Why are we always in a rush

Lower status jobs, increased workloads and lack of self-control at work have been directly associated with unhealthy diets. However, the ways in which work is connected with unhealthy dieting is largely unknown. Work, like other social roles, influences physical health and health behaviors, such as food choices, through providing or limiting access to economic, social and health resources, health risks, health attitudes, and health promotion opportunities. Younger workers and those with lower levels of education and income report less healthful food choices than older and better-educated workers. Likewise, while both men and women experience strain during the workday, women continue to experience strain after working hours even after adjusting for work and home characteristics and interactions between them.  But why? Everywhere else in the world, people take hours off of work to go home and eat lunch with their families. Why is it that in American culture, we feel the need to eat as quickly as possible at our desks in order to get right back to work? The culture of fast food has capitalized on this rushed mentality and catered to having food available 24/7 with no wait. However, this food is rarely nutritious and largely responsible for the obesity epidemic in this country. 

Food Choice is circumstantial

While thinking about fast food culture and reading these articles, I couldn't help but think about how Americanized this phenomenon is. In the times I've left America to visit family in Trinidad, I've noticed that one of the key components that makes fast food so accessible here isn't present over there; in Trinidad, the price of fast food is so expensive that it almost seems like a delicacy. A couple of sandwiches and soft drinks that would barely cost $10 in the U.S. cost almost $100 in Trinidad. Granted, the prices for everything in Trinidad are incredibly inflated compared to how things are in America, but it still lead to most of my relatives opting to cook for themselves more often than not, as well as eating with the family. I also thought it was important to note that even geography and transportation play a part in the consumption of fast food. In an urban setting with accessible public transport (like NYC for example) it's easy to get to fast food places, whereas where my grandmother lives in Trinidad, it can take over an hour to reach an area with fast food.

Even the lifestyles are different between Trinidad and the U.S. In the U.S., which allow fast food to be more consumable over here in the states. In the U.S., we put pressure on people to be independent, as a single mother explained in the 2006 Devine article (page 2596). Like many people in her situation, she may feel like the only provider for her family, and that it is a better option to feed her family cheap, unhealthy foods than to not be able feed them at all. In Trinidad, there's a lot more codependency. Many of my grandparents' children come by to visit and cook for them. Some of their children even still live with them as it's normal, which makes things financially easier for them, and allows them to more easily prepare food and have healthier meals.

Coping?

As Devine talked about the coping strategies that families described when tied up by the demands of family and work, I couldn't help but to imagine a snowball effect.  If getting your hands on the fast, cheap, and yummy food at the end of the work day to bring home to the kids who have been waiting for dinner, there is going to be a continuous problem.  If the "treating" of the family to these types of food happens a couple times a week and starts to become more of the norm, which it seemed like with these families, when the effort is finally made to prepare a more healthy meal on a day when there's time or something there will most likely be backlash from the kids who are used to eating the fast, yummy things.  Then the parent will feel pressured and unsatisfied with their efforts because the kids showed dissatisfaction towards the change in meals.  I thought it was interesting when it was brought up that it also devalues the family meal time and promotes individual eating instead, since the meal is not accompanied by a process.  This snowball effect also obviously promotes overweightness and a predisposition to crave unhealthier foods for the kids later in life.  So is this coping strategy really a coping strategy?  Or is it just a very temporary one...

Fast Food Decisions

This just came to me in one of the many mass mailings that pour through my e-mailbox: "Fast Food Menu Meals That Won't Blow Your Budget" (meaning your calorie budget - this is from LoseIt!).
http://blog.loseit.com/2015/09/16/fast-food-menu-meals-that-wont-blow-your-budget/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=septpanel1

I think mailings like this encourage people to buy fast food even if they weren't considering it before, partly because of the "you don't have to worry about it" message.  What do you think?

Fast Food and the "Convenience" Dilemma

While reading these articles I thought a lot about other countries and my friends and families fast food opinions as well as my own. The Italians (and French) having much more national food pride wasn't astounding but I felt like it was the reason that they wanted less to do with the fast food. This lines up with my families, friends and my own opinions about fast food as well. Obviously, in moderation FF wouldn't kill anyone and would be a fun "convenience" here and there but our society is terrible at moderation - we almost preach against it. But in a society that lacks a national pride about our health or our food (as the French and Mediterranean diet's do) fast food has become our national food "pride" which is kind of sad.

This happens slowly at first (like the article said in the 1970s FF wasn't prevalent to now when only 3% of American's say they never eat it) but eventually takes it's toll. And it goes well with the food lobbies that are lobbying for use of corn and soy additives in most foods and an overabundance of meat on our menus. The subsidies even line up with it and with it our national perception that FF is okay comes right along too. The problem here is that it's being supported by lobbyists and the government, it's being subsidized so it's even cheaper but when it comes down to it we're the ones who have to pay for the medical issues associated with food that isn't nutritious and is making people overweight. That seems like a ridiculous model of business - in the end we're basically making it easier for people to get sick.

To get off the soapbox for a minute and talk about real food like Blue Apron's meals; there were some parallels to the convenience of fast food but also some great contrasts that made the meal wonderful. The cook time was relatively short - only about an hour for each meal. And the shopping time was non-existent since it was all delivered to Prof's house. The meals incorporated some cool ingredients that might be difficult to get otherwise like saffron and organic poultry. Overall, we thought this would be a great idea for people who didn't have a lot of time or knowledge about cooking to start out with some fun recipes.

Fast Food: Convenient but Deadly

Fast food has been present in my life for as long as I can remember. It was rarely an option for dinner, but when I was growing up, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, or Burger King were always possibilities for lunch on a busy day. Uninformed about the different food choices I could have been making, it was normal for me to grab a greasy cheeseburger and a side of salty, ketchup-slathered fries that a fast-food worker handed to me, from their window to mine. As I have been learning more about my health and nutritious decisions I can be making, it has become clear to me that there are many options that I should be choosing over fast food. As I was reading through the assigned articles for today’s post, I realized that both of them included the same point: there is a positive correlation between the density of fast-food restaurants and increased obesity rates. This is a serious problem that the world must address. For the most part, kids do not control the foods that they eat because their schools and the family they live with are responsible to feed them. With the busy lifestyle that most people have these days, how can we help educate families on the importance of avoiding fast food to promote health and decrease the rate of obesity?

Zhong and DeVoe also pose an important question in their article: did fast food cause our culture’s ever-present impatience or is fast food merely a consequence of the impatience? The three experiments conducted in their study leave readers lingering on this question, as they contain interesting, surprising findings. Zhong and DeVoe’s studies support the idea that thinking about fast food, consciously or unconsciously, makes people impatient and could even put their economic interest at risk. One of the main reasons that we discussed in class about why people choose to eat unhealthily is because it costs less money to buy cheap, unhealthy food compared to organic, locally grown, natural foods. However, if exposure to fast foods makes us more likely to spend, rather than save more, this logic is flawed. The true cost of food is what should matter the most, so it is important that we find a way to raise people’s awareness about what they are eating.

Pictures from Blue Apron Cooking Session

What Influences Us?

In Zhong and DeVoe’s exploration of fast food, they demonstrated how fast food restaurants can influence our entire outlook on life. They showed that exposure to images of fast food make people value time saving over other goals, and fast food restaurants are just about everywhere. Seeing these restaurants all the time undoubtedly influences our desires and actions. And, because fast food restaurants cause us to value time-saving, will we simply create more time saving services that continually prime us to value time-saving? I certainly hope not, particularly because of some of the other implications of fast food-priming that Zhong and DeVoe discuss.

Earlier in the semester, we talked briefly about food deserts, the idea that many low-income neighborhoods lack access to grocery stores and healthy, affordable food choices. Often, these neighborhoods instead have convenience marts and fast food restaurants. As suggested in the article by Zhong and DeVoe, this high exposure to fast food could potentially invoke financial decisions that value instant gratification over higher returns in the long run. Could the environment of the food desert be influencing the financial decisions of people in these neighborhoods?

While the answer might be “yes,” there are, of course, a multitude of other factors playing into the financial decisions of people living in low-income neighborhoods, and living near fast food restaurants certainly won’t make you poor. Still, it is important to recognize the silent factors that play into our decision-making. We like to believe that we have complete control over our decisions, but the Zhong and DeVoe article certainly implies that we don’t. And, when we recognize those factors that influence us, we can try to address their impact on us by examining how much we really value something like saving time. What other factors quietly play into shortsighted financial decisions, and how can understanding those factors increase our empathy toward people living in poverty?

I think that knowing about these studies and their results is important to combatting the effects of fast food restaurants. If we recognize the factors that influence our actions, we can readjust our views and judgments, assess what goals we really value, and make new decisions. We currently live in a fast-paced, fast food nation, but I think that knowledge and intentionality can help us to find a simpler way to live.

