Who will Feel the Global Food Crisis?*

As the end of the year approaches, experts all over the globe are starting to talk more about the impending global food crisis. Several regions are expected to suffer from food insecurity next year, though some for different reasons than others.

India, Afghanistan, and Egypt are all suffering from terrible droughts. This means that a large portion of their domestic crops are likely to suffer, and with cereal prices at record highs, they won’t be able to import as much grain as they usually do.

Some areas, such as Haiti, are experiencing the opposite extreme climate-wise, with a horrible monsoon season wreaking havoc on their infrastructure, and leaving them especially susceptible to food-insecurity.

It seems to me that the immediate problem driving the global food crisis is the recent insane weather patterns, which have brought droughts to many regions, including many of those that contain high concentrations of farmers who produce food for export. One can identify all sorts of local problems that contribute to food insecurity, but in reality those problems are just being exacerbated by these unfortunate weather patterns, which are reducing the amount of food available to be distributed around the globe.

The people who will struggle the most are those in smaller, underdeveloped countries where government support is scarce. While the impending food crisis is a global phenomenon, it is the smaller countries who lack a “safety net” who will truly feel the hunger.

Guns, Germs, and Steel Analysis

 In his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond seeks an explanation for the vast difference in the amounts of material wealth held by people in different geographic locations. By going back to a time predating civilization and tracing the growth of societies in different regions in the world, Diamond came up with a hypothesis that uses differences in natural food resources to explain the differing rates at which societies advance technologically.

Diamond identifies two simple grains--barley and wheat-- as the keys which provided the first steps for advancement to the people in areas where those grains grew naturally, such as the Fertile Crescent. In comparison to the taro and bananas which were popular foods for cultivation in tropical climates, grains were easier to mass produce and store, which gave its cultivators two advantages: they could adopt a sedentary lifestyle since they no longer had to rely on hunting and foraging to feed themselves, and they could produce enough sustainable nutrition to feed a growing population, thus giving their society chance to flourish without the pressure of hunger.

Diamond also studied patterns in animal domestication throughout history. He found that, amazingly, in the entire history of domestication, only 14 animals have ever been successfully domesticated for use as food. 13 of those originated in Eurasia. People living near the Fertile Crescent had access to a plethora of large animals, who not only provided valuable protein, but also milk, wool, leather, and most importantly, labor.

Early farmers found that horses or mules were invaluable to the farm. When hooked up to a plow, these beasts of burden could easily increase the efficiency of farm-work, once again allowing certain geographically lucky societies to spend more time honing their techniques and technologies. On the other hand, societies in Africa would certainly have their hands full if they wanted to tame the wild beasts of the safari. The people of New Guinea domesticated the pig, but this animal is pretty useless as a laborer.

According to Diamond, these plants and animals gave certain lucky groups of people the ability to focus their energies on creating new innovations which then give them an even greater advantage over smaller societies in places like New Guinea, who rely on less efficient crops and livestock to sustain their populations. Those less fortunate societies had to spend the majority of their time and energy trying to eke a living out of the land, and thus they have little time for thought about technological advancement.

Certainly the answer to why certain geographic locations see more human prosperity than others has more complexity to it. However, I think Diamond’s link between civilization and food resources is a very logical starting point for explaining the great mystery of inequality in the world.

Watching what We Eat

Cooking shows have never been quite as popular in the U.S. as they are now. It seems as though nearly everybody today has an opinion as to who the greatest celebrity chef is.

At the same time, modern U.S. Americans have adapted to a fast-food-intensive culinary tradition. If American’s really hate working in the kitchen so badly, why do they love to watch others do it?

In order to examine the American fascination with food television, I’ve identified 3 subtypes of food shows: 1) the classic cooking demonstration, 2) the food/travel memoir, and 3) the reality/competition show. Though each of these subtypes celebrate food and cooking, they do so in very different ways, and attract very different viewers. In order to understand the American fascination with food television, we have to understand what each subtype offers its viewers.

I’ll start with the traditional food demonstration show. This is the style of cooking show that was pioneered by Julia Childs, and is still well executed by celebrity chefs such as Ina Garten and Giada De Laurentiis. Typically, in these shows, the chef introduces a list of recipe and then shows viewers how to execute the menu step-by-step. This type of cooking show is for viewers who enjoy cooking and want to learn new recipes or techniques, however, one can look at the Food Network program schedule and see that the traditional food demonstration show is falling out of favor with audiences.

It seems likely that the recent decrease in the popularity of these shows is an indicator of a nation-wide lack of interest in cooking. If people aren’t tuning into the Food Network to learn about cooking, then what are they watching?

Some people are more interested in shows about travel, where they can witness the sights and cultures of faraway lands through the lens of a camera. These shows, like Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservations and Andrew Zimmern’s Bizarre Foods, feed the eyes of viewers, especially. Essentially, a host will visit a different town, city, or country each episode, and go about finding the best and most quintessential foods that the region has to offer. They may also take part in different cultural rituals or pastimes, giving viewers an in-depth look at the way others live.

These shows are, in my opinion, the most genuine celebration of food because they generally attempt to emphasize, rather than disguise or adulterate, the impact of culinary traditions throughout the world. These shows foster a growing appreciation for home-cooked food in the U.S. by allowing viewers to see another person pouring their love and labor into a dish--finding enjoyment in creating something to feed friends and family. Viewers might see the food that others are making in their homes, and think, “Hey, I should fire up my own stove.” Unfortunately, I don’t think many viewers act on that impulse. It takes too long... too expensive... Burger King, yadda yadda yadda.

Once again, most people aren’t watching television in an attempt to learn or, god forbid, to better themselves. When we’re watching television, that’s all we’re doing: watching. A great big spread of food is a wonderful visual spectacle, and ever-hungry Americans are the perfect spectators. While these shows are good for getting stomachs rumbling, I don’t think they give viewers much impetus to cook for themselves, especially as half the meals consumed on these shows are made in restaurants.

Most recently, food television has taken on an entirely new meaning with the creation of reality kitchen shows and cooking competition. While the trend began with some high-quality shows such as Iron Chef and Kitchen Nightmares, it has expanded into a seemingly uncontrollable abomination. These shows, though built on the premise of cooking, are really about drama--the golden idol of U.S. television networks.

There is a great deal of excitement to be found in the kitchen, and network executives are constantly dreaming up ways to exploit it. Thus, we see competition shows reaching farther to put chefs in extreme conditions, and reality shows like the U.S. version of Kitchen Nightmares, which downplays the food completely and instead shows more footage of Gordon Ramsay arguing with restaurant owners. These shows are probably the most popular on the Food Network, and unfortunately, they’re no more about food or cooking than Jersey Shore is.

It’s sad to see that the growing American interest in food television really has so little to do with the food. I worry that commercializing and adulterating  the subject of cooking in the way that Food Network does will only increase the disconnect that Americans feel with their culinary traditions. Food is an object of the real world--to be experienced by all of the senses. We should be careful, as a society, not to let food become a passive experience

The End of Peanuts*

To many Americans, rich, creamy, nutritious peanut butter is regarded as a mainstay staple of the childhood diet. Picky children who will eat nothing else can be pacified by a simple “PB&J.” Peanut butter can be applied to almost any unsavory fruit or vegetable and they instantly become edible.  For decades, peanut butter sandwiches have populated kids’ lunchboxes.
However, in the past two decades, schools around the country have grown increasingly cautious with the infamous allergen. Some schools have gone so far as to ban peanut products from campuses completely.

As a person who spent his childhood cautiously navigating a lunchroom full of allergenic time-bombs, I can understand why some people may think peanut prohibition is a good idea. I can also see why it would be a big mistake.

Like it or not, primary school is where youngsters learn how to navigate the world around them. We learn how to build and maintain relationships, how to follow orders, how to question authority, and how make independent choices, including the choice of what to eat.

As a child with a peanut allergy, the school lunchroom was where I learned to select safe foods. The lunchroom was where I became aware of the constant threat of consuming something toxic, and it’s where I learned to ask what the heck I’m eating.

When children with severe food allergies don’t learn to be wary of what they eat, that is where the real threat is born. A child who was coddled a and kept in an allergen-free environment won’t gain a real understanding of how to operate independently in a world full of allergens. I think it’s better to allow the possibility that a child might have an allergic reaction in school, where they have immediate access to medical help, than to leave them to figure it out when they’re out on their own.

This Thanksgiving, I went with my family to eat at Boudro’s on the Riverwalk. They had a fantastic four-course Thanksgiving menu that consisted of a green apple and butternut squash soup, a cranberry and walnut salad, your choice of turkey breast or a ribeye for the main course, and a pumpkin creme brulee.

As I was ordering from their special holiday menu, the only choice I needed to make was whether to eat turkey or steak (the answer was obvious: steak). I paid little attention to the rest of the menu.

When the soup came, it looked gorgeous. It was a beautiful green and was garnished with a little dollop of sour cream and tiny little leaflets of some green herb. I mixed the sour cream garnish into my soup thoroughly before eating it. It was delicious, and I wondered allowed what that little unrecognizable herb was.

The when the waiter came by a couple minutes later, my dad asked what was in the garnish. The waiter replied, “Just sour cream, tarragon, and a bit of ground peanut.”

I gulped down a big mouthful of my peanut-contaminated soup.

Needless to say, the rest of the meal was a bit uncomfortable. The waiter brought me black and white soup, which I played with nervously until it was simply gray, and it was time for the next course.

Luckily I didn’t react to the peanut, and the rest of the meal was relatively uneventful. However, my uncomfortable experience at Thanksgiving dinner served as a valuable reminder to always read the menu, and to always let my server know I have a food allergy.

When considering whether to allow allergens in the classroom, we should consider the fact that these children will be living with allergens for their entire lives. It’s like teaching abstinence in the place of traditional sex ed., it doesn’t prepare students for the reality of the real world. It actually does the opposite by creating a false sense of security in the minds of vulnerable kids.