From this supermarket activity two themes from previous articles really stuck out to me. One being Pollan's argument that you should eat less and pay more. And the other being the convenience of cheap food that we often talk about. Pollan's argument really stuck out to me because I was looking that the ingredients in the food items I didn't understand or know many of them. This is something that I've been aware of. I've looked at labels and noticed there are a lot of items that I had no idea what they are. But Pollan's argument stuck out to me because I was thinking there should be less non-food items in our food. But that's not realistic so we are forced to pay more for food with less non-food ingredients. When I first read this I didn't fully agree with just for the reason it's not possible for everyone. I felt that was a very elitist way of thinking and over simplified eating/nutrition habits. For example, my weekly menu is not anything extravagant and involves a lot of processed foods. I partly did this because this is how I eat and I'm aware it's not nutritious. Also, I wanted to simulate a low income family that may get a majority of their food from food banks. I obviously am not a head of a low income family so I would not know how they eat. Also there are other services that could provide them with different foods. But I feel like the I picked can be representative of food in food banks. Like I stated before many of these food items had a lot of added ingredients that I had no idea what they are. I feel my confusion can easily be attributed to many families that are in these shopping situations. So, Pollan’s argument of eat less pay more is not attainable to this situation. It disregards many families and does not help them with a plan of how to eat healthier.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Supermarket Activity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment