Liquid Gold

This week's reading was the fat section of Salt, Sugar, Fat. Fat gives us the texture, the oiliness, and a hidden taste that is much more hidden than salt or sugar. Fat has been targeted for causing bad health way before salt and sugar made their way onto the scene. Butter and other oils have been around for ages, and it's common knowledge that too much of an oily, fatty product is bad for you. However, the use and consumption of fats have drastically increased over the past few decades, and now nearly everything we eat is packed with fat. A key point for the proliferation of fats in our diet is that they don't set of "alarm bells" like salt or sugar, but we barely eat anything that doesn't have the wonderful texture or amazing taste of fat.

One of the most interesting parts of this section was the section about cheese. Historically, cheese has been regarded as generally healthy. But as Moss points out, the food industry has reformulated the process and now cheese is loaded with fats, and we have been coerced in to eating more and more of it per year. The aging process has been replaced with enzymes to speed things up. Now, many foods are loaded with cheese, purely because Americans really like it, and will buy products with more cheese. A specific example is the frozen pizza: historically, as the food giants competed to win over the American populace, adding more and more food to pizzas increased sales. Over the last decade or so, the amount of cheese consumed by Americans per year has increased drastically.

Although fat has been under public scrutiny for the longest of the three killer ingredients, we still tend to turn a blind eye when it comes to flavor and price. Everything from fried food to cheese and and kind of dessert are loaded with fat, and we just continue to consume more. The next time you prepare a meal and think you're eating healthy, be sure to check the fat content - you'd be surprised at the difficulty to escape this chemical sensation.

Omnivore's Dilemma, part 3

This last section of the book detailed Pollan's quest to forage and gather his own natural meal. He details a hot hunting trip and foraging for mushrooms and other plants. The experiences he shares is a good conclusion section, to both this class and the reading.

Pollan wraps up the book, in which he details all of the problems that our culture has grown into due to modern food. By foraging and collecting his own meal, it's a section that is similar to a call to action. Pollan walked through everything he thought wrong about modern food, then tried to show a way to do something different.

It's also a good time to examine that foraging a meal like Pollan did isn't very practical in modern times. It's difficult to do for even those in rural communities, much less suburban. I think this is a good example Pollan uses to identify his argument of the "American paradox." Although we may seem more health conscious, we don't really have that much of a choice.

The section was definitely a good conclusion to most of our reading. Personally, I would enjoy going looking for my own food or hunting something. I like fishing and hunting, and any time I can get something from somewhere other than the store I go for it. However, this section also does a good job of exemplifying that eating truly natural isn't practical at all.

Fastest Conquest ever - And we're all captives

This weeks reading was the first section of Salt, Sugar, and Fat, detailing the obsession with sugar. We are walked through a very recent history (within the last 100 years) of how sugar came to dominate nearly every food and drink we have on a daily basis. We are given a chronological explanation of how a shift occurred, mostly after World War II, that changed the vast majority of American's diets and caused the epidemic of obesity.

In the prologue, we are given the details of a secret meeting between food industry CEOs and their views on obesity and the contribution of their products. In short, they don't care. We will be seeing just as much sugar in the coming times.

The chapters in this section detail the different marketing efforts of several iconic companies. Dr Pepper, Coke, and the cereal industry, to name a few, were among the examples showing how marketing and demand has driven for foods saturated with sugar. As a result, nearly every food in the grocery store is not sugar frosted, sugar blasted, or just colored sugar.

There are numerous ethical issues that arise from this. And since I have to present this to the class tomorrow, I won't go to in-depth yet. But when we read about sugar's conquest, and how we are completely subjugated by sugary foods and bad nutrition, there comes a point when we have to decide that it's too much and something needs to be done. What is the best way to turn things around?

Wonders of the microbial world of cooking

In the last section, of Cooked, Pollan goes into great depths explaining the wonders that the microbiological world has to offer. He explains several great processes that many people forget are entirely driven by microbial life and their unique fermentation abilities.

In the first two sections, Pollan discusses fermentation of food. He goes through the process of making sour kraut in extreme detail. I enjoyed reading some of the scientific aspects of it, which I understood quite well knowing what I do about microbiology and biochemistry. I definitely appreciated the section, although it was quite long.

The last section was devoted to alcohol, a very unique process entirely dependent on microbes. I enjoyed the historical discussion on alcohol, talking about what it means for us in different aspects of life such as religion and social relationships. Pollan gave a nice context on what alcohol means for us historically, as well as some animals. We all use it similarly. This section was once again a nice scientific discussion that I enjoyed.

