Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2012

The Fair Minimum Wage Act is a bill in Congress right now that would increase wages by 33% for minimum wage earners and more than double the wages for tip-earners. It's the first time in 5 years and 21 years respectively for these two groups to see an increase in hourly pay. Federal minimum wage would increase from $7.25 to $9.80, generating an extra $40 billion in income, 100,000 jobs, and $25 billion in GDP. 

So, what's the problem? Like with everything else, it's the economic crisis and our outstanding debt.
Democrats and Republicans alike are afraid that this bill will increase costs for the middle class. Food costs in particular are of concern. If the food harvesters and members of the food service industry (waiters) are getting paid more, won't food cost more? 

The answer (we know now) is NO. According to the Food Labor Research Center of UC Berkley, increasing the minimum wage to $9.80 will only cost the average american family an extra 10 cents a day. Grocery store food prices would increase by less than half a percent. Restaurant food would increase by less than one percent. In total, the average family would pay an extra $35 dollars a year.  

So, $35/year for an extra 100,000 jobs, $25 billion in GDP and a serious step towards food justice? I'll take it. 

This image was part of the grist.org review article and really resonated with me. At first I laughed, but then I became a little ashamed. I don't want to be preachy, but in my opinion it is morally wrong for the majority to reap the benefits of the minorities' work and not share the burden. Especially when the burden is 10 cents a day. 

http://grist.org/news/help-sponsor-food-justice-for-only-ten-cents-a-day/
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/staff/jayaraman.shtml

Cheap Food, Hidden Costs

Before I watched Food, Inc. last week, all I kept hearing from my friends was that I would become a vegetarian afterwards (at least for a few days). I didn't become a vegetarian. I did make a commitment to only eat meat that I knew was ethically and sustainably farmed. But it wasn't the animal treatment that scarred me most, it was the labor operations behind corporate meat production. I was particularly intrigued by the vast change in what it meant to be a meat packer today verses one half a century ago.

According to the documentary, in the 1950s, being employed as a meat packer was a much more common, well-perceived, and solid paying job than it is today. Working with meat in a contemporary corporate factory is entirely different. It is probably one of the most undesirable professions because of its danger and unpleasantness. It’s one of those jobs that people respond to with, “Well, someone’s gotta do it.” Yes, someone has to do it, given that American food is dominated by a few, large corporations.

For instance, Smithfield Foods, Inc. was able to grow to own the largest slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants in the world because of its cheap labor and products. The company exploits impoverished people to help slaughter over hundreds of thousands of hogs per day. According to Food, Inc., Smithfield capitalized on hiring the Mexican farmers that were driven out of business by the massive corn industry in the US. Smithfield recruited illegal immigrants to do their nasty work. Since the sheer number of pork that is produced and processed is so large, the company necessitates an assembly line process where each worker performs thousands of repetitive motions each shift. These tasks lead to lacerations and strain injuries. In 2005, the Human Rights Watch reported that the disassembly line was so quick that there was no time to sharpen knives, requiring harder cuts and resulting in more injuries (http://www.hrw.org/node/11869/section/5).

Not only is it a dangerous job, but it is also transient for many. The US government cracks down on the immigrant workers, but not the companies that hired them. Food, Inc., reported that Smithfield workers are arrested so often, but does nothing to the larger corporation that is “making billions of dollars off holiday ham.” These corporations are then able threaten to exploit immigrant statuses to prevent them from making complaints or forming unions.

…So America is making cheap food, but it comes at a price. The price of social injustice, health risk, and low integrity. When you go to the supermarket do you want to support this behavior just for chicken that's a few bucks cheaper?

Do we buy it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sjPnAYwdNI&feature=player_embedded

McDonald's quality campaign..

MythBusters: Food Edition

This week at the farm, we harvested carrots. The actual task was pretty fun and not too labor-intensive: pulling out an entire carrot by its green stalk was somehow satisfying. The “squiggly” ones (as Kat called them) were also fun to find, intertwined around each other in weird shapes. We ended up with well over 100 bushels of carrots!

But the entire time, in the back of my head, there remained the undeniable truth: I HATE carrots.

I have very few food aversions and am pretty adventurous when it comes to eating, but carrots have been a lifelong hatred, and I don’t know why. Juiced, shredded, cooked, or just raw… I can’t stand them in any form. Even the cutesy marketing ploy of baby carrots could never tempt me, despite the recent ad campaigns to get me to “eat them like junk food.”

