Friday, November 25, 2005

what goes in must come out



Hey kids, it's Buy Nothing Day! Happy Festivus for the Rest of Us.

So, why McDonald's in particular?

Principally, targetting an organization like McDonald's gets us to the heart of the problem with overconsumption. We in North America have quite literally grown fat from our own excess. High-energy yet nutrient-deficient diets, as perhaps best exemplified by the McDonalds nightmare, have tainted what should otherwise be regarded as the healthiest period humans have experienced in our existence. There is no logical or technological reason for modern humans to be malnourished. We create plenty of food for both human and animal consumption, and we certainly have the capacity to distribute that food to wherever it is needed. So what is keeping our nation underfed?

I should probably lay my cards on the table regarding what I consider to be 'underfed'. There's plenty to eat in North America, of course. Stores are full of packaged foods, restaurants are plentiful, and most people earn enough money that they can buy food when they need to. So why the health epidemic, with food-related illness at a high unmatched since the invention of refrigeration? Why are so many children morbidly obese? (This may indeed be far less of an issue in Canada than the USA, but trends here are similar.) Why do so many people who eat three or more meals a day malnourished, lacking nutrients in their bodies that are more widely available now than in any other time in human history?

Several studies have suggested that not only do we eat too much on an individual basis, but also that we waste a huge amount of food in the process. Dumpster divers have taken this little fact to heart, as freeganism has spread by means of ideological urgency and economic necessity. The existence of these groups among the urban poor and not-so-poor has shown that the recovery of food from society's wastefull habits is no simple rejection of social convention. Rooting through garbage containers of restaurants, supermarkets, and food production facilities to recover the tonnes and tonnes of edible food that is allowed to rot is an ideological stance against corporate agribusiness. The locus here is an economic one, in terms of how production is numerically evaluated. If, for example, I grow vegetables to feed people who have no food, the economy is in official terms stagnant. If a grocerystore throws away a truckful of food to make space for some more, the GNP/GDP goes up. In the latter case, the poor are still hungry.

The key for a good food supply is not increasing food production, but rather increasing (or more properly stated, maintaining) the quality of our food sources. It's really just a matter of having a proper infrastructure for food production and delivery. Sadly, that infrastructure has been taken over by corporate agribusiness, which does not gauge success by means of food quality or the health of their clientelle, but rather through crude profitability. Big business does not care about long-term health trends in individuals. BSE (mad cow) symptoms, for example, can take a decade to become manifest in a human. Do we really think that ten years after the fact, McDonals will ever be held accountable for helping spread a disease that can come from a variety of food sources? From the point of view of industrial food producers, if profits are impeded by more thorough food inspections, then those inspections do not occur.

Corporations focus on quarterly profits and stock-market accountability. That is their nature, and we should account for this behaviour when dealing with corporate involvement in matters of life and death (food production, health care, etc). They process food to be tasty (ie: tonnes of sugar and salt), long-lasting (full of cancer-producing preservatives), and cheap (unhealthy pesticide use, for example, to remove production costs).

The end result is food which is processed for maximum shelf-life and transportability and minimum nutritive value. If you don't believe me on this point, check the label of any package of processed vegetables. Canning can be a relatively harmless procedure, so long as vegetables are not cooked at the plant. Freezing, overcooking, and otherwise modifying the veggies is a sure way to lose any or all vitamins and minerals that they may contain. A normal serving of those same vegetables obtained fresh from a grocer maintains the food's nutritional value (assuming that you don't destroy those precious vitamins and anti-oxidants by overcooking your food -- ask Woody Harelson). Some manufacturers get around the fact that they are destroying their food by adding a vitamin or mineral to their product. Vitamin C is a great example, as it is very cheaply produced, can be inserted into most foods, and is absorbed by the body quite easily. Vitamin fortification can be an expensive process however, especially for some vitamins and minerals, and thus you do not see vitamins in every food product that you can buy.

To make a long story short, when you hear from various sources that you should eat 5-8 servings of vegetables per day, it is unlikely that frozen stir-fries, creamed corn, frozen dinners, and V8 vegetable drinks give you any of the actual vitamins that doctors are telling you to consume in order to be healthy, which is the whole goal of the exercise. Parents, you are not doing your kids a favour by including frozen peas or broccoli on their plates. Sadly, instead of opening the microwaving package, you have to actually spend the time it takes to cook fresh veggies, otherwise your kids are eating calories largely empty of nutritional value.

This is where McDonalds comes back into the picture. They basically launched the fast-food revolution that has engulfed North America. Their marketing and production techniques have made it possible to convince hundreds of millions of people that good food can be prepared in about a minute. That people live a 'quick' life these days is a topic that's too broad to properly examine here. It should be enough to state that the McDonalds process is not an evil one in the sense that they are trying to keep people malnourished. Rather, quick and crappy food is a natural adaptation to the manner in which we view production and consumption: addictive, cheap, now.

