An Ode to Crockpots (the Slow Cooker Kind)

My twin found a lovely blog by a woman who for her New Year's Resolution decided to use her crockpot everyday of 2008. It is here, at A Year of Crockpotting. She's also a funny lady, so even if you don't use her recipes, it's still an entertaining read. She reports on her childrens' reaction to her latest creations in the crockpot.

Twin recently made one of the recipes, which was delicious. It was a chunk of beef with feta, a jar of roasted tomatoes and some white wine. The actual recipe is here. It was delicious, even with less feta than called for and a cooking time about two hours longer than necessary. That is one of the joys of crockpots: you can cook things for twelve hours and still have edible (even better, delicious!) results.

Another delightful recipe is from Rival: Crock-Pot: Slow Electric Stoneware Cooker Cookbook from the 1960s or 70s. We enjoyed making this shortly after our 21st birthsday. Despite the title, not rabbit is involved.

Welsh Rabbit

• 2 lb sharp Cheddar cheese, shredded
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 2 teaspoons dry mustard
• 2 cups beer or ale
• Cayenne pepper
• 2-3 teaspoons Worcestershire sauce
• 10 oz can of tomato soup
• toasted bread slices

Put all ingredients except egg yolks and bread into CROCKPOT. Cover and cook on High until cheese melts; stir wll. Beat in egg yolks, using medium or low speed of mixer; beat until smooth. Turn to Low until serving time--2 to 6 hours. Serve over toast slices or crackers, or as a hot dip with bread sticks.
Ingredients may be increased by half for the 41/2-quart model.

Lastly, for our birthday cake, I used a recipe I found at this LiveJournal. The chocolate cake cooked in the crockpot is wonderful. It's very chocolatly and gooey. Twin and I put the leftovers in the fridge, and ate them like those giant chocolate muffins for the rest of the week. You can see a photo of it at the top of the post. Like many foods made in crockpots, the cake tastes better than it looks.

Blog #5- The Future of Food:

Prior to watching the Future of Food, I would not use the word fear to describe how I feel about genetically modified foods. I would say I find it frustrating and unfair for companies to not be completely honest about what constitutes their food products, but I have never regarded GMO’s as having the potential to be significantly harmful for humans. This film opened my mind to the power of companies such as Monsanto who use their patents to attempt to control the entire farming system, and have dangerous influence in the Environmental Protection agency. After watching the film would certainly say I have fears about eating genetically modified foods because of how little I trust companies such as Monsanto.

An issue that cannot be ignored is who is responsible for the safety of food products. It was disturbing to hear how many powerful people working for the EPA used to work for Monsanto; but more disturbing is the fact that the FDA is anything less that impeccable. Inadequate testing and not requiring labels for some GMOs are two ways FDA is being irresponsible. I was amazed that terms such as “substantially equivalent”, or GRAS- meaning a food product is generally recognized as safe are enough to give a food product credibility. The film quotes a statement taken from Monsanto: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food, out interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” But if the FDA is not doing their job- then who can be held accountable? It is not ethically sound for companies to no want to label their food as containing GMO’s for profit gain, but it is plain wrong for companies to not want to use labels because of foreseen liability issues. If companies were confident that their products were safe, why would anticipate such liability?

The film discussed how many different types of potatoes and apples are not widely grown anymore. I have always been proud to say that Washington has great signature apples, just as someone from Idaho might say about their potatoes. It is a realistic fear that we will soon have even less varieties. Fortunately Mexico continues to sustain their corn varieties. I enjoyed the Mexican gentlemen’s take on seeds and grains essentially being the same thing and why shouldn’t a farmer assume that there is an embryo (baby) inside that seed? It is interesting that Mexican farmers rely of wild corn strain, Teocintlen, to mix with their cultivated strain- because this wild strain has resistance. I think the power and ability of nature to take care of itself is underestimated. I was angered at the thought of how destructive it would be for the genetically altered corn to invade some of Mexico’s corn and completely destroy it. The film touched upon the idea that gaining efficiency with farming sacrifices diversity, no only plant diversity but also intellectual diversity. The effects of genetically modified food on the immune system and it toxicity have not been tested thoroughly, and companies like Monsanto seem to have the power to stop such research.

Another big question the film brought to my mind is property rights. I have difficulty understanding how basic property rights can be destroyed. The idea that it is your job to fence your property in and protect it from outside factors outside your control doesn’t make logical sense to me. The farmer, who was taken to court by Monsanto because their seed found its way into his fields and cross pollinated, referred to the system of food as a “Feudal system.” Essentially whoever controls the seed controls the food. But the only reason companies like Monsanto can have so much power, is because their products are being purchased. Consumers have the power to make changes. Just like the protest for better organic standard prevailed, so can the demand for safe food, and labeling. We as consumers need accurate information so we need to continue to exercise our rights.

“The next green revolution.” Economist. 386 (2008): 81-82.

"We want what we can't have."

Interacting with the T.V in general- whether it is playing video games or watching television shows- decreases time spent doing physical activity and is often coupled with unhealthy eating. The majority of food brands marketed to children sell unhealthy food products that are very tempting and enticing because they portray a fun lifestyle, and are often cross-marketed with a new movie or toy. Just as manipulative as these commercials are the images of models and t.v stars who send a contradictory message: be thin but eat fatty foods. From an early age children watch beautiful/handsome thin reporters, and celebrities on television- who define success. These same channels show television stars who resemble this same body type but eat a very poor and unhealthy diet and rarely exercise. Children and adolescents with normal to larger bodies are virtually invisible in the media.

Media projects the icon of the ideal body type of a woman as “barbie without the chiropracticly challenged feet,” according to the film Body Image: Let’s get real. I can remember going to the Body Shop with my mom when I was younger and seeing the poster of a doll essentially opposite to Barbie called Ruby. The poster was for a new campaign by Body Shop for self esteem. Under the picture of the doll was the quote: "There are three billion women in the world who don't look like supermodels and only eight who do". In is ironic because on one spectrum media is encouraging obesity and on the other end it is encouraging serious eating disorders.

The article While French eye thinness, America’s obesity expands- really hits home with the idea that paying attention only to negative body image from models ignores the real problem: obesity. But ignoring eating disorders as a result of media is also not an option, especially because this image also contributes to violence and silencing of women- Killing Us Softly 3: advertising’s images of women. In my grossly simplified model there are two outlooks to this unrealistic body image portrayed by the media: {I am worthless if I don’t look just like this thin model or star so I should go starve myself}, or {I will never look like this thin star so why even bother, that happy meal looks good}. One may lead to starvation, the other to obesity. The point is that both lifestyles are unhealthy, and there needs to be a serious change in the media’s body image- involving more realistic healthy looking models, and television stars living a healthy lifestyle. Because currently media is selling a body image that is completely out of sync with the food products its food brands keep chugging out and the lifestyles portrayed in television shows.

• Clark, Levina, and Marika Tiggemann. “Sociocultural Influences and Body Image in 9- to 12-Year-Old Girls: The Role of Appearance Schemas.” Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 36 (2007): 76-86.

Articles to Ruin Your Appetite

In an attempt to avoid ranting (this is my third attempt at writing this blog), I will address a few comments to each item viewed or read this week.

1. While French Eye Thinness, America's Obesity Expands: I thought banning of encouragement of extreme thinness was very interesting. On a related note, sometime last year, a major fashion show in Spain required that the models be within a certain BMI range. The range was, if I remember correctly, actually lower than it would be for most people, but even then, a fairly large proportion of the models failed to meet the requirement. I also think that the Spanish government was in part responsible for the requirement. Perhaps the bans are because high fashion, and the extremely thin models that comes with it, is more observed or prevalent in Europe? I'm not sure exactly, but I do know that the nightly news has NOT been running clips about how fat Europeans have become, so it makes more sense that extreme thinness is the focus there. I understand the author's opinion that too thin is not the predominant problem in the US, but it's not like the French government was trying to change weight problems here in the US either.
2. An Insatiable Emptiness: I remember a drawing in one of the girls' magazines I read in elementary school that had a slightly different version of a Norman Rockwell painting that showed a young girl in a slip sitting in front of a mirror looking pensively at her reflection. In this version, the girl was anorexic and was so thin that her shoulder blades and elbows were frighteningly prominent. I remember the girl talking about her hair falling out because her body no longer had the extra energy to grow it. This caused me some concern since I had hair coming out everyday when I brushed my hair. Fortunately, my mother explained that hair normally sheds--but doesn't normally fall out in clumps. The author's statements in Insatiable Emptiness about her mother's attempts to control her reminds me that eating disorders are also frequently triggered when high-achieving people feel out of control, and that the disorder is an attempt to re-gain control over at least one aspect of their life.
3. Body Image: Let's Get Real: I am so glad I am no longer in middle or high school.
4. Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising's Image of Women: I appreciated that the speaker still kept a sense of humor. She had many valid points, and many were quite serious. But she didn't spend all her time earnestly saying how screwed we are. That said, I don't remember any prominent suggestions on how to fix things. She pointed out that the people who say they simply ignore advertising are those most likely to be wearing a branded t-shirt. So where does she shop? She also wore makeup, so clearly she isn't immune either from ideas about how a woman should look and what products they need to achieve that look. My point is not that she shouldn't buy clothes, or wear makeup, but that she shouldn't make fun of those who buy certain things--because she also buys similar things!
5. "Why you think we live in a culture where...obesity has been on the rise...yet the media projects extreme thinness." Okay, obesity is on the rise because people spend all their time running around to eight million things a day, and then they spend their spare time in front of the computer or TV. Then they insist on "getting their value's worth" with huge servings of unhealthy food. They don't have the time/inclination to cook food from actual ingredients and they don't actually physically move that much. Ta-dah, increased obesity. When you can buy a squirt tube of combined peanut butter and jelly, a product you use because you don't have time to make a normal PB&J sandwich, you're waaaaay too busy or lazy. And then there is the media. Despite their claims, they have never actually had a great grasp of reality. When my mom was in Africa for the Peace Corp at the very end of the 1960s, she thought she'd come back find the US in the midst of an all out civil war from what the magazines said. While the US did experience plenty of turmoil, we were not actually to the level of the 1860s. While I enjoyed any number of WB channel shows, I knew that the physical appearances of everyone on those shows, from the janitors up to the protagonists, WAS NOT TYPICAL. The number of hot guys and gals on the shows were ridiculous; no town has that many tanned, toned and well groomed people. And those people NEVER wore the same outfit twice. I don't know the exact reason that the media portrays such thinness (rib cages and hip bones really aren't attractive, no matter how great the clothes and makeup), but apparently parents need to make clear to their children that what's portrayed by the media is not actually REAL. It's all been created by fifty people with special lights, sets, cameras and computers. If you were there in person, it wouldn't look identical to the end product.
   

• Furnham, Adrian, et al. “Preferences for Female Body Weight and Shape in Three European Countries.” European Psychologist. 12.3 (2007): 220-228.

EDITED 6/8/08 for spelling and clarifications.

Like Water for Chocolate- food and feelings

I thoroughly enjoyed “Like Water for Chocolate” not just because I am a Spanish minor but because the film handles melancholy/serious issues with a mix of sincerity, humor, and passion. The issues range from love and heart break, to illness and death. The protagonist of the film- Tita, essentially waits on her evil mama Elena on hand and foot- the food that she cooks for her is a big part of this. It is interesting that Tita’s passion is to cook, but it is also part of her servitude, which she hates. Coincidently Tita uses her cooking for control and mischief. For instance, when she makes a dish with the rose petals give to her by her lover, the dish provokes the guests to feel sexually aroused. Or when she cries over her lover into the wedding cake of her sister- and the tears cause her guests who eat the cake to long for their loved ones. Food and feelings really go hand and hand.

I enjoyed the review “Picks & Pans - Like Water for Chocolate starring Lumi Cavazo,” by Joanne Kaufman because it is open minded and honest about what to expect from the film.She captures the passion of the film by providing the unusual examples of the profound effects of Tita’s cooking without going overboard. She refers to the kitchen as “(Tita’s) only safe haven” – I agree and think she explains this well

Kaufman wraps it up by saying:“This visually sumptuous movie, which takes its title from the Mexican method for brewing hot chocolate by boiling water to the point of exquisite agitation -- a metaphor for sexual arousal -- may not be everyone's dish. But those willing to give themselves over to the gently ironic narrative, a large portion of mysticism and some wildly fanciful plot turns, are in for a treat.” This concluding thought is respectful and realistic of the culture and point of the film.

Kaufman, Joanne. “Picks & pans - Like Water for Chocolate starring Lumi Cavazo” People Weekly. 7 June 1993: pg 201. ProQuest. Western Libraries, Bellingham. 17 May 2008.

It's Hard to Go Wrong with Chocolat(e)

This is such a yummy movie. It's so nice to see chocolate shown as delicious, sensuous and decadent rather than something you shove into your mouth while breaking your diet or crying over your ex. I particularly love Armande's birthday feast. Everything has chocolate, including a sauce for the chicken. I thought that was unusual, but looked tasty. This is way better than the giant milk chocolate easter bunnies that I once thought were the best chocolate ever! One of my best experiences in Spain was getting to drink hot chocolate that was as thick and chocolaty as the drink Vianne serves.

I remember seeing a poster advertising Chocolat in a Godiva chocolate shop. At the time, I thought the poster was a spoof, or just some of Godiva's advertising (I didn't recognize any of the actors--yup, this was when it was still possible to NOT know who Johnny Depp was.) When I finally saw the movie, I thought it was great fun. I also was very amused to see Carrie Anne Moss in role so different from Trinity in the Matrix movies. I've enjoyed repeat viewings of Chocolat, perhaps one of the funnest was at a sleepover with lots of chocolate included. It certainly isn't a bad way to spend part of my Memorial Day weekend!

• Levy, Shawn. “Tase Sensation.” The Oregonian[Portland, OR]. 22 Dec. 2000: 19. ProQuest. ProQuest. Western Libraries, Bellingham. 26 May 2008.

I agreed with Mr. Levy, that the movie is visually beautiful, well acted, and very tasty. I enjoyed his final recommendation:

"When you go see the movie, smuggle into the theater the most expensive chocolate in which you're willing to indulge yourself. No movie candy counter in America is adequate to the sensual yearning it evokes."

I agree, M&Ms just won't cut it with Chocolat. My only disagreement with this review is that Mr. Levy gives away the results of when Anouk suggests that Roux try eating a worm. Other than that, he hit the nail on the head: Chocolat is "Taste Sensation."

EDITED 6/8/08 for grammar and formatting.

Old Ads

First, I would like to say that from what I browsed, alcohol and cigarettes are the vast majority of "food" advertisements in national magazines. Coca-cola and cereal make an appearance, but you're not going to find an old equivalent of your Haggen's ad in Life magazine. But your weekly grocery ads usually come in the daily newspaper, not national magazines. It could be interesting to see what ads are in old Bellingham Heralds from before the 1960s.

It struck me, flipping through magazines from the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s: first, there is very little color in the magazines, and they have considerably more text. There were more drawings and fewer photographs. This makes sense, given the change in technology, but they were much more newspaper-like than magazines. It's a lot harder to imagine cutting out the pictures of people to use as paper dolls from the old magazines; they wouldn't be colorful enough.

Of course the type of magazine changes what type of ads are in it; I found plenty of alcohol, cigarette ads, but only one Coca-Cola ad in 1930s and 40s Newsweeks. But when I switched to looking at Life magazine, a magazine for the whole family, not just whoever reads the news (and probably doesn't cook), there were more food ads. This holds true to modern magazines: InStyle mostly had ads for perfume, jewlery and other fashion items. Woman's Day will have a lot more Campell's Soup ads and other household-oriented items.

A lot of the older ads have a lot more text than ads now; there will be a descriptive paragraph, or a housewife's testimony, or a recipe. Now, ads are usually a noticeable photo and a few words. And there's no longer any need to explain how much time convenience foods will save you; it's a given now, they're not new products. Of course velveeta will make cooking quicker, why else would you buy it? But in the older ads, they sometimes explain how their product works, and what it substitutes for; these were new foods pre-1960.

For example, I found a Dole canned pineapple ad in Life magazine for September 11, 1939. Firstly, they talk about "a delicious new treat from Hawaii." Several times, they emphasize how new canned pineapple is. There's a picture of a lady vacationing in Hawaii and writing to her friend back home. At home, her friend goes to the grocer, a man in a suit and white doctor's jacket, who shows here a can of pineapple, and explains when the new product is used ("Lots of folks eat them at breakfast.") Then the lady is shown smiling in the kitchen, while her children take pieces of canned pineapple from a bowl behind her back. The add even has a pineapple cartoon, complete with face and hands in a chef's hat pointing out the recipe for canned pineapple.

Some of this ad seems very cheesy (What about her Hawaiian vacation did Mary write to Jane? Why the canned pineapple, of course!). However, ads today still include smiling mothers watching their kids devour whatever fabulous, delicious and time-saving new food is being advertised. The ad now just might say how cool the mom is for feeding her children the product.

Citation:

• Bower, John A. and Nicola Mateer. "'The White Stuff?': An Investigation into Consumer Evaluation of the Scottish Celebrity Milk Marketing Campaign." Nutrition and Science. 38.2 (2008): 164-174.

EDITED 6/9/08 for spelling and formatting.

Just ask Aunt Jemima

As I was leafing through a LIFE oversize periodical of magazines from 1955, I came across an advertistment for Aunt Jemima's pancake mix. The advertisment was disturbing to me, because it reminded me of the film "The Confederate States of America" about the stereotypes and issues of racism. The film ends by stating that America hasn't entirely abandoned the stereotype of the smiling, happy African-American servant... "Just ask Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben." Prior to watching this film I had never thought of products such as Aunt Jemima's maple syrup as having a racist beginning.

This particular advertisment depicts aunt Jemima attired with a stripped bandanna, and matching apron happily serving two gentlemen their pancakes. With a quote underneath:

"When guests of colonel Higbee asked aunt Jemima how she made pancakes so light and full of flavor, she just smiled and answered- ("thats my own secret. you just eat' em.") Always she kept that secret"

It is hard to ignore the racist undertones of this advertisment. The image of Aunt Jemima is always kind of erie to me- her over fake smile, happily going about her work, or better said- her secret. It doesn't matter how much labor, hard work, suffering that goes into pleasing guests, it matters that she is smiling and not complaining about it. It was probably common in the early 1950's for rich families to have servants or buttlers, but this advertisment appears to be set earlier to the time of publish. The pancakes in this advertisment are in the least being linked to servantry or more extremly to slavery. Why would advertisers think that consumers would want to buy pancakes when they saw the image of a servant serving them? Maybe because it reminds them of a simplier time, they take comfort in being waited on. Regardless of the exact motives behind this advertisment, I find it disturbing and somewhat racist.

For More racism in the media check out:

Strausbaugh, John. Black like you : blackface, whiteface, insult & imitation in American popular culture. New York: Penguin, 2006.

Finer Flavor from The Land O' Corn

For this assignment, I came across an advertisement for Rath Bacon in the November 1959 issue of The Reader’s Digest. It portrays six strips of bacon on a plate with one on a fork, all over a blue and white checkered tablecloth with cream and a cup of coffee residing in the background. Above the bacon sits the quote, “-it’s real Iowa corn-fed bacon.” The ad beneath the picture states, “You hear a lot about Rath Bacon (and its all good). One good cook tells another. And so another family sits down to a platter of this delicious rise-and-shine bacon…..Try some – this very day.”

The picture is quite reminiscent of the kitchen of a home in the country, with simple furnishings and the common blend of blue and white being quite prominent throughout the picture. Upon close inspection of the plate on which the bacon resides, I can see that there is no grease underneath, and each strip looks sliced and cooked to perfection. The eye is almost immediately brought to the finest piece of bacon, which has been carefully staged at a noticeably obscure angle with respect to the rest of the bacon. The cup of coffee offers reassurance that bacon should indeed be as regular a breakfast item as a strong cup of freshly brewed beans.

As for the phrasing of the advertisement itself, I find it difficult not to notice that it is subtly community/family based. With the first line of, “One good cook tells another,” the impression is given that whoever is eating this bacon has at least one friend who cooks, and that both friends talk often enough to know that they are both good cooks. Cooking, by its nature, is a fairly communal affair. Often people cook together, or at least interact with others to gather the food which will be prepared. Meals cooked by a member of a family are rarely eaten by just the cook; more often than not, they are shared by the family. This notion of sharing meals with others is supported further by the next line in the ad, which reads, “And so another family sits down to a platter of this delicious rise-and-shine bacon.” This sharing of food is good news for the people at The Rath Packing Company, as they will sell far more bacon if people tell their friends, who will then purchase enough to feed an entire family as opposed to just one person.

It seams that advertisements today do not really have the same sense of sharing (most of the few that I’ve seen have been devoid of any communal aspects at all). The last line of the ad reads, “Try some – this very day.” I’ve seen several ads with similar lines in the magazines that I looked through for this assignment. It seems like advertisers were a bit more direct in their approach to sell their products than they are today. Today, perhaps because of the aid of advanced visual technologies, advertisers tend to let the product sell itself.

For more on the issue of food advertisement directed towards children, I recommend the following article:

Moore, Elizabeth S, and Victoria J. Rideout. "The Online Marketing of Food to Children: Is it Just Fun and Games?." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 26.2 Fall 2007: 202-220.

Don't forget to hydrate!

During high school my choices of eating were very influenced by sports. During the Spring I ran Track, and I always had to be aware of what I was putting in my body. Our team signed a contract not allowing us to drink alcohol for the season. There were also common unspoken rules- two nights before a track meet- carbohydrate load for dinner; drink the amount of at least two nalgenes bottles of water a day, don’t drink coffee or soda, and obviously don’t eat foods high in fat or saturated fat whenever could be avoided. I really stuck by these rules, and after a while they became a routine. I mentally felt so much better running when I knew I had eaten healthy the night before. Some highly successful athletes on my team didn’t follow such rules. The best male sprinter on my team would often chow down a McDonald's big Mac the day of a meet. This made me look at food intake as having a mental aspect to how it affects an athlete. Of course drinking the right amount of water and staying away from unhealthy foods is important, but there is no one way of eating that worked for each individual athlete.

Every year during a middle season tournament in Spokane, the team would always eat at the Spaghetti house, but not without some ground rules: no ordering any alfredo, buttery, or cheesy anything! This was non-negotiable seeing as the coaches were paying for our meal. I always craved alfredo sauce so much on those spaghetti nights: I wanted to food that wasn’t an option. The final hurrah of track ended at our annual Mexican Restaurant dinner with parents at our state meet. We would always arrive at the restaurant still in our sweaty uniforms and fill ourselves full of salsa, enchiladas, and burritos. I remember grossly overstuffed walking back to the bus. We were celebrating by eating foods that we had avoided all season, and it felt great. The food tasted so good to me because it had been such an untouchable during the track season, and I could relax and think about food as celebration and congratulations- not as a diet or a regimen. I felt that I deserved to eat the food.

It was and has been really important for the food I eat to be in accord with my mentality. When I am focusing really hard on accomplishing a goal whether this be physical or not- it is always important eat healthy and hold back on foods that are celebratory. During track the food I ate was such an easy thing to control, when other things were so out of my control- like how the weather would be or how I was going to perform at a meet. Its interesting for me to think about the Track contract I signed and the dinners that we ate- always involved resisting or enjoying food and drink. This is why eating unhealthy food or consuming unhealthy drinks was so special- it was done when my mental attitude was in check; in my case I was trying to relax and celebrate after working hard. I have no gone back to the total “track diet” but it has served as an important experience for me regarding how the harmony of positive mental state and healthy food.

Academic Journal:
Harris, Marvin, and Eric B. Ross. Food and evolution : toward a theory of human food habits. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987.

Bread that never gets moldy!

As we’ve established over the course of this class thus far, it seems fairly important (to most) to know what is in our food and where it comes from. It has also been established that it is incredibly difficult to know where all of our food comes from and the processing involved to get it to the market in an aesthetic condition. We can derive from the definition of society that we all must choose our battles, and hopefully share our findings with the rest of those around us. One battle that I have chosen is that of bread. As a large part of my diet, I feel that I should devote quite a bit of attention to it. My sister first taught me to bake four or five years ago, and I’ve been going at it non-stop ever since. Through the past few years, I have been learning (and continue to do so) about what makes a good bread. One of the quickest lessons that I had learned was that commercially produced bread does not constitute as “good bread.” One only needs four ingredients to make a loaf of white bread. The last time I looked at the ingredient list on the back of a loaf at the store, there were quite a few “extras” tossed in with the mix. There is no need for them. Bread made at home does not need preservatives, as it does not mold if done properly. While the time difference of baking a loaf versus buying a loaf is quite substantial (around 3 or 4 hours against 15 minutes, respectively), the reward is much more satisfying.