Follow the money

Following the money may not always be bad.  Take a look at this:
http://www.fooddive.com/news/majority-of-mccormick-spices-to-be-non-gmo-and-organic-by-2016/405302/

Corporations and Food

While I've always known that corporations have a say in our food and how it's labeled, thinking about all the different lobbyists and how they're all trying to push their own agenda and sell their products really made me sick to think about. When you think about food companies, you'd like to think that they are trying to produce the healthiest or most nutritional foods, when in actuality, they're producing the cheapest products and lying about the contents of our food so that we keep buying. Although I can understand that these are businesses and their goal is to profit, it still blows me away that these companies are allowed to bend the truth in order to sell to consumers. In allowing this, we've let the government and these companies to have too much power, and rather than food being viewed as a basic necessity, food is a business. This is perpetuates a lot of the stereotypes that we have for people of lower economic background; healthy foods tend to be more expensive and junk food is cheap, but rather than addressing this issue, we as a society blame the lower class for not working harder to be able to afford more expensive foods.

I'm curious as to why society allows this. Why does the health of the general population take a backseat to profit? If more people were educated about the food industry, would we change our relationship with food and move towards a healthier, more organic diet? Or are we so stuck in this system that we wouldn't change even if the general public was knowledgeable about this?

"Free" Market Economics

Corporation influence on our government has been a major issue recently. Financial interest has prompted these large corporations to essentially buy out our government by donating hard money, giving legal, but unsanctioned, soft money and gifts to these representatives. This enables a huge disparity to form between the general public, policy makers and food industry. In theory the government is supposed to represent the people, but instead is lying to the general public about what is really in our foods just so these large corporations can make a bigger profit. As the Nestle article states, lobbying has always involved: 1) promoting the views of special interest groups, 2) attempting to influence government rules, laws or policies that might affect those groups, and 3) communicating with government officials or their representatives about laws, rules or policies of interest. Lobbyists, therefore, ask government officials to make rules or laws that will only benefit their clients’ companies without regard for the well-being of anyone else. Then, if a government official decides to not back these large corporations, they shut off funding to that candidate and fund someone else who does support the industry to take the incumbents place in government. This perpetually insures that these massive corporations have a say in our government with their puppet officials. Either way the general public draws the short stick and is left with: unlabeled genetically modified crops, untested foreign chemicals in food and ingredients barely anyone can pronounce. So then do we really live in a free market society? What can we do to stop corporation influence on our government? 

Politics of Food

The Dairy Council and the Sugar Association help sponsor the American Dietetic Association and their fact sheets... What??  First, perhaps the most striking thing to me from this reading was the amount of interest groups/food related groups, associations, councils, etc. that exist.  We know the big companies and contributors, but the amount that still feed into the system is exhausting to try and comprehend, and all with their own agenda.  It actually hurts my brain to think about.

On one hand, the fact that most of the information we are receiving about nutrition from federal agencies and other sources is undoubtedly tainted with the pressures or interests of whatever food sellers/companies are behind it is unsettling.  But on the other hand, when thinking about research and the nutrition field, a lot of good work that has been facilitated by some financial contribution from companies or associations would not have been possible without their economic input.  It truly is a double-edged sword. Is there any instances anyone can think of that a food selling entity has done something/contributed to the general public knowing it would be detrimental to them or would not boost their profits in some way?  Imposing influence on stakeholders to make their products look better and not be completely against them helps them, but so does moderately contributing to projects/research that have the hopes to find information that improves health, because then they look good in the public eye.  Would the food industry be able to exist the way it does without all of this political tension or is it a necessary evil?

This chapters made me think about the disconnect between consumers, policy makers, and large corporations that are involved in the food industry. I think this disconnection makes our food system very unjust for some members of society. Through various classes I was aware of the lack of subsidization for vegetables and the idea of lobbyists on the food industry. These factors I realized contributed to the American diet and our unjust food system. People from lower socioeconomic statuses and that have health related issues are denied access to food that need to survive. I was able to comprehend that the government made decisions that directly affected consumers and their diet. From these reading I saw there is also corruption within food corporations. An aspect that was very interesting to me was the American Heart Association labeling items as hearth healthy and the backlash it received. This idea raises two ideas within me that deals with the labeling. One idea relates to Pollen's argument that we shouldn't have to label our products so we know what is healthy for us. He also wrote about how these items are not actually healthy but just have this label. This clearly shows because the AHA invited margarine, crackers, and frozen foods to apply for this endorsement, which do not seem heart healthy to me. So these unhealthy items are receiving "healthy" labels just because they are making money for their corporations. I think this creates a further disconnect between consumers and the products they are consuming. On the other hand I thought this was an interesting way to combat the unhealthy choices. I feel if this was implemented ethically it would have been a good marketing tool to advocate for healthy eating.  


