Assignment Two

Q 1a) Students in this class recognized the following motivations for food purchase and consumption - nutrition, taste, convenience, cost, "addiction", "style", and ethics. On your next trip to the supermarket, record your purchases - and list each food item purchased according to your motivations for that particular item.

Purchase Item	Motivation
Milk (fat free)	nutrition, taste
Eggs	taste, addiction, style
Onions (yellow)	taste
Grape-Nuts	nutrition, taste
Special-K	nutrition
Watermelon	taste
Cantaloupe	taste, nutrition
Green peppers	taste, nutrition
Carrots	nutrition, taste
Gatorade G2	taste, addiction
V8 Fusion	nutrition, taste
V8 Vegetable Juice	nutrition, taste
Bananas	nutrition, taste
Multi-grain bread	nutrition, taste
Sourdough bread	taste, nutrition
Chicken breasts	taste, style
Rye-Krisp crackers	taste
California Kitchen pizza	taste
Romaine lettuce	nutrition, taste
Wine - Yellowtail Merlot	taste, addiction, style
Russet potatoes	taste, style
Green apples	taste, nutrition

Q 1b) Do you think your motivations were influenced at all by some form of advertising or the marketing of that item? Note your response for each food item

Purchase Item	Advertising Influence(yes, no - explain)
Milk (fat free)	No, I started with milk too young for advertising to have an effect and have continued ever since.
Eggs	No, same as above.
Onions (yellow)	No, I just like the flavor added and choose different onions for different flavors.
Grape -nuts	Yes, when I was I child I avoided Grape-Nuts because a kid believes, "Healthy food tastes bad, right?" Later, I sought nutritional food and the advertising drew me in to where I actually wanted to try it.
Special-K	Yes, same sort of influence as above.
Watermelon	Nope - everybody loves watermelon, right?
Cantaloupe	Loved it as a kid and still do.
Green peppers	No advertising attracted me - that I am aware of, I just like the flavor/ spice added to meals.
Carrots	No
Gatorade G2	No, I liked Gatorade the very first time I tried it. It is not exactly 'healthy' in that it uses high-fructose corn syrup and potentially other not so desirable additives, but I drink it instead of soda pop and do believe it is somewhat a better alternative. Frankly, soda tastes too sugary to me and Gatorade doesn't make me 'sweat sugar' like soda.
V8 Fusion	Yes, I love the idea of a healthy juice and like the idea of fruit and vegetables in a drink. It may not be anything close to fresh-squeezed, but - again - to me - is a better choice than a soft drink.
V8 Vegetable Juice	Yes, the adds got me to try it and remind me to get some more.
Bananas	No, I liked em from youth and still do.
Multi-grain bread	Yes, advertising got me to try multi-grain bread and I found it not only to be a healthier choice, it also tastes better.
Sourdough bread	No, I like sourdough bread every now and then - especially for use with something to dip the bread into, like a stew or soup. I learned about sourdough as a youth - no advertising required.
Chicken breasts	No, a simple meat choice and advertising has little to no effect on my choice regarding meat selection.
Rye Krisp crackers	No, I have loved them (my favorite cracker) for as long as I can remember.
California Kitchen pizza	No, I knew nothing about California Pizza when a friend cooked one and I tried it. I have been buying them ever since.
Romaine lettuce	No, do they advertise?
Wine - Yellowtail Merlot	No, a friend introduced me and its all about taste regarding wine.
Russet potatoes	No, even the Idaho ads I see so often don't effect my choice. I actually prefer red potatoes anyway.
Green apples	No, what kid needs an advertisement to try an apple? When it comes to most fruit and vegetables, I don't purposefully buy based on one supplier is better than another; I examine them, try them for taste, and base my choices on personal experience and each experience at the store. One week some apples from one supplier simply appear fresher, or less damaged, while the next week another supplier's apples may appear better to me.

Q 2) Now it's your turn: choose one whole day and eat ONLY processed convenience foods, like in the film "Super Size Me." Record your food choices, taking note of nutritional content, where the food comes fro and was processed (as much as you can find out), cost taste and any other factors related to your food purchase. Also note how you felt at the end of the day.

This isn't an 'official answer'. I am just remarking that I would not eat fast-food or convenience food for every meal for anyone. I eat fast food, but not ever for every meal.

Q 3) Now it's your turn--flip side: choose one day and eat ONLY healthy whole foods or foods you process yourself (your definition of healthy). Record your food choices, taking note of nutritional content, where the food comes from, cost, taste, and any other factors related to your food purchase. Also note how you felt at the end of the day.

Hmm... I am perplexed - again, "... take note of nutritional content..." How do I take note of nutritional content? That must be part of the task: should I simply limit choices based on caloric content? Someone might, but I am a big believer in balance and I simply think nutrition is much more complex. I am not a scientist nor a chemist, but I do know enough to understand the importance of having essential vitamins, minerals, and various other catalysts available to the body for the best chance at positive overall health - where chemical reactions occur properly within the body.

I imagine that all the 'pieces' must be present for a multitude of processes within the body to function correctly; however, as Michael Pollan eludes to in the Omnivore's Dilemma, the pieces are often collected individually by today's food processing industry where food engineers pick and choose ingredients at the chemical level rather than at the natural food group level. For example, corn is broken down into its various chemical chains and then food engineers pick the chains they desire (such as high fructose corn syrup). In doing so, they are also removing pieces indiscriminately.

