Composting and Food Insecurity
Food waste is something Americans don’t think about enough. Although food insecurity affects millions of people nationally, the problem is often addressed through efforts to increase individual consumption or donation as opposed to a corporate shift that can dramatically shift food insecurity in many major cities. In an article for Crain’s Detroit titled “Zero hunger, zero waste,” Leslie D. Green addresses food insecurity in Michigan. Green tackles Kroger’s efforts to minimize waste among restaurants and huge corporations in a way that can be extended to not only school systems but also farmers. Kroger does not simply aim to minimize waste, but also to eliminate hunger in many states where it's located. Food waste is viewed as a problem that needs to be addressed within schools, especially those where many kids are going home without any food to eat. Ensuring that kids have access to food at times when school has let out is where it begins. Summer programs are being established, with food being offered to take home for parents to be able to eat as well. This way, kids can feed their families. Food can become an extension for a whole group of people as opposed to being wasted in garbage bins at the schools.
Reduction of food waste and food insecurity go hand-in-hand according to Greene. Other efforts include taking waste from restaurants for farmers to use. According to the article, "Detroit Dirt works with companies — such as General Motors Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, restaurants and nonprofits — to divert food waste from landfills and create compost for farmers" (Crain's). Similarly to Manoff, Green recognizes composting as a way to reduce food waste, except her aim is more towards urban as opposed to agricultural settings. While Manoff addresses how composting can actually be cheaper for farmers, Green discusses how designating a bin in the back of one’s restaurant to provide as composting for farmers requires no additional costs for business owners. Instead, the daily food waste corporations cannot donate can be used to advance agricultural practices as well. This requires an effort from both sides. Farmers will need to work with business owners to create a way for them to trade fresh produce for composting bins. This can be a great start towards a shift towards a different way of farming. Since major cities are on the rise, waste is inevitable, especially at restaurants that are regulated to the point where they cannot donate any old foods they have. Composting becomes the solution to the problem that we are all faced with, that of where to put our food in order to avoid waste. A mass shift in this direction can offer solutions that can be beneficial both environmentally and financially.
Reduction of food waste and food insecurity go hand-in-hand according to Greene. Other efforts include taking waste from restaurants for farmers to use. According to the article, "Detroit Dirt works with companies — such as General Motors Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, restaurants and nonprofits — to divert food waste from landfills and create compost for farmers" (Crain's). Similarly to Manoff, Green recognizes composting as a way to reduce food waste, except her aim is more towards urban as opposed to agricultural settings. While Manoff addresses how composting can actually be cheaper for farmers, Green discusses how designating a bin in the back of one’s restaurant to provide as composting for farmers requires no additional costs for business owners. Instead, the daily food waste corporations cannot donate can be used to advance agricultural practices as well. This requires an effort from both sides. Farmers will need to work with business owners to create a way for them to trade fresh produce for composting bins. This can be a great start towards a shift towards a different way of farming. Since major cities are on the rise, waste is inevitable, especially at restaurants that are regulated to the point where they cannot donate any old foods they have. Composting becomes the solution to the problem that we are all faced with, that of where to put our food in order to avoid waste. A mass shift in this direction can offer solutions that can be beneficial both environmentally and financially.
Is Decreasing Meat Consumption Truly Effective for Climate Change?
Climate change is a controversial topic for many. Whether humans have had an impact on the nature of our planet has turned into something entirely political. Yet even among those who agree, there seems to be a split between what is effective versus what isn't. Aidan McNally and Laura Cutmore wrote an article titled “6 Ways Students Can Turn Climate Fears Into Collective Action,” for Canada’s Huffington Post. Cutmore and McNally begin by explaining the devastating reality of the current state of climate change. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report that highlighted the high probability of our inability to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. They go on to propose six solutions to prevent this catastrophe that can result in the death of millions of people. Before these suggestions, however, Cutmore and McNally urge people to ditch what they deem “individualistic” means of preventing global warming. They view cutting meat consumption and banning single-use plastic as futile efforts, instead urging people to read and share the IPCC, take collective action, and empower indigenous efforts to ban fossil fuel consumption.
While these efforts are effective indeed, Cutmore and McNally fail to recognize the millions of Americans that can make a change within the meat industry as well. Waite and Lipinski state that “beef production accounts for nearly half of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the average American diet” (World Resources Institute). While Cutmore and McNally’s efforts are achievable among students and those with resources to share the IPCC reports and actively work for the rights of indigenous people in relation to global warming, there are practical solutions more plausible for Americans without the education and resources that enable understanding and action. For those people, global change may begin with consuming less meat, with using less plastic, and with wasting less food. Ditching these “individualistic” efforts is more detrimental and unrealistic than beneficial. A better suggestion would be to implement change in areas where one has the ability to. Ceasing the effort to inform the public of the overwhelming harm meat production is inflicting on the environment would only be a step backwards. Annick de Witt rightly states, "The cultural evolution of society is moving in the right direction: we have the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, working in favor of us."
While these efforts are effective indeed, Cutmore and McNally fail to recognize the millions of Americans that can make a change within the meat industry as well. Waite and Lipinski state that “beef production accounts for nearly half of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the average American diet” (World Resources Institute). While Cutmore and McNally’s efforts are achievable among students and those with resources to share the IPCC reports and actively work for the rights of indigenous people in relation to global warming, there are practical solutions more plausible for Americans without the education and resources that enable understanding and action. For those people, global change may begin with consuming less meat, with using less plastic, and with wasting less food. Ditching these “individualistic” efforts is more detrimental and unrealistic than beneficial. A better suggestion would be to implement change in areas where one has the ability to. Ceasing the effort to inform the public of the overwhelming harm meat production is inflicting on the environment would only be a step backwards. Annick de Witt rightly states, "The cultural evolution of society is moving in the right direction: we have the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, working in favor of us."
Instacart: The McDonaldization of Online Grocery Shopping
Last week I entered my kitchen three times before realizing there was absolutely nothing to eat. It was pouring and the Midwestern cold had comfortably settled outside my cozy abode a few days prior, so it was only natural for the mere thought of getting on the bus and heading to Meijer to make my bones ache. That’s when my roommate had a genius idea: online grocery shopping. She began listing vendors and my mind couldn’t fathom the novelty and convenience of getting a pint of Ben and Jerry’s as I was watching TV. I got a Shipt trial to see whether this service was actually worth it or not. We split the cost halfway, and it cost nearly the same as heading to a grocery store would have. A deeper look at online grocery shopping prompted viewing it in a more analytical light, one based upon its current rise in major cities and even rural areas. In his article “With $600 in new funding, Instacart is a unicorn times seven” for Fast Company, Harry McCracken presents statistics regarding the online grocery delivery service’s newfound success that seems to be overtaking the industry.
According to the article, “50,000 Instacart shoppers deliver groceries from 15,000 stores in 4,000 cities, and the company has signed up more than 300 grocery partners as it does battle with giants such as Amazon and Walmart” (Fast Company). Instacart’s expansion is direct competition with these companies who have extended their lines of service to accommodate our ever-growing need for instantaneous solutions. In an effort to expand the level of convenience for people’s busy schedules, leaving one’s house to get groceries will soon become foreign as giant companies compete within their online market more than ever before in the past. According to McCracken, “seventy percent of U.S. households could be using Instacart—they live in areas it services—and the company plans to increase that coverage to 80% by the end of the year.” This expansion is part of the overarching model companies like Instacart and Shipt are following despite their seemingly novel nature. This model is what George Ritzer defines as McDonaldization.
The four criteria of McDonaldization are efficiency, calculability, predictability and control. Online grocery shopping is built upon efficiency. Instacart delivers in under an hour most of the time. They thrive on efficiency and availability to customers through their current physical expansion to multiple cities across the nation. There is nothing more efficient than getting your groceries from point A, the grocery store, to point B, your house. There is no need to even step outside your home, no need for any kind of social interaction other than a mere hello at your doorstep. Calculability is definitely less so a factor since one is paying for both delivery and tipping, but there is an idea of delivery being a better bargain than gas, time, and effort it takes to grocery shop. Since there is someone going to a store and driving all the way to the desired destination, the delivery cost seems like a logical equivalent to time. Predictability is perhaps the least exercised with online grocery shopping due to the limited availability of certain items depending on one’s location. Control is perhaps the main reason Instacart is not chaotic if anything else. Every area has a specific set of stores a customer can choose from. Most are also available during certain hours of the day. The same model applies to Shipt, Amazon Prime Now, and Walmart. All of these giant companies are using this model to minimize consumers’ effort in getting fresh food to their homes. McDonaldization has somehow crept into our lives to the point where all of our demands are dependent on these four factors it aims to establish.
According to the article, “50,000 Instacart shoppers deliver groceries from 15,000 stores in 4,000 cities, and the company has signed up more than 300 grocery partners as it does battle with giants such as Amazon and Walmart” (Fast Company). Instacart’s expansion is direct competition with these companies who have extended their lines of service to accommodate our ever-growing need for instantaneous solutions. In an effort to expand the level of convenience for people’s busy schedules, leaving one’s house to get groceries will soon become foreign as giant companies compete within their online market more than ever before in the past. According to McCracken, “seventy percent of U.S. households could be using Instacart—they live in areas it services—and the company plans to increase that coverage to 80% by the end of the year.” This expansion is part of the overarching model companies like Instacart and Shipt are following despite their seemingly novel nature. This model is what George Ritzer defines as McDonaldization.
The four criteria of McDonaldization are efficiency, calculability, predictability and control. Online grocery shopping is built upon efficiency. Instacart delivers in under an hour most of the time. They thrive on efficiency and availability to customers through their current physical expansion to multiple cities across the nation. There is nothing more efficient than getting your groceries from point A, the grocery store, to point B, your house. There is no need to even step outside your home, no need for any kind of social interaction other than a mere hello at your doorstep. Calculability is definitely less so a factor since one is paying for both delivery and tipping, but there is an idea of delivery being a better bargain than gas, time, and effort it takes to grocery shop. Since there is someone going to a store and driving all the way to the desired destination, the delivery cost seems like a logical equivalent to time. Predictability is perhaps the least exercised with online grocery shopping due to the limited availability of certain items depending on one’s location. Control is perhaps the main reason Instacart is not chaotic if anything else. Every area has a specific set of stores a customer can choose from. Most are also available during certain hours of the day. The same model applies to Shipt, Amazon Prime Now, and Walmart. All of these giant companies are using this model to minimize consumers’ effort in getting fresh food to their homes. McDonaldization has somehow crept into our lives to the point where all of our demands are dependent on these four factors it aims to establish.
Chicago's Food Deserts: Mayor Rahm Emanuel's Futile Efforts
Chicago Tribune’s Bill Ruthhart addresses the problem of food deserts in Chicago in his article “Emanuel still short on food desert goals, even as Englewood Whole Foods opens.” The city’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, recently had a ribbon cutting for the first Whole Foods in Englewood, a poverty-stricken neighborhood on the southwest side of the city. The article addresses Emanuel’s goal of reducing the number of food deserts in Chicago when voted into office in 2011 as one of his main priorities as mayor. However, it blatantly highlights how Emanuel’s efforts are more concerned with statistics and bravado than actual improvement.
The opening of this store in Englewood, a neighborhood often automatically linked to crime and therefore neglected by big businesses, is a step forward. Ruthhart acknowledges this. He mentions Lelia Young, an Englewood native who landed a job baking goods and selling them at this location. Young believes that this is cleaning up the neighborhood, helping her as a youth living in it and also providing access to fresher foods to locals. However, Ruthhart also points out that the exact placement of the Whole Foods is not in a food desert, as there is an Aldi a few blocks away. He mentions how Emanuel has managed to even redefine the meaning of a food desert to display a change in the number of food deserts statistically. For example, the inclusiveness of what qualifies as a food desert in the past was broader than it is now, meaning the reduction of those without access to grocery stores from 650,000 to 400,000 is directly a result of counting less people in the consensus in general. This makes Emanuel’s efforts of claiming progress towards decreasing food deserts futile, deceiving even. There are many wards in Chicago’s south side that still lack access to fresh, quality foods. This Whole Foods may be a step forward for Englewood and its locals, but using subsidized taxpayer money would have been more effective to opening many smaller chains in areas that are actually not in proximity of any grocery stores. Englewood is an area that is well-known to many, and putting focus there seemed to have been most beneficial in order to get the mayor’s declining reputation amongst the city’s African American voters to improve.
Tracie McMillan’s article calls for a reform of the term “food desert” that can be perfectly applied to Chicago’s food desert problem. Emanuel did indeed redefine what constitutes as a food desert, increasing the distance (in miles) of what the term includes. This simply skews statistics to make the mayor’s efforts seem more effective than they actually are. In no way do they bring awareness to the issue as one that has prevailed for over 50 years in Chicago. McMillan suggests we instead treat food deserts as a “structural problem” (McMillan). Applying this idea to Chicago’s food deserts allows for a true analysis of the systemic neglect of its lesser-known areas than Englewood. South Shore’s alderman Leslie Hairston identifies Emanuel’s efforts as hollow because they isolate a particular neighborhood, neglecting others that are in more dire need of access to fresh foods. Looking at this problem for what it actually is requires more than opening a high-chain grocery store in the south side. It requires expanding this effort, otherwise the state of living below the poverty line that affects nearly 82% of Chicago’s south side will prevail.
The opening of this store in Englewood, a neighborhood often automatically linked to crime and therefore neglected by big businesses, is a step forward. Ruthhart acknowledges this. He mentions Lelia Young, an Englewood native who landed a job baking goods and selling them at this location. Young believes that this is cleaning up the neighborhood, helping her as a youth living in it and also providing access to fresher foods to locals. However, Ruthhart also points out that the exact placement of the Whole Foods is not in a food desert, as there is an Aldi a few blocks away. He mentions how Emanuel has managed to even redefine the meaning of a food desert to display a change in the number of food deserts statistically. For example, the inclusiveness of what qualifies as a food desert in the past was broader than it is now, meaning the reduction of those without access to grocery stores from 650,000 to 400,000 is directly a result of counting less people in the consensus in general. This makes Emanuel’s efforts of claiming progress towards decreasing food deserts futile, deceiving even. There are many wards in Chicago’s south side that still lack access to fresh, quality foods. This Whole Foods may be a step forward for Englewood and its locals, but using subsidized taxpayer money would have been more effective to opening many smaller chains in areas that are actually not in proximity of any grocery stores. Englewood is an area that is well-known to many, and putting focus there seemed to have been most beneficial in order to get the mayor’s declining reputation amongst the city’s African American voters to improve.
Tracie McMillan’s article calls for a reform of the term “food desert” that can be perfectly applied to Chicago’s food desert problem. Emanuel did indeed redefine what constitutes as a food desert, increasing the distance (in miles) of what the term includes. This simply skews statistics to make the mayor’s efforts seem more effective than they actually are. In no way do they bring awareness to the issue as one that has prevailed for over 50 years in Chicago. McMillan suggests we instead treat food deserts as a “structural problem” (McMillan). Applying this idea to Chicago’s food deserts allows for a true analysis of the systemic neglect of its lesser-known areas than Englewood. South Shore’s alderman Leslie Hairston identifies Emanuel’s efforts as hollow because they isolate a particular neighborhood, neglecting others that are in more dire need of access to fresh foods. Looking at this problem for what it actually is requires more than opening a high-chain grocery store in the south side. It requires expanding this effort, otherwise the state of living below the poverty line that affects nearly 82% of Chicago’s south side will prevail.
Stuck in the Valley
The Texas Observer’s Christopher Collins discusses the state of farmers resulting from the lack of Americans willing to farm as well as immigrants’ exposure to many risks if hired at Bernie Thiel’s farm in Lubbock, Texas. In the article titled "Immigrant Workers in Texas Could Fill Farm Vacancies, but They're Trapped in the Valley," it describes how Thiel’s crops are ready for picking, with the only problem being the shortage of labor from both those willing to work and the ability to hire immigrant workers. Most willing workers in Rio Grande Valley are immigrants, meaning they will have to pass immigration checkpoints and risk the possibility of getting deported (Observer). This is a risk many immigrants are not willing to take, especially under Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance policy. Immigrants are being detained and separated from their families, which will always trump their need for employment.
Collins then states that this pressure to find agricultural workers is national, not just in Texas. However, the lack of proper pay and protection laws make it even more difficult for farmers to find employees in that area. This is also what Tracie McMillan addresses in The American Way of Eating. McMillan states that she had been lucky to work in California, where labor protection for farmworkers is extended. In California, farmworkers have “the right to a union; must be given time for lunch each day and a day off every week; entitled to workers’ compensation if injured on the job” (McMillan 27). These rights and laws are not extended to farmworkers in Texas. Collins deems this as yet another reason the risk of travelling from the Valley to Lubbock might be unsound to many immigrant families. In this equation, farmers’ vegetables are rotting due to this lack of labor and current state of immigrants in the US, with the immigrants being trapped when they could be easily employed had the state of Texas laws and immigration reform been fixed, or improved at least. This reformation seems to work in other states in the West Coast, which makes them even more outdated and discriminatory. Neglecting this issue is a result of a lack of national empathy for the conditions of immigrants, deeming their livelihood as less important than our own.
