In the Obama's Agricultural Policy article, the author says, "some of us were hoping that Obama would push for a new economy built on widely accessible healthy and sustainable food." And that is what we've been and always will be doing, on the topic of food. Right now, we are hoping that Obama will do something that will improve America, more specifically how Americans eat and the types of food they spend their money on. We are waiting for someone to push a better lifestyle towards us, and someone to push food onto our plates. We are waiting for someone to enforce something that we, or at least some of us, know is better; rather than, making the change ourselves. Even now, this is shown by the way we eat. All three daily meals of a typical American involves someone presenting the food to the person, whether that be the mother, the waiter, or the big corporations that run every other aspect of life. The way we treat our food is similar to the way we treat any policy. And while, we are waiting for Obama to "push for a new economy built on widely accessible healthy and sustainable food," we will be waiting on line in the local supermarket, to pay for our synthetic food.
Michael Pollan appeared on the Colbert Report, talking about defending food from the food corporations. Food, the natural restoration for our bodies, is being converted into profit by corporations. And Colbert's response (most likely representing all of America's response) was to defend the food that we eat now because of "deliciousness." People do not know about the foods we eat, therefore we think that there's nothing wrong with it and do not believe that there is a need for change. The way that Colbert responded led me to connect him to Leo from "The Meatrix II: Revolting." Leo saw the dairy farm as this nice family farm, where the cows are in good living conditions. And similarly, that is how Americans see farms as well. This painted image in our minds tell us that there's nothing wrong and everything is just fine. However, just like The Meatrix has shown, the farms have been industrialized, and are actually revolving around profit rather than the cows or the food they provide. By not seeing this, everyone continues on living their current lifestyle and defending the corporations and foods that are doing us harm, as shown by Colbert.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Recipe- [Edit: Picture&Response Added]
INGREDIENTS
* 4 cups plus 2 tablespoons half-and-half
* 1/2 cup granulated sugar
* 4 large egg yolks
* 1 1/2 tablespoons tapioca starch or cornstarch
* 2 cups red bean paste
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Pour the 4 cups half-and-half into the top of a double boiler over medium heat.
2. Meanwhile, whisk together the sugar and egg yolks in a bowl until the yolks turn thick and pale. Temper the yolks by gradually adding the hot half-and-half mixture a cup at a time while whisking vigorously so as not to scramble the eggs.
3. Return the mixture to the top part of the double boiler and whisk over simmering water until slightly thickened and heated through, 10 to 15 minutes. Dilute the tapioca starch with the remaining 2 tablespoons half-and-half and add it to the mixture. Continue whisking to a custard consistency that coats the back of a spoon, about 2 minutes. Transfer the custard to a heatproof bowl and whisk in the red bean paste. Set over an ice bath and refrigerate overnight (or at least 12 hours).
4. The next day, pour the custard into an ice cream maker and process the custard according to the manufacturer’s instructions, 30 to 35 minutes. Transfer the ice cream to a container and freeze until ready to serve. [Link]
Responses:
* 4 cups plus 2 tablespoons half-and-half
* 1/2 cup granulated sugar
* 4 large egg yolks
* 1 1/2 tablespoons tapioca starch or cornstarch
* 2 cups red bean paste
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Pour the 4 cups half-and-half into the top of a double boiler over medium heat.
2. Meanwhile, whisk together the sugar and egg yolks in a bowl until the yolks turn thick and pale. Temper the yolks by gradually adding the hot half-and-half mixture a cup at a time while whisking vigorously so as not to scramble the eggs.
3. Return the mixture to the top part of the double boiler and whisk over simmering water until slightly thickened and heated through, 10 to 15 minutes. Dilute the tapioca starch with the remaining 2 tablespoons half-and-half and add it to the mixture. Continue whisking to a custard consistency that coats the back of a spoon, about 2 minutes. Transfer the custard to a heatproof bowl and whisk in the red bean paste. Set over an ice bath and refrigerate overnight (or at least 12 hours).
