So apparently I've become hard to live with. Or at least, I've become annoying. I blame this entirely on the fact that I've recently finished reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan.
I went grocery shopping with my mother last weekend. While I no longer live with my parents in Bremerton, I do go home about every other weekend to see my parents and my pets... and to have my parents buy me things. I'm a typically poor college student who lives on her 20-hour-per-week job as a barista... so it's nice to be able to get my parents to pay for some of my groceries. It's also really nice to go shopping in my hometown of Bremerton, because our grocery store is the Bangor Commecery - a grocery where just about everything, but especially meat, is deeply discounted for the military families that patronize it.
My mother and I were walking through the bakery - one of the first things that you see when you walk into the store. I told my mother what I had read in Pollan's book - that grocery stores are set up in a certain way in order to make people buy things. For instance, research shows that people will buy more food when they smell bread baking - so that's why most grocery stores now have a bakery that churns out French bread 'round the clock. "And do you know why the milk is at the back of the store?" I asked my mother. "Tell me," she said, now probably sensing that I was about to enter into a long shpeal about corruption in the supermarket. "Because milk is what everyone comes to the store for, so they're forcing you to walk past a bunch of other products in hope that you'll be seduced into buying more than you originally intended."
And it continued. Mom asked me to pick out three Bakers - I told her about genetically modified potatoes (like the ones in All Over Creation), and about the way that people normally chose the perfectly oblong potatoes, staying away from the ones that were misshapen because they did not conform to the mental image of the ideal Potato. As we walked past the bagged salads, I told her how baby lettuce marketing was concieved of on a smallish farm in California, and about how it's easier to grow them organically because they only stay in the ground for about 30 days before they're picked, giving them less time to be attacked by pests and choked by weeds. And I told her about the way they grow and harvest the lettuce, the overtilling of the soil, and about the lettuce's refrigerated journey from field to table.
And my Mom was a great sport about all of this. She has told me that while I'm annoying sometimes, she actually likes to listen to jabber on about what I've learned in class - both because she can learn more, and because I can then retain what I've learned by teaching her. However, when we got to the meat department and I began to explain about the slaughter of beef, she'd had enough. "If you're this concerned about all of this, why don't you stop eating meat and just plant a few seeds?"
While my mother said this in frustration and jest, I realized that she had just made quite a profound statement. There was really not that much good to be had by my berating every item in the supermarket - mostly I just ticked people off. What the situation needed was action. Instead of complaining about everything, people (including myself) need to take some action when it comes to the food they eat. Yes, it's effort - but isn't it worth it when you consider the alternatives? I'm not saying I'm becoming a vegetarian. And I'm not going to stop going to the grocery store altogether. But I am going to try to buy as much as I can locally - from the Saturday Farmer's Market, from the stands at Pike Place, from the butcher on the Ave. And hell, maybe when I move out of my current apartment in the fall, into a new one that actually has a porch or balcony, I'll plant a garden - it'll have to be a container garden, but perhaps it will help make me even more aware - and more connected -to where my food actually comes from. Which is what Pollan's book is all about, right?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Adventures in Olives
So I finally had Greek food yesterday. I say "finally" because I feel like there are tons of Greek restaurants, Greek cookbooks, and people saying, "hey, let's go get gyros" surrounding me. Yet somehow, I have never tried Greek food. The general idea of it has never appealed to me, mainly because it just makes me think of olives... and I hate olives.
But my friend Chloe and I ate dinner at the First Hill Grill, a family-owned greek-style diner on the corner of 9th and Marion, just north of downtown in Seattle. Thing was, we didn't know it was a Greek diner. We had decided to go there because it was part of our mission to visit all of the "Neighborhood-name-here Bar and Grill"s in Seattle. Generally, these places have very grill-ey food: sandwiches, steak, soup, burgers, comfort food, maybe ribs. And lots of yummy cocktails. And all of the places we had been to so far (including the Eastlake Bar and Grill and the Greenlake Bar and Grill) have included somewhat hip and modern decor to emphasize their appeal to the young residents of the neighborhood. But the First Hill Grill was none of these things. The low brick building looked shabby from the outside, and upon entering, we were confronted with full-on Greek restaurant regalia: fake columns and ivy, murals of the Greek countryside and the acropolis, and a gigantic marble clamshell with Venus bursting forth in all of her Greek glory.
I was skeptical. And intrigued. And not terribly disappointed. I had been expecting one of our normal, modern bar-and-grill joints, and was looking forward to crab cakes with chowder and fries. But I'd never tried Greek food, and I've always said I'll try anything at least once, and I was being given that opportunity. And at first glance, this place proved to be more than sufficiently Greek for my "first time." Actually, I felt as if I'd stepped right into the set of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
So what did we eat? We started with some sort of flambe. It was a soft sheep's cheese, doused with rum, lit aflame, and sprinkled with lemon juice. Served on pita, it was absolutely phenomenal... one of the most flavorful, yet light, cheeses I've had. Then came the main course... I believe what I had was called Souvlaki, skewers of oil-marinated pork with a greek salad. And here came the challenge. The pork was superb, and the feta in the salad was flavorful... but there, sitting atop my salad, was a plump purple olive. It looked different than the other olives that I'd eaten, the black, pitted, canned ones about which I had reached the conclusion that I did not like Olives. But this one was different... friendlier, plumper, and purply-er... and for heaven's sake, I was in a Greek restaurant! I was going to eat that olive.
But in the moment before I brought the olive to my lips, I was reminded of an article I read for class, entitled, "Food at Moderate Speeds" by Sidney Mintz. I had been presented with a picture of what Greek Food was by my cultural experiences - including, but not limited to, My Big Fat Greek Wedding. And the restaurant lived up to many expectations that had been set forth by these cultural dictums. However, the restaurant was also playing into these expectations. They knew that hungry diners would be looking for a completely Greek experience - thus the murals of the acropolis. The restaurant was playing into the cultural and cuisinal sterotypes in order to establish an identity and a clientele. While this could be seen as negative, it is, at the same time, bringing countless clueless olivophobes like myself to the realization that the cuisine is about more than the canned black olives with pimentos and frozen pasta-with-pesto entrees that may have given us our reservations or misconceptions. What I recieved for my dining dollars was both good and bad, from an anthropological perspective. While it compromised the overwhelming diversity of a people and a culture and a cuisine and presented it in the slightly one-dimensional format of a themed restaurant, it also was an improvement upon the faster-food-ification of Greek cuisine that I had ingrained in my mind and tastebuds.
So I ate the olive.
And you know what? It actually wasn't that bad. It tasted strongly of vinegar, and the mealy texture that I had so disliked in its canned cousins was absent. And while this particular olive was not brought to my table because of regional availability and tradition, as would a real greek olive, it was sufficient to allow me to change my mind, and my tastes, about Greek cuisine.
But my friend Chloe and I ate dinner at the First Hill Grill, a family-owned greek-style diner on the corner of 9th and Marion, just north of downtown in Seattle. Thing was, we didn't know it was a Greek diner. We had decided to go there because it was part of our mission to visit all of the "Neighborhood-name-here Bar and Grill"s in Seattle. Generally, these places have very grill-ey food: sandwiches, steak, soup, burgers, comfort food, maybe ribs. And lots of yummy cocktails. And all of the places we had been to so far (including the Eastlake Bar and Grill and the Greenlake Bar and Grill) have included somewhat hip and modern decor to emphasize their appeal to the young residents of the neighborhood. But the First Hill Grill was none of these things. The low brick building looked shabby from the outside, and upon entering, we were confronted with full-on Greek restaurant regalia: fake columns and ivy, murals of the Greek countryside and the acropolis, and a gigantic marble clamshell with Venus bursting forth in all of her Greek glory.
I was skeptical. And intrigued. And not terribly disappointed. I had been expecting one of our normal, modern bar-and-grill joints, and was looking forward to crab cakes with chowder and fries. But I'd never tried Greek food, and I've always said I'll try anything at least once, and I was being given that opportunity. And at first glance, this place proved to be more than sufficiently Greek for my "first time." Actually, I felt as if I'd stepped right into the set of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
So what did we eat? We started with some sort of flambe. It was a soft sheep's cheese, doused with rum, lit aflame, and sprinkled with lemon juice. Served on pita, it was absolutely phenomenal... one of the most flavorful, yet light, cheeses I've had. Then came the main course... I believe what I had was called Souvlaki, skewers of oil-marinated pork with a greek salad. And here came the challenge. The pork was superb, and the feta in the salad was flavorful... but there, sitting atop my salad, was a plump purple olive. It looked different than the other olives that I'd eaten, the black, pitted, canned ones about which I had reached the conclusion that I did not like Olives. But this one was different... friendlier, plumper, and purply-er... and for heaven's sake, I was in a Greek restaurant! I was going to eat that olive.
But in the moment before I brought the olive to my lips, I was reminded of an article I read for class, entitled, "Food at Moderate Speeds" by Sidney Mintz. I had been presented with a picture of what Greek Food was by my cultural experiences - including, but not limited to, My Big Fat Greek Wedding. And the restaurant lived up to many expectations that had been set forth by these cultural dictums. However, the restaurant was also playing into these expectations. They knew that hungry diners would be looking for a completely Greek experience - thus the murals of the acropolis. The restaurant was playing into the cultural and cuisinal sterotypes in order to establish an identity and a clientele. While this could be seen as negative, it is, at the same time, bringing countless clueless olivophobes like myself to the realization that the cuisine is about more than the canned black olives with pimentos and frozen pasta-with-pesto entrees that may have given us our reservations or misconceptions. What I recieved for my dining dollars was both good and bad, from an anthropological perspective. While it compromised the overwhelming diversity of a people and a culture and a cuisine and presented it in the slightly one-dimensional format of a themed restaurant, it also was an improvement upon the faster-food-ification of Greek cuisine that I had ingrained in my mind and tastebuds.
So I ate the olive.
And you know what? It actually wasn't that bad. It tasted strongly of vinegar, and the mealy texture that I had so disliked in its canned cousins was absent. And while this particular olive was not brought to my table because of regional availability and tradition, as would a real greek olive, it was sufficient to allow me to change my mind, and my tastes, about Greek cuisine.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Adventures of Top Ramen, the Amazing No-cook, Deep-Fried Noodle*
We all looked with trepidation as Ann rolled the food cart into class last Thursday. Sure, it had the usual spread of teas and hot water, as well as some really delicious looking lemon bars, courtesy of Teresa. But we were all glancing at the lower shelf. Bright red and orange packaging drew our eyes. Were we hallucinating? Or was Ann really going to make us eat Ramen Noodles and Diet Coke in our food class?
Ann asked us all to take a sample of the foods and to do a taste test. Not just eat them, she said, but taste them. Really observe what it is about the texture and the flavor that makes this food up... OK. The first thing I noted was that I would be preparing the Ramen differently than I normally do. I usually boil water, and drop the block of noodles in for about 5 minutes while the water continues to boil. Then I drain them, put them in a bowl, and sprinkle the seasoning on and mix with a fork. Today, I would be eating the noodles like "normal" people do - adding the flavor packet to the noodles, covering them with hot water and letting them soften for three minutes. So, though I had Ramen almost every day as a child and have it about once a week now as a college student, this would be a new experience.
The texture was very chewy - almost like calamari, actually. These noodles hadn't had time to be fully cooked (or rather, softened - Ramen noodles are already deep-fat-fried before they're packaged), and thus were not soft. The springy texture was accompanied by a very subtle flavor... a non-flavor, actually. Since I was not using a full block of noodles, I used very little of the seasoning packet. However, I had covered this yellow powder in water, thereby making a kind of broth - I guess the way you're "supposed" to make it. And it was very... blah. I'm used to a sharp zing with the first bite of my chicken-flavored-powder-covered noodles, and it wasn't there this time. It tasted very neutral, almost more neutral than water. Like this was my tongue's natural taste.
My reaction was a lot different from most people in the class, and I think it's because of the way I prepared my noodles... who knew there were so many different ways to make them?!? But I remember and understand what they were talking about... the jolt of spice and tang, followed by a homey, chicken-y taste... but is that really the way chicken tastes? We talked about this, about the way that chicken-flavored products actually taste nothing like chicken. They have been chickenized, and in consuming these products since the moment of our birth, my generation has been chickenized. I actually don't know if I've ever had real chicken broth by itself. My mother has used it in cooking, but I don't think I've ever had it on its own. The only chicken soup I've ever had is from Campbell's, Progresso, or Top Ramen. And this chicken-y flavor hardly bears resemblence to the taste of the whole roast chicken I had last week. However, it does give reminder of the chicken-n-a-biscuit crackers I ate when I was little... and of chicken nuggets. And all other manner of chickenized products that came before and after the ramen. But does it taste anything like the feathered, clucking bird portrayed on the packaging? No.
I also found it very interesting that there were a handful of people who had never eaten Top Ramen before. Never. In their entire lives. This was so hard for me to fathom, because I grew up LIKING the stuff. There was one summer in particular... I think I had to be about 9 or so... I would go over to my friend Sarah's house every single morning. We would play for a few hours, eat lunch and watch a movie, then go outside and play again until my Mom called me home. And every day... every single day, we ate Top Ramen for lunch. Sarah would boil the water, and then we would each make the big decision... Chicken, Pork, Beef, Shrimp, or Oriental? And we would prepare it in the manner I described above, fully cooking and then draining the noodles before adding the pungent flakes and powder of our selected meat. (Which, by the way, begs a question - what do Orientals taste like?)
Anyway, it boggled my mind that there were people who had never eaten Ramen, when I was clearly raised on the stuff. And, after forgetting about it for about 10 years, I came to college and rediscovered it as the meal you don't have to really cook. But several students in my class said that their parents never gave it to them, and that they'd never tried it, even after they came to college. I suspect that it's a class issue. My family wasn't poor, but we certainly weren't rich. We lived in a duplex and then rented housing until I was 7 years old, but we always were working with my Dad's U.S. Navy salary. It wasn't until he made Chief when I was about 10 that we got more money, enough to be significantly choosier about our food. And that was probably about the time that the $0.20 blocks of starch disappeared from our cupboard. But I suppose there are people out there who have never been exposed to this. They're the same people who grow up eating vegetable plates and hummus for snacks. They're the same people who, now grown, feed their kids organic apples and Starbucks nonfat hot chocolate. But for those of us who didn't grow up that way, for those of us whose parents want to but can't afford to feed us those things... what is left?
