Industrial Food
Unsafe Levels of a Weed Killer in Oats Products
In August of 2018 a report from EWG's Children's Health Initiative was published relating traces of weed killer in oat cereal and granola bars to cancer. Roundup, a Monsanto weed killer, is sprayed on crops, industrial areas, public parks, and residential gardens. According to the CNN article, the chemical found on oat products is called glyphosate and it was introduced to the American market in 1974. This link has called for national attention and left many consumers concerned and upset.
This potentially dangerous chemical is just one of the many chemicals and compounds in our food that we are continually unaware of. Whether it be purposefully adding a compound derived from coal tar and used as a vitamin as discussed in Pandora's Lunchbox, or bearing the consequences of mass production of produce. As fully apparent in the reading, the regulations for what can and cannot be put in our food are laughable at best. The price consumers pay to put food on the table at a low cost continues to increase due to the harmful outcomes associated. These risks go beyond just carcinogens and leak into the dangerous world of false information causing widespread panic.
While the findings show that glyphosate is certainly present in most oat products tested, it has yet to be proven whether or not this chemical is truly harmful to consume. In the CNN article, the author discusses at great length how glyphosate has been repeatedly tested around the world to ensure its safety for consumption. The question of whether or not it is actually harmful is quite compelling, however we still know for sure that this weed killer chemical is present in our food. Naturally, that is quite alarming to many consumers.
I find it quite amusing that consumers are just now catching on to the idea that perhaps the means by which our food is produced it not always the healthiest, even if the product is considered a health food like oats. After reading Pandora's Lunchbox, the way I approach thinking about our food systems has completely shifted. I have a strong distrust towards all of the mass producers of our food, which unfortunately accounts for almost everything you can buy at Mejier. One of my favorite things to eat is actually on the list of cereals that contain glyphosate. However, until more concrete research on the potential harm of glyphosate is published, I will likely continue to eat my favorite cereal..
This potentially dangerous chemical is just one of the many chemicals and compounds in our food that we are continually unaware of. Whether it be purposefully adding a compound derived from coal tar and used as a vitamin as discussed in Pandora's Lunchbox, or bearing the consequences of mass production of produce. As fully apparent in the reading, the regulations for what can and cannot be put in our food are laughable at best. The price consumers pay to put food on the table at a low cost continues to increase due to the harmful outcomes associated. These risks go beyond just carcinogens and leak into the dangerous world of false information causing widespread panic.
While the findings show that glyphosate is certainly present in most oat products tested, it has yet to be proven whether or not this chemical is truly harmful to consume. In the CNN article, the author discusses at great length how glyphosate has been repeatedly tested around the world to ensure its safety for consumption. The question of whether or not it is actually harmful is quite compelling, however we still know for sure that this weed killer chemical is present in our food. Naturally, that is quite alarming to many consumers.
I find it quite amusing that consumers are just now catching on to the idea that perhaps the means by which our food is produced it not always the healthiest, even if the product is considered a health food like oats. After reading Pandora's Lunchbox, the way I approach thinking about our food systems has completely shifted. I have a strong distrust towards all of the mass producers of our food, which unfortunately accounts for almost everything you can buy at Mejier. One of my favorite things to eat is actually on the list of cereals that contain glyphosate. However, until more concrete research on the potential harm of glyphosate is published, I will likely continue to eat my favorite cereal..
Migrant Farming
'They're Scared': Immigration Fears Exacerbate Migrant Farmworker Shortage
The NPR article linked above discusses the complex issues surrounding migrant farming in our current political climate. The author, Melissa Block, dives deep into the world of workers who pick fruit in Old Mission Peninsula, Michigan. According the Block, the pickers age from 21-65 and are all Mexican. Despite frequent misconceptions in media and news on the legality of migrant workers, all the workers Block came into contact with had the necessary paperwork. However, the impact of our current administration’s tightening of immigration policies has certainly been felt in the growing business. It has been recorded that nearly three quarters of the farmworkers in this country are here illegally, thus making business for growers that much more difficult. The real catch here being the fact that without this workers, we would truly have nothing.
As discussed in the article, Americans simply do not want to do this kind of work. However, these same Americans are the people who put a man in office is now making decisions that truly could hurt every aspect of not only their lives, but the lives of their fellow Americans. As discussed in The American Way of Eating, American people have a desire to eat well and be well. However, we often get lost in our own rhetoric of ease. The desire to do well is not strong enough to overcome the other strains in society. Things like economic standing and social class have separated us to the point of potential destruction.
The destruction related to Trump’s crackdown on immigration is felt quite heavily in the north. Here in Michigan, as stated in the article, most migrant or illegal workers are too afraid to travel due to fear of deportation. So when work shifts down south during the winter, very few workers return to the north for the summer and fall harvests. Thinking about migrant farming and the American food industry as a whole frustrates me immensely. Especially after reading this article the excerpt from The American Way of Eating, I feel a deep need to help make change and offer my resources to those who may not have them. It saddens me that there is such an aggressive stigma and rhetoric against migrant workers. Based on the readings, it is quite clear to see that truly are the backbone of the fresh and healthy food that Americans are promoting so heavily.
As discussed in the article, Americans simply do not want to do this kind of work. However, these same Americans are the people who put a man in office is now making decisions that truly could hurt every aspect of not only their lives, but the lives of their fellow Americans. As discussed in The American Way of Eating, American people have a desire to eat well and be well. However, we often get lost in our own rhetoric of ease. The desire to do well is not strong enough to overcome the other strains in society. Things like economic standing and social class have separated us to the point of potential destruction.
The destruction related to Trump’s crackdown on immigration is felt quite heavily in the north. Here in Michigan, as stated in the article, most migrant or illegal workers are too afraid to travel due to fear of deportation. So when work shifts down south during the winter, very few workers return to the north for the summer and fall harvests. Thinking about migrant farming and the American food industry as a whole frustrates me immensely. Especially after reading this article the excerpt from The American Way of Eating, I feel a deep need to help make change and offer my resources to those who may not have them. It saddens me that there is such an aggressive stigma and rhetoric against migrant workers. Based on the readings, it is quite clear to see that truly are the backbone of the fresh and healthy food that Americans are promoting so heavily.
Poverty and Food Insecurity
Too poor to afford food, too rich to qualify for help
Food insecurity. A term up until this past week I did not know a lot of folks were unaware of. It is something I think about often as both a college student and a leadership fellow for the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) at Michigan State University. As a leadership fellow, I recently gave a group of high school students from rural Michigan a tour of our CANR facilities. Prior to the tour, we discussed the idea of food insecurity and how CANR is working to help aid the solution to this problem. I was shocked that a group of 40 students, and likely future farmers, were unaware of the term food insecurity. But I suppose this truly is a testament to the general lack of knowledge on accessibility to resources in our country.
The idea of being too poor to purchase food but too rich to access government aid is not very new to me. I first learned about this harsh reality as a high school sophomore. A documentary that we recently started in class called A Place at the Table completely changed my worldview. It was the first time I had ever thought about the fact the food I get served each an every day of my life is truly a privilege.
Such a complex issue can be easily missed, but as Kathryn Vasel discusses in her article, a lot a of folks find themselves in these situations. Vasel describes the economic downfall of the recession in relation to the now surging prices of all consumer goods in the United States. Regardless of the economic state of our country, the need for food will never disappear. This need is most heavily felt by children which is evident in both this article and Jane Black in her article Revenge of the Lunch Lady. Government funded food programs go beyond feeding individuals, these programs feed children as well. It's extremely upsetting to think about the fact that there are people in this country, particularly people in charge, who do not support government funding of food programs.
However I often think myself into circles when it comes to reasoning for not funding food programs. Jane Black quotes our speaker of the house Paul Ryan on his reason. According to him and many other conservatives, the main reason against funding food programs is related to the concern that US citizens will become too reliant on handouts. When I first read this, I audibly gasped. I couldn't wrap my mind around the fact that people actually think that way. As a very privileged person, I have always thought the opposite. It is the job of those who are thriving to help those who are not. For every one person that bites the hand that feeds them, there are 10 others whose lives are changed forever due to assistance. While I understand "giving food away" would be bad for business and the economy that drives our country, I do not understand the lack of compassion when it comes to helping those who need it. I truly believe that you reap what you sow, and with a ideology like Paul Ryan's we the people reap nothing at all.
