A Gastronome’s Healthy and Political Eating
Yun young Hwang
English 201
Carrie Tomberlin
A Gastronome’s Healthy and Political Eating
Eating healthy is important. Food not only gives energy, but also affects individuals on holistic levels. Geoff Andrews, in his book The Slow Food Story writes, “Food is a source of identity often in conflict with the powerful forces underpinning globalization, which erode local traditions and impose corporate monoculture” (Andrews, 130). Eating healthy has become complicated with the food system’s extreme growth. New York Time food journalist Mark Bittman is at the frontier of today’s food issue. In his article Why Take Food Seriously?, Bittman writes, “from the 1950s on, the majority of the population began contentedly cooking less and less, eating out more and more and devouring food that was worse and worse, until the horrible global slop served by fast-food and “casual dining” chains came to dominate the scene” (Bittman). The changing food culture calls for practice of gastronomy. Merriam-Webster defines Gastronomy as “the art and science of good-eating” (Merriam-Webster). Those who practice gastronomy are gastronomes. Gastronomes are well aware of the holistic impacts of food. Consumers must practice gastronomy to know exactly what they are eating and change today’s obscured food culture.
To understand the necessity of being a gastronome; one must understand today’s food system. Today’s food system consists of three parties: food manufacturer, government, and consumer. Food manufacturers make products food products. The government inspects food products. They also protect consumer’s rights by placing safety regulations for food manufacturers. Consumers purchase these products.
The goal of food manufacturers is to make the most profit. To make the most profit, they can either reduce production cost by lowering labor and ingredient costs, or increase price of products. Manufacturers often reduce production cost because they are competing with other companies who market similar products, and consumers prefer low prices. Reducing production cost will benefit the company’s profit while offering a bargain. In short, the food manufacturing companies will use cheapest labor and ingredients to produce food products for consumers.
The dilemma for food manufacturers is that consumers like the idea of quality; something cheap ingredients often cannot provide. This is where the idea of marketing comes into play. Often marketing methods can be deceitful. Food products do not necessarily have to be superior quality; they only need to look satisfactory. Thus food manufacturers use color, images, slogans, and quotes on boxes to grab consumers’ attention. The food industry spends billions of dollars each year into billboards, television, and radio advertisements to promote their products as healthy, nourishing, and positive (Andrews, 37).
McDonalds does fabulous marketing. Despite their stereotypes of unhealthiness; they have also established other associations to bring in customers, one of which is happiness. The company invests enormously in children. McDonald’s has their signature figure of Ronald McDonald the clown is always happy and disturbingly smiling. Furthermore, they promote their children’s’ menu with the literal name “Happy Meal,” which comes with an option of toys (McDonalds). Many of their locations are equipped with playgrounds and party preparations: “You bring the kids, we’ll make the party. Super-fun for the kids, stress-free for you! We’ve got this party thing down to a science: Happy Meals, cake, decorations, party favors” (McDonalds). By satisfying the children, the company satisfies parents. When such desire for happiness overruns the need for healthiness, a McDonald’s consumer is born. Such association of McDonalds and happiness are created through marketing.
In addition to pleasing consumers; food manufacturers also need to please the government. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is primarily responsible for regulating food safety (USDA). The USDA provides guidelines to school meals programs, child and adult care food programs, women, infants and children programs, and supplemental nutritional assistance programs (USDA). The government officials are more scrutinizing than consumers because they inspect the food on molecular scales. The USDA examines food in relationship to the human body’s biochemistry. Nonetheless, despite the scrutiny of government officials, food manufactures can easily please them – through lobbying.
Lobbyists are the less noticeable but no less significant party in today’s food system. An example which well represents the role of lobbyists is the food pyramid. After reviewing the USDA Healthy Eating Index, Harvard School of Public Health reported that the pyramid has been modified several times for reasons other than public health (Harvard). This familiar triangle USDA published pyramid consists of grain, fruit, vegetable, dairy, meat, oil, and sugar (USDA). One might assume the federal panelists who design this pyramid to be nutritionists, pediatrics, cardiovascular professionals, and other biological and medical professionals. However, Harvard’s reviews said, “Selecting the panelists is no easy task, and is subject to intense lobbying from organizations such as the National Dairy Council, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Soft Drink Association, American Meat Institute, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and Wheat Food Council” (Harvard). Every one of these corporate associations wishes their product to have a greater portion of the pyramid so that more of it can be purchased (Harvard). Wanting to advertise their product, these companies do not have the best interest of public health in mind. Lobbying allows companies to pay the government to publish indirect promotion of company products (Harvard).
