While the advertisement above does not directly lie about any nutritional information in their product, it does use language that is intentionally misleading on multiple occasions. Many direct instances of deception take place throughout the text of this ad, but the misleading nature of the piece can be identified prior to even reading the details. The casual reader of Food & Beverage Magazine might read about this product and not realize that the company likely paid the magazine to have their product featured in their Trending Products section, despite the advertisement being formatted like an article. Since people have short attention spans and hate ads, being categorized by a food magazine as “featured” instead of “advertisement” and being written in article-form gives the illusion that the product is better than it really is. The second glaringly misleading claim can be found multiple times throughout the ad, including in the main subheading, where it characterizes the product as “low-calorie popcorn”. If Cookie Pop’s Oreo Popcorn is considered “low-calorie popcorn”, that would mean that regular popcorn is the less healthy option, right? Well, the opposite is in fact true. One serving of Oreo Popcorn (1.25 cups) contains 150 calories, while regular air popped popcorn contains roughly 39 calories for the same exact serving size. This blatant misrepresentation of this popcorn is perhaps the most on-the-nose example of fibbing in this advertisement, there are an abundance of other lies that reveal themselves as you investigate further. |
In our society, it is commonly assumed that “it is the mother’s responsibility to ensure children’s health through good nutrition” (Chen, 2016; 161), and companies like Cookie Pop know it. While many people look at health from a caloric point of view, another factor that has become increasingly important for young parents is GMO vs non-GMO foods. This advertisement makes sure that concerned parents do not have to worry about the use of highly processed GMO corn products as it is said to be “made 100% in the U.S. with non-GMO corn”. Phew, my kids aren’t eating any of that junk, right? WRONG. After some light digging, it was brought to my attention that although the corn used for the popcorn itself may be non-GMO, the Oreo cookies used in their product contain high-fructose corn syrup, a highly mechanized and processed form of corn syrup that is most often derived from genetically modified corn. Additionally, the products packing is sure to only specify “non-GMO corn” rather than saying “non-GMO”, which makes me think that other ingredients likely contain GMOs. It can be difficult to understand why companies can include such ingredients without disclosing the origin of said ingredients, but “congress has limited the FDA’s oversight ability by expanding its responsibilities without keeping up with its funding needs” (Nestle, 2020; 91), leaving fewer hoops to jump through in reality. |
|
This week, I read an article from CBC titled “Indoor Farming Could Improve B.C. Food Security Amid Climate Change”. As you can gather from the title, this piece is discussing indoor farming as a potentially more climate-conscious alternative to conventional farming practices. Controlled environment agriculture, as the article calls it, takes advantage of artificial lighting and hydroponic technology to cultivate fruit and vegetables in any location at any time, regardless of the climate outside. This method is beneficial in many ways, including its relative inexpensiveness due to falling prices of LED lighting and its ability to succeed regardless of environmental factors (temperature, weather, soil conditions, pest infestations, diseases caused by the environment, etc). This versatility is so important because as Marion Nestle emphasizes, “climate affects agriculture, but agriculture also affects climate” (Marion, 2020; 133). With that relationship in mind, not only does control environment agriculture offer a suitable solution to declining soil conditions and lack of available arable land around the world caused in part by climate change, but it can also help reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions in the future if more farms move towards this option. As our planet continues to face the problematic effects of climate change, the farmer discussed in the text, Colin Chapdelaine, and others like him are touting this approach as “a renaissance in farming that's happening right now before our eyes” |
