Summary: One Thing to Do about Food

In the forum, famous food writers shared their view about what single thing they think could change the US food system, practically overnight. I will summarize the main point of each author as below:
Marion Nestle: Obesity is the most serious nutrition problem among children as well as adults in the United States. The problem is most caused by under-regulated marketing of junk food and the best solution is to stop all forms of marketing foods to kids.
Michael Pollan: The “farm bill” is the source of problems in our food system. Currently, the content of the bill is mainly determined by large industrial food companies. The solution to the issue is that the general public should care more about food and be the policy makers themselves.
Wendell Berry: Americans are hungry in the sense that they lack a variety of food choices. The best way to change the system requires a lot more knowledge in the minds of a lot more people.
Troy Duster and Elizabeth Ransom: changing people's habitual behavior--from smoking to alcohol consumption, from drugs to junk food--is a mighty task. Individuals rarely listen to health messages and then change their ways. The most effective way is a long-term planning that will include going into the schools to change the way we learn about food.
Winona LaDuke: resuming food culture is the key to improving our food system.
Peter Singer: the government and police-makers are too much influenced by the large industrial food companies. Therefore, for the general public, the most effective way to change the system would be simply not buy factory-farm products.
Vandana Shiva: change the monocultural food system to multicultural food system.
Carlo Petrini: know more about gastronomy, and people will make a larger effort to solve the problems in our food system when they appreciate the pleasure of enjoying real food.
Eliot Coleman: target on the cause rather than the symptoms by going organic.
Jim Hightower: we are now turning our food-policy decisions over to corporate lobbyists, lawyers and economists, people who do not really know agriculture. The solution to it and to the many problems beyond it would be becoming policy makers ourselves.

Comments: The various points made by the many famous food writers are all convincing to me. However, I feel the central problem is still with the unawareness of the general public. For example, as Eliot Coleman advocates going organic, few people actually know that many large organic farms are not so different from the industrial factories, as Pollan points out in the Omnivore’s dilemma. Therefore, I feel increasing the knowledge of the general public is the key to the problems in our current food system.

Questions to consider:
1. How did the large industrial food companies end up with so much power in influencing food related policy making?
2. For the lack of knowledge among the general public, is it more likely a result of the people’s own reluctance to know or a result of the ruling ideology (e.g. large industrial food companies’ power of misguiding the general public)?
3. Considering the so many problems with our food system, is it really possible to solve all the problems with one or two changes?

Three Cruelest Chinese Dishes

I'm putting up descriptions to these dishes not to scary people. I'm doing it only because some people still eat them even after the practice was made illegle!
1. Monkey Brain:
Anchor the head of a live monkey to the middle of a table. Knock a hole on top of the head and eat the brain with a spoon while the monkey is still alive.
2. Three Chi:
Newly born mice (usually in pink color) are served alive in a plate with flavors on the side. When the chopstick gets a mouse, it makes the first "chi" sound. When the mouse is put into the flavor alive, it makes the second "chi" sound. When it is eaten alive, it makes the last "chi" sound.
3. Lively Boiled Donkey:
Anchor a live donkey to the ground with a large bowl of boiled water on the side. Consumers point to the parts of the donkey they want, and the server will shell the skin of that part and pour boiled water on the fresh meet continually until it is well "boiled". Then the server cuts the meet out. All these are done while the donkey is alive.

Summary: The Scarcity Fallacy

In this essay, the author tries to find the real cause and corresponding solutions to world hunger. According to Scanlan, the conventional wisdom about world hunger focuses on the problem of scarcity. However, his study shows that this is not the case today. He believes that “world hunger has less to do with the shortage of food than with a shortage of affordable or accessible food” (Scanlan 2010, para. 4). By this he means that “social inequalities, distribution systems, and other economic and political factors create barriers to food access” (Scanlan 2010, para. 5) are more responsible for the world hunger today. Following this conclusion, Scanlan argues that the current focus of the major food agencies in the world, which points to food scarcity, does not aim at the essential cause of hunger and thus will not be effective. He then points out that in specific, “poverty, inequality, conflict, and corruption” (Scanlan 2010, para. 27) are the actual crucial contributors to world hunger and all these factors “fit together, reinforce one another, and even intensify the impacts of … scarcity itself” (Scanlan 2010, para. 27). Finally, Scanlan argues that the only effective solution to world hunger is the one that focuses on these specific causes, and the solution, in essence, is “to create a more equitable and just society in which food access is ensured for all” (Scanlan 2010, para. 37).

Personal comments:
In both my biology class and my other DSOC class, we have talked about the problem of world hunger. The main arguments of this essay is in more accord with what we learned from the other DSOC class, in which the professor addresses that the essence of hunger is poverty, and the essence of poverty is social inequality. Thus, he proposes the solution to the problem is social reforms. In our biology class, however, the professor focuses on Multhus’ idea that population tends to grow geometrically while the food supply tends to grow arithmetically, and therefore the population could outgrow the food supply. It is interesting to notice how the same issue is viewed differently from these two perspectives. I personally agree more with the sociological perspective.

Questions to consider:
1. With respect to the issue of poverty and inequality, I believe the social structure do play a role in it, but as many economists and psychologists point out, there may be genetic factors which determine some groups have an innate advantage over other groups (e.g. males are more muscular than females). If this is the case, are social reforms trying to promote equality a contradiction to nature?
2. In my DSOC 1101 class, the professor proposed a quasi-socialistic model with the focus of improved social welfare for social reforms in the US. However, as the model has already failed in East European countries in the 1960s, how can we solve the problem of free riding and lack of incentive to work if we push too far in using improved social welfare as a means of promoting social equality?

Cons about the GE modified papaya

In class, we talked about GE modified foods in general. In my biog1110 class, we are also talking about GE in food industry, and we are focusing on the GE modified papaya in specific. The following is an abstract from an article that discusses the cons about the GE modified papaya. Many of the points made here are in accord with what we learned in class. You may also click on the link to read the full article.
Contamination by Genetically Engineered Papaya in Thailand
It has been two years since facts were made public that a research station under the Thai Government had illegally sold and distributed genetically engineered(GE) contaminated papaya seeds to farmers. Subsequent investigations by an independent constitutional body and by NGOs found GE contamination in the environment. These revelations compelled the government to admit the contamination of papaya farms, after which it ordered the destruction of GE papaya trees in the experimental plots.
Unfortunately, necessary steps to decontaminate Thailand’s environment have not been taken. The Department of Agriculture (DOA), which started the controversial genetic engineering research in question is ironically the same agency mandated to enforce the quarantine on GE papaya. The DOA claims that it has completely destroyed all GE papaya that has spread outside of the research station. However, later investigations by Greenpeace as well as by other independent organizations like the National Human Rights Commission, of papaya plots on farms that received suspected GE contaminated seeds proved otherwise. Over the past few years, GE papaya contamination has been discovered in several provinces.
Despite this, the DOA still refuses to deal with the ongoing contamination of Thai papaya farms. Instead, the agency is seeking a reversal of an earlier cabinet resolution banning all GE field trials in an effort to cover up for its sins and legitimize the spread of GE papaya to the environment.
GE papaya has never undergone proper assessments for either human food safety or environmental risks. As such, the Thai people run the risk of eating GE papaya without their knowledge and consent, thereby serving as guinea pigs for an experiment that is spiraling out of control.

Summary: Sweet Charity? (Ch. 2-3)

In these two chapters, Janet Poppendieck discusses the issues around the emergency food. In chapter two, she focuses on the issue of “who uses the emergency food program”. According to Poppendieck (1998), “the answer to our question is almost too simple for words. Who eats emergency food? Poor people, and people very much like them” (p. 51). These “poor people” are further divided into four categories: 1) some people are poor because employment-related factors, including recent unemployment, long-term unemployment, and seasonal unemployment. 2) Some people are poor because of the high shelter costs and “once a person becomes homeless, he or she almost automatically joins the ranks of the hungry” (Poppendieck 1998, p. 63). 3) Some people are poor because of the inadequate public assistance, including the inadequate government welfare programs. 4) Some people are poor and they do not have access to food stamps. These people include those wrongly denied stamps, those who are in need but not technically eligible, and those who are receiving stamps but cannot make ends meet. In chapter 3, Poppendieck focuses on the issues of “how did the emergency food program rise” and the “social constructionists’ perspective on hungry”. According the Poppendieck, the emergency food programs rose in the early 1980s, primarily as a response to both the economic recession and the “long, slow erosion of public assistance benefits … overshadowed by a major assault on domestic social spending [by the Reagan administration]” (Poppendieck 1998, p. 82). She also says that according to social constructionists, hunger is actually a label used to describe the problem of poverty. “Hunger” is preferred as the label because people in poverty are likely to experience hunger prior to other consequences like homeless.

Personal Response:
In the DSOC 1101 class that I’m taking, we also talked about the issue of poverty, especially the inner city poverty of African American people. The conclusion from that class is also that the poverty is mostly resulted from the social structure, and only social structural reforms could essentially solve the problem. Another issue addressed in that class is that American people tend to blame the inner city poverty on the poor themselves. (E.g. in a survey, people listed the poor people’s laziness as the primary source of their poverty.) The generally public’s inability of realizing the social structure as the ultimate cause of poverty is a big obstacle for effective governmental welfare programs to be implemented.

Questions to consider:
In the book, the economic recession and the assault on domestic social spending by Reagan administration are listed as two primary causes of poverty. My questions are:
1) Was the problem of poverty alleviated by the Clinton administration (with the economic prosperity)?
2) Will the Obama administration, dominated by the Democratic Party, further alleviate poverty issues?

