Food...We've Got a Problem!

The Nation's "One thing to do about food: a forum" proposes several solutions to the problems with the food system in the United States from a number of notable members of society. It is evident from this work that there is no clear cut solution to the issues at hand, but rather there are several possibilities that could be addressed as answers.
Michael Pollan displays his belief that the importance of the "farm bill" is not recognized, which creates many of the problems with our food system today. He notes that the importance of this bill can be used to earn votes for more important peices of legislation, yet it is not being used this way and therefore only several, small interests groups drive our food production in whatever direction they please.
Jim Hightower believes that the problem is because of businessmen and lobbyists who have a lack of understanding when it comes to our nation's food system. Hightower claims that these people are making all of the decisions, which they are unqualified to make, and the decisions should be made instead by the common citizen.
Personally, I do not have much strength in making my own arguements for a solution to the problem merely because I do not have the experience nor the knowledge to do so. I think that the arguement posed by Michael Pollan seems to make sense. That being said, I do not have a solid understanding of what the "farm bill" is and what it does. Hightower's solution however seems almost unreal. I feel as if the problems in our food system needs to help of the government. Giving the power to the consumers and local producers seems almost counterproductive because it would decentralize the food system and nothing could be done to make substantial solutions. Does a decentralized food system really make sense? If not, then how do we go about making the importance of the "farm bill" more easily recognized by Congress.

World Hunger

The article, "The Scarcity Fallacy" by Stephen J. Scanlan addresses the issue of World Hunger....actually...it doesnt. Instead it addresses what is NOT the issue surrounding world hunger. Scanlan acknowledges that most people believe that the reason for world hunger is an international shortage of food. However, it is actually a result of sociological and environmental factors that in turn result in a shortage of affordable food.
Solutions to world hunger have been approached through the method called "supermarket model". this method works to grow dependence on large global food industries. Unfortunately for the poor and hungry, the "supermarket model" is no productive but rather counterproductive because it causes an increase in the price of food on the market. Thus, hungry families can still not afford to buy food for themselves.
Today, the ratio of amount of food per person is the highest it has ever been. The real issue is the distribution of this surplus of food to areas with people that are poor and hungry. Scanlan addresses the true problems of world hunger as poverty, inequalities, and corrupution in food aid programs.

From reading this article I feel a little skeptical about the whole food aid programs. Why exactly is it that people as a whole havent quite figured out that what we are doing right now is counterproductive towards our goal? seems to me that we would have by now and that some changes would have been made. Yet even if changes were to be made, would it actually be possible to solve world hunger?

Burger King, Not So Cheap

Recently a friend mentioned to me that the most expensive burger in the world was made by Burger King. I immediately expressed my disbelief, asking exactly how Burger King went about making the most expensive burger in the world. He didn't know too much about, just that he knew it existed. When I got home, I immediately went to google....

Turns out, he wasn't kidding. As of 2008, Burger King's "The Burger" is the most expensive burger in the world. My mind was blown, especially by the fact that I personally do not think that "The Burger" looks as good as "The Whopper"....

Go figure...

http://most-expensive.net/burgers-world

The Food Stamp Issue

Last November, The New York Times produced an article regarding the recent incline in need for food stamps by people in the United States. With a brand new economic recession on our hands, many people have fallen to an economic level that puts them in need of food stamps. The people who have most recently began their use of food stamps actually have or had incomes that are or were higher than the poverty level, which just goes to show the intensity of the economic slump. Thankfully, the government has been willing to keep the program in motion and not made the decision to halt its growth. As a result, there is, unfortunately, more debt. Yet, at the same time, the once negative stigma attached to people taking federal aid via food stamps has diminished. The article makes the statement that fewer people felt ridiculed about using food stamps.

Personally, I do not quite agree that the stigma attached to food stamps is fully diminished. However, I believe that it is important that people who need the federal aid, take the federal aid. It is therefore crucial that the government continue to be prepared for an increase in the number of families on food stamps with the continuation of the economic downturn. Many families who were once very well off may suddenly need financial assistance.

Is there any way that the government can possibly change the name of the aid to something that could detach the negative stigma currently attached to it? or maybe make the aid more secretive that it currently is, so that people dont need to publicize their financial situation?

The Big Mac...Is it actually eating us?