The idea of being too poor to purchase food but too rich to access government aid is not very new to me. I first learned about this harsh reality as a high school sophomore. A documentary that we recently started in class called A Place at the Table completely changed my worldview. It was the first time I had ever thought about the fact the food I get served each an every day of my life is truly a privilege.
Such a complex issue can be easily missed, but as Kathryn Vasel discusses in her article, a lot a of folks find themselves in these situations. Vasel describes the economic downfall of the recession in relation to the now surging prices of all consumer goods in the United States. Regardless of the economic state of our country, the need for food will never disappear. This need is most heavily felt by children which is evident in both this article and Jane Black in her article Revenge of the Lunch Lady. Government funded food programs go beyond feeding individuals, these programs feed children as well. It's extremely upsetting to think about the fact that there are people in this country, particularly people in charge, who do not support government funding of food programs.
However I often think myself into circles when it comes to reasoning for not funding food programs. Jane Black quotes our speaker of the house Paul Ryan on his reason. According to him and many other conservatives, the main reason against funding food programs is related to the concern that US citizens will become too reliant on handouts. When I first read this, I audibly gasped. I couldn't wrap my mind around the fact that people actually think that way. As a very privileged person, I have always thought the opposite. It is the job of those who are thriving to help those who are not. For every one person that bites the hand that feeds them, there are 10 others whose lives are changed forever due to assistance. While I understand "giving food away" would be bad for business and the economy that drives our country, I do not understand the lack of compassion when it comes to helping those who need it. I truly believe that you reap what you sow, and with a ideology like Paul Ryan's we the people reap nothing at all.
McDonalization
Apple's Secret Weapon to Sell More iPhones
Over the past 6 years Apple has completely taken over the smartphone industry. As recent new customer of Apple’s, the day I purchased an iPhone was a sad one. Overwhelmed by feeling like a complete sell out, it was hard to wrap my mind around how a small electronic device could be such a integral part of my life. However, Apple does what Apple does best and sold me a product much like other McDonaldized companies do. In the article linked above, Samantha Murphy Kelly describes a cheaper alternative to the expensive luxury model iPhone XS. The production of a somewhat more affordable option is key to Apple staying competitive in the smartphone market. Apple uses many other techniques to stay competitive as well. It has set its place in society and I do not see it ever leaving. Apple is predictable and maintains control through non human technology. Both of the aspects are major characteristics of a McDonaldized company.
In my opinion, Apple’s profound success is directly related to these two characteristics. Apple’s predictability as described at great length in Kelly’s article, is one of the many reasons consumers continually go back to buy new iPhones. Every year customers can expect a new and better edition of their current device. All of their devices are reliable and follow that classic iPhone aesthetic. Sleek lines, clean colors, and brilliant screens. Every single iPhone on every shelf across the world uniformly perfect and beautiful. If for some reason the phone purchased by a customer does not fit this image, it can be brought to an Apple store where the helpful workers will quickly resolve the issue.
Much like the opening a new McDonald’s restaurant or Ikea store as described in the test, the opening of a new Apple store is celebrated as a victory for the whole neighborhood. Apple provides their customers with everything they need all in the same fashion. Their stores are bright and clean, just like their products. The products they sell go beyond iPhones and could potentially cover any technological need for a consumer. This is how Apple maintains control. Creating a reliant consumer that can only come to Apple for issues is a quite clever business plan.
Apple’s success is tied to both control and predictability of its customers. However, I would argue that the most important thing Apple does to sell their product is creating a brand that is both luxury and common at the same time. Apple being considered a top shelf item, those who do buy their products tend to take on their Apple products as a personality trait. Being an “Apple person” versus an “Android person” has many different implications. However, Apple does appeal to all people through new and cheaper innovations like the iPhone XR.