From the AHA's labeling as "heart healthy" I wonder what the implications would be if products were labeled "not heart healthy" and most of society's food trusted to be healthy. Would this cause people to eat healthier or more creative ways to push unhealthy food?

The Influence of Corporations

The influence that corporations can have on government is something that still needs much refinement in control. The satisfaction of personal interests in terms of money and power that corporations can provide to government officials is a cause for concern. This power that corporations can have on government officials severely impairs the government’s job of looking out for the public welfare. This is what lobbying is capable of. In the particular case of Nestle’s book, food lobbying and food research are examined and how they generate a conflict of interest between the interests of corporations and public as well as environmental health.

            One of the problems with the influence corporations exert over food research and food legislation is that it is done in a way that is not explicit enough to stop easily. In fact, through research shown by Nestle, it is not even necessary for corporations to explicitly tell government officials to represent their interests. They can reinforce the voting of government officials for laws that represent their corporate interests by donating money to the officials who voted for their interests. In this way they can discourage government officials from not voting for laws that favor their interests by withdrawing donations in the following election term. With this system in place, government officials who do not represent the interests of corporations will likely have fewer funds to run for government.

The Fog of Food Knowledge

The Nestle reading was definitely the class reading that made me feel the least optimistic about our food situation in America (and globally).

The biggest takeaway I had is just how many layers of people, with both dubious motives (lobbying) and information (sponsorship) there are between food producers and the consumer. These layers of food knowledge, directly influenced by money, keep average people from really knowing about what they're eating.

Let's say that there were to be a completely new species of vegetable found. The average American, not having any knowledge about food science, will trust the FDA to make an informed opinion about the health of the new vegetable. They would turn to the experts, who are being sponsored (directly or indirectly) by food companies, who will provide an opinion that is at best incomplete and at worst compromised by money. The FDA, or more so the individuals that make up institutions like it, would then be beholden to the people providing them with money. Do the tomato lobbyists that paid for an exorbitant vacation (under the guise of a speaking opportunity) feel threatened? Does Big Cucumber, contributor to the PAC funding you, not want to share the market? The FDA then makes a claim that either this food is okay for consumption or not.

Then the marketing comes along. Vegetable X doesn't cause cancer! It most certainly will make you less hungry! We paid to have a heart-with-a-check-mark on the label! The general, uninformed public decides this vegetable is the newest, greatest, best thing ever, convinced by new articles in magazines and advertisements, all paid for. This fog of money and organizations is keeping the average person from any real truth about the foods they're eating.

This is becoming very rant-y, but it's frustrating to know just how much nonsense goes into judgement about food, and how little the average person knows about their food in general. This piece has really highlighted to me the importance of a quote from the last reading, "eat what your great-grandmother would recognize as food". It's really the only way to be sure that what we're eating isn't (at least somewhat) determined by someone who is more interested in profit than your health.

How do you ever get money out of politics/government? Should food safety/science be handled by organizations that can be ethically compromised? Is it the responsibility of the average person to learn more about their foods, and if so, where can they even go for information at this point?

I was really surprised when Pollan talked about how the low-fat craze of the 1970s could be the reason for our obesity epidemic.  Looking at nutrients now, some of us understand that carbohydrates give us energy, but are not good for us in excess (like anything).  It's crazy to think about how a food fad could have caused this serious issue that we are facing today.  This leads to my question of what can we do now to repair the damage caused by this low-fat fad of the past?  I believe that proper nutrition education starting at a young age can help children learn the importance of a well-balanced diet.  I subscribe to the idea that the parents are almost always at fault for how their children live there lives.  It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children how to live healthy and full-filling lives.  This is an even harder issue to fix and goes well beyond food, but I have to ask how can we get parents to care about what their children eat?

