Hoity-toity Cuisine April 21, 2008

In our recent readings for class, we have strayed from the greasiness of $2.99 cheeseburgers and Super-Sized French fries and have progressed to venture into the elite affairs of fine-dining cuisine, where a single glass of wine (which, I must add, is only about 2 inches full) will run upward of $20.  What are the differences in such eating fare? What argument is being made for such meals?

Previously, it was suggested that fast food implies laziness for those who consume it, representing a culture who is in love with food, yet puts no real value in it by failing to respect the art of cooking.  People substitute quantity for quality, a dangerous viewpoint when applied to food, particularly fare that boasts 1000 calories in the meat entree alone…Where other cultures revere the concept of a meal as something to be cherished, prepared with great care and the freshest of ingredients, many Americans swallow down whatever luke-warm, grease-soaked, and rubber-tough “burger” they can purchase from the nearest drive-thru several times a week.  True, most families take the time to prepare a home-made feast around the holidays, but is that really all we can amount to?

Well, some may argue they have the alternative to measly eating out-simply put down a little more cash for a meal that passes the ranks of substandard.  But who can afford such a lifestyle? Particularly when “paying a little more” equates to a meal that costs any where from $50 to $250 a person.  Meals that consist of shrunken skyscrapers of unrecognizable food, adorned with decorative art work in the form of drawn-on sauces and dainty garnishes, things that to many constitute as desert but in this case, are intended to “clean the palate,” and so forth…Eating out is not a crime; it can be an alternative for someone who is simply too busy to cook, a welcomed saviour to the person who lacks any culinary talent, and can be a much-enjoyed treat.  But to eat out all the time? Some may label it as wasteful and extravagant-when many in the world go without eating for days on end, how can one excuse the restaurant who inevitably throws out loads of food at night’s end, and even more so, excuse the customer who can spend a few hundred to a few grand on a solitary meal.  I recently looked through a 2007 City Restaurant guide, and after checking New York, renowned for its upscale eateries, I discovered restaurants that charged along the lines of $450 a person…much to likes of the article we read about the $4000 meal in Paris for two.  While surely healthier than a triple cheeseburger, and even more so a much classier environment, meals along this caliber have their own pitfalls still in comparison to home-cooking. 

To many, such meals exemplify a flagrant display of excessive wealth-where people don’t even go solely for the decadent cuisine and heightened atmosphere-instead, they go for the prestige and reputation in a world that revolves around showing up your peers in exclusivity.  It all seems to tie back to the same primal concept – that people eat out for every other reason than the food itself; and it is with such notions in mind that Americans tend to steer away from healthy eating lifestyles into a world where food is either a show or an inconvenience, that is nonetheless consumed in frighteningly large quantities while millions around the world starve…

Eating as Entertainment April 7, 2008

Looking at the theme for Unit Three in comparison to Unit Two, Eating as Entertainment vs. The Obesity Epidemic, I feel a few correlations can be made.  Foremost however, I would like to comment on the whole concept of celebrity chefs and the arguments they might be making…with the likes of Emeril and Giada gracing everything from the Food Network to magazine covers, celebrity chefs are more popular today then ever.  They tout their DIY recipes in every avalaible source of media, advertising them as feasible possibilities for the “everyman.”  So to ask a seemingly simple question: Is this message good or bad?  On one hand, famous chefs are promoting “actual food” in respects to the current culture of fast food and processed goods, real meals that quite frequently incorporate food rich in nutrients and therefore valuable to our diets and lifestyles.  On the other hand, they are turning food into a source of entertainment, providing more of an excuse to consume it on numerous (perhaps even too frequent of) occasions and underminding the notion that many of the dishes promoted by chefs are not the most health-conscience.  Once again, like many arguments, it all comes down to perception, and what one does with them.  Following the works of “healthy” chefs and using their recipes at appropriate times, instead of eating without consideration, is key to moderating one’s health and weight if one chooses to follow celebrity chefs.

That’s what it boils down to-do celebrity chefs, in any way, contribute to the “obestity epidemic?”  Is making light of food, something that should be enjoyed, but where the enjoyment is often abused, a wise move?  People tend to assume that chefs have taken nutrition in accordingly when developing and relating recipes, and thus tend to disregard any second thoughts about what it is they are putting into their bodies.  What about the Southern-Cooking Chef, where everything is drenched in butter?  Sure, her meals may look delicious, but everyone knows that a key ingredient to taste is fat.

