American Me: Country of Origin

American Me: Country of Origin

Welcome to the age of global consumerism. As the sun sets on an ever-shrinking horizon, Americans continue to enjoy the spoils of being the world’s dominant super power. The maps of the 16^th Century that once terrified the world have since drawn boundaries, and the seas dividing continents seem to be shrinking from the impact of globalization. With farmers from the southern hemisphere shipping exotic foods to the north in the winter months, our taste buds never fail to receive an ample array of food. Food accessibility and variety is something we Americans, myself included, take for granted. The idea of containerization has revolutionized freight transportation, allowing for the maximum amount of food to be carried on each cargo ship. Through understanding where our food comes from, one may better understand the dynamic that food plays in American society. Despite the vanishing concept of communal eating in a large portion of American society, what is in our food and where it comes from is becoming increasingly important. The importance of local farming will undoubtedly reveal itself in the future years to come.

U.S. consumers are arguably, the pickiest eaters in the world. Not in the sense that we only eat certain foods, or that we only eat fast food like much of the world may choose to believe - but rather the contrary. With wealth and power comes accessibility, and at a cheap cost. When you walk into your local Safeway in February, it is evident that much of the produce and vegetables on display requires a warmer climate than the United States offers growers in that season. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, “As Americans have become wealthier and more ethnically diverse, the American food basket reflects a growing share of tropical products, spices, and imported gourmet products. Seasonal and climatic factors drive U.S. imports of popular types of fruits and vegetables and tropical products, such as cocoa and coffee” (“US Food Imports”). The commodities offered to the average American consumer are, as an understatement, abundant. Only a handful of countries in the world can compete with the supermarkets of America, and even those that do tend to lack the diversity and choice found within the aisles of your local produce section. As American’s, we have mastered the art of bringing Chile and Costa Rica to our local produce section.

Increased food imports have to meet the demand of the growing population. Among the growing American population, fruit and vegetable consumption continues to rise. “Americans in 2000 consumed a fifth more fruit and vegetables than did their counterparts in the 1970’s” (“Profiling Food Consumption in America”). The increase in certain food consumption has led to the gradual increase of food imports in America. Food imports do carry a certain degree of danger, be it rats getting into containers on freighters, or salmonella in the cantaloupe being driven across the U.S.-Mexican border. Freight containers however allow Americans to enjoy the splendors of food no matter what season it is, “The abundance and relative cheapness (some sell for as little as $900) of these containers during the last decade comes from the deficit in manufactured goods coming from North America. These manufactured goods come to North America, from Asia and Europe, in containers that often have to be shipped back empty at a considerable expense” (Pagnotta). Since the abundance of unused containers has begun to fill junkyards, designers and engineers are looking for ways to use these containers that would otherwise be too expensive to ship to their country of origin. Thus the idea of the container apartment is thus born. Ideally, one would not want to live in a house or apartment made out of reused shipping containers, but builders are beginning to do just that.

Due to the rise of imported food in America, consumer labels have had to adapt in order to stay up to date with food regulations. “On September 30^th of 2009, the long-awaited rule requiring mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for food went into effect…Seafood has been covered since 2005. Now beef, poultry, lamb, goat, some nuts, fresh and some frozen fruits and vegetables, and ginseng have to be labeled with their country of origin” (Consumer Labels). A country of origin label may appease the consumer, however knowing what country the food came from does not imply anything about the condition of that food. Often, a consumer may read a meat case labeled as “product of U.S., Mexico, and Canada”. One may wonder just how a cow can be from three different countries. First off, a cow may be raised in Mexico, and then shipped to America after birth or down the road for slaughter. Another case, and much less appealing, is that “ground meat might contain parts of multiple animals – which might be from different countries” (“Consumer Labels”). Multi-country labels are at the very least, controversial. Several corporations are taking advantage of the USDA’s somewhat loosely defined and lenient rules. Rather than stating which countries a particular piece of beef is from, a corporation may simply label a package of ground beef as North American. Animals that are eligible for a U.S. label, or a made in America stamp often have to pay more than say, beef from Mexico. So that leaves the question still, is the beef from America, Canada, or Mexico?

On a global perspective, about 25,000 shipments of “FDA-regulated foods arrive daily in the USA from more than 100 countries. Anchovies come from Thailand, dry apricots from Turkey, grapes from Chile, sesame seeds from India, sweet cured plums from China” (Schmitt). These imports reflect the amount of food that would otherwise be inaccessible to Americans, but due to the money circulating in the food business, these foods are delivered 20,000 miles across the world to our front door. Imports such as these account for 80 percent of the nation’s seafood, 45 percent of our fresh fruit and 17 percent of our fresh vegetables (Schmitt). Food watch agencies often find that the FDA regulations created to monitor food imports fall short of examining what exactly is entering America’s ports. U.S. agencies only allow 37 other countries to ship meat and poultry into the United States. Although some companies self-police their food imports, much of it remains the duty of the US government.

Considering the fact that Americans eat sesame seeds from India and anchovies from Thailand, one must contemplate just how much preservatives are used in food. Because 90 percent of the world’s trade occurs via shipping on the seas, foods must be chemically altered to maintain ‘freshness’. Those foods that do not remain fresh simply go to waste. Just when officials think they have mastered the art of importing food and feeding a population, they neglect the amount of food that is in fact wasted. Imagine all of the wasted food that could feed the millions of starving people in the world. According to the Food and Agricultural research carried out at the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, North American and Europeans waste about 620 to 660 pounds of food per year (Galbraith). Consumers in the developed world account for one-third of all waste disposed annually. Compare that to developing parts of Asia and Africa where individuals waste less than half that amount. Around the world, one-third of food, or about 1.3 billion tons off food is wasted each year alone. For every three stalks of corn grown, toss one in the trash. Such an attitude is what drives American consumerism whether we acknowledge it or not. People must begin to care about their waste output and think about alternatives to just throwing things in the trash. According to the U.N., “disposing is cheaper than using or reusing food in industrialized countries” (Galbraith).

In developing countries where technology is inadequate and often outdated, the majority of food waste occurs before the consumer buys the food. Waste therefore comes from the growing, processing, and shipping aspect of food production. As wonderful as shipping food across the international boundaries is, the environmental and humanitarian cost is profuse. The availability of food in the local grocery store is a mere result of the damage humans are doing to the environment through unsustainable farming practices. Enormous amounts of pollutants come from the freight ships that arrive at American ports, and further pollution arises from the domestic shipping lanes. But then again, America doesn’t seem to want to move away from its petroleum-based economy.

As Americans, food accessibility and fast paced lives hinder the time that families and friends once took to eat together. The fact that the majority of Americans don’t know where their food comes from reflects the time-consuming process of eating. According to Jamie Horwitz, “To pause, also, to resist the temptation to think that contemporary eating habits are simply an easy-breezy form of multitasking” (Horwitz). Horwitz argues that Americans must not lose sight of the importance of taking the time to sit down and eat a meal together. In my own life, it is rare that I take the time to sit down and eat with friends or family. The time constraints of my daily schedule rarely allow for me to enjoy my meals, rather I eat for the sake of being full. In today’s society, few take the time to eat together – let alone find out where their food comes from. When someone asks where your food is from, it may be easy to reply ‘from the grocery store’. But where did your food really come from? It remains near impossible to track down where Sodexo’s food comes from because of the fact that it buys food from companies who buy food from other farms and corporations. Even at the grocery store, unless the packaging says where the food is from, no one has any idea. In reality, our food is from nowhere but the grocery store. Yet the concept of food from nowhere takes on a new meaning when one investigates that food is in fact, from everywhere – from every corner of the Earth. Our grocery stores convert food from everywhere into food from nowhere.

Contemporary generations of Americans do not know what extreme food shortages or government food rations are. Times as such seem reserved to the darker days of the Great Depression and World War II. Wealth disparities in America distinguish the line between who eats what food, and what quality of food. However as a whole, the world has never seen a people blessed with so much accessibility to an overwhelming variety of food. Despite the vanishing concept of communal eating in a large portion of American society, where our food comes from is becoming increasingly important. What Americans do now will in fact affect the future of the world. Americans must awaken to form new appreciation of not just organic and sustainable farming, but local farming. Global interconnectedness will continue to allow people access to food that was once deemed inaccessible or too expensive. As a result of such increased globalization, it is our duty as Americans to improve and expand systems such as composting, recycling, and reusing. In order to continue to enjoy foods from ten thousand miles away, we must being to think globally by acting locally. The international trading system will not cease to bring us goods from the most remote parts of the world; however together we can work to produce certain foods that sustain the regions we live in. Perhaps one day Americans will see state of origin labels rather than country of origin labels. Until that day, let’s continue to enjoy food from around the world without forgetting the necessity of supporting local farming.

Works Cited

"Consumer Labels." : Food & Water Watch Supports COOL. Food & Water Watch. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/consumer-labels/>.

Galbraith, Kate. "The Battle Against Food Waste." The New York Times. 15 Jan. 2012. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/business/global/the-battle-against-food-waste.html>.

Horwitz, Jamie. "Eating at the Edge." Gastronomica. Web. Apr. 2012.<http://blackboard.du.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/2017.201230/Eating%20at%20the%20Edge%20-%20Horwitz.pdf>.

Pagnotta, Brian. "The Pros and Cons of Cargo Container Architecture." Arch Daily, 29 Aug. 2011. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://www.archdaily.com/160892/the-pros-and-cons-of-cargo-container-architecture/>.

"Profiling Food Consumption in America." Agricultural Fact Book. USDA. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf>.

Schmit, Julie. "U.S. Food Imports Outrun FDA Resources." USA Today. Gannett, 18 Apr. 2007. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-03-18-food-safety-usat_N.htm>.

"U.S. Food Imports." ERS/USDA Data -. 10 Apr. 2012. Web. Apr. 2012.

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodImports/>.

Eating on the Edge

Horwitz places eating on the edge in the context of the American fast paced, action-packed lifestyle. In a society that embraces demanding and hectic schedules, food has evolved to meet the needs of contemporary culture. Starting with the idea of a TV dinner, the concept evolved from the basis that watching TV was new and cool, or at least it was in the fifties. Horowitz places an emphasis on eating in “timeless time”, where shifting from occasions such as group or family dinners has led to the development of more easy-to-access meals and snacks. Rather than taking the time to cook and indulge in a meal, a large portion of Americans are beginning to rely on snacks throughout the day to do away with hunger. The author's idea of an adapting and developing food culture is reflected through the way in which food, design and advertisement constantly strive to meet the demands of modern culture (Horowitz 42). That creative change is evident in the adaptive meals which are now offered on long-distance plane flights, such as foods catered to boost or lower your energy, or in the fresh fruits and vegetables that are now sent directly to the International Space Station. The idea of freezing food and dehydrating products is now reserved for the astronaut of past generations. The entirety of Horowitz’s article, Eating on the Edge can be summed up the example he makes of Americans eating on the International Space Station. When comparing the American astronauts to their international counterparts, “Some American crewmembers are content to ‘eat on the run’, and by themselves, whereas many European crewmembers prefer eating a complete meal as a group” (Horwitz 44). Such a distinction between cultures represents the various values that people embrace.

            Eating on the edge is a rather defining force in my life, as the amount of meals I have time to eat in groups or with friends is at best, once a day. When time allows, I rally some friends to go out and eat, either on campus or off campus. Between my classes I often eat alone during random hours of the day, as my schedule so permits. The majority of this time I spend multitasking between consuming food and completing homework. It is pretty sad to some extent that the communal gathering of friends and family seems only applicable to the history books. The future seems to only gain momentum rather than lose it, and with that, the act of eating will deteriorate into a time consuming process that must be addressed while on the road or while working. I know I am guilty of such crimes, and every time I sit down with friends and family not under the pressure of time restraints, I can actually relax and embrace the moment before me. For so long, eating was a staple in community affairs, as well as a unifying factor between immediate and extended families. I know with my small extended family, the time we do spend together is rare yet meaningful, making every family get together all the more enjoyable.

The Thirsty Become The Hungry

It’s cold outside on this Thursday evening, and the masses continue to systematically pour in to relieve their hunger. I am at Illegal Pete’s a little after 10 PM, and the line is almost out the door, but I decide to wait it out. There is something to be said for the packed tables and hungry students. This is the prime spot for a late night munch, especially when a large population of students are a little more than tipsy.

            Fast-food service with a little class – you wait out the line to be met by a train of three employees who will make your meal. The vast majority of orders here are burritos, as they are not only delicious, but give you the most bang for your buck. You can also order up quesadillas, salads, and an array of American-Mexican food. The first staff member takes care of the first part of you order - you order what you want, and that involves what kind of meat, rice and beans. The second employee tops you off with the vegetables and toppings, be it salsa, onion, cheese, guacamole, sour cream, corn… and the list goes on. From there, they wrap the oversized calorie-plagued burritos, something that takes more skill than meets the eye. The staff then marks your order, hand it to the employee at the cash register, and ring you out.

            Generally, it’s a pretty simple process, and the burritos are pretty damn great. The staff however aren’t so much, at least from what I’ve experienced. They tend to be abrupt and rude. Their fast pace meets the demand of the hungry students, but often leaves the customer feeling unappreciated, just a pawn in the food line. Occasionally you can strike up a conversation with the staff, but for the most part that seems to be reserved to the bartenders. The bar is relatively small, and the one or two staff working there aren’t nearly as busy - they’re just trying to make some tips.

Occasionally a band will play, a lot of the time local musicians from DU. Those nights seem to be more lively, and this place does stay busy, often late into the night. The staff wear Illegal Pete’s shirts, and the franchise is part of a small chain of restaurants. The setting is pretty low key, and seems to be mostly a college hang out spot. The tables are pretty loud, and everyone seems pretty engaged with their food if they are not drinking. There isn’t a person here eating by themself, marking Illegal Pete’s as a prime social hang out joint.

            At Illegal Pete’s, productivity is their priority. One of the more attractive parts of the restaurant I find is that you see all of the ingredients out before your eyes, and most consumers try to imagine they are the freshest ingredients as possible. The bar aspect gives the restaurant a laid back vibe, one where customers come and go as they please. The later hours into the night seem to see more and more intoxicated students walking in and out of the doors. It is an ideal place for drunk students, they can be satisfied by food for the cost of seven dollars, along with a free drink if they present their Pioneer ID. But Illegal Pete’s is just one of the many DU drunk-eating spots. The campus is surrounded by fast food and cheap restaurants that appeal to the average college student. Back to drunk eating though, it seems to be one of DU student’s favorite hobbies, and it is probably one of college student’s favorite hobbies in general – that is if you can call it a hobby.

            So what is the appeal to chowing down when you’re slightly inebriated? I was bound to solve this puzzle, because anyone walking in late night would be reminded that this ideal restaurant setting is in close proximity to DU for a reason, in fact it stays profitable by remaining a college-catering business. More than that, it seems to be mostly privileged college students eating when you look around, so I am going to go ahead and make the claim that spoiled college kids partake in this late night activity more so than the average American. Most people outside of college that I know don’t binge eat because they are drunk, but at DU, that justification is more than sufficient.

            Back at my Quaker boarding school, my teachers who live simplistic and self-sustaining lives may be appalled at the sight of Illegal Pete’s. When you grow and kill all of your own food, you start to take on a new appreciation for what you eat. For myself, it gave me a reason to eat all the more food when I left the school. You could say it gave me an appreciation for eating food we did not grow ourselves and eating animals we did not slaughter.

            Well for one thing, there aren’t too many articles out there discussing why people drunk eat. I mean besides the obvious factor that it tastes good, what else is there to drunk eating? The closest thing I found to an answer was in Men’s Health, where Spanish researches found that, “Alcohol could even make you eat more. In a U.K. study, men drank either 12 ounces of a non-alcoholic lager, or the same lager spiked with about 2 drinks worth of alcohol. Even though the alcoholic lager contained more calories itself, men ate 30 percent more calories after drinking it—despite the fact that they didn’t report higher appetites than the other group” (Men’s Health).

            Drunchies 101: it takes longer to feel full when you drink before a meal because of the fact that your body recognizes alcohol as a toxin rather than a calorie. Social contexts also provide reasons why to eat when you’re drunk.  Junk food all of a sudden tastes great when you drink, and great food tastes remarkable. For the most part, it seems to be a social reason: kids drink, they socialize, and they want to eat. Drunk eating may be as simple as that; food tastes better when you are drinking. Illegal Pete’s defines itself as a haven for both sober and inebriated kids. One can eat with their friends and enjoy the later hours of the night. From my experience at this lively restaurant, Illegal Pete’s unifies the hungry, the inebriated, and ultimately satisfies students from all over Denver.

Works Cited

Aaron, Kiera. "Why You Eat When You're Drunk | Men's Health News." Men's Health

News. 15 Apr. 2011. Web. Apr. 2012. <http://news.menshealth.com/why-you-

drunk-dial-domino’s/2011/08/15/>.

Drunk Eating

How to avoid eating when you're drunk.
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/5-ways-to-avoid-eating-while-drunk.html

Food in the World

Cate brings to light the integral role that “spread’ plays in prisons and jails. She describes spreading as a bonding moment between inmates. “Although some inmates make “personal spreads” for them- selves when they are alone in their cells, more often than not spreading is a social activity.” Inmates will save their money in order to buy ramen noodles and other food, and then use that food to make meals they deem delicious. “The value and significance of spread to inmates can be understood only within the larger contexts of confinement and the institutional diet. Inmate interviews suggest an oppositional, even dialectical, relation between official food and spread, as food served on the official trays during the day is transformed into spread later that evening.” Despite the fact that most inmates receive adequate food, many of them still complain of hunger in jail. The portions of food are small and bland, however for the most part nutritiously balanced. Spread within the greater jail community ultimately brings about a sense of unity and trust between inmates, as well as a hobby to help bridge the time spent in prison.

O’Donnell compares China’s government and economic policies to the nation’s food supply. “Talking about food is one way in which the Chinese speak about the transformation of China’s socialist economy into a capitalist one since Mao Zedong’s death in 1976.” Feeding the Chinese people has been a political and social concern since ancient times, and it was not until China opened its economic policy that the nation began to boom. “Located
just north of Hong Kong in the south Chinese province of Guangdong, Shenzhen was the first Chinese city opened
to foreign investment and capitalist business.” From the perspective of the first generation immigrants in Shenzhen, these Old Shenzheners use nostalgia about food to debate what Shenzhen culture once was and how it should be. “Old Shenzheners today remember the sense of camaraderie that building the city together created among all strata of society. This sense of community was experienced not only in communal dining halls but also in alfresco dining stalls (dapaidang), where local residents and entrepreneurial migrants opened small establishments.” As O’Donnell explains, the difference between Old Shenzheners’ nostalgia for socialist meals conflicts with the New Shenzheners’ commodified and intricate diets. This difference in eating ideology continues to define the gap between the old and the new Shenzheners.

            I found it interesting to note how the state would supply urban residents with grain and rice, while rural residents did not. This system ultimately valued urban residences more than it did rural. Such practices test an individual Chinese’s belief in the Communist party. Such a system reflects the sacrifice that Old Shenzheners had to make, as compared with the spoils that New Shenzheners expect. Because so much had changed in thirty years with the development of Shenzhen (a population increase from 300,000 to 14 million), the world that older Chinese citizens knew was much different than that of what recently born Chinese citizens now know. However the moral and political command to feed China remains evident in every Shenzhen meal.