Having the idea of lobbying in mind, the pyramid is interesting. For example, the recommended quantity scales for each food type are different. The pyramid’s recommendation of ‘protein-rich group’ servings is intended to be maximum protein consumption. On the other hand, the pyramid’s recommendation of ‘fruit’ servings is intended to be the minimum (USDA). There can be a number of possible reasons for this odd arrangement. Perhaps the country could have been under fruit shortage. Another option is that protein organizations were able to afford more sophisticated lobbyists than the fruits organizations, or the fruits associations may have more faith in honest business. New York Times journalist Mark Bittman criticizes that majority of food manufacturing companies use lobbying to promote products (Bittman). Even government publications have other interests than best of public health.
In the food system, it seems most logical for consumers to have the priority and the strongest power. In contrast, many critics argue that the food manufacturers have the greatest power in today’s food system (Bittman). Environmental and business journalist Paul Roberts writes in his book The End of Food, “Food companies have in effect become the rulers of a supply chain that stretch from farmers to consumers…through which more than 95 percent of all calories followed” (Roberts, 216). Food companies have large control over marketing methods as well as accessibility in consumers’ environment. Roberts also wrote, “Providers of popular brand-named products, Nestle, Kraft, General Foods, and other companies could dictate how grocery stores shelve, marketed and even priced their products…nearly every important decision on product design, advertising, and promotion was being made by the manufacturers” (Roberts, 78). Consumers seem to be loosing power in today’s food system.
Food is not what it used to be. As the dependence on processed foods grow, eating has becomes unconscious because the raw ingredients are not seen. Responsibility of cooking has largely shifted towards food manufacturing companies (Bittman). Consumers depend on food manufacturers and government to be honest. However, as observed; the two parties are often not dependable. It is the consumer’s right and privilege to choose or not choose certain products. Gastronomy is the holistic approach to making conscious food choices. Few steps of gastronomy are reading labels, cooking, and eating-local.
It is difficult to avoid manufactured foods completely at once. In fact, there are local manufactures that make honest foods. To distinguish nutritious manufactured foods from deceitfully marketed ones, consumers must start by reading labels. For example, even seemingly nutritious foods such as oatmeal can be either nutritious or non-nutritious. McDonalds oatmeal on the surface looks the same as organic oatmeal. However, ingredients and nutrition facts tell a different story. One of the ingredients to McDonald’s oatmeal is ‘cream’ which alone contains eight different ingredients of: “milk, cream, sodium phosphate, datem, sodium stearoyl lactylate, sodium citrate, and carrageenan” (McDonald’s). McDonald’s oatmeal also contains “food starch-modified, natural flavor, and caramel color” (McDonald’s). An online database Myfitness allows nutrition facts comparison. According to Myfitness database, McDonald’s oatmeal contains more sugar than a Snickers bar and its calories are just as high as their cheeseburger (Myfitness). It also contains 160mg of sodium and 10mg of cholesterol. Contrastingly, an organic oatmeal contains 0mg of both sodium and cholesterol (Myfitness). Regarding nutrition; McDonald’s said, “You rely on us to deliver quality food, and we take that responsibility seriously” (McDonalds). After reading the nutritional facts of McDonald’s most nourishing menu, the oatmeal, McDonald’s definition of responsibility is questionable. Foods which seem healthy can be deceiving. Consumers must read and compare the nutritional facts when eating manufactured foods.
Furthermore, Fergus Clydesdale in his book Food Science and Nutrition says, “We are gradually using more and more of these additives” (Clydesdale, 301). This is another reason why consumers must read labels. So why are so many additives included in our food? Chemicals are added primarily to reduce cost and push expiration dates (Bittman). Under the system of mass production, food undergoes extensive processing and travel before reaching the kitchen table. Thus products require additives such as bleaches and preservatives to protect food from heat, cold, moist, clumping, color changing, and other possible damages (Clydesdale, 289). Clydesdale suggests that consumers read labels and avoid any chemical names and purchase products made from understandable ingredients such as sugar, flour, wheat, milk, and etc.