Scientists are still learning that these 'other' ingredients are - in fact - essential necessary requirements for a proper diet. Thus, food engineers looking for and selecting specific 'key' nutritional ingredients may also exclude other key nutrients inadvertently. We are just learning about the significant value of antioxidants, omega-3s, and other necessary nutrients that are often omitted from food via the industrial process.

So, how do I note nutritional content? I take it that I should 'count' something.

I do not count calories. I do not count vitamins, I do not seek to count when attempting to ensure nutritional content. To understand, I have tried to count. I tried to count calories. I tried to count a variety of factors based published 'percent of daily values' information placed on packaging. When I did try, factors like the all important 'serving size' kicked in. For example, I had a presentation in a college class where an individual demonstrated a product sold using 'advertising deception'; it was advertised as a 'fat-free' cooking oil spray - or so it claimed. I learned that the serving size was one spray - one press of the button; however, the 'spray size' used could only be emanated by a machine - a person could never produce a spray so small - the act of pressing and releasing and actually achieving the 'serving size' is not humanly possible. Further, what person in practical use actually uses one single spray anyway? Don't most people - okay - ALL PEOPLE - actually hold down the button to cover a surface area? Serving size in the food industry is never actually about any reasonable attempt to measure what a person will typically use. In fact, in this case, the serving size listed is not humanly possible to achieve.

Why is this important? Why would a company choose a serving-size that cannot be obtained in reality? Why is this allowed?

Well, the manufacturer takes advantage of a rule where grams measured can be rounded down.

What does that mean?

Well, it means that one spray is less than one gram, so even if the spray actually contained 100% saturated fat, the manufacturer is allowed - legally - to round down and report 0 grams fat and - importantly - claim 'fat-free' on the label. If I read the ingredients on the can, the first item listed (and items are listed by their percentage of total) is canola oil. It is not 'fat-free' and any user will use far more than a single spray. The person making the demonstration to my college class then provided independent laboratory facts indicating that the contents released were nearly all saturated fat. Hmm? Wow!

That one example demonstrates my sense of futility in seeking accurate, convenient, and - importantly - useful nutritional information based on labeling.

Further, where do I find 'banana' nutritional facts? There is nothing next to the bananas I buy, no nutritional sheet, no information that I can find. Do I simply look online? Let us assume a sheet is present, are all bananas nearly alike, would it have meaning?

Well, I am now reading in our text and from other sources that 'organic' fruits and vegetables may have very different nutritional content than non-organic. So, how do I KNOW the nutritional facts related to MY BANANAS - the actual bananas I pickup and place in my shopping cart? If the assertions are true that the same vegetables types can be comprised of very different nutritional contents, then how does one make the appropriate decision? Should each supplier be required to test a certain quantity of samples and provide the resulting facts with each batch? If not, then what is the point of assuming? Certainly, getting facts online provide some generalized information, but how valuable is that information? I simply cannot really KNOW one banana is truly different than another and not knowing can (possibly?) be deadly. Are my bananas laced with pesticide residue? Are my bananas covered in E-coli, or any of a wide variety of microscopic, invisible to the human eye, organisms and/or chemicals? What am I really doing in counting assumed nutrition information if the information may not apply to MY BANANAS?

This is one aspect of my experience that has led me to make determinations based on my own methods: I judge by food groups/categories: vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains/breads, meats, dairy, etc. It is my belief that a 'balanced diet' (based on my sense of grouping) provides the body the greatest mix of what it needs. The body needs both to obtain and process nutrients and to obtain what it needs to eliminate toxins - generally toxins are removed by consuming the appropriate nutrients that act as a counter-balance or by simply keeping the toxin removing body parts (like the liver) operating properly.

I also believe that genetics have a substantial impact and that a balance for one person does not necessary apply to another. THIS IS IMPORTANT: what applies to one person does not necessary apply to another!

So, where do I derive my sense of balance?

I was tested often while in the military; where they measured body fat, lung capacity, vision, hearing, cholesterol levels, and a host of other measurements designed to observe the condition of individuals over time. Numerous soldiers participated and I learned that low-fat, whole grain, high vegetable, or total vegetarian diets do not necessarily result in great health/nutritional statistics. A person following these 'proper' diets does not necessarily overcome or supercede the health statistics of a person following what is commonly referred to as an 'unhealthy' diet by most nutritionists.

What? Am I crazy? Aren't we simply what we eat - as we are often told? Well, what did I observe?

Many people ate red meat, fatty burgers, eggs & cheese with sausage gravy, etcetera and their tests consistently faired better than people who ate 'proper' diets. Those results were enlightening, or, if one steps back and observes carefully, it may seem - obvious - that we each have a range of expectation based on our own respective genetic traits. One only needs to look at an entire family tree, the actual people, to realize that we are simply born with traits that predispose each of us.

Further, we each have other relevant habits - besides diet - that affect or impact our health. If a person does not exercise, can proper diet compensate? If a person smokes, can proper diet compensate? Similarly, if we are born predisposed towards some condition, doesn't proper diet have its limits?

Don't get me wrong: I certainly observed both positive and negative effects based on diet, however, the effects seem to be within each person's respective 'range', and from my observations the most critical factor was genetics, then exercise, and lastly diet. Of course, other factors such as exposure to chemicals, smoking, or pre-existing conditions like diabetes, etc are also relevant.