4. The next day, pour the custard into an ice cream maker and process the custard according to the manufacturer’s instructions, 30 to 35 minutes. Transfer the ice cream to a container and freeze until ready to serve. [Link]
Responses:
In order to follow this recipe, I had to go to the supermarket to specifically buy the ingredients. I did not have any cornstarch or half-and-half in my house, because my family hardly uses it. But I found it surprising that I needed all of these ingredients, since my mother makes a similar desert, but she only uses 2 of the 5 ingredients listed (red bean and sugar). Yet, I liked my mother's version a lot more. While I was making this, my mother was irritated by the fact that there was much ingredients and labor involved. She asked me why I had to take such exact measurements, and told me to go with my gut feeling. This recipe also required a double-boiler, which I had no clue to what it was. But I looked it up on Google, and found that it can be replaced by a dish on top of a regular pot. Overall, I think that this was far more complicated that it needs to be, and my mother would agree. There were added steps and ingredients that did not need to take place, and the same taste would have been accomplished.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Chapter 2: The Farm
In this chapter, I felt that there was one particular quote Pollan included, that articulated what I have recently began to think about the world. This quote, by Naylor goes: "They're messing with three billion years of evolution"(36). In here, Naylor was talking about planting GMOs, which are "genetically modified organisms." People are planting altered seeds to grow hybrid plants, so that they can maximize the amount of corn being produced. But I think that this quote also applies to many other aspects in life. Industrialization has taken over everything that is natural. Everything that has been provided by the Earth is being taken over by the businesses and their need to earn more green paper. (e.g. Two units ago, we saw that hospitals and normal births drew people away from natural births). It is as though people with money are taking property of all the natural resources, and are altering it into a form that eventually evolves into more money. As Naylor said, "they're messing with three billion years of evolution."
After reading this chapter, I take on a new perspective of farmers. I have always viewed farmers as the hardworking people that allows everyone to eat carelessly. I always saw them as those who are untouched by industrialization because they deal with the Earth. But now I learn that they aren't any different from any business owner. Following Pollan to a farm run by George Naylor, through his book, we see the commonalities between farms and big corporations, both of which control majority of how we live our lives. In a farm, having a "high yield" is significant to making maximum profit. "The higher yield of modern hybrids stems mainly from the fact that they can be planted so close together, thirty thousand to the acre instead of eight thousand in his father's days" (37). By having a higher yield, the farmer is able to take advantage of the land that he has, and is able to maximizing his profit off of something other than himself. So while the farmers abuse the Earth, everyone else abuses the workers to make more money for themselves. My previous thought of farmers being hardworking was also proven wrong, in that they don't do much besides sitting around spreading seeds through a vehicle ("the field George and I planted that day would produce 1.8 million pounds of corn. Not bad for a day's work sitting down..."(36)).
Questions
1. On page 44 Pollan wrote, "Haber's story embodies the paradoxes of science: the double edge to our manipulation of nature, the good and evil that can flow not only from the same man but the same knowledge. Haber brought a vital new source of fertility and an awful new weapon into the world..."
Do you think that the usages of nitrogen and fossil fuel on crops are more beneficial than harmful, or vice-versa? Does the convenience outweigh the damage?
2. Naylor "has a gut distrust of the technology" (36), but aren't the seeds that he use, Pioneer Hi-Bred's 34H31 GMOs as well? Are the seeds, in any way, modified or altered before he bought them?
Comments on Other People's Blogs
John's "The omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 2"
In your second paragraph, you asked why we, the outnumbering "regular citizens," do not overthrow the farmers. The problem with this is that we need suppliers. If we overthrew all of the farmers, the whole system would collapse, which most people cannot handle or accept. Without corn, there will be less beef, and we all know we can't live without beef. Without corn, our soda will not be sweet, and we all know that we can't live without soda. The thing about "overthrowing" is that it will cause instability and nobody wants to contribute to it. We may be the group with the larger number, but only a small percentage will actually take action. If we can actually have everyone devote themselves to accomplishing one goal, farmers wouldn't be the only thing being overthrown.