Ann asked us all to take a sample of the foods and to do a taste test. Not just eat them, she said, but taste them. Really observe what it is about the texture and the flavor that makes this food up... OK. The first thing I noted was that I would be preparing the Ramen differently than I normally do. I usually boil water, and drop the block of noodles in for about 5 minutes while the water continues to boil. Then I drain them, put them in a bowl, and sprinkle the seasoning on and mix with a fork. Today, I would be eating the noodles like "normal" people do - adding the flavor packet to the noodles, covering them with hot water and letting them soften for three minutes. So, though I had Ramen almost every day as a child and have it about once a week now as a college student, this would be a new experience.
The texture was very chewy - almost like calamari, actually. These noodles hadn't had time to be fully cooked (or rather, softened - Ramen noodles are already deep-fat-fried before they're packaged), and thus were not soft. The springy texture was accompanied by a very subtle flavor... a non-flavor, actually. Since I was not using a full block of noodles, I used very little of the seasoning packet. However, I had covered this yellow powder in water, thereby making a kind of broth - I guess the way you're "supposed" to make it. And it was very... blah. I'm used to a sharp zing with the first bite of my chicken-flavored-powder-covered noodles, and it wasn't there this time. It tasted very neutral, almost more neutral than water. Like this was my tongue's natural taste.
My reaction was a lot different from most people in the class, and I think it's because of the way I prepared my noodles... who knew there were so many different ways to make them?!? But I remember and understand what they were talking about... the jolt of spice and tang, followed by a homey, chicken-y taste... but is that really the way chicken tastes? We talked about this, about the way that chicken-flavored products actually taste nothing like chicken. They have been chickenized, and in consuming these products since the moment of our birth, my generation has been chickenized. I actually don't know if I've ever had real chicken broth by itself. My mother has used it in cooking, but I don't think I've ever had it on its own. The only chicken soup I've ever had is from Campbell's, Progresso, or Top Ramen. And this chicken-y flavor hardly bears resemblence to the taste of the whole roast chicken I had last week. However, it does give reminder of the chicken-n-a-biscuit crackers I ate when I was little... and of chicken nuggets. And all other manner of chickenized products that came before and after the ramen. But does it taste anything like the feathered, clucking bird portrayed on the packaging? No.
I also found it very interesting that there were a handful of people who had never eaten Top Ramen before. Never. In their entire lives. This was so hard for me to fathom, because I grew up LIKING the stuff. There was one summer in particular... I think I had to be about 9 or so... I would go over to my friend Sarah's house every single morning. We would play for a few hours, eat lunch and watch a movie, then go outside and play again until my Mom called me home. And every day... every single day, we ate Top Ramen for lunch. Sarah would boil the water, and then we would each make the big decision... Chicken, Pork, Beef, Shrimp, or Oriental? And we would prepare it in the manner I described above, fully cooking and then draining the noodles before adding the pungent flakes and powder of our selected meat. (Which, by the way, begs a question - what do Orientals taste like?)
Anyway, it boggled my mind that there were people who had never eaten Ramen, when I was clearly raised on the stuff. And, after forgetting about it for about 10 years, I came to college and rediscovered it as the meal you don't have to really cook. But several students in my class said that their parents never gave it to them, and that they'd never tried it, even after they came to college. I suspect that it's a class issue. My family wasn't poor, but we certainly weren't rich. We lived in a duplex and then rented housing until I was 7 years old, but we always were working with my Dad's U.S. Navy salary. It wasn't until he made Chief when I was about 10 that we got more money, enough to be significantly choosier about our food. And that was probably about the time that the $0.20 blocks of starch disappeared from our cupboard. But I suppose there are people out there who have never been exposed to this. They're the same people who grow up eating vegetable plates and hummus for snacks. They're the same people who, now grown, feed their kids organic apples and Starbucks nonfat hot chocolate. But for those of us who didn't grow up that way, for those of us whose parents want to but can't afford to feed us those things... what is left?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Comfort me, please
I realized when I went out to dinner last night that I forgot a category in my brief run-down of the various technologies of health: Comfort Eating.
I'd been having a pretty bad week (a bad month, actually), so when my friend Chloe came to pick me up for our weekly Wednesday night dinner, she suggested that we go to my favorite restaurant, the Broadway Bar and Grill, a place famous for their comfort food. On our walk to the bus stop, I found a 20-dollar bill - a whole 20! - staring up at me from the pavement. So I picked it up and looked around to see if anyone had dropped it. But there was no one around us who had just crossed that section of sidewalk. Chloe and I decided that it was a sign from the heavens, and decided then and there to spend the money on fancy drinks we wouldn't have otherwise been able to buy. And thus the evening went from one of comfort food to one of comfort food and drink... a dionysian feast, if you will.