Summary: The McDonaldization of Society

Essay summary:
In this essay, the author argues that our society is undergoing the process of rationalization as is exemplified by the McDonaldization. There are five main characteristics of rationalization: 1. Efficiency: a great deal of emphasis is put on finding the best or optimum means to give any given end. 2. Predictability: it involves the effort to ensure predictability by emphasizing on discipline, order, systemization, formalization, routine, consistency, and methodical operation. 3. Calculability or quantity rather than quality: since quality is much more difficult to evaluate, the society emphasize more on quantifiable measures; calculability is the most defining characteristic of a rational society. 4. Substitution of nonhuman technology: people are now placing human labor with human robots, and so we can expect the human robots will be further replaced by mechanical robots in the future. 5. Control: at the most general level, rational systems are set up to allow for greater control over the uncertainties of life. The McDonaldization is a typical example of rationalization, since with McDonaldization, “speed, convenience, and standardization have replaced the flair of design and creation in cooking, the comfort relationships in serving and the variety available in choice” (Ritzer 2010 pp.406). In the end, the author also mentions that progressive rationalization has created a number of problems, the various irrationalities of rationality. He finally says that “what is needed is not a less rational society, but greater control over the process of rationalization involving, among other things, efforts to ameliorate its irrational consequences.
Personal responses:
The author argues that one “irrationality of rationality” is that people in the rationalization process tend to omit the joy of live. However, I do not agree with it. In my family, both my parents are busy working, and we almost always eat out. However, we feel such lifestyle brings us more joy: busy working makes us feel enriched, and eating out conforms that we are doing relatively well economically. Thus, to me, the joy of life could come from the rationalized life style, and I feel bored and less satisfied when holidays like the spring festival come and we have to stay and cook at home. (I cannot remember exactly, but there is a psychological team “flow” which describes the state of lost in the work but finding great joy at the same time. I think this applies to my family when we are busy working.)
Discussion questions:
Following my personal response, I feel that many people like my parents are currently “lost” in the rationalization process, but they are happy about their life style. I wonder if rationalization (e.g. busy working and eating out) is the joy of life for these people. In other words, if people find more joy eating out, which is interpreted as being wealthy by themselves, than cooking at home, then why do we assume the joy of cooking would be better for them? How can we assert that “rationalization tends to … [leave] much of our lives without any mystery or excitement” (pp. 413) if we find the rationalized society brings us more joy?

Summary: Mindless Eating

*This reading is not due until after the spring break, but since it’s relevant to the food lab, I will put the summary on the blog early partly for reference of others and myself.

In this essay, the author mainly talks about the “mindless eating”, its effects in our everyday life, and its potential application in helping people to lose weight. In the first part of the essay, the author argues that mindless eating is universal in our everyday life. One example is that we eat large amount of pop corns in movie theaters even though the pop corns used in the experiments had very low quality. Another example is that when the same wine is labeled differently, people perceive it differently, and they eat less food when they perceive they are given the wine with worse quality. Such discussion leads to the conclusion that mindless eating is universal in our everyday life, and “we overeat because there are signals and cues around us that tell us to eat [rather than because we feel we are full]” (Wansink 15). This conclusion then leads to the second part of the essay which discusses the issue of losing weight. The author argues that many dieters who put conscious effort into losing weight fail because “1) our body fights against them; 2) our brain fights against them; and 3) our day-to-day environment fights against them” (Wansink 25). In contrast, the author suggests that an unconscious way of losing weight is more effective. Just as people mindlessly gain weight by small amounts every day, they can do the same with losing weight. If they try to consume 100 calories rather than 1000 calories less every day, neither their body nor their brain would fight against their efforts, and they are more likely to succeed this way.

Questions to consider:
Since we read this essay before we participate in the lab, we are consciously aware of the mindlessness of eating. With such consciousness, would our lab results be biased?

Summary: Eating American

In this paper, the author discusses the typical American “cuisine”. The author first asserts that an American cuisine does not really exist. He then explains it in a historical approach: over the history since the US was founded, large amounts of immigrants came to the US, and the national population now consists people with a large variety of ethnic background. Such a variety of population resulted in a variety of regional cuisine, which reflects the different ethnic groups’ own traditional cuisine. Such regional cuisines are further combined in a way that reflects a universal theme in American eating habit: efficient, which means saving time. Therefore, the American cuisine is based on fast food, and a predominant way of eating is eating out, since it saves the time for cooking. The author thus argues that “I do not see how a cuisine can exist unless there is a community of people who eat it, cook it, have opinions about it, and engage in dialogue involving those opinions” (Mintz 29). Since the typical American eating is characterized by regionalization, fast food, and eating out, and more import, Americans do not take eating as important an event as people from other countries do, the author concludes that Americans do not have a cuisine.

Comments: I have a deep feeling about the point in the reading that the “regionalized cuisine”, when combined with the American fast food culture, changes dramatically and deviates largely from the original version. This is at least the case with American Chinese food. I can see some shadows of the real Chinese food in it, but they are mostly cooked in a way that is more time-efficient for both cookers and eaters such that I always miss the real Chinese food even though I can go to the Chinese restaurants here everyday.

Summary: Genetic Engineering in Agriculture (By Migeul A. Altieri)

In this book, the author discusses the “myths, environmental risk, and alternatives” to the “genetic engineering in agriculture” (Altieri 2004). Altieri’s main idea is that as an alternative to the chemical approach to the food shortage issue, the genetic engineering approach is currently highly advocated by the US government, but Altieri believes this approach is not the best solution to the problem, since there are many potential issues behind it. First, it does not really help to beat world hunger or bring welfare to the poor farmers in the developing countries. The main reason is that genetic engineering, while aiming at lowering the producing cost, does not directly point to the “real causes of hunger and poverty, inequality, and lack of access of food and land” (Altieri 2004). Second, genetically modified crops may not be good for human health, since the new technology may result in seriously undesired consequences that are highly unpredictable. An example of such consequence is the “small but real chance that genetic engineering may transfer new and unidentified proteins into food, triggering allergic reactions in millions of consumers who are sensitive to allergens and have no way of identifying or protecting themselves from offending foods” (Altieri 2004). Third, the author points out genetic engineering’s potential threats to the environment. One is that the herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops may bring about weed resistance and create “superweeds” (Altieri 2004). Another is that the Insect-resistant crops (Bt Crops) may bring about pest resistance and may also break the ecological balance. Finally, the author points out that a more sustainable alternative to biotechnology is the “agroecological model”. It emphasizes biodiversity, recycling of nutrients, synergy among crops, animal, soils and other biological components, as well s regeneration and conservation of resources” (Altieri 2004), and thus it is more sustainable and beneficial than the genetic engineering model.

Questions to consider:
1. Is the term “agroecological model” a good way to describe the type of farms like the Polyface Farm described by Michael Pollan?
2. The author offers the “agroecological model” as the solution to the public health and environmental issues raised by the “genetic engineering model”. However, as the author mentions, another important issue of the “genetic engineering model” is that it does not really help to beat world hunger or bring welfare to the poor farmers in the developing countries. Do you think the “agroecological model”, which inevitably raises the food price, would solve that problem as well? (If not, what do you think would be the solution to that problem?)

Summary: The swine flu crisis lays bare the meat industry's monstrous power

In this essay, the author talks about the Mexican Swine Flu as well as the fallacies in the world’s food safety protection system. The author first points out that the Mexican Swine Flu is a highly infective disease, and its harmfulness is comparable to SARS. Then the author says the propagation of Mexican Swine Flu reveals great fallacies in the world’s current food safety protection system. First, the swine flu “may prove that the WHO/Centres for Disease Control version of pandemic preparedness” (Davis 2009). The author gives an example to prove his argument: “the Mexico has world-famous disease experts, but it had to send swabs to a Winnipeg lab in order to ID the strain's genome[, and] lmost a week was lost as a consequence” (Davis 2009). Second, the high level of concentration in current animal farms is a highly dangerous practice. Davis (2009) says that “In 1965, for instance, there were 53m US hogs on more than 1m farms; today, 65m hogs are concentrated in 65,000 facilities.” With such a dense population, cross contamination of disease is highly possible. Third, the food production companies are powerful enough to obstruct supervision of food safety. For example, Davis (2009) says “the commission reported systemic obstruction of their investigation by corporations, including blatant threats to withhold funding from cooperative researchers.” All these factors resulted in the Mexican Swine Flu in 2009, and are continuing to threatening to cause new disease to rise from the food industry.
Comments and questions to consider:
1. As many Americans do not know, the SARS in 2003 mentioned above also resulted from food issues. People in Guangdong, China, consumed “roasted civet cat”, a local animal food, which carried the first virus. Besides, many less known diseases like the avian flu all rose from food-related issues.
2. The Swine Flu of 2009 has been mostly cured by now, but do you think the current food security system is good enough to prevent similar issues from rising?

Summary: The Omnivore's Dilemma: Chapter 12

In this chapter, the author talks about the “processing” (killing) of chicken on the Polyface Farm, an “old-fashioned mixed” farm. Here, the author brings up a social and political problem that many small-scaled farms like the Polyface Farm face: the inappropriate governmental regulations. Taking the current food-safety regulation as an example, the author says the government regulates that “a processing facility must have impermeable white walls so that they can be washed down between shifts” (Pollan 228-229). This regulation makes sense when it is applied to large industrial slaughterhouses, but when owners of the small-scaled farms like the Polyface Farm want to make the killing process transparent so that the sanity of the process is better guaranteed, the inflexible regulations become impediments. The owners thus argue that: “The USDA is being used by the global corporate complex to impede the clean-food movement. They aim to close down all but the biggest meat processors, and to do it in the name of biosecurity. Every government study to date has shown that the reasons we’re having an epidemic of food-brone illness in this country is centralized production, centralized processing, and long-distance transportation of food. You would think therefore that they’d want to decentralize the food system, especially after 9/11. But no! they’d much rather just irradiate everything instead” (Pollan 230). The farmers’ complains definitely exaggerated the problem, but to some extent, it reflects a problem in reality that many small-scaled farms as well as other small-scaled food-related business face.

Questions to consider:
1. With the mechanism of social imagination, sociologists link problems of small groups of people to large sociological issues and their historical causes. Are the problems the small-scale farms face related to historical materialism, and thus are inevitable in a capitalism society where the bourgeoisies have the power to make the rules?
2. Later in the chapter, the author describes his own experience of killing chickens. When it comes to the problem of chicken suffering from the killing, he says rather subjectively that the chicken do not seem to suffer a lot. Are such subjective descriptions convincing enough? Or are the chickens on the Polyface Farm actually suffer more dying than the ones in an industrial slaughterhouse since they watch other chicken dying while waiting for their own turns.

Summary: The Omnivore's Dilemma: Chapter 17

In this chapter, the author discusses the ethics of eating animals. He first points out the animal rightists’ main arguments are that “if [people] believe in equality, and equality is based on interests rather than characteristics, then either [people] have to take the steer’s interest into account or accept that [they are speciesists]” (Pollan 309), and he says such arguments are strong enough to persuade him to practice being a vegetarian. The author finds supports to the animal rightists from the industrial food producers. While they are being raised up, the animals suffer in a compact place. The chicken cannot stretch their wrings, and the pigs’ tails are cut off after they are born. The author believes the animals suffer even more while being killed since journalists are not even allowed to witness the process. In spite of such supports for the animal rightists’ arguments, the author also finds counterexamples that come from the real organic farms like the Polyface Farm. The animals live relatively a happy life on such farms, which the author says is better than the life of their relatives in the wild. The owners of the farm also make the killing process transparent, and the author says the animals die peacefully since they receive enough respect while alive. The author concludes that the practice of killing and eating of animals itself makes biological and evolutionary sense, and people should not blame that as unethical. What is unethical is the practice of raising and killing animals in the industrial food chain. The happiness of animals and the clean kill the author finds on the real organic farms finally persuade him to start eating animals again.

Personal Opinions:
I really like the way the author thinks about the issue in a biological perspective. I agree that the practice of killing and eating animal is an inevitable result of the power of natural selection, which makes evolutionary sense. I also think that both industrial food chain the vegetarian practices are going extremes. Nature has selected humans to be omnivores that raise animals just to feed themselves in a sustainable and environmental-friendly way. Disobeying Nature’s will (or say the nature’s rule) would finally bring about unforeseeable disasters such as the Mad Cow Disease and the Vitamin B-12 deficiency, which people did not predict when they first started the industrial food chain and the vegetarian practice.
I also have a question to ask: for farms like the Polyface Farm described in the book, what should we call them? Currently, I’m calling them “real organic farms”, but I doubt if that is the scientific name. (Or are they the “local food chain”?) Also, I’m wondering where we can find food products from such farms in Ithaca.

Roast Suckling Pig: the Main Dish of the Cornell Chinese New Year Dinner

In Feb 12, 2010, Cornell held the Chinese New Year Dinner. There are several dishes presented at the dinner, such as the dumplings, roasted duck, bbq pork, etc. But among all the dishes, the focus is the Roast Suckling Pig. Here is a picture of the whole pig. Is it a surprise to you?

Rutabaga: One of the Foods We Eat without Consciousness

We were introduced to many foods that are frequently made into familiar foods like fries, but the foods themselves seem quite unfamiliar to us. One of such foods introduced in class today was the rutabaga. Many of us showed great interest in it, and I guess you will be interested in it as well, especially if you have not even heard of it (just as I did)!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Description - The rutabaga is very similar to the turnip except that it generally has yellowish flesh, a more dense root with more side shoots and they are usually harvested at a larger size. Unlike the turnip, the rutabaga has smooth, waxy leaves.
Culture - Requires the same growing conditions as the turnip--cool conditions for rapid growth and good quality. Planting should be done in the spring as soon as the ground can be worked. In the fall, multiple plantings can be made but should be stopped in order for the rutabaga root to form before extremely cold weather occurs. Rutabagas do better in the fall than in the spring due to the longer time they take to mature -- about 30 to 45 days longer than turnips.
Availability - Rutabagas can be found the year round in Texas, although they are not common in most retail outlets due to low demand. Locally grown rutabaga should be on the market from April through July and from October through December.
Selection - Mature rutabaga roots should be four to six inches in diameter and free of bruises and blemishes. Commercially grown roots are often waxed for storage purposes. Rutabagas are seldom sold with tops.
Storage - If stored between 32 to 35 degrees. F. and at a humidity near 90 percent rutabagas will keep for four to six months. Waxed roots will keep under refrigerator conditions for one to two months.
Nutrition Information - A 3-1/2 ounce cooked serving of rutabaga contains 144 calories, 35 percent of the RDA for vitamin C and only 18 milligrams of sodium.
Preparation - Wash and peel rutabagas as you would a potato.
Microwave Instructions - Wash, peel, and cube about two cups of rutabagas. Place in 1-quart casserole with two tablespoons water. Microwave on high for four to six minutes. Stir once.

Personal Food Writing: Tzung Tzu and the Stories behind It

People call me "Big O", where the "O" stands for not only my initial but also the word "omnivore". Indeed, I am a real food lover. I once flew 2000 miles from Dalian, my home city in northern China, to Guangzhou, a city in southern China that is famous for its local dishes. There I had five main dishes for dinner, and then I flew back home on the very same day. During the past few years, I have tasted a large variety of famous dishes all over the world. However, my favorite food is a quite ordinary traditional Chinese food, the Tzung Tzu.
Tzung Tzu is also called “rice dumpling”. It is a food that Chinese people would traditionally make and eat on the 5th day of the 5th lunar month, commonly known as the Dragon Boat Festival. On the day, people put a bowl of sticky rice in the middle of a lotus leaf, wrap it into a tetrahedron, tie it up with cotton rope, boil it for half an hour, and then a traditional Tzung Tzu is well made. Tzung Tzu is traditionally made of sticky rice and lotus leaf, but nowadays, as people are getting too busy to make Tzung Tzu themselves, factory-produced Tzung Tzu with different flavors becomes available in grocery stores; some common ones are meat Tzung Tzu, jujube Tzung Tzu, and fruit Tzung Tzu. Despite the large variety of Tzung Tzu available now, my favorite kind is always the simplest traditional one with sticky rice and lotus leaf, because the stories behind it mean more to me than the food itself.
The origin of Tzung Tzu dates back to 400 B.C. when China was in the Warring States Period. The country split into seven independent kingdoms, one of which is the Kingdom of Chu. At the time, Chu was controlled by a corrupt aristocracy group who forced heavy tax on the people and embezzled the collected money for personal pleasure-seeking. Then, in around 350 B.C., a young man named Quyuan became the chancellor of Chu. A righteous person, Quyuan stood up against the aristocracies and implemented new laws which reduced the tax burden from the people and combated corruption. Quyuan’s efforts brought temporary prosperity to the Kingdom of Chu, but it did not last for long. Feeling threatened, the aristocracies joined up to put pressure on the monarch of Chu, and since the aristocracies’ forces were too strong, the monarch of Chu finally decided to exile Quyuan. On hearing the despair, Quyuan committed suicide plunge on the 5th day of the 5th lunar month in 340 B.C. The people of Chu were both mournful and indignant at Quyuan’s death. Most of them lacked basic food supply, but they each made a full bowl of rice, wrapped it up with the lotus leaf by the river that Quyuan plunged in, and threw it into the river. They believed this way the fish in the river would eat the rice and leave Quyuan’s body untouched. As time passed by, people repeated the same thing on the same day every year. Gradually, this became a tradition, which was passed down for over 2000 years until today, and the rice wrap evolved into Tzung Tzu, my favorite food.
Besides Quyuan’s story, another reason why Tzung Tzu is my favorite food is associated with a personal story of mine. It was when I was in the fifth grade, our school moved from the downtown of the city to a rural area because of fiscal deficit. As the new school year began, the headmaster asked me to speak at the opening ceremony as the student representative. Actually, I had been told what to say days before the ceremony, and all I had to do was to repeat the speech. On the day of the ceremony, however, standing on the platform in front of all the teachers and students of the school, I suddenly felt an obligation to tell my true thoughts. I hesitated for a while, and then, naïve as I was, I asked the headmaster whether she wanted me to tell the truth; maybe back then, I was still too young to realize that my question could only make the situation even worse since everyone would then know there was collusion beforehand. The result was predictable: the headmaster said yes, and so I told the public exactly what I felt about our current situation and how much I missed our previous campus. After the ceremony, the headmaster was rather irritated. She called my mother, told her about the whole story, and asked her to teach me “some basic philosophy of life”. My mother did so, but her lesson was special. She started the lesson with a homemade Tzung Tzu, and as we ate it, she told me the story of Quyuan, the one I just talked about, and she ended the lesson with the words: “After 2000 years, the names of the aristocracies have long been forgotten, but even today, people still make Tzung Tzu and talk about Quyuan. This is because over the long time of history, only the spirit of righteous people remains forever. What you have done today makes mom proud of you.” The storied took place over ten years ago, and so my quotation of my mother’s words may not be accurate, but since I’m such a food lover, one thing I remember for sure is that the Tzung Tzu she made that day was the traditional type. Ever since then, the traditional Tzung Tzu has become my favorite food.
2000 years have changed a lot of things. Tzung Tzu that was homemade 2000 years ago has become mass produced today; Tzung Tzu that was made for Quyuan 2000 years ago has become a food on people’s own table today. Despite these changes, I still keep making traditional Tzung Tzu on my own on the Dragon Boat Festival every year. However, My Tzung Tzu is made neither for Quyuan nor for myself; it is made for all the people in the world who devote themselves to justice, because I am sure that my favorite food is their favorite food as well.

Summary: The Omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 11&13

In these two chapters, the author talks about the Polyface Farm, a relatively small scaled farm that produces real organic food products. In chapter eleven, the author focuses on the farm itself. The Polyface Farm is characterized by “modeling a natural ecosystem in all its diversity and interdependence” (Pollan 215). The ecological interdependence on this farm allows the waste of one creature to nourish another creature. For example: the compost of the pigs feed the grasses, which might again feed the cows, and the cows’ manure feeds the insects, which then feeds the chickens, and so on. This process eliminates the use of chemical fertilizers or antibiotics, and so it achieves an efficiency which is not measured in monetary forms.
In chapter thirteen, the author focuses on the marketing of the Polyface Farm. The farm’s target consumers are those from the local area only. Some consumers drive to the farm to pick up the products, others are the chefs or owners of the local restaurants. The consumers are willing to buy the relatively expensive and inconvenient food from Polyface Farm since they believe the product is of higher quality, which is worth the price. The author says the Polyface Farm is a representative member of the artisanal economy, where the competitive strategy is based on selling something special. Though such a strategy can get the approval of some consumers, the author feels the least-cost producers in the industrial economy will ultimately prevail.

Personal opinions:
In chapter 13, the author expressed his anti-globalization point of view, and as he says himself: “why should a nation produce its own food when others can produce it more cheaply? A dozen reasons leap to mind, but most of them the Steven Blanks of the world – and they are legion – are quick to dismiss as sentimental” (Pollan 256), most of his reasons actually are not solid. For example, the second reason he gives, “the beauty of an agricultural landscape”, may be enjoyed and thus valued only by a small group of people. Unlike his previous solid arguments, such as the condemnation of the industrial food producers as violating the order of nature, the critiques about globalization are not persuasive to me. According to what I have learned from AEM2300: International Trade and Finance, I believe the globalization is doing the country as well as the people more good than harms. What do you think about globalization’s impact on food industry?

Oriental Food Recipe: Laughing Dates (For the Dinner on New Year's Eve)

The dinner on Chinese New Year's Eve is also known as the family reunion dinner. The Chinese New Year's Eve is extremely important for Chinese people, and so is the family reunion dinner.
The Chinese New Year of 2010 is coming up soon. At this time, I would like to introduce a traditional dish on the family reunion dinner: the laughing dates:



Ingredients: 150 grams of candied dates； 350 grams glutinous rice balls； 20 grams of rock sugar

1. Cut a small crack on the date, and then carefully put the small glutinous rice balls into the date through the crack;
2. Add water and the rock candy into the pot, then put the processed dates in and boil until the dates float;
3. It would be even better to put the dates into a refrigerator after the boiling, and sever after they are completely cooled off.

Pictures of some other family reunion dinner dishes:

Summary: The Omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 8-9

In these two chapters, the author talks about the organic food industry in the United States. As a principal alternative to the industrial food chain which is now prevail in the US, the organic food chain emphasis that “nature rather than the machine should supply the proper model for agriculture” (Pollan 131). The idea of “organic” is best exemplified by pastoral farms that raise diversified perennial species in a traditional way and target solely at the local market. However, most of the “organic food” people consume today is produced from the so-called “industrial organic” farms which, according to the author, belong firmly to the industrial food chain rather than the ideal organic food chain. The author gives three main reasons for the argument. First, the reality of “organic food” chain is largely inaccurately reported. For example, many literary critics focus their reports on some small and non-representative organic farms which follow the “organic ideal”, while making the public believe such is the reality of all the farms producing organic food. Second, the government (e.g. the USDA) sets weak standards on the definition of “organic”. For example, the USDA rules that dairy cows must have “access to pasture”, but such a standard is so vague that many organic farms only keep a tiny and nominal pasture in order to label their products as organic. Third, the organic food industry is dominated by large companies which are more cost-efficient than small farms. The reason is that large companies operate in industrialized ways such as raising large numbers of livestock or poultry in confined places, just as industrial food producers do. They label their product as organic as long as they meet the vague standards set up by the USDA, but such “industrial organic” food does not resemble what “organic” originally means.
Questions to consider:
1. Who is ultimately responsible for the degradation of the organic food chain? (Is it the large companies which have to industrialize their business facing the low demand for expensive “real organic food”? Is it the government which makes vague definition of “organic”? Or is it the consumers who are unwilling to pay higher price for the “real organic food”, which indirectly forced the large companies to industrialize their business?)
2. Though the industrialized organic food chain has deviated from the original idea of “organic”, it nevertheless provides a way to serve foods with higher quality than industry-produced-food to more people at lower prices than those produced by small farms. Should we at least give the large companies credit for that?

Summary: The Ominivore's Dilemma Chapter 4: The Feedlot

In this chapter, the author introduces us the major meat-production, especially beef-production, industry in the US. To better understand the industry, the author purchases a black steer from a feedlot in Kansas and follows the process the steer is bred.
The author argues that whereas cattle are traditionally raised on ranches feeding on grass, the system of the industry has dramatically changed since the end of WWII. Nowadays in the United States, cattle are mostly raised by CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). This means that cattle are densely reared in confined places like the feedlot, and they are fed mostly on type 2 corns. The author says this makes economic sense since concentrated cattle raising lowers the expense while the price of type 2 corn is extremely low in the US. Since this kind of cattle raising also helps to consume the extreme surplus of corn, it is also supported by USDA policy.
Despite the seeming benefits, the author points out that there are many issues underlying this type of cattle raising system. First, it brings about environmental issues: whereas the cattle consume grass from the nature and produce manure as natural fertilizer back to the grass before, the cattle reared in the feedlot produce manure as toxic wastes, while the corn production rely heavily on chemical fertilizer which contaminates the water. Second, it brings about health-related issues to both the cattle and human being: just as feeding rendered cow parts back to cows caused the mad cow disease, feeding the grass-eating cattle with completely corns mixed with other man-made nutrients also threatens the health of the cattle. Bloat and acidosis are two noticeable diseases among the corn-fed cattle, and actually a vast majority of the cattle in the feedlot are sick to some extent. Consumers of these cattle meat, human beings are the ultimate sufferer of the modern meat-production industry. E. coli is all but one example of the bacteria contained in the meat of corn-fed cattle that is lethal to human beings. In this perspective, the author argues that even though the labeled price of the corn-fed cattle meat is low, the real price, taking all the harms above into account, is actually very high.
Some questions to consider:
1. Since the grass-fed cattle meat is healthier to people than the corn-fed cattle meat, is it possible to advertise such fact in the public so that more people are willing to buy the grass-fed cattle meat at a higher price? (Readers of this book: will you buy grass-fed cattle meat at a higher price given the fact that corn-fed cattle meat is so unhealthy?)
2. The author mentions in the book that in Argentina , cattle are still reared on the ranches feeding on grass. How do Argentinians do it? Are they on the way to change their system or is it possible for Americans to follow the example of their system?

Recipes from the Best Food Writing: Biscuit

Scott Peacock's Hot, Crusty Buttermilk Biscuits
Makes 15 (2.5-inch) biscuits
Hands on: 10 minuties
Total time: 20-22 minutes

5 cups sifted White Lily flour (measured after sifting)
1 tablespoon plus 1.5 teaspoons homemade baking powder (recipe follows)
1 tablespoon kosher salt
0.5 cup packed lard, chilled
1.75 cups chilled buttermilk, plus a few tablespoons more if needed
3 tablespoons unsalted butter, melted

1. Preheat over to 500 degrees. Put the flour, homemade baking powder and salt in a mixing bowl. Whisk well to thoroughly blend. Add the lard and, working quickly, coat in flour and rub between your fingertips until about half the lard is coarsely blended and the other half remins in large pieces about 0.5 inch in size.
2. Make a well in the flour mixture and pour in the buttermilk. Stir quickly, just until the dough is blended and begins to mass. The dough should be soft and a bit sticky and there should not be large amounts of unincorporated flour in the bowl. If dough is too dry, add a few tablespoons more buttermilk.
3. Turn the dough immediately onto a generously floured surface, and with floured hands knead briskly 8 to 10 times until a cohesive dough is formed.
4. Gently flatten the dough with your hands so it is of an even thickness. Then, using a floured rolling pin, roll it out to a uniform thickness of 0.5 inch. (If the dough begins to stick to your rolling pin, dust the pin-not the dough-with flour. Flouring the dough at this point will result in dusty-looking biscuits). With a dinner fork dipped in flour, pierce the dough completely through at 0.5-inch intervals.
5. Lightly flour a 2.5- or 3-inch biscuit cutter and stamp out rounds. (Do not twist the cutter when stamping out biscuits.) Cut the biscuits from the dough as close together as you can for a maximum yield. Arrange cut biscuits on a heavy, ungreased or parchment-lined baking sheet so that they almost touch. Do not reroll the scraps. Just bake as is and enjoy as a treat.
6. Bake in upper third of the oven for 8 to 12 minutes until crusty golden brown. (Check about 6 minutes into baking and rotate the pan if needed to ensure even cooking.) Remove from the oven and brush with melted butter. Serve hot.

Retrieved from: Peacock, S. "The Art of the Biscuit," pp. 241-249 in Hughes, Holly (ed.) Best Food Writing. New York: Da Capo Press

Welcome!

Hello! My name is Olly. I'm a student from Cornell University. I'm keeping this blog initially for a class "DSOC1200: So Much On Our Plates" that I'm taking, but the purpose of this blog is by no means limited to this.
In this blog, you will find summaries of readings from our class. The readings would mostly come from the book The Omnivore's Dilemma. I will frequently post up such summaries since they are required for our class, but besides of them, I will also post up many other stuff I find worth sharing. Some examples are: practical recipes, personal essays on food related topics, interesting food-related books introductions or articles, introduction to traditional Chinese food, etc. Basically, in this food unlimited blog, I will post up any food-related article, as long as I find it worth the time reading it. Meanwhile, if you have any opinion on any of the posted articles, please do feel free to comment on them: your feekbacks are the key to improve the blog!
Again, welcome to Food Unlimited! Wish you a great appetite!