Vincent's "optional assignment on Omnivore's Dilemma"
One thing that stood out to me was when you said, "Because of the break through of fertilizers and technology, it allows a farmer to produce a lot of corn and keep using the same land over and over again." The way that I interpreted, and possibly the way you meant it, was that you are assuming the land cannot reproduce crops on its own, without fertilizers and technology. The use of fertilizer and technology only began in the early 1900's when Fritz Haber discovered fossil fuels as a replacement for solar energy. I am pretty sure that the same land can be used over and over, even without the technology and fossil fuels, since it's been producing corn and other crops for billions of years, long before Haber was even born.
After reading this chapter, I take on a new perspective of farmers. I have always viewed farmers as the hardworking people that allows everyone to eat carelessly. I always saw them as those who are untouched by industrialization because they deal with the Earth. But now I learn that they aren't any different from any business owner. Following Pollan to a farm run by George Naylor, through his book, we see the commonalities between farms and big corporations, both of which control majority of how we live our lives. In a farm, having a "high yield" is significant to making maximum profit. "The higher yield of modern hybrids stems mainly from the fact that they can be planted so close together, thirty thousand to the acre instead of eight thousand in his father's days" (37). By having a higher yield, the farmer is able to take advantage of the land that he has, and is able to maximizing his profit off of something other than himself. So while the farmers abuse the Earth, everyone else abuses the workers to make more money for themselves. My previous thought of farmers being hardworking was also proven wrong, in that they don't do much besides sitting around spreading seeds through a vehicle ("the field George and I planted that day would produce 1.8 million pounds of corn. Not bad for a day's work sitting down..."(36)).
Questions
1. On page 44 Pollan wrote, "Haber's story embodies the paradoxes of science: the double edge to our manipulation of nature, the good and evil that can flow not only from the same man but the same knowledge. Haber brought a vital new source of fertility and an awful new weapon into the world..."
Do you think that the usages of nitrogen and fossil fuel on crops are more beneficial than harmful, or vice-versa? Does the convenience outweigh the damage?
2. Naylor "has a gut distrust of the technology" (36), but aren't the seeds that he use, Pioneer Hi-Bred's 34H31 GMOs as well? Are the seeds, in any way, modified or altered before he bought them?
Comments on Other People's Blogs
John's "The omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 2"
In your second paragraph, you asked why we, the outnumbering "regular citizens," do not overthrow the farmers. The problem with this is that we need suppliers. If we overthrew all of the farmers, the whole system would collapse, which most people cannot handle or accept. Without corn, there will be less beef, and we all know we can't live without beef. Without corn, our soda will not be sweet, and we all know that we can't live without soda. The thing about "overthrowing" is that it will cause instability and nobody wants to contribute to it. We may be the group with the larger number, but only a small percentage will actually take action. If we can actually have everyone devote themselves to accomplishing one goal, farmers wouldn't be the only thing being overthrown.
Vincent's "optional assignment on Omnivore's Dilemma"
One thing that stood out to me was when you said, "Because of the break through of fertilizers and technology, it allows a farmer to produce a lot of corn and keep using the same land over and over again." The way that I interpreted, and possibly the way you meant it, was that you are assuming the land cannot reproduce crops on its own, without fertilizers and technology. The use of fertilizer and technology only began in the early 1900's when Fritz Haber discovered fossil fuels as a replacement for solar energy. I am pretty sure that the same land can be used over and over, even without the technology and fossil fuels, since it's been producing corn and other crops for billions of years, long before Haber was even born.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Blog Responses
Russell's "Pollan Reponce"
I definitely agree with what you said about the "people before us." I feel like we make things a lot more complicated than they need to be. And if the people in the past generations did not need all of this "stuff" and still maintained a good, if not better, lifestyle, then why do we need it?
Also, the comic that you included may seem like a joke, but it definitely says something about our lifestyles. People think that by eating less, or none at all, then they will lose weight. Bringing back to the people before, I know that my parents or any other older relatives from China have ever said that they were purposely going to skip a meal to lose weight. Yet, none of them are extremely fat. So maybe, there is alternative to not eating and losing weight. Who knows?
Maggie's "Response to Quote"
I would reconsider stating that this quote does not apply to you, because it is not necessarily saying that you eat according to what is healthy. Rather Pollan is saying that our diets depend on expert help, whether that be someone telling us what foods are nutritious and what are not, or what is flavorful. It may seem that you eat based on what you want to eat, but there must have been some sort of past influence from expert help. (You wouldn't go around drinking a gallon of oil, at once, because you know that it's bad for you. And you know that based on what you hear from others. Eventually those "others" will be somehow connected to some sort of expert).