My hatred for carrots has always made me feel guilty though, because they’re supposed to be so healthy for you. In fifth grade, when I found out that I needed glasses, I convinced myself that it was because I never ate carrots. I seem to remember cartoons from my childhood explaining that rabbits don’t need glasses because they eat so many carrots. I never questioned it; I just accepted my poor eyesight as a consequence of avoiding carrots.

After my carrot-filled day at the farm, I decided to get to the bottom of this urban legend. The stench of carrots was still on my hands when I typed my question into Google.

Apparently, there is a virtual “Museum of Carrots” totally dedicated to the history, nutrition, cooking and general usage of this root vegetable. It had the answer to my question: no, carrots are not linked directly to improved vision. Myth busted.

It goes back to the 1940’s. During World War II, as the British developed a more sophisticated radar detection system, their pilots’ accuracy in gunning down German fighters increased significantly, and the government wanted to hide this technological advance from enemies. At the same time, the country was struggling to feed its people: between Germany’s blockade of food imports and the rationing system, carrots were one of the few foods that were in constant supply. So the government began producing propaganda for carrots, suggesting that they helped the pilots see in the dark, like in the poster below. Carrots were basically transformed into war heroes, feeding both the troops and the people at home.  This pro-carrot movement was mirrored in America, where people were encouraged to grow carrots and other vegetables in “Victory Gardens.”

Source: Museum of Carrots

This claim wasn’t a complete fabrication; carrots do contain beta-carotene, which may decrease the risk of macular degeneration or cataracts. But it is a blatant lie that eating carrots gave British pilots the night vision they needed to shoot down Nazi airplanes. I’ve realized that even if I liked carrots – even if I loved them – I would still need glasses. But it’s interesting to think about how propaganda from seventy years ago can still shape the way people think today.

Reasons to Go Vegan

Thought I would share this presentation/documentary on the 101 Reasons to Go Vegan. It is very interesting and worth the watch if you have the time. From 21:45 - 26:18 some pretty graphic video on animals in factory farms is shown. The link below will take you to a full version of the video.

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-F8whzJfJY&feature=player_embedded

APPRENTICE MUSIC VIDEO!

Yoho asked me to pass this along...it's quite entertaining and is a testament to the fact that farming can be fun (at times...)!! (click on the link to see)

Apprentice Music Video!!!!

Farming of the Future?

In this video sent to me by a friend, a man (whose name is never mentioned) explains how his urban hydroponics farm feeds him daily. Based in Oakland, California, uses a water recycling system where water moves from fish tank to plant bed, bringing essential nutrients for each with it along the way. He does not use any soil, but rather gardens in gravel and pure water, depending on the plant species. The man in the video says repeatedly that he is not a farmer, although he sure seems like one to me - perhaps just not a farmer as we envision it. He says this because his hydroponic system is completely self-sustaining. Once the system is put in place, all he has to do is pick the food when it's ready, eat it and enjoy. He receives digital updates from a computer system that is an integral part of hydroponics. When the water is low, he gets a tweet. When something isn't working properly, he receives a tweet. The man's background is in computer programming, which is very fitting for this type of gardening. He essentially programmed the system so that the exports and imports of various interconnected species all feed into one another. Additionally, he comments that this type of gardening is much more efficient because the plants need not work as hard as in conventional gardening. All nutrients and water and oxygen are provided for the plants in excess, so everything grows very quickly and the plants are able to grow quite close to one another since they do not need to actively search for nutrients.

As the man reported, he is not a farmer. He is a programmer who is just trying to feed himself. Although there is a pretty high start-up cost for this kind of system, he said that he gets it all back very quickly in the value of the food that he's producing. While watching the video, I wondered if this is what gardening will look like in the future, especially in cities. Since there is no soil, he can set up the system anywhere, even without sunlight. I could not help but wonder if the vegetables he grows are as nutritious and tasty as conventionally grown ones, although since they are getting nutrients in abundance, it follows that they very well may be. If gardens like this one were established in urban areas, it could help alleviate certain issues of food deserts in urban areas. Unlike a community garden, this hydroponic garden is self-sufficient and requires very little maintenance once the system is put in place. While watching the video, I thought of this "new" kind of farming as a reoccurrence of Changing Works. With so many technologies available now that never before were in history, it occurs to me how our technologies of Web 2.0 and smart phones will contribute to more efficient farming in the future.

Stay Away from Livestock Farms!

A new study just came out in the Emerging Infectious Disease Journal claiming that people who live in areas where there is a large number of livestock farms are at higher risk for carrying a form of MRSA. MRSA is a staph germ that is difficult to cure, and can be fatal if not treated. 