Some go the route of Tony Bourdain, where it can be argued either way about his effect on eating “right.”  On one side, he eats everything he comes across despite what it will do to his body, but it’s exactly what he consumes sometimes that my turn people off altogether.  However, he continues to trek on, despite his hard-smoking, eat-anything lifestyle…then there’s the lovely Giada, who promotes her Italian cuisine not only through her cooking ability, but her beautiful exterior as well.  Does one even consider the implications behind her cream-covered pasta? 

I am defaming celebrity chefs or the art of food in any way- it helps the worst of cookers to find an outlet where they can have recipes explained step-by-step, instead of opting for fast food and frozen dinners, and it promotes age-old traditions of various cultures who center around food to bring the community closer together.  All that just needs to be factored into the current so-called “health crisis” in order to promote healthy lifestyles which involve moderation and good choices.

Ha! Ha! Ha? March 24, 2008

Face it, humor is what gets us by.  Without it, everyday life would most likely prove to be droll and mundane.  Motions would be repeated as routines set in, with little sparking our interest or putting smiles on our faces.  That’s what has appeared to happened with American eating habits-we view food as either pleasure, routine, or comfort.  Pleasure in enjoying its quality and in sharing a meal with others; routine in the fact we typically consume some quantity of foodstuffs throughout each and every day; and comfort in the fact that many use food to appease some sort of emotional distress-whether it be a control issue or merely a pick-me-up.  However, the substantial number of obese citizens in America is not a small laughing matter.  Weight concerns are compromising our health, taxing an already strained economy, and portrying an image of laziness that is met with disdain by numerous foreign cultures.  Yet despite the obvious need for a call to action, many passively sit by as they gorge themselves on greasy burgers and fries…enticing a sort of ironic humor in the fact that in a society which places such a high value on “decent” food, and even more-so on the unattainable “perfect” body image, that such a society, in turn, is able to eat such crap as a super-sized value meal-which thus inevitably leads to a figure that much resembles the food which they are consuming-lumpy and grotesque-rather than lean and trim.

There is someone laughing however.  Actually, make that two people.  Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin to be exact, and when there’s a punchline, let’s just say the pair is not laughing with you.  Snippy, sarcastic, and clever-both with wordplay (when they’ve ceased calling the reader a “lazy shit”) and advertising-Freedman and Barnouin have masked their animal-rights, vegan campaign under a facade of dietary techniques and a steady stream of criticism and belittlement paraded as humor.  Viewed with an indifferent eye, some of their work is entertaining-the biting edge to their remarks provides a refreshing take on a worn-out subject that sparks interest in their desperate audience.  However, with a society that upholds a rail-thin body image as perfection, and a people willing to literally starve and purge themselves in attempt to attain such a goal, perhaps degrading the self esteem of people who are already body-sensitive isn’t the smartest idea.  Is anyone really laughing now, when they’re the butt of the jokes?

Was it that deep-fried Twinkie? Or the 45 oz Coke? Or the… March 3, 2008

With ever-expanding waistlines, increasing rates of heart disease and Type II diabetes, and people of such mammoth proportions that they literally cannot heave themselves out of bed, America has finally begun to second guess their eating, and overall lifestyle, habits.  Whether of not they actually take corrective measures to reverse the bodily harm they are inflicting upon themselves is yet to be determined.  For now though, we can determine, or at least hypothesize, what exactly it is that is leading to the creation of plus-size sections in department stores and increasingly large airline seats. 

Numerous points can be argued about the causes of outstanding obesity in American society, all with the end effect that the general population is swelling at a constant, and to activists such as Meme Roth, alarming rates.  But this “overnight sensation” has actually been the result of years of super-sized meals, proccesed foods, substitution of video games for exercise, and overall careless self-maintence.  According to the explanation of causal argumentation, I believe that both the causes and effects are yet to be unquestionably defined, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s start with the notion that the result of our actions is that obesity is much more of a commonality today than fifty years agos. 

So what led to our bulging bellies?  “Thunder thighs?” “Cottage cheese legs?” “Cankles?”  As I hinted at previously, I believe a few basic habits are to blame for the majority of this dubbed “obesity epidemic”:

1) The rise of processed foods and the rate at which people consume them in such large quantities, i.e. the “super-size me” menu option

2) People who eat such vast amounts of food, and yet fail to exercise on a consistent basis

3) Gastronomically-sized proportions

4) The mindset that “just a little won’t do me harm,” when these consumers forget that every calorie adds up

Although these four reasons are exceedingly shallow and cannot begin to fully cover the complexity of such a monumental situation, they develop a general impression of what it is that is leading to heavier-set Americans.  These tendencies don’t always begin during adulthood either, when we possess complete control over our lifestyle habits.  Oh no, vending machines stocked with candy, chips, and soda, along with lunch lines offering grease-soaked tater-tots, corn dogs, and brownies are clogging the arteries and increasing the pants sizes of children all across the U.S.  It’s one thing to write off your child’s chubbiness as “baby fat,” soon to ebb away upon a healthy balance of exercise and a good diet, in contrast to a kid with enough rolls to put a bakery out of business.