Next step of gastronomy is cooking. Cooking is the best way to understand food. It is also an easy way to avoid the trouble of reading labels because instead of purchasing processed foods; one can buy raw ingredients and cook them oneself. Definition of cooking differs between individuals. “Many Americans began applying the word ‘cooking’ to the act of defrosting and heating mass-produced frozen foods in a microwave oven” (Bittman). However, such is not cooking. The NYT journalist, Bittman’s introduction says, “I’m not a chef, and I never have been…never had formal training and I’ve never worked in a restaurant. None of which has gotten in the way of my mission to get people cooking simply, comfortably, and well” (Bittman). Bittman published several recipe books as well as impacts of healthy eating on body and our global culture. In his articles Yes, You Can Become A Great Cook, Bittman says, “Cooking is simple, really. You buy food (often the most difficult part), cut it up, combine few flavors, and apply heat. The result is predictable and is called dinner…possibilities for creating simple, delicious healthy food in your kitchen become endless” (Bittman). Cooking is not difficult. The most difficult part for average Americans would be to start. Once started, frozen-processed-foods can be replaced with real-actual-ingredients.
Another step of gastronomy is eating-local. Eating-local means supporting local restaurants and local produce. Choosing local restaurants and local produce means decreasing the demand for large-scaled manufacturers. Here, eating food expands its meaning into something larger than a healthy body. Geoff Andrews writes about the political affects of eating. In his book, Andrews connects the idea of conscious eating and its social impacts. “Gastronomy is the intelligent knowledge of whatever concerns man’s nourishment: it facilitates choice because it helps us to understand what quality is…enables us to experience pleasure and to learn pleasure-loving knowledge...Knowledge is everybody’s right, but also a duty; gastronomy is education” (Andrews, 69). Andrews’ idea of eating being political fits perfectly into the practice of gastronomy. Gastronomes do not eat for body itself. The act of eating can take the role of supporting an ideology or a community.
This is the way to bringing farmers and chefs back into our food system. Large corporate food manufactures are not farmers, and definitely not chefs. This fact can easily be seen with the example of Monsanto. Monsanto is a farming corporation which produces crops such as corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, and canola (Monsanto). The company’s introduces themselves as, “producing more conserving more improving lives – that’s sustainable agriculture. And that’s what Monsanto is all about” (Monsanto). Contrasting to Monsanto’s self-introduction, Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is running a campaign called Millions Against Monsanto (Organic Consumers Association). The OCA campaign is promoting the idea of, “supporting our right to know – and choose – what’s in our food” (OCA). According to the OCA’s database, Monsanto has been hiding number of pollution for decades and deprives large amounts of soil properties by use of pesticides and fertilizers (OCA). Environmental journalist Jennifer Lance published a review of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified (GM) Cotton Seeds. Their study showed Monsanto’s GM Cotton seeds cause soil to erode by killing soil organisms which are needed for building nutrient rich soil (Lance). Monsanto also distribute enormous quantities of genetically modified seeds, and such framing methods deplete soil of needed nutrients (OCA). Corporations do not understand the intricacies of farming. That is why consumers must support farmers.
An ecology journalist, Larry Korn, says sustainable farming methods do not require machines, chemicals, fossil fuels, nor much weeding. Sustainable farming maximizes characteristics of different landscapes and produces nearly no pollution (Korn). Many local produce are accessible through local farmers’ and organic markets (Korn). Ecologist Peter Singer, in his book The Ethics of What We Eat writes, “buying local food keeps your dollars circulating in your community…There’s never been a more critical time to support your farming neighbors. With each local food purchase, you ensure that more of your money spent on food goes to the farmer” (Singer, 142). Consumers must support individuals who practice sustainable-farming rather than corporations that do not respect the environment. This is part of the gastronome’s political affects of conscious-food-choices.
