W10: IS IT A SANDWICH?!?!?!

Not A Sandwich

Regarding the subject of identifying sandwiches from other food items, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously declared "I know it when I see it." I'll have to agree with Stewart on this call. If I was forced to define the term "sandwich," I'd describe it as a meal in which some type of edible material was stacked in between two pieces of bread-product. Or Something. Sure, it may be a hazy definition filled with plenty of gray matter (or hopefully not, in the case of an actual sandwich), but I refuse to go through life as a narrow minded buffoon who maintains a strict definition of a sandwich. Not everything can be answered with a strictly black-and-white response; some things are more complicated than that, and those things are usually sandwiches.

The most common question I receive throughout the course of a day is "but Milo, if you define a sandwich as 'some type of edible material was stacked in between two pieces of bread-product' then, pray tell, how would you define something as simple as the common hot dog?" Unfortunately, I haven't an answer to this vast and complex query. By sheer definition, there shouldn't be anything wrong with calling a hot dog a sandwich. The hot dog is (arguably) made out of meat, and it's layered in a bun; buns, being a food item that bread is in! It all should add up, but when you yell "I'll have a sandwich with mayonnaise and relish!" to a hot dog vendor at a sporting event, you're bound to receive some questioning glares from those sitting around you. Not only because hot dogs are rarely thought of to be "sandwiches," but because mayonnaise and relish is a disgusting combination and nobody should put both on their food.

Another question that keeps me up at night is "if sandwiches are covered back-to-back in bread products, then what's a Double-Down?" The Double-Down, a KFC product, is a meal consisting of melted cheese and bacon in between two deep fried pieces of chicken. There is no bread to be had, yet the item is advertised as a "sandwich" on KFC's website. Is this false advertising? Additionally, how does one going about describing another fast food mainstay- the quesadilla? What about a crepe? Sure, they're stringy and kind of pointless without enormous dollops of Nutella, but surely there's a case to be made. Why should these items be spurned the "sandwich" label while others reap in it's starchy delight, and roll around in doughy fortunes?

Many of Taco Bell's products could largely be thought of as "sandwiches" according to my vague definition. They contain filling, and are surrounded by bread-product. It's here that I, once more, implore the reader to exercise their own judgment. When you think of a crunch wrap supreme, is the first thought that springs to mind "boy howdy, can't wait to get my hands on one of those tasty sandwiches!" Of course not. It's time for our generation to set this straight and take a stand for what's right, once and for all. While it may fit under many basic definitions, a quesadilla, crepe, or hot dog is anything but a sandwich, and should never be treated as such.

W9: All American Dinner At Nelson Dining Hall: A Review!

AMURRRICA

The morning of February 22nd felt like any other. I woke up, showered, got dressed and headed out the door to attend class. As I strolled past the Nelson Dining Hall, however, I noticed an abundance of balloons hanging outside the doors. Not just any balloons; these were red, white, and blue balloons! "Those...those are America's colors!" I loudly declared, drawing the attention of everyone passing by. Upon further inspection, I discovered a flier announcing Nelson's "All American Dinner," being featured that night. Eagerly anticipating that night's events, I grabbed a balloon and texted my friends to accompany me for dinner that night.



At 4:30 on the dot, we arrived at Nelson fully prepared to consume excessive amounts of delicious American food. Greeting us at the door was an enlarged Hot Dog mascot; according to his name-tag, this delightful fellow was named Frank. As far as good signs go, this simply had to be an omen of good things to come. Using every inch of the ballroom next to the dining tables, Nelson employees decorated the room with bright streamers and American flags. Each item on the night's menu was portrayed as a trademark of one of five major American locations: New York, Boston, Santa Fe, Texas, and Philadelphia. Being the culinary expert that I am, I decided to try one of every dish offered; strictly, of course, for academic purposes.

I began my meal with a bowl of Lobster Bisque soup. I found this appetizer to be a tad disappointing; I consider myself a fan of any and all things "bisque," and this bowl of soup didn't quite seem to live up to that label. Thick and viscous, this soup wasn't easy to consume, and didn't have the rich, creamy texture one would look for while eating Lobster Bisque. Also available from the seafood department were imitation crab cakes. Personally, I'm not as opposed to the concept of imitation crab meat as others, but the manner in which the cakes were deep fried until unrecognizable made them unappealing.

