Timmy's Rules

      Throughout the several weeks of taking this class, the one expert that I agree most with is Michael Pollan.  He tends to have great ideas and solutions to our problems today while remaining realistic as well.  He addresses the problem at hand while trying to make his solution rational.  Upon reading my previous blog posts, Professor Pfeiffer thought that Pollan and I had similar ideas in which we are trying to regulate the health and food problems within our world today.  Thus, she recommended Pollan’s book Food Rules in which Pollan lists the “rules” to follow on foods in order to live a healthy life.  I thought this would be a great text to analyze and critique his views on the food we should and should not be eating.  In this blog post, I will analyze Pollan’s rhetoric in Food Rules and then provide my response to his rules.

            Before I begin analyzing Food Rules, I want to first discuss the ethos behind Michael Pollan.  For those of you who do not know, Michael Pollan is a journalist and professor at University of California Berkeley where he teaches journalism.  With a masters degree from Columbia University in English, Pollan has been named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Times magazine.  Although we know him through his work in Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan has also written Cooked, The Botany of Desire, In Defense of Food, A Place of My Own, and Food Rules.  Several of his books revolve around the eating habits in the world today.  He analyzes what we eat, why we eat it, how we eat it, etc.  He offers a great rhetoric of our food problems today.  Food Rules was originally published in 2011.  In this novel, he offers solutions to the food crisis problems in today’s world.  He provides these rules in an effort to make a healthier America.  Penguin Press in the United States of America published this book.  It is a small book, under two hundred pages, with several illustrations by Maria Kalman.  This book is sold at a majority of Barnes and Noble bookstores as well as other big bookstores.  Pollan addresses audiences like himself and myself.  According to his book, he “set out to get to the bottom of a simple question: What should I eat? What do we really know about the links between our diet and our health? I’m not a nutrition expert or scientist, just a curious journalist hoping to answer a straightforward question” (Pollan 3).  His audience is the average American who wants a simple eater’s manual on what food to eat.  Almost any American who is worried about their diet will appreciate the rules Pollan has provided. Although not technically a food expert, Pollan has the knowledge to provide a simple eater’s manual for America.

            Food Rules is divided into three sections: what should I eat?  What kind of food should I eat? How should I eat? However, in the introduction, Pollan makes two facts that all nutritionists will agree on clear: Western diets can lead to several obesity related diseases while those who partake in a wide range of traditional diets don’t suffer from these chronic diseases.  The Western diet is “generally defined as diet consisting of lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of refined grains, lots of everything except vegetables, fruits, and whole grains” (Pollan 6). In the first section, Pollan offers types of foods to avoid.  For example, the second rule is don’t eat anything your great grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.  My great grandmother would not know what Go-Gurt portable yogurt tubes are; hence, do not eat them.  Also, avoid food products containing ingredients that no ordinary human would keep in the pantry.  This would help eliminate foods that contain ingredients that are artificially made because they tend not be healthy for the body.  According to Pollan, the first part is a simple key to a simple healthy diet.  The second part is to “propose a handful of personal policies regarding what to eat, above and beyond ‘food’” (Pollan 88).  Some of these rules include sweetening and salting your foods yourself as well as treating meat as a flavoring or special occasion food.  The point of this section is to offer more rules on what to do to your foods rather than just eating them.  The rules of the third and final section “are designed to foster a healthier relationship to food” (Pollan 147).  One rule that I find most significant is to pay more and eat less.  America has always believed that bigger is better.  However, there is an inverse relationship between quality and quantity.  If Americans were to pay more for more expensive food, it would help eliminate people buying cheap processed food in bulk.  This would cause a huge drop in our rates of obesity because less people would be buying cheap “snacky” foods.  Pollan sums up the book with the motto “Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.”  If one were to follow this simple diet, they will live a healthy life.  This is Pollan’s purpose, a nice simple diet that will help encourage many Americans to live a healthier lifestyle.

After reading Food Rules, I come to realize that I would agree with almost everything Pollan has to say about dieting.  If one’s purpose in life were to live a healthy life, then they should follow his “rules.”  However, there is one main difference between Pollan and I.  The difference lies between our purposes in life.  If people truly want to live a healthy life and make all their decisions about eating healthy, great for them.  Personally, I find living a happy life more important.  If eating a twinke while sipping on a glass of Coca-Cola makes one happy, then I say go for it.  Pollan touches on this in the final section.  His final rule is “break the rules every once in a while” (Pollan 197).  Obsessing over food decisions could be poor for one’s health.  Unhealthy foods in moderation will not make one obese, or have diabetes.  This is relatable to my blog in the way that Pollan offers a solution to eating healthily and how I find solutions to other hood and health problems today.  Yes a lot of my solutions contain regulation by the government; however, that is not only my purpose.  The dilemmas we face with dieting, obesity, and fast food are a major crisis in our world today.  Like Pollan, I am trying to find a solution to this crisis.  Bottom line, if one were to live like me, follow my advice, “Eat food. Not too much. But mainly, be happy.”

Work Cited

Pollan, Michael. Food Rules: An Eater's Manual. New York: Penguin, 2009. Print.However,

The System

     Although most of my readers should know this by now, obesity and other obesity related conditions are becoming a massive epidemic in the United States.  America is reaching a new high in obesity rates; for example, more than one third of adults in the United States are considered obese.  All these staggering numbers and statistics come from a wide range of problems within our country like malnutrition, poverty, and many other complications.  One controversial topic that is arguably part of the problem of obesity is the role of advertisements in our daily life.  Advertisements and commercials are everywhere in the United States now.  Are advertisers to blame for the obesity rates in the United States? Or, do they have a right to promote their product in any way they want? In this post, I will analyze both arguments of this topic, and come to solution of what can be done with advertisements to help lower the rates of obesity in America.

            Before I dive into both arguments, I would like to be known that I am not siding with one side or the other.  I am simply a college student who feels the need to step in and finally put a stop to the real problem at hand, the health of our people.  Like almost all arguments, there will have to be a consensus.  There is no simple answer to our problem, thus we must draw critical points together from both arguments to maximize our results.  The purpose of this post is not to point figures of who is to blame, but to find the best way to lower our obesity rates.

            The first side of the argument that I will be analyzing is the side believing that advertisements play a major role in the epidemic of obesity.  It is easy to blame big advertising corporations like Coca-Cola for the obesity rates because it’s their product that they are advertising that might have lead people to obesity.  Although ads are on all types of social media, to keep the argument nice and simple, we will focus on the role advertisements play on television.  To begin, think of how many TVs you have in your house.  Now, think of how many hours you or someone else spends watching TV a day.  According to the article ObesiTV: How television is influencing the obesity epidemic, ninety nine percent of Americans have a TV in their house.  As well, the average American watches 151 hours of TV a month! “Behavioral studies have found the more food advertisements people see, the more primed they are to want to eat” (ScienceDirect). Now, imagine how many advertisements and commercials are viewed within 151 hours that the average American views a month.  That’s a lot! Ergo, the more advertisements we see, the more we want to eat.  The amount of advertisements alone plays a crucial role within our health.  On top of the number of ads, the actual food or beverage being advertised is not the healthiest choice.  The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals,” performed an experiment in which they compared the nutritional value of the foods being advertised on television.  According to the results, “a 2,000-calorie diet consisting entirely of advertised foods would contain 25 times the recommended servings of sugars and 20 times the recommended servings of fat, but less than half of the recommended servings of vegetables, dairy, and fruits” (Eat.Right.).  Thus, one can conclude that if we desire to eat a lot of food, due to the amount of advertisements, and that that food we see on TV is not healthy for us, the impact of advertisements will lead to weight gain in people.  Through behavioral studies and experiments, it has been proved that advertisements and commercials by these corporations are part of the problem of high obesity rates today.

            Although the first solution people might have to this problem is to simply prohibit advertisements, it is not the most beneficial or logical solution.  Even though it may seem like advertisements are terrible for humans, they benefit society in other ways.  First, companies have the right to promote their product, and they would be foolish not to advertise it.  The purpose of advertisements is to promote a product.  What is the point of running a food business in which one tells people not to try their product?  There is nothing wrong with the purpose of advertisements.  On top of that, advertising and marketing careers now play a huge role in the business world.  A lot of colleges now offer marketing majors, which will lead people down that successful profession.  Before simply getting rid of ads, one must think of how many marketing jobs would be lost.  One strong point for the argument of advertisers is that the consumers have a choice.  They are the ones putting the food or beverage in the consumer, and the consumers have the ability to reject the product.  For instance, a lot of critics believe that Coca-Cola advertising is the reason for obesity in America, because so many obese people drink coke everyday.  Coca-Cola advertising is not to blame; the ads do not say to drink a Coke three times a day.  Yes, the product might lead to obesity if drank every day, but the ads never say to do that.  So why are they to blame? In conclusion, companies have the right promote their product, and they should be blamed for the obesity rates because they are not the ones putting the product in the consumer.

            Clearly, we are stuck.  Before thinking of giving up, there are problems on both sides of the arguments.  From the consumer’s point of view, as humans, we are naturally inclined to want to eat food that we see on the advertisements.  As well, the food that we see tends to be unhealthy for us.  However, advertisers are not blame either.  The true problem lies within something I like to call “the system.”  The system is that an unhealthy product is advertised, and as natural humans, we want to eat that unhealthy product.  We cannot simply stop advertising, thus we must change the system.  Both parties must change. 

For the consumer, one must be aware and informed on the power that advertisements have on our decision-making.  Although this is starting to become more knowledgeable, people should be educated more about the distinction between healthy and unhealthy foods.  For the advertising companies, government should enforce them to list the nutritional facts on the ads or at least label nutritional warnings like pharmaceutical drugs.  As well, companies should be educated about the impact advertising has on peoples eating and drinking habits.  Nutritionists should be paired with the companies to help promote a healthier products and activities.  With the help of the government, as well as health impacts regarding diet and ads should be educated to all people.  As one can see, it is not so simple to point fingers at who is to blame with obesity and advertising.  In order for us to get the healthiest reaction, we must change the system. 

Work Cited

Boulos, Rebecca, Emily Vikre, Sophie Oppenheimer, Hannah Chang, and Robin Kanarek.

"ObesiTV: How Television Is Influencing the Obesity Epidemic." Science Direct. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2012.

Mink, Michael, Alexandra Evans, Charity Moore, Kristine Calderon, and Shannon Deger. "Nutritional Imbalance Endorsed by Televised Food Advertisements." Eat Right. American Die

Voices of Power

Fast food is becoming a prominent part of the diet of the average American, and it shows. Each day, more and more Americans are diagnosed as being obese, and fast food tends to be part of that problem. In an attempt to find a helpful solution to this problem, Eric Schlosser attacks the fast food corporations to try to establish order in this time of chaos. He writes Fast Food Nation, where he first attacks the corporations in “The American Way” section, and then examines the food at these restaurants to unveil the secrets behind the process in the “Meat and Potatoes” section. In the epilogue of the book, Schlosser proposes his solution, which is that Americans should simply refrain from fast food. I disagree with that solution, and think that should not be the best way of solving our food epidemic. In this post, I will explain why his solution is not realistic, and dissect the problems that his solution creates, and then offer my proposal.

Before I analyze Schlosser’s solution, I would like to make known that I agree with almost all of Schlosser’s ideas in his book, especially in “The American Way” and “Meat and Potatoes” sections. I believe that corporations like McDonalds and Subway have too much power and influence within our society. The employees are not treated as well as they should be, and should receive higher wages and other benefits. Also, I believe that fast food is unhealthy if eaten repeatedly. Additionally, rather than farmers manipulating the corporations, the corporations have the farmers wrapped around their fingers. To keep up with the high demand, farmers are forced to mistreat their produce just to keep up with demand. The mistreated produce is making millions of Americans ill every day and according to Schlosser, "In the eight years since the Jack in the Box outbreak, approximately half a million Americans, the majority of them children, have been made ill by E. Coli O157:H7. Thousands have been hospitalized, and hundreds have died" (Schlosser 199). I see eye to eye with Schlosser with all of this, except the way of solving all this chaos.  I simply want to point out that agree with what majority Schlosser has to say about fast food companies.  I am pointing out all their flaws before I analyze it before I defend it in moderation.

To begin, the biggest problem that I have with Schlosser’s answer, to simply stop going to fast food restaurants, is the fact that it is too late for that attempt. Personally, I believe that fast food companies play too big of a role in our lives, good or bad. Take one second. Think of all of the fast food restaurants one can think of. Then think of all of those restaurants and where one can personally find them. They are everywhere. According to McDonald’s: Behind the Arches, there is more than 14,000 McDonald’s worldwide! Eliminating fast food companies is like eliminating all Apple products. To think that all of these restaurants will turn into “ma and pa” shops is too idealistic. Yes, by simply not going to fast food companies, they will go out of business.

However, hypothetically speaking, if there were no more fast food restaurants, where would people be able to go grab a quick bite to eat? Yes I understand that fast food is not the healthiest choice; however, an unhealthy choice is better than no food at all. I believe that people have forgotten the first real purpose of fast food companies like McDonalds, In-n-out, etc. The first McDonalds was originally set up as a restaurant that people could swing by and grab a quick bite to eat while on the road. It was not supposed to be eaten every day; it was more like a “get of jail free” card. Fast foods became prominent due to people going there too often, even when they have the ability to cook at their house, apartment, etc. If there were no fast food restaurants, where could one be able to find a quick drive thru to grab a meal that they don’t have time for? By eliminating fast food restaurants, think about how many people are left struggling to find a quick bite to eat everyday because they don’t have time sit down at a restaurant and enjoy a meal. 

In addition to the several people who are starving due to the loss of fast food companies, think about all the jobs that would be lost. According to “Food is Power” website, there are roughly 3,500,000 employees working in the fast food business alone. Now, think of the farms, and how many workers are plugging away towards these types of companies. That is several million jobs being lost. That is a lot. The loss of all those jobs will force the unemployment rates to skyrocket.  Yes, the employees are not being paid, respected, or rewarded; nonetheless, that is still a lot of jobs. What would happen to all these employees? Let’s face it; McDonalds alone, some of employees do not have the credentials and abilities to be working at best paying jobs. As well, many of them are migrants. They come to America for a job and to live a free life. Are they supposed to just leave America if they don’t have a job? Yes a job at McDonalds may not be the best, but like me post-college, I will take any job I can find. Work is scarce. Like I said earlier, I know the staff is not treated the best; however, that can be addressed. It will be hard to save the lives of several million work-less citizens. 

So rather than trying to stop going to fast food companies completely, we should try and change and modify the way fast food companies play a role in our life. Simply eliminating them out of lives will only cause more chaos. We need to regulate these companies. We, the citizens of the United States, need to take action in a different way. To solve the problem of the number of fast food restaurants, government should make companies have a certain distance between one another. John Love, author of McDonald’s: Behind the Arches, writes that, “slightly more than half of the U.S. population lives with a three-minute drive to a McDonalds”(Love 3).  For instance, there should be no less than 5 miles between two Burger Kings. In Chicago, there is a stretch of highway in which there is a McDonalds every exit for several exits in a span of a few miles. By simply eliminating the number of fast food companies is half the battle. It will deter people from wanting to travel that far for a quick unhealthy bite to eat. Now for the employees, government should force these companies to treat their employees more fairly. Workers should be getting a higher pay raise, and receive health benefits. According to Love, “McDonald’s stores today are strictly nonunion shops”(Love 395).  Due to the number of employees, it must be near impossible for workers to let their voice be heard.  They should be able to unionize.  The workers in the slaughterhouses should be granted health benefits because they are constantly being forced to work in awful working conditions, forcing many of them become ill or even die.  With government regulations, employees at these businesses would be much happier with their lives. The final step of the process to make fast food companies more compatible is to make the food healthier. This was the one part of the book that I agreed with Schlosser on. The food at fast food restaurants is fattening, artificial, and repulsive. I am not saying that McDonalds needs to turn into a giant salad bar; however, with some laws by government, we can eliminate some of the added artificial ingredients and make a burger made out of real beef, with real lettuce, onion, ketchup, mustard, and pickles. They should still keep the menu nice and simple. With a little more awareness of the food from these companies, we can be healthier. I understand that my solution to this chaos requires a lot of voice from the every day citizen. We need to remember that the company is at the heels of the people, not vice versa. All of these companies have one thing in common, and that is that they are all businesses. They will do whatever it takes to make money. With the voice of the American people, we can make all the changes we want. If they do not listen to the consumers, their business crumbles. They will listen to us; all it takes is action and determination to make all the changes we need to make. It is in our hands, not theirs. 

As one can see, Schlosser and I have two different solutions to the same problem. Although we have different ways of going about it, Schlosser and I want the same thing, a healthy America. Eric Schlosser is an expert, and I agree with almost everything he writes about in his book, Fast Food Nation. He is an expert in his field, and knows a lot about fast food; however, we have two different views. I am not contrarian, but rather a kid who is trying to find a more realistic solution to our problem today.

Work Cited

Love, John F. McDonald's: Behind the Arches. New York: Bantam, 1995. Print.

Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001. Print.