Ben's "Exhibition week homework"
Very simple recipe. Hopefully most people can follow this as well, if they already haven't. I especially like that it is a recipe that gives you options. Nowadays, everything else requires precision.
Karl's "What's In My Fridge"
Does your family not eat after dinner because of the 2-hour rule*? I also found it interesting when you wrote "shrimp with pasta." I probably would have said "pasta with shrimp," if I would actually find pasta in my refrigerator to begin with.
*Anything you eat within 2 hours before sleeping will not be digested and remain in your system.
I definitely agree with what you said about the "people before us." I feel like we make things a lot more complicated than they need to be. And if the people in the past generations did not need all of this "stuff" and still maintained a good, if not better, lifestyle, then why do we need it?
Also, the comic that you included may seem like a joke, but it definitely says something about our lifestyles. People think that by eating less, or none at all, then they will lose weight. Bringing back to the people before, I know that my parents or any other older relatives from China have ever said that they were purposely going to skip a meal to lose weight. Yet, none of them are extremely fat. So maybe, there is alternative to not eating and losing weight. Who knows?
Maggie's "Response to Quote"
I would reconsider stating that this quote does not apply to you, because it is not necessarily saying that you eat according to what is healthy. Rather Pollan is saying that our diets depend on expert help, whether that be someone telling us what foods are nutritious and what are not, or what is flavorful. It may seem that you eat based on what you want to eat, but there must have been some sort of past influence from expert help. (You wouldn't go around drinking a gallon of oil, at once, because you know that it's bad for you. And you know that based on what you hear from others. Eventually those "others" will be somehow connected to some sort of expert).
Ben's "Exhibition week homework"
Very simple recipe. Hopefully most people can follow this as well, if they already haven't. I especially like that it is a recipe that gives you options. Nowadays, everything else requires precision.
Karl's "What's In My Fridge"
Does your family not eat after dinner because of the 2-hour rule*? I also found it interesting when you wrote "shrimp with pasta." I probably would have said "pasta with shrimp," if I would actually find pasta in my refrigerator to begin with.
*Anything you eat within 2 hours before sleeping will not be digested and remain in your system.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Omnivore's Dilemma
"Whatever native wisdom we may once have possessed about eating has been replaced by confusion and anxiety. Somehow this most elemental of activities- figuring out what to eat- has come to require a remarkable amount of expert help" (Michael Pollan, 1)
I believe that this statement is correct and would apply to many people in this people in country, including myself. People are constantly reading and researching about the types of foods they should and should not eat. Most people eat according to what the experts say, and what they say is beneficial for us, which may not always be true. The words of the experts completely dominate the foods found in our refrigerators. I would also add that, in some cases, the objective of researching is not to shape the our diets, rather it acts as a green light for people to eat the things that we know is bad. If the experts say that eating certain foods would be beneficial (or at least, not as bad), then people will go ahead and eat it. Our diets are completely dependent on what strangers tell us.
On the bigger picture, the foods that I eat are influenced by experts. Most of the time I eat whatever I choose to eat, but I know that subconsciously that choice is affected by things I have heard in the past. I never purposely read about or look up what experts have to say about eating different types of food, but they still have an impact of what I eat. The decisions I make about the foods I eat, are affected by the nutrition and ingredients of food, both of which have been established by experts. Every time I eat, I am concerned about how this will affect me after the meal, whether it be beneficiary or something I would have to work off.
I personally do not follow any food experts, but my mom does. She reads Chinese magazines that come with the weekend newspaper. And within those magazines, there are various writers talking about different foods having hidden benefits. They provide many tips about eating certain foods to have a certain effect (e.g. skin care, digestion, etc.), and of course my mom listens to it. Every other week, she is trying something that the magazines said. She is currently following the cucumber-fad. Other than that, my family doesn't really anything else, in terms of food experts.
