Much Depends on Dinner: Intro to Food Studies

Burger King has recently announced that they plans to switch to buying cage-free eggs. Although this will mean paying more for the eggs used in Burger King establishments, the popular fast food eatery has decided to make ethical food sourcing a top priority. This is quite interesting insofar as we often perceive fast food chains to be “unethical” (see: Fast Food Nation). Is Burger King simply playing to a popular public concern in order to attract new customers, or are they actually interested in the welfare of the animals used in their food? In other words, what is their motivation? And does it ultimately matter if animals, particularly chicken, are being treated more humanely?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/burger-king-pledges-shift-to-cage-free-eggs-2012-04-25

http://nymag.com/news/features/artisanal-brooklyn-2012-4/

I just came upon this really interesting article in New York Magazine about the artisanal food movement in Brooklyn. The article explores a sort of bizarre trajectory of the “foodie” movement: namely, the growing popularity of artisanal foodmakers who came to Brooklyn to be a musician, chef, fill-in-the-blank-off-the-beaten-path-profession, but ended up specializing in the making of some singular product (beer, pickles, ketchup), which they produce locally in a Brooklyn warehouse and then sell for absurd prices (read: $9 for jam) in precious, cutesy, handmade packaging.

The article explores a number of issues with this model. One I found especially interesting is the inherent paradox of a system that purports to produce kitsch products for the indie masses, but that in reality only the wealthy can afford to buy. As author Benjamin Wallace writes:

“But it’s equally hard to avoid the sense that the new Brooklyn economy is moss growth in the shade of larger corporate forces. Plutocrats of a certain stripe like their baubles to come with meaningful, brow-furrowing backstories, and the artisans, with their small-scale production and deliberate inefficiencies and expensive ingredients, need the postindustrial wealthy to buy their $14 pickles and $10 granola. The buyer of $9 jam, after all, isn’t another maker of $9 jam. It’s the guy whose multinational robotic assembly line spits out jars of $1 jam. Or it’s his trustafarian son, the Global Jam Logistics heir. Or it’s the private-equity guy who just offshored GJL to a sweatshop in Bangalore.”

The article is a long(ish) read, but I would really recommend taking a look at it. What do you think about the “intended” food consumer versus “actual” food consumer? Also, what do you think of Wallace’s claim that expensive, boutique products such as the ones currently popular in Brooklyn could be a sign of an impending “food apocalypse”?

Remember that in-class project we had about creating a fresh produce stand for a student group that received a grant? That same student group was selling an assortment of fresh fruits and vegetables today in the Chem Building. I didn’t know about the event beforehand, but it was pretty cool. They were selling onions, apples, oranges, bananas, avocados, whole carrots, and different kinds of nuts.  Everything was priced really cheap and I got a banana, two carrots, and an avocado for two bucks. I tried to find the group online to see if they had any upcoming events but only found a page for the event that was going on today and one that went on April 8th. I highly recommend you guys try visiting one of the events that these guys put on if they have any more of them this year!

http://events.umich.edu/event/9012-1138694

I just found an interesting article that covers the same points that Corey Zhang and I were assigned to research for our debate project.

The FDA announced a few days ago that they are planning on cutting back on antibiotics in the food industry, and are giving companies 3 years to voluntarily stop using antibiotics to force their animals to grow faster.  While the article does mention “superbugs” and different health concerns, it does not explicitly state that health concerns are the main reason why the FDA is making these changes.

The FDA says that they can’t ban the use of antibiotics right now because “it would take too long and cost too much” to do.

Here’s a link to the article online: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20120411/fdas-voluntary-plan-to-cut-antibiotics-in-food-animals

Why do you think the FDA is now implementing these changes? Do you think they are good or bad? Do you think the supervision of a veterinarian will actually change how antibiotics are used or will veterinarians only create a loophole for corporations?

As our class and year raps up, I think it is extremely important to take at least a small step towards change.  Putting our increased knowledge (or confusion) to test and make a difference on our campus.  It might not (and definitely does not) have to be a large change but any small change is something.  I put a link below that everyone should check out that has to do with food studies on college campuses.  I think one of the main things we can take away from this course and our education here at U of M is not only new knowledge but new actions.  (DO more than you sit and think about).

http://grist.org/sustainable-food/2011-11-02-food-studies-college-students-plant-seeds-of-change/

Looking for some modern-day proof of corporations hiding their questionable animal-based food production from the public? Look no further than in Iowa. An Iowan House Bill 589 goes above and beyond to help any organization (be it a farming operation, food production corporation, or research institution) do just that.

Under this new law, employees may not:

717A.2 1a “Damage, destroy, or alter property kept at the animal facility”

1c. “Take by theft an animal maintained or other property kept the animal facility.”

1d. “Disrupt operations”

While this seems lie a pretty standard arrangement to protect the organizations with animal facilities from property damage or loss, a new version of the law goes far and beyond this measure to ensure secrecy about conditions.

The law also dictates that employees and visitors must ask them before leaving with any visual or written materials regarding the property, and allows owners to dictate what information can leave the property. This law makes almost all evidence acquired in this manner illegal in court proceedings, which prevents the organization responsible from further regulation or penalty based on the evidence.

Via a new amendment, it is legal for firms to question future employees about almost anything, including their affiliation with labor unions, animal rights groups, as well as positions in government or law.

Section 10. 1. A person is guilty of animal facility fraud, if the person willfully does any of the following:
a. Obtains access to an animal facility by false pretenses for the purpose of committing an act not authorized by the owner of the animal facility.
b. Makes a false statement or representation as part of an application to be employed at the animal facility, if the person knows the statement to be false, and makes the statement with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner of the animal facility.

So what is the punishment for acting against an employer in one of the above-listed ways? First-time offenders are likely to pay fines, which have maximums listed anywhere from $300-$100,000 depending on the severity of the offense. Offenders also may receive misdemeanors, and repeat offenders can face tough penalties with felonies leading to substantial jail time.

Now that you are more informed, I am going to take a stance. This law goes far beyond necessary protections for animal-housing organizations. As I believe that further regulation is necessary to combat illegal and unhealthy practices in our food production, whistle-blowers should be empowered in our society, not  scrutinized and punished. This law is a step backwards for transparency in our food production, and will probably create lasting negative repercussions such as to workers that wish to speak up, but are scared to lose their livelihoods.

In order to create a functioning and vibrant community, all members of our society must care about the quality of our food and should at bare minimum have access to true, unbiased information about the conditions in which it was produced and handled, from ground to plate. Whether or not this information should be accessible by the public is of extreme importance to our national health, and this law represents the first battle of a mounting war, won in favor of keeping pertinent information secret.

So, what do you think?

1. Should the corporations and other organizations be able to exercise this much control over  materials recorded on their properties? Why or why not?

2. Does this law strip First Amendment rights through any of its provisions? Name any sections that you think may be relevant, and why.

Article Here: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-ag-gag-laws-hiding-factory-farm-abuses-from-public-scrutiny/254674/#

Law PDF Here: http://bit.ly/HLVXhQ

Hey guys!

Here is Wall Street Journal article covering a recently settled lawsuit that is especially relevant to our recent discussions in class. The company Del Monte Foods, which sells refrigerated and pre-packaged foods, was charged with false advertising due to the fact the brand was often confused with Fresh Del Monte, a company that sells fresh foods. The lawsuit really raises the question of what fresh really means and why the misuse of the word fresh creates such an uproar.

View the article here.

The Chapter “why the fries taste good” by Eric Schlosser outlines the history of the French fry, along with the struggles the farmers endured and the entire process of flavoring a French fry. The flavoring industry is graciously compared to Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, and after the intricate explanation, it truly lives up to that title.
However, this particular chapter does not mention any type of differences in Mcdonald’s French Fries across the globe. Is it because the American French Fry is the ultimate gold-standard in terms of French Fries? If you were to travel to the Netherlands and taste a French fry there, would it be the exact same as a French Fry in New York City?
The answer is, as expected, a resounding “No.” French Fries not only contain different flavorings, but there are differences in oil types, salt content as well as protein and fiber content. In the 1990s, China received direct imports of French Fries from the United States. Since those French fries were made in a universal way, expecting the restaurant to fry them in the same way, shouldn’t French fries in China taste exactly the same as French fries in the U.S.?
“Canada has the largest LARGE portion, The Netherlands has the highest salt content, Ireland has the healthiest oil composition and the lowest salt content”
Relating to “glocalization”, French fries in Mcdonald’s in Japan are apparently seasoned with seaweed, barbeque, and even Chicken Soup. The French Fry has transformed into something unique in every country, although this was not the original intention. A recent uproar from the public concerning the use of trans-fats in the frying of Mcdonald’s French Fries has put pressure on the corporation. It’s interesting to consider the global implications, and whether not each country will adhere to these standards of the Mcdonald’s French Fry. Will the gold-standard of the best tasting French Fry for Mcdonald’s be from America(ironically not France), or will each country begin to deviate more and more from French Fry Production?