Moving onto the main courses, I indulged in baby back ribs, New York strip steak, and prime rib. The baby back ribs were delicious, but both types of steak contained more fat than I had hoped for. Additionally, the prime rib appeared well done from the outside, but was underdone and chewy inside. For desert I feasted on a piece of Boston Creme Pie, and called it a night.

All things considered, I would have to consider Nelson's All American Dinner an emotional roller coaster. The balloons and hot dog mascot were major positives, with most other aspects coming up short of my expectations. While it remains amusing to think of Ohio University storing away a giant Hot Dog costume just for special occasions, the lack of quality in the steaks prepared was disheartening, and left me wondering if more effort could have been put into this patriotic potluck.

Week 8: The Moral Crusade Against Foodies

In the battle between foodies and author B.R. Myers, I suppose I'll just root for a fair fight. I find myself to be an easily persuaded reader at times; the most visceral arguments can rapidly sway me into agreeing with the author, no matter how absurd the topic at hand is. I am, in short, Myers' target audience with this article. "What?! How dare those rich, elitist fat-cat foodies talk down to us middle class folk! My local senator will hear about this!" I hypothetically could have been declaring, in between bites of fictional Doritos. Instead, using the trusted editorial method of "pummel the reader with your opinion until they're left confused and frightened," Myers overwhelmed me with large doses of opinion rather than stating the facts, and let the reader arrive at their own conclusion.

Throughout the article Myers makes no secret of his disdain for foodies everywhere. From the beginning, he portrays them in a light that suggests an elitist view on their end ("It has always been crucial to the gourmet’s pleasure that he eat in ways the mainstream cannot afford."). A reader unfamiliar with the work of Kim Severson, or Anthony Bourdain would almost undeniably encounter a somewhat pompous tone. This is the main flaw of Myers' piece. These things are so evident that listing egotistical quotes from foodies, and then leaving remarks such as "A vegetarian diet, in other words? Please." emits the tone of a disgruntled reader leaving an anonymous blog comment rather than an established editorial writer expressing his educated view.

Perhaps my primary gripe with this article is the "inside the box" mentality Myers writes with. It's easy to repeatedly state the opinion that foodie writers are condescending and arrogant. Myers never makes an effort, however, to explain or ask why foodie writers engage in this genre. I find this question to be far more relevant to the subject at hand than any addressed by Myers. There's clearly a market for this brand of literature and media; there's no use in bashing all who participate in it as "gluttons." Food is something vital to the lives of everyone, and Myers did a weak job arguing why he thinks releasing books or other program on that subject matter is morally wrong.

I would have really enjoyed being on Myers' side after reading this article. There are certainly elements to this piece I agree with. One should certainly feel a degree of moral emptiness after stating "I’ve eaten raw seal, guinea pig. I’ve eaten bat." This is far from the only example of wastefulness in the world, however. People spend more money than they have to attend or support sporting events when they could be donating to charities. People attend concerts and purchase music when that money could well have been used to give to a homeless shelter. Likewise, people spend money on exotic foods and review them for people's entertainment because there's a market for it. It doesn't make them, or the consumer bad people for showing an interest. Myers could have hooked me along his bandwagon with this article; instead I came away thinking he had a few good points, but was severely mis-guided.

W7: The Family Recipe

The idea of a "secret recipe" in the food industry is one that's very appealing to the traditional American family. It's enjoyable to think of a small, mom and pop type shop opening up for business with a secret recipe; then as the business ascents to success and glory they can look back and attribute it all to that trusty recipe. As a culture that doesn't like thinking about where our food comes from, we also don't find it necessary to bring our ideal fantasies about large corporations having a secret family recipe back to reality. It's near impossible to envision a company reaching the heights that Coca-Cola, or KFC has without someone finding a way to replicate their ingredients for American food products.