With so few ingredients in a loaf of basic bread, it becomes much easier to track down where those ingredients come from (the four basics being flour, water, yeast and salt). All of the ingredients can be found at the co-op, and any other store with a decent bulk section. If ingredients are bought in bulk quantities, the cost is, intuitively, brought down. It’s possible to make a basic loaf of bread for just a few cents a loaf, even with quality ingredients. It’s easy to ask who the current supplier of a bulk product is (although most are written right on the bin), and give a phone call to find out more about the product. I’ve been fortunate enough to come across flour and wheat berries from the company Wheat Montana, which sees their local wheat through from seed to store. Whenever I head to Spokane to see my family, I always make sure to stock up. I haven’t seen this wheat around Bellingham, but there are several wheat farmers in the area that supply excellent wheat without additives.

I always have a loaf or two on hand now, and when I see that I’m starting to run low, I can just whip up a dough starter in the evening - taking about 20 minutes - then let it sit in the fridge overnight to rise. In the morning I’ll take it out and punch it down, shape it into loaves, and let it rise again while coming to room temperature. I can let it do the second rise while at school, then come home and bake it for 30-40 minutes. Utilizing the refrigerator, it is easy to spread baking around one’s schedule without having a continuous 3 to 4 hour block devoted to baking bread.

I’ve come to a point in my life where I feel that I must make the process of preparing food just as important as the food itself. I suppose it is quite reminiscent of a utilitarian approach of “not treating something as a means to an end, but rather as an end in itself.” All bread must be baked, whether at home or in a factory. But I pose the question: Why not at home? It is much less expensive, much more satisfying, you know where it came from and what went into it, and don’t have to worry about mold. If time is a concern, the ever-popular quick breads can be prepared and baked in less than an hour. Although somewhat shunned in the baking community, they will suffice for a delicious and speedy method to prepare your own food.

Pita bread is another incredibly simple bread to make, taking only six to eight minutes to bake. It is a real marvel to watch rise in the oven, making an open pocket once cut in half. I was on a pita kick for a while, and had stacks of these things laying around, stuffing them with whatever I had on hand.

It’s easy to lose sight of what is important to human survival. We need food before we need technology. Eating should be a celebration of what it took to get to that point, not just something to do while watching television or browsing the internet. It is my hope that we can rid the world of Wonder Bread and all start taking the time to see both food and the path it takes to become such as ends in themselves.


For an incredibly technical explanation of what is happening while bread is rising, I recommend the following article:

Bikard, Jérôme, et al. "Simulation of bread making process using a direct 3D numerical method at microscale: Analysis of foaming phase during proofing." Journal of Food Engineering. 85.2 Mar. 2008: 259-267.

Don't Use the Word "Putrid" for Your Mother's Cooking

When I was in elementary school, I learned an awesome new word: "putrid." I even learned that it means "rotting." But I still decided to describe the packed lunches my mom made for me with this wonderful new word, putrid. Mom's reaction was to refuse to pack a lunch, which forced ME to pack my own lunches (the school didn't have a cafeteria, so buying lunch wasn't an option). By high school, oftentimes my sister and I were on our own for dinner or we were cooking it for Mom and Dad. I really, really missed my mom's cooking. Despite my earlier complaints, I had discovered that her cooking was much better than mine. (That said, when I finally got my own kitchen in college, I was very happy I knew how to use it because I'd had to prepare my own food for years.)

I loved my host mom's cooking in the summer I spent abroad in Spain. She cooks lunch and dinner, with the exception of Friday nights. I always told her that the food was delicious and always cleaned my plate. Fortunately, her food really is very good, but I was not going to say ANYTHING that could be remotely insulting about her food, for fear of being forced to cook all my meals again; I remembered the results of the word "putrid." The flip side of this is that her daughters aren't nearly as wonderful cooks as she is, because they've never needed to be in the kitchen much since their mom does all of the cooking.

I suppose that my points in this post are:

1. Don't ever insult your mother's decent cooking: if you do, it will go away, and the alternative (your own cooking) won't be as good.
   
2. I wish I had known this in elementary school.
   
3. Despite Points #1 and #2, it is much better to learn how to cook while still at home, where you can eat your mom's cooking at least some of the time and are not wholly dependent every day of the week on whatever mess you made yourself.
   
4. Finally, and most importantly: Tell your mother you love her cooking on Mother's Day, but don't suggest she cook for the occasion. Take her out to dinner.
   

Bliss is Rapidly Leaving

It's nice to see something about the horrors of the food we eat that does NOT have to do with meat. Now that I have plenty to be guilty about every time I buy a hamburger, I can now also feel terrified when I order a taco.

Unfortunately, this system where everyone in the food chain except the farmer is making money is not actually a new phenomena. It's actually been the case, even back to the "good old" turn of the century that The Future of Food seemed to feel was better. My grandfather was a long distance trucker and school bus driver while he owned his dairy cows and then his beef cattle. Despite growing up in the 1950s, my mom did not have a stay-at-home mom; Grandma worked in the post office in town. Farming is a terrible business, because it is terribly unpredictable. You can't know if a frost will wipe out your orange crop, or if some bug will eat your product out from under you. Thus the attraction to plants that can be easily and effectively be sprayed and the crop be more likely to survive and flourish until it can be harvested and sold. If you want to be rich, you don't own a family farm. Grandpa raised his cows because he loved farming, not because he wanted to be fabulously wealthy. Banking may be a lucrative profession, but you can't really yodel to your paperwork. Grandpa could and did yodel to his cows.

While I knew about "sucide seeds" I didn't really think it through. When I first heard about it, I was pretty peeved. My sisters and I loved to try to grow avocados from the pits of the ones we bought at the store. I assumed that they never grew into trees because my sisters and I didn't grow them properly, nor is the Pacific Northwest an ideal climate in which to grow avocados. But I was pissed to think that my kids or even just kids younger than me wouldn't be able to spit out the seeds from the tomato they were eating and try to grow a tomato plant with them. We tried that as kids because Mom explained that the seeds were where plants came from. It's absurd and freaky that in the future, or even the present, that it is not actually true that new plants can grow from the seeds that the plant produces. In fact, seedless grapes are really quite wrong. What I hadn't really thought about was the sheer impossibility of keeping natural plants from breeding or absorbing parts of genetically modified plants.

As for the patenting of seeds and genes, and the cases upholding the patents, I'm going to have to see some of the cases. When presented in the movie, it seems like the most idiotic, suicidal thing to do, but not all those judges and lawyers can be stupid. They must have some logic or reason. I need to read their reasoning to see if it's entirely dumb. Maybe all parties involved in these rulings have never planted anything, but that seems really unlikely. But hey, "separate but equal" was eventually overturned; hopefully, someone will build a successful case to overrule the patent permissions. Or the corporations can try to patent the tortilla and get ripped to shreds by millions of people who eat tortillas everyday. Ask Marie Antoinette what happens when you're too callus about starving people--oh wait you can't, they killed her for it.

Really, this movie just highlights the fact the world would be a better place if people weren't so determined to screw other people over, or at least weren't so worried about what was in it for themselves. Forget nuclear doomsday movies, we need ones with massive starvation due to pharming. Models could serve as extras for the dying masses.

Yes, I have qualms about eating genetically modified plants. I don't need ecol i in my food on purpose. Fish do not belong in my tomatoes. No, I can't think of a reason why genetically modified products are NOT on food labels. See the above paragraph about screwing people over for reasons why they are not already on food labels.

And an article from ProQuest:

• Spurgeon, David. “Monsanto Wins Seven-Year Court Battle for Seed Patent.” Nature. 429.6990 (2004): 330. Research Library. ProQuest. Western Libraries, Bellingham. 4 May 2008 .

Here is a brief article that has a helpful, though partial, solution to the lawsuits against farmers by large seed corporations:

• Catechi, David. “Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Patent Right.” Hastings Law Journal 56.4 (2005): 769-770.

EDITED 5/29/08 for citation correction

The Future of Food

This was a really well-done film. It gave a lot of information that can be hard to find on your own, and for that I give thanks. My understanding of plants has revealed to me that they are indeed living organisms and as such, have the right to thrive in their place in the grand scheme of things. It is an insane and absurd idea to me that anyone would want to bypass morality and ethics to make a profit, especially by claiming ownership over the rights of another living organism. I’m still a bit baffled as to how the Supreme Court decided it was just to patent the genetic makeup of something. It’s going to mutate and adapt throughout future generations in order to survive, so how can one lay claim to unpredictable happenings that haven’t even happened yet?