So what did this comfort-food feast consist of? Actually, we were very true to the typical comforting fare. Chloe and I split a bowl of the house soup, which is a tremendously creamy, rich, delicious blend of chicken, red beans, broccoli, and cheese. After allowing a few cocktails to comfort us further, we indulged in greasy goodness: Chloe had the breakfast scramble, and I had fried chicken with mashed potatoes and sauteed vegetables. And it was terrific - so delicious that I stuffed myself long after I was full. And of course then I felt guilty for eating so much of such a fattening food - but still terribly satisfied by the taste and feeling that lingered. And this led me to ask, why is it that certain foods are commonly identified as "comfort food?"
When I think of comfort food, I typically think of carby, starchy, fatty, sugary, greasy yummy food. Most people tend to agree. Sure, there are exceptions - certain people might really find chicken broth and celery sticks comforting. I'm sure there's someone out there who feels that way, and it's likely because there is some sort of childhood link or conditioned response that involves that particular food item. Many scientists think that psychological association is the main operator behind Comfort Food. And I'm sure that they're (at least partially) right - foods from childhood are familiar, and the familiar is comforting.
There's also the issue of conditioned response. I know that for me, cookies and milk are a special sort of comfort food. When I had bad dreams when I was little, I would go wake my mother up. She would put on her robe and slippers and lead me out to the kitchen, where she would pour two glasses of milk and put out a plate of cookies, and she would ask me about my dream. After perhaps twenty minutes I was calm, I had begun to realize that the dream was not real, and I would become drowsy because of the milk. So Mom would put the dishes in the sink and tuck me back into bed, and my bad dream was forgotten. So even now, I have cookies and milk when I have difficulty sleeping - it is one of my comfort foods because I have been conditioned to crave it.
However, it is puzzling that people have so many comfort foods in common. Why is it that almost everyone identifies mashed potatoes as a comfort food? Is it because everyone has a personal childhood association with the mutilated tuber? Or is it that greasy, sugary, fatty, starchy foods are inherently more comforting?
Science has several theories. In his article Comfort Food and You, David Lin briefly discusses the possible explanations of comfort foods' physical effects on the body. One of the most popular is that the consumption of carbohydrates increases the levels of serotonin (the 'happiness' neurotransmitter) in the brain. Others suggest that fatty foods register feelings of fullness and satiety more quickly than other foods, and that this, combined with the fat itself, produce an analgesic effect on the eater. Still others claim that it is simply the oral palatability of fatty and sugary foods that we respond to.
Honestly? I think that most of the comforting effects of Comfort Food spring from psychological associations. The fact that you are consuming a food that it almost universally recognized as Comfort Food would likely cause you to perceive a change in mood. But regardless, I am glad that these foods exist to quell the negativity of the week, and I'm sure next week I will curse them for what they have done to my waistline.
I'd been having a pretty bad week (a bad month, actually), so when my friend Chloe came to pick me up for our weekly Wednesday night dinner, she suggested that we go to my favorite restaurant, the Broadway Bar and Grill, a place famous for their comfort food. On our walk to the bus stop, I found a 20-dollar bill - a whole 20! - staring up at me from the pavement. So I picked it up and looked around to see if anyone had dropped it. But there was no one around us who had just crossed that section of sidewalk. Chloe and I decided that it was a sign from the heavens, and decided then and there to spend the money on fancy drinks we wouldn't have otherwise been able to buy. And thus the evening went from one of comfort food to one of comfort food and drink... a dionysian feast, if you will.
So what did this comfort-food feast consist of? Actually, we were very true to the typical comforting fare. Chloe and I split a bowl of the house soup, which is a tremendously creamy, rich, delicious blend of chicken, red beans, broccoli, and cheese. After allowing a few cocktails to comfort us further, we indulged in greasy goodness: Chloe had the breakfast scramble, and I had fried chicken with mashed potatoes and sauteed vegetables. And it was terrific - so delicious that I stuffed myself long after I was full. And of course then I felt guilty for eating so much of such a fattening food - but still terribly satisfied by the taste and feeling that lingered. And this led me to ask, why is it that certain foods are commonly identified as "comfort food?"
When I think of comfort food, I typically think of carby, starchy, fatty, sugary, greasy yummy food. Most people tend to agree. Sure, there are exceptions - certain people might really find chicken broth and celery sticks comforting. I'm sure there's someone out there who feels that way, and it's likely because there is some sort of childhood link or conditioned response that involves that particular food item. Many scientists think that psychological association is the main operator behind Comfort Food. And I'm sure that they're (at least partially) right - foods from childhood are familiar, and the familiar is comforting.
