Final Post

Some of the most interesting/useful things I've learned about food this quarter would be that food has become more about what is in it and not what it actually is, and people are so consumed with eating healthy we (yes, I am guilty as well) look past what we are actually eating. We pay more attention to what isn't in the food (saturated fat, cholesterol, etc.) than what is in the food (additives and other potentially harmful ingredients. This matters to me because over the course of this quarter my eating habits have started to change after learning the things I have through the readings and class discussions. I'm more conscious about what is added to my food rather than what has been taken out to make it more "healthy."

In terms of research, the most useful thing I have learned this quarter would be to bring in the quotes, analyze them and discuss them in further detail. While I learned this in high school, I tend to forget such rules when I don't write for extended periods of time (such was the case from high school to college.

In the future when I am in my other classes, I will definitely use the research and writing strategies I learned this quarter to write my papers. I will also make more conscious decisions on what I eat, but not focus on the nutrients so much, but make sure I am not putting more additives that could be harmful in my body and try to eat food I like, but in smaller portions. Like the French!

EE2

A Non-Snacker’s Manifesto

     Growing up, I was always taught that three meals a day that incorporated all the essential food groups, along with adequate exercise, was the best way to maintain a healthy weight or help one loose some extra undesired pounds. However, as I got into high school and took ninth grade health, my teacher explained that nowadays, this is not the case. “Nowadays eating habits are moving away from eating three substantial meals a day to eating smaller amounts of food more frequently(snacking)” (Chaplin & Smith). More people are snacking in between meals, or completely altering their eating habits and having five snacks per day rather than three meals and a couple snacks in between. I am more of a three meals per day type of person myself, for a multitude of reasons. The main reasons I do not snack is because most of my snacks are not healthy (chips and cheese dip, Pop Tarts, etc.), and as a broke college student, snacks are not a top priority for spending money. As I was going through the class food logs, there was a number of people who had different snacks incorporated into their days. With snacking becoming a prevalent occurrence in many people’s lives, one has to wonder if snacking really is healthier for you, if it is worse, or if it makes no difference at all.

     When I was a young girl, I remember waking up from naps or coming home from school and my grandmother giving me juice and cookies, a tangerine, or some sort of small snack to hold me over until dinner time. As I got older and progressed into middle school and high school, nap time became frowned upon more and more, and the snack times subsided. I was told snacking would make me fat and it was better for me to have three “square meals” per day, but constantly wondered how my cousins could still snack all they wanted and maintain healthy weights. According to experts at the Institute of Food Technologists 2001 Annual Meeting and Food Expo in New Orleans, weight gain resulting from snacking “depends both on the snacker and his or her chosen snack” (Mann). Some people gain weight faster and easier than others, especially if their idea of a snack is something heavy in calories or more like another meal. Richard D. Mattes, a professor of food and nutrition at Purdue University says, “Snacks are more of an eating event or fourth meal for some.” He goes on to note that, “Part of the problem is that there is not a good definition of what constitutes a snack.... For example, if the first thing you put in your mouth is a granola bar at 10 a.m., is it a snack or a meal?” (Mann) People today also spend more time snacking than years previous. From about 15 minutes a day in 2006 to 30 minutes in 2008 and spending “about 85 minutes a day drinking our snacks,” snacking now includes drinking beverages like coffee or sugary sodas, and is “on its way to becoming a national pastime” (Mann). But is it bad for every person, and will it lead to making people gain weight or other health problems?

     When I entered high school, I began to make new friends who transferred from other districts. A few of those friends had conditions such as diabetes or hypoglycemia, and there was not a single time I saw them without some sort of snack. From a small bag of Cheetos to an apple or a cheese stick, they constantly had food with them and never gained a pound. So why was it that when my other friends or I snacked and would gain weight? Turns out, only about 50 percent of people need to snack, according to an article in the Huffington Post. For those who have conditions that require them to eat periodically through the day, snacking is a logical way to make sure their blood sugar levels don’t go berserk. For those of us who just like to eat in between meals, this is not always the case. 

     In a study done to see what different definitions and perceptions people had about snacking based on age, gender, etc., researchers found that a person’s definition of “snack” and “meal” determined if he or she chose healthier snack options and maintained a healthy weight (Chaplin & Smith). Many of my friends who were snacking regularly would have apple slices with peanut butter, a cheese stick or granola bar of some sort, or a bag of chips as a last resort if they forgot to bring foods rich in proteins, which helps slow the release of sugar into the blood, preventing an insulin spike which causes an energy crash, sending one “searching for more food to nibble on” (Unknown). Their definition of a snack was not calorie-heavy products or food they would normally eat as a meal. Rather, they chose to snack on foods that were not only healthy, but rich in proteins or had some sort of nutritional value to carry them on until their next meal.

     When I was younger, my snacks consisted of sugary cookies and juices. Now that I am older and more aware of the repercussions eating such foods has on my body, I tend to eat healthier, especially on the rare occasions when I snack, though my choices are still not the best (small bag of chips, some crackers or something I can grab and go with). The National Diet and Nutrition Survey in the United Kingdom measuring the types and quantities of food consumed by over one thousand adults aged 19-64 between 2000 and 2001. The survey found that younger adults 19-24 years old “were more likely to consume chips, savory snacks and soft drinks and less likely to eat daily portions of fruit and vegetables, wholegrain and high fibre cereals and oil rich fish” (Anderson). However, the average number of times a person would snack during a day is the same for every age group (Chaplin & Smith). These findings are evident in my family, with my grandparents snacking much more often than I do throughout a day, but on healthier foods like apples, carrots, or celery. 

     When I was in middle school health class, there was an entire unit dedicated to healthy eating and exercise. We learned about what food groups we should be getting a lot of and which we should stray away from. The lovely food pyramid made an appearance a few times as well, and we had to memorize what groups were recommended to eat more of than others for the exam. Just a few short years later when I entered high school, the food pyramid changed again and our health class had to memorize that one. So many experts and programs have come out to tell us what is best for our diets, what we should eat as a treat and what should be on our plates for nearly every meal, it is hard to remember what and how we should be feeding our bodies nowadays. Protein is recommended since it helps prevent the feeling of being hungry, but fruits and veggies should not be skimped out on, as they provide “hydration, fiber and nutrients to between-meal nibbles” (Unknown). There are also recommendations for how to eat, such as avoiding sitting down with a bag of chips or eating while working or watching television because you are more likely to forget how much you’ve eaten and keep stuffing your face. 

     When I first heard about snacking periodically throughout the day potentially being more healthy than eating three meals per day and nothing in between them, there were multiple reasons people were telling me it was more beneficial. Reasons such as it keeps one from eating more than they should at their next meal, it keeps one more full longer, or it makes one less stressed and more energized were all spouted off, but I was skeptical and stuck to my three meals. In reality, none of these statements are completely true. Depending on the person and what their definitions of a snack and a meal are will have a lot to do with his or her weight, along with what snack options they choose (Chaplin & Smith). Furthermore, depending on what foods one consumes as his or her snack will determine if snacking really does keep one more full longer, along with where one is snacking. If one is standing at the fridge, for example, he or she is more likely to consume more food than if the alternative of pouring some chips into a small bowl and being done when the bowl was empty were taken (Mann). Finally, in a study conducted to determine if there are any mental health or cognitive performance benefits when it comes to snacking, no such data was found that snacking provided such benefits. Out of 126 participants, those who never snacked or only did so once a week were more likely to be depressed than those who snacked everyday, but when it came to cognitive tests, those who rarely or never snacked scored better than those who snacked everyday (Smith). 

     So is snacking really better for us, or is it worse? The answer is complicated. Depending on the person and what he or she chooses to eat plays an important factor in one’s health concerning snacking, along with if the person has a condition that requires him or her to snack periodically throughout the day. It is not necessarily beneficial for us to snack, unless we choose wisely and eat our proteins, but not forget the fruits and vegetables as well (Mann). Also consider if snacking makes you choose healthier options for your next meal, or if you find yourself eating the same things, and the same amounts. If this is the case, most likely snacking is not for you and is just “an added source of calories” (Unknown). If not snacking seems to make you feel down or depressed for any reasons, you could consider trying it for a while, but do not expect to see drastic differences in your mood, nor your ability to spot objects faster, as that is not likely to occur (Smith). 

     In the end, it depends on who you are, how you eat, and what you eat when you snack. I sometimes consider crossing over to “team-snackers,” but when I consider all the factors that one should consider when thinking if snacking is right for them, I do not qualify. My snacks tend to be more like small meals and hardly ever have nutritional value, not to mention I am one of those “bottomless pit” eaters who will take a bag of chips with me to the living room and return to the kitchen to throw the bag away. I will stick to my three meals per day and no snacking in between, though on the rare occasions I do snack, I will attempt to lean more toward the healthier options rather than eat a bag of Cheetos or an entire row of Oreos.

Works Cited

Anderson, Annie S. "Snacking Habits in Adults." Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 16.1 (2003): 1-2. Print.

Chaplin, K., & Smith, A. P. (2011). Definitions and perceptions of snacking. Current Topics in Nutraceuticals Research, 9(1), 53-59. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ docview/919438987?accountid=14608

Mann, Denise. N.p.. Web. 23 May 2013. <http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=146181>.

Smith, Andrew P. "Snacking Habit, Mental Health, and Cognitive Performance." Current Topics in Nutraceuticals Research 9.1 (2011): 47-51. ProQuest. Web. 14 May 2013.

Unknown, . N.p.. Web. 23 May 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/healthy-snack-tips-mistakes_n_2948396.html>.

P9

        How do people decide what a healthy diet is, and who should the “restrictions” be directed toward? For centuries, people have been trying to decide what the perfect healthy diet for people is, and every few years or so brings new findings that substances we are eating are not as good for us as we thought they were, or something that is good for us that we either did not know about, or thought was previously bad for us. In the two articles by Dupuis and Pollan, the writers focus a lot on this topic, discussing how food became more about what is in it than what is actually is. Dupuis writes, “By World War I, nutrition professionals had become less interested in promoting the least expensive diet for workers and began to focus instead on the best diet for optimum public health and vitality” (40). This shows how professionals began to change their viewpoints from what is cheap and easy to get a hold of, to what the best options were nutrition wise for large numbers of people. Pollan writes of days when companies would proudly show the place of origin for the product on the brightly colored packages, but “now new terms like ‘fiber’ and ‘cholesterol’ and ‘saturated fat’ rose to large-type prominence” (2). Once people discovered what was really in the foods we were eating, we started to drift away from those diets and stress eating healthier and paying attention to what was in our food. 

        After reading the two articles, I can think of so many examples of it being more about what is in the food rather than what the food is. High cholesterol runs on my dad’s side of the family, so he, my brothers and I all try to watch what we eat. When shopping, I tend to look for foods that are low in cholesterol, or buy products like Cheerios that claim they may help reduce cholesterol (really I just love Cheerios, the low cholesterol thing is just an added bonus). Recently, however, my dad and I have decided that rather than just looking for such foods, we start monitoring what we eat and do so in portion sizes. It got to the point where worrying about what was in the foods made shopping much more of a chore than it needed to be, so we still eat goods good for keeping cholesterol low or lowering it, but less often. This is not the case for many people, however. When shopping, I see so many people look for foods that advertise for low cholesterol, high fiber and protein foods rather than looking for healthy options that also taste good. People would rather buy products that don’t taste good but claim to be low in cholesterol, fat, etc., than eat the foods they like and portion the “bad” ingredients they worry so much about. 

In-class blog post

I decide what to eat based on a few things. First, I look at what looks or sounds good. This is mainly while I am here at DU, because Sodexo food is either hit or miss depending on the day. I then try to think about what I have already eaten for the day, and if I am "balanced" in my choices (i.e, if I think I've had more dairy than I have fruits or vegetables, I try to get more fruits and vegetables for my next meal). Usually, when I'm home, I prefer to cook my own meals because then I am more aware of what I am putting into my body and how much of a certain category (protein, fruit, etc.) I am getting. I also prefer to eat with my friends and family as much as I can, because for some reason I tend to be more conscious of what I am eating when I am around other people. When I have moments of weakness (wanting a brownie or something I don't need) I consult those sitting with me to reinforce the statement "you don't need it."

To Snack, or not to Snack?

My high school health teacher taught me that many people today have one of two views on healthy eating: eat three nutritious meals a day and have your last meal before seven at night, or eat three small-to medium-sized meals a day, and have two or three small, healthy snacks in between. Have you ever wondered if, in fact, snacking really is good for you, or the effects it could potentially have on your body? In a study done to test the effects that snacking can have on the body, the School of Psychology at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom aims to find some answers.  

There were 126 members in the first study, and all were asked to measure their snacking habits on “a 5-point scale with the following categories: Never; Less than once a week; once or twice a week; most days; and everyday” (Smith 47). Multiple questionnaires were given to the participants to measure their mental health, with subcategories being stress, depression, emotional distress, and anxiety (Smith 48). Results found that people who never snacked or only did so once a week had a higher mean score (9.07) than those who snacked everyday (7.27), meaning they were more likely to be depressed, stressed, etc. However, those who snacked most days had the lowest mean score of depression, with 6.86. The same pattern is evident for emotional distress, state anxiety, and perceived stress with those who never or rarely snacked having the highest numbers, and those who snacked everyday having the second lowest numbers. 

Participants were also shown a list of 20 words every 2 seconds, and asked to write down as many of the words they could remember, in no particular order. After, they were asked to press a response key whenever they saw a square appear in the box on a computer screen. They were also given statements about the order of letters A and B. They were asked to read the statements and decide if the statement was true or false, pressing the corresponding keys. Finally, the participants were shown 100 three digit numbers on the computer screen per minute, and had to detect repetitions that occurred every eight times per minute and respond as quickly as possible.  The results did not show any advantage to those who snacked more often to those who did not. Results varied with each test, with those in the “never/less than once a week” category having higher numbers than the others for three of the tests, those in the “once or twice a week” in one test, and those in “most days” in the other, and “everyday” never having the highest numbers for any of the tests. 

Another study was conducted, this time among young adults between the ages of 19-21 years, all living at home with their parents. The same questionnaires were given to these young adults, along with the same cognitive tests, and the results again showed “little evidence of significant associations between frequency of snacking, mental health and cognitive performance” (Smith 50). Numbers were scattered and varied from test to test and there was no consistency between the tests done with the adult participants and the young adult participants. 

Overall, it seems that snacking everyday is not better for every person, but can help in certain areas. Every person is different and will respond to snacking everyday differently than others, just as every person’s habits for eating healthy and balanced meals are different depending on the person. What should we take from this, then? If you are a snacker, it’s okay to keep snacking if that is what you prefer. Similarly, if you are a person who has three meals a day and no snacks, that is fine as well. Other factors play into mental illness and cognitive performance other than snacking, so do whatever makes you comfortable and what you are used to.

Works Cited

Smith, Andrew P. "Snacking Habit, Mental Health, and Cognitive Performance." Current Topics in Nutraceuticals Research 9.1 (2011): 47-51. ProQuest. Web. 14 May 2013.

Article for SE5

The link I found is a study about snacking, mental health and cognitive performance.

http://0-search.proquest.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/docview/919439042/fulltextPDF?accountid=14608#

Food Log Observations

I noticed that people will either eat only a couple meals a day that are pretty heavy in calories, or they will eat more often through the day, but have more "snack" foods and smaller portions and more healthier foods in general.

P8

Thursday

Breakfast - 8:30 AM

2 tri-tater patties

1 egg & cheese bagel with ham

1 glass of orange juice

2 scoops of plain yogurt with 2 tablespoons of granola

Lunch - 1:30 PM

1 glass of water

1 medium-sized balsamic grilled chicken breast

1 small piece balsamic grilled chicken breast

1 scoop mashed red potatoes

2 scoops applesauce

Dinner - 5 PM

3 strips of thin steak (medium)

1 scoop of rice pilaf

1 bagel with cream cheese

1 red velvet cupcake with cream cheese frosting

1 glass of water

Extras: 3 water-bottles full of water through the day

Friday

Breakfast - 9:15 AM

1 glass of orange juice

3 scoops of oatmeal with 2 tablespoons of brown sugar

1 egg and ham muffin, no cheese

2 scoops of berry yogurt with 2 tablespoons of granola

Lunch - 1 PM

1 piece of batter-fried pollock (McDonald’s fish patty sized)

2 scoops of applesauce

1 glass of water

Dinner - 6 PM

1 bowl of nachos: handful of nachos, 1 scoop each of beans and meat, one small scoop of sour cream and guacamole, handful of lettuce, medium-sized spoonful of salsa

1 bowl of Reese’s Puffs with skim milk

1 glass of water

1 glass of chocolate milk

Extras: 10 PM - 2 pieces of Domino’s pizza (Chicken and onion)

Saturday

Brunch - 12:15 PM

3 spoonfuls of tater tots

4 scoops of berry yogurt with 3 tablespoons of granola

1 glass of orange juice

1 glass of chocolate milk

2 pieces of whole wheat toast with butter and grape jelly

Dinner - 6:15 PM

Mellow Mushroom

2 pieces of bruschetta with feta cheese crumbles and basil

2.5 pieces of buffalo chicken with caramelized onions pizza, ranch drizzled on top

4 glasses of water

Extras: 1 AM - 1 large sub from Fat Jacks (The Don: “Double Genoa salami, spiced capicola ham & double provolone cheese, creamy mayo, vinegar & oil, plus spices. Topped with lettuce.”)

The Journey of Cheese: From the Animal to Your Plate

        Coming from a family where our motto is “we did not get fat not knowing how to cook,” I have grown up around many different types of food made with many different kinds of ingredients. One ingredient, however, seems to be prevalent in many of the dishes my family prepares. Cheese plays a major role in the dishes my family makes and consumes through the year. While it is not in every dish made, we make a point to add it to any dish we can and get away with it. Be it nachos, macaroni and cheese, or homemade shepard’s pie, my family uses cheese often, without ever thinking about where it comes from, how it’s made, or how long it has been available to society to make food taste a little better.

According to the International Dairy Food Association (IDFA), “The making of cheese dates back more than 4,000 years,” and while no one knows who the first person to make cheese was, there is an ancient legend that it was accidentally made by an Arabian merchant who put milk in his sheep’s stomach pouch and proceeded to travel across the desert. It is said that after a day in the desert, the milk separated into curd and whey, and the merchant found it to satisfy both his thirst and his hunger (Roeder). The article also discusses how Asian travelers are believed to “have brought the art of cheese making to Europe,” and “was made in many parts of the Roman Empire when it was at its height” (Roeder). The Romans then introduced cheese making to England, and from the decline of the Roman Empire until the discovery of America, “cheese was made and improved by the monks in the monasteries of Europe” (Roeder). 

Cheese making continued to be popular in Europe, and was even included in the Mayflower’s supplies when the Pilgrims headed westward to America in 1620. Once in the new world, cheese making quickly spread, but remained a local farm industry until the nineteenth century, when the first cheese factory was built by Jesse Williams in Oneida County, New York in 1851 (Roeder). As the population in the United States grew, so did the demand for cheese, and thus the demand for more dairy farms in the country, with the center of the industry being focused on the rich lands of Wisconsin. In 1845, a group of Swiss immigrants settled in Green County and began the manufacturing of foreign cheese in America. At the time, many Wisconsin farmers believed their future survival “was tied to cheese and their first factory was a Limburger plan which opened in 1868” (Roeder). 

The industry began to boom in the later part of the 1800s, with a total of 3,923 dairy factories in the United States in 1880, producing 216 million pounds of cheese that year alone, totaling to $17 million, making up almost ninety percent of total cheese production for that year (Roeder). The industry only grew after the 1880s, with the total natural cheese production growing from 418 million pounds in 1920 to 2.2 billion pounds by 1970. Further rising demand through the 1970s and 1980s took total natural cheese production to more than 6 billion pounds around the beginning of the 1990s. However, processed cheese experienced an increase in demand from the consumers, and annual production exceeded 2 billion pounds per year by the beginning of the 1990s (Roeder). Presently, the United States uses more than one-third of all the milk produced in the country each year to make cheese. Roeder also notes that as the appetites for all types of cheese continue to expand, the industry will expand even further as well.

After reading about the history of cheese and getting an appreciation of how long the dairy bi-product has been around, I decided to go a step further and see how some cheeses are made today. I thought it would be a fairly simple process of taking the milk and letting it sit until it turns to cheese, however I found this is not the case. There are many different ways to make different cheeses, and the ingredients for different cheeses are different. 

The most obvious ingredient in cheese is milk, but what kind of milk that is used depends on the type of cheese that is being made. The different kinds of milk that are most commonly used come from cows, goats, sheep, water buffalos, or a mixture of the four. Coagulant type also depends on the type of cheese desired. For example, acid cheeses will use an acid source like acetic acid, while rennet cheeses (most hard cheeses) use calf rennet or a rennet produced through microbial bioprocessing. Sometimes calcium chloride is added to improve the coagulation properties of milk. Flavorings can also be added depending on the cheese, with common ingredients including herbs, spices, hot and sweet peppers, horseradish, and port wine (Unknown). There are twelve processes it takes to go from milk to packaged and shipped cheese. They are to standardize the milk, which is done to optimize the protein to fat ratio to make a good quality cheese. After that, the milk has to be pasteurized or heated, depending on the cheese desired. This reduces the number of spoilage organisms and improves the environment for starter cultures to grow. In some cases, raw milk cheeses are not pasteurized or heated, so they must age for at least 60 days (Unknown). 

Once the milk is pasteurized or heated, it is cooled, then inoculated with starter and non-starter bacteria for 30 minutes so it can ripen. This allows the bacteria to grow and begin fermentation, which develops the flavor of cheese. The rennet is then added, which helps form the curd, and the milk sits undisturbed for about 30 minutes. The curd then ferments until it reaches pH 6.4, at which point it is cut with cheese knives and heated to 100 degrees. This helps to separate the whey from the curd. The whey is then drained from the vat, the curd forms a mat, and the mats are cut into sections and goes through the process of “cheddaring,” which helps expel more whey and allows fermentation to occur until pH of 5.1 to 5.5 is reached. Some cheeses are then salted, then formed into blocks and stored to age until they are ready to be packaged to be sent to consumers all over the world (Unknown).

When starting my research I was nervous I would learn something that would steer me away from how cheese is produced, yet I sit here eating string cheese completely unfazed by my newfound knowledge. I learned how tedious of a process it is to produce most cheeses, and that cheese has been a part of society for thousands of years, growing exponentially from the 1970s to 1990s, and still growing today as the demand grows. I don’t think my research will effect my relationship with cheese, though I may have more of an appreciation of how long it takes to make it and the many different methods there are to make specific cheeses. Maybe the next time I get the chance to eat Brie, I won’t eat it so fast, but savor it and think of the journey it took to get to my plate.

Works Cited

Roeder, Jeannette. N.p.. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.idfa.org/news--views/media-kits/cheese/history-of-cheese/>.

Unknown, . N.p.. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.milkfacts.info/Milk Processing/Cheese Production.htm>.

P7

In Christopher Cook’s “Foul Trouble,” the production of chicken meat is traced by accounting what the employees have seen and experienced. The different jobs needed to transport the chickens from their pen to the supermarket in a timely manner so they can be bought are discussed, which have the titles like deboner, offal room attendant, evisc, or workers who are in charge of taking all the innards out of the body, catchers, and hangers. Every worker, no matter what their job title, has a dangerous job when it comes to the way chickens are processed and prepped to go to the supermarket. Cook writes about how sometimes when getting rid of the tendons, taking the bones out, and making sure the chicken meat looks good enough to send off, they often times get cut by themselves or other workers who have lost control of their utensil from the slimy skin (Cook, 79). Because the entire process of catching the chickens and getting them consumer ready must be done quickly, many of the workers suffer from long-term issues like the inability to use their hands.

In “Tomatoland,” Barry Eastbrook goes into more detail about the health effects employees and workers have when exposed to carcinogens and terrible living conditions. He discusses how, in some cases, the workers are slaves to tomato fields, held against their will and are forced to work or they will be beaten. The introduction also discusses how little nutritional value the tomatoes have because of commercial farming. He notes that a fresh tomato today has 30 percent less vitamin C and Thiamin, 19 percent less Niacin, and 62 percent less calcium than 50 years ago in the 60s, however it does have fourteen times as much sodium as it did in the 60s (Eastbrook, X). This article relates to Cook’s in that they both discuss the conditions under which the employees have to work so the consumers can have their chicken, or their tomatoes when it’s not tomato season.

Similar to both the other pieces, “An Animal’s Place,” by Michael Pollan discusses the ethics of eating animals, and the condition of the ways in which our meat is raised in the United States. He talks about how pigs are taken away from their mothers so much earlier than in the wild, the state in which cows and hens live and ultimately asks that if we know that animals can feel pain, why are we treating them the way we are?

All three of these pieces seemed to come to a general conclusion about the food industry in the United States. Animals are not being treated like they should, and workers in such places are exposed to so many health risks it’s insane. Reading all of these brought back memories of Food, Inc., and I probably won’t be eating chicken for a few days. 

P6

       In his article “Our National Eating Disorder,” Michael Pollan writes of what is wrong with the American way of eating. He notes that eating food has become more of checking food labels for the unhealthy components that the media warns us about than trusting our senses. He also discusses how in America there is always a new food trend, be it a new diet, a new type of superfood that is supposed to be really good for you, or news that something we’ve been eating for years has now suddenly shown new evidence that it is killing our bodies. He also writes, “What is striking is just how little it takes to set off one of these applecart-toppling nutritional swings in America; a scientific study, a new government guideline, a lone crackpot with a medical degree can alter this nation’s diet overnight.” I find this to be very interesting and true. When I think about the different diet crazes that I have seen sweep the nation, Pollan’s statement gains even more credibility. I remember the Atkins diet, which is still trickling its way through the nation, the Dukan diet, and other cleansing diets that require individuals to fast for days and only drink a mixture of a special type of lemonade. All were extremely popular, at least in my community, for a time before the next came around and promised even better results. 

  I found the study Paul Rozin and Claude Fischler did to be really interesting. Having a boyfriend in culinary school, I have heard all about how Americans are not approaching the “eating healthier and being thinner” idea the correct way. I knew that the French ate smaller portions without snacking in between meals and they savor all they have since they don’t go back for seconds. However, I didn’t think about how having more frequent and longer sit-down meals with others could affect someone’s eating habits, though I do understand now that it causes one to eat slower and less since they are involved in conversations. I would say I mostly fit with the French take on eating. While I do try to watch what I eat, it is because I was raised in the “American way of eating,” so to speak, and like many others I tend to eat too much when I eat. However, I usually eat my meals with a group of people and the meals usually last an hour or two, depending on how much work we all have to do. I also don’t usually snack in between my meals, unless I’m only going to have time for breakfast and dinner, so I grab a snack to keep me focused on work rather than food. I’d say there are a few others like me who have a mixture of the French “way” and the American “way” of eating.

In-class Blog Post

I decide what to eat mainly based on what is available in the dining hall, what I feel like eating, and how the food looks. My main concerns with eating, living both in Denver and back home, are how healthy the food I choose is, and what it looks like. Even if there is nothing that looks appetizing in the dining hall, if the lettuce is brown and nasty (as is often is when I go to eat), I will have a piece of pizza or a bowl of cereal as my meal. I try to make meals as healthy as I can, getting fruits and/or vegetables with my chicken or pizza, if there is nothing else, but Sodexo does not do a great job offering fresh-looking fruits and vegetables to the student body. I try to change my unhealthy eating habits (getting pizza over a salad) by substituting something else that may be slightly more healthy than pizza without looking rotten, but sometimes with limited funds and limited food resources, it doesn't always happen. When it comes to eating smaller portions or healthier in general, however, I try to walk into the dining hall for every meal consciously thinking about what I am putting on my plate, how it's going to affect me after I eat it and in the long run, and if I'm getting too much. I tell myself "one spoonful"and wait about 10 minutes after I eat what's on my plate to see if I'm still hungry and want more.

Evolving Society and Food Cultures

When I wake up for class in the morning, I usually give myself plenty of time to get ready, go down to the dining hall and take my time with my breakfast before I need to leave to get to my class on time. I always thought that since breakfast is the most important meal of the day, it should not be scarfed down and one should always give himself enough time to eat a well-balanced meal before he starts his day. However, I learned very fast that this is hardly ever the case. When I sit down to eat my meal, I notice those coming in after me are rushing to the cereal, scarfing down a bowl of sugary Lucky Charms, and leaving before I can even take my vitamins. In such a rush to get to where they need to be on time, people tend to forget the nutritional value of the fast meal they are eating just to obtain sustenance. Currently, nutritional value and quality of a meal seem to play such little roles in the fast paced lives of people, who care less and less about the quality and healthiness of a product, and more about how fast and easy they can get it. 

From places such as Subway (an establishment whose ads are proudly based around how healthy the food is for customers) beginning to add in drive-thru windows so its customers can order subs from the comfort of their own car, to an increasing number of frozen meals that can be easily heated in the microwave and scarfed down, people have begun to seek the easy way out of making an elaborate meal, which takes time and potentially costs more than TV dinners. Jamie Horwitz discusses in her article “Eating at the Edge” how people have become so accustomed to eating food that is fast and easy rather than healthy and takes a little longer to prepare. One of the examples she uses to support her argument is the Campbell’s Soup at Hand product, of which she writes, “Soup at Hand is a finely engineered, vacuum-molded, ergonomically grippable mug with a surface area enhanced for microwave radiation and sized to fit a car’s cup holder before being discarded”(Horwitz 43-44). This shows that people are not only looking for something they can easily heat up in the microwave in a matter of minutes, but also something that is able to go anywhere that they need to be, and fast (i.e., walking to work or school, or driving somewhere). With the design of the new product, Campbell’s was able to reach out to customers who wished they could enjoy some sort of hot meal on the go rather than have a cold sandwich every day or skip out on their meal entirely because they had such little time to stop, sit down and eat something, which is the case for much of society today. Horwitz also discusses Swanson’s TV dinners, invented in 1954, to further support her argument that more people are “eating at the edge.” While these frozen meal trays could not be taken on the go like the Soup at Hand, Swanson used the fact that only 20 percent of households in the United States had a television set in 1954 and used the term “TV dinner” as a way to “associate their product with something that was cool and modern”(Horwitz, 45). People are constantly looking for ways to make their lives easier and for shortcuts so they have more time through the day to get everything done that they want to get done. Swanson used the TV dinners to show people they could eat their dinners and watch television in the living room rather than have to sit at the table, which was almost never in the dining room in the 1950s. With the new frozen meals, mom could whip up a meal for the entire family in a matter of minutes, and still be able to watch her favorite program while having her dinner. Today, as shown with the Campbell’s Soup at Hand, the same basic principles apply. People are still constantly looking for something that makes eating faster and easier for them, thus the soup with no need for preparation, a spoon, or a bowl came into play. It seems all one really needs to do anymore to have a meal that consists of most of the basic food groups is pull it out of the freezer, pop it in the microwave and hit start.

Microwaves were once something only a select number of households had, much like the television set. Today, nearly all households require a microwave to fulfill the duties as the chef of the house. According to Bob Garrison, author of the article “Fast Food,” while the number of Americans that eat at home are “increasing, and have been since the beginning of the decade-2008 marked a turning point as more households prepared their meals in the microwave”(Garrison, 18). Garrison brings statistics into his article to support the fact that an increasing number of meals are prepared by the microwave. He notes that from 1990 to 2007, 20 percent of the nation’s meals that were made at home were prepared in the microwave. However, in 2008 the numbers jumped from the 20 percent to 30 percent, while the percentage of meals that are prepared on a stove top dropped from 52 percent in 1985 to 33 percent in 2009 (Garrison, 18). Additionally, Garrison reiterates Harry Balzer, a researcher, and writes, “This Cleveland researcher projects U.S. frozen food packaging demand will climb 3.7 percent each year through 2013”(Garrison, 18). This is most likely because more people are more concerned with getting some sort of meal, be it nutritional and good for them or not, faster and easier each year. Rather than cook a meal, people need something that is ready to eat faster so they can carry on with the rest of their days, or so they can sit alone and eat their heated up TV dinner while they work. 

Garrison also writes about the new designs companies are coming up with to make their products even easier and faster to eat. He writes, “Bohrer gives a thumbs up to new Marie Callender’s Multi-Serve Bakes (from ConAgra Foods), which involves microwave shielding and field modification materials that evenly heat the entrée so consumers don’t even have to stop and stir”(Garrison, 18). Companies like Marie Callender’s have begun to make it even easier for people to pop their dinner in the microwave and let it go while they do other things, not worrying about having to stop the dish to stir it so it will cook evenly through. Microwaving dishes has started to become so much of a hassle that companies are now thinking of ways to avoid the “extra work” of stopping the heating half way through and stirring the contents, then returning the dish to the microwave to heat it for the remainder of the time. This further shows how a changing society is becoming even more demanding of food that is readily at hand whenever they need it to be, and companies will keep attempting to come up with new innovative ways to keep the customers of this fast-paced world happy. At the rate things are going, the next thing the companies come up with will be a way for consumers to eat their meals immediately after they come out of the microwave, without having to wait for them to cool.

While the percentages of those eating at home out of their microwaves has increased within the last decade, the number of people eating out at fast food and dine-in restaurants is still high. In a report published by the USDA, the amount of consumer spending is expected to “continue to grow over the remainder of this decade and the next”(Stewart et al, iii). The report also states, “Americans now spend nearly half of their food dollars on meals and snacks at foodservice facilities, such as restaurants, hotels, and schools”(Stewart et al, 1). The total away-from-home expenditures, which includes all types of food consumption (snacks, meals, etc.), was $415 billion in 2002, which is 58 percent higher than what it was just ten years prior (Stewart et al, 1). These statistics show how much people have begun to throw aside eating at home with friends or family, and have become so consumed in buying food that is fast and easy to cook, or does not have to be cooked at all by the consumer. A family dinner rarely occurs within the home anymore, but more often in the car on the way to a destination, or at the table of a Wendy’s restaurant if there’s time. Dinners in the home with friends and family are becoming more of a rare occasion, while eating fast food on the go is becoming the social norm, with the concern not being to spend time with those close to you and eat a well-balanced meal, but being getting where you need to be on time, with a meal thrown in if you can manage.

Another example of how people are more concerned more with the speed and ease of preparing a meal, and less with nutritional value and quality of the meal would be Kraft macaroni and cheese. In the 1970s, Kraft’s food advertisement(right) was text heavy and stressed the fact that even for a family on a budget, Kraft was a great meal to feed the whole family. The advertisement’s biggest phrase is “How to eat well when you’re cooking for the kids,” followed with the statement that their product costs only 11 cents per ounce, and when paired with other food components can be a very nutritional meal for everyone to enjoy. This shows that in the 1970s, two important elements to selecting food were cost, as many families were on a budget, and some sort of nutritional value for the family. People were not only concerned with finding something easy to make for the whole family that kids would enjoy, but also something that was not going to hurt their wallets at the end of the day. However, the advertisement from present day is very minimalistic and does not address cost or nutritional value in any way. The advertisement(left) states, “Fortunately, ours has fewer steps,” which appeals to customers who do not have enough time to make a meal that would require more steps to prepare. While Kraft does not use this advertisement to express the dish to be healthy and nutritious, it is most likely because many times, people who are in a hurry to make something are not worrying about the nutritional value of the macaroni and cheese, they just want something they can eat fast so they can continue their day. Kraft has further catered to the needs of the consumers’ fast paced lives by coming out with Easy Mac, which provide individual servings of macaroni and cheese that can be microwaved in, and eaten right out of the bowl the noodles and cheese powder come in. Kraft macaroni and cheese, much like many other companies’ foods today, has become nothing more than a “just add water” meal that will be consumed faster than the amount of time it took to cook the dish.

To conclude, people today are so much more concerned with getting their food fast so they can continue their day that they forget about nutritional values and focus more on being able to eat a meal that is fast so they can continue with the rest of their day without little time taken out of their busy day. Our food culture and values have changed with society, and will continue to change and evolve as the people in the society do.

Works Cited

Garrison, Bob. "Fast Food." Refrigerated & Frozen Foods 22.1 (2011): 18,18,20. ProQuest. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.

Horwitz, Jamie. “Eating at the Edge.” Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture , Vol. 9, No. 3 (2009): 42-47. University of California Press. Web. 22 Apr 2013.

Stewart, H., N. Blisard, S. Bhuyan, and R. Nayga. N.p.. Web. 23 Apr 2013. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/306585/aer829_1_.pdf>.

P5

       Horwitz’s article “Eating on the Edge” discusses how people’s eating habits have changed pretty drastically over time. He develops his argument by mentioning two products that have changed how people eat today. He mentions Swanson’s TV dinners, which were introduced around the 1950s, when televisions were still a luxury to have in the home. Swanson’s uses the term “TV dinner” as a way to “associate their product with something that was cool and modern”(Horwitz, 44), hoping that people would buy the product, which they did. Today, TV dinners are still widely consumed by many families in a hurry or too tired to cook an elaborate meal for the whole family where everyone would sit at the table and discuss their day, any exciting news they had to share, etc. Horwitz also discusses Campbell’s Soup at Hand, which made it very easy for someone on the go to heat up the easily-held container in the microwave, screw on the coffee-type lid, and go on with their busy day. This is not only much easier, but also much faster than it used to be to have a lunch break. Rather than having to open the aluminum can of soup, pour it in a bowl or pot, adding milk or water to it and heating it up, either in the microwave or on the stove, a person does not have to sit down to consume their soup any more. Spoons are not required, nor do you have to worry about taking the time to clean up.

 Both of these products are excellent examples of how more people are eating on the edge, though toward the end of his essay, Horwitz mentions how college students eat on the edge quite often, with lots of snaking and having virtually unlimited access to their dining halls. I would have to personally disagree with him. Based on my own life, I usually only eat three meals a day with no snacks. Being a broke college student, my budget does not really include money for snacking. While I do have the occasional Lunchable at the C-Store, I find that the only times I really eat are around 8:30 AM, 11:30-12, and around 5:30, 6 PM for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I realize that I am probably one of the few students in the country (or around the world for that matter) who don’t snack often, however I don’t really find myself “eating on the edge.”

Eating Healthy for the Win

        There are many different places for students to eat on the University of Denver campus. The two main dining halls, located in Nelson and Centennial Halls, serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week, except for brunch and dinner on Saturdays and Sundays. Curious to see what trends students at the university have when it comes to eating, I decided to go down the Centennial Halls cafeteria on Saturday around noon (when many would be waking up from their adventurous nights out) and observe people. Many of my findings were not surprising, however I made some interesting observations that led me to the conclusion that not only do men eat more than women, but women also tend to make healthier food choices than men.

  When walking into the dining hall in Centennial Halls, there are many windows that surround the back portion of the dining area, and a buffet that is somewhat separated by a wall with three entryways for the students. The lighting is bright through the entire hall, with two televisions mounted on the wall that are on when the dining hall is open, usually tuned to a sports or news channel. The layout of the dining hall gives off a comfortable atmosphere, with tables and booths set up for groups to come in and enjoy a meal, a bar for those who are eating alone or with only one other person, and in front of the bar are comfy chairs for people who have time to come in, have a meal, and catch up on how their favorite sports team is doing. It is a self-serve eating establishment, and students can make as many trips up to the buffet as they want. 

  When I entered the dining hall, the first thing I observed before even getting my food was that there were not many people eating, so I thought I would not be able to make as many observations as hoped and would need to come back at another time. However, upon sitting down, I realized that was not the case. I first noticed some general things about those eating in the hall. I noticed that students of the same orientation were sitting together, such as the Chinese students sitting together, and the American students sitting together. I also noticed that when there were only two people sitting together, they were usually of the same sex, but when the group became three or more, the sexes were evenly distributed. 

  After making general observations, I looked a little closer at who was eating what, how long it took people to eat when they were alone or with one other person, versus those who were eating in a group of three or more. I noticed that in groups of three or more, the students stayed about thirty minutes longer than students who were there alone or with one other person. I also noticed that the females were getting smaller portions of food, and making healthier choices. For example, a gentleman came from the buffet area with a plate loaded with hash browns, two slices of pizza, macaroni and cheese, pancakes, a sandwich, and a small bowl of fruit, accompanied by a glass of chocolate milk. The ladies, however, would walk out of the buffet area with half a grapefruit, some cereal, salads, and the occasional omelette with many vegetables incorporated into the egg.

  From these observations, I began to draw the conclusion that women tend to eat healthier than men. Unsure of if it was because we are in college, and men in college tend to have much faster metabolisms when they are younger, and tend to start eating as healthy, if not healthier, than women as they get older, I researched the topic. In a study done by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation, a survey showed that women are “more likely than men to be taking advantage of and eating foods to maintain overall health and wellness as well as for more specific benefits like improved feelings of fullness and digestive health.” The study also showed that overall, women are more likely than men to be extremely satisfied with their overall health. The foundation conducted a survey asking a number of people of either gender whether they believed certain food and drinks were important to different categories of wellness(improve overall appearance, overall health and wellness, improve physical energy or stamina), approximately 80% total believe so for each category. However, it is more so the women that most likely consume those foods and drinks to improve digestive health, and improve mental performance, among the other categories(Unknown). Director of Health and Nutrition at the IFIC, Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak, stated that there are “real distinctions between what women and men do and think about food they consume.” She also added, “It’s clear these groups have different priorities and circumstances that influence what they do in regards to their nutritional habits”(Unknown).

  Overall, I think many people would say that women tend to eat healthier than men, for a variety of different reasons. Though I know many of the reasons, I never really thought about why women would eat healthier than men, nor did I put much thought into the fact that women do eat healthier than men. I would be very interested to look at the demographics of the men and women who were surveyed, looking at what their age groups were, their socioeconomic status, and their race, to see if any patterns come up within those subcategories. Nonetheless, eating healthy should be something people of both genders, all ages, races, and religions do to live long and healthy lives.

Works Cited

Unknown, . N.p.. Web. 14 Apr 2013. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/126045.php>.

Two possible sources for SE3

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/126045.php

I will most likely use this page as my source, unless I can find a study that goes further in detail. It is an article from Medical News Today, and it discusses how new research from the IFIC suggests that women are more likely to choose healthier foods to maintain a better diet than are men. It lists data taken from surveys conducted, and has statements from professionals further supporting the research.

http://0-search.proquest.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/docview/348410410

This is a short article that discusses Canadian men and their health. It talks about how men won't start eating healthy until diagnosed with cancer or heart disease.

P4

     Both Cate and O’Donnell’s articles discuss various roles food plays in the communities they studied. In both communities, the authors discuss how the food helps members of the communities relate to a specific identity within the community. In the Cate article, she discusses how inmates at a prison in California get creative with the limited food choices they are provided with, a skilled that has been labeled “spread.” She interviewed various inmates about what they use in their spread, if they spread at all, and in some cases asked why the inmates spread, rather than ate the food provided for them by the institution. She found that the inmates spread for various reasons, and had many different dishes with cultural influences from all over the world. One inmate in particular, Max Hackett, uses spread as a way to help himself cope with and overcome his addiction. He uses making spread as a way to “focus on good qualities,” and to bring himself “as much out of jail as possible.”(Cate 2008, 24) Hackett uses spread as a way to temporarily remove himself from the jail atmosphere and travel to any place he so chooses, based on what spread he makes. He does not want to be defined and recognized as just another number in the system, so he uses food to make his own creations that not only help him overcome a strong addiction, but also helps him define who he is through his creations.

     On the other hand, O’Donnell discusses a city in Southern China-Shenzhen. Since Shenzhen was developed recently, O’Donnell divides the city into two main parts, calling the people old and new “Shenzheners.” Those who first moved to the city and established it are referred to as the Old Shenzheners, while the New Shenzheners are their offspring and people who migrated to the city. O’Donnell also discusses how different the outlook of each group is when it comes to food. The Old Shenzheners, used to what the author refers to as “nostalgia for socialist meals,” which is what they had to eat during tough times, when they had to live off food rations or were denied rations from the government because of status rules. The New Shenzheners, however, often eat at chain restaurants that serve many “fashionable” foods, and have choices of what type of cuisine they prefer to enjoy on a given night. The difference in food preferences shows how different the generations are, both socially and culturally, with the Old Shenzheners holding strong to their socialist living, more concerned with benefiting society as a whole rather than an individual, while the New Shenzheners have a more capitalist view on food. The New Shenzheners believe more in benefitting the individual, which accompanies their desire to have more choices when it comes to food, and to eat more popular food.

     I found it very interesting that the Old Shenzheners were more stuck on their socialist ideals, even though their food no longer has to be rationed. I always figured that people who suffered through times of food rations, such as in WWII, they would want to have and eat as much food as they please, and whatever kind of food they please. I found it surprising that this was not the case. In the Cate article, I found it very interesting that each of the prisoners who made spread had either a personal reason why they do so, or a “signature dish” that either reminded them of home, or was just too good not to make.

Kraft: Then and Now

When you think of hot dogs, do you think of a specific brand? How about when you think of pizza, or breakfast foods, or chips? Almost any kind of food is sold through many different manufacturers, and each brand has its own price and way of advertising. I always wonder what it is about certain brands that make people buy the product. I figure that much of it has to do with not only quality and quantity, but also price and how appealing the brand makes the food look on the advertisements. To attempt to draw a conclusion on how companies advertise to people, what groups they advertise to, and make a statement about food cultures and values, I decided to analyze two food advertisements from the same company, for the same product, but in different eras. 

I decided to analyze two macaroni and cheese advertisements from Kraft, one from the mid-to late-70s, and one from present day. The first ad has a plate with Kraft macaroni and cheese, a sausage-type meat, and two pickles, with the largest font reading “How to eat well when you’re cooking for the kids.” The next largest font is next to a picture of the box the dinner comes from, which asserts the company’s name, and underneath they placed the logo of the company, which has not changed much in the past forty-three years. The advertisement seems to be targeting parents, specifically moms, who were more expected to prepare meals for the family during that era. In small lettering, the ad discusses how kids love to eat macaroni and cheese, how the food can be served with almost any other type of food to be a full, balanced and nutritional meal that everyone in the family will love. The ad also mentions how the macaroni costs about 11 cents per serving, and feeds “the whole crowd.” Kraft makes the dish look nutritious and attempts to make it look like it costs more than it really does by adding the other components, attracting women to the advertisement. It gives women the idea that they can whip up something simple yet delicious that will feed the whole family, and the kids will love it. Kraft also uses the cost as a way to lure customers in, by mentioning how cheap it is to make a dish that looks good, and the whole family will enjoy. 

Since getting kids to eat healthy was and has always been a chore (kids are notorious for being some of the pickiest eaters), and many families tend to be on a budget, or looking for something simple and fast to make for dinner, it seems Kraft took these factors into account when generating the ad. The ad appeals to mothers and many families because not only is macaroni and cheese cheap and easy to make, which appeals greatly to the adults of the family, many kids will not say no to the dish when placed in front of them. Kraft uses quite a few words on this ad to persuade mom to “join the crowd,” and to explain how cheap it is to buy Kraft. They use a picture of what looks like very cheesy macaroni and cheese, along with other components that look like what moms would put on the table for dinner. Considering these appeals, I would draw the conclusion that during this era, much like today, families were on a budget and always looking for something good, yet somewhat healthy to put on the table for everyone to enjoy. People then were looking for something cheap yet tasty to serve, and Kraft wanted to deliver, so the company made sure to let customers know how cheap it was to buy their brand, and how easy it was to incorporate the food with other components to make a great looking and tasting meal.

After finding the ad from the 1970s, I decided to look up an ad from present day, to see if Kraft’s approach has changed, if their target audience has changed since the last advertisement. I found an ad that was placed in public on steps, covering the steps in the “Kraft blue,” the color of all the Kraft boxes. The advertisement has minimal words, with the statement reading, “Fortunately, our recipe has fewer steps,” and only one picture of an elbow macaroni noodle in the shape of a smile, with “you know you love it” underneath the noodle smile. The ad takes up the entire area of the steps, and looks to be in a pretty populated location, so many people probably see it every day. Compared to the ad Kraft put out decades earlier, this ad does not seem to address the price being cheap and greatly affordable, but more focuses on how fast and easy the dish is to make. The targeted audience still seems to be adults, but parents in general instead of just moms, who would do a majority of the shopping decades ago when it was still widely thought men should be the only ones working. 

The only appeal in this ad would be the quickness and easiness of making the meal, however it could be that Kraft did not add the price on this ad, but has it on some of their other ads. Kraft is attempting to appeal to students, families, or even workers at a company who are constantly looking for something that is fast and easy to make (the easy mac is as easy as just adding water and heating it up). While Kraft is not advertising for the dish to be healthy and nutritious, many times people who are in a huge hurry to whip something up are not completely worrying about how healthy the food they eat for lunch or dinner may be, but that it is done fast so they can carry on with their day. Based on these appeals, one can draw the conclusion that in present day, people are more concerned with having food readily available, and fast and easy to make and consume. 

Overall, the differences between the two ads are not drastic, but they are present. The first ad was more concentrated on selling customers on how cheap the food is, how easy and fast it cooks, and how it can be paired with other components to make a good dish for the whole family to enjoy. In present day, however, the ad focuses more on how fast and easy it is to make the food, without worrying about nutrition and price. It seems that, based off these two adds, food culture and values have not changed too drastically when it comes to macaroni and cheese. People always look for the brand that is the fastest and easiest to make, something everyone will enjoy, and won’t put a giant dent in their wallets. 

Post 3

   After reading Freedman and Jurafsky’s article, it is easy to see the connections they make between food, language, and culture, and how they go about doing so. By analyzing one of America’s best-known snacks, potato chips, the two men are able to study of how thinly sliced salty potatoes have connections to people of different socioeconomic status and people who have different concerns or values when it comes to picking a certain brand of a food.

   The men choose twelve different brands of potato chips, divided into two groups of expensive by price per ounce, and inexpensive. After the brands have been sorted, they are analyzed based on different criteria such as language, and overall healthiness of the chips. Freedman and Jurafsky found that the expensive potato chips were more likely to not only have more words on their bags, but they were also more likely to have words of a higher reading level on their bags. The two concluded that this was because less expensive bags are geared toward those belonging to a lower socioeconomic status who are more concerned with saving money, while the more expensive brands were more geared toward those who belong to a higher socioeconomic status and can afford to buy the necessities, along with snack foods. They also concluded that less expensive bags would have less words at lower reading levels because research shows that those belonging to a lower socioeconomic class are usually not as educated as those belonging to a higher one. 

   Freedman and Jurafsky do a good job connecting the potato chips to language by describing how language helps the different brands connect with different groups based on socioeconomic and education levels. Less words at a lower reading level were more appealing to those of lower economic and educational levels, while more words that go further in depth about the product were more likely to appeal to customers of a higher class status and higher educational levels. They also do a good job connecting food to culture, again referring to the economic status. Those of a higher economic status tend to be more health conscious and care about the food being healthier than less expensive, while those of a lower economic status are more concerned with eating food and pay less attention to carbohydrates, trans fats, etc.

   I found the entire study to be really interesting. At first I thought how odd it was to do a study on potato chips and how different brands are advertised, but the reasoning behind each of the categories and explanations were really interesting and kept me wanting to read further to see what results were obtained. Beyond potato chips, reading about this analysis made me think of the different foods where their method of food advertising analysis could be applied. I thought of popcorn, since there are many different brands of popcorn, many that follow in the paths of the chips. There are popcorn brands that are more healthy in the way the popcorn is popped and what oil it is popped in, the salt content, etc. If the same study were done with different popcorn brands, I would expect to see similar results as the chips, since there are expensive and non expensive brands of popcorn, and some bags have many words on them while others do not. I would be interested to see how that study would turn out and what would be similar or different between the two. After getting the results, if they were drastically different from the results of the chip study, I would want to know why that is and what would have caused such changes.