One of the main themes of this section was the emphasis on probiotics. Pollan presents us with our history of wanting to be sterile, completely free of bacteria and other flora that populate our bodies. In the first chapter of this section, he mentions a fermentation festival he went to where many people strongly advocated the idea of nourishing the natural microbial flora. Pollan argues for the health aspect of using probiotics, and that our modern diets and the western diseases could be alleviated by being more careful and conscientious about caring for our microbial companions. Pollan also makes a very interesting point that humans evolved as super-beings, that we are an incredibly complex network of various organisms working together.

It's no doubt we need to respect the world we can't see, and not by just focusing on pathogens but realising that there is a lot more to microbial life than the germs that make us sick. Microbiology is a relatively recent and emerging field, and it will be a long time until we understand how it works.

Cooked Part 3 - post discussion

After discussing the reading last night, it's interesting to see the different viewpoints that stood out to other people. First, the more intimate nature that Pollan relates when he was working with the dough is a strange topic that I first overlooked. This relationship of baking bread was explored in very different terms than I would have thought. Nevertheless, a very unique viewpoint was presented. As a whole, our class is about reconnecting with food, and the way Pollan described was a very interesting way to describe that.

Secondly, the discussion of the importance of bread in Christianity was an interesting aspect as well. I didn't take this part to heart as much when I read it, but as we discussed in class the implications of communion combined with Dr. Hartman's personal background and what communion meant in Russian Orthodox, the role of bread in Christianity is quite unique. Once again this speaks to the relationship aspect of reconnecting with food, as a clear example of food proliferating religion is given. Many other religions have ceremonial foods as well. I thought this was a great point for our overall goal of reconnecting with food, particularly in this relationship aspect.

Cooked part III - Air

In the third portion of Cooked, Michael Pollan goes into great detail of the arduous process of baking bread. He spends a large portion of the time detailing the exact processes, then his adventures of investigating how a master baker produces the perfect sourdough bread. This section of the book was very similar to the first part of Cooked, fire, in which the art of barbecue was explored.

Something I really liked about this section was the discussion of the microcultures of bacteria and yeast that were required to make the bread rise. Pollan goes into great detail to contrast his procedure of letting the dough sit outside for a little while as compared to the industrial process where specific yeast are used. Pollan describes that the diversity of the microcultures is what makes home made bread so much better (in addition to the added freshness and better nutrient value). I enjoyed how he did take the time to get acquainted with the organisms growing in his bread, to the point of learning the history of the microbiology behind it and the exact biochemical processes.

Combined with the experience from Great Harvest last weekend, I definitely appreciate bread a lot more. And after eating the freshly made bread from Great Harvest, it's really hard to go back to anything bought from Ingles.

Ultimately, I really appreciate the scientific approach that both sources took to explain this seemingly simple process. Some day, I do want to try baking bread myself and see if I can get these finicky microbes to grow and produce great bread myself.

The Grass is Always Greener....

After the second part of Omnivore's Dilemma, which focused mainly on grass, we discussed a weird contrast between corn and grass. Although both from the same plant family, Pollan clearly prefers grass (the kind you would find in pastures) over corn, leading into the discussion of organic (grass) versus industrial (corn). The comparison between the two methods of producing food are what fueled this part of the book and our discussions last night.

One of the topics we discussed last night was the romanticism of marketing and the idea of red barns and rolling green pastures. Pollan also discusses this in the book, when comparing organic to non-organic. But what we come to see is that even if something is labelled organic, it's ultimately a marketing ploy; we will pay extra for a good story, which further disconnects us from where our food is really from and what really goes into providing the steak or vegetable that we buy in the grocery store.

Another theme we discussed in class that wasn't as much in the book was the fact that to sustain the 7+ billion people living on the earth the idea of "industrial" farming becomes a necessity. By farming the way people did 50 years ago, we could not support the growing population we do now, which becomes a much more complicated ethical issue. We discussed that while true organic farming may be better in some ways, it couldn't support all the people alive now , and the question of who should get food becomes relevant, presenting a very difficult ethical question. Contrast this with the ethical questions of "industrial" farming, and you're left with an extremely intricate mess of ethical issues.

So with the discussion of organic and non-organic, which is more ethical and realistic? The answer isn't nearly as simple as it might seem at first.

Omnivore's Dilemma Discussion Reflection

After last night's discussion, I was lead to a whole new series of thoughts about the reading. A recurring theme throughout the evening's discourse was the impact of agriculture on nature, and what that means to modern civilization. Pollan argues that agriculture has shaped the natural world and humanity more than any other event in history, including wars. This is a novel argument, and to a point I agree.