There's also the issue of conditioned response. I know that for me, cookies and milk are a special sort of comfort food. When I had bad dreams when I was little, I would go wake my mother up. She would put on her robe and slippers and lead me out to the kitchen, where she would pour two glasses of milk and put out a plate of cookies, and she would ask me about my dream. After perhaps twenty minutes I was calm, I had begun to realize that the dream was not real, and I would become drowsy because of the milk. So Mom would put the dishes in the sink and tuck me back into bed, and my bad dream was forgotten. So even now, I have cookies and milk when I have difficulty sleeping - it is one of my comfort foods because I have been conditioned to crave it.
However, it is puzzling that people have so many comfort foods in common. Why is it that almost everyone identifies mashed potatoes as a comfort food? Is it because everyone has a personal childhood association with the mutilated tuber? Or is it that greasy, sugary, fatty, starchy foods are inherently more comforting?
Science has several theories. In his article Comfort Food and You, David Lin briefly discusses the possible explanations of comfort foods' physical effects on the body. One of the most popular is that the consumption of carbohydrates increases the levels of serotonin (the 'happiness' neurotransmitter) in the brain. Others suggest that fatty foods register feelings of fullness and satiety more quickly than other foods, and that this, combined with the fat itself, produce an analgesic effect on the eater. Still others claim that it is simply the oral palatability of fatty and sugary foods that we respond to.
Honestly? I think that most of the comforting effects of Comfort Food spring from psychological associations. The fact that you are consuming a food that it almost universally recognized as Comfort Food would likely cause you to perceive a change in mood. But regardless, I am glad that these foods exist to quell the negativity of the week, and I'm sure next week I will curse them for what they have done to my waistline.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Why am I eating?*
"Technologies of health" sounds like a referent to medical science or a vitamin company. But in the article Purity, Soul Food, and Sunni Islam: Explorations at the Intersection of Consumption and Resistance, Carolyn Rouse and Janet Hoskins explore "technologies of health." Specifically, they look at the ways that African-American Sunni Muslims employ various technologies of health in order to render certain things taboo. That is, they eat. They eat, and they do not eat, and they cook and prepare and taste and share food, and in doing so, they set up a system, something Foucault calls an "authoring [of] novel subversive practices and desires." I'll simplify it incredibly and say that people go on diets, whether they recognize it as a structured program or not, and thereby create a lens through with to see the world of food - generally dividing things into "good" and "bad."
In class we began to tease apart this idea by sharing from our own experiences. Several girls in class admitted to past tendancies to limit food intake in order to achieve a certain body type - that of a ballerina. And we began to separate food consumption into several categories: hunger eating, pleasure eating, zombie eating, social eating, and I'll throw in another category that I'll call obligatory eating.
In class we began to tease apart this idea by sharing from our own experiences. Several girls in class admitted to past tendancies to limit food intake in order to achieve a certain body type - that of a ballerina. And we began to separate food consumption into several categories: hunger eating, pleasure eating, zombie eating, social eating, and I'll throw in another category that I'll call obligatory eating.
- Hunger Eating: When you eat because you're genuinely hungry - when your stomach is growling and you feel weak and all of your hunger signals become apparent. Oddly enough, we (and I'm generalizing about much of the Western world now) almost never eat out of hunger. I have a hunch that very few people are at all in touch with their hunger mechanism - we've forgotten what it is to be hungry, because we almost always eat to satisfy some other need, never allowing ourselves to reach the point of hunger. Only those who do not have the means to do this, whose food supplies are not enough to meet their need, likely know what hunger is.
- Pleasure Eating: the convivial, enjoyable, drink some wine, nibble some food, drizzle some sauce, linger three hours over lunch kind of eating. Not that this is the only version of pleasure eating. I'm sure some people get pleasure out of a much less french-style situation than the one I've painted here. But the point is that pleasure-eaters are not eating because they need the nutrients. They eat to please their senses, to enjoy the taste, smell, and sight of the food.
- Zombie Eating: eating out of boredom. This is what my Mom always yelled at me for: wandering around the house with nothing to do, inevitably my search for entertainment by standing in front of the refrigerator, cold air on my face. Zombie eaters are almost in a trance, grabbing at any sort of food (though preferably something carb-y) to pass the time.
- Social Eating: consuming food as part of a social activity. Now this overlaps a lot with the other categories, for our eating is almost always social. But social eating is what causes us to eat much of the time. Honestly, it would probably be a lot easier to lose weight if I knew I could see my friends and not share a meal. But social events always seem to involve food - lunch, dinner, coffee, drinks, snacks, baking, etc. I don't know if my friends and I are even capeable of meeting and not eating...
- Obligatory Eating: this is something we didn't cover in class, but something that I think a lot of people have experienced at one time or another. Obligatory eating happens whenever you realize that you do not want food, but are somehow pressured into eating it anyway. This happens a lot to little kids: "Clean your plate! There are starving people in China!" You eat because you don't want to waste food. You eat because you don't want to seem disrespectful. You eat the fattening donut because your friend ordered one, too. You eat the ice cream because Mom bought it. You order a coffee because you have a 20 minute break. Like social eating, obligatory eating overlaps a lot with other categories.
