Can Stomach It....Sometimes

In her article Can't Stomach It, Julie Guthman addresses today's "problem" with obesity. She tackles questions such as whether obesity is a disease and f people like Michael Pollan have done the public well with their writings. She brings up the point that shows like The Biggest Loser may have contributed to the recent thrust in dieting drugs, fitness center and other such good and services into the general public. She raises a question that got me excited at first but after thinking about it, it didn't really make so much sense to me. She asks " why are Pollan, Goodall and Nestle not fat? If junk food is so ubiquitous that it cannot be resisted. how is it that some people remain (or become) thin?
First off, Pollan admits that certain unhealthy foods do attract consumers but from what I have read he never blatantly writes that they are irresistible. And if he did say that then he would be wrong because everyone knows some one who does not eat junk food and unhealthy foods. Secondly, as much as we need food, I believe that it hasn't been scientifically proven that food is addicting. The fact that you may really enjoy a fruit by the foot does not mean that the next time you are given the opportunity to have one, you would uncontrollably need to have another one. Again, this proves that irresistibility is farce. Lastly, most people do value life. If that is the case then when on a normal checkup at the doctor you are given news of; high cholesterol, high blood pressure or any symptoms of early obesity, people should be scared to change. If people value unhealthy food over staying alive, and not breaking the hearts of their children, family and friends then they are just not the smartest people.

Is food actually addicting?
Why do people not fear for their lives when they consume so much unhealthy food?

A Republic of Fat

In chapter 6 of The Omnivores' Dilemma, Michael Pollan addresses the increase of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and its impact on the American diet and lifestyle. He compares it to when cheap Whiskey was introduced to the public and how it became the drink of choice. Pollan adds that Whiskey was served with every meal and was so frequent that it needed to be sold by the pint at one time. He says that Whiskey was their epidemic. It led to public drunkenness, violence, family abandonment and an increase in alcohol-related diseases.    He then continues to say how the surplus of corn forced the producers to find ways to eliminate corn. This led to the production of HFCS. The first time HFCS was introduced to the public was in 1980 and it immediately caught wild fire. Almost all the foods we now eat include HFCS.  It supposedly was to take the place of sugar, but it realistically did not. Therefore, the intake of daily sugars rose dramatically. Adding the increase intake of sugars and the technological advances which allow many people to do less physical activity regularly, you get a population of fat, lazy people.
Granted the producers of HFCS are geniuses. The figured out how to engineer foods that by nature we really want to eat. But the fact that we may be the first generation in a while to have the average death age be earlier than our parents is despicable. Think about how many new medicinal and scientific advances we are privy to, and we still are dying early! People need to learn to care for themselves and for their families. Children need to be brought up conscious of all these factors, and they need to be guided to make the correct choices.

Questions
Why do obese people not take the hint and lose weight?
Why are people not afraid when they see advertisements for obesity?
Why do people think they are invincible?
How do you help people around you become conscious of their obesity without making them feel bad, get angry with you and at the same time take you seriously and try and get healthy?

The Year 2090- Omnivores Cease To Exist?

Michale Pollan in chapter 17 challenges himself and everyone in the world who eats meat. He strays from his original dilemma about; unsanitary farming conditions, the use of corn in everything and the unhealthiness of the  meat. He now opens what may even be a bigger Pandora's box, and as a proud meat eater I was so upset while reading this chapter. He cites many top experts on animal rights, and many scientists who have studied the effect of pain on animals. After struggling with this decision in his own mind he decides to become a vegetarian. He believes that allowing for animals to be slaughtered and pained with the excuse of them "not being humans" is "speciesist". Thinking about his arguments does bother me a lot because on most points he is so right and it would be so hard for me to give up meat. I agree with him but something in the back of my head is trying to justify myself.
One point he brings up is that the same way we enslaved blacks, and did not give adequate rights to women, maybe todays moral step would be to stop eating meat. What if as we grow as a people we are realizing our flaws and are slowly correcting them? More and more people are becoming vegetarians every year. Is it possible that sometime in the next century meat eating may be outlawed? I just really hope I am not around for it. I can not envision my life without it. It just hits the spot that no vegetarian or vegan food can even compete with.