Agriculture has many little known influences throughout history. We discussed the topic of bird poop as a factor in World War II. Throughout history, armies have tried to conquer more fertile lands, and typically the nations with better agricultural abilities have been much more well off. From this point of view, agriculture has very much shaped the fate of humanity.

Naturally speaking, we examined the problem in Haiti of the mudslides and natural disasters that happen because of overfarming in its initial colonization. There's no doubt that agriculture has had an impact there. One could also easily argue that the influx of immigration to America over the centuries is strongly tied to agriculture; after all, the main point of slavery was to pick cotton in the South.One of the theories for Easter Island being deserted after some time is that people who lived there eventually farmed the island dry of trees and natural resources, thus starving.

One thing I like to ponder tangentially related to these points is the futuristic concept of space colonization. How will agriculture impact that? As we've seen from exploration of the earth, agriculture drove a lot of wars, colonization of certain places while not others, and food is undoubtedly required to conquer new territory. The answer could possible lie in hydroponics, but there's a long way to go before we're at the point of growing fields on the moon.

The Real Dilemma - part 1

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan introduces us to the concept that many farmers can no longer support themselves on their own products and have to go to the grocery store to buy food like everyone else. If farming really is this bad, especially the animal side, and the farmers know it, then why would they but from the store....? (Side note: I know many farmers who are part of the "industrialized system" who grow a lot more variety than just corn).

But this was only the first thought to occur to me.

Growing up in central Indiana, in the corn, around the farms, surrounded by the beginning stage of this "industrial system", I knew something was amiss in the story. An article, Here, I found someone else online sharing my exact thoughts - a family farmer from Missouri.

The article outlines many of my arguments very neatly - primarily that Pollan makes it sound way, way worse than it is. Animals filled with antibiotics, in an apocalyptic hellhole, living terrible lives. From my own experiences, and several other online sources, I can confidently disagree with Pollan here.

It frustrates me to see such a negative view of the animal agriculture industry. It's disheartening to see so much science misrepresented. The more I dug and searched for articles (All of which from reputable sources), I see more and more conflict. What this tells me is that the book is journalism - not scientific writing. Berkeley science review, which he ever references in the book, slams him here.

But why? Why would you have to misrepresent, focus on negatives, and distort things to get a point across? I can only figure one answer: journalism. Controversy sells. And nothing sells like the little golden sticker that says "New York Times Best Seller" on the front of the book. So from here, I see the book more as a source of journalism, and regard the representation of science or facts as something that I will definitely have to verify myself.

More to come after the class discussion.

Cooked!

In the first part of Cooked, we explore a technology that revolutionized the way we eat: fire. Two things that really stuck out to me were:
1. Cooking food more makes it more digestible, and this had a role in the evolutionary process. When people started cooking, it changed everything about food. Pollan claims that it allowed people to focus more on art and other things, rather than constantly trying to find food, which contributed to the end of the "survival" times. Secondly, I like to eat rare steak... So I guess I won't be getting as much nutrients from it as I could. But the taste is worth it!

2. Fire bringing people together around meals. Cooking brought in the idea of "culture" that we have now. Culture is very centered on food, and we owe this to fire. Sharing a meal is what brought people together. Sharing food, leaving the survivalist mindset, began the transition to the modern world we have today, and what arguably sets us apart from animals.

The experience at Bridge's barbecue was also very interesting. as barbecue is probably one of the most primitive forms of cooking. It relates very well to the previous two points, besides tasting very good!

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

While I was reading some news today, I came across an article that is very pertinent to our discussion on natural foods, here. The article coincides nicely with the book In Defense of Food, reviewing the current situation of some genetically modified rice. The author takes the time to point out that not only have genetically modified foods been around for some time, the public opposition is quite high globally, and argues that GM foods have not produced what they were supposed to.

Personally, I am very interested in the idea of bioengineering, and I take the opportunity to look at these kinds of articles critically. I've found that most of the hype and debate over GM foods is from an either an ethical or a health perspective. The ethical side is undoubtedly a tough issue, and opinions vary widely. The health side, however, can be more easily argued with factual evidence. But, once again, we run into the problem that the data just isn't there. Similarly to the whole concept of nutritional science, we really can't make judgement based off of what science is currently available. As soon as something is thought to be a strong point, another data set is shown to conflict the premise. I frequently hear people talking about the danger of GM anything, but it's hard to back up either side without firm science.

Another point is made in the article presenting the security/health research that is required for these companies to be able to market their products. The author admits there is no data to show that the products are toxic or bad for your health, but then again, it's the companies that are providing the data - potentially a conflict of interest.