So, do I conclude that we should care about diet? My answer is - emphatically - yes! We cannot change our genetics, at least, I am not aware of any means to do so. We certainly should exercise and, based on my observations, I believe that we should seek to consume an overall balance of food items by selecting a wide variety of food groups/categories because that is where I, personally - visibly - noticed a great difference in positive change. Eating balanced simply seemed to work.

Therefore, my sense of 'balance' drives my sense of what constitutes a 'healthy' diet.

I believe every person is unique and I now ask each of us to consider: What if we could each customize or tailor our diets based on factual information? Imagine a miniature testing device much like those used for diabetes where a person could get results for a broad spectrum of nutritional indicators immediately. Where questions would be answered, such as, is my iron high or low, my sugar high or low, my vitamin A, D, E, levels etc? A user could prick the device into their arm, finger, thigh, or wherever, and the results are tested via a PC or laptop, or even within the device itself and out prints a diet guide tailored to that specific person. Does anyone believe that one diet truly fits all? Do you?

I imagine a future where food is labeled accurately and/or we have personal devices to individually test food on-the-fly. That is where my imagination takes me: a positive future where individualized transparency and accuracy reigns supreme.

I currently believe that we not only do not have access to the detail of information necessary to make sound decisions, I believe their is malicious misinformation. Therefore, I must base my definition of 'nutritional content' on generalized categories of food groups.

Here are the results:

BREAKFAST:

I had a bowl of Grape-Nuts cereal with fat-free milk. I love the crunch, enjoy the taste, and savored every bite. I also had a few pieces of cantaloupe, a banana, and a small can of V-8 vegetable juice.

For me, breakfast is where I emphasize eating fruits, dairy, vegetable juice, and grains. The banana and cantaloupe are organically grown.

LUNCH:

For lunch, I enjoyed an egg-salad sandwich made with pesto, strips of onion, and some romaine lettuce. The onion and lettuce were organically grown. The eggs were local and organic/range-free (actually my brother raises the chickens). I also enjoyed an organic green apple along with some V-8 fusion juice.

I had multi-grain grains), meat (eggs), fruits and vegetables as well as fruit and vegetable juice.

DINNER:

My wife (Racheal) pan fried a small amount of organic, free-range chicken breast, applied some seasoning, and added onion, green pepper, mushrooms, prosciutto ham along with a small amount of Swiss cheese melted on top. A small helping of french-cut green beans (from a can) and we also had a salad with red-leaf, romaine, and baby green lettuce, green onion, mushrooms, olives, homemade croutons all wrapped in a light oil & vinegar dressing. Along with the meal, we enjoyed water and red wine (yellow tail merlot).

I felt that the food we selected was not 'processed', was primarily organic and/or reasonably industrial (juices and cereal seem okay to me). I concentrate on ensuring that I get fibers/grains, meat, dairy, and especially focus on getting a variety of color in regards to fruits and vegetables. I wont just eat the same vegetables, but ensure that I get yellow, orange, green, brown, and - in essence - as wide a variety as possible. It was less than 2 years ago where I analyzed my diet and realized fruits and vegetables were far too small a portion of my diet. I try to keep a reasonable balance without loosing the lust for food, the savoring that I enjoy so much.

I felt wonderful all day. I enjoyed and savored every bite. I feel young, I feel healthy, and my energy level is extremely high.

Feedback: 'Super Size Me' versus 'Organicize Me'

Technorati Tags: Super Size Me,Organicize Me,Organic,McDonalds,Health

 

      

Morgan Spurlock started a craze, a revolution, maybe a even a war with his much hyped 'Super Size Me' film. Michael Stusser, in contrast, possibly as an equalizer, possibly as an opposing point of view, or possibly just to simply get attention wrote a related article, 'Organicize Me'. Here are my reflections:

 

SUPER SIZE ME:

In 'Super Size Me', Morgan consumes nothing but McDonald's food for 30 days. As a result, Morgan reported these conditions after 30 days:

• Massive headaches
• Mood swings
• Depressed and exhausted
• Two times more likely for heart failure
• Two times more likely for heart disease
• Fatty liver
• Food cravings
• Cholesterol increased from 180 to 230
• He gained 24.5 pounds.

Wow! By this assessment, it appears that choosing to eat at McDonalds is equivalent to choosing a death sentence.

Morgan chose to eat a variety of food items as offered by McDonalds restaurants: he had to select and eat items directly from the menu and he had to eat each food item offered on the menu at least once. If he was offered a "super Size" meal, he would always accept. Morgan would eat nothing but McDonald's meals three times a day for thirty days. Further, he also chose to modify his exercise habits to match that of a typical American and/ or that of of a typical McDonald's client - per some unknown estimate.

What was 'right' about the video:

1. In my opinion, Morgan identified how McDonalds (at least at the time) does NOT offer well-balanced meals. How many people would suspect that most of the salads were as fatty or more than a Big Mac? I define 'balanced' as consuming the generally accepted 'Percent of Recommended Daily Intake' (RDI) as published by the FDA(http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/foodlab.html).
2. Morgan offered a sense of credibility by seeking and providing the results of continuous medical examinations throughout the 30days.
3. McDonalds advertises in such a manner that I conclude that the overall nutritional content of McDonalds foods is is not likely to be understood properly to the point that the average consumer is mislead and unable to make proper nutritional decisions regarding McDonalds food selection.
   