On Bryce's Blog

I found a similar connection between my blog on Coke and Bryce's outlook on how Coca-Cola operates as a company. The component of happiness that Coke attaches to its product targets an open and age-diverseified audience. It also instills in the audience a feeling of meaning and purpose. By uniting coke drinkers through the theme of joy and happiness, drinking a coke becomes much more than just drinking any soda. Their ability to capture the senses in their graphic-driven commercials brings a sense of happiness and contentment to the consumer. Bryce's blog reflects this quality and uniqueness that Coke gives to its consumers. Despite being a massive money driven corporation, their advertisements imply that Coke is more than just about bringing in revenue. The sense of unity their commercials invoke gives the consumer a new appreciation for Coke as a drink and as a company.
http://brycera.blogspot.com/2012/04/from-time-that-i-was-little-ihave-been.html

Coke Vs. Pepsi

Godfather Pepsi Commercial: 

Beautiful Coca-Cola Commercial:  

            Advertisements aim to appeal to various audiences in hopes of selling a certain product. Charities, political parties, religious organizations, and giant corporations all advertise through different means; be it to broadcast an idea, raise awareness, or sell a product. Effective commercial advertisements persuade people to buy their product, and often demean rival companies in order to establish trust in their product. Captivating advertisements not only sustain our attention in a material saturated world, but they convince potential consumers that their product is the best for the price.

            After looking through various Pepsi and Coca-Cola commercials, I found it interesting to discover the various tactics that both companies use in order to sell their product. In the Beautiful Coca-Cola commercial, Coke aims to sell its product by attaching certain pathos to it, one that revolves around the idea of happiness. Using state of the art graphic design, Coke not only captivates and sustains an audience for over a minute and a half, but they convey an idea of unity and happiness that is achieved through drinking Coca-Cola. The advertisement takes the audience into an alternate world, one where intricacy and detail define each and every bottle of Coke produced.

            Such an advertisement promotes a sense of well-being and wholeness, a feeling that instills happiness and curiosity in almost every one who watches it. Coke’s idea that happiness can be found in a bottle of cola appeals to almost any age, be it young or old. Both children and adults would be captivated by the detail and time that Coke took to make this commercial. The dogma attached to this commercial represents the value of happiness, and what a smile can do for the world. Coke values a culture that brings smiles to the table, and relies on bringing people up rather than tearing them down. Coke is not marketed to one audience; rather it is portrayed as a universal beverage that everyone can enjoy.

            In analyzing various Pepsi commercials, I found that a large number of them rely on building up their own credibility by tearing down other companies, namely Coke. I found this tactic to be much less appealing when trying to sell a product. Where as Coke relied on detail, design, and selling a product via means of selling happiness, Pepsi relied on the claim that their product is superior to that of Coke. This reliance on ethos, or credibility attempts to sell a product by persuading the audience that their product is superior.

            Pepsi also relies on an emotional appeal throughout their commercial. By using a cute girl in their advertisement, Pepsi is catering to any audience that may see innocence and sincerity in her actions. Although this commercial relies heavily on a comical appeal, the idea of using the same girl in various Pepsi commercials brings to light the trust that people often place in children rather than adults. Tying this into the comical aspect of the commercial, Pepsi rips off of The Godfather to prove a point that Pepsi is a superior beverage to that of Coke. After requesting Pepsi and being served Coke, the girl takes on the voice of the Godfather, mimicking his lines from the movie and ultimately drawing in an audience that has seen the film or heard of it.

            While such a commercial portrays a comical situation, it doe not appeal to all audiences like that of Coke’s commercial. Either one would have to see The Godfather, or know about the film in order to fully comprehend the comical component to it. Children clearly would not have seen the film at a young age, and would probably find the commercial to be rather unentertaining. Adults on the other hand may find this commercial more appealing, however the fact that Pepsi uses a sweet, innocent girl to mimic the Godfather is more or less in my opinion, unappealing. I do not often relate young children to The Godfather.

            When comparing the two commercials, it becomes evident that Coke caters to a more broad and age-diverse audience, where as Pepsi limits their audience to that of teenagers and adults. Pepsi represents a company that attempts to build credibility by comparing their product to that of Coke. Such an advertisement attempts to dissuade a consumer to purchase one product over their product. Such a tactic often gives me a negative connotation to that company. Where as Coke relies on the idea of happiness to sell a product, Pepsi seems to represent an inferior product, and therefore has to blatantly compare itself to Coke and prove why it is better. Overall, I found Beautiful Coca-Cola’s commercial to not only be much more appealing to the senses, but it seemed to represent a more ethical company when compared to that of Pepsi. Coke’s message caters to a diverse and large audience, where as Pepsi limited itself as to who it could persuade to buy their product.