most common ingredients included chicken breasts, canned vegetables, a sauce mixture, and a bountiful amount of spices. The contents slow cooked all day and were ready to be served when we all arrived at home. Our “crockpot” meals enabled my family to maintain our busy lifestyle without having to stiff our nutrition because they were efficient, predictable, and controllable. My mom could use fresh and relatively unprocessed ingredients without having to sacrifice her time and still consider herself a good mother. It was her way of finessing the system most middle-class mothers followed to provide a balanced diet for their children, that was described by Wei-ting Chen’s article, From “Junk Food” to “Treats.”
Other days, about once or twice a week, my mother would succumb to the exhaustion of her day and just order out chinese food or pizza. As a child I never minded this, I ate whatever was placed in front of me. I liked that this made me seem fearless to other people. As long as my stomach was full I didn’t care what filled it. Upon getting older and entering high school, I became more annoyed when my mom “gave up” and just ordered out because I was becoming increasingly health conscious—I was a three sport athlete surrounded by other girls that were naturally 110 lbs and I was not. I was much more muscular and I am aware of that now, but back then I blamed it on the food I was eating, and that came from my mother. Now that I am a young adult, I understand her exhaustion and her simple solution for dinner. I experience it when cooking for myself. Reading Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner made me even more aware of the negative health implications that come from settling for the quick, processed foods such as type II diabetes, or obesity. This new knowledge allows me to reason through facts why I do not prefer the “lazy” meals.
The one exception to both of these meals was Sundays. My mother, a bold Italian woman whose grandparents immigrated to America, flaunted her heritage on Sundays by spoiling us with her traditional dish of spaghetti and meatballs. This was accompanied by a tray of warm garlic bread and a fresh salad. Her Sunday routine would be to grocery shop all morning long and spend the rest of the day in the kitchen. This meal was an outward expression of her love, like Chen describes, and it tasted delicious.
Years later when reflecting on these foods, I realize how privileged I was. There are many systems that contributed to the ease with which my mother was able to make a meal and the ease I cook with today. Infrastructure and technology such as refrigeration and long distance transportation within the United States made my meals possible. It gave my family options that were not universal around the world or even within the country. Having spices in my food or a banana as a snack certainly did not come from any domestic source. Most of the fruit that I eat is harvested by migrant farmers. They are probably getting paid next to nothing while I enjoy my cheap produce. I only recently learned this from the experience Tracie McMillan shared in her book, The American Way of Eating. After taking this class, I realized that I am much more privileged than I originally believed. I live in Clarence, NY, a town about 30 minutes from the city of Buffalo that has about 5-6 major grocery stores and a number of convenience stores scattered throughout. It would only take our family a 10 minute drive to have access to almost any food we wanted that was also a great quality. We certainly never experienced a food desert. I didn't even know what a food desert was before this class—that’s privilege.
Moving forward to what I currently eat, my taste buds still remain stimulated by a series of quick meals and snacks that are my main source of sustenance. All of which are enabled by the same things which enabled my mother’s home cooked meals. As a time-pressed college student I do not dedicate the time to make even my mothers simple crockpot meals but I do make meals derived from hers. Most of what I currently eat contains unprocessed food—with peanut butter being a delicious exception. With these unprocessed foods such as spinach, bananas, eggs, and chicken, I make a meal for myself in 15 minutes or less. If it takes any longer then it is not a recipe I care to look up or store in my brain. This is made possible for me by the InstaPot; a modern pressure cooker. It is my generation’s time saving version of the crockpot.
Prior to this class, when cooking simple meals for myself I followed the unsaid rules my mother cooked with. Our meals always included a meat and a starch. Where I diverged from my mother’s model is I replaced the starch with a vegetable. Although I wish she implemented more veggies in her cooking when I was younger, I understood it was because my brothers were so picky and would only eat chicken nuggets and pizza. That was what they preferred because it tasted good to them and they were blissful in their ignorance. With the food education I had accumulated, I understood how fundamental vegetables were to nutrition. For that reason I tried to incorporate as many as I could into my meals.
After taking this class I now eat a considerably smaller amount of meat. Learning about the Concentrated Animal Farming Operations (CAFO) in Food Inc. and the large environmental impact of meat encouraged me to significantly decrease the amount of meat I eat, and what kind of meat I choose. Now I eat meat 1-2 times a week and mainly stick to chicken because it causes less negative impacts than beef or pork. Being an environmental engineer, my career is to fix and prevent damage to the environment. This class taught me that I cannot accomplish that by choosing to eat a lot of meat. I am also not ready to take the step into a full vegetarian diet because making vegetables taste yummy for me takes more time than my current meals do.
Although I love experimenting with cooking and making complex dishes or baked goods, my bottom line is that I do not want to spend a significant amount of time to be creative and stray from the norm. Knowing what I know now, I actively force myself to think more about food, what I choose to buy and to enter my body, how it impacts different cultures, and how it impacts the planet. I can no longer live in my blissful ignorance like my brothers. This is very satisfying for me. I think that every person has the right to know every ounce of information about the food that they eat. I certainly do not know everything, but now I can make many more well informed decisions on what enters my stomach. So maybe I’ll pass on the spaghetti and meatballs next time.
From childhood through young adulthood, my meals were made by my loving mother who was responsible for feeding my family of five. She worked full time but outside of that she was the caretaker of myself, my two brothers, my father, and our dogs. Regardless of whatever demands she faced in her life, she always had a hot dinner on the table at the end of the day for our family. A common variety of meals my mother served did not come from the oven or the stove, but a novel appliance that is now a staple in American homes — the crockpot.
