In this article, Gene Baur analyzes the dairy and meat industry’s battle over the control of labeling non-dairy & meat products. People are moving away from foods produced by abusive, industrialized animal agriculture & are seeking healthier, more efficient alternatives in plant-based foods that replace meat and dairy. The same scenario introduced to us in the film food, Inc. which outlined the inhumane practices of large-scale beef and poultry production and the outcomes it may bring. Due to declining sales, factory-farm lobbyists battle for regulations controlling the competitors use of the word “Milk” & “Meat” in marketing labels. Claiming that using the word “Milk,” when labeling non-dairy products confuses the consumers. Like Pandoras Lunch Box, this article touches on the role politics plays in the decision making for food industry laws and regulations. One also cannot forget that corruption plays a role in these political decisions, and one can’t help to be curious after learning from the article that Tom Vilsack, former U.S. agriculture secretary, now heads the US Dairy Export Council. In Baur’s opinion, the meat and dairy industries are not concerned with the confusion caused by false labels but concerned with the containment of plant-based product sales. Baur then goes on to explain how awareness of inhumane animal agriculture practices is growing, and nothing will stop the future demand for plant-based food. With awareness growing, new businesses are innovating new foods to replace irresponsible industrialized agriculture. It is interesting to see what the future holds, as plant-based foods can efficiently produce more food for more people with fewer resources, instead of wasting crops to raise farm animals for slaughter inhumanely. A point argued in the movie, Food Inc.
Migrant Farm Workers: Our Nations Invisible Population
In this article by Eduardo Gonzalez, the migrant farm worker and the impact on society they bring gets recognized . 1 to 3 million workers come to the united states every year to harvest and work farms. They are young and driven to support their families. For some, it is corrupt politics that push them into the US. The migrant farmers are crucial for the harvesting of specific produces, and their experience and work ethics are unmatched. Without them, our farming production and reputation crumbles. But, they are an invisible population. Around half of these migrant farmers have unauthorized workers with no legal status in the united states. Stuck to the boundaries of the farm, they are cut off from culture and healthy lifestyles. With no interactions outside of farming, loneliness takes over. With no transportation, they remain glued to the farms and lay low due to legal status. Their Legal Status leads to poor working conditions, unfair wages, and many other challenges. Without legal status, the migrant workers cannot argue these conditions with employers, out of fear of losing jobs or being sent back to homelands. Due to legal status, they must stay invisible in hopes to remain working and provide for families. We need to understand that this country became what it is today because of migrants from countless countries, and these farmers have a significant impact on this country and its future. So, something needs to happen that will help these migrant farmers with legal status or their presence will remain invisible to the everyday person.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture labels food insecurity as, “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate & safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.” (Bethesda, MD) The article I reviewed, Food Insecurity – Child Trends, digs up the numbers and facts evolving around children living in households that are insecure about their food. Overall, the proportion of children living in a food insecure homes fluctuates from time to time. Culture, among many other topics, can be connected to food insecurity numbers. For example, “in 2016, household food insecurity was almost twice as prevalent among children in households headed by non-Hispanic black (26 percent) or Hispanic adults (24 percent) than in those headed by non-Hispanic white adults (13 percent).” (Bethesda, MD) Non-white households see almost a double in food insecurity numbers. But why? Tracie McMillian writes in an article, Do Poor People Eat Badly Because of Food Deserts or Personal Preference, about the American food system and its structural problems. Stating that food deserts, or neighborhoods with little access to supplies of healthy foods, are booming. These deserts are why heavily populated areas with Hispanic and African American culture have higher food insecurity. Confirming a relationship between Non-white culture and food insecurity. Being that, African American and Hispanic households are usually grouped in or around the same geographic location. Within these locations, there are less grocery stores and less access to a supply of healthy food. To me, these food deserts are usually locations that are heavily populated by low income nonwhite cultures. So, nonwhite cultures see double the food insecurity numbers because they live in geographic locations that are labeled food deserts, giving them less access to healthy safe foods and causing high numbers for food insecurity.
