the college food project: missing in the debate

My J202 lab decided to create a website based on ways to stay healthy (physical, mental, etc.) in Madison. I’m writing an article on how to eat healthy in the housing dining halls. I’ve done some research and discovered “The College Food Project: UW-Madison Case Study”. Here is an interesting piece of information about the program.

“In December of 2000, UW-Madison became the first major public university in the U.S. to commit to putting foods grown on local farms on the regular menu at their dorm dining centers. As of April 2001, the UW-Madison Housing Food Service is serving Wisconsin-grown apples, organic blue corn chips, and organic potatoes every week. They also have many organic foods from outside of Wisconsin on the regular menu. Several times a year, Housing Food Service organizes special events in the dorm dining centers that feature locally-raised and organic foods.”

I did my IS piece on Go Big Read’s choice of Michael Pollan, the controversy, and everything else related… so why was this program/effort never mentioned? This is a huge aspect of the university that corresponds to Pollan’s message. I’m confused why this didn’t become integrated into the Go Big Red discussion. Maybe not many people knew of the College Food Project, I know I didn’t until researching their efforts specifically. Either way, this is an integral part of the Go Big Read discussion that was somehow overlooked, and it could have easily changed the direction of the debate.

celebrity status for pollan

As I was conducting interviews for the individual story project in J202, I spoke to a horticulture professor who informed me that Michael Pollan was paid $25,000 (!) to speak at the Kohl Center this past fall. $25,000?! Although it may only be the teeniest fraction of what the university dishes out annually, does anyone else think this seems inappropriate? I believe having Pollan visit was an important part of the Go Big Read program, but the extravagant payment makes it look like the university endorses his views, when in reality they reported they were more interested in rousing discussion and debate. If the program really has that kind of money to spend on author visits I guess it’s not a problem as long as it doesn’t become a source of debate, but it’s hard for me to believe they can’t find something more useful to spend it on. Pollan should want to be spreading his ideas around a heavily agricultural state and at such a prestigious university… we shouldn’t have to bribe him to make the trip.

No More Oreos?

Now that I have finished reading the rest of the book, I am definitely  motivated to start living a healthier lifestyle. His plan is refreshing, “nutritionism” isn’t pushed in my face as it is on labels and diet plans. Who wouldn’t like to follow a plan that doesn’t involve counting calories? However, I still feel like Pollan’s suggestions are rather extreme.  (a life without oreos or cheetos? ahhh) I completely agree that it is better for an individual to avoid eating foods that have been processed or manipulated in any way, but how is this possible to buy ‘clean’ food when I’m in the middle of campus without a car. Not only is transportation difficult but I also have no idea where to find healthy food year round. When I go to the grocery store next, I’m going to have a hard time! I’m so used to looking at ‘reduced fat’ and ‘low sugar’ labels that I’m not sure how I will dig through the deception. I plan on buying his new book “Food Rules”,  it looks like it will answer my questions. A big thanks to Pollan for attempting to simplify his dietary suggestions. Truthfully, the biggest question is if I’m going to be able to resist the oreos…

hopeful for a balanced message

I’ve only read the first third of Pollan’s book but it seems that he is presenting the idea that skewed ideologies about food are the singular cause of all the health problems in the United States. A huge point that Pollan leaves out (at least in the first third) is the fact that American’s lifestyles are fundamentally unhealthy. Portion sizes have grown exponentially, exercise rates have decreased, along with many other factors that affect the overall health of Americans. It is possible that he tackles these issues later in the book but since he has not addressed the complex dynamic of the unhealthy American lifestyle earlier I find it hard to take his viewpoints seriously.

Going along with this point, “In Defense of Food” seems to lack counter arguments throughout the entire first third. I would find his viewpoints more believable if he admitted criticisms and refuted them with his own evidence. I found this especially true in economic terms, he never explores what effects his prescription for healthy eating could have on the economy and individuals’ lives financially?

I would love to know if anyone has found his work balanced. All of his ranting about nutritional science, journalism and the food industry reminds me of network news anchors petty cat fights.

All in all, as I read the remainder of Pollan’s book, I am hopeful for a more balanced message.

An intro before the introduction

Although I have yet to begin reading “In Defense of Food,” I attended a lecture that author Michael Pollan gave at UW-Madison this past Thursday.

I was intrigued by many of the points that Pollan brought up and expect to encounter them in greater detail as I read his book. Yet, one of the things that was most intriguing to me in the context of the lecture was when he talked about where Americans get their ideas of nutrition from. He said that most of us simply follow people who have been deemed as experts, labeling certain foods as beneficial and others as taboo. I had never really stopped to think about who was telling me what foods are bad, but if I am honest I must admit I generally just follow current health trends.

The reason this was so interesting was that I found myself listening to Pollan talk in the midst of 7,000 other people with a variety of opinions on the topic. While respectful, there were definitely people who disagreed with some of Pollan’s ideas. This made me think about how difficult it can be to decide what philosophies to accept.

True, I don’t think everyone should simply follow what so-called experts tell us because, as Pollan pointed out, they have often had to change their recommendations after realizing those options weren’t best. However, as I sat there, I also realized it would be foolish for one to simply reject the recommendations of health officials based on a single author’s perspective.

I think that is one of the strengths of a book like this one, that it causes one to question and analyze, whether or not the individual agrees with the author. I am still figuring out my exact stance on the issue, hoping to have some conclusions by the time I get to the last page of the book. Regardless, I am excited to delve into this topic, questioning and collecting information so that I am informed enough to have my own opinions. More than that, I look forward to hearing others’ opinions on this blog as they question and analyze my own ideas. We may not be “experts,” but as I realized at the lecture, labels aren’t what matter.

Follow-up AP Story to Interviews

All,

An interesting article came out today that relates to what I was talking about with my interviewees in regards to Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food.” A medical writer from the AP in Milwaukee released a story on a report on foods with advertised nutrients and health benefits. The report showed how, despite the struggling economy, people are buying these food products. Read here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_he_me/us_med_unproven_remedies_superfoods

I would like to hear what Pollan’s reaction would be if he heard that the phrase “functional foods” or the word “nutraceuticals” were used in this article. It makes me think of how Pollan talks of how people today look at food as what it can do for your health, as opposed to the joy and social interaction it spurs.

I also thought that the author of the story could have avoided using such phrases as “shame list” or “winners and sinners.” I believe that it is these elements that distract the reader from the facts and prevent he or she from being informed, which is important to healthy eating.  Jim Buretta and Annie Weiss, who work in the cafeteria of St. Francis Hospital in Milwaukee (the city where the article originated from), discussed the importance of the public being informed on  health claims in my interview with them.

I will also post this article to the wiki.

Joe’s Interviews

For my first two interviews on Pollan’s “In Defense of Food,” I had a collective discussion with Jim Buretta and Annie Weiss, two people who work in the cafeteria at St. Francis Hospital in Milwaukee.  Jim is the hospital’s food production manager, and Annie is the patient services manager.

My goal was to get reactions on some of Pollan’s ideas from people who worked in food service, particularly in an environment where the health and safety of food is very necessary.

I had such a great conversation with Jim and Annie, and they had so many great things to say, that I’ve transcribed much of the conversation into a dialogue for you to follow along.

Joe Skurzewski:  One of the things [Pollan] talks about in the book is the transition that food has made over the years from being labeled as food to being called nutrients.  We look more at what’s in the food than the food itself.   How has that affected the way food service like, say, for example in a hospital, functions?

Jim Buretta:  We’ve had a lot more interaction with your employees because they’ll want certain things that they read about just like reading this book or little newspaper articles.

–Jim then went on to talk about how the employees and patients would like certain beans that are healthier, beans they have read about in pieces such as Pollan’s book.  However, the beans are too expensive to get to the Midwest—

Annie Weiss:  Our best time to get strawberries is probably, you know, a month ago.  And then they’re not gonna see them as much because it’s a high-cost item and it’ll raise their costs, raise our costs.  But things like the sushi rolls, people enjoy those, but that’s a high-priced item.

Joe:  So, in a way, like, nutrients has made people aware of healthier food options.  The problem is, you can’t afford them.

Jim:  Exactly, exactly.

Annie:  But we do provide labeling like markets, marketing, the nutrients and the soups, the burgers, everything, so people know what they’re taking in and you can have a nice sized meal with enough nutrients, enough calories, enough energy, enough protein, enough everything.  And it could be, come down to a burger maybe a coleslaw and some fruit.  You know, it’s just people making the right decisions as to what to put together.

Jim:  In fact, if look around at the counter, you may see the little labels that are out there.  They’ll say the calorie content, fat content, that type of stuff.  So that people do have that, can at least see to know what they’re getting.  The people that are really into it.

–I then asked Jim and Annie about if the Western diet, one of Pollan’s concepts in his book, plays into their book–

Annie:  But when you say that convenience items are going to be much more expensive than if we did something from scratch.  We use the raw materials and we just did that in bulk and were able to make it ourselves, that would be probably cheaper.  It’s just, there’s a lot more factors in there, labor and, you know, things like that that go in there.  But convenience items or those boxed items with those processed foods are, can be more expensive.  Can be.

Joe:  I mentioned high fructose corn syrup as sort of like the substitute that industry has used instead of sugar because it’s so much cheaper.  I know you guys work in a hospital.  I don’t know how familiar you are with the numbers of the patients that come in here.  But you are in food service.  Do you think that the flux of high fructose corn syrup and how it’s in so many products nowadays, does that affect the number of patients that are in hospitals.  In the long run, does it make people sicker?  Is there a way that we tell that?

Annie:  Well, the number of patients with diabetes that are coming through is so much more prevalent than, even five years ago.  I mean, there’s so many people with diabetes.  And I think a lot of our products, you know, we don’t have that many that have high fructose corn syrup in them just for the sheer fact that we can’t give them that to, you know, that’s a limited food item.  You know, like our patients, they will get low-sodium turkey.  They won’t you know, across the board, no matter what their diet.  The same with, you know, the diabetics can only have certain items and, why provide something they can’t have when the majority of the patients are diabetics.

Jim:   The more it’s in the papers, the easier it is for people to understand that they should stay away from things.  Look at the labels.

Annie:  I think it comes down to portion control, too.  I mean, that really is what it comes down to is, you can have high fructose corn syrup in your products.  But, if you have an entire plate of that item versus the actual portion of a half a cup, there’s a difference there.  If people would be able to just make sure they followed portion sizes, there wouldn’t be an issue with it all.  So it’s that excess of sugar items.

Joe:  You talk about looking at the labels.  One of the things that [Pollan] also talks about is products that make broad health claims on their labels.  One of the things he says is to look past the label claims.  Does that play into food service at all?

Annie:  Like the “no sugar added,” “no trans fats,” that kind of stuff?

Joe:  Yes.

Jim:  Patient-wise I think we’re more on top of what is being used.  We have dieticians that come in and will check to see what is being used.  If it’s some new products that are out there, they’ll come in and look.  Okay, why do we have this?  Okay, how does this factor in?  And they’ll check the ingredients and they’ll have us mail in all of the ingredients and all the stuff that comes from the manufacturer…Then they can make adjustments if it’s something that’s going to be used a lot, type of thing.

Annie:  I don’t think we make any claims or any false claims about, we just let people make their choices and their decisions out here.  Have the labels that say what’s in it and, we do say on there the amount of trans fats.

Joe:  Something that [Pollan] mentions is how, like, starting in the ’80′s, there’s sort of like campaign against fats and how bad fat is for you.  And that sort of went for a while, and now it seems like the modern argument is certain carbohydrates aren’t good for you.  And one of the things he says he wonders what’s next, like what next component of food are we going to say is good or bad for you.  Do you think there is an end-all truth to this?  Or is it just like a wave of how food is marketed?  Or is it just a matter of balancing your diet?

Annie:  I think as a dietician we hear that all the time.  Protein’s bad.  Carbs are bad.  Protein’s good.  Carbs are good.  It’s back and forth, and it’s just waves.   And you just have to explain to people that it’s about portion control and making sure that you are all-around balanced and trying to convince people that that is really the way to go, and the healthiest way to go.

Joe:  I know that a couple of years ago the food pyramid was redone to cater to different individual needs.  And sometimes I know I’ve thought to myself that when I remember the old food pyramid, it seemed pretty logical that that was sort of like the basic things that people needed.  Was the new food pyramid necessary or did it just kinda feed into like diet crazes?

Annie:  No, I definitely think it needed a facelift.  The old one was old, and really needed some revamping.  It’s the same thing.  Instead of saying ‘servings’ it actually goes to the ‘portions,’ the ‘cups,’ the ‘ounces’ to try to start using that language, because a serving to one person is different than it is to another person.  You want to make sure that carbs are your main source of energy, so yeah, that should be the biggest group, and it is on the new pyramid as well.  But it’s just balancing that into ‘cups’ and ‘ounces’ instead of ‘servings.’  And it also includes the activity factor which is still very important which wasn’t in the old pyramid.

Joe:  What are your thoughts on how food is marketed to the general public today, as opposed to, say, 10 years ago, 15 years ago?

Jim:  Market-wise, I think it’s just a more of people using different ingredients of trying to get different taste buds that are popping in your mouth.  And I think what helps is it’s a lot of the world foods that are being used more for us in the U.S. because it’s giving us that taste going out there–and maybe that’ll help to slim us down, because they’re the one’s that are in great shape.   And then again, their country is taking some our junk.

–Jim then talked of how he’d like to buy some healthy herbs, but they’re too expensive–

Annie:   There’s a huge focus on food, and diet, and nutrients, and labels and it’s really a good thing that people are more aware of it because of the obesity crisis that we’re in.  But, on the other hand, is it a little excessive?  I mean, is the focus too much there that they’re forgetting the basics?  Eat until you’re full.  Eat when you’re hungry.

Jim:  Eat slower.  Let your stomach take 15 to fill up.  You can eat stuff in 15 minutes and all of  sudden, you’re over capacity.

Annie:  People are being fueled with all these different diet crazes and food crazes and the advertisements on the foods, instead of saying, ‘Am I hungry for what I’m about to eat right now?  Or am I just eating it because this book told me I need to eat it?’  And I think if people could just come back to the basics and think, portion control, moderation, you know, all those basic terms, they would be able to lose weight over time, and in a much healthier fashion.

Joe:  Do you think that these health crazes and diets, that good food is coming out, but it’s too expensive, and there’s only certain parts of the population that can afford the good food?  And then, would you see the people who down the road are sick because they’ve been eating bad food, that those are the kind of people that end up, say in a hospital?

Annie:  I think there’s definitely a correlation between food or what a person might purchase and their income, and therefore their health, in the end.  I also think it could be the other way where, no matter what you make, whether it’s a little or a lot, it’s your priority.  Is food a priority?  Is good food a priority?  Are fruits and vegetables a priority?  And are you willing to spend the money on better options?  I think it’s that willingness that makes a big difference, and some people don’t think that far in advance in the long run, what their health will turn into if they continue to eat bad foods everyday.  And in turn save money.  There’s a cost-benefit going on.  It comes down to their willingness.

Joe:  I go to school in Madison.  Madison is a very progressive city in terms of things like this.  There’s a lot of organic food stores in Madison.  And one of the things that they say about organic food stores is that they have a very specific clientele because some of food is so expensive that there’s only certain people who can afford it.

Annie:  Well, and if you value it, you’ll spend the money on it.  I mean, you could make $100 a week, let’s say.  And you want Nike shoes, and you’re gonna buy them, if you value it.  Just like you’re gonna buy organics.  And some people just simply don’t have the money, if though they might want to.

Jim:  You can only please some of the people sometime.  You try.

Annie:  In the grocery store, a bag of organic apples costs an inordinate amount of money versus the same amount of just regular old apples.  Some people might just value the idea of organics much more but, if you’re not educated on what the differences are, or what the similarities are, or is it really even worth it, you might be wasting money.  I think that’s another factor too is, people understanding what’s in the newspapers and the magazines and the research that is out there.  Some people might not even understand it.  They just might hear these claims and go work right off of them.

I also asked Jim and Annie if they agreed with Pollan in that nutritionism is becoming a sort of ideology.  They mostly disagreed with him, saying that, other than dieticians and health fanatics, the general public does not care that much about nutritionism to make it an ideology.

I noticed that Jim and Annie returned to concept of portion sizes, and how people need to take the initiative to make sure they’re eating the amount they should be eating and at the rate they should be eating it.

———————————————————————————————————————

Later on, I conducted a phone interview with Ana Maria Vascan, a UW student who has read Pollan’s “In Defense of Food.”  Ana Maria will be a junior in the fall.

Ana Maria said that she agreed with most of what Pollan discussed in his book, but was not afraid to critique his analysis.  She said that, when Pollan discusses the Western diet, he focuses too much on the chronology of milestones in food processing technology, and should have focused on the diet in the present time.

She said that Pollan should have not only discussed what methods were successful, but how people reacted to why these methods were successful.  She said that history is not just the action, but the reaction that allows history to continue.

Interview: John McMillan

For my interview, I wanted to talk to someone at Reader’s Digest since I was an intern there. Also, since it’s the home to the popular Taste of Home magazine, I wanted to take what I was learning about in Pollan’s book and put it in the magazine perspective. In particular, I wanted to know how cooking magazines handle recipes while taking the reader’s interests into consideration.

So I met with John McMillan, an associate editor for Simple & Delicious and Healthy Cooking magazines.

One of the first things I wanted to know was how the editors decide what recipes go in the magazine.

“Well, it’s got to be specific to the magazine first,” he said. “I’ve got to see if we’ve done it before, that’s a big deal here. And I think the biggest part is if our audience going to like it.”

Of course a magazine wants to make sure their readers will like what they print. But do cooking magazines pay attention to the health of their readers? Or are they willing to run a recipe for a dish with an entire day’s worth of fat content if that’s what their readers would like?

“I think health plays a huge part in Healthy Cooking magazine. It’s the number one thing we’re thinking about,” McMillan said. “But I think in the sister magazine, Simple and Delicious (S&D), and in the mother magazine, Taste of Home, health has always been put on the backburner. If a recipe is going to have 1000 calories per serving, you just don’t talk about it because that’s what our cooks want: They want down-home, good-tasting food. But we don’t want to make [our readers] fat.”

One of my bigger questions for John was about how, from a magazine perspective, they handle dietary trends and fads. Pollan discusses how easy it has been for us to fall into nutritional fads, and I wanted to see if Reader’s Digest caters to such interests or takes these fads with a grain of salt.

“Fads are just fads. There’s a huge fad right now, and it’s belly fat. ‘Lose the belly fat.’ Well, speaking with our dietician, you can’t just lose belly fat no matter what. So it might sell a magazine to put that on the cover, but it’s not going to be a true representation of our ethics.”

Learning that Reader’s Digest has a dietician on the staff was really interesting, and to me, indicative of the ethics John mentioned. In addition, knowing that the recession has spelled layoffs for in the media industry, knowing that the dietician is a necessity to these magazines speaks volumes. However, after hearing the word “ethics,” I had to ask him more about what ethics S&D and Healthy Cooking follow.

“I don’t honestly think of us as morally better than anyone else,” he said. “I think we have a statement, and that is to put out the best food for our readers. And I think we’re doing just fine.”

Ethics aside, I was really interested to hear why it is that these magazines don’t fall into the latest nutritional idea.

“Science has a lot to do with it,” he said. “I think that to me personally, the low-carb and no milk and that stuff is definitely a fad because it’s in and out in two years. It can’t hold. I think trends flow like a river, they’ll just softly move here and there.”

While S&D may be a little hush-hush with the calorie count of some of their recipes, health still does play an important role in the magazine.

“Diabetes is huge. It’s a big deal, it’s a big issue,” John said. “So we do cater towards the diabetic population, that’s not a fad, that’s an issue. As far as fads go, we try to steer clear of them, and stay with our message.”

So overall, while magazines must cater to their readers’ interests, these Reader’s Digest magazines are careful about walking the line between being boring and being sensational by ignoring the latest dietary fad. While the calorie count may be high on a recipe here or there, reporting on health issues such as diabetes and offering titles such as Healthy Cooking demonstrate responsibility.

Interview

Here’s my interview I had with Food Science Major, Paul Williams.

1. Being a food science major, do you believe that what Michael Pollan says about foods becoming reduced to just nutrients is true?

A: Yes, foods are marketed in a way that makes buyers very aware of what nutrients it contains and how those have a positive impact on the consumer.

2. Do you think there is added benefit to eating “manufactured” food as opposed to organic food?

A: I would argue that neither organic, nor manufactured is necessarily solely the best choice for a consumer. I would say that manufactured may include any sort of processing. Milk, for example, is almost always pasteurized. I would say that is a beneficial processing step due to the health concerns associated with inherent milk pathogens.

3. Do you think America’s food industry instigates an unhealthy obsession with diet?

A: We have one of the most abundant and safe food supplies in the world so malnourishment is rare. However, because of our abundant food supply we are now faced with an obesity epidemic. Many food producers are capitalizing on consumer’s weight gain by making products targeted at diets. Yes, Americans are unhealthily obsessed with diets because of the availability of products associated with dieting.

4. Michael Pollan sees the US as viewing food as more of a “thing” rather than a relationship (in nature, food is a relationship between  species, Pollan contends). Do you think food science plays a roll in this?
 

A: Food and nutritional science definitely plays a role in Americans viewing food as a thing not a relationship because it seeks to understand how foods may improve our health and happiness on a scientific level. Often food science reduces a food to the components that help reduce the risks or symptoms of a certain ailment. Based on the current health studies which link certain nutrients with disease risk reduction, they may add a certain nutrient to foods that it doesn’t naturally occur in. This is fine because science is only as good as the most current conclusions. One cannot make decisions based on conclusions not yet backed by complete data i.e. to the best of their knowledge it is the nutrient alone that causes the reduced risks of disease. Thus, as long as the molecule, ion, or element is present it doesn’t matter if it’s naturally occurring or an additive as long as that was the study’s results.

            Knowledge of the inner workings of food and human biochemistry may reduce some of the holistic views of our relationship with food and make it seem like everything we eat has a purpose, thus reducing it down to a “thing” for many Americans.

Change in relationship

One of the things that struck me in Pollan’s book was his idea that our view of food has changed. It has become a “thing” rather than a ecological relationship.  I found this to be something that journalists could have a large influence over. The way journalists covered food and allowed food scientists to refer to food could greatly have made this change possible.  I believe that’s one of the things that draws alot of people into the field of journalism; the power to effect change. But, in this case, I think it shows that journalists have to be careful with how they use this. Journalists can change things for the worse, as they did here by creating an unhealthy relationship.