There are other aspects of McDonalds culture that should keep you the fuck away. There's the anti-union nature of the company, the exploitation of immigrant and poor labour sources, the massive amount of environmental damage that accompanies daily operations at their restaurants, the unsubtle manipulation of our youth to pursue products which are detrimental to their development, and the proliferation of animal cruelty through industrial meat production facilities. Also, by avoiding McDonalds you can join those two kids from out west who are boycotting the company to protest softwood lumber duties.

Buy Nothing Day does not suggest that you need nothing to live on a daily basis. That would be a very naive position. Rather, November 25th should serve as a reminder that we have ritualized certain forms of production to the detriment of others. By blindly accepting our system as 'the best', we are ignoring alternatives that are much more healthy and sustainable, and do not rely on cheap gimmickery to maintain themselves.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

While I agree that eating peas that have been cooked to a slurry or peaches cooked in heavy sugar syrup is next to useless, you are mistaken in one regard: frozen uncooked vegetables retain almost all of their nutritional content. Almost none of the vitamins have been lost, and absolutely none of the minerals are gone.

Also, microwaving a cup of peas for 2 minutes actually destroys less of the the heat sensitive vitamins than cooking them in a pot on the stove (the old-fashioned slow way). Less vitamins (the Bs) leach out into the water that way as well.

Just because something is quick does not mean it is bad.

(I hate McDonald's too.)

t͒͒͝h̫͒͒e̫͒͒ c͒ͧ͒o͒̊͒w͒̉͒ p̼͒͒a͒͒͜l᷂͒͒a͒̍͒c͒ͤ͒e͒͒͘ said...

i did a bit of research on frozen foods and after much data collation and analysis have found the following:

1) you are wrong

2) i am right

there's a nice picture of a pack of frozen carrots, cauliflower, beans, and zucchini, located here. it doesn't look to me like there's any vitamins and/or minerals in this special blend. carrot normally has a lot of vitamin A, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Actually, no, I'm still right, and your still wrong. Your "quite a bit of research" must have been on some "raw foods only" site.

(Actually, you're doubly wrong: carrots contain very little or no vitamin A. They contain beta-carotine, which the body converts into vitamin A. Most of the time it is allowable to list that as Vitamin A on thee label.)

That picture of the label appears to be the "short form": the minimum required listing for nutrition facts. Notice they don't list anything else?

But regardless, the nutrition content of a single package of mixed vegetables from an anonymous manufacturer does not prove your case. They could be precooked or highly blanched, for instance.

Here:
http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/11323.html
Carrots and peas that have been frozen and cooked even still have 521% of your "vitamin A" and 38% of your vitamin C requirements. Good enough?

Google is your friend:

http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/Food_Facts/FAQ/frozen_freshveg_faq.asp

http://parenting.ivillage.com/baby/bnutrition/0,,3w7g,00.html

And many many more.

t͒͒͝h̫͒͒e̫͒͒ c͒ͧ͒o͒̊͒w͒̉͒ p̼͒͒a͒͒͜l᷂͒͒a͒̍͒c͒ͤ͒e͒͒͘ said...

if you lose nutritional content during the freezing process, doesn't it stand to reason that you will lose some more during the cooking phase? maybe this is the wrong analogy, but it's like when you recompress a jpg and you lose information each time.

and why would companies avoid putting information on their products that would help them sell? in Canada you have to do nutritional testing on every foodproduct that you sell. doing so gives you its full nutritional info. wouldn't it make sense to indclude the full data set rather than simply the sodium and potassium mentioned in the link above? after all, i would love to see

not to get into the back story too much, but in 1998 the US FDA ceded to requests by the American Frozen Food Institute to allow frozen veggies to be labelled "healthy", despite conflicting data in the scientific literature. it's interesting to note that a good deal of that literature has been funded by agricultural companies themselves, and so it's tougher to trust their research without contemplating the ideological baggage behind it. it's kind of like how the FDA in 1994 allowed low-cholesterol products to be labelled as such even if they contain a great deal of material which the body turns into cholesterol. it's called twisting the truth for financial gain, and it's a game that market economies have mastered.

listen, i'm not against frozen foods. that would be naive and simplistic. i'm just reacting to comments made by friends who rely on frozen vegetables. if you think that a stirfry from frozen sources is as nutritionally coherent as one made from fresh ones, then you need to maybe start testing your own food. may i recommend McMaster Medical Centre? of course, i'm not talking about "fresh" produce that ripens on transport trucks. i mean stuff that farmers, co-ops, and smaller farm groups produce because they care about food and the environment, and also want to make a buck. they deserve your money far more than Monsanto or McCain.