In my opinion, Apple’s profound success is directly related to these two characteristics. Apple’s predictability as described at great length in Kelly’s article, is one of the many reasons consumers continually go back to buy new iPhones. Every year customers can expect a new and better edition of their current device. All of their devices are reliable and follow that classic iPhone aesthetic. Sleek lines, clean colors, and brilliant screens. Every single iPhone on every shelf across the world uniformly perfect and beautiful. If for some reason the phone purchased by a customer does not fit this image, it can be brought to an Apple store where the helpful workers will quickly resolve the issue.
Much like the opening a new McDonald’s restaurant or Ikea store as described in the test, the opening of a new Apple store is celebrated as a victory for the whole neighborhood. Apple provides their customers with everything they need all in the same fashion. Their stores are bright and clean, just like their products. The products they sell go beyond iPhones and could potentially cover any technological need for a consumer. This is how Apple maintains control. Creating a reliant consumer that can only come to Apple for issues is a quite clever business plan.
Apple’s success is tied to both control and predictability of its customers. However, I would argue that the most important thing Apple does to sell their product is creating a brand that is both luxury and common at the same time. Apple being considered a top shelf item, those who do buy their products tend to take on their Apple products as a personality trait. Being an “Apple person” versus an “Android person” has many different implications. However, Apple does appeal to all people through new and cheaper innovations like the iPhone XR.
Food and Climate Change
Environmental Issues with Almonds
As we continue to push towards a more self-aware society as a whole, many of the things we consider to be good are often revealed to be quite the opposite. It’s not that things are arbitrarily good or bad, it’s more about the idea that the benefits of some health-conscious initiatives tend to come with unwanted consequences. Many consequences relevant from our daily lives tend to be environmental ones. It is the challenge of our lives and will likely continue to be so.
While pushes in the food industry and society as a whole intend to better sustain us, there is now staggering data pushing back on certain healthful foods. Unfortunately, almonds are on this list. In recent years almonds have settled in their place as a staple in any health-conscious persons’ diet. Consumption is on the rise and according to Tom Philpott in his article linked above, the USDA estimates production of almonds to nearly triple as of 2014. 80% of these almonds hailing from the beautiful state of California. As discussed in the article, this could prove to be bad news as opposed to good.
Studies have found that it takes nearly 1.1 gallons of water to produce a single almond. So you can imagine how devastating to the water supply in California that it would be to produce several billion pounds of almonds each year. This demand for water that does not exist has lead the farmers to resort to potentially dangerous techniques. Drills are being used to dig deep into the aquifers below the surface. As a result, the ground has literally begun to sink thus threatening vital infrastructure like roads, bridges, and irrigation canals. Additionally, Philpott describes how this technique of tapping water could potentially even lead to man related earthquakes. And these aren’t the only environmental issues associated with the almond crops in California.
As our population continues to grow and the demand for food expands, we will continue to encounter these issues of supply and demand. While current culture may make assumptions on the healthfulness of a certain food, it is vital that we as consumers educate ourselves on the sustainability of the products we buy. If we keep the earth healthy, the earth will keep us healthy in return. As Richard Waite and Brian Lipinski said in their article Two rules of Thumb to Slash Environmental Impact of Your Diet, “ eating more sustainably can help ensure global food security without undue pressure on forests, water, and climate”. Understanding the resources it takes to get your food to you is a very important piece of this struggle.
While pushes in the food industry and society as a whole intend to better sustain us, there is now staggering data pushing back on certain healthful foods. Unfortunately, almonds are on this list. In recent years almonds have settled in their place as a staple in any health-conscious persons’ diet. Consumption is on the rise and according to Tom Philpott in his article linked above, the USDA estimates production of almonds to nearly triple as of 2014. 80% of these almonds hailing from the beautiful state of California. As discussed in the article, this could prove to be bad news as opposed to good.