A large part of this "family recipe" slogan's success is the stigma attached to the "secret" aspect of this marketing tool. Simply put, secrets are fascinating. By nature, we feel powerless to something that we have no control over, and want to do everything in our power to obtain knowledge that someone else possesses. By gloating to the world that only two people know every ingredient in their beverage, Coca-Cola plays to the intrigue of Americans everywhere. It makes them consider how exclusive the company is with who they tell the recipe to, and also lets them ponder and guess which ingredients could possibly play a role in the drink. By merely releasing a press statement containing Coke's ingredients, the intrigue and mystery of the product is gone, and slowly it blends in with every other food and beverage product at the market.

Additionally, the "family recipe" takes attention away from some of the less innocent aspects of that company's daily procedure. When taking a guess at KFC's 11 herbs and spices, not many start their sentence with "Well, first they feed countless chicken hormones to make them grow faster than they normally would, then after their bodies are enlarged to the point where they can barely walk, they're slaughtered." Coca-Cola's founder will always be credited with coming up with just the perfect blend of ingredients for a tasty beverage, but in the same thought nobody would give validity to the claim that he also created a drink that contributed to the largest obesity epidemic in American history. Claiming to have 11 herbs and spices in an innocent, fun concept for consumers everywhere to ponder while eating their food, and makes it easier to ignore more vast details about where that chicken came from.

Secret family recipe's are a fun, clever marketing campaign but it's important for Americans to remember that they're intended to serve just that purpose: make a larger profit, and distract you while you rely on convenience food. Taking a good-natured stab at what KFC's 11 herbs and spices are is perfectly fine, as long as you're aware of the methods in which their food is prepared.

Food Injustice

Food Inc. is an excellent example of a documentary combining elements of pathos and logos; director Robert Kenner uses emotional arguments to persuade the viewer into taking action, and at the same time presents multiple facts to strengthen his message. While there are many points being made over the course of the film that inspire me to be more pro-active about investigating the origins of my food, two in particular strike me as unfair. The manner in which the farmer who showed her chicken farm was fired after the release of the film, and the lawsuit Monsanto filed against the farmer for conspiring to keep the seeds he had grown.

Early on in the film, it was explained to the viewer that manufacturers of chicken could be narrowed down to a select small group of companies. One farmer of chickens for the Tyson company had agreed to show the operations of his farm, but following a visit from Tyson representatives, decided against showing it to cameras. The only farmer that makers of Food Inc. could find to show their farm was a woman who had decided that enough was enough, and the American public deserved to see the manner in which their food is prepared. What was shown could be considered disgusting, and grotesque. Chickens collapsing under the weight of their hormone-pumped bodies, chickens spending entire days surrounded by feces, several injured chickens being taken out and thrown into a mass outdoor pit for other animals unfit to be selected for slaughter. While it's understandable how a company such as Tyson wouldn't want this to be shown, it still angers me that an employee could be fired for merely showing the honest operations of how a typical chicken farm is run. There was nothing slanderous shown, and her dismissal asks the question of how morally bankrupt these companies are. Sure, they would almost certainly lose customers and investors with this knowledge of operations being widespread, but doesn't America deserve to see the origin of their livestock production? I would argue that it should be illegal not to show these farm operations, but to prevent the general public from seeing just how this business is being run.

Additionally, the story of the elderly farmer being sued by Monsanto for withholding seeds (and eventually profit) from the company was eye opening. This man who was merely trying to maintain his business free of corporate influence was eliminated by Monsanto as a competitor in the blink of an eye. While he managed to escape with no legal charges filed against him, the system in which the lawsuit took place could hardly be considered fair. With Monsanto's vast amount of financial resources, exceptional lawyers could be hired with no damage done to the company. The farmer being sued by Monsanto didn't have nearly the same financial situation as his opposition, so he had to settle the case out of court, admitting he was wrong while still believing in his heart that he was innocent. It frightens me that America needs to rely on Monsanto, a company that by many accounts seems to use intimidation tactics with both their employees and legal opponents. While they produce genetically manufactured seed that is necessary for much of the world's food, their frame of mind as a company is irrational and unnecessarily cruel to their clientele.