   I happened to be in Germany from 1986 to 1988 and prior to my arriving, Americans were already understanding/ awakening to the high fat, low nutrition content of McDonalds food. McDonalds, due to increased consumer activism and a sense of truth in advertising, stopped advertisements that implied the Big Mac and other high fat foods were overall nutritious. The advertisements switched to taste and alternate menu items began to appear. However, for me, while I was in Germany (at the same time as the new changes emerged in American advertising) every placemat in a McDonalds restaurant still claimed the Big Mac to be highly nutritious. The restaurant was plastered with misleading and inaccurate claims of high nutrition and high health benefits everywhere within a German McDonalds.
   
   McDonalds management clearly knew better based on the emerging activity/ advertising trends in America. This fact that management engaged in opposing and alternate advertising schemes (for me) established conclusively that McDonalds management is purposefully deceptive and only driven to 'do the right thing' by acts of law and overall consumer activism.
   
4. McDonalds (at the time) created 'Super Size' product categories where one could reasonably conclude that the average consumer purchased more food than would be healthy by any nutritionist. A 64 oz cola is simply ridiculous for the average consumer to consume for any meal at any time. Part of a proper diet is proper proportions and McDonalds easily violated offering reasonable proportions. McDonalds pushed for sales regardless of impact.

What was wrong with the video:

1. Morgan ate "super sized" proportions to the point of continually puking. We are led to believe that eating McDonalds food will result (for the typical consumer) in the same severe health risks that Morgan reported.
   
   Is this true?
   
   I noted that the nutritionist constantly pointed out to Morgan that he was eating 200+% of the calories he should be eating. One might believe that McDonalds food is so fattening that a normal McDonalds meal leads to this excessive overeating, but we watched - REPEATEDLY - as Morgan STUFFED himself. He was full and ate more anyway. He threw up and continued to eat. Is this a reasonable test? What would happen to any person any any food to such excess? This is clearly a problem for me such that I consider the effect of such a decision to introduce significant 'biased' within the experiment. This decision was unacceptable, misleading, and malicious in the desire to effect the outcome negatively.
   
2. Morgan was the only data sample. Anyone familiar with statistics and proper experiments knows that one individual is too small of a test sampling to get accurate results. Further, those who are not familiar with statistical techniques do tend to accept self-studies as 'typical' - improperly! This is a known technique to drive persuasion with a preconceived idea, rather than perform some objective experiment - as was inferred. Frankly - this technique clearly worked! The average viewer accepted his results as typical. Knowing science and proper having basic skills in proper experimentation techniques, I cannot accept the results 'as typical' and must conclude - again - that there was malicious intent to create 'hype' and exaggerate results.
   
3. The movie was presented as objective, but is clearly subjective and substantially biased. Morgan's girlfriend is a vegan and made numerous statements more than indicating a substantial bias. Are we to believe Morgan chooses a girlfriend with radically different ideas about food & diet and that coincidentally made a video with an unbiased expectation for the outcome? Or... can we conclude that Morgan intended to 'expose McDonalds'? I think substantial evidence exists to indicate purposeful bias:
   • Morgan's girlfriend's is a vegan and Morgan likely has similar beliefs. He intended to 'prove' McDonalds food was bad and began with a preconceived conclusion. A preconceived conclusion - by itself - is not bad, but an effort to conceal bias, and efforts to abuse proper experimentation techniques is telling.
   • What was Morgan's activity prior to the experiment? Did he lower his exercise activity? What happens when a person lowers their level of exercise? Is it not reasonable to conclude that reducing exercise while running an experiment to identify the outcome of a changed diet will effect the outcome. Is the effect predictable? I conclude that any reasonable person would know that the chances of increased weight gain rise significantly. One may also conclude that the body could make adjustments to the 'shock' of the change in exercise activity which also skews results. I conclude that Morgan stopped working-out (exercising) for the experiment in order to skew the results negatively.
   • What was Morgan's diet prior to the experiment? If he radically changed his diet, and it appears that he did, then his body might overcompensate due to a sudden shock or change in diet. A sudden change in diet likely exaggerates the body's response and further skews results. This is where testing numerous people and increasing the 'sampling pool' would compensate - unless a person maliciously selected people in order to introduce bias.
4. Was the real issue McDonalds food or what happens with over-eating in any unbalanced diet situation? My biggest complaint and what seems most obvious is that Morgan overate - regardless of nutritional content. Would he gain weight eating nutritional food at 200+% of a normal calorie intake. I suspect he would.  I do accept that McDonalds does not offer a proper balanced diet; especially, when considering the combinations of food that typical McDonald's clients typically consume. Therefore eating any unbalanced diet every meal, for every day, for 30 days not surprisingly would likely lead to health problems. However, what would happen if someone eats nothing but vegetables, no fruits, no meats, no grains - just vegetables. Hmm???

What would happen if a similar test were applied to a different food source? Would we get similar results? Now, that is what I am curious. I want to know and that is exactly is what I was expecting to discover when I read the title to my other referenced article:

 

ORGANICIZE ME:

By the the very nature of the title, we are led to believe that Michael Stusser was performing an equivalent experiment to Super Size Me. I must state immediately that I was more than disappointed. The article begins with Michael stating he would start an organic-only diet, but was he also going to similarly consume 200+% of a normal calorie intake via organic food? Would he eat until he was sick and keep eating anyway? Would he have three doctors evaluating his medical conditions as he progressed? Would he eat a 'balanced' organic diet and concentrate on one category, like vegetables, or fruits, or grains? After all, if he eats a balanced version, is that an equitable comparison?