Is all of Pollan's logic correct when he decides to become a vegetarian?
Are there any people who argue this point and have logical rebuttles that Pollan may not be able to answer? ( please tell me there are!)

Dear Mr. President-Elect

I think Michael Pollan over does himself in this article titled Farmer in Chief. He blatantly calls out the now President Barrack Obama for how food was not on his priority list while campaigning. He does so brilliantly by showing that what President Obama did stress during his campaign in fact directly revolved around the food industry. Mr. Pollan makes it clear that food should be a top the countries agenda. He proves that as high calorie diets increase and the price per calorie decreases, fossil fuels, greenhouse gases and a myriad of life threatening diseases increase. What is a country without people to run it? That is where we will be if the majority of our country is dying due to obesity and type 2 diabetes. What scares me is that unlike a broken leg or bruised arm where people feel pain and then go seek treatment, consumption of food does not hurt. What happens in our body is not visible. People do not pick up on slight increases of blood pressure or higher cholesterol. Until one day they have a heart attack or stroke due to it. It is like saying if a persons leg was broken and they didnt feel it and it did not hinder their day to day activity, they probably would not got get a cast. However one day they will be walking and their leg might tear off, then they will realize that they made a mistake. Michale Pollan is trying to make sure we do not make that mistake.

Side point: I think calling this article Farmer in Chief was great, for those of you who didnt get it, it is a play on commander in chief, it made me laugh.

Food Inc. Review #3

"This movie offers very little that food radicals don't already know." That is Kyle Smiths review of Food Inc. Although short he gets his point across pretty easily. The New York Post, the paper Smith rights in, is known for its light reading when compared to the Times and The Journal. It comes as no surprise that someone in the Post would take such an extreme angle. However, he may be correct. The problem with his negative statement of the film is that he assumes the movie was made for food radicals. Obviously this can not be the case. Farmers and industrial meat companies are not the only people who want to make money. So do directors, producers and studios. To think they went through all this trouble to voice their opinions to the tiny amount of food radicals is not logical. The crowd they were hoping to reach out to was the laymen. They were trying to make the general public aware of the food they eat not the minority of food radicals who may or may not know. His statement is valid, but when evaluating the movie as a whole and the awareness it has sparked, Smith is totally off base and incorrect.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/food-inc/critic-reviews?dist=negative

Food Inc. Review #2

Rob Hopkins of the website known as Traditional Cultures is very insightful in his review of Food Inc. He gives a great summary of the movie and even gives the perspective of a UK member watching. He concedes that as their meat isn't "as" bad it is still not the healthiest. However, he does say that most UK watchers would then say after watching the film that there is no way that happens here, that only occurs in the U.S. After his summary Rob goes on to praise the film for its vantage point ability. He says that the reason this film made it bigger than a regular industrial film is because it told the other side of the story. Towards the end he makes his best points. He says it better than I would; "Ultimately though, this is a hopeful film.  Yes the food system is extremely powerful, but as the film says, so was the tobacco industry.  The movement of local, organic, unprocessed food continues to grow.  As one farmer interviewed in the film says “people have got to start demanding good wholesome food from us and we’ll deliver, I promise you”. Overall, Rob seems to have enjoyed the film and agree with most of what it said. He definitely thinks good will come out of it. I just hope he is write.


http://transitionculture.org/2010/02/09/film-review-food-inc/

Food Incc. Review # 1

The New York Times is usually known to be a liberal news paper in which its authors are usually cynical of the things they report. However, in Manhola Dargis' review of Food Inc. it seems that this may not be the case. He seems to be right on point with the objectives of the movie. He notes that it is scary to watch and that if the typical movie goer had not read and of Pollan's books these facts would be astonishing and brand new. Manhola does however take shots at some of the producing methods taken by the creators of the film. The Times is a widely read newspaper and if it wants to continue to be sold it must cater to all its readers. And being an American newspaper it can not seem like it totally agrees with all of the films points. This is why I think that the reader must read between the lines of this article to truly see the authors focus. The article at times may seem to be a negative review but does a good job of not attacking or defending the movies overall agenda.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/movies/12food.html