When I shop (which is rare because I have a meal plan), I don't look at the nutrition facts.  You almost don't have to anyway because the colorful boxes display the nutritional benefits on all sides of the box.  I pretty much pick out food because I like it.  I always try to get a variety of food though.  I never eat only meat or only vegetables.  I love a variety, and I love fresh food the best.  There's nothing better than a meal cooked from fresh, local produce and meat.  It feels good to eat foods that aren't shelf-stable for two thousand years.  It makes you feel better physically.  I'm not looking for nutrients, I'm looking for actual food, as Pollan puts it.

Real Food and Fads

Pollan dispelled quite a bit of what I thought to be true about food in about 15 pages. Is really all were eating one big fad dreamed up by some nutritionists at the best paid companies so that they and few else can make money? I really hope it's not. But with each new fact and each time he told us how many times we were told, believed and followed the notions of "low-saturated fat" diets and then wait, maybe fat isn't so bad and then back again to the low fat dieting. It's exhausting and incredible that society continues to believe it.

I couldn't help but think the whole time I was prone to many of his fallacies of "eating": I take a multivitamin which is just "vitamins" and not "food". I enjoy breakfast cereal occasionally - is that really just "corn crap" were all being spoon-fed because our moms told us too?

I love the idea of eating mostly real food that doesn't need much endorsement and not too much "vitamins" or "nutrients" or boasting food labels. It's incredible how much our society has become label-readers, many people now do it. We look at what we're ingesting but how often does it help us to alter our decision? Do we let it get in the way of how we want something to taste? I'm not convinced we are.

This reading is really making me look at fad foods differently. Right now Greek yogurt is really popular, so are different kinds of milk (coconut, almond, soy, etc.), gluten-free options and dairy-free to name a few. Are all of these (besides actual intolerances and allergies) just fads that are being pushed by companies to try and get us to eat them? Pollan is telling us to eat in moderation just like the Greeks did. But what is moderation anymore; and of what? If we can't trust the government or nutritionists then where do we look for a concrete (or more concrete than Pollan's rules to eat by) list of what amounts and how we can eat? A solid, unbiased opinion on this could really make the difference.

Simple eating

By going to the "Fast, Cheap, and Good" cooking demonstration today, it is (surprisingly) easy to see how to make nutritious food with few difficulties. Almost all of the dishes made at the demonstration had fewer than ten ingredients. This is in line with Pollen's advice on choosing what foods to eat and that is "Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food." I thought it was interesting how he points out food that touts its health benefits often is not as health as many people think and is primarily used to sell more products. He also points out how the meat and dairy industry's influence is so pervasive that even well-meaning politicians that want to change the food industry to improve Americans' health are essentially driven out of office by smear campaigns. 

Before this article, I never really paid too much attention to food products that claim to be healthy because of all of the "added nutrients" and "low-fat" labels placed on the packaging. In the future, I will be on the looking out for misleading advertisement on the food that I purchase. The gist of Pollen's article is that if people want a healthy lifestyle they should just eat simply.

The quote that I took away most from this article was about Thomas Jefferson's advice: "treat(ing) meat more as a flavoring than a food." Do you think it is possible that the average household could achieve a lifestyle like this? Especially because we place such an emphasis on meat being the center dish (ex: grilling with the family, a dinner date, a typical dinner, etc.)

Real Foods Vs. Fake Foods

At the “Fast, Cheap & Good” cooking session today, I was again reminded of how surprisingly delicious fresh, natural foods are in comparison to preserved foods. While reading Pollan’s article, I realized that he made many valid points about what “real food” really is. I find Pollan’s position on Nutritionism to be very interesting, because it is a lifestyle that has been adopted by so many people in society today. Many people are obsessed with having certain nutrients in their food, cutting some other foods out of their diets, and making sure to eat “healthily,” but it is not an absolute fact that these are actually ways to eat healthily. Although, throughout most of the food research that has been conducted, signs are pointing to Nutritionism as being a healthy way of living.

It perplexes me as to why so many fake foods are being marketed as “nutritious” foods. I realize that companies are making money off of these products, but they are mostly processed, with few traces of natural components. As Pollan mentions, simply because something has terms like “full of fiber” on the label, it does not necessarily mean that it is healthy. I have previously tried a variety of items marketed as healthy diet bars and cereals, but now that I have thought it through, I don’t know why I thought they were healthy alternatives to real food. It is really important to take care of your own body, because you only get one for your entire life. This is opening my eyes to how I need to really start watching what I am consuming so as to preserve my body and really live a healthy lifestyle.