Food And Climate change
11/6/2016
Climate change is scary and we need to do something about it. One aspect of climate change is the impact on our food supply and production, as discussed in this article. A study from Dr. Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food found that by the year 2050, there could be around 529,000 extra deaths due to the effects of climate change on agriculture. China (248,000) and India (136,000) are most likely to experience the extra deaths. While some other articles we’ve read, such as Environmental Working Group’s Meat Eaters Guide to Climate Change and Health have stated that meat production is most costly to the environment, this study found that small reductions in fruit and vegetable consumption could be more detrimental to the human race in 2050. Springmann found that climate change will likely have a “substantial negative impact on future mortality, even under optimistic scenarios.” His team found that climate change could cut the projected improvement in food ability by approximately a third by 2050. This would lead to the average person consuming 3.2% less food and 4.0% less fruits and vegetables. Food supply and production is going to play a huge role in the future of human survival and the judgement day may be coming sooner than we expect. In How to Feed the World After Climate Change, Mark Hertsgaard quotes John Beddington, who says that by 2030, the ”interlocking trends of climate change, population growth, and resource scarcity may result in ‘major destabilization,’ including street riots and mass migrations as people flee shortages of food and water.”
Climate change is scary and we need to do something about it. One aspect of climate change is the impact on our food supply and production, as discussed in this article. A study from Dr. Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food found that by the year 2050, there could be around 529,000 extra deaths due to the effects of climate change on agriculture. China (248,000) and India (136,000) are most likely to experience the extra deaths. While some other articles we’ve read, such as Environmental Working Group’s Meat Eaters Guide to Climate Change and Health have stated that meat production is most costly to the environment, this study found that small reductions in fruit and vegetable consumption could be more detrimental to the human race in 2050. Springmann found that climate change will likely have a “substantial negative impact on future mortality, even under optimistic scenarios.” His team found that climate change could cut the projected improvement in food ability by approximately a third by 2050. This would lead to the average person consuming 3.2% less food and 4.0% less fruits and vegetables. Food supply and production is going to play a huge role in the future of human survival and the judgement day may be coming sooner than we expect. In How to Feed the World After Climate Change, Mark Hertsgaard quotes John Beddington, who says that by 2030, the ”interlocking trends of climate change, population growth, and resource scarcity may result in ‘major destabilization,’ including street riots and mass migrations as people flee shortages of food and water.”
mcdonaldization of higher education
10/25/2016
McDonaldization is the process by which principles of the fast food business are being applied to different sectors of American Society (The McDonaldization of Society: 20th Anniversary Edition, George Ritzer, 2012). In an article from The Atlantic, Timothy Pratt describes the connection between McDonaldization and higher education in the United States. McDonaldization is proven to work for the fast food industry, but when used for other applications, like higher education, it seems to be falling short. The process of increasing efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control works for fast food but not for higher education. The whole reason to go to college is to learn. If graduation standards are lowered to allow more students to graduate and graduate earlier, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose? As a society, shouldn’t we encourage the more complete education of college students, as opposed to selling out for lower quality students? A McDonaldization system of higher education would pass more students who don’t deserve to be passed. As Ritzer points out in The McDonaldization of Society (61), the higher education system is already becoming streamlined, with professors opting for multiple choice exams, which don’t have to be graded, allowing more time for the professor to do research. Ritzer even talks about essay-grading computer programs, and websites where you can purchase academic papers about various topics (62). I think McDonaldization has the potential to corrupt our higher education system and something needs to be done to stop universities from becoming so focused on quantity that the quality suffers.
McDonaldization is the process by which principles of the fast food business are being applied to different sectors of American Society (The McDonaldization of Society: 20th Anniversary Edition, George Ritzer, 2012). In an article from The Atlantic, Timothy Pratt describes the connection between McDonaldization and higher education in the United States. McDonaldization is proven to work for the fast food industry, but when used for other applications, like higher education, it seems to be falling short. The process of increasing efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control works for fast food but not for higher education. The whole reason to go to college is to learn. If graduation standards are lowered to allow more students to graduate and graduate earlier, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose? As a society, shouldn’t we encourage the more complete education of college students, as opposed to selling out for lower quality students? A McDonaldization system of higher education would pass more students who don’t deserve to be passed. As Ritzer points out in The McDonaldization of Society (61), the higher education system is already becoming streamlined, with professors opting for multiple choice exams, which don’t have to be graded, allowing more time for the professor to do research. Ritzer even talks about essay-grading computer programs, and websites where you can purchase academic papers about various topics (62). I think McDonaldization has the potential to corrupt our higher education system and something needs to be done to stop universities from becoming so focused on quantity that the quality suffers.