I am really glad that we have local markets that don’t rely on shipping foods from undisclosed locations that may or may not be genetically engineered. The beauty of local farming is that you can actually talk to and maintain a relationship with those who you receive food from. I’ve been fortunate in growing up that I have always lived in places that have had such markets. We are all quite fortunate living in this region of the world, that we can even bypass the market and actually forage for our own sustenance. It is very important to me that as humans, we try to take a path of progress towards eating natural foods that are nearby.
I feel that it is extremely important that foods be labeled as containing GMO’s. In the video, it was stated that consumers are very powerful, but need to be informed in order to utilize that power. If we have no knowledge of what is in our food, we become uninformed and oblivious as to what we are consuming, along with the impact that the production of such foods has on the rest of the world. I was raised eating corn with almost every dinner it seemed. I love the stuff. But I have since stopped eating corn when it’s not in season, and when it is, I want to make sure I get it from somewhere within the same area code. Corn that shouldn’t be growing naturally during the winter shouldn’t be eaten in my opinion. It is hard to find out what foods you can be assured are natural, but every effort should be made to eat those. I know for a fact that my diet consists of genetically modified foods, but I feel that taking steps to eliminate those items is indeed the right thing.



MacDonald, Chris, and Melissa Whellams. "Corporate Decisions about Labelling
Genetically Modified Foods." Journal of Business Ethics. 75.2 Oct. 2007: 181-189.

"By the time it reaches us..."

"...the food no longer tries to run off the dishes."
---from Tamora Pierce's Circle of Magic: Sandry's Book

It probably is a good thing to have a stronger connection to where your food comes from. However, you still don't necessarily have to harvest it yourself. I have a black thumb and no idea how to hunt, so if I was dependent on my own harvesting skills, I would starve. However, I buy a certain brand of milk at the grocery store because I know it comes from a dairy in Lynden, and if I wanted, I could probably contact the farmer and meet some of the cows that produced the milk I drink.
I agree that often times food harvested by oneself tastes much better. I love homegrown tomatoes because they taste so much better than store bought. But it is not a reasonable system to procure all your food that way anymore, especially for those who live in urban areas. One of the reasons cities were able to develop was because farmers were able to grow enough surplus food to sell to people with specialized skills--and those people could be something other than farmers because of the extra food.
Despite my love of fresh picked tomatoes, I'm pretty sure my landlady would be wicked pissed if I decided to grow such a potentially messy plant in my carpeted apartment. I do know a lady in a suburban neighborhood who enjoys the eggs her chickens produce and the products of their backyard garden and I think her system is fantastic.
I buy my clothes without thinking about where they came from, I use electricity without knowing exactly where it comes from, why shouldn't food be another one of the products I buy without knowing it's source?

On the topic of hunting, I don't believe it is amoral to hunt for food, no matter your economic standing. Yes, there may be other food available, but if you are not wasting the food you have harvested, or wasting purchased food because you harvested food and now have more than you can eat, I have no problem with hunting. I do object to hunting for the sake of trophies. If you are going to kill an animal, don't just let it rot, or worse make it inedible due to taxidermy.

I am impressed by Steve Rinella's practicality and various scavenging skills. Last winter break, we drove past a deer that was gasping and dying on the side of the road after it had been hit by a car. We didn't stop because behind us, a man pulled over, took the gun from the back of his truck, and shot the deer. I felt badly for the deer, since it a painful and frightening death for it. But I am glad that someone nearby knew how to put it out of its misery. I liked Mr. Rinella's story of eating the doe that had been hit by a vehicle. That was a much better way to deal with it than to just leave it to be a rotting hazard on the road. Waste not, want not.

Concerning Mr. Harrison's immense meal, I adored the following remarks:

"If I announce that I and eleven other diners shared a thirty-seven-course lunch that likely cost as much as a new Volvo station wagon, those of a critical nature will let their minds run in tiny, aghast circles of condemnation. My response to them is that none of us twelve disciples of gourmandise wanted a new Volvo. We wanted only lunch, and since lunch lasted approximately eleven hours we saved money by not having to buy dinner. The defense rests."

If this is how Mr. Harrison wishes to spend the money he has earned, he is welcome to do so. He is not harming any one else, and if he wishes to eat until he explodes, he is a grown man and capable of making that decision for himself. I hope that they ate all that they prepared, or at least put the leftovers in tupperware. Personally, I wouldn't want to eat that much. As a car-less student, I probably would prefer to have the Volvo.
I do however like that it was a historical dinner, from historical recipes. I did living history re-enactments at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site during high school. For an 1845 Hudson's Bay Company fort, the residents ate very well. They had fresh produce, fresh dairy, fresh bread and fresh meat. For a girl in 2004, I wasn't so impressed by the two methods of cooking: almost everything was boiled or roasted. That said, roast beef that has been roasted over a wood fire is AMAZING. The man who cooked it liked it rare, and the smoke adds a wonderful flavor. So I approve that Mr. Harrison's host was using historical sources for the cooking; some of it is great.

An important thing to remember about both Mr. Rinella and Mr. Harrison is that they are both atypical. The tortoise population of Mr.Rinella's home state wouldn't do very well if EVERYONE grabbed a tortoise that happened to be crossing the road while they were driving by. Few people wish to eat 37 courses (that were mostly meat, I would be craving roughage pretty quickly) in eleven hours. On a small scale, both can eat as they do. Now if the entire population of the United States ate as they do, there would be problems. Sometimes, it's good to be in the minority.

And the books...
For gluttony:

• Jackson, Alison. I Know an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Pie. New York: Dutton's Children's Books, 1997.

For harvesting:

• Brown, Michael P. The Jewish Gardening Cookbook : Growing Plants and Cooking for Holidays and Festivals. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1998.

Shh! don’t say the K word.

It is very satisfying to eat food that I have worked hard to obtain and prepare. From pumping water in the Alaskan wilderness, to collecting blackberries to make a pie- drinking and eating these has given me a rewarding aftertaste that store bought products just can’t give. It is near impossible for me to imagine killing another animal for food- but if I grew up thinking this was normal; I can imagine it would bring me similar satisfaction. In The Scavenger’s Guide to Haute Cuisine when Steve Rinella prepares a unique meal of animals, I was impressed but also uncomfortable. I was impressed by how much work Rinella had put into preparing one meal. But the excitement that killing animals such as black bears, and rabbits brought him made me uncomfortable. But Rinella is being honest about what many hunters and hunting magazine’s try to hide.

Middle class and upper class hunters have made the decision to do the dirty work of obtaining meat. These hunters typically aren’t going to the grocery store in addition to hunting these animals. They have a license, and cannot simply have a free- for all shooting round of any animals they find. It is interesting to think of domestic vs. wild animals. Is there a system of domesticated animals that continue to regularly reproduce enough offspring, or are more and more wild animals domesticated frequently? I don’t understand this, and it makes it hard to decide to support independent hunting in the wild that would destroy wild- life systems; or to stick to the established system- that seems to work. I think that hunting animals in the wild is okay because its seems to be done on such a small scale, but if it were to drastically increase in size, this would pose regulation problems, and wild animals might start to be seen as just food opportunities.

In reading Harrison’s “A Really Big Lunch: Annals of Eating” it was difficult for be not to judge the article’s tone and food phrases as “snobby." But I actually thought of the thirty seven course lunch as more of an art expression than gluttony. There was serious respect and rules on the line- Harrison felt that he had to finish the meal, even if he admitted that it was bad for his health. Chef Meneau had spent time and dedication into preparing such a huge project. And the twelve diners considered it one of the most memorable meals of their lives- not a common place event. “It was food with a precise and determinable history.” This cooking and tasting lifestyle is a real passion for these people; they combine culture and intellect into eating. It does seem ridiculous to me that anyone would want to eat that many courses during one meal, but it also seems ridiculous how big average American restaurant portions are at restaurants and how much food gets wasted every day.

Book recommendations about food harvesting:

Jan Olof. Pine marten population limitation: food, harvesting, or predation? Uppsalla: Swedish University of Agriculture, 1998.

Shiva, Vandana. Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply. Cambridge: South End Press, 2008.

Infant or Pig?

I found Jonothan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to be appalling yet humorous. I had to constantly remind myself of the time period and demographics that he was living in- an extremely sexist, and socioeconomic dependent society of early Ireland. Swift proposes an extreme cannibalistic system where the poor papists would be the principle "breeders" of the Nation. But as I read more, I began to find his whole "proposal" to truly be a dark satire. He refers to the human meat as goods and seems to relish in the idea of "Goods our own goods and manufacture."
During the proposal he conjures up an idea that baby meat is a wasted resource. His calculations of the 100,000 wasted poor babies- how much of a negative impact they have, and then how they could be put to use- almost seemed reasonable in some sick way. Swift describes the poor class as dying and roting, cold and famine, and filth and vermin. His system is similar to slavery in the idea that some people are born unequal to others, but different because it appears that people would want to do this, and it would be voluntary. Perhaps the most appalling part of the article was when he claims that men would value their wives more, and treat them better when they were pregnant the same way they did when cows were pregnant. He talks earlier about how awful it is that women have voluntary abortions- but if the meat inside of them was just a product then wouldn't it be their loss of money if they killed it? Swift also compares the preparation of the human meat to that of pig meat when he recommends buying the babies alive and cutting them with a hot knife to serve. But he also claims that cruelty is the strongest objection to any project of his. It is hard to ignore his contradictions.

It is surreal to imagine such a proposal actually taking place. Cannibalism in this context is a trade and social system, not a necessity or survival dependent. Obviously footnotes did not exist in Swift's day because there was no real reference to his commonly applied sources of intellectual knowledge on the topic. Truly, Swift wants to get a rise out of the reader, and in my case he did.

Book Recommendation:

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Cannibalism; the answer for tomorrow.

Although this article is dated Jonathan Swift poses a number or relevant points in his piece, "A Modest Proposal", that is assuming you can get past his satirical writing style and jovial acceptance of the consumption of children. This piece of writing is obviously meant to arouse concern in the reader and to address a series of pertinent societal woes although Mr. Swift has chosen to do so in a somewhat unconventional way. Although this story talks about harvesting and consuming children for source of food and 'leather' I do not get the impression that Swift actually condones such behavior; instead he is merely trying to address the issues of overpopulation and government malfeasance in a way that will not only excite some readers into rage, but also entertain others into a realization of the true problem.

Although some might have missed the entire point of this reading I felt that it was in the very least entertaining. This piece is heavily dated and does not readily address present day problems with overpopulation, however it does offer a viable alternative to copious copulation; eat the little buggers.

Although this is a fictional depiction of cannibalism, if you would like to read an actual account of humans eating each other check out this novel on the Donner Party:

Fayette, Charles The History of the Donner Party. Michigan: University of Michigan,

1966.

Oh Mr. Swift...

I remember A Modest Proposal from my high school British Literature class. My classmates and I were appalled to read Jonathan Swift's idea that the Irish should breed and raise their children for the dinner tables of rich English living in Ireland. At that point, our English teacher explained satire and irony.

Really, Mr. Swift is pretty pissed. He "proposes" a solution to so many of Ireland's woes, some of them actual problems, and others as perceived by the ruling English government. The tone of the piece which outwardly is so cheerful and helpful is actually quite vicious. It seems to me that Mr. Swift was so frustrated by the rejections of his actual suggestions to help the Irish, that he wrote this to shock the English into realizing how poorly they were treating their fellow human beings. So Mr. Swift simply "suggests" a more literal way to treat the Irish like animals, since, he implies, the English landlords already view and treat them that way. Or maybe he is suggesting that animals are treated better than the Irish. He points out that wives would not be abused for fear of damaging their now profitable children in the womb. His "modest proposal" really is miraculous and just what the English want: it will be inexpensive to implement and should turn a profit; even better it will be painless for the English. All they have to do is resort to cannibalism. According to Mr. Swift, it really is the next logical step for the treatment of the Irish "...as they [the landlords] have already devoured most of the Parents..."they should also be quite happy to literally eat the children.

People have been known to resort to cannibalism in dire situations. However, the English landlords that Mr. Swift suggests would enjoy the delicacy of Irish babies did not lack other food options. He's criticizing the English rule, not actually proposing cannibalism. In fact, he's depending on the abhorrence of it to get his point across. It's like he's saying "Fine, you want a solution that is painless yet cures all evils, here it is: eat babies." His point is that helping the Irish will not be without effort and discomfort, and the English must suck it up and do something. Because the miracle cure they want does not actually exist.

In the same spirit as Mr. Swift (or maybe a bit less viciously), Mr. Mark Twain comments on the workings of politicians and Congress through his tale of cannibalism:

• Twain, Mark. Cannibalism in the Cars: the Best of Twain's Humorous Sketches. Ed. Roy Blout. London: Prion Books, 2000.

EDITED 5/29/08 for formatting

A Modest Proposal

Upon delving into A Modest Proposal, one can immediately tell that Jonathan Swift is a weathered writer. He takes his time building up his credibility and reasoning before even offering up his argument. For myself, by the time I actually got to the argument, I didn’t feel like it was an argument at all. In the way it was subtly posed, it felt like a valid statement, getting ready to be followed up by reasons that it is such.
The ideas presented in Swift’s essay are presented very logically, although cynical and satirical at times. Throughout reading this piece, the thought never crossed my mind that this man is suggesting that we eat helpless infants. Being a big believer in logic, it makes perfect sense from a monetary standpoint to sell young, money-sucking babies for the sustenance of others. It seems as though it would indeed help the economy, reduce overpopulation, and ease the burden of young mothers who were not intending on being in their position.
After I had completed reading this essay, my mind began to think ethically about the situation presented. What would Kant do? On one hand, the lives of one-hundred thousand innocent children would be taken, without their respective consent. On the other hand, roughly four times as many people would benefit seven-fold from the lives lost. Is this indeed for the greater good? There is no doubt that this is a huge debate. I have settled somewhat on an opinion through self-debate over the course of an evening; since the life of a human animal capable of feeling joy and pain, showing emotion and compassion, thinking for itself, is no different on those levels than that of another animal, it would be unethical to take the life of either. Some argue that taking a human life is the highest rung on the ladder of unethical behavior, while some would say that if it is for the greater good, it must be done. When it comes to the topic of life, I must confess that I side with the former. The difference between humans and other animals in this respect does not exist in my mind. If I would not agree to the taking of the life of an animal in the bush, I would certainly not agree to the taking the life of an animal in a house.

Book recommendation:

Cottom, Daniel. Cannibals & philosophers : Bodies of Enlightenment. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Is Ignorance Bliss?

I did not think that the PETA documentary "Meet Your Meat" would be as upsetting to me as it was. Prior to watching the film I had seen similar clips of cows in factories being slowly left to bleed to death, and chickens crammed in cages never seeing daylight. But the squealing piglet, and sick image of chickens and cows will leave a mark in my mind the next time I go to eat these, but I know becoming a vegetarian isn't very realistic- at least for me. I don't think that the solution to the problem is for everyone to go vegetarian. I talked to some friends who had not seen the film, and they responded the same way I would have prior to the film "its only human nature to eat animals." But I don't think meat or dairy products would actually be appetizing or seem natural to people in the first place if they knew/accepted the unnatural methods (hormones) and cruelty that went into making it. Humans eating animals is not going to change, but in my opinion the ethical standards need to. But a good question is why would effort and money go into an animal if it is born to be food. And why would people pay the more money at the grocery store for something that tastes the same? And do people really want to know?

Foster Farms Chickens- always have those silly commercials portraying the dirty/homeless chicken image that do not stand for. How many American families out there would be willing to pay the extra money for chickens that had a good life, aren’t they just eating them anyways? I personally am horrified by the images of what I saw on the PETA film, and so I wonder if an animal has a good and healthy life- then is it okay to kindly and ethically butcher it, and then go onto consume it?

I think the real turning point for changing the way Americans think when purchasing meat will be knowing that the meat is not healthy: the animals were raised in disease, bacteria, and injected with hormones. In essence- that we as Americans are at a health risk. As the PETA film claims, meat with those conditions can get the USDA stamp of approval and go on the shelves. I think the healthier the meat is, the more likely the animals are to be treated, and a establishing a connection between the two would motivate change. Obviously the film is biased and does not display a completely accurate image of reality, but it still shows how food is legally buttered and consumed.

From WWU:
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivores Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.

From Summit:
Mason, Jim.The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. Emmaus: Rodale, 2006.

"Think for yourself, question authority...." -- Timothy Leary

The DVD "Meet your meat" was something that I would not ordinarily watch. Generally I try not to pay credit to super-radical organizations such as PETA but because this was part of the assignment I viewed the film. I was not surprised to see graphic "scare factor" footage that would disturb most viewers and felt that the opinions posed by the film were extremely biased. Eating meat is by no means a clean cut beautiful process, it involves the killing and dismembering of animals for the betterment of human life; unfortunately, most people have simply disconnected themselves from this fact. As an avid hunter and fisherman I am fully aware of the gory aspects involved in the consumption of meat products and films such as this really do not motivate me not to eat meat. Personally, I think the problem is that people have been so far dissconnected from the processes involved with meat consumption that when they are faced with the truth it is sometimes frightening. Rather than being alarmed by such a video you should feel educated. If you chose to eat meat you should be prepared to experience the negative aspects of your choices; it is our responsibility.

In the "Hidden Cost of Cheap Chicken" reading the processes by which chicken is mass produced were outlined. Again, I was not surprised. Chicken is one of the staple foods in the United States and many other places in the world and to produce such large quantities of meat in a cost effective manor many organizations have chosen quantity over quality; subsequently producing more revenue as opposed to a healthier product. As an American consumer it is important to be aware of what you eat. It is possible to research where products come from and decide which products are right for you, poultry is no exception to this rule. If consumers become aware of what exactly they are purchasing they can consciously change this problem. Not all chicken farms practice cruel processes and it is our jobs to locate and support those organizations that take not only the animals comfort but also human health into consideration.

Some books to check out on the subject are:

Folwell, Raymond. The structure of Pacific Northwest beef cattle industry. Pullman: Washington State University, 1991.

Cross, Russel. Beef slaughtering, cutting, preserving, and cooking on the farm. Washington D.C.: United States Agricultural Research Service, 1977.

The other Baldwin Brother..

It’s been a while since I’ve seen a PETA video. I’d forgotten how much they show. That was a pretty terrible twelve minutes of my life. Upon reflecting on the video after the initial shock, I feel that it was an important reminder of what we as humans will do to increase profit. I do realize that there wasn’t really much information given on what companies were committing the acts shown in the video, but non the less, the acts were indeed being committed (I suppose that’s an assumption, but it seems like it would be difficult to stage some of the things filmed). I’ve been on the fence about dairy products, as I do enjoy cheese and ice cream. With this video, I believe that I’m going to be straying from dairy in the near future.

As for the article about the cost of chicken, I felt that it was quite informative, but the second half seemed to be strictly about how bad Tyson Foods is. While it is important to know the ethical standpoints of the company that one purchased meat from, Tyson is not the only producer of chicken in the country, nor at the market for that matter. In the article, the Delmarva Peninsula is brought up, but no mention of Perdue is given. According to their website, “The PERDUE® brand is the number-one brand of premium fresh chicken in the eastern U.S.” My father helped to build a processing plant for Perdue, and my family lived next door to now-chairman Jim Perdue. I had the opportunity when I was younger to snoop around in the chicken houses on a Perdue farm near my home and can say that the treatment of chickens there was almost identical to what is described in the article. Although the article hit Tyson pretty hard, it seems that the factory farm industry has an overall reputation of being ethically sub-par, and will show this to us not of their own will, but of their own ignorance when we all must have a fine glass of bottled water with our drumsticks in our recently fumigated dining rooms.

Book Recommendations:

Bekoff, Marc. Animals matter : a biologist explains why we should treat animals with compassion and respect. Boston: Random House, 2007.

Pollan, Michael. The omnivore's dilemma : a natural history of four meals. New York, New York: Penguin Press, 2006.

The Next Big Diet: Watch This Before You Eat

Yes, the movie and article demonstrate how cruel, disgusting and wasteful much of the meat production in the United States is. Both were short on solutions or alternatives to raising animals for meat. The movie by PETA in particular wishes that those who view it become vegetarians. However, there's a question of ethics with non-meat production as well. What about the conditions for the workers who pick fruits and vegetables? What about the water that is diverted to irrigate fields? What about the cost and effects of fuel to ship all those products? How are the conditions in the plants that can or freeze vegetables?

I was amazed that animals raised in such conditions are still legally considered edible. If your livestock is living with the corpses of other livestock, something is really wrong with your system. I am rethinking my opinion of roadkill: it may actually be healthier that I thought, and perhaps it too is legally edible. Do the owners and managers of these places eat their own products?

That said, I like meat, and will continue eating it. One alternative, for those who don't have the resources, be they physical or emotional/mental, to raise their own meat is the 4-H Livestock Auction at county fairs. 4-Hers are responsible to raise and care for a livestock project throughout the year, and the culmination is the livestock auction. Before the auction, they show their animals to prove they know how to handle their animals, and gain a place in their class; the better their placing, based on the quality and condition of the animal, the better price they will probably earn on the animal at the auction. Many, at least in Clark County, are actually bought by local restaurants.

Books:
In WWU libraries:

• Katz, Sandor Ellix. The Revolution Will Not be Microwaved: Inside America's Underground Food Movements. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Pub., 2006.
  

Through Summit:

• Goodall, Jane. Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating. New York: Warner Wellness, 2006.

EDITED 5/29/08 for formatting

Milk! Cheese! Cows! Oh my!

The strongest "culture" I identify with are the rural dwellers of my mother's family. Five generations of Zeiders have lived in Clark County, WA. Her father, Russell, was a dairy farm for many years. While he was a taciturn man, he often yodeled to his dairy cows. The farm was a functioning dairy, but was not able to support the family and the farm. So Grandpa Russell also drove trucks and school buses, and his wife Martha worked in the local post office. Milking the cows every morning eventually became too much, so Grandpa switched to beef cattle eventually.

Because my mom grew up enjoying fresh milk, cream, butter and eggs from their farm, she understandably has high standards for these foods. In my house, the DOs of food include all kinds of cheeses, butter, milk and cream. DO NOTs forbid American/processed "cheese," margarine, skim milk and Coolwhip. Psuedo-dairy products are always rejected in favor of actual dairy. As a young children, my sisters and I loved playing with the squirt cans of whipped cream. Eventually though, when we were old enough to cook, Mom was happy to introduce us to actual whipped cream: liquid cream that was beaten to a fluff by an electric mixer and sweetened with honey. All summer long, we would enjoy whipped cream with fresh berries that Mom bought in bulk from local farms.

It's hard to say which was better: our homemade whipped cream with berries, or the Clark County Dairy Women's milkshakes. Once a year, they sell milkshakes at the county Fair, and on hot days they have loooong lines. The shakes are made with ice cream so thick that you can barely get the milkshake up a straw, and fresh berries in their syrup flavors. I love the chocolate-raspberry shake that comes complete with raspberry seeds.

Now that I live six hours north of Mom, I still like my dairy products. Like in her fridge, I always have some cheddar cheese, and often other kinds of cheese as well. My twin and I were quite happy to find that several grocery stores in Bellingham sell milk in glass jars from a Ferndale dairy. I like the idea that I could meet the cows that produce the milk I drink.

I'm not always sure that it is still well understood where milk comes from. On one of my many, many train rides home, I saw a movie called Barnyard. It's protagonist was a young bull. This bull, and all the other bulls in the movie had an appalling feature in common: udders. Yup, that's right. All the MALES in this movie essentially, had female breasts. Apparently, no one involved in the drawing, editing and other parts of production in this movie thought realized that udders are reserved for cows old enough to have given birth and now have pronounced udders to provide the calf with milk. Strangely, I can understand a later scene in which a cow gives birth while laying on her back and a blanket over her. All the bovines walked upright on their back legs and one even snowboarded; clearly they were trying to humanize all the animals, as is usually done in cartoon movies. But the change in anatomy for the bulls was just disturbing. The cartoonists wouldn't have able to draw what bulls actually have located in that area, but still, giving bulls udders was NOT a good artistic solution.

In the continuing theme... a book on where milk comes from, and a book about my favorite dairy product: cheese.

• Schloat, G. Warren. Milk for You. New York: Scribner, 1951.
• Wilson 4E-Children's Collection SF239 .S36 1951
  

• Eekhof-Stork, Nancy. The World Atlas of Cheese. Trans. Adrian Bailey. New York: Two Continents Publishing Group, 1976.
• Wilson 4W Books-Oversize SF271 .E34 1976
  

Its From My Garden...

As a child my avid-gardener mother made it a pretty general rule that my sister and I eat one green thing every dinner. I grew up eating a lot of salads and vegetables. Outside my house at home are two large metal vegetable boxes containing tomatoes, lettuce, pees, parsley and who knows what. My mother takes pride in saying “it’s from my garden” when having dinner guests over. My mother’s sister and my cousins live in Tennessee and have a deer head in their living room, the men in the family regularly go hunting. As a child it was very hard for me not to be upset by the image of the deer head and know that my cousin could kill rabbits so effortlessly. It’s interesting now to compare my mother’s love of gardening with my uncle’s love of hunting. Both involve a hobby and bring satisfaction and pride in consuming the results, and bring good taste and sustenance to their families’ tables. Both are acceptable in U.S culture.
Growing, hunting, and purchasing were the only ways I have thought it possible to get an adequate supply of food, until I recently heard about a relatively new movement know as Freeganism. Tuning into the Oprah show, I watched in disbelief as families were shown getting their entire food supply from dumpsters outside grocery stores and bakeries. What was most surprising to me was that all of the featured Freegans had chosen this lifestyle by choice, not for convenience or financial reasons. The majority of Freegans are so fed up with the economic system that’s profit motive has so many harmful impacts; that they avoid buying anything. Supermarkets throw away mass amounts of good fruits, vegetables, dairy and packaged foods merely because they do not look perfect- what better way for freegans to get their food (safely). After getting over my initial feeling of disgust and appall, I find the Freeganism lifestyle to be a really inventive way to consume food. Granted I don’t think I will ever try it, I have respect for people that take their beliefs to that level. Freegan eating culture involves satisfaction in knowing that you are taking a stand for what you believe is right, and involves the manual labor of finding enough food to sustain yourself or family. Freeganism is not socially acceptable in the U.S and might never be. But when it comes down to it, foraging Freegan style is not so different from gardening and hunting. The way in which you get your food can truly be an ultimate representation of who you are.


Here are books for anyone interested in growing vegetables or making tasty salads:

Wickers, David. The Complete Urban Farmer; how to grow your own fruits and vegtables in town. New York: Viking Press, 1977.

Uvezian, Sonia. The Book of Salads: an international collection of recipes. SanFrancisco: 101 Productions, 1977.

Man vs. Squirrel

Upon moving to the Pacific Northwest, I had discovered that there were real people who did not eat meat, by choice no less. I had heard tales in my adolescents of such people, sometimes referred to as vegetarians, but never thought that I would ever meet one. Naturally, I was quite inquisitive upon my first encounter. Coming from a culture where chicken was eaten during more meals than not, it was initially difficult to understand why some people would never touch the stuff. It soon became apparent that there were different beliefs of food taboos in different cultures.
As I am slowly becoming more educated, I find it easier to realize that what I consider as things that are meant for consumption – while some would agree – are considered taboo by others. An easy example is that of the cheese that I eat. Whenever possible, I try to purchase cheese from small producers, but on a college budget, this is not always possible. Some would say that eating cheese at all is not acceptable. I’ve found it difficult in the past to see why someone may not accept a food that I do. I’ve also found that it is important to look at the other side of the coin. I know that I’ve got reasons acceptable to myself not to eat meat, just as someone else has for choosing not to eat cheese.
In our economy, it seems as though a high profit margin is often sought after. Since consumers rarely want to pay more money for the “same” product, means are sought to find the lower prices for raw material. This leads to finding ways which are more efficient in the short-term to produce these raw materials. It is often cheaper to purchase a mechanized chicken feather beater and pay for maintenance than it is to pay people fair wages to manually pluck chickens. Grain is often cheaper in bulk quantities, which provides incentive to raise a large number of cattle, which gets very costly to slaughter and butcher manually.
I think that as a people, the majority of us have never even learned to forage and hunt. We don’t need to pay for food. The price that we pay for food at the market seems to me to be a kind of convenience fee for having someone else gather your food for you. We have “evolved” to a place where eating, one of – if the not the – most important necessity for our own survival, has been pushed to the back burner. We are at a point where it is viewed by many omnivores to be gross to eat a wild animal, killed by themselves or someone they know. Interestingly enough, many omnivores are alright with purchasing meat from a wild animal that was killed by someone they don’t know, as long as it is aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps there is an ethical convenience fee here… Maybe hunting and foraging have become taboo as a result of a social class system, where those not on the bottom have no time to do such things, as they need to make money to survive. It seems to me that a career is an incredibly inefficient work system. If one spends one time foraging, one would find that all work put out yields some sort of income (while still only having to put in about half the hours to survive).
As for myself, I am at a crossroads in my eating endeavors. I have stopped eating meat because everything at the supermarket is from a mystery animal that I never had any knowledge of until I had seen it in on a Styrofoam slab. I am still debating with myself as to whether or not it is ethical to take the life of an animal myself for sustenance. If one delves deeply into the matter, it could be argued that by eating fruits and nuts, one is taking away the life force of another organism. Since a squirrel has no ethical quarrels with eating an acorn however, it tends to make me believe that it is alright for me to eat an acorn as well. But if there are a limited number of acorns, when I eat some, there are that many less for squirrels, and visa versa. One of us would starve. I suppose that it all boils down to finding one’s place on the earth, and whether or not that place involves being eaten, which could be viewed as being fine depending upon your culture.
I would like to recommend the following books to serve as valuable introductions and guides to foraging and the benefits that come with it, and to show that it is not only for nomads and the impoverished:

Barbour, Beverly. The complete food preservation book : how to can, freeze, preserve, pickle, and cure edibles. New York, NY: D. McKay, 1978. Wilson 4W, TX601 .B3.

Mohney, Russ. Why wild edibles? : the joys of finding, fixing, and tasting west of the Rockies. Seattle, WA: Pacific Search, 1975. Wilson 4W, TX357 .M8.

The ethics of recreational food foraging.......

Since a very early age I have learned that the recreational harvest of fish, game, and wild edible plants such as berries and fruits can provide not only a unique opportunity to avoid the monotony of everyday eating habits but also a successful means for attaching the eater to the eaten.

Meat from the butcher arrives to the consumer on a styrofoam boat wrapped neatly in tightly stretched cellophane; unfortunately, this phenomena may completely detach human beings from both the instinctual as well as gory side that comes with being a carnivore.

By removing the undesirable aspects associated with the killing and consuming of countless different species of animals we as citizens have been able to dodge an ethical curve ball. For instance, when you hunt a deer (weighing an avg. of 90lbs) the deer does not commit suicide and magically transform into 500 conveniently wrapped packages of steaks, sausages, and roasts before your very eyes...... instead, the hunter must intentionally pull the trigger; he must chose (willingly) to take the animals life, to stop their heart so that their own may continue to beat. In doing so, it is important for the hunter to analyze a way in which to not only ensure the least amount of suffering by the prey, but also ensure the seizure of the food necessary for the harvester's longevity. From the point of squeezing the trigger to the point in which the remnants of a venison pot roast dinner evacuate your body you have been 100% engaged with the animal and have earned your meal in a way that few can appreciate.

I would argue that, if educated properly, almost anyone can harvest fish, game, and wild edibles on their own, however the ultimate dilemma becomes whether or not that person is physically and mentally capable of overcoming the norms of the supermarket butcher window or vegi-section.

If done with proper intention, recreational fishing and hunting offer not only stress relief but very lucrative benefits to those who chose to participate. Fish such as salmon, halibut, trout, and steelhead are all readily available in the beautiful pacific northwest yet the masses continue to spend eight to fifteen dollars per pound of flesh for such "delicacies" from the local supermarket. It seams as though many people would rather pay the large capital to avoid the messy hands-on work that is necessary. Further, deer, elk, moose, bear, grouse, pheasants, rabbits, quail, ducks, geese, and many many more species of recreational harvestable species of animal are also available here in Washington state and the greater pacific northwest. Big game such as deer and elk offer hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of pounds of harvestable meat that can be used to supplement the daily diet of beef chicken and pork from the supermarket. If properly executed, it is 100% possible to balance game and fish harvests in such a way so as to completely eliminate the necessity for visits to the butcher or fish market.

Unfortunately, this entire document speaks to the carnivorous crowd and does not take into account vegetarian or vegan dieters. Understandably it may sometimes be hard for those who do not eat meat to comprehend the necessity for recreational harvest; when the present market is so flooded with commercial product why shoot bambi instead? The answer, in my opinion, is quite simple; the quality of commercially produced meat is far inferior to the quality of wild edible species and this void is only widening. With genetic engineering controlling much of the modern day food market and the space for grazing cattle or raising crops quickly diminishing food standards in the U.S. are in rapid decline.

When all is said and done, fishing, hunting, and gathering are not for everyone. In fact, only a very small percentage of the population can tolerate the more grim aspects of taking a life for the betterment of self.

Just some food for thought.

The following are suggested readings for anyone interested in further information:


Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Fishing in Washington, Sport Fishing Rules. Olympia: WDFW, 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pathway to fishing: Sportfishes. Washington, D.C: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993.