Difficult Relationship with Food - Essay Example

Assignment Number “Food – It’s what’s For Supper” “If the divine creator has taken pains to give us delicious and exquisite things to eat, the least we can do is to prepare them well and serve them with ceremony.” Fernand Point The above quotation by Fernand Point, a renowned chef, makes one wonder about how little thought we give to the one of the most essential elements of our lives, our source of survival – our food. Point talks about preparation in a very different context than how the word had taken shape today in terms of food. “Eating is always a decision, nobody forces your hand to pick-up food and put it into your mouth,” this statement was written by Albert Ellis, Michael Abrams and Lidia Dengelegi in their book The Art And Science Of Rational Eating, 1992. It expresses the rationality of Man and the objectivity of his choices. In terms of food, the choices we make can significantly impact our health, whether we choose to eat a low or high calorie diet, whether we prefer to eat hygienic home-cooked food over the junk food we eat in restaurants or whether we prefer to eat fresh food as opposed to frozen food. It is high time that we challenge our unconditional trust for the health claims on the products of food manufacturing companies including genetically modified food and our ignorance of what constitutes healthy food, the perception of which has lately been tarnished. A similar perspective is shared by Micheal Pollen as elucidated in his article “Unhappy Meals.” The tone of Pollen’s article is full of sarcasm at the evolved concept of healthy food, much to my liking, the author states “A health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat,” (Pollen, 1). I completely agree with the author on his comparison of fresh food as being healthier as opposed to manufactured food which requires health claims to bolster its credibility as the epitome of healthy diet. Pollen talks about the evolution of food from “food” to “nutrition.” It is indeed a very valid and thought provoking distinction which has pervaded our senses so much that we have forgotten ourselves the time we started making this distinction between manufactured foods with “unsaturated fats” as a healthier alternative to saturated fats for example (Pollen, p. 40). The very introduction of such health claims on manufactured food was nothing more than a profit maximizing technique employed to increase sales. This has led to a change in the consumption patterns and is “destroying the traditional food cultures,” (Pollen, p. 65). The fact that after the introduction of the 1977 Dietary Goals in the United States of America, majority of the food manufactured was low fat (since that was recommended by the nutritionists ), one would have expected an overall decrease in the level of obesity of the population in general, but is that what happened? Unfortunately not! This simple fact speaks volumes about the low – fat claims made by the food manufacturing companies. The flaw was also in the proposed nutritional plan. The food manufactured was low on fat but high on carbohydrates which resulted in the increased obesity (Pollen, p. 43). This shows us that the nutritional value of food and the nutritious diets proposed are mere experiments, the results of which are not guaranteed. This does not mean that I am a proponent of consuming high levels of cholesterol; rather I feel a controlled diet is the healthiest way to leading a healthy life, as opposed to consuming products that claim to be healthy. The dichotomy of the researches surrounding the utility of Omega-3 fats is a live example of the supportive and contradictory empirical evidence to support such health claims (Pollen, p. 38). Similar researches are questioning the validity of the food pyramid we have been studying for years. In his book Gary Taubes seeks to clarify many of the prevalent notions people have about methods of weight loss and dieting, many of his propositions challenge previously believed claims about dieting (Zuger, 2010). The point I’m trying to make here is that as technological progress is made, we will keep on discovering newer truths about the food we eat, which will later be challenged by further researches. Therefore, instead of relying on manufactured food for a healthier diet, the safest way is to eat fresh food and maintain healthy habits such as exercising and taking a good night sleep and so forth in order to ensure healthy living. The changing demographics of the world have also resulted in a change in the way we perceive and cook our food. Previously, the general concept was that men were supposed to be the bread winners of the family and the women had to look after the house, of which cooking was a major part. Now however, with the fast paced life and ever increasing competition, in order for a family to plan a comfortable life both partners have to be a part of the workforce. This demographic change has resulted in changing psychographics of the population and now people prefer convenience foods over having to spend hours in the kitchen preparing a scrumptious meal for the family. Our need for convenience and the lack of time in our busy schedules has made us indifferent to the fact that in order to allow ourselves a little time by using ready-to-cook meals and so forth, we are actually trading health safety off with more free time, which in my opinion is a bad bargain because ‘Listeria,’ a food borne pathogen, is present in high concentrations in frozen food, which when eaten can lead to a chain of diseases starting from mild flu up to severe nervous system infections (Foreman and Waldrop , 4-7). As pointed out by Anita Lahey in her article on the debate requiring labels on genetically manufactured food, consumers have a right to know what constitutes the food they are buying. The argument used to oppose this viewpoint states that the consumers do not posses adequate knowledge regarding genetically manufactured food which might lead them to misinterpret the labels on the products (Lahey, p. 1). The consumer of today is not as naive as he was decades ago. Therefore posing an opposition to the use of labels on genetically manufactured food on the basis of their misinterpretation by consumers has no grounds. In the words of Peter Philip in his article published in The Journal of Agrobio-technology Management and Economics, the ignorance of the consumers regarding the field of Genetically Modified Food can be summed up as follows: “Due to the level of sophistication associated with the production of GMOs, it is difficult for consumers to know or completely understand: the scientific techniques which have been utilized in the production of the good; the impact of consumption on human health and safety, both in the short-term and over the long-term…,” (Lahey, p. 1) The second argument proposed by the opponents is that when the genetically modified food has been approved by Health Canada then why must it require additional labeling? The crux of this argument has been objectively refuted in the article by the author by narrating the story of Dr. Shiv Chopra and his assistant who had been pressurized to approve potentially harmful products through undue influence (Lahey, p. 1). This example adequately portrays that in a world full of people trying to make their selfish ends meet, the consumer is left vulnerable and must be provided with all the information necessary for him to make an informed decision. The situation is worsened by the uncertainty related to the use of Genetically Modified Food, the long-term effects of using these foods cannot be predicted accurately. In my point of view, it is the anticipation of this flood of questions from the consumers regarding the long-term use of Genetically Modified Food which scares the opponents of labeling of GMO. They know that today’s consumers are very smart and they will have questions on the contents of genetically modified food, the answers to which the manufacturers do not have, consequently they do not want Genetically Modified Food to be labeled. Science Reporter William Atkinson sums up this point in the following words, “As technologists get more and more powerful, we learn how little we know,” (Lahey, p. 2). Ultimately, Bill C-157 that proposed the labeling of Genetically Modified Food in Canada was voted down by the Parliamentarians and the issue did not receive much coverage in the media. When Bills such as these are voted down and the media stays quiet instead of probing into the reasons behind it, it reflects on the importance we place on what constitutes our food. It is not as if people are completely ignorant of the repercussions of Genetically Modified Food but are still complacent on the issue of labeling it. A statewide research conducted in Oregon by Raab and Grobe revealed that the majority of the population was against the labeling of Genetically Modified Food the primary reason cited for which was the increased cost of food caused by labeling, the burden of which will fall on the end consumers eventually. Of those who supported the labeling of Genetically Modified Food stated their right to know what constitutes their food as a reason and majority of those voting in favor of the labeling also stated that they were less likely to buy Genetically Modified Food (Raab and Grobe, p. 157 - 160). There is no doubt that with the passage of time the demand for food is becoming more and more sophisticated. As stated earlier, the health claims made by food manufacturing companies have instilled in the minds of the consumers the concept of manufactured nutrition. Phrases such as low-fat, high-protein, and low–carb were never as popular as they are now. Nora Underwood in her article “The Future has begun” points out the threat faced by local farmers in the face of imported food which results in a pressure on the producers to lower the food prices, which ultimately jeopardizes the quality of the food and the environment in which it is produced. The demand for high – protein content has resulted in a demand for chicken, but unfortunately the rich do not want to bear the cost of this high-protein diet. They want the chicken at the lowest price available which results in the farmers’ over-utilization of their farms which in turn increases the risk of epidemics (Underwood, pp. 1-2). Moreover, the importation of food, particularly seafood from Asia has been proved to contain a multitude of contaminants such as E. Coli, Salmonella and so forth. This does not mean that contaminants do not exist in locally produced seafood, but the cause of so many contaminants in Asian food is said to be the use of raw sewage and animal waste as manure, which through the food we eat forms a part of our food chain (Underwood, p. 1). Such facts are no doubt alarming and the solution posed to counter this problem is that of Vertical Farming. Vertical Farming is a recent concept that advocates the growing of food vertically in multi-story buildings, with a greenhouse on every floor to support the production of crops (Walsh). It is also believed that Vertical Farming will become inevitable in the near future due to the constraint on the land available for residential purposes. Apart from solving the problem of congestion the food grown in vertical farms is more protected against environmental hazards such earthquakes because it occupies lesser surface area and is not dependent on climatic conditions. These benefits however, come at the cost of high price of food because producing food in vertical farms is a lot more expensive than the traditional method (Underwood, p. 3). The level of food consciousness of today’s consumer is relatively more than what it was years ago, but there is still so much more that we have conveniently turned a blind eye to. Our irresponsible consumption of food today might become a cause of pain for the generations to come. Whether we choose to pay more for food today and reap the benefits later or pay less today and let time tell the future consequences of our actions – the choice is ours. Works Cited Foreman, Carol Tucker and Christopher Waldrop. "Not Ready to Eat." Food Safety. December 2004. Web. 12 November 2011. Lahey, A. (2009 , Jan/ Feb). "Do You Know What You’re Eating?" Walrus Magazine , pp. 1 - 3. Web. 12 November 2011. < http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2009.01-health-do-you-know-what-youre-eating/3/> Pollen, M. (2007, January 28). "Unhappy Meals." The Times Magazine , pp. 38 - 68. Web. 12 November 2011. Raab, C. G. (2003)."Labeling Genetically Engineered Food: The Consumers Right to Know?" AgBio Forum , 155 - 161. Web. 13 November 2011. < www.agbioforum.org/v6n4/v6n4a02-raab.pdf> Underwood, N. (2009, January/ February). "The Future Has Begun - Vertical Farms Will Take Eating Local to the Next Level — But Are They Safe?" Walrus Magazine , pp. 1 - 3. Web. 13 November 2011. Walsh, B. (2008, December 11). “Vertical Farming.” The TIME Magazine. Web. 12 November 2011. < http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1865974,00.html> Zuger, A. (2010, December 27). "A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away." The New York Times , p. 1. Web. 12 November 2011. < ttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html > Read More