This is a livestock-associated infection, LA-MRSA, so unless you work with pigs and cows, you don't have too much to worry about. Although, the NY Times article "Proximity to Livestock Raises a MRSA Risk," says that this virus can affect people even who do not have direct contact with animals... Still, this case study was only completed in the Netherlands and did not specify whether this was also true for grass-fed livestock, so further studies should be done before livestock farmers freak out. Future studies could also investigate the relationship between intensive livestock operations in the US and LA-MRSA. After all, intensive livestock farming operations in the Netherlands pale in comparison to level of intensive American ones. 

Peanut Butter and Pickles?

Following the tradition of Steingarten, I continue to try the PB&J over and over again. Considering that everyone is obsessed with this tiny little sandwich, I am almost desperate to like it. However, each time I eat one, regardless of the type of bread, jelly/jam, and peanut butter, I just feel confused. Someone who works in Career Services pretty much forced me to try a "Fluffernutter" sandwich, which is Marshmallow Fluff and Peanut Butter. Not a fan. Everyone blamed this on the odd pairing of bread that I used: some random bagel laying around. But this morning, I stumbled across this NY Times article about a Peanut Butter and Pickles sandwich. My first reaction was this must be a joke. Peanut butter and pickles?? Seriously? I guess everyone has their own odd food pairings that they love, but this seems too far. This author only found one other human that had tried and loves this food combination. It is safe to say that I will not be trying this out as I assume my reaction would be similar to that of his daughter's "Eew." I'll stick with trying to like the PB&J before I even consider a taste of the PB&P.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/dining/making-a-meal-out-of-peanut-butter-and-pickles.html?pagewanted=1&hpw

Angry Birds Invade McDonalds

McDonalds has not only been the recent talk of our food class, but it is also Professor Henke's favorite place to visit while traveling around the world.  Although we have learned that the McDonalds in China doesn't taste much different from the McDonalds in the United States, I can imagine that the customer experience is a bit different. However different the customer experience may have been since Professor Henke was last in China, it is now drastically more different.  According to a recent Ad Age article, the McDonalds in China has teamed up with Rovio for an Angry Birds-themed location-based game which gives customers special games while they're in the restaurants.  Is this newly implemented customer experience at McDonalds in China adding to the westernization of the Chinese people?

http://adage.com/article/creativity-pick-of-the-day/mcdonald-s-china-partners-angry-birds-special-edition-gameplay/237906/ 

McDonald's Hamburger Beef in Canada

After watching the McDonald's fries video I came across another video on McDonald's in Canada that was released at the end of September of this year.  The link to this video is attached to the bottom of this post.
The Senior Vice President of McDonald's Canada, Jeff Kroll, is shown visiting a family farm in Southern Alberta with a farmer who claims his cow farm has been in the family for three generations.  The farmer states, "we raise cows the way they're supposed to be raised I guess... If you're a cow it's pretty idyllic."  The mother cows are unpastured year round and calves will enter the feed lot after they've been weaned.  Jeff Kroll asks the farmer, "What do they feed on when they're here?"  Witht the sight of 300+ acres of land in the background with what seems to be very few cows per acre, the farmers response is, "grass, just grass."  The farmer is then recorded saying that he feels it is important that consumers know where their food comes from and that he is not trying to gloss anything over.  He is then says, "We eat what we produce in this feed lot and I wouldn't try and sell it to somebody else if I didn't eat it myself."
The video then shifts to a medium sized feed lot and it is revealed that after cows are weaned, they will stay at the feed lot for 5 or 8 months depending on whether they will be bred or enter the food chain, respectively.  The cows at this particular feed lot are fed straw, silage, grain, and a mineral pack.  The llife of a cow throughout the video is shown in a very positive light.  This video was definitely created to give people of Canada a better understanding of how animals are supposaedly cared for by McDonald's suppliers.  It's important to remember that the farm being filmed is just one of many.
I once again I wonder why videos on the Mcdonald's in America hasn't been made although there seems to be a parallel with their latest marketing strategies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hDQYSi5giM8

