“I’ll Have Some Sweetened Oats Sprinkled With Pesticides, Please."
Sounds absolutely absurd, right? Wrong. While the concept of pesticides being used for any reason besides farming fruits and vegetables seems uncalled for, many of the “healthy” foods in our grocery stores include heavy amounts of those very chemicals.
Recently, General Mills announced that it will remove the word “natural” from its packaging of Nature Valley granola bars. This is part of the agreement in a recent lawsuit against General Mills regarding its use of glyphosate (a cancer-causing chemical found in Monsanto brand pesticides) in some products. A report by the Environmental Working Group, tested many different brands of oat-based products for glyphosate and concluded that General Mills Nature Valley bars contained an unhealthy amount of the chemical. The EWG states that a small amount of glyphosate ingestion is safe (less than 160 parts per billion); however, most of the products tested exceeded this limit tremendously. A test of Nature Valley bars showed glyphosate levels of 120 ppb and 340 ppb.
Beyond Pesticides, Moms Across America, and the Organic Consumers Association are the groups who organized the lawsuit against General Mills. The reality of the current food regulations is that there is very little standard for what is categorized by “natural.” Breakfast foods that the public has happily consumed for decades have been deceptively marketed and advertised as being healthy and all-natural.
It is lawsuits like this and reports like the one from the EWG that will help create change in our industrial food society. Consumers have trusted food companies for so long that these reports and studies on cancer-causing chemicals allow the public to demand better labeling and transparency. It does not seem that the current administration will implement regulations anytime soon, so it is up to groups like the EWG and Moms Across America to demand healthy products that actually are healthy.
Recently, General Mills announced that it will remove the word “natural” from its packaging of Nature Valley granola bars. This is part of the agreement in a recent lawsuit against General Mills regarding its use of glyphosate (a cancer-causing chemical found in Monsanto brand pesticides) in some products. A report by the Environmental Working Group, tested many different brands of oat-based products for glyphosate and concluded that General Mills Nature Valley bars contained an unhealthy amount of the chemical. The EWG states that a small amount of glyphosate ingestion is safe (less than 160 parts per billion); however, most of the products tested exceeded this limit tremendously. A test of Nature Valley bars showed glyphosate levels of 120 ppb and 340 ppb.
Beyond Pesticides, Moms Across America, and the Organic Consumers Association are the groups who organized the lawsuit against General Mills. The reality of the current food regulations is that there is very little standard for what is categorized by “natural.” Breakfast foods that the public has happily consumed for decades have been deceptively marketed and advertised as being healthy and all-natural.
It is lawsuits like this and reports like the one from the EWG that will help create change in our industrial food society. Consumers have trusted food companies for so long that these reports and studies on cancer-causing chemicals allow the public to demand better labeling and transparency. It does not seem that the current administration will implement regulations anytime soon, so it is up to groups like the EWG and Moms Across America to demand healthy products that actually are healthy.
But Who Will Do The Dirty Work, Now?
It's no surprise that migrant workers make up most of the farm-hands in the United States. These are the manual labor jobs that Americans simply do not want to do. While there is the issue of many of these workers living here illegally, recent efforts by the Trump Administration are hurting American crops. According to a United Press International article, American farmers have been trying desperately to replace deported, undocumented workers with little success.
The struggle to find legal migrant workers is due to the difficulty of obtaining visas. Farmers must go through the U.S. Department of Labor's H-2A process in order to hire seasonal workers to harvest their crops. Unfortunately, in order to obtain workers through the program, the process is often time-consuming and very expensive. Farmers must conduct screening and interviews in the potential workers' countries and then the government issues the pre-determined amount of visas. Since most farmers do not speak Spanish, they end up having to use recruiters to find migrant workers. These recruiters usually abuse the system and charge desperate workers numerous fees. Many workers still believe all the fees and trouble is worth it, saying the pay, overall, is better in the United States. Farmers are pushing strongly for a revision of H-2A in order ease the process of obtaining visas for migrant workers.
Why don't we simply replace the workers with machines? Well, most of the work that migrant farmers do is harvesting delicate fruits and vegetables. In the book, Eating in America, Tracie McMillan, an undercover reporter, spends time as a migrant worker in California. While working, Tracie experiences first hand the accuracy and care that must go into harvesting delicate fruits like grapes. A machine simply would not be able to harvest grapes with the same exactitude as the migrant workers currently use. In the UPI article, Will Rodger, a spokesperson for the American Farm Bureau, sums it all up clearly, "We can import workers, or we can import food, it's really that simple."
If the revision of the H-2A does not pass and the Trump Administration continues deporting migrant workers, how much will our farming industry truly suffer? Or will Americans be content with simply importing fruits and vegetables from now on?
