In order to fully appreciate a meal for more than just its nutritional components, I decided to make a home made pizza for my friend and I at his apartment. Contrary to having a pizza conveniently delivered to the door, there were several steps I needed to take in order to plan and prepare the meal successfully.
The planning stage was completed in three simple steps. The first thing I did was choose what kind of pizza I wanted to make. Since I wanted the meal to be balanced, I decided upon Hawaiian pizza because it has both fruit and meat as toppings. This step contributed to the overall experience since it made me feel like I had control over what I was going to eat. Next I thought about possible side dishes. Since I wanted the meal to be colorful and satisfy many of the food groups, I made a garden salad. Being able to choose things to eat based on other aspects than nutrition added to the enjoyment of cooking. Finally, I checked to see what ingredients I had in stock. Realizing I needed a pineapple and lettuce, I made a quick trip to the grocery store. After organizing all my tools and ingredients, it was time to start cooking.
The preparation stage took slightly longer but was the part I enjoyed most. This phase was also broken into a few steps as well. First, I preheated the oven and made the dough. This took the most time but good crust is essential to making a good pizza. Next I added the sauce, cheese, Canadian bacon and pineapple to the pizza and put it in the oven. This gave me time to make the salad and set the table which I surprisingly enjoyed doing both. Finally, when the pizza was ready, we were able to eat, socialize and clean up which prevented the typical eat and run situation.
After taking the time and energy to cook a full meal, I agree with Pollan when he describes the willingness of American’s to eat pre-made processed food. While the taste and overall satisfaction of eating real food left me feeling good, I think that eating to survive is a lot easier than eating for enjoyment with so many stressors in everyday life. Therefore when people see processed food products “[they] indulge a lot more in low-fat versions of processed foods than in their regular counterparts, and overweight people seem especially vulnerable” according to an article by Nanci Hellmich in USA Today since it is so convenient.
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Truth About SpaghettiOs
The majority of pasta dishes prepared for me as a child were home made and thus “real”. However, the transition from living at home to living in a dorm room has made it difficult to eat real pasta on a regular basis. For this reason, the only pasta I have eaten in the last month is Campbell’s SpaghettiOs. SpaghettiOs are both affordable and easy to find in many grocery stores. Furthermore, I do not have access to an oven and it is easy for me to create a quick, easy meal of SpaghettiOs by simply heating them in the microwave.
Unfortunately, Campbell’s SpaghettiOs are not my favorite food and therefore I only eat them every once in a while. To me, it is very evident this pasta product is “fake” and has substantial differences from the “real” form of the food. Especially when analyzing its look, taste and smell. To begin with, SpaghettiOs simply do not look real. When I open the can, I see rubbery looking rings floating in a pasty marina sauce. Soon after, I am overwhelmed with a tomato like odor which has been bottled up for an unknown amount of time. Luckily, it tastes better than it looks or smells since its ingredients have been enriched and modified with enough enzymes to create a flavor equivalent to the real food.
On the contrary to real pasta, I believe SpaghettiOs fall into the junk food category. The product does not provide a significant source of vitamins or essential nutrients. In fact, “Spaghetti-O's lack any real nutritional value [therefore] food manufacturers attempt to add artificial nutritional value by fortifying processed junk foods with synthetic nutrients” according to The Weston A. Price Foundation. Furthermore, SpaghettiOs are higher in both sodium and calories and appear to be scientifically engineered to contain less cholesterol and more protein than home made spaghettios.
For this reason, I believe I will be returning to the real version of the food when I am able to afford it or when I live at home again. I feel the product is good as a temporary substitute but is unhealthy to consume regularly since the majority of its ingredients have been altered.
Unfortunately, Campbell’s SpaghettiOs are not my favorite food and therefore I only eat them every once in a while. To me, it is very evident this pasta product is “fake” and has substantial differences from the “real” form of the food. Especially when analyzing its look, taste and smell. To begin with, SpaghettiOs simply do not look real. When I open the can, I see rubbery looking rings floating in a pasty marina sauce. Soon after, I am overwhelmed with a tomato like odor which has been bottled up for an unknown amount of time. Luckily, it tastes better than it looks or smells since its ingredients have been enriched and modified with enough enzymes to create a flavor equivalent to the real food.
On the contrary to real pasta, I believe SpaghettiOs fall into the junk food category. The product does not provide a significant source of vitamins or essential nutrients. In fact, “Spaghetti-O's lack any real nutritional value [therefore] food manufacturers attempt to add artificial nutritional value by fortifying processed junk foods with synthetic nutrients” according to The Weston A. Price Foundation. Furthermore, SpaghettiOs are higher in both sodium and calories and appear to be scientifically engineered to contain less cholesterol and more protein than home made spaghettios.
For this reason, I believe I will be returning to the real version of the food when I am able to afford it or when I live at home again. I feel the product is good as a temporary substitute but is unhealthy to consume regularly since the majority of its ingredients have been altered.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Michael Pollan's Book Talk:
On Thursday, September 24, 2009 I attended the Michael Pollan public talk on his book In Defense of Food with roughly 7,000 other fans and critics. While I found the whole lecture very engaging and well formatted, the two most interesting points were both the four premises that reflect American’s assumptions of what food actually is as well as the history of what has become the ideology of nutritionism.
According to Michael Pollan, the four premises that reflect the assumptions American’s have of food are as follows: First, the key to understanding food is nutrients and food is merely a sum of its nutrient parts. Second, the population as a whole is dependent on experts to tell us how to eat since “[our] dietary salvation depends on unseen nutrients” (Pollan 28). Third, food is divided into good and evil. Last, the secret to health is navigating between those good and bad nutrients since “for every good nutrient, there must be a bad nutrient to serve as its foil” (Pollan 30). While I agree with these statements, I had previously never thought about the extreme to which people have become more attracted to ingredient labels versus the product itself. As a result, I find it disheartening that the focus of eating has gone from socialization and enjoyment to a game of risk where people have to decode product labels. With that being the case, nutritionism may be good for the market since science can altar products to fit the current ingredient fad, but it maintains a negative impact on the human mentality towards food.
Providing that most people follow this concept of nutritionism, it was shocking to learn how industry can negatively affect the government’s role in food labeling regulations. For instance, the American Heart Association’s determination to get American’s onto vegetable oil versus other fats caused the removal of labeling foods as imitation. Therefore, consumers no longer knew when they were buying the product they wanted or its nutritional equivalent. Furthermore, the rewriting of the United States dietary goals during the 1970’s Low Fat Campaign was a direct impact from the struggling food industry. The industry realized it could not sell products that were being suggested against but could sell products that did not contain nutrients which were being suggested against. While at first I disagreed with the government taking part in this development of nutritionalism, these two evident examples blatantly show the government’s role in the national focus shifting from foods to nutrients.
As has been noted, the lecture attracted many people and was overall very informative of the main points of his book In Defense of Food. The audience never lost interest and anticipation grew as everyone eagerly waited for Pollan to start speaking. Therefore, the format was well though out beginning with a series of introductions from the chancellor, project manager, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor and finally Michael Pollan and concluded with a question and answer session. Michael Pollan was a very intellectual speaker and his clever attention getter of mocking the labels of America’s favorite and “ healthy” snack foods kept the audience entertained from the start.
According to Michael Pollan, the four premises that reflect the assumptions American’s have of food are as follows: First, the key to understanding food is nutrients and food is merely a sum of its nutrient parts. Second, the population as a whole is dependent on experts to tell us how to eat since “[our] dietary salvation depends on unseen nutrients” (Pollan 28). Third, food is divided into good and evil. Last, the secret to health is navigating between those good and bad nutrients since “for every good nutrient, there must be a bad nutrient to serve as its foil” (Pollan 30). While I agree with these statements, I had previously never thought about the extreme to which people have become more attracted to ingredient labels versus the product itself. As a result, I find it disheartening that the focus of eating has gone from socialization and enjoyment to a game of risk where people have to decode product labels. With that being the case, nutritionism may be good for the market since science can altar products to fit the current ingredient fad, but it maintains a negative impact on the human mentality towards food.
Providing that most people follow this concept of nutritionism, it was shocking to learn how industry can negatively affect the government’s role in food labeling regulations. For instance, the American Heart Association’s determination to get American’s onto vegetable oil versus other fats caused the removal of labeling foods as imitation. Therefore, consumers no longer knew when they were buying the product they wanted or its nutritional equivalent. Furthermore, the rewriting of the United States dietary goals during the 1970’s Low Fat Campaign was a direct impact from the struggling food industry. The industry realized it could not sell products that were being suggested against but could sell products that did not contain nutrients which were being suggested against. While at first I disagreed with the government taking part in this development of nutritionalism, these two evident examples blatantly show the government’s role in the national focus shifting from foods to nutrients.
As has been noted, the lecture attracted many people and was overall very informative of the main points of his book In Defense of Food. The audience never lost interest and anticipation grew as everyone eagerly waited for Pollan to start speaking. Therefore, the format was well though out beginning with a series of introductions from the chancellor, project manager, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor and finally Michael Pollan and concluded with a question and answer session. Michael Pollan was a very intellectual speaker and his clever attention getter of mocking the labels of America’s favorite and “ healthy” snack foods kept the audience entertained from the start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
