Last week, we took a trip to Snowville Creamery, a milk factory outside Albany, Ohio, owned by the Taylor family. They get milk from small dairy farms in the area and process it and ship it to stores in Southern Ohio, DC and a few other places. Snowville's mission is to make good quality milk like it used to be, without homoginization, chemicals, and from cows that are happy and healthy, promoting more sustainable milk practices.
I've known about Snowville for a while. If you life in Athens for any amount of time, you will eventually hear the name, or see it on a bumper sticker or pin. It's sold in the local Kroger. Aside from just living down here, I'm friends with the Taylor's daughter, Celeste, who first really turned me on to their milk. She and I would talk about the cows on the farms that supply Snowville, and the effort that Snowville makes to have nutrient-rich, tasty milk. I've had several cartons of Snowville milk, and I fell in love with the rich Snowville chocolate milk. It's rich and dark and very yummy. Celeste had almost gotten me a job at Snowville during the summer, even.
Even though I was familiar with Snowville, I had never been to the dairy. The job fell through and I'd never had the available car, or the reason, to go out there. So I was particularly excited to hear that we would be having a field trip there. And I love seeing how things are made. I was not let down, but I was surprised. First, it was a lot smaller than I expected. It was just a fairly sized building, the size of a barn, out in the fields near the farms they got their milk from. Pastures spread as far out as we could see, and we initially got lost trying to find it. I was told they produce somewhere around seven thousand cartons a day (my memory could be faulty here, but I think that's what she told me). Sadly, we didn't get to see any cows, since they were across the road, but we did get to see the pastures, and to look inside the processing room where they did all kinds of things from separating cream from milk, reintroducing it in the right amounts - 2%, skim, whole, ect. - and pasteurize the milk in a series of pipes that run through heating elements. They showed us the machine that forms the cartons from flat pieces of cardboard, and fills and seals them.
We finished with a look through their chemistry lab where they look at the composition of the milk they produce, and incubate bacteria that grows on it, to make sure that everything is safe for people, and that the percentages of butterfat on cartons are correct. They also had a fridge where they kept cartons of milk so they knew the shelf life of all of their products. We were also allowed to have samples of Snowville chocolate milk.
It was a fun trip, and I learned a lot from it. It's awesome to see that a small, local creamery is doing so well, and is trying to take positive steps to help the environment.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
11/1 Editorial Reflection
In class, we read Fedoroff's article "Genetically Engineered Food for All." In this article, she argued that there was no scientific evidence for genetically modified food being harmful or causing adverse reactions. She implored the government to reduce the restrictions they place on such modified crops. In her reasoning, the best way to grow enough cost effective food is to use these modified foods. However, I had several problems with her article.
One problem she had was that she did not really give any sort of evidence to support her claim. She herself says that "(But) now the evidence is in. These crop modification methods are not dangerous." Yet she does not provide any studies or any evidence saying that modification is not dangerous. She does not cite any sort of proof. Where is this evidence she is referring to? Conversely, the documentary Food, Inc. Talked about some of the possible side effects of using modified crops, including antibiotic resistance, and toxicity. On their website, they link to The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit environmental advocacy group. In their argument about genetically modified foods, The Center for Food Safety says that there are studies that show genetically modified foods can be harmful to humans in many ways, including an increase in allergic reactions, immunity suppression and possibly a link to cancer. However, despite making this claim, they also do not provide hard evidence, making it difficult to know who to listen to and trust.
Another issue with Fedoroff's piece is that she stated "Of the 15.4 million farmers growing these crops, 90 percent are poor, with small operations. The reason farmers turn to genetically modified crops is simple: yields increase and costs decrease." The idea that most or even all farmers are turning to genetically modified crops as a way to get themselves out of the hole is a little misleading. Michael Pollan, in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma, decided to chase down the parts of the American diet, and it led him, at first to farmers and corn. Pollan spent some time with one farmer in Iowa. This farmer is going broke, so it is plausible he could be one of the "90 percent" that Fedoroff mentions. However, he and many of his neighbors refuse to use genetically modified crops. Pollan writes "(the farmer) doesn't think it's worth the extra twenty-five dollars a bag (in technology fees) they cost. 'Sure, you might get a yield pump, but whatever you make on the extra corn goes right back to cover the premium for the seed. I'". He finishes with a quote from the farmer he's spending time with. So Pollan's first hand experience seems to contradict the "everyone's doing it" kind of vibe that Fedoroff uses in her editorial.