Hmm... Did he? No, I think not! What we did get is the knowledge that he bought and ate organic food for thirty days, but there were no doctors, and there was no excessive 'super size' proportions, and he did not make any effort to perform an equitable - biased -comparison. Further, we then get this (some kind of definition of what constitutes organic, an organic guide):

Well - sort of - we got an organic definition more than a guide. We didn't get anything particularly useful to health and nutrition. What we got was the majority of the article proving the point that nobody (even official government sources) really agree on just what makes something - organic and we did get his opinion that many organic foods 'could' potentially be hazardous but without any real scientific evidence or any real serious effort to draw such a conclusion.

Frankly, the article - in my opinion - offered virtually nothing useful other than making clear to me what I WANT to see or get out of article with such a title.

SUMMARY

I want to see an equitable comparison. I want three doctors (or more) involved in an organic-equivalent experiment. I want a similar over-eating approach based on calories. I want a similar diet-shock where the food eaten is likely to be as equally a major switch in diet: something equally outside the range of the participant's normal diet. I don't mean eating poisonous food. I mean eating food that is also nutritionally unbalanced and is opposite the normal diet of the tester.

Is it fair to use an experiment where the diet is actually balanced when we know the diet was far from balanced in the McDonald's test? Is it fair to have an organic test that does not result in consumption of 200+% of a person's expected calorie intake?

I desire to view the results of an equitable test for an 'Organicize Me' equivalent article. The article was nothing close and an utter disappointment: it was pathetic and not worthy - in my opinion.

EVEN BETTER:

What would be proper - of course - would be redoing both tests properly and involving a reasonable sample size - one sample is always insufficient to draw reasonable conclusions. I want what we know about genetics added to the experiments (I. e. people genetically predisposed to weight gain and high cholesterol easily skew small sample size experiments). I want size and height characteristics added to the experiments. I want medical family history added. In other words wouldn't it be nice if someone, somewhere, could actually test these theories properly? What is the problem? It seems that most people already have their conclusions drawn and have no interest in an unbiased study. It seems awfully challenging, if not impossible to get to a truth when each of us start with the conclusion in hand.

Assignment One

Q 1a) What are the different motivations that drive Americans to make their food choices, according to Samuel Fromartz (author of Organic, Inc.) and Michael Pollan (author of Omnivore's dilemma) and the course pack articles?

Samuel Fromartz sought, "...fresh and flavorful foods, which could be prepared quickly, barbeque and Indian foods being exceptions." (pg xiv Organic Inc.) Clearly, Samuel enjoyed cooking and constantly explored the various textures and tastes capable of being enjoyed by the human palate. This is an indication that Americans are driven to select foods based on their taste. He also noted the success of large conglomerate chains (I.e. Wal-Mart) and acknowledged that many people are simply driven by price. However, I believe, Samuel developed a particular interest, or sense, or value system that made clear what 'he believes' drives Americans [or what he believes 'should' drive them] when he stated, "Something was driving this market and Whole Foods had tapped into it. It was the alternative supermarket not just for foodies but for the health conscious, for mothers concerned about what their kids were eating, for anyone who was uneasy about the conventional food system and all of its familiar brands." (pg xvii) He also stated,  "The focus on yield also ignores the larger cost of chemicals to the environment, communities and health - measured in size of the size of the ozone hole over the Antarctic or the potential impact of drifting pesticides on a nearby school. These so-called external costs, which society must bear, don't show up in yield studies." (pg 34) Samuel indicates that Americans are driven by taste, by economic and regional realities, and are, or should be, driven by the potential impacts food choices have on health, family, society, and the overall environment.

Michael Pollan covered nearly every potential motivation towards a food choice particularly well. His book title is well thought and self-explanatory, "Omnivore's Dilemma". His first line, "What should we have for dinner?" is also phrased well and leaves nothing to question regarding his direction. Pollan is succinct and captures the various food drivers right from the beginning and from nearly every perspective. He summarizes it, "But for omnivores like us (and the rat) a vast amount of brain space and time must be devoted to figuring out which of all the many potential dishes nature lays on are safe to eat. We rely on our prodigious powers of recognition and memory to guide us away from poisons (Isn't that the mushroom that made us sick last week?) and towards nutritious plants (The red berries are the juicier, sweeter ones). Our taste buds help too, predisposing us towards sweetness, which signals carbohydrate energy in nature, and away from bitterness, which is how many of the toxic alkaloids produced by plants taste. Our inborn sense of disgust helps us from ingesting things that might infect us, such as rotten meat. Many anthropologists believe that the reason we evolved such big and intricate brains was precisely to help us deal with the omnivore's dilemma. ... which things nourish and which things poison... The human omnivore has, in addition to his senses and memory, the incalculable advantage of a culture, which stores   the experience and accumulated wisdom of countless human tasters before him."

Michael Pollan leaves little doubt and jumps straight to the point in establishing what he believes drives Americans [or humans] towards a food choice. Isn't he stating that our very evolution has pre-programmed us to learn and recognize what is safe; what is harmful, aren't we are part of a bigger picture where 'the right choice' should already be built-in to our genes, our culture, into society, and that choices should be derived from something bigger than any one person.