McDonald's Fries Video

I came across an article in the Huffington Post earlier about McDonald's french fries.  The video attached to the short article on french fries is a little over 5 minutes long and somewhat informative on the pruction process.  I attached the link at the bottom of this post if you would like to take a look.  The video begins by showing where the french fry potatoes come from; yes, the fries are made ffrom real potatoes and no, the potatoes are not rectangular in shape (which came up in conversation during Professor Hsu's recent visit to class).  The video shows potatoes being harvested in bulk by huge tractors.  The word huge might not do a justice to the actual size of these tractors, these machines could harvest Farmer Chris' potatoes in probably under 5 minutes.
The production manager for the McDonald's Canadian french fry supply company, McCain, states during the video that they receive their potatoes daily from about 30 different local growers.  Potatoes are shown being washed in a barrel washer similar to what we saw used on our first visit to the farm.
After the fries are peeled and cut, the natural sugars are removed by a blanching process.  The reason this process is used is to limit color variation once the fries have been deep fried.  A dextrose solution is then added so the color variation is limited when the fries reach the McDonald's restaurants.  Another ingredient (unknown) is also added to the strips to prevent them from graying in color.  The fact that the name of the "ingredient" wasn't stated made me question what it could possibly be.  I assume it is a preservative because graying food usually means "no good."
This video was made for Canadian McDonald's.  Where are the videos on the United States?

Other facts from this video:
All Canadian Mcdonald's restaurants use 100% vegetable oil to fry their fries.
According to the video, a basket of Mcdonald's fries (4 medium fries) only contains a spoonful of salt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/mcdonalds-french-fries_n_2000557.html

VEGGIE: Farming in space

              When we think of the life of an astronaut, many of us picture those airtight bags of astronaut ice cream from the science center and a zero-gravity simulator that makes most of us vomit.  Astronauts are our contemporary Magellans - explorers of the last frontier.  Farmers are the last role we expect an astronaut to be described as.  VEGGIE is NASA's new vegetable production system.  It is set to launch on SpaceX’s Dragon capsule on NASA’s third Commercial Resupply Services mission next year.  The system has built-in adjustments to deal with microgravity as well as optimize energy efficiency. Farmers will not be able to grow large crops like tomatoes or melons with long growing times, but they will be able to plant things like bok choy, radishes and leafy greens.  Astronauts will not be able to eat the veggies right away, however.  Samples will be sent back to earth and tested for microbials before the okay is given to ingest.  Historically, vegetables had been sent up to the station and eaten up quickly.  So creating a sustainable alternative that is able to be grown right on the station will aid in the nutrition of the astronauts, as well.
              The idea of growing food in space brings up a possibility that we have yet to explore on earth.  VEGGIE will not be using direct sunlight.  Instead, different LEDS will be used.  LEDS are a very efficient form of light.  One LED can stay lit for thousands of hours, drawing comparatively less energy than fluorescent or incandescent.  The plants will also be grown on teflon pillows the article talks about.  Although this sounds very, well for lack of a better word, space-agey, it does bring up possibilities of growing certain crops indoors during winter months.  This would prevent the need for transporting certain crops over very large distances.  And the price of growth power-wise is the same amount of energy drawn by a microwave.  And if this energy were to be from solar-panels, it is almost conceivable that this could be an alternative to transporting crops from warmer places.  
               I don't know if I would be comfortable eating vegetables grown indoors on teflon pillows, but if it meant better use of land and possibly reverting cropland back to more vegetative spaces to help counteract climate change, then maybe this new method is worth considering on a wider scale here on earth.
                

http://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/nasas-veggie-system-will-make-space-farmers-out-space-cowboys.html

Too much of a good thing?

Urban farms are an exciting new phenomenon. They allow people to feel more connected to their food, help fuel the "locavore" movement, and are often sustainable and/or organic. However, their growing popularity is matched by growing size and this might be a problem. A recent grist.com article explains the downsides of large (20+ acre) urban farms. Examples of "too big" farms include San Diego's 140 acre Suzie's Ffarm which raked in $1 million in profit last year. These farms can get so big within city limits because of newly vacated land deserted during the "Great Recession". Cities, in an effort to fill empty plots, are dedicating the space to urban farms and agriculturally-inclined citizens are jumping at the cheap price and buying up swaths of land for their own privately owned urban farms.  So what's the problem? Kaid Benfield of the NRDC explains that while small urban farms are great facets of the sustainable food movement, large urban farms threaten to suburbanize cities, creating a whole new host of environmental problems. By interrupting the dense, compact, urban landscape these farms make cities less walkable, encouraging the use of cars and leading to greater sprawl as developers are forced to build outside of the original city limits. Robin Shulman, author of Eat the City, explains another problem: cyclical highs and lows of land prices will eventually force these urban farms out of business. She explains that since the 1800s, economic recessions have lead to people and cities buying cheap land to feed people (just like what is occurring now). Then, as the economy recovers this land is purchased at a much higher rate and converted back to urban space. Considering this, it seems like big urban farms may help the sustainable food movement but they are not necessarily sustainable themselves.