I think it is clear from looking at these and other sources that there are two sides to this debate, and both of them have strong arguments. I think Fedoroff's main crime in her piece is in not giving the other side any credit and not supporting her own argument. It is hard to believe her claims of there being no risks to using genetically modified crops, when others say there are. And it is another mark against her credibility when she makes it sound like all farmers are jumping on the modified crop band wagon, when another writer's interviews suggest that not all farmers are. The lack of evidence really harms her credibility, especially when contrasting her with other people writing about this issue.
One problem she had was that she did not really give any sort of evidence to support her claim. She herself says that "(But) now the evidence is in. These crop modification methods are not dangerous." Yet she does not provide any studies or any evidence saying that modification is not dangerous. She does not cite any sort of proof. Where is this evidence she is referring to? Conversely, the documentary Food, Inc. Talked about some of the possible side effects of using modified crops, including antibiotic resistance, and toxicity. On their website, they link to The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit environmental advocacy group. In their argument about genetically modified foods, The Center for Food Safety says that there are studies that show genetically modified foods can be harmful to humans in many ways, including an increase in allergic reactions, immunity suppression and possibly a link to cancer. However, despite making this claim, they also do not provide hard evidence, making it difficult to know who to listen to and trust.
Another issue with Fedoroff's piece is that she stated "Of the 15.4 million farmers growing these crops, 90 percent are poor, with small operations. The reason farmers turn to genetically modified crops is simple: yields increase and costs decrease." The idea that most or even all farmers are turning to genetically modified crops as a way to get themselves out of the hole is a little misleading. Michael Pollan, in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma, decided to chase down the parts of the American diet, and it led him, at first to farmers and corn. Pollan spent some time with one farmer in Iowa. This farmer is going broke, so it is plausible he could be one of the "90 percent" that Fedoroff mentions. However, he and many of his neighbors refuse to use genetically modified crops. Pollan writes "(the farmer) doesn't think it's worth the extra twenty-five dollars a bag (in technology fees) they cost. 'Sure, you might get a yield pump, but whatever you make on the extra corn goes right back to cover the premium for the seed. I'". He finishes with a quote from the farmer he's spending time with. So Pollan's first hand experience seems to contradict the "everyone's doing it" kind of vibe that Fedoroff uses in her editorial.
I think it is clear from looking at these and other sources that there are two sides to this debate, and both of them have strong arguments. I think Fedoroff's main crime in her piece is in not giving the other side any credit and not supporting her own argument. It is hard to believe her claims of there being no risks to using genetically modified crops, when others say there are. And it is another mark against her credibility when she makes it sound like all farmers are jumping on the modified crop band wagon, when another writer's interviews suggest that not all farmers are. The lack of evidence really harms her credibility, especially when contrasting her with other people writing about this issue.
Monday, October 24, 2011
10/25 Secret Family Recipe
Shhh...it's a secret.
There are a lot of companies and even people we know that have these recipes that they refuse to share. Worse, they'll elude to them whenever they can. We all know about the KFC spices, or Coca-cola's secret recipe, or the Bush's Baked Bean commercials that play on the idea of selling a family recipe. Sometimes it's a secret because "secret" is a good marketing ploy. It drums up interest and publicity and makes people a little more willing to see what all the hype is about. But secret recipes aren't relegated to the competitive commercial world only.
There was never really anyone in my family that I remember being big on secret recipes. There were a few family recipes, created and coined by grandmothers or aunts, but those were pretty much common knowledge among anyone who wanted them. Because of this, I have never really understood the hype behind secret recipes. I understand their use in marketing, but when you aren't marketing, what's the point? I suppose the answer lies in pride. There's a good feeling that goes along with making food that people like. If you're the only person who can make that food that people like, then the pride and the good feeling can go even farther.