The struggle to find legal migrant workers is due to the difficulty of obtaining visas. Farmers must go through the U.S. Department of Labor's H-2A process in order to hire seasonal workers to harvest their crops. Unfortunately, in order to obtain workers through the program, the process is often time-consuming and very expensive. Farmers must conduct screening and interviews in the potential workers' countries and then the government issues the pre-determined amount of visas. Since most farmers do not speak Spanish, they end up having to use recruiters to find migrant workers. These recruiters usually abuse the system and charge desperate workers numerous fees. Many workers still believe all the fees and trouble is worth it, saying the pay, overall, is better in the United States. Farmers are pushing strongly for a revision of H-2A in order ease the process of obtaining visas for migrant workers.
Why don't we simply replace the workers with machines? Well, most of the work that migrant farmers do is harvesting delicate fruits and vegetables. In the book, Eating in America, Tracie McMillan, an undercover reporter, spends time as a migrant worker in California. While working, Tracie experiences first hand the accuracy and care that must go into harvesting delicate fruits like grapes. A machine simply would not be able to harvest grapes with the same exactitude as the migrant workers currently use. In the UPI article, Will Rodger, a spokesperson for the American Farm Bureau, sums it all up clearly, "We can import workers, or we can import food, it's really that simple."
If the revision of the H-2A does not pass and the Trump Administration continues deporting migrant workers, how much will our farming industry truly suffer? Or will Americans be content with simply importing fruits and vegetables from now on?
Hospitals, Take Note
Who would think that a hospital would take action to in sorts reduce hospital visits? In the town of North Little Rock in Arkansas, a children’s hospital is taking the extra step to decrease levels of food insecurity in its surrounding areas. According to a U.S. News article, Arkansas Children’s Hospital has been using a patient screening test since 2016 to detect levels of food insecurity in patients and their families. In patients with food insecurity, the hospital proceeds to screen for factors like income, eduction levels, and health insurance coverage to gather data and gain insight into what families are dealing with.
In an effort to help lessen the burden these food insecure families face, Arkansas Children’s Hospital provides information and education on resources in the area. The hospital highlights local food pantries, creates mock grocery stores to teach budget-friendly, heathy shopping in high schools, and even brings a farmer’s market on wheels to the hospital each week.
Additionally, the hospital has implemented a summer lunch program for kids who normally rely on free school lunches during the school year. The hospital’s executive director of child advocacy and public health efforts, Anna Strong, says that the “goal is to move families from being food insecure to connecting them with all the resources in the community to help support them and ensure kids are not hungry.”
In order to combat issues like food deserts as Tracie McMillan analyzes in Do Poor People Eat Badly Because of Food Deserts or Personal Preference, Arkansas Children’s Hospital is identifying as many local food and health resources for food insecure families (McMillan, 1). Hospitals around the country should follow Arkansas Children’s Hospital’s lead and increase their corporate responsibility and the lives of struggling families in their areas.
In an effort to help lessen the burden these food insecure families face, Arkansas Children’s Hospital provides information and education on resources in the area. The hospital highlights local food pantries, creates mock grocery stores to teach budget-friendly, heathy shopping in high schools, and even brings a farmer’s market on wheels to the hospital each week.
Additionally, the hospital has implemented a summer lunch program for kids who normally rely on free school lunches during the school year. The hospital’s executive director of child advocacy and public health efforts, Anna Strong, says that the “goal is to move families from being food insecure to connecting them with all the resources in the community to help support them and ensure kids are not hungry.”
In order to combat issues like food deserts as Tracie McMillan analyzes in Do Poor People Eat Badly Because of Food Deserts or Personal Preference, Arkansas Children’s Hospital is identifying as many local food and health resources for food insecure families (McMillan, 1). Hospitals around the country should follow Arkansas Children’s Hospital’s lead and increase their corporate responsibility and the lives of struggling families in their areas.
In-N-Out Staying True To Its Roots
In our ever-evolving world that places such a high importance on convenience, timeliness, and profit, it is hard for companies to fight the urge to give in to McDonaldization. The term represents the way that society has taken after the classic business model of McDonald’s in almost every walk of life. Everything from universities to furniture stores have been McDonaldized in one way or another. One company that stands out from the norm, however, is the privately-owned In-N-Out Burger restaurant.
In a recent Forbes article, In-N-Out’s president, Lynsi Snyder, explains her primary goals regarding the fast food chain’s future in light of competitors. While so many burger chains are publicly traded, Snyder feels it is her duty to preserve the family-feel and quality that gives In-N-Out that unique spark. In-N-Out is able to market the great quality of its food while keeping prices low due to the amount of in-house work that is done consistently. While competitors simply heat up pre-made, frozen food, In-N-Out employees separate lettuce by hand and grind meat in-house. Additionally, each item is made to order which can result in much longer wait times than at highly McDonaldized establishments. Nevertheless, employees and customers show high satisfaction rates and extreme loyalty with the chain. As the book, The McDonaldization of Society, points out, In-N-Out places priority of quality over quantitative factors like time.
As Snyder explains again and again, the chain will never sell. Remaining private allows In-N-Out utmost control and the guarantee of freshness for years to come. As the article states, “In-N-Out is a time capsule,” a rare example of a company not completely adopting the concept of McDonaldization. It will be interesting to see if In-N-Out keeps up its promises to remain private and in its very limited geographic locations.
In a recent Forbes article, In-N-Out’s president, Lynsi Snyder, explains her primary goals regarding the fast food chain’s future in light of competitors. While so many burger chains are publicly traded, Snyder feels it is her duty to preserve the family-feel and quality that gives In-N-Out that unique spark. In-N-Out is able to market the great quality of its food while keeping prices low due to the amount of in-house work that is done consistently. While competitors simply heat up pre-made, frozen food, In-N-Out employees separate lettuce by hand and grind meat in-house. Additionally, each item is made to order which can result in much longer wait times than at highly McDonaldized establishments. Nevertheless, employees and customers show high satisfaction rates and extreme loyalty with the chain. As the book, The McDonaldization of Society, points out, In-N-Out places priority of quality over quantitative factors like time.
As Snyder explains again and again, the chain will never sell. Remaining private allows In-N-Out utmost control and the guarantee of freshness for years to come. As the article states, “In-N-Out is a time capsule,” a rare example of a company not completely adopting the concept of McDonaldization. It will be interesting to see if In-N-Out keeps up its promises to remain private and in its very limited geographic locations.
Will Climate Labels Save The Polar Bears?
Imagine a world where citizens are reminded of their effect on the environment each time they pick up an item in the grocery store. Well, in Denmark, this might become the new reality. According to a CNN article, Danish government officials are discussing the requirement of environmental effect labels to be placed on all food products sold in the country. In contrast to the current state of food policy in the United States, the labelling proposal is actually being sponsored by the Danish Agriculture and Food Council. Such a labelling requirement seems unimaginable in America with the current way large corporations and McDonaldized agricultural practices are favored and subsidized.
An important factor brought up in the article is the consideration of environmental effect of a product and its nutritional qualities. Morten Høyer, director of the council, explains that it would be deleterious to label the low environmental effect of a bottle of Coca-Cola without including the unhealthy attributes of the product. In other words, it is important that the labels promote healthy products that also have a lower environmental impact.
Much like the article on locavorism in The Week, Høyer brings up the point that all realms of food production must be taken into account. He explains that the labels on meat alternatives will have to include the negative environmental effects of the soy used to produce it. My one question remains who will make the ultimate decision of whether local is more environmentally friendly than mass-produced?
An important factor brought up in the article is the consideration of environmental effect of a product and its nutritional qualities. Morten Høyer, director of the council, explains that it would be deleterious to label the low environmental effect of a bottle of Coca-Cola without including the unhealthy attributes of the product. In other words, it is important that the labels promote healthy products that also have a lower environmental impact.
Much like the article on locavorism in The Week, Høyer brings up the point that all realms of food production must be taken into account. He explains that the labels on meat alternatives will have to include the negative environmental effects of the soy used to produce it. My one question remains who will make the ultimate decision of whether local is more environmentally friendly than mass-produced?
Keeping Up With A Growing Population And Sustainability Goals
As India's population and economy continues to grow, a First Post article details the fact that India will need to implement advanced agricultural technology in order to produce enough food while still meeting its climate change goals. Under the Paris Agreement, India's Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (IINDC) set the goal to reduce GDP emissions by 33-35% by 2030. In order to ensure safe climate practices as India is farming enough food to feed its population, many scientists highlight the issue of the animal-based foods.
Much like what we have learned through our readings in class, animal-based foods (meat, dairy, etc.) are much more harmful for the environment. The industrial farming of animals is very inefficient in the way that animals require much more space, food, and resources than the amount of protein or nutritional value they actually produce. The scientists' suggestions of reducing the production of animal-based foods parallels the findings in the documentary, Forks Over Knives. The film highlights the direct relationship between a poor diet high in animal-based foods and the development of life-threatening diseases.
With this in mind, the article explains that the Indian culture must also be considered when implementing the changes to better the environment. Additionally, it points to the benefits that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could have on the Indian food system. In order to increase food production while limiting harmful effects on the environment, India will most likely need to embrace GMOs. Could India become the example for other developed countries to maintain high food production while reducing climate change?
Much like what we have learned through our readings in class, animal-based foods (meat, dairy, etc.) are much more harmful for the environment. The industrial farming of animals is very inefficient in the way that animals require much more space, food, and resources than the amount of protein or nutritional value they actually produce. The scientists' suggestions of reducing the production of animal-based foods parallels the findings in the documentary, Forks Over Knives. The film highlights the direct relationship between a poor diet high in animal-based foods and the development of life-threatening diseases.
With this in mind, the article explains that the Indian culture must also be considered when implementing the changes to better the environment. Additionally, it points to the benefits that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could have on the Indian food system. In order to increase food production while limiting harmful effects on the environment, India will most likely need to embrace GMOs. Could India become the example for other developed countries to maintain high food production while reducing climate change?