Sending potatoes to idaho? how the free market can fight poverty
10/10/2016
Sendhil Mullainathan wrote an article for the New York Times on October 7th, 2016. In the article, Mullainathan discusses the food bank system in the United States, especially how it relates to free markets. Feeding America, a nonprofit that collects and distributes millions of tons of food ran in a straightforward way until 2005. Up until that point, Feeding America distributed new donations to the food bank that had been waiting for the supplies the longest. Oftentimes, food ended up in the wrong places, such as more potatoes going to food banks in Idaho, which clearly didn’t need them. Instead of keeping this strategy, Feeding America switched to the free market system. Instead of using real money, Feeding America adopted a policy of using virtual currency. Thus, food banks with larger needs would be able to get more of the food they needed. As it turns out, donors were even more generous in this system, with food donations increasing by 50 million pounds just 7 months after the switch to the free market system. The food bank directors were also able to collect more of the food their area needed.
This new system allowed poorer regions to get healthy food that they just couldn’t afford previously. As pointed out by Julie Guthman in Bringing Good Food to Others: Investigating the Subjects of Alternative Food Practices, this is precisely the problem. There needs to be something to bring food to these impoverished areas, often called food deserts for the lack of healthy food choices. However, there are other issues. Tracie McMillan states in Do Poor People Eat Badly Because of Food Deserts or Personal Preference that just because people have access to cheap, healthy food doesn’t mean they will take advantage of it. There are many factors that influence the education of healthier diets, including access to supermarkets, cooking classes, agriculture, and a proper work-life balance (McMillan, 2).
Sendhil Mullainathan wrote an article for the New York Times on October 7th, 2016. In the article, Mullainathan discusses the food bank system in the United States, especially how it relates to free markets. Feeding America, a nonprofit that collects and distributes millions of tons of food ran in a straightforward way until 2005. Up until that point, Feeding America distributed new donations to the food bank that had been waiting for the supplies the longest. Oftentimes, food ended up in the wrong places, such as more potatoes going to food banks in Idaho, which clearly didn’t need them. Instead of keeping this strategy, Feeding America switched to the free market system. Instead of using real money, Feeding America adopted a policy of using virtual currency. Thus, food banks with larger needs would be able to get more of the food they needed. As it turns out, donors were even more generous in this system, with food donations increasing by 50 million pounds just 7 months after the switch to the free market system. The food bank directors were also able to collect more of the food their area needed.
This new system allowed poorer regions to get healthy food that they just couldn’t afford previously. As pointed out by Julie Guthman in Bringing Good Food to Others: Investigating the Subjects of Alternative Food Practices, this is precisely the problem. There needs to be something to bring food to these impoverished areas, often called food deserts for the lack of healthy food choices. However, there are other issues. Tracie McMillan states in Do Poor People Eat Badly Because of Food Deserts or Personal Preference that just because people have access to cheap, healthy food doesn’t mean they will take advantage of it. There are many factors that influence the education of healthier diets, including access to supermarkets, cooking classes, agriculture, and a proper work-life balance (McMillan, 2).
Migrant Farm Workers: Our Nation's Invisible Population
9/28/2016
Eduardo Gonzalez wrote an article about migrant farm workers for Extension in October of 2015. In the article, Gonzalez describes who migrant farm workers are, why they are drawn here, and many of struggles they face in the United States. The article brings up many interesting points as far as migrant workers are concerned. While these farm workers are flowing into the United States in search of prosperity, oftentimes, they don’t find that. The median income for farmworkers is $7500 per year. While the first blame might be put on the farmers for taking advantage of the workers, the real blame falls to the middle men. The transportation services for produce cover most of what the consumer pays at the stores. In The American Way of Eating, Tracie McMillan points out that increasing farm wages by 40 percent would only add about 16 dollars to the average American family’s produce bill each year (29). I was surprised to see Gonzalez’s analysis that many of the migrant farm workers have solid agricultural skills due to experience in the fields. I think oftentimes, these workers are assumed to be uneducated, stealing jobs from Americans. However, their education level is rather irrelevant if they have some experience in the farming industry. Also, most Americans don’t want to be doing manual labor like this at such a low wage.
The biggest thing I took away from the article was the sense of community the undocumented farm workers are leaving behind. In their home countries, they are active in their communities, but when they get to the United States, they have to keep a low profile. Since many of these workers are undocumented (52%, according to Gonzalez), they often face severe working conditions, lower pay, and other injustices. Tracie McMillan states that in her experiences, farmworkers don’t have the same rights as office workers (McMillan, 27). They don’t have the opportunity to have days off or overtime pay. While some states, like California offer greater incentives and higher wages for farm workers, that isn’t the case in other states such as Texas. The undocumented farm workers can’t speak up out of fear of being deported. I think Gonzalez’s title for the article, ‘Invisible Population,’ makes a lot of sense in this regard. The migrant farm workers can’t speak up for their rights, so they are basically invisible.