Whether it is pride, money or something else that motivates people to make secret recipes, the truth is that lot's of people have them, and sometimes people stumble on the same one by accident. It's a world full of secret recipes out there. And everyone has their own reason for keeping it a secret.
There are a lot of companies and even people we know that have these recipes that they refuse to share. Worse, they'll elude to them whenever they can. We all know about the KFC spices, or Coca-cola's secret recipe, or the Bush's Baked Bean commercials that play on the idea of selling a family recipe. Sometimes it's a secret because "secret" is a good marketing ploy. It drums up interest and publicity and makes people a little more willing to see what all the hype is about. But secret recipes aren't relegated to the competitive commercial world only.
There was never really anyone in my family that I remember being big on secret recipes. There were a few family recipes, created and coined by grandmothers or aunts, but those were pretty much common knowledge among anyone who wanted them. Because of this, I have never really understood the hype behind secret recipes. I understand their use in marketing, but when you aren't marketing, what's the point? I suppose the answer lies in pride. There's a good feeling that goes along with making food that people like. If you're the only person who can make that food that people like, then the pride and the good feeling can go even farther.
Whether it is pride, money or something else that motivates people to make secret recipes, the truth is that lot's of people have them, and sometimes people stumble on the same one by accident. It's a world full of secret recipes out there. And everyone has their own reason for keeping it a secret.
Monday, October 17, 2011
10/18 History of Chocolate
The history of chocolate goes back a very long ways. Long before Columbus discovered America, the Olmec people of the Mexican Gulf Coast were using chocolate drinks. The Mayans used it for drinks, soups and travel food, drying the beans, roasting them and grinding them with spices. The Aztecs also used the cacao bean for food. They used it for levying taxes and as a form of capital. When the Spanish first came, they were introduced to the drink, and initially rejected it as disgusting.
It was not until around seventy years after the new world was discovered that chocolate began to take off in Europe. Beginning in Spain, a more sweetened version of the chocolate drink quickly began to gain popularity. By the end of the 17th century, chocolate houses were established in London, selling chocolate drinks and confections. In the mid 1800s, a Dutch chemist devised a way to make cocoa powder by removing some of the fat and mixing it in with salts. In 1847, Joseph Fry created the first chocolate bar as we would recognize it by taking cocoa powder and adding the cacao butter back into it. Chocolate candies were soon being produces by many companies including Cadbury and Nestle.
Chocolate was imported to America from the British, who heavily taxed the product. Regardless, it was still quite popular and was served in chocolate houses to wealthy patrons. In a bar form, it was used as a field ration for the American and for the British soldiers during the Revolutionary war, due to it's portability and high energy concentration.
Chocolate became a major staple of industry with increased technology to support bigger and better production methods. It was used as a field ration during World War 2, and has become a huge part of our diets
For more information on the history of chocolate, check out the book Chocolate: a Global History by Sarah Moss and Alexander Badenoch, Chocolate History, Culture, and Heritage edited by Louis Evan Grivetti and Howard-Yana Shapiro, The New Taste of Chocolate by Marieel E Presilla, or Chocolate Pathway to the Gods by Meredith Dreiss and Sharon Edgar Greenhill. Or any other number of books, because there's a lot of them.
It was not until around seventy years after the new world was discovered that chocolate began to take off in Europe. Beginning in Spain, a more sweetened version of the chocolate drink quickly began to gain popularity. By the end of the 17th century, chocolate houses were established in London, selling chocolate drinks and confections. In the mid 1800s, a Dutch chemist devised a way to make cocoa powder by removing some of the fat and mixing it in with salts. In 1847, Joseph Fry created the first chocolate bar as we would recognize it by taking cocoa powder and adding the cacao butter back into it. Chocolate candies were soon being produces by many companies including Cadbury and Nestle.
Chocolate was imported to America from the British, who heavily taxed the product. Regardless, it was still quite popular and was served in chocolate houses to wealthy patrons. In a bar form, it was used as a field ration for the American and for the British soldiers during the Revolutionary war, due to it's portability and high energy concentration.