1. Have you ever had a French Fry from a different country?
2. The frying of Mcdonald’s French Fries has changed from frying in Beef Tallow to Canola Oil, which has also led to certain health concerns. With the flavoring industry becoming more and more prominent, will the taste of the French Fry always taste the same? Or will something happen like Wendy’s and maybe a complete restructuring of the French Fry will occur.

I found this link on one of my friend’s wall and thought it was interesting to share as it pertains to our discussion about eating disorders last week.  I was in shock after reading this article about a mother putting her daughter on a diet at the age of 7.  It was the opposite of what had occurred in Harriet Brown’s “One Spoonful at a Time.”

The actions taken by the two mothers are on different ends of the eating disorder spectrum.  Brown was trying to help her daughter over come an eating disorder by supporting and feeding her with high calorie foods, while the other forced her daughter to avoid high calorie foods.  One part that I found to clearly demonstrate the differences in the mother’s actions concerned their daughters eating cake.  Brown was excited when her daughter came home from school saying that she had eaten a piece of cake.  On the other hand, the mother is this article didn’t allow her daughter to eat cookies and cake.

http://jezebel.com/5895602/mom-puts-7+year+old-on-a-diet-in-the-worst-vogue-article-ever

Chapter 4 of Warren Belasco’s “Food” describes the logistics of the supermarket food cycle: how it is obtained, how little consumers know about it, and how it has evolved.

The story he tells of little Jack who wants pancakes and his mother has to run around the farm to grab all the ingredients to make the dish, is something that not many t have to experience today because of the convenience of today’s food supply. Belasco says our demand for convenience “suggests a degree of privilege, choice and discretion unavailable to the world’s poor” (57, Food). I would define convenience (in terms of food analysis) as a product, whose ingredients have gone through preparatory phases, thus making it easier and quicker for the consumer to make the finished product by a few simple final steps.

The Keep It Simple Stupid attitude of suppliers of convenient foods, that was adopted from Ray Kroc, is where the modern day dilemma of convenience arises. Belasco believes that we have turned a blind eye to the convenience and allowed producers to move our food intake “toward a kind of insensate high-tech barbarism” (57, Food). I agree with Belasco that convenience has helped diverge people from the farm to the work force, thus increasing our productivity. However the disconnection between where the food comes from and how it is manufactured and the consumer’s morales, has been drifting further and further.

I personally suffer from this problem, many times I pick up something from the supermarket or restaurant and not think twice about where the product has come from or whether it is actually convenient. Companies have been supportive of this disconnection as they can increase their supply and decrease their prices using immoral methods (such as confined animal feeding operations, debeaking chickens, etc.). This corporate strategy has been putting out smaller suppliers who cannot compete out of the industry and creating a competition between just a few firms. (If you are not hooked on the moral aspect, think of it this way Walmart’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is $421 billion (five times the size of Ireland’s).

One of the most surprising facts that Belasco mentions is that of the $1.2 trillion that the food and fiber system added to the US GDP only 82 billion went to the farming sector and $757 billion went to manufacturing and distribution (56, Food). That leaves three hundred sixty-one billion dollars, so where did this amount of money go? If that is the price tag of food suppliers and distributors spend to marketing costs, then that money could definitely be spent somewhere more productive. It is still ridiculous that manufacturing and distributing revenue is about nine times larger than what farmers make. The convenient product we pay for does not seem so convenient for the farmers.

Belasco’s writing served as a wake up call to me as a consumers and I hope it does to producers as well. The next time you are at a store, think twice about where your product is coming from, yes it can be convenient, but is the price tag worth it? When thinking about price tag, there is more than just the price ingredients, there are the indirect costs such as (marketing, lobbying, ecological damage, etc.). I do think companies today are trying to close the gap between the consumer and producer, by showing videos of where their products come from and how they have positive relationships with their farmers. Over time, it would be interesting to see where this movement goes.

Questions for discussion:
1) If you are not hooked on the immoral aspect of convenience foods, what is your reasoning on convenience foods that were produced immorally (whether by harming animals or hurting farmers)?
2) The farmer’s market does not contain the equal level or sophistication of marketing strategies that big corporations use (Think of the 8 F’s that he talks about on page 70), yet people still flock there. What do you think attracts people to the farmer’s markets?
3) Where do you think did the three hundred sixty-one billion dollars go? Why?
4) What are some effective strategies to close the rift between the consumers’ blind eye and producers’ dirty production habits? Should either party be regulated? If yes, how should it be regulated?

Here is the link for the Walmart reality check: http://www.fastcompany.com/1798711/infographic-of-the-day-walmart-dwarfs-entire-industries-and-nations