Collins then states that this pressure to find agricultural workers is national, not just in Texas. However, the lack of proper pay and protection laws make it even more difficult for farmers to find employees in that area. This is also what Tracie McMillan addresses in The American Way of Eating. McMillan states that she had been lucky to work in California, where labor protection for farmworkers is extended. In California, farmworkers have “the right to a union; must be given time for lunch each day and a day off every week; entitled to workers’ compensation if injured on the job” (McMillan 27). These rights and laws are not extended to farmworkers in Texas. Collins deems this as yet another reason the risk of travelling from the Valley to Lubbock might be unsound to many immigrant families. In this equation, farmers’ vegetables are rotting due to this lack of labor and current state of immigrants in the US, with the immigrants being trapped when they could be easily employed had the state of Texas laws and immigration reform been fixed, or improved at least. This reformation seems to work in other states in the West Coast, which makes them even more outdated and discriminatory. Neglecting this issue is a result of a lack of national empathy for the conditions of immigrants, deeming their livelihood as less important than our own.
Meat-Free Made (Im)possible
Fortune magazine’s Beth Kowitt discusses the future of meat alternatives in her article “Impossible Foods’ FDA Win Moves Its ‘Bloody’ Plant Burger Closer to the Mainstream.” The article attempts to expose the FDA’s nearly instant approval of the company’s usage of heme, an “iron-rich molecule in blood that carries oxygen and is responsible for the deep-red color” (Kowitt). Due to the association of meat-alternatives with veganism and vegetarianism, foods such as Impossible Foods’ non-meat burger patties are often automatically equated with being healthy. However, according to the Global Healing Center, naturally-occurring Heme iron “only exists in animal products or animal-based iron supplements” (GHC), which begs the question of whether it is necessary to include this product in meat alternatives in the first place. The answer is simple - to give non-meat burgers a red-color and a meaty taste without the presence of any real meat. The GHC tells us however, that there are “additional health concerns linked directly to heme iron, including the risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, several types of cancer, and gastrointestinal side effects” when consumed in large quantities (GHC). The problem becomes not only the presence of this supposedly healthy substance, but the regulation of the amount the company is allowed to put into its burgers.
Without needing the FDA’s approval yet asking for it anyway, Impossible Burgers “voluntarily went to the FDA for review,” where “the company received a ‘no questions’ letter from the regulator that deemed soy leghemoglobin, the protein that carries the heme, as GRAS. The term “generally recognized as safe” becomes almost comical when viewed in light of Warner’s argument regarding the FDA’s restriction in Pandora’s Box. This addition of heme iron in meat alternatives is a prime example of the alteration of additives derived through unnatural processing when they could be engineered and extracted naturally. Impossible Foods makes heme by “fermenting genetically engineered yeast” which the company claims is cheaper and more eco-friendly. The newfound awareness of the FDA’s passive attitude towards additives from Warner’s expose begs the question of whether this iron should be allowed in meat-alternatives without regulation. The FDA doesn’t seem to care about the mere presence of this iron, so the idea of regulating its quantity seems out of the question, especially when a company deemed as “healthy” like Impossible Burgers is the one using this product. Impossible’s narrative of their products being made entirely of plants now requires closer inspection. Warner’s exposure of this lack of government regulation pushes us to pay more attention to companies such as Impossible Burgers, ones we often deem as “healthy” and “sustainable.”
Without needing the FDA’s approval yet asking for it anyway, Impossible Burgers “voluntarily went to the FDA for review,” where “the company received a ‘no questions’ letter from the regulator that deemed soy leghemoglobin, the protein that carries the heme, as GRAS. The term “generally recognized as safe” becomes almost comical when viewed in light of Warner’s argument regarding the FDA’s restriction in Pandora’s Box. This addition of heme iron in meat alternatives is a prime example of the alteration of additives derived through unnatural processing when they could be engineered and extracted naturally. Impossible Foods makes heme by “fermenting genetically engineered yeast” which the company claims is cheaper and more eco-friendly. The newfound awareness of the FDA’s passive attitude towards additives from Warner’s expose begs the question of whether this iron should be allowed in meat-alternatives without regulation. The FDA doesn’t seem to care about the mere presence of this iron, so the idea of regulating its quantity seems out of the question, especially when a company deemed as “healthy” like Impossible Burgers is the one using this product. Impossible’s narrative of their products being made entirely of plants now requires closer inspection. Warner’s exposure of this lack of government regulation pushes us to pay more attention to companies such as Impossible Burgers, ones we often deem as “healthy” and “sustainable.”