Chocolate became a major staple of industry with increased technology to support bigger and better production methods. It was used as a field ration during World War 2, and has become a huge part of our diets
For more information on the history of chocolate, check out the book Chocolate: a Global History by Sarah Moss and Alexander Badenoch, Chocolate History, Culture, and Heritage edited by Louis Evan Grivetti and Howard-Yana Shapiro, The New Taste of Chocolate by Marieel E Presilla, or Chocolate Pathway to the Gods by Meredith Dreiss and Sharon Edgar Greenhill. Or any other number of books, because there's a lot of them.
Monday, October 10, 2011
10/11 American fast food
No place in the world does fast food like America does fast food. During my visit to China, fast food was pretty common on streets and in malls, but that was really only McDonald's and KFC. Another of our fast food staples - Pizza Hut - was transformed into an nice, sit down, family style restaurant. It was a little strange to go to Pizza Hut and see steak on their menu. Even McDonald's had more of an emphasis on sitting down and eating in the store. Their menu showcased small items, and no meals - an emphasis on sharing food as is traditional in China.
So what is the difference between fast food here and fast food there? The probable, and slightly cop-out answer is that it's cultural differences. In America, we have a focus on individuals and that extends into our food. We order for ourselves and eat what we order. In China, they order different dishes for the table, and then share them among everyone. The more dishes a person orders, the more affluent they are. So perhaps some of the differences between fast food here and there can be explained by that reason.
Perhaps another is busy schedules. Americans are known quite well for rushing around, and often we eat our meals on the go. We are concerned with everything being convenient and fast to fit into our busy schedules. Sitting down for a long meal is only for special dinners. In China, it is more common to sit down and have a meal with family. I think this is most likely the bulk of why fast food is different in different places. For people who are not as busy and as rushed, food takes on a different meaning and often comes in forms that are more recognizable to those people. Even something as American as McDonald's can be foreign depending on the culture of those who are buying it.
So what is the difference between fast food here and fast food there? The probable, and slightly cop-out answer is that it's cultural differences. In America, we have a focus on individuals and that extends into our food. We order for ourselves and eat what we order. In China, they order different dishes for the table, and then share them among everyone. The more dishes a person orders, the more affluent they are. So perhaps some of the differences between fast food here and there can be explained by that reason.
Perhaps another is busy schedules. Americans are known quite well for rushing around, and often we eat our meals on the go. We are concerned with everything being convenient and fast to fit into our busy schedules. Sitting down for a long meal is only for special dinners. In China, it is more common to sit down and have a meal with family. I think this is most likely the bulk of why fast food is different in different places. For people who are not as busy and as rushed, food takes on a different meaning and often comes in forms that are more recognizable to those people. Even something as American as McDonald's can be foreign depending on the culture of those who are buying it.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
10/07 American Food
For class, we are supposed to create a menu of typically American foods for a restaurant in another country, without using hamburgers, french fries or pizza. I would focus my menu on the local dishes of the southern United States, where mixing of cultures combined to create unique and well-loved foods.
Fried Chicken
- I would include fried chicken because it is a very popular dish both in the south and all around. It's tasty breaded crunch is a favorite of many people.
Steak
- Steak has been a staple of the American diet for a very long time. The American southwest has a long history for cattle farming, and a hearty diet of meat and potatoes is common in much of the country. Steak is a must on any menu showcasing American food because, even though it may not historically be only an American treat, many think of it as a fundamental part of our diet.
Mashed Potatoes
- Potatoes are not an American only food. In fact, many countries have flirted with the potato before. Yet along with steak, mashed potatoes are a part of many American holiday traditions, and even nightly meals. It is an integral part of the "stick to your ribs" kinds of food that many people identify with American cuisine.
Gumbo
- Gumbo is not exactly in the same category as the universal steak, fried chicken and potatoes, yet it is one of the quintessential cuisines of the gulf region. Gumbo mixes the culinary traditions of many different areas to come up with something uniquely tasty.