Once Americans define the factors that are causing the rise in obesity that is “plaguing” our country, can they rewrite the effects they so detest as well…

A Point, An Irony, and A Mission February 18, 2008

Barbara Kingsolver has a point, and it’s a good one.  With obesity on such an alarming rise (bringing along with it an array of frightening possibilities, such as diabetes and heart conditions), in addition to the general decline of food quality and thus enjoyment, Kingsolver’s intentions for a more environmental/health conscience lifestyle could not have come around at a better time.  American society is ensnared in a steady and rapid spiral downwards with no pleasant end in sight; that is, unless we recognize and acknowledge the evidence of our downfall and take the corrective steps to rectify this dire situation. 

Enchanted by the concept of food that is ready for consumption in mere minutes, particularly in a society that values the phrase “go, go, GO!” many Americans are willing to sacrifice their pleaure of eating quality food for quick, convenient products, most of which are not only detrimental to our bodies, but the planet and its creatures as well.  What we get in return for this attitude that processed foods suit our lifestyles better is an overweight, overfed, and as I see it, greasy, culture that is faced with a great irony-that which is supposed to make our lives simpler has in fact complicated it beyond reason, with health-related illnesses brought about by corn-based products slowing us down, costing us money, and diminishing our quality of life.  Doesn’t look so convenient after all, now does it?

And yet despite all the overwhelming evidence that has come to light in recent years, Americans continue to binge on processed foods at a disquieting rate.  Perhaps they don’t believe what is being said, thinking that the push for a local/organic movement is a bunch of hippies rooting for an overblown grass-roots trip, and therefore shrug it off as they munch a Double Whopper with extra cheese.  Or perhaps they believe that organic/local food is too expensive for their limited budgets, even though Americans are spending only a fraction of their income on food nowadays, compared to nearly a fifth of it earlier in the century.  Or perhaps it’s the fact that they simply don’t care-what isn’t killing them today doesn’t bother them now either.

Barbara Kingsolver does recognize these problems though.  AND she acknowledges them.  She may not move her family to their small farm on the east coast solely for the fact that she wants to shun corn/soybean-based, mass-produced food, but it doesn’t hurt her case.  She believes strongly in another reason to consume locally-grown food: it’s taste.  One would assume that even if Americans don’t value their health or the planet, that they would at least value their own pleasure that can be derived from higher quality produce.

So what will it take?  More Barbara Kingsolvers to provide multiple insights into the endless benefits to eating locally? More Michael Pollans to remind us of what we are really putting into our bodies when we consume those McNuggets? More government food pyramids, modified to guide us towards not only poultry and vegetables, but ones that don’t come from grain-fed animals or pesticide-laden monoculture farms?  Only time, and maybe the startling revelation that last year’s pants no longer fit, will tell…

Turning over a New Leaf? February 11, 2008

It’s enough to turn one’s stomach.

The knowledge that today’s agricultural market compromises the idea of food integrity by taking one of the country’s five commodity crops and turning it from a timeless vegetable to a processed food snack cake is indeed eye-catching, yet in a  less-than-flattering manner.  It would almost seem to have the opposite effect of the intended original motive, which hopes to deliver an image of the classic tale of turning whatever you touch into gold; i.e. whatever corn touches becomes delectable goodness.  However, the more institutions delve into the effects of corn on entities such as human health, the economy, and perhaps even general moral principles, the more they see in reality that their “gold” is in turn possibly a dud. 

After we began our own research in class into the detrimental effects of corn to our overall well being, and the daunting task of possibly distancing ourselves from such  “tainted” products to serve whatever cause we deem worthwhile began to formulate, I began to question how probable it would be to actually initiate such a revolt: the revolt against corn.  Reading the works of Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver, watching King Corn, and analyzing the works of Michael Pollan have aided the development of such ideals; ideals that push for reform on the personal front, in order to gradually push for change on the national front as well. 