So based on this article, this is the end-all-be-all solution to all of our agriculture and climate change needs, right? Well, not quite. While the farmer and researcher interviewed in this piece highlight the many advantages of indoor farming, the author fails to address any of its downsides. One of the obvious negative aspects of this technology is the tradeoff that is made, as harmful pesticides and herbicides that help perpetuate climate change are being replaced with high electricity use. Contrary to popular belief, electricity is a finite resource, and switching to agriculture that is reliant on electricity may not be sustainable long-term unless it is paired with renewable sources of energy like solar or wind. There is also another, more subtle tradeoff that would occur if we adopted this strategy worldwide- we would be giving up the connection between our food and the Earth. From the Vogtian point of view, “agriculture is about maintaining a set of communities, ecological and human, that have cradled life since the first agricultural revolution, 10,000 years ago” (Mann, 2018; 13). Although it would be entirely possible to form new human communities around this style of agriculture, the relationship between the Earth and the people inhabiting it would be lost when the sun and the soil aren’t the most important factors in producing life. These downsides exist and therefore they are important for me to point out, but that does not mean that it isn’t a better alternative to factory farming, rather it is acknowledging that no solution is perfect and we have to address the issues in order to improve the process for the future. |
|
|
This week, I read an article called “Powered by Food (Waste)” by Max Esterhuizen, a University of Virginia Ph.D. candidate. This article dives into research being conducted by two associate professors at UV who are exploring the idea of transforming agricultural food waste into functioning batteries. I am not a very science-minded person, but I can conclude based on the article that this process utilizes fractionation technology that separates the fiber from the rest of the waste, which is then turned into “functional carbon materials” through thermal processing. These carbon materials are used to host the alkali metals found in conventional batteries and replace other sources of carbon that are limited and expensive to procure. While searching for my article, I found that there are many projects focusing on new ways to use food waste, but this one immediately stood out to me because of how it focuses on solving not just one issue, but many simultaneously. We all know about our issues with excess food ending up in a landfill, but few people are aware of the issue with battery production and the concerns surrounding it. The battery industry is currently plagued with supply chain issues, high costs, and the pressing matter of finding more renewable sources of energy for the sake of our environment. By turning unused food into this carbon material needed in batteries, we can help eliminate how much food is being wasted while also creating batteries in a more cost-effective and sustainable way. |
Just as we have seen throughout American history, the solution to the issue of food waste must involve creative, out-of-the-box thinking because if the answer were obvious, there would be no need for such thinking. Whether it was the early industrial era where “pickling, potting, smoking and salting defined 19th-century cuisine” (Leftovers, 1) or simply taking the Italian Grandmother approach and “whipping something up based on what’s around, what’s in season, and what’s about to go bad” (Fagan, 89), Americans have always found a way to conserve food when conservation is necessary. The factor that is rarely discussed is that we only go the extra mile to do these things when it is out of complete necessity, and that is a reason why we have such a bad problem today. Since Americans don’t have to spend as much money on food and it is common knowledge that most food waste today is from large manufacturers and agricultural processes, people aren’t as inclined to make these creative changes in their own lives. The research project discussed in this article is a model for how researchers ought to navigate this issue because ignorance in the general public is just another barrier keeping us from solving this problem. Unfortunately, I do not see many Americans going to lengths like canning or pickling to reduce their own food waste, but I believe that people are smart enough to make small changes in their daily lives to help solve this issue while researchers are hopefully able to make more large scale strides to reduce food waste at the industrial level. When a collective action problem cannot be solved by the collective, creative thinking like this is absolutely imperative if we want to find sustainable solutions to these dilemmas. |
|
For this week’s News in Food, I explored an article discussing a link between gun violence in Kansas City and the prevailing food insecurity in that area. In order to come to a reasonable conclusion about the link between those two factors, the research in this article examined and compared two sets of data from 2020: federal food data to determine food access for residences around the city and local police crime data to determine where shootings were taking place. In comparing these two data sets, the researchers found that 80% of gun-related crimes in Kansas City during 2020 took place in “low-income areas without access to a supermarket or grocery store for at least half a mile”. While there have already been numerous studies that look at links between crime and poverty at the surface level, this article takes that same data and looks at it deeper; diving into a potential reason why these types of violent crimes occur at a higher rate in areas with limited access to grocery stores. With that being said, the author sheds light on the fact that “[l]acking a complex nutritional diet can harm brain development in childhood”, which in turn can lead to mental and physical health issues that can cause “later problems dealing with peers, handling authority and responding to situations of extreme stress”. |
