Corn, Its In Everything

So as far as this weeks challenge regarding corn products, I would rank my success as somewhere between failure and absolute failure. Not only must it be extremely difficult for people making a really active effort to not eat corn products, but as a college kid who has a hard time making sure I get three meals a day at all, it was even more difficult. It made me realize that for those who do not have the luxury of being extremely selective with what they eat (i.e. the poor), they are really the victims. They have little choice as consumers in what products they eat, and so are major consumers of corn, willingly or unwillingly. I guess this exercise helped me see diet from a social-green perspective, in that there are social inequities in our dietary system as well, beyond the ecological impacts of a high corn diet, there are the nutritional implications for the poor as well. As a college student, my diet might be most similar to that of a poor person, and so like me, they struggle to eat at all, let alone having the luxury to eat products other than corn. If we all had the option and time to eat locally grown fresh food, the benefits would be enormous, in both health, and environmental implications.

Corn Exercise

Well, the corn exercise wasn't exactly the most successful on my behalf. I work at an organic sushi restaurant, and was there six nights for the past week so had dinner there during that time. However, a great deal of the sushi are seasoned with a miso aioli dressing that contains mayonnaise, a product that has corn derivatives. I also realized that the beer I was drinking (which I am not normally a fan of, but was the only thing around at the party I was at) also has components of corn, something I never thought of before. The biggest surprise to me about corn products wasn't even in food, but in the face makeup I wear! When looking to see if the bronzer I was wearing was hypoallergenic, I noticed that corn starch was found in the list of ingredients. Very bizarre, but true. This week, I'll definitely be sure to notice more about the corn in my diet, however I was able to make some pretty significant observations that I wouldn't have noticed had I not had such an assignment. 

Question 6 and 7 Combined

Before I answer this weeks discussion question I want to back track and complete last week's question since I did not have the opportunity to do so yet. 

As the first section of questions: "What, exactly, do you think about when you make food choices? Do you have environmental considerations in mind? Or other stuff?" I do keep nutrition in mind, yet; I'm also a college student with not a large income to spend money on fancy organic foods. I stay away from canned anything, yet; I do purchase frozen foods. I really wish that foods did have labels on them that said "Genetically modified" on them because it would probably reinforce my decisions or cause me not to purchase something. Whenever I buy meat I always purchase the brand that states it does not contain antibiotics or hormones, however; sometimes I'm skeptical about how much truth that holds. I would like the chance to blame my being Dutch-ness on my food purchases too. My roommates always ask me how much stuff I bought at the grocery and how much money I spent. They always do this because I have a tendency to buy only buy what is on sale or if I have a coupon for it. 

The second part of this question asks: "Take a few moments to consider everything you've eaten in the last day or two. Of the food or beverage items you've consumed, which, in your estimation, has had the greatest environmental impact? Why?"  I think the mini frozen pizza I ate for lunch today had a pretty large environmental impact. First, it consists of a plethora of inputs such as the dough, the sauce- which comes from tomatos, the peppers, mushrooms, and sausages. These inputs were either grown on a large scale farm somewhere that produces a large amount of waste, and the sausages came from a pig, which probably sat in a stall in an industrial farm without room to move and was forced to eat foods unnatural to him, such as the grain. Then these pizzas were put together in a large factory somewhere and frozen. These pizzas used energy to keep them frozen and also had to be transported in a truck that had a freezer to the grocery store. Then these pizzas had to remain frozen in the freezer there. Luckily i do not have a car so it did not cost any fossil fuel energy for me to transport myself to the store and back home with the pizza. From there the pizza went into my freezer until i had to heat the oven and let it bake there for 15 minutes. This pizza also came in a box and plastic wrapping- further pollution. And the cost of the pizza? $1.00. After analyzing that, i don't think i'm going to be buying those pizzas again. 

Now for this weeks question: The corn challenge! I also failed at this, but I did always look at the ingredients of what i ate to take into consideration there was corn involved. One thing that surprised me was bread! Just yesterday i went grocery shopping and found a bread that claimed it did not contain "High fructose corn syrup" in it. I didn't know most breads have that! And to prove it I looked at some other brands and it was an ingredient! Another thing I noticed was the frequency of corn, soy and wheat being in our diet. If it wasn't corn, it was one of the other two, often times there was a combo of 2 or even all three. This brought me back to senior year of high school when I went on a field trip to the Chicago Stock Exchange. There traders were buying and selling corn, soy and wheat- the commodities exchange. This really brings it all together for me and shows that these three foods are driving the American diet. 

Corn challenge

The short story is I failed. The long story is that I gained some valuable perspective on how deeply entrenched corn is in our diets and how difficult it can be for allergic persons to eat normally. While I already had considerable vigilance against corn based products prior to this experiment, I still managed to fail because I assumed that products like vanilla extract "probably does not have any corn additives because corn could not possibly substitute alcohol or vanillin (the only ingredients necessary). However, I found out after consuming certain comestibles that I had used a vanilla extract that contained corn syrup. I should point out that this occurred on sunday, and after many painful avoidances had been sacrificed. FML. This experiemnt helped to further illustrate how centralized the US food system is and some of the pitfulls that arise from such an organization.

Agriculture

My food choices center around three main criteria. First, I look for freshness. You can define freshness as the chronological proximity to the foods ideal consumption period. Second, I look at the ingredients. I usually try to avoid unhealthy or unnatural additives like corn syrups, partially hydrogenated oils etc. Finally, I prefer to buy locally made goods. Buying local usually assures that the product is not only competitive with leading brands but has a smaller carbon footprint than other leading brands.

The most environmentally damaging food I ate recently was a cheeseburger. Since it most likely came from a large scale industrial beef plant, it was grown by ranchers who use feedlots (discussed in Vegatable-industrial complex), slaughtered in a large processing plant and driven great distances on large trucks. While I normally don't eat such food, especially red meat, the Tavern didn't really give me any alternatives.

Food

I realized recently that probably one of my worst areas of environmental impact is my eating habits. This is also one of the hardest for me to grapple with, as I am a true blue food lover. While I understand one can be a food lover and be conscious of your environmental impact, this is something I had never really considered before. I am also one of those people who is not too fond of vegetables, making me a major consumer of meat products and processed foods, and therefore a contributor of environmental impact. Not only that, but I am often a consumer of delivery food, even worse in impact. Part of the problem is my pickiness with vegetables, and TDR often fails to provide options that agree with my tastes. Since I am moving off campus however, I can hope that purchasing my own groceries will not only make me more conscious of what I eat, but allow me to pick eco-friendly foods that also agree with my tastes.

If I look back at my recent food consumption, I can easily decide which item is the worst. In a very comfort food mood, I caved and ate a Chiburken at McDonalds. This is where you buy a McDouble and a McChicken, and put the chicken patty between the burger patties. I almost feel shameful in retrospect, not only because of how disgusting that must sound, but the sheer amount of meat in it. It probably contains more meat than the average person is supposed to have in a week. This is representative of my problem too, in that I am a food-loving, meat-loving, American, with a typical American diet, which in this case...is a very high impact one. It is also clear to me that this is one area I can seriously make a difference in impact, as it is simply a matter of choice, and maybe manning up and eating my veggies. I will have to focus on greening up my diet, pun intended.

yes! to technology

yes!!! i do believe technology holds the answers for the future regarding our environmental situation, and in the end, does have the possibility of ¨saving us,¨ as much as i hate to hear that! when thinking of technology in regards to the environment, it is easy to see the down sides as well as the positive effects. for one, technology has been the root of all waste, one could argue. with wealthier nations having access to unlimited amounts of technology, there does come the inevitable problem of waste. as we saw in the video about ¨stuff,¨ with new forms of technology comes the throwing out of old forms. all this is very bad for the planet in deed. but just think of all the positive uses technology has created too! for example, recycling. now we can recycle our ink cartridges, as well as paper, plastic, glass, etc. old cars and out of date computers can also be re-used. technology has also created THIS--the form of communication we use everyday. how else would we know about climate change and global warming without technology? as the planet earth video pointed out, technology can be used to save DNA of particular species (although we don´t fully agree with this theory at times). because of technology, scientists and environmentalists are able to study the various trends of climate change, as well as how various species react to these changes. technology has also led to the creation of hybrid cars, solar panels, green energy, and more. it is because of technology that we will be able to trigger the negative effects of global warming before there is no option. i believe that with the right objectives, as well as the right policy makers and leaders in power, technology will be used a positive tool to help with the environmental crisis. 