I found this article very interesting and am actually planning on exploring the urban farm movement for my final research paper (don't steal my idea, guys!!). This is of one may examples of how solutions, just like the issues they attempt to solve, are not black and white. Check it out below:
http://grist.org/food/overgrown-what-happens-when-urban-farms-get-too-big/

"A Shucking Disaster"

Hilarious Colbert Report video clips on corn:

• http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420363/october-18-2012/junk-food-feed
• http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420364/october-18-2012/special-report---a-shucking-disaster---nightmare-at-the-mitchell-corn-palace

Food and Status

Professor Hsu’s article, “A taste of ‘modernity’: Working in a western restaurant in market socialist China” focuses on food as a status symbol. After reading the article I began to reflect on food that I eat, even though I do not like the taste, because of their cultural status. At home in Seattle, there are many: Rainier beer, Phở, sushi, salmon, garden salads, and many more. Each of these items I would never consume alone, or out of objective choice. I eat them with friends and family, by pressure. Specifically, the fact that I don’t enjoy salmon would signal that I have low class taste; distaste for Phở and sushi would give off the impression that I’m uncultured; passing up a garden salad would signal I don’t care about my health; and refusing local Rainier beer would be met with general reactions of horror. In line with Professor Hsu’s study, do I consume these items because I want to attain a certain cultural status? It’s difficult to be self-reflexive in terms of status. I can’t definitely say that I want to be “high class”, “cultured”, and “cool”; nor can I say that I consciously consume certain foods to attain a certain status. However I guess status does play a role into my food choices. Why else would I eat these foods?

The taste of summer

Professor Hsu's article last week marked an important shift in our class in a couple of ways, especially in terms of food as a part of personal identity and cultural practices.  But for me, I really connected to this paper because of its focus on the food service industry.  Growing up on Cape Cod, I've been surrounded by restaurant culture my whole life.  My parents owned a restaurant when I was little and for the past three summers I’ve worked as a waitress at a beachfront bar and restaurant.  These experiences have really made me think about why we go to restaurants and how we act while we're there.

On the most basic level, restaurants are social.  They offer a public space to define our relationships: is it a family outing? …a date? …a class reunion?  Of course restaurants are often used to celebrate birthdays, anniversaries and so on, but since Cape Cod is a tourist destination, mostly my tables are just people on vacation, commemorating their time together by eating and drinking (a lot).  For many, coming to the restaurant is a celebration in itself: it is the surest sign that summer has arrived.

People also come to the restaurant for a taste of our local specialties.  Tourists on Cape Cod want steamed clams, fried scallops and lobster rolls: this is exactly what they get.  Of course, since I'm a local, I almost never eat these things, unless we have visiting friends in town.  With lobster rolls at $20 a pop, it's really more of a touristic luxury, but I don't tell them that.  When my customers invariably ask me where I'm from and they find out that I was born and raised on Cape Cod, their eyes light up.  They ask me for advice on how to eat their steamed clams, or how to crack their lobsters, even though I barely know, myself.  Sometimes I feel like a "bad Cape Codder" because I know less about it than my own customers.  Then I see them run off to the raw bar to get oysters on the half shell, which apparently are really good (Wellfleet oysters, anyone?).  But honestly, I've lived my whole life on Cape Cod and I still think they're pretty gross.  (Maybe if I could only get them once a year I'd like them more, too...)

This brings me to my next point: lobsters.  Even though we aren't in Maine, lobsters are yet another touristy “must eat” for any trip to Cape Cod.  I do like lobster meat, especially when my dad's lobstermen friends give us extras, but I wouldn't go out of my way to eat it.  As a waitress, I've come to see lobster as popular for two reasons: the "experience" of taking it apart (ideally while wearing a cheesy lobster bib) and the implicit indication of wealth (since one lobster dinner goes for at least $30).  I'll never forget the night I walked up to a table of two older men who had clearly taken their sons, four boys under the age of 15, for a boys' night out.  I had barely greeted the table when the men informed me that all six of them were getting full lobster dinners, without even glancing at the menu.  I'm not sure what kind of statement this table was trying to make, but it was extremely endearing to watch the older men demonstrating proper lobster claw-cracking technique to their sons.

So when I think about how food shapes my personal identity, I'm a little conflicted.  At home, I definitely eat more fish since we live so close to the ocean that it's delicious and reasonably priced.  However, I don't relate to the stereotypical Cape Cod diet of lobster, clam chowder and raw oysters.  For me, these dishes are just marketing products intended for visitors.  In a way, they actually define the identity of the tourists, not the locals.  The more I think about it, the weirder it seems, but I guess that's just the paradox of living in a tourist destination!