This article provides an example of yet another social issue that is exacerbated, if not directly caused, by food insecurity and hunger in our country today. The focus of this study was on low-income areas with high crime rates and their proximity to grocery stores because an important aspect of living in poverty is the inaccessibility of reliable transportation. The correlation between child development and the quality of food is clear, but the reason why people can’t access good food in the first place isn’t always as simple as “they can’t afford it”. The impact of this can be seen through Ashley Taylor’s experiences in “Shift Work”. For Ashley and her family, access to reliable transportation is never guaranteed and any unforeseen circumstance “creates a domino effect in all other areas of their lives” (69). A similar domino effect can be seen within this study of Kansas city crime and food insecurity, as people stuck in the cycle of poverty often has no reliable form of transportation to regularly visit a supermarket, “limiting choices to whatever bodegas or convenience stores can offer” (Marion, 68). As the data from Kansas City illuminates, people who grow up in lower-income settings are automatically at a higher risk of displaying anti-social or delinquent behaviors later in life because their circumstances prohibited their access to the nutrients necessary for normal development. This study is yet another example of how poverty and hunger in America is a deep-rooted, societal issue that cannot be solved until we make significant change at the source of the problem. Not only that, but it also shows how the cycle of poverty is a catalyst for other, often seemingly unrelated cycles, such as violent crime, which cannot be solved until the poverty issue has been addressed. |
|
This article, written by Sopheng Cheang for AP News, discusses the harsh and inhumane work conditions of migrant farmworkers in South Korea. In the interest of keeping labor costs cheap in order to maximize profits, many farm owners exploit the labor of poor migrant workers from the nearby countries of Nepal, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Much like similar practices in the U.S., these workers travel to Korea legally under their Employment Permit System, a system that grants them temporary access to the country but does not grant them, the same labor rights or protections afforded to Korean citizens. These lax regulations leave migrant workers vulnerable to extreme exploitation by their bosses, including dangerous housing conditions, little pay, very few days off, and practices that make it extremely difficult for workers to leave their original employers. While Americans may associate this type of labor exploitation with only foreign countries, Tracie McMillan’s discoveries when working amongst migrant workers in America included the realization that “[u]nder federal labor laws, I have no right to days off; I have no right to overtime pay; I have no right to collective bargaining” (27). Not only is McMillan in America, but she is also a legal citizen and still must abide by these rules as a farmworker. |
Cheang describes scenes that draw comparisons to sweatshops and labor camps that are associated with tyrannical dictatorships rather than the “presidential republic” model boasted by South Korea. In fact, these farms and employers run a sort of dictatorship themselves, made possible only by the lack of regulation from the overarching government in Korea. Similar to many infamous dictators of the last decade, these employers actively shut down any criticism or questioning that may arise, including that of Rev. Kim Dal-sung. As an activist and pastor who advocates for migrant worker’s rights, Kim has a lot of first-hand experience with these farms and attests to the fact that the farm owners are, “like absolute monarchs ruling over migrant workers”, and that “[s]ome say they want to kill me”. Sounds like a great place to work, no? |
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of migrant worker experiences in South Korea is the conditions in which they are forced to live. According to the article, “The workers often are crammed in shipping containers or flimsy, poorly ventilated huts”. Conditions like these are awful on their own but they are also exacerbated by frequent summer heatwaves that lead to hundreds of (recorded) worker deaths every year. These regulations and practices must change as soon as possible because human rights are being ignored and lives are being lost. The root cause of this, like most issues in today’s world, is money. Just as American food companies see it as their “first priority to return profits to shareholders” (Marion, 38), South Korean farmers want to return the biggest profits to themselves. Neither issue, whether it be corrupt food companies in America or abusive farm owners in South Korea, will be solved until more government focus is put on policy regarding human rights and health rather than money.