My opinion on this topic, and many related topics, is that it's a personal choice. A consumer should educate themselves not on just journalism, but also the hard science behind the products. They should take the initiative, read the scholarly articles, and deduct their own opinions. Only then are you mitigating the bias enough to get a sure, thorough sense of what you believe and how you will personally react.

Lastly, the point of third world countries being among the most opposed when they potentially have the most to gain is another angle on an already complex issue. The momentum from the promise of these bioengineering companies to provide food for the world (and consequently, end world hunger) can't be ignored. The author makes a keen point that we haven't seen those results yet, and that relying on these products would produce a financial enslavement to the companies that produce them - once again, the issue of ethics arises. So what is the real direction here? Are GM foods dangerous, or are they the next step in a world liberated from starvation?

In Defense of Food

Michael Pollan poses the question "What would happen if we were to start thinking about food as less of a thing and more of a relationship?"  in In Defense of Food. When most of time, we view eating as an obligation, we lose a significant part of what a meal could mean. Pollan suggests that we think of eating as more of a relationship, not just with food, but with the earth and nature. Once again, I see the recurring theme of returning to a more traditional diet. He also brings attention to the refined and more "industrialized" food, and how historically it has been bad for our health. Compared to centuries of cultural and traditional eating, the health impact of the new "westernized diet" is hard to ignore.

As I read this book, the idea of eating a more traditional or cultural diet constantly emerges throughout the topics presented. We can't view foods as merely their chemical components, but view them as a whole, and return to the idea of food as a relationship, rather than a daily obligation. But what's the best way to do this?

Real Food Shopping Spree

This challenge was to find real, unchanged food in the local grocery store. Although it sounds simple, when limited to only the middle aisles, there are few real foods to be found. Here's several I managed to find that were unadulterated:

1. Maple Syrup: although maybe not organic and natural, it was unchanged and didn't contain anything foreign.

2. Black Beans: Nothing was added to these, just beans straight from the farm.








 


 3. Parmesan Cheese: No additives or health claims, just regular Parmesan cheese without any changes.

For comparison, I included two products that would seem good for you and normal, and make health claims (one of the food rules to avoid). These are exactly the kind of things that Michael Pollan suggests to avoid in In Defense of Food.

Food Rules

Michael Pollan gives some good advice on everyday eating - not by telling you what to eat or not, but simply some guidelines to avoid the unhealthy habits we make all too often. And it's not about science, although there's plenty to go along, but really more about traditional and cultural diets. All of the rules listed in the book are based more on tradition, what your great grandparents would have had, rather than hammering scientific studies and statistical data about disease. These rules are more common sense, stemming from cultural, old-style eating habits - the way they were when America was still young and the idea of the food industry had not yet been realized. By simply linking your diet back to these old ways, you could improve your eating habits a lot.

Several rules that I particularly liked were:

#20: It's not food if it arrived through your window.
#32: Don't overlook the oily little fishes.
#43: Have a glass of wine with dinner.

A couple rules that I think are among the same ideas that could help?

1. If a product is named after a food, but doesn't actually contain it, don't eat/drink it. (ie shrimp sauce, fake lemon juice)
2. The easier to make, the worse it probably is (except whole fruits, of course).
3. If you have to cook it for a second time, avoid it (pre-cooked meat, etc).
4. Remind yourself what a portion or serving actually is, and consider that when making your plate
5. In a cafeteria, the healthiest options probably won't be the focus for that meal. Get stuff from the side lines or salad bars.
6. Drinking water at meals is the easiest way to get to the recommended daily serving. 

Overall, the book was a great quick read, reminding of some simple things that don't take much conscious effort but could drastically improve your diet. The rules don't take much to remember, since they're based off traditional attitudes toward diet - summarize it to one sentence: eat like your great grandparents did.

Bees, almonds, and a ton of speculation

Time's "The Plight of the Honeybee"details the full impact of what colony collapse disorder could bring to not just honey, but many other agriculture fields (literally!) that would be severely restricted without the honeybee. The problem, though - we don't know why it's happening!

Several causes are presented: chemicals (pesticides) and parasites, two major opponents that could potentially be controlled, as well as the idea that the large-scale farming of cash crops like corn and soybeans could create a "desert" with no room for bees. In reality, though, no one has a substantial claim for what appears to be the random bee apocalypse.

In one of the last paragraphs, the author talks of researchers preparing a genetic bank for the bees, keeping the genomes which could be used to cross breed and select for a bee that wouldn't die. Although it could be regarded as a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), it's undeniable that genetic engineering to save the fate of the honeybee is a viable solution. Using engineering to fix this problem could solve it, but could also present many more issues...what else could these genetically selected or changed bees do? Could this present moral and ethical issues?