Sushi Eating Etiquette

Food is food is food - it's all the same when it gets into your stomach right? But according to sushi experts there is a proper way to eat sushi.

The sushi expert begins with gyoku, a small rice palmful of rice topped with fried egg, because this dish allows him to evaluate the sushi rice, which has to be cooked at a particular pressure to get the right consistency and properly seasoned with vinegar - this is the best indicator of the chef's skill. Next the expert order sushi in the following order: tuna, some kind of white-meat fish such as sea bream, yellowtail, etc., then luminous fish such as mackerel, and lastly eel, which happens to be the only fish served cook.

The expert picks up a sushi using the thumb and middle finger, only touching the rice portion. Then he places his forefinger on the fish to keep it balanced and dips one end of the fish into a small saucer of soy sauce. Next, he rotates the sushi around so that all the soy spreads evenly over the fish. Sushi should not be dipped in soy twice because it would mask rather than complement the flavor of the fish. Similarly, it is nearly unforgivable to dip the rice into the soy sauce, as that would soak up way too much flavor. Furthermore, it might soak up so much liquid as to undo the packed rice and leave clumps of rice in the saucer - this is rather unsightly. Most standard sized sushi should be eating in one bite. Larger ones may be consumed in two, but experts never dip the remaining half in soy sauce again.

Origin of Nigiri-Sushi (The most common type of sushi)? There are currently three competing theories:

1. In 1657, Edo, or modern day Tokyo suffered its worst fire in history. It was said that citizens who had lost their homes were provided with rice balls topped with various foods. Some argue that these were the precursor of modern day nigiri sushi.

2. Nigiri sushi originated out of a competition between two sushi shops to create the best sushi for politicians and government officials.

3. Nigiri sushi was invented by a man named Yohe (1799-1858), a proprietor of an sushi shop during the Edo period. Apparently it had existed in the same place until the early part of this century.

Sources: Sugawara, Makoto. "The Buddha and the Bento: Japanese Culture and Cuisine". The East Publications: Tokyo, 1994. 

Food in Movies: Tampopo

While reading this week's article, Hsu's "A Taste of Modernity" I was reminded of the Japanese 1985 film, Tampopo by Juzo Itami. Hsu's article focused on a particular time of development in China in which western thoughts, technology, and quite frankly the Western way of life made its way into the people of Harbin. It seemed the young people had conceived of the two halves of the world as a complete dichotomy assigning all signs of hope and advancement to the West and the complete opposite to the East - their current state. What it meant to embody Western ideals for the young people of Harbin was obvious in their behavior, as seen in their job aspirations.

The film Tampopo similarly presents another case of how a once isolated and homogenous country viewed the Western way of life. On the surface, Tampopo is a comedy, featuring a Japanese widow, Tampopo, striving to create the best ramen, but the film also reflects on the "Western" food culture, in which we can conclude what kind of perceptions the Japanese people felt about the West. It is also important to note the historical context of Japan at the time of the movie's making. In 1985, Japan was at its peak in the economic world, despite the outcome of the Second World War. This movie played an important role in symbolizing an era in which Japan made great effort in modeling Western culture - an effort for a once defeated nation to again regain power by perhaps trying to beat the West in its own capitalist game.

One scene that I was particularly reminded of is a Western dining etiquette scene. It starts off with a obviously wealthy, well-dressed, middle-aged Japanese woman instructing a course on proper Western dining etiquette to a group of equally wealthy Japanese young ladies. The course happens to be on spaghetti and they are situated in an Italian restaurant. The instructor emphasizes that the forks and spoons used are not to clink on the plate, that the spaghetti has to be carefully rolled in the cavity of the spoon, little by little as to not take too big of a bite, and most importantly, that the noodles are not to be slurped and absolutely not sound is to made when eating. However, a loud slurping sound breaks the concentration of the class and the ladies follow the sound to a white man shoveling his spaghetti into his mouth, with his face merely centimeters from his plate, not even pausing to chew. There is a moment of tension as the young woman do not know what to do - does their Japanese instructor teaching proper spaghetti eating have the authority, or does the white man's sloppy slurping have the last word? Which way is right?

