Author: Amanda Leaman

Overstock is now in the business of selling local sourced organic food online. Article found HERE. The community supported agriculture (CSA) model is being integrated into the Overstock.com platform. They’ve gotten nearly 1,800 CSAs around the country to participate already, and aim to expand the program. They believe that this model can disrupt that corporate agri-business supply chain. This new market system is available for free to farmers, they are simply responsible for direct delivery of their goods to their consumers.

This film addresses the questions many individuals have about GMOs: how they affect our children, the health of our planet, our freedom of choice, and whether it is possible to reject our current food system. The director, Jeremy Seifert, travels to Haiti, Paris, Norway, and Monsanto headquarters to answer these questions. These questions are of growing concerns to citizens throughout the world – and are questions we are not provided answers to as American citizens.

This article introduces a new aluminum soda can that is composed of up to 90% recycled aluminum. This can is cheaper, much better for the environment, and requires as little as 5% of the energy needed to make a standard aluminum can (mined from bauxite, a limited mineral), yet none of the large beverage companies are taking advantage of this product. Major limitations in the advancement of this product seem to be the dominant use of plastic bottles over cans, and the companies’ reluctance to commit to a single aluminum provider.

This article introduces a new way to label expiration dates on food: using gelatin stickers that expire/decay at the same rate of the food! The different phases of the gelatin sticker represent the current condition of the food; once it is finished decaying, the gelatin returns to a liquid state, and it is time to dispose of that food. The concentration of gelatin affects the rate at which it expires, allowing this method to be used for all food products. As current expiration dates are mainly for benefit of the manufacturer, this method of labeling will cause people to think twice before throwing out food, and will decrease the amount of food unnecessarily disposed of in landfills.

Insects are used in many countries as a reliable source of protein, and are much more environmentally sustainable than other forms of protein such as chickens, cows, and pigs. The snacks described in this article raise the questions: “What is food to me? What do I consider food?”

If Americans are able to overcome their taboo against eating bugs, we have the potential to develop a more sustainable food system through this adaptation to our diets. We can shift from factory farming of livestock, which requires much energy and resources, to insect farming. Personally, I will need a significant period of time to adjust to using bugs as a main source of protein, but I believe this change in diet can be achieved within a generation or two.

This article describes how GMO labeling will affect the average consumer. GMO labeling will increase the cost of food… by approximately $2.30 per person per year. A range of impact was given: $0.32 to $15.01, with $2.30 being the median cost increase. Previous studies stating that food costs would increase by hundreds of dollars a year were funded by major food manufacturers and retails, those who will be negatively impacted by GMO labeling. 64 nations have already mandated GMO labeling, without any significant increase in food costs.

From this information, one can easily see that Californians were not justified in their decision not to pass legislative on GMO labeling. Public apprehension of increased food costs, apprehension stemming from the costly efforts of major corporations, has hindered our progress toward providing consumers with information to which they have a right.

States that have mandated GMO labeling are being sued by major corporations such as Monsanto and General Mills. The fact these companies are permitted to sue a state over something that should be public knowledge, knowledge that should be mandated by the government, is a disgrace to our society and the way we do business. As GMO labeling will not stop these companies from selling their products, and as many consumers will continue to purchase those products, there is no reason as to why the foods should not be labeled with adequate information on their origins.

A new food labeling system has been established in certain cafeterias, called “Green Light, Red Light, Eat Right”; they are putting green, yellow, and red stickers on foods to encourage healthier eating. Foods with green stickers are deemed healthy, foods with yellow stickers are less healthy, and food with red stickers are unhealthy. While I like the idea of this system, I am skeptical of certain aspects. How do they determine which foods they put each sticker on? There is an inevitable risk in this design. Consumers won’t have to make healthy eating decisions; it is likely they will rely solely on what the cafeteria labels as healthy when selecting food, allowing for bias to be made by the cafeteria. If this system ever becomes well-established in our society, it could be easily tainted by producers buying the “rights” to green stickers.

Gastropod is a series of podcasts that examines food through the lens of science and history. In Episode 1: The Golden Spoon, they discuss the effects the shape and material of our silverware have on our eating habits: affecting how we eat, what we eat, and what our food tastes like. The evolution of silverware has impacted our lives in significant ways, through the development of new appliances, to transitions in eating customs, to eating fads. Of particular interest to me was the research done on different metals, examining which metals produced the best tactile and aural sensations when reacted with saliva, as well as how they affect the taste of food.

The purpose of this series is to examine food and agriculture, and environmental issues stemming from the two, through questions such as what’s scalable, what’s sustainable, and what’s scientifically reasonable.

This article discusses the downfalls associated with family dinners, or slow food. Cooking is an added pressure many families are attempting to eliminate from their daily responsibilities. Parents are under the assumption that if they do not meet all food-need expectations (i.e mitigating nutrition-linked health issues), the stress of a home-cooked meal outweighs the benefits. Even for families that can afford to purchase fresh produce and proper cooking supplies, they do not have the necessary time in their busy schedules to make a meal from scratch. Many believe family dinners to be romanticized, and they forget that making food has always required effort and planning. This article briefly notes that family dinners are about so much more than just nutrition. They are about joining together, as a unit, talking, and being with each other. The pressures associated with dinner time: lack of time, saving money, coordinating schedules, and satisfying picky eaters, may seem like a hindrance, but overcoming these troubles is well worth it in the end. This is the only time many families are given to be together, and it is a time that should be cherished, even if it cannot be achieved every single day of the week.

This article reminded me of the Waters piece we discussed regarding the ethics of eating. As discussed in class, in addition to added nutritional value, slow food should be a priority amongst families. Through food preparation and the physical process of sitting down and eating, parents are able to teach their children values and skills, while opening up discussions and bonding moments. Eating should be an experience, rather than an obligation, and it should be one in which pleasure is gained.

A major food issue in developed countries, to the point of emerging epidemic status, is food sensitivities/allergies, something that was not a concern to the majority of society until the past generation or so. This issue has affected food production to quite an extent, as producers must take into consideration any dietary restrictions those buying their product may have.

This article describes recent research that has found food allergies to be linked to the destruction of certain strains of bacteria in the gut. This destruction if caused by exposure to antibiotics/antimicrobial agents, in which the bacteria killed are never restored. The increasing rates of food allergies are likely due to the increasing frequency at which antibiotics are administered, especially to children.

Up to this point, the only way to handle a food allergy was to avoid exposure to those allergens. However, these recent advancements provide evidence that a strain of intestinal bacteria, Clostridia, is capable of decreasing peanut allergen levels after administration/injection. This is believed to occur due to their intimate contact of the bacteria with the immune system due to their proximity to the epithelial lining, which evokes protective responses. Clostridia is capable of forming stable spores, potentially allowing encapsulation as a potential treatment for food allergies.

Having food allergies of my own, this article is very enticing. This breakthrough has the potential to change the way our society approaches food. We currently have a mind-set of omission; we are focusing on what we want left out of food (i.e. gluten-free, no peanut contamination, no sugar added), rather than what we should be putting in our food.

If we are capable of minimizing food allergies, if not completely demolishing them, then we will find ourselves in a state of change amongst the majority of households in the developed world. This state of change will give us the opportunity to actively address our eating habits and the way we think of food. No longer dwelling on what foods we need to avoid, we can nurture our relationship with food.