Studies have found that it takes nearly 1.1 gallons of water to produce a single almond. So you can imagine how devastating to the water supply in California that it would be to produce several billion pounds of almonds each year. This demand for water that does not exist has lead the farmers to resort to potentially dangerous techniques. Drills are being used to dig deep into the aquifers below the surface. As a result, the ground has literally begun to sink thus threatening vital infrastructure like roads, bridges, and irrigation canals. Additionally, Philpott describes how this technique of tapping water could potentially even lead to man related earthquakes. And these aren’t the only environmental issues associated with the almond crops in California.
As our population continues to grow and the demand for food expands, we will continue to encounter these issues of supply and demand. While current culture may make assumptions on the healthfulness of a certain food, it is vital that we as consumers educate ourselves on the sustainability of the products we buy. If we keep the earth healthy, the earth will keep us healthy in return. As Richard Waite and Brian Lipinski said in their article Two rules of Thumb to Slash Environmental Impact of Your Diet, “ eating more sustainably can help ensure global food security without undue pressure on forests, water, and climate”. Understanding the resources it takes to get your food to you is a very important piece of this struggle.
The Future of Food
Addressing Food Waste with Maggots
Given the rapidly declining quality of our environment and wasteful usage of our resources, sustainable farming is and will continue to be of top priority. As discussed in the New York Times article Can Dirt Save the Earth, farmers and scientists are both finding themselves in need of effective solutions to help keep our planet happy and healthy. This is what I perceive the true future of food to be.
The article linked above offers a solution to a major concern of our environment: food waste and the resulting emissions of greenhouse gases. The article explores the idea of addressing food waste using larvae that then process the waste into protein and other helpful byproducts.
This is a key component of the agricultural supply chain because it allows for potential reduction in the production of resources. This reduction is important because our current system wastes a significant amount of resources on things like animal feed and the associated need for protein. Andrea Lo, the author of this article, seeks out an expert to help us understand this process, “‘We take waste and convert it into our three products — one of which is protein,’ Jason Drew, the company's CEO, told CNN. The others are an animal feed made using oil extracted from larvae, and a fertilizer made with a blend of larvae and garden compost” (Lo). Drew’s inspiration came simply from his passion to follow and potentially fix our current food supply chain. His ability to shift his view of flies from pests to protein sources is likely a shift we will all need to make some day. Similar to composting as discussed in Sasha Swerldoff’s blog post, using larvae for food waste not only helps diminish the magnitude of waste, but also turns it into something useful. The possibility of this process being used on a large scale is quite promising.
As our global population continues to grow, the need to adapt will become necessary to our survival. There is nothing natural about many of the systems currently in place to produce our food. We will continue to suffer alongside our planet if we do not change. Research like Jason Drew’s will be key to addressing the associated issues with increasing population. While I find these bugs incredibly disgusting, I do hope to continue to see them being utilized in food waste management.
The article linked above offers a solution to a major concern of our environment: food waste and the resulting emissions of greenhouse gases. The article explores the idea of addressing food waste using larvae that then process the waste into protein and other helpful byproducts.
This is a key component of the agricultural supply chain because it allows for potential reduction in the production of resources. This reduction is important because our current system wastes a significant amount of resources on things like animal feed and the associated need for protein. Andrea Lo, the author of this article, seeks out an expert to help us understand this process, “‘We take waste and convert it into our three products — one of which is protein,’ Jason Drew, the company's CEO, told CNN. The others are an animal feed made using oil extracted from larvae, and a fertilizer made with a blend of larvae and garden compost” (Lo). Drew’s inspiration came simply from his passion to follow and potentially fix our current food supply chain. His ability to shift his view of flies from pests to protein sources is likely a shift we will all need to make some day. Similar to composting as discussed in Sasha Swerldoff’s blog post, using larvae for food waste not only helps diminish the magnitude of waste, but also turns it into something useful. The possibility of this process being used on a large scale is quite promising.
As our global population continues to grow, the need to adapt will become necessary to our survival. There is nothing natural about many of the systems currently in place to produce our food. We will continue to suffer alongside our planet if we do not change. Research like Jason Drew’s will be key to addressing the associated issues with increasing population. While I find these bugs incredibly disgusting, I do hope to continue to see them being utilized in food waste management.