This really is a comedic scene as the young ladies in the end decide to discard their Japanese teacher's instruction and follow the white man's behavior, leaving the restaurant in a slurping symphony. However, there is a deeper meaning. The Japanese instructor, emphasizes so greatly the careful and almost methodological way of eating spaghetti - there is a proper sequence to how one rolls the delicate noodles around the fork and precisely aims it into the mouth. This represents the Japanese image of the West. Hsu notes that the people of Harbin see the West as scientific and rational, and I can even see this in the way the Japanese instructor tries to teach proper spaghetti eating to her students. These wealthy Japanese women, holding their class at a high-end Western restaurant, believe they must behave a certain way, and embody a different character, especially when consuming the food of another culture. Not to mention that these ladies are going out of their way to take classes in eating - eating like what they think Western people do, signifying a strong pull to be like "them". This is how they believe that "civilized" people behave and eat.

On the other hand, it is also interesting to see the white man slurping. By just switching the setting to a ramen shop, sitting at a wooden high bar stand, and replacing the spaghetti resting in the typical disc-shaped white plate to a steaming hot bowl of ramen, the slurping wouldn't look too out of place - in fact, it would be deemed correct. It is correct to slurp ramen, or Japanese noodles of any sort. Perhaps the white man's rowdy slurping was caused by his exaggerated belief that the correct way to eat noodles in Japan was to slurp - and so he does, the louder, the more appreciation for the food, right? The Japanese ladies then believe that slurping is the correct Western dining etiquette and follow suit and in the end both groups are left at a stalemate.

This movie is filled with these kinds of cultural nuances of how perceptions of the West (or East, for that matter) shape a person's behavior. And all this is done through food. If you find yourself bored over the weekend, I highly suggest checking it out - available at Case (with subtitles)!

Are animal-based foods healthy?

It is a very common misconception that the humans need to eat animal-based food products to be healthy. It is considered conventional wisdom that animal protein is better than plant protein, that fish that we need calcium from milk to grow strong bones, or that meat is a necessary source of iron and other nutrients. As we've seen in our recent readings about lobbyist influence over government and policy makers however, this conventional wisdom may have been presented to us with ulterior motives and thus should be critically analyzed for accuracy.

Let me begin with the nutrient that according to the newest USDA issued nutrition guide, should constitute about 1/5 of our daily intake of food: Protein. Proteins are made up of "building blocks" called amino acids that our bodies cannot produce independently(1). Animal foods are often presented as containing more essential amino acids than plant foods when in reality, animals have no independent ability to create amino acids and all amino acids contained in meat is actually recycled plant protein that was consumed by the animal prior to slaughter. According to the Harvard School of Public Health(2), a 6-ounce steak contains 40 grams of protein along with 38 grams of fat. The same amount of salmon has 34 grams of protein and 18 grams of fat, while a cup of lentils contains 18 grams of protein and under 1 gram of fat. Consider these facts in conjunction with the fact that the average american consumes over double the required amount of protein, and certainly much more than double the required amount of fat (3). Some great and low fat vegetarian protein sources include quinoa, nuts, beans, tofu, and tempeh, to name a few.

Americans eat three times the global average of dairy, about 2 pounds per person each day. Just like human breast milk is the perfect blend of protein, calcium, and vitamin C for human infants, cow's milk is the perfect formula for calves, not for humans. Due to natural selection, calve's have a need to grow very quickly to minimize vulnerability in the wild, thus cow milk has enough protein to help a calf gain 2 pounds a day during the first nine months of its life (1). It is also true that human children who drink cow's milk tend to grow larger than those who don't, but clinical studies have shown that children who grow more quickly (which is not, by the way, a requirement to survive natural selection) are more likely to develop cancer later in life (1) The common belief that dairy is a requirement for strong bones is a myth bordering on a flat out lie. In fact, many studies regarding this topic point to the strange results that dairy intake may actually have inverse effects on bone health. One such study compared female dairy intake and instances of hip fractures in the United States and Hong Kong. The study found that while American females consumed nearly double the daily amount of dairy, the instances of hip fractures in American females was nearly three times that of females in Hong Kong. This research his consistent with many other studies that show that bone fractures are more common in western countries, where dairy consumption is much higher than in other parts of the world (1).

This post should not be interpreted as saying that all omnivores are unhealthy and all herbivores are healthy. Indeed, it is possible to live as a healthy animal-food consuming human just as it is possible to be an unhealthy vegetarian or vegan. This post does however, point out some of the often overlooked or intentionally ignored facts about animal-based foods that I believe everyone should be informed of when making decisions about what you put into your body. It is after all, the only body you have, so why not treat it well?