Pro-Technology

Perhaps I am just naive to the whole environmental school of thought, but I definitely think that improved technology suggests an improvement to the environment. Of course, I don't know all of the facts about this idea yet, and this is why I'm taking the course, but as an outsider on the subject matter, there are definitely outward signs that help in arguing this point. For one thing, we've been able to develop one of the most integral components to the pro-environmentalism movement, recycling. Although it has existed for some time now, recycling has not only helped to dispose of less waste but has also acted as a PR tactic to enforce care of the environment, through its very symbolism alone. Technology has also allowed us to develop new forms of transportation that are less wearing on the planet. Over the past hundred years, cleaner gas emissions, public transportation, and now, Hybrid vehicles and Smart Cars also encourage ways of getting around without being as harmful to the planet. While some argue that cars in general are extremely toxic to the environment, with the emissions they produce and their bodies themselves as being wasteful, technology has helped to work with the times in upgrading environmental efficiency that most compliment our needs. Furthermore, technology has been a key tool in creating products that are biodegradable and environmentally friendly, like laundry detergents, shampoos, and other chemically-based products that act as waste and disturb the environment and its wildlife. Yes, we have become more needy and with that, have developed more materials and "stuff" that could be potentially detrimental to the environment we live in. However, technology has also led us to find ways to stop the harm. I guess technology is a two-fold argument. It has developed the weapons that have harmed the environment, but has also assisted in developing solutions that could help to save our messy situation. 

Technology

Technology simply put, is a tool. Any tool can be used for good or for bad, it simply depends on how one uses it. This is a generalization of course, but on a macro scale this rule applies. The problem is that technologically advanced societies and states also tend to have extensive wealth and affluence, which leads to more consumption and a larger ecological footprint in general. So, while usually technology will first lead to an expansion in the scale of ecological impact, there is no reason it cannot be used to reduce the impact afterward. For instance, it is only with highly advanced technology and materials can we produce efficient wind turbine technology. In addition, it will be difficult to undo much of the pollution and harm we have done without advanced technology. Another important factor to remember is that the internet (i.e. technology) is a useful tool for communicating the facts of the environmental cause, educating people across the globe about environmental issues, and organizing for action. In addition, it is only with advanced computer models that we can really model the impact and effects of much of our environmental impact. Clean coal technology is yet another example of how technology can be used to reduce harm and impact. These are just a few examples, but they help illustrate how technology can be a force for environmental good when applied in the right manner.

The problem is not necessarily with technology, but with we the users, who use it to abuse or harm the environment rather than protect or reduce impact. After all, if we recall Nash's article, he depicts an ideal future of minimal environmental impact made possible only with highly advanced technologies. Indeed, if we put focus into increasing general technological efficiencies across the board, it might be possible to keep a relatively high standard of living while reducing environmental impact to a long-term sustainable level. In addition, technological advances can help supplement reductions in the workforce enabling us to sustainably reduce population. As previously stated, technology is merely a tool, and the real challenge will be learning how our society can use it appropriately and for the right purposes.

technology and the environment

In considering whether technology can save the environment or not, I feel it is important to consider what technology essentially is. Technology is defined by merriam-webster as the practical application of knowledge, especially in a particular area so as to create an ability. Philosophically, it is how humans control their environment to their advantage, regardless of how you define environment. Whether it involves fashioning a spear to ward off bears or a fishing pole to catch fish or even a house to protect from predators and inclimate weather, technology is how humans secure THEMSELVES in nature. It is also the engine by which they separate themselves from nature (as in building societies to escape a state of nature). There is no doubt that technology has played a multiplier role the global environmetal degradation, but can it also reverse this? I think not. While a cornicopian might argue otherwise, I am of the opinion that to start repairing the environment, we need to reverse population growth, reverse material consumption rates and improve efficiency whereever possible. Speculating this from a macro perspective, technology should be able mitigate all of these requirements, but only to a certain exent. For instance, technology can craete contraceptives and abortion techniques to curb growth rates, but it is up to individuals not to reproduce excessively. Technology can make industries and processes more efficient thereby reducing consumption rates, but it is up individuals to consume less to begin with. In short, I do beleive that technology can help save the environment if we apply it properly, but in the end it will require more than just technology to save the planet.