So what is the point of all of this? I'm not sure. But simply seeing how complicated our eating habits are is amazing - and definitely makes me feel less silly about calling it a "technology of eating."
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
"The Future of Food" - a rant*
So I watched the film The Future of Food today for Anth class. Well, I watched most of it. After being unable to check the reserved copy out of the media centre, I streamed about an hour and 20 minutes of the film before I had to go to work. But upon attempting to finish the film over my home computer's somewhat slower connection, I found myself frustrated and without closure - so if any of the following questions or remarks might be answered in the film's last 20 minutes, I'm sorry! I'm ill-informed.
I found that a large part of the film echoed the information and sentiments presented in Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, which we are also reading for this class. But one thing that I found truly interesting and disturbing that was not presented in Pollan's account was the issue of seed patents.
The ability to patent "life" in any form has been historically restricted in the U.S. on moral grounds. Now, normally I'm not big on pressing my morals on anyone, nor am I a big supporter of the U.S. limiting what its citizens can and cannot do. However. The film made me feel that there is perhaps some logic to the argument in this particular instance. With the advent of GMOs in the 1970s, the issue of patents for some "life products" (aka seeds) began to seem reasonable. So the U.S. patent office made it possible to obtain a patent for your seeds if you could prove that they were effectively different from others available. Now I get a little fuzzy with the logistics here, but I think that this phrase was interpreted loosely, in a manner that allowed one to patent any type of seed, as long as it did not already have a patent. So this big herbicide/seed company, Monsanto (which I keep wanting to call Montesano, like the WA county,) raided the U.S. stores of seeds, which are kept for biodiversity reasons. And they patented them. All of them. So much so that some wierd figure (I want to say 90%, but I really am not sure) of the varieties of seeds in the U.S. now "belong" to Monsanto.
And here's the kicker! Monsanto can basically go into any farmer's field, test it, and sue them if any of the seed found is identical to their patented "product." Which is absurd, because seeds are the most uncontainable product - it's like patenting hydrogen. "Oh, my, you have hydrogen in your immediate atmosphere, and I hold the patent. Pay me $100,000, and never have hydrogen in your proximity ever again!" I mean, how are the farmers supposed to stop stray seed from entering their fields when it is carried by the wind or animals? Is every farmer who doesn't use Monsanto seed expected to erect a fine-guage mesh structure around their property? Basically, Monsanto (and the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to their ruling) are telling small farmers that they have no choice but to purchase seed from this large company, because no matter what they do, they will inevitably be in violation of patent laws.
After viewing the film and being thrown by this, I asked my roommate, Kim, what she thought. Kim is in her first year of Law School at the UW and is interested in intellectual property law... so of course she would know more about this issue! And she basically told me that yes, under the structure of patent laws, the Supreme Court's decision makes perfect (but unjust) sense. Because if you designed a toaster, but found out later that it was unintentionally the same one that had already been patented, you would be in the wrong. You would have to pay a fine, and would no longer be allowed to make a profit off of that kind of toaster by selling it. And that makes sense. But when applied to seeds, this logic falls to pieces... because, as previously described, nothing short of a latex bubble around your property will keep the patented seeds out.
My question is, couldn't someone have given the Supreme Court a lesson in plant biology? And what's more, could the court not take into consideration the framers' intent of patent laws, and conclude that they were not meant for application to biological products? I guess I cannot expect a bunch of gruff old men to change their minds concerning a process that has been working more or less problem free for two-hundred years or so... but I'd like to see these guys living in a bubble to make sure their flower gardens don't infringe on Monsanto's patents.
I found that a large part of the film echoed the information and sentiments presented in Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, which we are also reading for this class. But one thing that I found truly interesting and disturbing that was not presented in Pollan's account was the issue of seed patents.
The ability to patent "life" in any form has been historically restricted in the U.S. on moral grounds. Now, normally I'm not big on pressing my morals on anyone, nor am I a big supporter of the U.S. limiting what its citizens can and cannot do. However. The film made me feel that there is perhaps some logic to the argument in this particular instance. With the advent of GMOs in the 1970s, the issue of patents for some "life products" (aka seeds) began to seem reasonable. So the U.S. patent office made it possible to obtain a patent for your seeds if you could prove that they were effectively different from others available. Now I get a little fuzzy with the logistics here, but I think that this phrase was interpreted loosely, in a manner that allowed one to patent any type of seed, as long as it did not already have a patent. So this big herbicide/seed company, Monsanto (which I keep wanting to call Montesano, like the WA county,) raided the U.S. stores of seeds, which are kept for biodiversity reasons. And they patented them. All of them. So much so that some wierd figure (I want to say 90%, but I really am not sure) of the varieties of seeds in the U.S. now "belong" to Monsanto.