George Ritzer's Sociological Odyssey, he scoops out the disturbing details on a sociological phenomenon called Mcdonaldization. Essentially, the name of this phenomenon means to imply that the United States is based solely on efficiency, speed, and rationality. The essay dishes out the driving forces of this idea of rationality in the United States: Efficiency, Predicatability, Calculability or Quantity over Quality, Substitution of Non Human Technology, and Control.

The article donates a section to each of these five categories and provides examples of each in our society. Efficiency is getting things done as fast as possible, which leads to the sacrifice of other aspects of production, such as quality. Predictablity is the idea of keeping production free of any dynamic variables so as to maintain a natural routine and consistency within the production, which in turn supports efficiency and quantity. Calculability or Quantity over Quality is exactly what is says it is. It is better for businesses to make more, poor quality products than for businesses to make fewer, good quality products, because people are willing to pay cheap prices for poor quality food. Substitution of Non Human Technology is in order to support the predictability of a business. By using robots rather than humans, each job done can be executed faster and thus more efficiently, so it creates a financial treat for the business. Finally, Control is the idea of knowing what is going to happen and how. The most important thing that businesses want to control is the people who are buying their product; They run their business to make sure people do what they want and that it is efficient and money saving for them.

Personally I find this sociological evolution to be a epidemic and extremely harmful to society. It seems to me that this is probably the cause of the huge issue of obesity in the United States. Not only that but with robots in the work force, jobs are lost and unemployment rates will rise. Finally, Being surrounded by this sociological way of life almost doesn't even allow consumers to make their own choice about whether or not they want to support quantity over quality, or quality of quantity. Eventually, nothing will have good quality anymore and the production system will yield nothing but garbage for less than a penny. Is that the sort of society we want to live in.

Does the "McDonaldization" of the United States have a spot on the list for why obesity is so prevelant in our country?

In terms of sociological evolution there must be a step that comes after this "McDonaldization"...where do scientists, sociologist, and people in general see where this is headed?

Politics of Government and Dietary Advice

The article "Politics of Government and Dietary Advice" addresses the ways that the government sets nutritional standards and the effect of these standards on food organizations. The original intention of each nutritional standard is to attempt to help the community make good choices about their eating habits. However, food organizations dont always go for the governments new standards because sometimes it gives the community a reason not to purchase their products, and so their business would be hindered. One particular example was when the World Health Organization advised the public to limit their sugar intake to improve their health. Of course everyone involved in an organization based in the production of sugar saw this as a threat to their business and fought to have the claim that sugar was bad for your heath revoked. The sugar organizations threatened to withdraw funding and so the World Health Organization withdrew their claim regarding sugar. Situations such as this continued to happen over time and the goverment could no longer tell the public exactly what they needed to do to practice a healthy diet. If they said that one thing was good to eat and another was not good to eat then not all food organizations would be happy with their new dietary guidlines. So, now these dietary guidelines are vague and can be broadly interpreted.

I find it slightly disturbing that the food industry has so much influence over the set dietary standards that the government publicizes. it would be interesting to see how much these industries spent on lobbying so that they can defend the health benefits of their products.

Also, I think that it can be assumed that the standard American diet is certainly one of the most unhealthy diets among those of other nations in this world. Would it be beneficial to mimic the dietary standards in countries that eat healthier than we do? Health in our country seems to be important, so the food industry should certainly not be able to call the shots on what makes a healthy diet.

The American "Cuisine"

In the article "Eating American" the author reflects on the typical American cuisine and determines that it actually does not exist. Although it isnt exactly that it doesn't exist but rather that it is not its own cuisine. it is actually a conconction of many many cultural foods, which results in a variety of regional cuisines. This variety of foods is then combined with the American way of life, which of course is fast paced living. So the foods have become fast foods, so that Americans can eat and be as efficient as possible with their time management in their busy bee lives. So then this also leads to Americans not really caring about what they eat, or even enjoying it as much as other cultures do. The author therefore concludes that an American cuisine does not exist.

I personally think that the article seriously underestimates the reality of an American cuisine. As they said, Americans eat 'fast foods' because of the culture that we have in this country. But although Americans are more into eating fast foods, and not cooking home cooked meals but rahter eating out, that doesn't mean that an American "cuisine" doesnt exist. The American cuisine is actually everywhere. You can find a McDonalds and a KFC and a Burger King pretty much all over the world, and you cannot find a cultural cuisine that has the same massive expasion as the American "cuisine"....the author of this article fails to realize that the American "cuisine" actually monopolizes the world...so it therefore must exist.