The Locavore's Dilemma

When I walk past the “new books” section on the 3^rd floor of Case I usually walk right by without stopping for even a second to look at any of the newly acquired books, however, yesterday was an exception. A brightly colored book with fruits and veggies on the front caught my eye and I couldn’t help but walk over to it to take a closer look. I picked up The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-Mile Diet (by Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu) and was immediately interested. After checking out this book and flipping through it for a few minutes, I can’t wait to read this book over a break when I finally have some free time. Thus far I’ve only read the inside cover, intro and conclusion, but I’ve learned that this book (whose title is a play on Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma) attempts to dismantle “myths” that “sustainable farming” and “local agriculture” are the way to solve all of the problems with our modern food supply system. The authors continuously claim that “eating globally, not only locally, is the way to save the planet.”

The issues raised in this book, many of which we have discussed in class, are something that I have personally been struggling with. Whether or not I should try to limit my diet to local, “sustainably grown” food and eliminate food which comes from much farther away is a hard question to answer when I consider my day to day eating habits. That is not to say that I am not thoroughly enjoying my weekly share of organic locally grown vegetables form Common Thread and or that I do not agree with many of the draws of the “lovavore” movement—but I would be lying if I told you that I don’t enjoy buying fresh produce at Price Chopper during the winter and other foods that are not readily available in upstate New York. Additionally, growing up in a household in which my mother’s very job is to travel the world looking for interesting, exotic and affordable food products and bring them back to the United States further complicates this issue for me. I can’t imagine going home for Thanksgiving and telling my mother that I refused to eat many of her products because they are not locally grown or produced…

My personal life aside, I guess I was just surprised to pick up a book that was so anti-local considering how trendy local food is today. The authors say that they hope that “Buy Local” will be replaced with the slogan “Buy Global—The Planet is Our Garden!” in the near future. I don’t know about you guys, but I really can’t imagine the allure of buying local food disappearing anytime soon and can definitely not see “Buy Global” being the new “Buy Local,” because of the sheer trendiness of the movement right now. I hope to find time to thoroughly read this book in the near future because I’m curious to see if Desrochers and Shimizu’s argument is actually persuasive.

Stir-Fry Guilt

It is with both pride and guilt that I report the successful cooking of my first-ever chicken stir-fry. I don't use the stove very often (I've been surviving mainly on sandwiches or wraps thus far this semester), and I have never cooked meat before. It's not that I'm a vegetarian - I do enjoy eating meat, if only once in a while - it's just that I have always been a bit skittish of touching raw meat. In that sense, I always thought of meat-preparation as something that fell nicely into my parents' domain in the kitchen. The Central Market 'All Natural' boneless chicken tenders I bought at Price Chopper at the beginning of the semester had been sitting in my freezer untouched until tonight. Finally, I mustered up the courage to pick up some stir-fry ingredients at the store, thaw the meat, and give it a shot. Low and behold, it turned out to be delicious! And I have leftovers!

Notice I have avoided mentioning what ingredients I actually used to make the stir-fry. That is because that is the part that makes me guilty. Besides for the chicken tenders, the label on which proclaimed that they were 'minimally processed' with 'no artificial ingredients' and came from chickens that were never given antibiotics or growth hormones, had an entirely vegetarian diet, and were humanely raised, the other ingredients of my stir-fry had no such lofty claims to be made on their labels. As the co-president of Green Thumbs, a member of this class, and a strong supporter of sustainable agriculture (theoretically, at least), it is with utter guilt that I admit that the veggies in my stir-fry came straight from the frozen section of Price Chopper. I have no idea where the cut-up veggies inside of that bag were grown or where they were processed, but I can only imagine how much energy it took to get them from the ground to the freezer section of Price Chopper.

Although the veggies are the ingredients in my stir-fry that leave me feeling most guilty, the sauce I used did not leave me guilt-free. Looking at the ingredients on the back of the 'World Classics'-brand 'Stir Fry Sauce', I couldn't help but notice that the first ingredients listed were sugar and water (in that order). Further down the list I found modified corn starch, autolysed yeast extract, xanthan gum (that comes from corn, right?), and 'natural flavor' (whatever that means). The label also reveals that the sauce is a product of Canada, meaning that it had also traveled quite a ways before residing in my refrigerator.