In the article, "My Search for the Perfect Apple",  a dichotomy of choosing organic versus local, health versus community was presented. It seems that the author of this article highlights the issue of long-term considerations, understanding the chain reaction of choices and how they potentially affect the big picture, as well as further highlighting that there is not necessarily a path of complete good versus complete evil. Our choices are complicated and mixed. Choosing organic versus non-organic may offer a healthier alternative, but just the simple act of transporting organic items over long distances may offset many of the benefits that organic items offer.

From the various authors' or reading sources, I believe we were presented the following motivations or food drivers (not in any particular order):

• Taste
• Price or Economics
• Health
• Community
• Culture
• Accessibility/ Locality
• Environment
• Sustainability

 

Q 1b) Do you agree? What are the motivations that drive YOU to make YOUR food choices?

How does one agree or disagree? When I was young I liked sweets: candy, cake, cookies, strong fruits, etc.  I had a sweet toothe and my taste drove me towards these items. As I have aged, my tastes have changed and I now, generally, find most candy to be - too sweet - and not something I would choose to consume. Taste is clearly a major driver for me: I will not ever eat anything that does not taste well. I cannot eat certain quiches, or certain soups, or any of a number of foods that just taste bad. However, I really do enjoy or even crave most foods: I like breads, cheeses, meats, lettuce, peas, corn, cabbage, pizza, wine, crackers, rice, fish, etc. For me, taste comes first.

Do I do anything more than simply make choices based on taste? The answer is - yes, I do! I know that some foods give me gas, some give me heartburn, some cause me to gain weight, and certainly some are dangerous and could kill me. I do consider all of these and other aspects. I am likely to make choices based on some personal "comfort level" or personal point of view rather than published health standards. I cannot avoid addressing gas or heartburn, but I can ignore many published opinions on making 'the right choice' and I would be dishonest if I did not admit that I am not always making choices based on sound medical opinion. I do care about my health needs and do make some adjustments, but do not adhere to strict control. I may try to find crackers that are fat-free, yet still ensure that they taste good. I may choose to eat multi-grain or whole grain breads, or fiber products versus white bread or simply choose white rice because I believe they are 'healthier'. I may add vegetables and fruit to my meals even when I really don't seem to crave them -- I do this because "I know better" (or at least think I do).

To date: I have not purchased food based on a community aspect. I have not purchased "union" food and avoided 'non-union', or 'organic' versus 'non-organic', or based my selections on a particular business model such as a cooperative where I would likely be making choices to reflect a specific consideration of the overall community.

 

Q 2a) Do you think the film "Super Size Me" is hopeful or pessimistic about the future of food? Why, specifically?

My initial reaction is that the film is overwhelmingly pessimistic. The film begins by identifying America as the "fattest" nation in the world; we are number one! The film eludes to an older nation (50s & 60s or earlier) where most families enjoyed home-cooked meals and slowly, over-time,  was over-whelmed or taken-over by industrialization and corporate greed. It more than infers a doom & gloom related to fast food and industrialization.

The film was inspired by a lawsuit where two young women aged 14 and 19 were severely overweight and were suing McDonalds under the premise that McDonalds pushed or significantly inspired them to eat at McDonalds every day and that doing so is "unreasonably dangerous" to one's health. It inferred that their severe weight and poor health was directly due to McDonalds.

I wonder how anyone could consider the film optimistic?

The film indicated that all fast-food is dangerous, that corporations and politicians care more about profits than children, or families, or overall health. After Morgan took the 30 days McDonalds challenge, he gained 24-1/2 lbs, his cholesterol went from 168 lbs to 230, his body fat increased 11-18%, and all three doctors indicated that his liver and overall medical stats were flat-out scary and leaned towards severe health decline, or even a risk of death. The film was simply shocking and scary.

I intend to blog further on the film - deeply. The film raises crucial and important points, but also does so at the expense of solid science and solid principles. It was, in my opinion, purposefully generating hype and certainly will gather people together who already have the same common beliefs, but also risks pushing away those that could easily identify the films obvious flaws. For example, Morgan didn't just eat McDonalds food, he 'stuffed' himself. On his first first day, he was forcing food down, he was sick, he was throwing up: he did not just eat and enjoy a McDonald's meal. Is that realistic or even fair way to evaluate any food? Further, his nutritionist noted each and every week that he was eating 200+% of the caloric intake that should be typical, or suggested for a person of his size and weight.

The film produced significant evidence that most nutritionists would agree that  McDonalds food is simply not 'balanced', and does not provide a complete or appropriate, or well-rounded diet. However, should anyone expect the meals to be complete and balanced?  Maybe, we should - that is a great point to consider.

On the other hand, who expects someone to remain healthy eating any form of food to the point of a 200+% caloric intake? I do believe that Morgan knew that he didn't just eat "fatty" McDonalds food, he knew he ate far too much, he ate "super-sized" proportions. He put his body in shock. Therefore, for me, the film was pessimistic: he and the others involved likely intended to scare, intended to shock, and intended all viewers to be worried about the current industrialized and corporate-based America. There was little, if anything, in the film to suggest a trend towards hope or a trend indicating positive change.

NOTE: I intend to continue on this topic in a separate blog later.

 

Q 2b) Do YOU agree with the suggestions in "Organicize Me" about the cost of organic food?

This question challenges me. The article made suggestions? What suggestions? Did it point out any real direct cost comparison and actually make suggestions? I did find indicators that organic foods generally cost more (directly) than non-organic foods. For example, the author tabulated expenses and began with a 'non-organic' average expenditure on food of approximately $800 per month compared to the author's 'organic' month where he spent $1,372.51 - a 58% increase!

The article, in my opinion, did not indicate whether the extra spending was worth it, or whether the food costs were somehow offset by other costs (such as future health costs), or simply that the costs were  acceptable to enhance the community. I was disappointed with this article. "Supersize Me" was about eating McDonald's food for 30 days and measuring the health affects (if any). I expected a similar scenario for the "Organicize Me" article since the title was clearly directed at showing the organic equivalent. The article began appropriately with a similar premise of eating organic-only for 30 days and then quickly diverted into an entirely different topic of,  "What constitutes 'organic'?" and proceeds to identify the USDA definitions of organic, and conflicting local definitions, and on to compare a Wal-Mart or super-corporate version of organic, and - frankly - points out that there is a mess out there when it comes to simply trying to define what constitutes organic food. While all of that was interesting, it was like shoving a separate article within an article and was off-topic. To me, if one Just grabs the beginning and end of the article and pieces them together they would get the appropriate "Organicize Me" article.

The article did reflect that organic food (at least for the time being) is more expensive  - directly - than non-organic food, but didn't really seem to make suggestions about cost as much as it identified some cost facts relative to that particular scenario.

 

Q 3) In your own words, define a cooperative business structure.

The term, cooperative, implies a group where respective members help each other, support each other,  aid each other, and seek to get along for some common purpose. A key element is the notion that the collective needs of the group generally outweighs specific individual needs. Decision making is democratic and each member has one vote (no member has more voting power than another). Cooperatives likely consider broad community and environmental needs and consider a natural harmony where where mutual interdependence requires consideration of a larger system. Thus, many cooperatives likely have in common the notion that each of us are simply one element ,or are part of a bigger, more complex system where multiple interdependencies must always be considered. Further, long-term goals likely take precedence over short-term goals.

 

Q 4) What are YOUR first impressions of People's post expansion business model? Do you think they are running a strong business? Why or why not?

People's have taken the position of equal pay; well, not completely equal but all employees are paid based on a range: they have decided to support a living wage minimum (approx $10.50 ) and max out at just over double that wage.  I have a family with a successful business and an intimate understanding of the wages paid. People's living wage minimum is below the lowest paid wage (minimum) for my family business. Further, our business has numerous employees that greatly exceed the wage paid by People's. Therefore, the first thing that hit me is that our employees - all of them - would likely loose significant economic benefit if we adopted a similar model.

While I was at Peoples Food Co-Op, employees proudly noted that other businesses in the same industry (like Wal-Mart) typically pay below People's standards. Peoples' employees are proud to offer more than such organizations and I will admit that my family's business is in an entirely different industry. The SSA (Social Security Administration) lists the average US wage to be $38,651 (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html). Considering 52 weeks per year and 40 hours per week, the hourly rate would be approximately $18.50. Thus, People's wage range could be above or could below the existing national average depending, on actual figures for employees. Regarding the food industry, I personally believe Peoples pays above average; however, I am concerned that there is a direct assumption that all work is created equal.

It is ironic to me that so many members seem to be college students. Why did they attend college? Maybe they attended for pure self-improvement, but it is likely that most people would choose not to work so hard seeking a college degree, not to dedicate so much time, and not do whatever it takes to improve if their were no incentives beyond self-actualization. I am concerned:  isn't it healthy to provide economic incentive? Should all people be treated the same? How is hard work rewarded? Thus, my first impression is that the model may limit its workforce and fail to draw in talented, educated people who worked hard to increase their abilities with an expectation that they will gain some level of economic benefit.

Wage and economics is just one aspect, some may argue: a lesser aspect. I am impressed with People's emphasis on community. I am impressed with the efforts for sustainability, and for health. These aspects are difficult, if not impossible, to measure; yet, they are clearly a substantial aspect of the model. Certainly, the friendships, comradery, and support for others has significant value. It is a form of pay or reward and it is obvious that community emphasis boosts the strength of the business. I also have an immediate impression that this sense of community is similar to religious support. Much of the ideals and philosophies directly compare to what many churches offer, understanding the obvious differentiation that one involves an acceptance and understanding of god and another does not. Don't churches have a sense of community? Don't they seek to help others? Don't they look beyond individual needs as well?

Overall, I think People's business model is strong, but is simultaneously susceptible to changing political trends and likely would suffer the most harm in a depression/recession rather than in an economic boon. People's may be focused on community and emphasize support for those most in need, leading one to believe they would have the most support and most success in hard-times. However, as much as they offer support for the needy, monetary costs are high, and reserves seemed low. Long-term, I believe Peoples should consider multiple possibilities/ alternatives to overcomes high costs and ensure survival in hard economic times.

 

Q 5) What are some of the markers of people's brand identity? Can you identify how people's brand is marketed to its membership and the general population of consumers (in the store, newsletters and other promotional materials?)

People's identifies closely with community, and trust, and health, and sustainability. Their brand is the "common good" or even compassion. They emphasize equality and fairness. They offer a place to find fresh, organic, and. or local food. I sought in-store material and found several pamphlets/advertisements. *Note - most were, if not all, green/ environmentally friendly - a form of branding in itself. I also found their website and browsed through the content. The media I found emphasized the low costs associated to joining or becoming a member,  the refund opportunities if one chooses to leave, the discounts, etc. It seemed as though there is a discord or dislike for individual capital gains,  a noticeable de-emphasis on personal capital gains - another form of branding/ differentiating. A 'true' democracy system was highlighted (fairness), and even yoga classes were offered.

However, the obvious - HEALTHY, ORGANIC and/ or LOCAL FOOD was not emphasized - at least not enough for me. While I 'knew' what the business was about, all of that I obtained from word-of-mouth and from visiting the facility. The actual media did not seem to emphasize the organic, or local, or healthy aspects nearly as much as I expected.

What about investment opportunities - as in growth or expansion- versus cost savings or the obvious access to People's Food products? I found investment as a branding. Capital growth is funded from memberships fees, the $180 PeopleShare. Unfortunately, I think that the amount combined with the advertised six years time period to pay is a significantly limiting factor. The cooperative model is based on group membership that continually grows and prevents unequal voting - its a collective with no members gaining equity over others. In other words, the model shuns,  or avoids, or intends not to grow equity investment for owners. Thus, it seems that People's business model (from my limited one day exposure) could severely limit its potential growth. 

I understand the that individual capital should not grow based on the philosophy of the members, but maybe in the realm of Cooperatives, People's can distinguish itself and identify - specifically - another form of branding.  If Peoples intends to support a growing community, it will need capital to cover the costs associated with that growth. Expanding land, buildings, equipment, products and advertising -all cost money.  I believe Peoples could distinguish - clearly - the difference between capital gains for individual members versus capital gains for growth - for the collective.  If Peoples wants to help a broader community, if they want to expand, I suggest that they need to create a brand that uniquely identifies and accepts the very real capital requirements. I suggest seeking a branding where investment in the form of loans where investors get an interest rate of return is emphasized. Of course, direct donations should also be advertised and accepted.  Why should a member only be able to pay $180 for a People's share? Why not allow $500, $1,000, or even a million? If a member wanted to pay $500 with the understanding their benefits are still equal to the $180 membership - then why not? I suppose its back to a donation concept. Are donations - something not refunded encouraged?

I would like to suggest XX cents per dollar of revenue specifically targeted towards loan repayment to fund growth. Imagine if People's brand sought a simple rule of five cents per dollar towards growth. From this, could one predict expansion? Without this, how is expansion predictable?

My First Entry - Understanding the Cooperative

Technorati Tags: PSU,Capstone,Co-Op,Coop,Coperative,Eco,Food Coop,Environment,Sustainability,Organic

This entry is more of a test to ensure that everything is working okay. If you can read this, I must have succeeded. So… here I go…

My only prior experience with a cooperative business model involved intermittent conversations and simple descriptions. I simply lacked any in-depth understanding of the concept. One might say an accurate description has managed to elude me. For example, I have (until recently) been unaware of the various Co-Op “types” and mistakenly considered a producer Co-Op to be the only form of cooperative. I now know better. How did this enlightenment begin?

Well, it began with an excursion related to my capstone class a PSU (Portland State University) where I was introduced to the “People’s Food Co-Op” located at 3029 SE 21st Ave. in Portland, Oregon.

Here is a photo of the facility:

 

Inside the facility students purchased textbooks:

 

and we continued on with a meeting (a view from my left):

During the meeting, a member of People's Food Co-Op, Laura (not sure of spelling) was kind enough to briefly explain the various cooperative types and I took notes for later reference. Of course, our course pack contains much deeper definitions.

*** For those who are interested, I have attached common cooperative types that I happened to find searching the web. Note that it is my understanding that there are legal definitions and common (shared) definitions, and that specific definitions/types change from region to region, or from state to state, or from legal authority to legal authority, etc. Therefore, it appears that context, region, government authorities, and other criteria/scenarios can and do affect specific definitions/categories. There are no globally accepted definitions/categories. The definitions I provided below appear to be the most common, top-level,  cooperative "types" and I listed them to have as a handy reference.

Consumer Cooperatives—Consumer cooperatives are owned by the people who buy the goods or use the services of the cooperative. They sell consumer goods such as food and outdoors equipment. They provide housing, electricity and telecommunications. And they offer financial (credit unions), healthcare, childcare and funeral services.

Producer Cooperatives—Producer cooperatives are owned by people who produce similar types of products such as farmers who grow crops, raise cattle, milk cows, or by craftsmen and artisans. By banding together, they leverage greater bargaining power with buyers. They also combine resources to more effectively market and brand their products, improving the incomes of their members and helping to stabilize markets.

Worker Cooperatives—Worker cooperatives are owned and governed by the employees of the business. They operate in all sectors of the economy and provide workers with both employment and ownership opportunities. Examples include employee-owned food stores, processing companies, restaurants, taxicab companies, sewing companies, timber processors, and light and heavy industry.

Purchasing/Shared Services Cooperatives—Purchasing and shared services cooperatives are owned and governed by independent business owners, small municipalities and, in some cases, state governments that band together to enhance their purchasing power, lowering their costs and improving their competitiveness and ability to provide quality services. They operate in all sectors of the economy.