But where to start?  Michael Pollan made an observant and excellent point when he noted that the reason many lower class people eat so poorly is due to the fact that that is simply all the can afford-cheap, processed calories that are laden with high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, etc-all derivitives of what else? Corn, corn, corn, and more corn.  And let’s face it, coming from a college student’s perspective, shopping weekly at the Whole Foods Market is simply incomprehensible finanically-wise, and buying produce at local farmer’s markets is often time-draining as well.  Sure, I could always “do my best” and shop the five-foot section of “organic produce” at my local HEB, but let’s face it-even that pitiful selection still has to be coupled with an array of processed food items throughout the store to complete the meal anyways.  Why don’t instead I construct a small garden and grow some of my own vegetables via the likes of Kingsolver?  Ah yes, nothing appeals to growing tomatoes and herbs such as parched, desolate ground located on a college-affiliated apartment complex.  My options are slimming down at an alarming rate, yet my growing distaste for corn-based products is developing at about an equal pace as well.

To risk sounding cliche, it really does start with one person to initiate change.  Each unit adds up to create a whole new empire, one that will care enough about the environment and personal health to regulate the intake of unnatural food products.  I only hope I, among others, can overcome petty obstacles in order to fulfill a duty we owe to Mother Nature-the duty to preserve the system that has sustained the world for centuries past, yet one that could potentially collapse under the strain of illogical consumption unless we make these small changes.  Besides, it tastes better anyways. =)

Toulmin Argument February 4, 2008

In analyzing chapter 7 of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, we are able to apply the fundamentals of British philosopher Stephen Toulmin’s concept of what methods people utilize in their attempts to make a persuasive and sensible argument.  Pollan’s points about the fast food meal from McDonald’s that he and his family share on the road can be considered in these terms:

1) Claim: What you want to argue/persuade for

Pollan’s Claim: Corn has turned the “real meal” into an industrialized, fast food meal.

2) Grounds: Data and hard facts and reasoning

Pollan’s Grounds: 1 in every 3 Americans eat fast food every single day; the chicken nugget has liberated the chicken from the fork and plate, enabling consumers to eat it on the go; chicken nuggets now made with white-meat, indicating that they were previously even less associated with authentic chicken; Pollan counts 13 of the 38 ingredients of the McNugget that can be derived from corn; subtotals his family’s meal as consisting of 6 pounds worth of corn before outside influences such as corn used for transportation, packaging etc. are factored in; had individual units of meal analyzed to determine what percentage of each item consisted of corn products: soda (100%), milk shake (78%), salad dressing (65%), chicken nuggets (56%), cheeseburger (52%), and french fries (23%); noted that his family finished their meal in under ten minutes 

3) Warrant: Linking claim and grounds/legitimizing

Pollan’s Warrant: Corn is taking over the American food market, from the produce/meat to the packaging to the transportation involved.

4) Backing: Support for warrant; answers questions

Pollan’s Backing: Mentions how corn crops stretch for 80 million acres across the continent; discusses overproduction of corn and the many ways it is put to use to eliminate the surplus; points out that not only do meals rely heavily on corn-based ingredients, but the transportation of such meals requires corn for the ethanol for the vehicle’s fuel

Also, Pollan asks “Why should it matter that we have become a race of corn eaters such that the world has never seen?  Is it necessarily a bad thing?” (pg. 117)

Attests to the fact that the use of corn involves a great loss of energy-as corn passes through the food chain, the amount of calories (food energy) is reduced by a factor of ten at each level; mentions how overproduction of corn has harmed farmers-the corn crops and industrial means by which they are produced have led to soil erosion, pollution, negative health effects for communities/animals/landscape, etc.

5) Qualifier: Specifically, precision; avoiding sweeping generalization/guarantees

Pollan’s Qualifier: In many cases corn has become a vital, if not key factor, in the modern day production of foodstuffs in American society.  Under these conditions the food market has become more industrialized, which not only leads to an increase in processed goods, but an inclination to spread this production “efficiency” to the “real meal” by advocating the quicker and cheaper fast food meal as its replacement.