Eduardo Gonzalez wrote an article about migrant farm workers for Extension in October of 2015. In the article, Gonzalez describes who migrant farm workers are, why they are drawn here, and many of struggles they face in the United States. The article brings up many interesting points as far as migrant workers are concerned. While these farm workers are flowing into the United States in search of prosperity, oftentimes, they don’t find that. The median income for farmworkers is $7500 per year. While the first blame might be put on the farmers for taking advantage of the workers, the real blame falls to the middle men. The transportation services for produce cover most of what the consumer pays at the stores. In The American Way of Eating, Tracie McMillan points out that increasing farm wages by 40 percent would only add about 16 dollars to the average American family’s produce bill each year (29). I was surprised to see Gonzalez’s analysis that many of the migrant farm workers have solid agricultural skills due to experience in the fields. I think oftentimes, these workers are assumed to be uneducated, stealing jobs from Americans. However, their education level is rather irrelevant if they have some experience in the farming industry. Also, most Americans don’t want to be doing manual labor like this at such a low wage.
The biggest thing I took away from the article was the sense of community the undocumented farm workers are leaving behind. In their home countries, they are active in their communities, but when they get to the United States, they have to keep a low profile. Since many of these workers are undocumented (52%, according to Gonzalez), they often face severe working conditions, lower pay, and other injustices. Tracie McMillan states that in her experiences, farmworkers don’t have the same rights as office workers (McMillan, 27). They don’t have the opportunity to have days off or overtime pay. While some states, like California offer greater incentives and higher wages for farm workers, that isn’t the case in other states such as Texas. The undocumented farm workers can’t speak up out of fear of being deported. I think Gonzalez’s title for the article, ‘Invisible Population,’ makes a lot of sense in this regard. The migrant farm workers can’t speak up for their rights, so they are basically invisible.
G.M.O. Labeling Law could stir a revolution
www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/opinion/gmo-labeling-law-could-stir-a-revolution.html?_r=0
9/19/2016
In the New York Times, Mark Bittman writes an article about the labels we find on our packaged food containers. A new law, signed on July 27th, 2016 by President Obama, requires the Department of Agriculture to define a “genetically modified food ingredient” and requires food manufactures to label their products as such. However, the law is very relaxed, as the producers can use a symbol, a telephone number, or a smartphone QR code to fulfill the requirements of the law. Bittman says, “The new law tells consumers, ‘You deserve to know what’s in your food, so we’re going to tell you,’ while sending a not-too-subtle message to food companies: ‘Feel free to make this information as difficult to find as you’d like.” Bittman continues with an examination of genetically modified organisms (GMO), concluding that there is no evidence that GMO’s are a danger to humans. In this context, he discusses that there are much more meaningful things to worry about than whether our food was genetically modified.
I agree with many of the points that Bittman makes, as we deserve to know exactly what we are putting into our bodies. Melanie Warner, in Pandora’s Lunchbox, discusses the many chemicals that are being added to our food, in the form of preserving the food or improving the taste. In particular, she draws comparisons between food additives we are ingesting, with major ingredients in petroleum refining (page 102), rubber and plastic (103), and paint (128). Warner also writes about the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) list. This list, originally intended for items like spices, salt, vinegar, and yeast, turned into a dumping ground for all the chemicals that food producers wanted to use in their products, but didn’t want to share with the public. The formal process for documenting any food additive was basically ignored. Between 2000 and 2013, there were only petitions for four new substances that were even turned in to the FDA (Warner, Melanie; Pandora’s Lunchbox; 2013; page 107). Something has to change in that regard. Bittman declares, “Some people care about this, others don’t. But now that the new labeling law has opened the disclosure door a crack, why not open it wide and see what’s inside?”
9/19/2016
In the New York Times, Mark Bittman writes an article about the labels we find on our packaged food containers. A new law, signed on July 27th, 2016 by President Obama, requires the Department of Agriculture to define a “genetically modified food ingredient” and requires food manufactures to label their products as such. However, the law is very relaxed, as the producers can use a symbol, a telephone number, or a smartphone QR code to fulfill the requirements of the law. Bittman says, “The new law tells consumers, ‘You deserve to know what’s in your food, so we’re going to tell you,’ while sending a not-too-subtle message to food companies: ‘Feel free to make this information as difficult to find as you’d like.” Bittman continues with an examination of genetically modified organisms (GMO), concluding that there is no evidence that GMO’s are a danger to humans. In this context, he discusses that there are much more meaningful things to worry about than whether our food was genetically modified.
I agree with many of the points that Bittman makes, as we deserve to know exactly what we are putting into our bodies. Melanie Warner, in Pandora’s Lunchbox, discusses the many chemicals that are being added to our food, in the form of preserving the food or improving the taste. In particular, she draws comparisons between food additives we are ingesting, with major ingredients in petroleum refining (page 102), rubber and plastic (103), and paint (128). Warner also writes about the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) list. This list, originally intended for items like spices, salt, vinegar, and yeast, turned into a dumping ground for all the chemicals that food producers wanted to use in their products, but didn’t want to share with the public. The formal process for documenting any food additive was basically ignored. Between 2000 and 2013, there were only petitions for four new substances that were even turned in to the FDA (Warner, Melanie; Pandora’s Lunchbox; 2013; page 107). Something has to change in that regard. Bittman declares, “Some people care about this, others don’t. But now that the new labeling law has opened the disclosure door a crack, why not open it wide and see what’s inside?”