I believe that this statement is correct and would apply to many people in this people in country, including myself. People are constantly reading and researching about the types of foods they should and should not eat. Most people eat according to what the experts say, and what they say is beneficial for us, which may not always be true. The words of the experts completely dominate the foods found in our refrigerators. I would also add that, in some cases, the objective of researching is not to shape the our diets, rather it acts as a green light for people to eat the things that we know is bad. If the experts say that eating certain foods would be beneficial (or at least, not as bad), then people will go ahead and eat it. Our diets are completely dependent on what strangers tell us.
On the bigger picture, the foods that I eat are influenced by experts. Most of the time I eat whatever I choose to eat, but I know that subconsciously that choice is affected by things I have heard in the past. I never purposely read about or look up what experts have to say about eating different types of food, but they still have an impact of what I eat. The decisions I make about the foods I eat, are affected by the nutrition and ingredients of food, both of which have been established by experts. Every time I eat, I am concerned about how this will affect me after the meal, whether it be beneficiary or something I would have to work off.
I personally do not follow any food experts, but my mom does. She reads Chinese magazines that come with the weekend newspaper. And within those magazines, there are various writers talking about different foods having hidden benefits. They provide many tips about eating certain foods to have a certain effect (e.g. skin care, digestion, etc.), and of course my mom listens to it. Every other week, she is trying something that the magazines said. She is currently following the cucumber-fad. Other than that, my family doesn't really anything else, in terms of food experts.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
AWOF- Andy's(family) Way of (eating) Food
In terms of vegetables, roots and grains, my family consumes massive amounts of it. Every meal that I have with my family would have these two things incorporated in it. The vegetables would often be bok choy, celery, carrots, Chinese cabbage, and a lot more stuff that I just eat and not know the name of. The roots are mainly just ginger and potatoes. And the grains would just be rice, or noodle...or rice noodle. My mom have always liked cooking different things everyday, and hardly ever cooks the same thing two days in a row. But I think it's mostly because of the flavor rather than the nutrition factor. Regardless, I've always had a well-balanced diet, as far as my dinner is concerned. However, dinner is only one of the two meals that I have per day. Lunch, for me, would seem less balance since I eat school lunch. There seems to be a lack of vegetables and fruits. And as of roots and grains, it's in the form of heated-up, pre-frozen burger and "fries." Even though the food does not taste as good, or is also nutritious for me, I do not mind it too much. It fills me up when I am hungry, and I can go upstairs, where I can play Chinese poker everyday. (However, if the people upstairs weren't playing Chinese poker, I think diet for lunch would be something completely different).
For my family, our meals and food do not seem as dramatically affected as the typical American. I think that is because, we mainly buy our food from Mott Street, Chinatown, where it is not the typical supermarket. There isn't one big market (well, there are two but we choose not to shop there) where you can get everything you want. Instead, we go to many different stores and look for the things that my mom plans on cooking for us throughout the week. During the car ride there, I would hear her and my dad discussing about things that need to be bought, so I don't think the markets "push" everything into our refrigerator, but it does have some effect. By that I mean, if there is food that we eat on occasions, and that is cheap, my mom would buy it; thus creating the occasions. Even so, I think that my family eats in a style that seems a bit more flexible. We do eat rice every night, but there has never been a set of food that we eat. In my family, my mom just cooks what she has or what she wants, and we just eat it. And it just so happens that it has a lot of variety, compared to other people in the class.
For my family, our meals and food do not seem as dramatically affected as the typical American. I think that is because, we mainly buy our food from Mott Street, Chinatown, where it is not the typical supermarket. There isn't one big market (well, there are two but we choose not to shop there) where you can get everything you want. Instead, we go to many different stores and look for the things that my mom plans on cooking for us throughout the week. During the car ride there, I would hear her and my dad discussing about things that need to be bought, so I don't think the markets "push" everything into our refrigerator, but it does have some effect. By that I mean, if there is food that we eat on occasions, and that is cheap, my mom would buy it; thus creating the occasions. Even so, I think that my family eats in a style that seems a bit more flexible. We do eat rice every night, but there has never been a set of food that we eat. In my family, my mom just cooks what she has or what she wants, and we just eat it. And it just so happens that it has a lot of variety, compared to other people in the class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)