6) Rebuttal: Pre-empting or talking through counter-arguments

Pollan’s Rebuttal: By utilizing corn in the production of foodstuffs, capitalism is able to flourish due to profits that increase faster than the population; by expanding American’s previously “fixed stomachs,” we are able to convince them to consumer more calories, and thus deplete some of the corn surplus; fast food induces nostalgia for some, therefore becoming a sort of “comfort food” that is packed with not only memories, but carbohydrates and fat as well, all of which purportedly evoke stress relievers and feel-good chemicals in the brain

“Be Good to Your Body” January 28, 2008

With words such as ”organic,” “conventional,” and “local” emblazoned across every available surface, signs prodding customers to sample the fresh produce stacked in neat, colorful rows, and tantalizing aromas wafting from the prepared ”gourmet world cuisine,” it seems hardly a miracle that Whole Foods Market has successfully delivered its argument to the legions of consumers crowding the decadently adorned aisles.  The health-obsessed and environmentalist’s purported dream alternative to the traditional grocery store, Whole Foods aims at convincing its shoppers that it sells high-quality, good-for-the-earth food, as well as eco-friendly clothing and cosmetics.  At least, that’s the obvious message they want the consumer to pick up on.  Hidden among their advertising, decor, and “wholegrain stamp(s) of approval” are the franchise’s other messages: We cater to upper-middle class, predominantly white families, sell hyped-up, expensive food, and make you feel a slight twinge of guilt for your previous inclination to shop at the more pocketbook-friendly HEB. 

Employing all three argument techniques of pathos, ethos, and logos, along with an atmosphere suggesting that of sophistication, casual elegance, and sustainability, Whole Foods is able to achieve its point.  They are currently appealing to shopper’s emotions through the use of signs posted throughout the store advocating new years resolutions, i.e. “Resolutions start here.  Reenergize your life.  Control your weight.”  Also, signs accompanying produce tell sob stories about university students in foreign countries raising fruits and vegetables to support poor communities while fostering  entrepreneurship.  Ethical appeals are promoted through the store’s established credibility, their “official” stamps of approval on a variety of products, knowledgeable employees who promptly offer suggestions or answer questions, etc.  As for logical appeals, Whole Foods makes it apparent that organic, natural food is better not only for you but for the environment as well, for it typically does not contain potentially harmful pesticides, added artificial ingredients, and so forth, so logically one is decreasing their risk to any adverse effects. 

Aside from any advertising or propaganda techniques employed, the general atmosphere of the store makes an argument as well-wood panelling, bamboo light fixtures, and potted plants allocated throughout the store hint at the tie to nature; an array of gourmet world cuisines, from “Bowie’s BBQ” to the sushi bar, touch on the diverse, culturally-attuned base; and the extravagant prices suggest that only upper-middle citizens can afford to shop there. 

 For being such a “down-to-earth,” friendly business, Whole Foods certainly takes a fanciful, somewhat elitist stance…

Everything’s an Argument??? January 23, 2008

Upon reading the title of our course’s main book, Everything’s An Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, I was a tad more than skeptical at the meaning behind such a bold claim.  Everything’s an argument, really?  It seemed a bit cynical to me, and for a statement that encompassed such a vast array of possibilities, it seemed hardly feasible as well.  But every allegation deserves to be heard out, so I resolved to reserve judement until class when we discussed the first few chapters and I would have the input of others to take into account. 

As it turns out, my interpretation of the word “argument” is completely different from what Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz define the word as.  Whereas ”argument” to me holds negative connotations, bringing to mind images of disagreements, bickering, opposing viewpoints, etc., the book’s two authors see it not only as a means of dispute, but a way of simply informing another of facts.  This extends out in numerous ways, from arguments that are meant to explore and make decisions, to ones that are meant for meditation/praying or convincing another of some point.  Instead of our gut reaction to what we typically consider “arguments,” Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz offer the concept of “persuasion” where we take action on our convictions, or what we know to be true.

In looking at arguments in this sense, I am now totally aware of how everything could be considered such…everything in some way is informing another individual of something.  Such day-to-day conversations we hold or observe to signs posted, in one way or another, are conveying some form of a message to their audience.  I was shocked in fact by how frequently arguments surround us after our class discussion of food labels and the comedy routine about Hot Pockets, all of which employ stylistic methods such as pathos, ethos, and logos that we learned back in middle school. 

However, despite the book’s persistance that everything is indeed an argument, I still hold a few doubts about certain situations.  After seeing the “hurricane shelter ahead” sign in the text and marvelling at the reach this symbol seemed to be making at being deemed an “argument,” I began to question other forms of messages as well.  In particular I focused on visual representations, for the lack of dialogue directly correlates to our initial assumption as to what an argument is, and thus lends to our confusion.  For example, are photographs truly arguments? If I take a snapshot of my friend sitting on a bench, are we really going to go as far as to state that this is intentionally informing of us something? Perhaps that her smiling face is depicting her happiness, her posture indicates her relaxed nature, the bench relates her location? In a way, it all seems a tad over analytical for such a simple concept.  Maybe there is indeed more than meets the eye to this whole idea that “everything’s an argument…”

Hello world! January 16, 2008