Barbecue
- What menu of American foods would be complete without another of our traditional favorites? Barbecue is a tasty and flavorful way of cooking meats that is common in much of the southern United States, and in many other regions as well.
Corn Bread
- Bread made from corn meal is a popular side dish in many places. It was a familiar companion at many of my families meals and many others as well. There are many different variations on corn bread, showcasing the different influences on American cuisine. Corn bread is a must on a menu of Southern American favorites because of its traditional standing as well as the fact that the main ingredients are ones native to our country.
Pumpkin pie
- Made of another native food, pumpkin pie is a delicious staple of Thanksgiving and Autumn meals. Like corn bread, it is not only a beloved food for many Americans, but a historically significant dish. It is traditional dessert in North America and Canada, and thus has a rightful place on any menu that reflects the best of American cuisine.
Fried Chicken
- I would include fried chicken because it is a very popular dish both in the south and all around. It's tasty breaded crunch is a favorite of many people.
Steak
- Steak has been a staple of the American diet for a very long time. The American southwest has a long history for cattle farming, and a hearty diet of meat and potatoes is common in much of the country. Steak is a must on any menu showcasing American food because, even though it may not historically be only an American treat, many think of it as a fundamental part of our diet.
Mashed Potatoes
- Potatoes are not an American only food. In fact, many countries have flirted with the potato before. Yet along with steak, mashed potatoes are a part of many American holiday traditions, and even nightly meals. It is an integral part of the "stick to your ribs" kinds of food that many people identify with American cuisine.
Gumbo
- Gumbo is not exactly in the same category as the universal steak, fried chicken and potatoes, yet it is one of the quintessential cuisines of the gulf region. Gumbo mixes the culinary traditions of many different areas to come up with something uniquely tasty.
Barbecue
- What menu of American foods would be complete without another of our traditional favorites? Barbecue is a tasty and flavorful way of cooking meats that is common in much of the southern United States, and in many other regions as well.
Corn Bread
- Bread made from corn meal is a popular side dish in many places. It was a familiar companion at many of my families meals and many others as well. There are many different variations on corn bread, showcasing the different influences on American cuisine. Corn bread is a must on a menu of Southern American favorites because of its traditional standing as well as the fact that the main ingredients are ones native to our country.
Pumpkin pie
- Made of another native food, pumpkin pie is a delicious staple of Thanksgiving and Autumn meals. Like corn bread, it is not only a beloved food for many Americans, but a historically significant dish. It is traditional dessert in North America and Canada, and thus has a rightful place on any menu that reflects the best of American cuisine.
Monday, October 3, 2011
10/4 Supersize Me
The documentary "Supersize Me" detailed a month's time during which Spurlock, the creator, ate nothing but McDonald's for every meal. It was a very interesting movie, and he put in a lot of work to prove the point that McDonald's is not healthy. He went to doctors who monitored his progress throughout the month and was in touch with a dietitian who also kept an eye on his progress. A lot of the information that the dietitian and the doctors talked about was lost on me, to be honest. While I know that his calorie intake was bad, a lot of the other minerals and changes in his body chemistry that they talked in depth about made little sense to me. A lot of the chemicals I had never heard of and was not sure what they did in the body exactly, or how much of a problem the increased levels of specific ones were.
On the other hand, it is very hard to dispute the physical evidence of what happened to him. Over the course of the month, he visibly gained a lot of weight, and was visibly sick and exhausted a lot. That is what struck me the strongest. While the talk of chemicals made no sense to me, there was no denying the fact that he was physically becoming ill and out of shape. Watching him deteriorate was a little disturbing, but also highly effective. For me, it was more effective than the medical conversations that I only half understood.
On the other hand, it is very hard to dispute the physical evidence of what happened to him. Over the course of the month, he visibly gained a lot of weight, and was visibly sick and exhausted a lot. That is what struck me the strongest. While the talk of chemicals made no sense to me, there was no denying the fact that he was physically becoming ill and out of shape. Watching him deteriorate was a little disturbing, but also highly effective. For me, it was more effective than the medical conversations that I only half understood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)