Advertising in the Food Industry

Recently, in my Sociology class we were shown an excerpt from a Canadian documentary called The Corporation. The clip we watched had little, if anything, to do with the food industry; I was intrigued by the film's concept though, so when I went back to my room after class ended I watched the rest of the movie. What immediately struck me were clear similarities between this film and Morgan Spurlock's 2004 film Supersize Me. While The Corporation largely deals with commercial institutions, some points of interest the movie put forth could easily be compared to the food industry.



A large segment of the film discusses advertising, and how for the first time in history, toy and food products aren't being directed at the parents or the ones making the purchase, but rather the children. A survey showed that when commercials are geared directly at showing children specifically how desirable a certain product was, they were exponentially more likely to nag their parents to get them that product. Almost 1/3 of customers at the Chuckie Cheese chain, the survey said, only brought their children because of the nagging factor.

The problem with corporations performing these actions is that there is no moral standard for them to be held to. A corporation, in legal terms, is a person. A person with the same rights as every other citizen, with the sole obligation of making as much money for their creditors, shareholders, and employees. With no moral requirements to keep the health and obesity rates of America's children in mind, a corporation legally can continue gearing advertising towards children at a young age, when they're too mentally underdeveloped to have counter-thoughts or an objective view of their own.

After hearing this information, I immediately thought back to specific scenes from Supersize Me. The way countless restaurants wouldn't have nutritional information available, the way that each employee would have to offer a super sized meal, the set-up design of play-pens for children in multiple restaurants; these are all things that McDonald's could afford to do with no legal ramifications. Having grown up in an age in which advertising is reaching an all time peak, the combination of these two films significantly concerned me as to the amount of corporate influence our future generations will be exposed to. I can't say that I have any type of proposal or solution to these overwhelming problems; this seems to be an issue that will require generations to resolve. It's indisputably a captivating issue, however, and one that wouldn't have come to mind had it not been for these two documentaries.

America's Fast Food Trend

It's not so much a fast food story as much as it was an experience, but growing up back home in New York a McDonald's restaurant was located only a few blocks away from my home. While I didn't frequent that location very much because of my general disdain for McDonald's food, that particular restaurant rarely received business, and almost always mis-prepared my food when I ate there. After receiving an order of chicken nuggets that were entirely frozen on the inside, I decided one day to outright stop giving them business. Whenever I went, employees looked miserable and their lack of care for the job showed in their efforts to make quality, or even edible food. This may have been the turning point for me at a young age when I realized that the way most fast food chains operate could be considered unethical, or shady at the very least. Minimum wage can only go so far, and when the employee is overwhelmed with tasks to accomplish for $7.25/hour before taxes, it can make for quite an unbecoming atmosphere.

Fast food is largely viewed as American partially due to the stigmas attached with our nation. We're viewed as hard working and blue-collar in many regions, and as such we have fast food chains geared at the every man who doesn't have time to spare for lunch. He or she simply needs a quick meal before going back to work, or tending to their children, and the consequences that come with the lack of nutrition aren't viewed as important. Much of the fast food culture is aimed at convenience; it's quick, easy, and lets you proceed with the rest of your day. Our country's willingness to put aside frightening health risks in the name of ease and laziness could be viewed as a glaring negative from an outside perspective.

While my travels outside of the country has been limited to Puerto Rico and London, the food in each location was significantly more different from American dining. Emphasis on fast food was at a noticeable low compared to America. People generally seemed fitter as a whole than I've seen in the US. I don't remember seeing nearly as much fried food being offered in restaurants, and exercise was emphasized much more on television and other forms of pop culture.

Overall, I think some very small progress is being made in the issue of fast food consumption in America. Many chains, such as Wendy's and McDonald's are increasingly advertising their salad options, and other healthier routes than burgers and fries. The fact remains, however, that millions of Americans are choosing the quick fix easy solution of unhealthy, fattening fast food every day, and the US obesity rates will continue to skyrocket unless that changes. Until we begin putting rationality ahead of convenience, America will still be viewed as the fattest nation in the world.