And here's the kicker! Monsanto can basically go into any farmer's field, test it, and sue them if any of the seed found is identical to their patented "product." Which is absurd, because seeds are the most uncontainable product - it's like patenting hydrogen. "Oh, my, you have hydrogen in your immediate atmosphere, and I hold the patent. Pay me $100,000, and never have hydrogen in your proximity ever again!" I mean, how are the farmers supposed to stop stray seed from entering their fields when it is carried by the wind or animals? Is every farmer who doesn't use Monsanto seed expected to erect a fine-guage mesh structure around their property? Basically, Monsanto (and the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to their ruling) are telling small farmers that they have no choice but to purchase seed from this large company, because no matter what they do, they will inevitably be in violation of patent laws.
After viewing the film and being thrown by this, I asked my roommate, Kim, what she thought. Kim is in her first year of Law School at the UW and is interested in intellectual property law... so of course she would know more about this issue! And she basically told me that yes, under the structure of patent laws, the Supreme Court's decision makes perfect (but unjust) sense. Because if you designed a toaster, but found out later that it was unintentionally the same one that had already been patented, you would be in the wrong. You would have to pay a fine, and would no longer be allowed to make a profit off of that kind of toaster by selling it. And that makes sense. But when applied to seeds, this logic falls to pieces... because, as previously described, nothing short of a latex bubble around your property will keep the patented seeds out.
My question is, couldn't someone have given the Supreme Court a lesson in plant biology? And what's more, could the court not take into consideration the framers' intent of patent laws, and conclude that they were not meant for application to biological products? I guess I cannot expect a bunch of gruff old men to change their minds concerning a process that has been working more or less problem free for two-hundred years or so... but I'd like to see these guys living in a bubble to make sure their flower gardens don't infringe on Monsanto's patents.
I am officially conflicted
I'm becoming one of those people that I claim to hate... well, not hate, that's rather a strong word. But I can't stand going into a place like World Market and seeing all of these people playing with and purchasing objects that they know nothing about. Many of the objects have no labels on them except something obscure about the origin, like "Flute: East Africa." Nothing about the country or village its from or the person who made it or how it is meant to be used. And that irritates me, when people just take those objects and use them without any understanding of their context, because it is "beautiful" and "exotic," and because their economic privilege gives them that access. 
Photo courtesy of: SugarCharms.com
Am I like one of these culture-mongerers I so detest? I know what it is that I'm buying, and I know its origin, purpose, and traditions behind it. So why is it that I feel a little weird and uncomfortable about purchasing a bento box? Am I worried that people will look at me oddly - a grown woman of 22 who doesn't look even remotely Asian, eating her lunch out of a bento box adorned with colorful cartoon characters or sparkly cherry blossoms? Or is it that I still feel this twinge of - what is the word - impropriety. I feel almost as if I'm trespassing on the institution of obento by purchasing a box for myself. Because I'm not Japanese, and I won't be packing the lunch for a small child, and often that lunch will consist of such American things as a sandwich and a bunch of grapes. Because my desire for a bento box stems from my desire for utility (realizing that the compact, portion-controlled container makes a lot more sense than several large tupperwares and a plastic grocery bag) and my desire for the exotic.
So should I get one? I think I will go the route of the cautious shopper. I will hold off on a purchase for awhile. Should my desire linger, I will know that I want the item enough to invest the time and money in obtaining it. However, I will likely still wonder at the appropriateness of my purchase... I suppose it cannot be avoided.
Photo courtesy of: SugarCharms.comBut I confess... I want a bento box! After all of our talk about them in class, and our experiences making obento both in class and at the Anthropology Open House, I now have an acute desire to possess a bento box.
Am I like one of these culture-mongerers I so detest? I know what it is that I'm buying, and I know its origin, purpose, and traditions behind it. So why is it that I feel a little weird and uncomfortable about purchasing a bento box? Am I worried that people will look at me oddly - a grown woman of 22 who doesn't look even remotely Asian, eating her lunch out of a bento box adorned with colorful cartoon characters or sparkly cherry blossoms? Or is it that I still feel this twinge of - what is the word - impropriety. I feel almost as if I'm trespassing on the institution of obento by purchasing a box for myself. Because I'm not Japanese, and I won't be packing the lunch for a small child, and often that lunch will consist of such American things as a sandwich and a bunch of grapes. Because my desire for a bento box stems from my desire for utility (realizing that the compact, portion-controlled container makes a lot more sense than several large tupperwares and a plastic grocery bag) and my desire for the exotic.
Photo courtesy of: SugarCharms.com 
So should I get one? I think I will go the route of the cautious shopper. I will hold off on a purchase for awhile. Should my desire linger, I will know that I want the item enough to invest the time and money in obtaining it. However, I will likely still wonder at the appropriateness of my purchase... I suppose it cannot be avoided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