Allowing today’s absurd food culture to continue might be easier at the moment. Microwave dinners and fast food chains are convenient from short-term perspectives. Fast food restaurants reduce food preparation time. Mass production minimizes personal labor and maximizes efficiency of mechanical labor. However the idea of ‘fast’ and ‘efficiency’ is questionable. Manufactured foods may seem convenient and cheap, but is it really? Times journalist Alice Park in her article Food as Pharma writes that food affects our biological chemistry from cellular and molecular levels, each organ levels, and the body as a whole. Food affects blood vessel conditions, resistance to cancer, bodily toxin levels, heart disease, obesity, psychological disorders, disease fighting abilities, chronic disease, longevity, and the entire well-being (Park). Today’s food culture can also be seen from a social perspective. Economics journalist Tom Laskawy’s writes that today’s food culture has led to 278 extra calories and 20 extra teaspoons of sugar per day. Food has become a new type of addiction. Regular soda-drinking increases risk of obesity by 27% (Laskawy). Obesity is a new epidemic which costs
Large corporate farming also hurts our environment. As seen with the example of Monsanto, large corporations buy massive properties, and their methods of farming are harming our environment (OCA). With unprecedented amounts of pesticide, fertilizer, genetically modified organisms, and mass production, the company has no concern for future use of soil (Lance). Monsanto also contaminated large bodies of waters with chemicals such as PCBs, dioxin and glyophosate (OAC). Monsanto’s solution to this problem was to purchase these public water resources they polluted, filter the water, and sell it to people (OAC). The strong ties Monsanto and the government allow such practices left unpunished (OAC). It is clear that these corporations and the government have their profits at priority. Allowing such food culture to continue will most significantly damage the consumers and environment.
Consumers support large manufacturing companies with and without awareness. It is clear consumers must take the practice of eating into more careful consideration. Gastronomy – conscious-eating – is beneficial for one’s body at the smallest scale. It also supports the environment and ethical businesses not choosing dishonest corporation products and instead choosing local and honestly grown foods. Individual choices are important and must be made consciously.
Hippocrates once said, “Let food be thy medicine and let thy medicine be food” (Park). It would be rather difficult to instantly understand our food products and begin the practice of gastronomy. However, long miles can be covered by series of steps. Read labels and choose ingredients written in plain language and not foreign chemistry. Cook meals. Eat-local produce rather than preserved chemical cocktails. Help today’s obscured food system to become better by supporting local farmers. Have the right philosophy of eating and demand good food. Be a gastronome. To food – cheers.
Works Cited
Andrews, Geoff. The Slow Food Story – Politics and Pleasure.
Bittman, Mark. “The Way We Live Now.” New York Times
Bittman, Mark. “Why Take Food Seriously?” New York Times
Bittman, Mark. “Yes, You Can Become a Great Cook.” Men’s Health. 23, Aug. 2007. Web. 21, Mar. 2011. http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/cooking-tips-1
Clydesdale, Fergus. “Food Science and Nutrition.”
Food Safety and Inspection Service. USDA. “Common Food Safety Questions from FSIS.” Web.
Korn, Larry. “Masanobu Fukuoka’s Natural Farming and Permaculture.” 2003. Web. 21, Mar. 2011. http://www.permaculture.com/node/140
Lance, Jennifer. “Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Cotton Kills Soil.” Really Natural
Laskawy, Tom. “Is Michelle Obama about to take on Big Food?” Grist.
Merriam-Webster. “Gastronomy.” Web.
Myfitness. Calorie Chart, Nutrition Facts for Food. Web. 21, Mar. 2011. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calorie-chart-nutrition-facts
Organic Consumers Association. “Millions Against Monsanto.” Web. 21 Mar. 2011. http://organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm
Park , Alice. “Food as Pharma.” The Times.
Roberts, Paul. “The End of Food.”
Singer, Peter. “The Ethics of What We Eat.”
'사회 > 사회 과학' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 다르다와 틀리다, 공상과학 - 올바른 언어에 대해 (0) | 2011.07.08 |
|---|---|
| 미국 Chemical engineering 화학 엔지니어링 대학교 밑 진로 (0) | 2011.07.04 |
| 어머니, 죽음, 치매에 관한 기사를 읽고. . (0) | 2011.04.19 |
| 무엇을 하는가보다 누구와 하는가 Not what you do, but who you do it with - (0) | 2011.04.15 |
| 지향해야하는 것, 곳 (0) | 2011.04.11 |
