Video

Watch it, you know you want to...it'll only take 6 minutes!

http://www.minds.com/blog/view/201538/quite-possibly-the-most-eye-opening-six-minutes-ever-on-film

Salt Sugar Fat - Fat

This week's reading consisted of Michael Moss's novel Salt Sugar Fat, focusing on fat and its effects. Early on in the reading, Moss makes a comparison between sugar and fat; he says that "if sugar is the methamphetamine of processed food ingredients, with its high-speed, blunt assault on our brains, then fat is the opiate, a smooth operator whose effects are less obvious but no less powerful" (148). This comparison captures not only the drug-like effects these substances have on our bodies, but also the mental effects of their addictiveness. Although this is a less intense comparison, the following are two self portraits done by an artist, Bryan Lewis Saunders, under the influence of crystalmeth and morphine - a methamphetamine and an opiate...

1 "bump" of Crystalmeth

Morphine IV (dosage unknown)

We know that sugar and fat do not have these kind of side-effects on our bodies - that would be ridiculous. However, their addictive quality and known/unknown bliss points contribute to the obesity of our society. It's shocking to realize that based on 2003 statistics, "the average adult was 24 pounds heavier than [they were] in 1960 ... and one in three Americans - and nearly one in five kids, aged six to eleven - were classified as obese" (238). That's outrageous!

With regard to addictions, I find it morally wrong that tobacco and food companies (such as Philip Morris and Kraft) will continue to market their products to optimize desire and sales. The food company even acknowledges that in order for them to do well as a business, they much cater to their audiences desires, but that the right product for us - one without sugar and fat - would not sale (249). Therefore, companies rely on our addictions in order to perpetuate our desires so that they will continue making money.

For more information about Bryan Lewis Saunders, click here.

The Omnivore's Dilemma - Part 3: The Forest

Michael Pollan's novel, The Omnivore's Dilemma, explores the gatherer aspect of man's consumption. Part 3, the Forest, raises many concerns over the ethics behind eating animals. Culture has been telling us that animals are "both good to eat and good to think" (305). After just reading that line, my thought was "that's debatable." I would like to think that it is good for us to eat lots of meat, but this course as well as a general knowledge, has taught me that most food we eat now-a-days really isn't that healthy for us. Natural food, meat for example, doesn't contain as many nutrients as it once did. The beef, chicken, and pork our grandparents and great-grandparents grew up on would have been much smaller, more lean, and "better for you." However, I'm also learning that the "healthiness" of something isn't even fully scientific anymore. I have a lot of faith in science to discover many things about humans and our desired behaviors (including how to become the most "healthy"). So I have really started to wonder whether the argument that protein is so good for you is really valid, or if it's just temporarily valid...

Back to the idea that animals are "good to think"... When I think of an animal, I imagine one of the many cows or goats I pass when driving around Boiling Springs. I assume these animals are happy because they're more or less in their natural habitat, doing whatever they want (except leaving the property). However, I realize that these aren't the animals that I will be consuming day in and day out. Those animals know nothing of a 'free' life. The animals I eat are most likely the ones Pollan illustrates as ignorant slaves that are bread to be just to be fattened and killed. The latter is so "good to think."

Pollan also explores this discussion about physical and emotional pain with animals. Can they feel physical pain? Duh! But can they feel emotional pain? Possibly. As a whole, our society doesn't care. We treat animals as "production units" - we assume they can't feel pain, not because they can't, but because we don't care. We want our meat, no matter how poor quality it is. Man will find reason (or lack of reason) to do whatever he wants to do. Ben Franklin even once said, "the great advantage of being a 'reasonable creature' ... is that you can find a reason for whatever you want to do" (310).

I believe that animals were ONCE "both good to eat and good to think," but I think our growing society is taking nature out of the equation to the point that this is no longer true.

I'm not saying I agree with the mass slaughter of animals, but I can't fully deny it either. I'd prefer that my meat was more environmentally nature, but I also realize that in order to efficiently feed the amount of people on this planet, we must industrialize the process. Unfortunately, however, this comes at a cost - and part of this cost, arguably, is ethics.

Salt Sugar Fat: Sugar

Michael's Moss's "Salt Sugar Fat" was this weeks focus - specifically the section entitled Sugar. Beginning with our bodies desire for sugar and sweet, Moss explores approximately how much harm our consumption of large amounts of sugar-loaded food does to us. He also narrates a lot of the history of food scientists and company's battle over the health risks of sugar. Moss mentions how kids are the demographic of people that love sugar the most. When discussing the marketing of these sugary products, Moss specifically notes how companies would target their advertising to children because they would be enticed by the product and beg their mothers to get it for them. Because "hunger is a poor driver of cravings," food processing companies can attract consumers on the premise that their products just taste good and feel good and they should eat them - not because they are hungry, but because they are tasty (39). (Which is terrible and wrong, but true).

As I was reading, one thing I kept noticing was the language used to describe the competition between companies. The tone and vocabulary used was one of a military battle or war - things like cereal unit, marching orders, combat, offense, top-secret, war room, enemy's position, target, etc. But later to find out, this was not a war against companies; this was a war against the consumer - the consumer who purchases the opposing company's products.

The fact that sugar is such a large problem was not what disgusted me about reading this section of "Salt Sugar Fat." What is frustrating is the marketing and things companies would do just to sell more, without concern for consumers' health. From things like targeted our young, to exchanging a "product component for another that wasn't ... as high on the list of [medical] concerns," to tapping into people's emotions, specifically happiness, to get them to associate an event with consuming their product. The food industry's methods of marketing are so annoying, because I see these things, but know that so many people do not care, and even more do not even know!

My final thoughts on "Sugar" ...

Jeffrey Dunn, a previous Coca-Cola employee, had an idea for a healthy snack food. He described it as a product with personality; it was "bold, irreverent, confident, clever," and playful - the "ultimate snack food" (119). He talks about how it is ideal for busy mothers needing to feed their children, busy college students (like myself), and others whom this 'ultimate' snack could benefit. At this point, I'm thinking "Man! What could it be?!" As it turns out, the entire time Dunn is marketing for baby carrots?! I did not expect this. He goes to explain... "We act like a snack, not a vegetable. ... We exploit the rules of junk food to fuel the baby carrot conversation. We are pro-junk food behavior but anti-junk food establishment." (120). What he's saying is we could market healthy food just like junk food. Which in my opinion is a great idea. His description and wording of baby carrots definitely did not sound like he was trying to convince me to eat baby carrots, but it would have worked.

So, the fact that (in theory) the marketing of healthy alternatives could be equally as effective as the marketing of sugar-dense substances leads me to wonder, why then must our species (and many more) have such a strong desire for sugar? Why can we not rid ourselves of these unhealthy food?