Sources
(1) D. Simon, Meatonomics. appendix A pg. 191
(2) Harvard School of Public Health, Protein. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/protein/
(3) Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine, The Protein Myth. http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=251

"Test Tube" Meat

This past summer, in August 2013, the first lab-grown (or created) hamburger patty was produced and eaten in London, England. Dutch scientist, Mark Post, created the phenomenon at the Institute in the Netherlands, and believes it could revolutionize the global meat industry. However, the 142-gram patty, which took three months to cultivate, checks in at $330,000 (£250,000). The (previously) mystery supporter of the project has been revealed as Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who contributed the total amount necessary for the experiment. So now the question is, will this innovation actually be a viable option in the future or was this experiment a one-time ordeal? 

The burger was sauteed by chef Richard McGeown, and tasted by food critics Hanni Reutzler and Josh Schonwald. Though the reviews were not resoundingly positive, they were not negative by any means; one critic said that the taste was close to meat, the consistency was perfect, but the patty was not as juicy as traditional meat, the other said there was a "leanness" to the burger (due to the lack of fat content) that was atypical of other meat products. They both agreed that this was a very good start to growing meat in a nontraditional manner. Watch a video of the tasting, and some responses to the burger patty.

The patty was grown from stem cells extracted from a live cow's muscle tissue. The cells were cultured in the lab with nutrients as well as growth-promoting chemicals allowing them to not only develop, but also multiply. Within three weeks there was an excess of one million stem cells, which were transferred to smaller dishes where they congealed into small strips of muscle (about one centimeter long and several millimeters thick). These strips were collected, frozen and, when there were finally enough, compacted into a patty shape just prior to cooking. As is right now, the meat grown is white in color; for this trial run the meat was dyed with beet juice and saffron powder to imitate natural meat's coloring. Researcher, Helen Breewood, is looking into adding naturally-occurring myoglobin to developing meat to give it a red color.       

This could be a viable alternative to large-scale feedlots and the general mistreatment of animals as well as the negative environmental impacts that come with traditional farming practices. Though it is still in its testing phase, it promises to be a hopeful alternative. To meet growing food demands we do not need to simply produce more meat, but change the systems in which our food is grown and distributed. "Test tube" meat has been deemed repulsive at first, but if we consider how our meat is raised traditionally this seems to be a far less repulsive alternative. It has supporters like PETA, which states, "[Lab-grown meat] will spell the end of lorries full of cows and chickens, abattoirs and factory farming. It will reduce carbon emissions, conserve water and make the food supply safer." But critics of the innovation say that eating less meat overall could lead to fewer food shortages and do not believe this is a technology to be pursued. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's report on the future of agriculture also indicates that the predicted demand for meat in developing countries like China and Brazil has already happened, and other nations like India remain steady with their mostly vegetarian diets. But with meat socially engrained in many cultures, we are not likely to see the end of meat consumption any time soon; thus, if solely for environmental reasons this is something to work toward.   

Sources:

1.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143

2.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2384715/At-tastes-meat--Worlds-test-tube-artificial-beef-Googleburger-gets-GOOD-review-eaten-time.html

McDonald's going healthier!

Surprisingly enough, McDonald's is on its way to becoming a healthier place to eat. It is introducing many fruits, veggies, and different salads to their menu in which customers can choose either of these servings in place of their fries. So now if you truly don't want to eat those unhealthy yet yummy fries from McDonalds, you can choose to have fruits, veggies, or a side salad with your meal. McDonald's is also encouraging water, milk, and juice as the beverages for the meals. Here is a chart with their new main goals:

These changes are one step to a better McDonalds and seem like the correct way to go. Fruits and vegetables are obviously healthier than the fries they serve and I'm sure nobody will argue that soda is healthier than milk, juice and water. In my opinion, it's a good start but McDonald's has a long way to go before it becomes a "healthy" place to eat. The change that is occurring is something that will happen worldwide and not just in the United States. These new options are going to be made available to at least 30-50 McDonald's restaurants, if you will, all over the world in the next three years. They hope and seem very determined that by 2020 they will all be promoting their healthier ideas and adding these healthier choices to their menu. 