After she had finished waking us all up for school and getting ready herself, to make the McDonaldized meal, my mother would place a slew of ingredients into the crockpot and turn the heat setting to low before she raced out the door for work. The most common ingredients included chicken breasts, canned vegetables, a sauce mixture, and a bountiful amount of spices. The contents slow cooked all day and were ready to be served when we all arrived at home. Our “crockpot” meals enabled my family to maintain our busy lifestyle without having to stiff our nutrition because they were efficient, predictable, and controllable. My mom could use fresh and relatively unprocessed ingredients without having to sacrifice her time and still consider herself a good mother. It was her way of finessing the system most middle-class mothers followed to provide a balanced diet for their children, that was described by Wei-ting Chen’s article, From “Junk Food” to “Treats.”
Other days, about once or twice a week, my mother would succumb to the exhaustion of her day and just order out chinese food or pizza. As a child I never minded this, I ate whatever was placed in front of me. I liked that this made me seem fearless to other people. As long as my stomach was full I didn’t care what filled it. Upon getting older and entering high school, I became more annoyed when my mom “gave up” and just ordered out because I was becoming increasingly health conscious—I was a three sport athlete surrounded by other girls that were naturally 110 lbs and I was not. I was much more muscular and I am aware of that now, but back then I blamed it on the food I was eating, and that came from my mother. Now that I am a young adult, I understand her exhaustion and her simple solution for dinner. I experience it when cooking for myself. Reading Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner made me even more aware of the negative health implications that come from settling for the quick, processed foods such as type II diabetes, or obesity. This new knowledge allows me to reason through facts why I do not prefer the “lazy” meals.
The one exception to both of these meals was Sundays. My mother, a bold Italian woman whose grandparents immigrated to America, flaunted her heritage on Sundays by spoiling us with her traditional dish of spaghetti and meatballs. This was accompanied by a tray of warm garlic bread and a fresh salad. Her Sunday routine would be to grocery shop all morning long and spend the rest of the day in the kitchen. This meal was an outward expression of her love, like Chen describes, and it tasted delicious.
Years later when reflecting on these foods, I realize how privileged I was. There are many systems that contributed to the ease with which my mother was able to make a meal and the ease I cook with today. Infrastructure and technology such as refrigeration and long distance transportation within the United States made my meals possible. It gave my family options that were not universal around the world or even within the country. Having spices in my food or a banana as a snack certainly did not come from any domestic source. Most of the fruit that I eat is harvested by migrant farmers. They are probably getting paid next to nothing while I enjoy my cheap produce. I only recently learned this from the experience Tracie McMillan shared in her book, The American Way of Eating. After taking this class, I realized that I am much more privileged than I originally believed. I live in Clarence, NY, a town about 30 minutes from the city of Buffalo that has about 5-6 major grocery stores and a number of convenience stores scattered throughout. It would only take our family a 10 minute drive to have access to almost any food we wanted that was also a great quality. We certainly never experienced a food desert. I didn't even know what a food desert was before this class—that’s privilege.
Moving forward to what I currently eat, my taste buds still remain stimulated by a series of quick meals and snacks that are my main source of sustenance. All of which are enabled by the same things which enabled my mother’s home cooked meals. As a time-pressed college student I do not dedicate the time to make even my mothers simple crockpot meals but I do make meals derived from hers. Most of what I currently eat contains unprocessed food—with peanut butter being a delicious exception. With these unprocessed foods such as spinach, bananas, eggs, and chicken, I make a meal for myself in 15 minutes or less. If it takes any longer then it is not a recipe I care to look up or store in my brain. This is made possible for me by the InstaPot; a modern pressure cooker. It is my generation’s time saving version of the crockpot.
Prior to this class, when cooking simple meals for myself I followed the unsaid rules my mother cooked with. Our meals always included a meat and a starch. Where I diverged from my mother’s model is I replaced the starch with a vegetable. Although I wish she implemented more veggies in her cooking when I was younger, I understood it was because my brothers were so picky and would only eat chicken nuggets and pizza. That was what they preferred because it tasted good to them and they were blissful in their ignorance. With the food education I had accumulated, I understood how fundamental vegetables were to nutrition. For that reason I tried to incorporate as many as I could into my meals.
After taking this class I now eat a considerably smaller amount of meat. Learning about the Concentrated Animal Farming Operations (CAFO) in Food Inc. and the large environmental impact of meat encouraged me to significantly decrease the amount of meat I eat, and what kind of meat I choose. Now I eat meat 1-2 times a week and mainly stick to chicken because it causes less negative impacts than beef or pork. Being an environmental engineer, my career is to fix and prevent damage to the environment. This class taught me that I cannot accomplish that by choosing to eat a lot of meat. I am also not ready to take the step into a full vegetarian diet because making vegetables taste yummy for me takes more time than my current meals do.
Although I love experimenting with cooking and making complex dishes or baked goods, my bottom line is that I do not want to spend a significant amount of time to be creative and stray from the norm. Knowing what I know now, I actively force myself to think more about food, what I choose to buy and to enter my body, how it impacts different cultures, and how it impacts the planet. I can no longer live in my blissful ignorance like my brothers. This is very satisfying for me. I think that every person has the right to know every ounce of information about the food that they eat. I certainly do not know everything, but now I can make many more well informed decisions on what enters my stomach. So maybe I’ll pass on the spaghetti and meatballs next time.