I would like to note that this meal is not representative of my normal diet this semester. Since coming back to school, I have been extremely conscious of eating organic and/or local products whenever possible. I have gone to the farmers' market almost every Saturday, coming back loaded up with local tomatoes, cucumbers, cheeses (including the goat-cheese spread!), granola, and bread. I have really enjoyed eating locally this semester, and it makes me very sad to think of the end of the farmers' market. Although I did enjoy my stir-fry dinner despite the guilt, I missed the feeling of pride that I get when I eat locally-grown foods. I can't stop thinking, "how will I get through the winter without the farmers' market?"

This year is the first time that I have begun to catch a glimpse of what it really means to eat locally. If I wanted to continue eating locally throughout the winter, I would have to start canning things now, like people did in the old days. But there is a limit to how much time one can spend on food preparation in modern times. We all have our school work, our jobs, our families... we don't have time to take on what would seem to be a full-time job storing food in the fall to prepare for the winter. We can only live by our morals to a certain extent before it just becomes too challenging. For a college student, there is definitely something to be said for a bag of frozen vegetables.

The Botany of Desire

This past weekend I decided that I wanted to watch a documentary, so I logged onto my Netflix account and randomly came across The Botany of Desire. When I started the documentary (based on the book of the same name by Michael Pollan), I had no idea that it would be so relevant to everything we talk about in our class. In The Botany of Desire, Michael Pollan attempts to explain the symbiotic relationship between plants and humans that exists today, and he focuses on four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana, and potatoes. Pollan argues that humans’ relationships with each one of these plants represents specific human desires: apples represent our desire for sweetness, tulips our desire for beauty, marijuana our desire for intoxication and pleasure, and potatoes our desire for control. In each part of the documentary, Pollan explains how intricately linked humans and each plant have become, and he provides a general overview of each of the different industries. Considering that our class is about food, the sections about apples and potatoes are of most interest to discuss here.

Pollan’s in depth look at apples and potatoes included discussions of many themes that we have discussed in class. He describes apples’ representation of our desire for sweetness, and the film argues that our desire for sweetness is hard-wired. Upon hearing these facts, I couldn’t help but think of Mintz and his history of sugar. Similarly, Pollan’s section on potatoes stresses the human desire for control of our own survival, and this week’s readings came to mind. Like Professor Ries, Pollan highlights the amazing ability of potatoes to provide an immense amount of food and nutrition in a small amount of land, and he discuses how potatoes have played an important part of human survival throughout history.

Perhaps the most interesting and relevant aspect of The Botany of Desire is Pollan’s discussion of recent science and technology and their applications within the apple, tulip, marijuana and potato industries. Pollan highlights the fact that both industrial apple and potato growing involve a significant amount of genetic modification of plants, and only because of this modification have these industries been able to keep up with current levels of consumption and constant desire for satisfaction through food.

While this film might over-glorify and perhaps over-simplify some of the industries that it explores, I think that it is definitely worthwhile for everyone to watch, as it is very closely related to our class in many ways. I’ve included the link to the pbs website about the documentary as well as a link to the trailer.

Botany of Desire Trailer

PBS Botany of Desire website

Climate Change and Conflict

This Friday I went to an ENST Brown Bag in which Dr. Janpeter Shilling presented his research on the relationship between climate change and violent conflict. I thought this might be relevant to our course work in that climate change issues, such as change in precipitation and temperature, affect food security and thus leads to acts of violence as a means of survival. This discussion highlighted how, with decreasing resources and thus a decrease in the viability of subsistence living, there will continue to be increases in violent conflicts in areas highly vulnerable to change. What follows is a summary of Shillings presentation titled "On Raids and Rains - Climate Change and Conflict with a focus on North Africa and Kenya."

Shilling begins by outlining how a decrease in resources results in a change in land use and thus can spark conflict between those of differing interests. This causal relationship can also go the other way with conflict sparking resource depletion, though other factors, as he later acknowledges, could be at work. He uses the Homer-Dixon Environmental Scarcity Theory to acknowledge the various compounding variables that could lead to violent conflict. This theory gives us the following variables which must be considered in determining the causality of violent conflict, environmental change, population growth, unequal resource distribution, poverty and previous violent conflict. All of these factors interact with one another in the production of violence due to climate change.

Shilling then outlined three factors which determine the degree to which communities are vulnerable to climate change to further acknowledge the complexity of his research. The first is the adaptive capacity of the society (their knowledge base and technology available for mitigating negative effects.) The second is the sensitivity of the community to resource depletion (i.e. their reliance upon said resource, it’s availability and degree importance to their lives.) The third variable is the society’s exposure to the effects of change (i.e. the rate and or variation of changes and their effects.) These factors interact and are presented differently according to the specific situation of a place denoting and measuring the impact climate change has across a wide variety of peoples and places.