McDonald's chef reveals 5 changes the company is making to its food
This article explores how executive chefs and nutrition professionals are changing the McDonalds menu for more healthier options. I will be talking about how these changes will impact food producers. In the past, the fast food chain has come under some fire and scrutiny for its heavy calorie packed supersized meals and other highly fattening items. Chefs and executives are coming together to figure out and analyze the most significant trends in health today, so they can create a menu that offers options and healthier substitutes. One of the main changes made was using real butter instead of margarine for the egg McMuffins. Something so small, but so high in impact on butter producers. Think about all the butter McDonalds is now buying, companies could be changing butter recipes, as well as making new kinds of butter to compete for the sales. The other change to the menu comes from making items that have local tastes and foods. For example, garlic fires in California made with garlic that’s grown there. Which would impact local growers of garlic, and maybe even boost sales in french-fries which could lead to more sales of potatoes. It all is connected. The food, the menu, the money. Relating it to the readings for class, looking at health fads and trends among customers resembles the control dimension of McDonaldization. In, “the introduction to McDonaldization,” dimensions describe ways that McDonaldized places are advantaged. For this example, it is controlling. As the reading states, “control is exerted over the people who enter McDonald's. Lines, limited menus…all lead diners to do what management wishes them to do-eat quickly and leave.” This is interesting, and we think that McDonald's is caring about customers by changing menu items. However, they are analyzing data trends and health fads of people of all demographics to create a menu that allows people to get what they want, get out, and make profits all at the same time. Can I get some fries with that?
Throughout this article, Damian Carrington stresses how vital it is to reduce the amount of meat consumed in countries, specifically western ones. Carrington explains how in 30+ years the population is going to rise by 2.3 billion people and in order to feed that many people western countries must cut 90% of their meat consumption. If we do not cut back on meat intake, we could see numerous future problems with world hunger. This article also talks about how people are utterly oblivious to the concerns over meat consumption and its impacts on climate change. It made me think about de Witts article, People still don’t get the link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change. When de Witt talks about how research shows people are not entirely aware of the entire impacts evolving around meat and climate change. People know that climate change is an issue, but don’t address how much meat consumption plays a role in those numbers. However, as both articles address, a plan must be implemented and made known as soon as possible if we want to avoid any problems with future hunger or climate issues.
Agriculture has become the central concern regarding global warming problems. Deforestation to grow resources for cow feed and a high demand for diets rich with meat and dairy are driving emissions through the roof. With an estimated 2 million more people to feed by 2050, a solution needs to happen quickly. Arguments over such solutions are intense between local organic farming, and high-tech farming, with both sides having feasible ways to reduce emissions while producing more yields.
In this article, Jonathan Foley took information from both sides and produced a list of the top ways the world can double food availability while also reducing environmental harm caused by farming and agriculture. The first two recommendations evolve around freezing the agriculture footprint and growing more on the farms we already have. By doing both, farmers will no longer have to deforest land to grow crops and will produce more food on land already cleared. Using high-tech and more precise farming systems on already cleared or less productive land entails methods from both organic and high-tech farming to increase yield and reduce emissions. Vertical farming could be one example of these two methods combined. As stated in the article, “How Does This Garden Grow? To the Ceiling,” vertical farming can be done on land already cleared, or land that is less productive. This method allows greens to be produced without harmful soils containing pesticides and fertilizers and uses 95% less water while growing 75% more crops per square foot than traditional farming methods. Foley also stresses the importance of using resources more efficiently, which can reduce emissions and lead to larger crop yields. He explains how organic farming can achieve these goals by using cover crops, mulches, and compost to better the quality of soil, save more water and build nutrients. Similar to examples used in the article, “Can Dirt Save the Earth?” Which follows farmers who are using regenerative agriculture, stressing the importance of farming to improve the land by focusing on soil health. By using cover crops and compost, regenerative farming allows more nutrients to be stored in the soil while also acting as a sponge for carbon in the atmosphere. The method can produce higher yields of produce, while also minimizing waste by using organic donated compost.