Maybe McDonald's and its alliance for a healthier generation is moving towards a good direction but will it ever be good for our society? Just something to think about. 

http://foodbeast.com/2013/10/07/mcdonalds-introducing-fruits-veggies-and-salads-as-side-alternatives-to-fries/

Difference between Canadian and American dairy farming

http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/staffpaper349_42EAB16A91E4F.pdf
http://www.iedm.org/1647-sour-milk-system-canadas-dairy-quota-system-of-supply-management-ensures-that-canadians-will-pay-more-and-inefficiencies-wi

These opinionated articles answered many of the questions I had about the systematic differences in these two countries' dairy industries. Firstly, Canada does participate in quota system, meaning that milk prices are managed by the government and thus it is a more restrictive system than in U.S. in which the market affects the prices of milk. In Canada, there are two milk markets--the fluid and industrial markets. The fluid milk market prices are controlled by Canadian provinces and the Canadian federal government controls the prices of the industrial milk. The government sets a target price for milk every year; these milk prices are determined formulaically based on costs of production, floor prices for butter/skim milk powder etc. and these prices a guided by the price dictated by the government. Canada has also taken on a supply management system so that there is a good balance between supply and demand for milk in both markets. The marketing of milk is also government controlled which aids in keeping the supply/demand in balance. This system also creates custom tariffs which ensure that foreign imports are kept to a minimum.

Canada also produces a lot less milk than the United States (16.8 billion pounds versus 167.6 billion pounds respectively); but when one accounts for population size, it is roughly equal. Farmers in Canada that wish to expand their dairy farms are usually not allowed to do because that would interfere with the supply management system and this is upsetting to many efficient farmers. That's basically the gist of the difference, and I can't go into much more detail because economics is not my specialty...

Ranting

On Friday, former commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, David Kessler, gave a lecture well worthy of being documented in this blog. Kessler's execution of his speech seemed parallel to the way our Foods class is taught: we are always specifically asked to think about food through many layers and lenses of political, economical and cultural aspects. Soon, we realize that there is not just one answer to our issues, but in fact a web of causes and affects that are entangled within our society. Kressler approaches the contents of his lecture - obesity - in a similar manner.

Obesity, Kessler says is not just a simple matter of overeating. Instead it is a philosophical, psychological, social, and scientific issue that affects at least a third of the US population - 80 million people.

Kessler recalls listening to an obese woman on the Oprah show saying, "I eat before my husband comes home. I eat after my husband comes home. I eat when I'm happy. I eat when I'm sad. I eat when I'm hungry. I eat when I'm not hungry."

Listening to her testimony as if he were her doctor, Kessler concludes three things. Obesity is:
1. a loss of control over eating
2. a lack of satiation
3. obsessive thoughts

What does this sound like?  A psychological compulsive disorder.

But what really is going on in the brain? In other words, what is the science behind the issue? Kessler goes on to explain that dopamine is commonly known to produce pleasure but other than that, it not only deals with attention but is part of many important neural pathways that in essence, form our lifestyles and personalties by setting concrete our neural circuitry involving learning, memory, habits, and motivation. Unfortunately, humans are wired to focus attention on the most salient stimuli, meaning that we have a heightened awareness to things that jump out at us. If anything, we've learned about the power of sugar in our Foods class - yes, "Sweetness drives wanting," Kessler says. Fats, sugar, and salt each stimulate food intake, and the amygdala, responsible for emotions, unlike in lean folks, stays activated in individuals with higher BMI's.

If anything, the food industry knows maybe too much about our human nature and how to use it for their needs - and these days, foods are literally injected with fat, salt and sugar.

So what is it? If we're programmed to focus our attention to these foods, are we as individual consumers responsible for a nation of obesity? "Are the brains of 80 million people just not functioning right," Kressler exclaims. Are we as paralyzed as Nestle makes us out to be in a supermarket? Is the problem the food that is given to us, or just our representation of the food in front of us? Do we actually have a choice about what we eat? Do we actually have free will -- (when did this issue become philosophical?)

No matter how I think about it, or how much I think the government can implement new policies, I keep coming back to what Harper said at the panel. There is something about the American mindset -- the thought that bigger is better, more is better, newer is better, faster is better, (you get the point!) -- that allows our current food industry to perpetuate. If we do not implement a policy that changes our fundamental thinking on the above said factors of efficiency, I don't think we can battle obesity and its many other related diseases.

In light of Nestle's, "Food Politics," I am in even more unease as she sheds light into USDA's dual obligation to protect the health of Americans and to appease the meat and diary industry. Unless both sides have the same aims, this cannot be done. And it now bothers me that we have such an organization that plays such an intermediary role. Can't the scientists themselves strongly, politically back up their own research, which in many cases is in opposition with food industries? What does the USDA really lose when they anger the meat and diary industry? What are they afraid of? Can obesity be resolved in such a capitalistic model?

On a related note, my posts will never be complete without something relating to Japan. Here is an interesting CNN news clip on what the Japanese government implemented in order to battle the rise of weight in Japan. Highlights: Japanese companies now measure the waist size of every employee and if you are above a certain circumference, you've got to pay a penalty -- literally!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbtEEQbBfmo