W8 - The Moral Crusade Against Foodies

After reading Myers’ The Moral Crusade Against Foodies (a few times), I was still unsure as to the main argument of the article.  While I can comprehend “gluttony dressed up as foodie-ism is still gluttony,” the rest of the text was murky and I struggled to extract formal arguments from the vast number of textual examples employed by Myers.  With the subtitle forwardly stated, where does a reader go from there?  I am lead to assume, initially, that “gluttony” refers to the obesity epidemic in America – however this point was never truly addressed in the remainder of the article thus leaving my perplexed.

As I delved through the subsequent paragraphs, I noticed a trend in Myers’ article – a vicious attack on celebrity foodies such as Steingarten, Severson, Pollan and Bourdain.  However, beyond these attacks, Myers fails to make/form a legitimate argument that is lucid and comprehensible to the reader.  Is Myers intent to turn American culture against seemingly superior foodies who wine and dine at the most exclusive restaurants around the world?  One must assume this is at least partially the intent of his article and thus, Myers article comes across as merely complaining about and attacking these foodies – and he does so in a snobby, arrogant tone that is equally as dislikeable as his thesis – or in this case, lack thereof.  So, in attacking the snobby foodies, Myers comes across as snobby himself and consequently, his text seemingly belittles readers and reads rather condescendingly.

In short, I do not feel Myers’ claims in this article are legitimate in that I can barely fathom what his claims are.  If Myers was attempting to conjure up disdain from readers for foodies, he should have at least provided an extensive description of what constitutes a foodie.  Just because an individual has a significant interest in food, is able to spend an unusual amount of money on one meal or fly around the world to sample cheese, is not a reason to regard them as elitists – that would be unfair. 

W7 - Secret Recipe

In a previous blog post, I discussed and shared a recipe dear to me and my family – Oma’s German Pancakes.  While I offered readers the recipe for these crepe-like, delectable pancakes, I did not include the specific amount of each ingredient required.  Thus, it is not the particular ingredients that make this family recipe “secret,” but rather the precise amount of each ingredient needed – a skill which only my Oma has mastered.  My grandmother has spent years perfecting this recipe and adds all the ingredients into a mixing bowl until the batter appears “just right.”  However, I’m sure we can all agree that the amount of butter utilized in a recipe has a significant effect on taste and the more, the merrier.  

Again, I was raised vegetarian, and many of our dinner entrees (lunch was always PB & J or Pizza Lunchables) came straight out of a vegetarian cookbook.  My mother, an inexperienced vegetarian cook, always sought new recipes that would appeal to my sisters’ and my taste buds (though it was most often an unsuccessful attempt).  Thus, none of my mother’s recipes were original or special to our family.  Further, even if a recipe was special to my family, it would taste so unappealing to an outsider that no one would want the recipe badly enough for it to be a “secret.”  

A lot of families bring their “secret” family recipe to a cookout or potluck.  I personally feel this is an attempt to entice those in attendance to the dish, yet tease them in that it is not acceptable to share a “secret” recipe.  Looking back on the numerous potlucks I have attended over the course of my lifetime, I try to determine what dish my mother added to the smorgasbord.  Alas, one dish comes to mind: a bowl of diced fruit…thanks for being original, Mom.

W6 - Food Injustice

The documentary Food, Inc. offers citizens a look into America’s previously veiled food industry – and the look, for many, is absolutely mind-blowing.  From personal stories to animal cruelty, Food, Inc. includes an overwhelming amount of critical information pertinent to the well-being of our nation – information which is, at the very least, guaranteed to grab the utmost attention of an audience.  The arguments and strategies utilized by producers to create a persuasive film effectively communicate the film’s message, which is both alarming and informative.    

As a self-admitted overly-emotional female, I found the film Food Inc. extremely difficult to watch in entirety.  Throughout the screening of the film, I was overcome with emotion and can clearly recall at least three instances during which I found myself in tears.  The three instances include: the segment on the E. Coli-stricken boy’s mother (now a food safety advocate), the animal cruelty depicted in the documentary (especially the clip in which the cow struggled to walk on broken legs, which folded under her overbearing weight), and the segment on the elderly farmer who was being sued by Monsanto. 

Though I found the information communicated through Food, Inc. to be personally shocking, it is information of which I was previously aware.  While the aspect of animal cruelty was not stressed in my vegetarian household growing up, it is something I find inexcusable and inhumane.  My father, however, has continually informed us of the dangers of consuming meat – if, after watching the documentary, we can still consider it “meat.”  The segment on how farming has changed in America was the most attention-grabbing in that I was not aware of the status and severity of the situation.  Also, the injustices the food industry is doing America and its citizens also made me upset.

In sum, I personally find all aspects of the documentary to be persuasive – so much so that I purchased a number of organic products at my most recent venture to the grocery store (a building I will never be able to look at the same).     

W5 -

As a viewer, I found the documentary Supersize Me and contents to be particularly disturbing.  For this blog post, I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on the film and obesity in America.  

In America, fast food consumers are extremely ill-informed of the ingredients of the foods they consume on a regular basis.  Such ingredients can range from lab-produced chemicals to words many consumers cannot even pronounce.  While this may be grounds to argue that the fast food industry is misleading its consumers, it is however, not grounds for a law suit.  In Supersize Me, I, personally, was appalled by suit filed by the parents of two morbidly obese teenage girls.  While consumers may not be able to identify the extent to which consuming such food harms one’s body, it should be common knowledge to all Americans that consuming fast foods is, by no means, healthy.  Further, a number of fast food restaurants display nutritional information on their websites.  Don’t have internet?  Pamphlets with nutritional information are available at each restaurant upon request.  

I have little to no sympathy for overweight Americans who try to point the finger at the fast food industry, among many other causes, as the source of their weight issue.  While I can tolerate the “genetics” (give or take 20 or so pounds), attributing 100+ pounds of extra body weight to “genetics” seems a little ridiculous.  To these Americans, I pose these questions: Were your great grandparents in the early 1900s morbidly obese? (Probably not).  Do you see a correlation between the rise of obesity and the rise of fast food consumption? (The answer should be yes).  In short, I feel the only person responsible for being overweight is oneself.  An individual has control over the food they consume and the amount of exercise he or she receives.   

In sum, Americans need to stop blaming the fast food industry and genetics as the source of their obesity.  Americans need to “get informed.”