Shillings first research subject was North Africa and he began by detailing the unique situation of this area in relation to climate change. First, the population of North Africa is expected to grow over time increasing the demand and strain on the environment. This area is highly sensitive to changes in climate since most countries are based on rain-fed agriculture (except Egypt with its access to the Nile River.) The projections for the future show an increase in temperature and a decrease in precipitation in an area where water is already scarce. There is also a history of conflict in these areas over land use. For example in Mali two tribes, the Songhai a rice dependent society and the Tuareg herders, both use the same water source but for different purposes. This Shilling claims is a recipe for tribal conflict as both groups are highly reliant on this resource and have very low adaptability.

Shillings second area of research was Kenya, specifically Turkana, a place with a history of violent conflict (mostly in the form of raids by others competing for the same resources,) an arid climate, a heavily marginalized and impoverished community with high levels of sensitivity and exposure and low adaptability. The people there rely upon relief food and foreign aid for survival and this hunger, combined with drought, is the motive behind the armed conflict. When a certain threshold of resource scarcity is reached the raiding on both sides increases dramatically. Usually raids are carried out during the rainy season which provides better raiding conditions however, in 2009 during an extreme drought raiding reached an all time high due to the survival needs of the people. Hence variations in precipitation and temperature, or climate change, have a causal relationship to the level of violent conflict experienced. However Shilling concludes that in order to understand this complex relationship between climate change and conflict we must understand the variables of vulnerability and look beyond correlation to causation. He also proposes that the solution to climate change inspired conflict is making conflict management a role of the national government. However these political actors need the ability and incentive to act. This I believe is the downfall to his proposed solution since in reality the areas he studies are politically and economically unstable and thus they lack the ability and incentive to act however immoral this inaction may be. 

The Feasibility of Fast Food with Integrity

Last class, we talked about how America's fast food restaurant chains have a scarily-scientific standardization behind their meats. It's an easy argument to prove with McDonald's, but what about fast food companies that claim to be sustainable, like Chipotle?

McDonald's menu largely comes from Keystone Foods LLC, one of the world's biggest food companies, that processes meat like mass-produced goods in assembly line form. The animals here are cooped up in crowded cages from birth on the industrial farm to the factories that shackle, stun, and scald them. Keystone Foods have helped make meat an inexpensive commodity, producing more than one billion pounds of poultry and about 800 million pounds of beef annually (Philadelphia City Paper). I was curious about McDonald's stance on these processes that most certainly still occur, and they claim that Keystone Foods goes "above and beyond USDA regulations to meet McDonald's strict animal welfare, product safety and quality requirements" (McDonald's: See What We're Made Of). These facts did not seem to match up, supporting the scientific process of western fast food corporations.

Is there still "scary corporate standardization" behind Chipotle Mexican Grill's food; a chain that prides itself on sustainable farming? Chipotle's motto "Food with Integrity" is front and center on their website. Founder and CEO Steve Ells finds it important "for people to know where their food comes from," and for pigs to fully express their "pigness" (http://www.chipotle.com/en-US/fwi/fwi.aspx). Chipotle serves "naturally raised" meat that are open-rage, antibiotic free, and have a vegetarian diet; and is trying to use most of its produce from local farms within 350 miles of the restaurants. Unfortunately, the price point for organic produce is a bit high, though, so they cannot guarantee non-GMO ingredients for most of their foods (Organic Consumers Association). Nevertheless, I think Chipotle is successful in its efforts with food integrity, particularly in comparison to its fast food competitors. They are mindful of the animals, environment, and workers who are supplying their restaurants. Their video advertisements are particularly insightful!

So Chipotle is mindful of its food sourcing, but that doesn't mean it's free of frightening elements. A pork burrito can have more than 1,300 calories, 31 grams of fat, 105 mg of cholesterol, 102 carbs, and 2,600 mg of sodium!! That's twice the calories of a McDonald's Big Mac (Ecosalon: Behind the Label). Even local, organic, and free range foods, when prepared certain ways, are not necessarily the healthiest options.

Chipotle is admirably aware of their pre-consumer foods, but should also focus on the importance of their consumer's health. In particular, Chipotle should be more mindful of the benefits of smaller serving sizes and portion-control. I think restaurants with true food integrity are conscious of their menu items from the farm to the consumer's health.

Regardless, the value Chipotle places on "food integrity" is commendable and exemplary. Other restaurant chains should take Chipotle's successes into account, and become more conscious of the sustainability of their ingredients. They certainly have the money to do so. So why don't they all try to be at least a little more mindful of their food choices?