What do you eat?
Jun. 11th, 2008 05:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beautifulduckweedI received the most fascinating e-mail today about food. An extract from Hungry Planet by by Peter Menzel, it shows different of different families from different countries surrounded by a typical week's worth of groceries, with the amount of money spent on that food in the local currency, which is also converted into dollars. I immediately hunted down an on-line version to share.
Here are the top two spenders:
The Melander family from Germany: 375.39 Euros or $500.07 per week (4 people pictured, assumed $125.02 per person per week)
The Revis family from America (NC, to be specific): $341.98 per week (4 people pictured, assumed $85.50 per person per week)
The two families that spent the least:
The Namgay family from Bhutan: $5.03 (13 people pictured, assumed 39 cents per person per week)
The Aboubakar family, currently living in a refugee camp in Chad: $1.23 (6 people pictured, assumed 21 cents per person per week)
Some thoughts:
I'm astonished--and kind of revolted, actually--at how much processed food the top spenders consumed. The amount of sugar alone from the soda pop is staggering. Hanging out with the particular sub-groups I tend to, I forget how much sugar and other highly-processed foods the average American eats.
Also, while the German family seems to go through a truly fearsome quantity of beer, fresh produce still seems to be a significant part of the diet. I'm trying to look for anything green in the Revis family picture, and all I see are grapes and a couple bags of salad. Of all the food portraits, this is the one I find scariest.
There are also a few issues in terms of making a straight dollar-for-dollar comparison between the various families, largely because the exchange rate can make some of the food seem deceptively cheap--I'm curious to see how the cost of food stacks up against cost of living and average wages in those specific countries, which would give a more accurate picture in terms of the true cost of food for them. There's also the issue of differing family sizes and ages, which I attempted to correct (crudely) with my per-person-per-week calculation. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the more highly-processed the food, the higher the family's grocery bill. And really, look at the sheer quantity of food consumed by the German and American family vs. the family from Bhutan and Chad. OK, the family in Chad is an outlier in many ways because they're in a refugee camp, and the family members have that wasted look that comes from long periods of hunger. But the Bhutanese family look healthy and well-fed, and the amount of food present in the picture seems about equal or even slightly less than the food present in the portrait for the American family--and they're feeding about three times as many people. The gigantor sack of rice consumed by the Bhutanese family probably accounts for a lot of this difference, but seriously: holy consumption difference, Batman.
I attempted to analyze how much of what I eat is processed to the extent that its origins are not readily discernible, and the top five contenders are:
1. Cheese
2. Bread
3. Ice-cream
4. Chocolate
5. Olive oil
Other processed food staples I use on a regular basis include brown sugar (almost exclusively for baking), white rice, cured/processed meat like bacon and sausage, canned coconut milk, flour, various bottled sauces, pastes (vanilla paste = love), powdered spices and condiments.
I then attempted to analyze how much of what I eat is unprocessed/minimally processed, and the top items would probably be meat, eggs, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables (I go through a pretty fearsome quantity of onion, garlic and mushrooms). The bulk of my weekly food bill tends to fall into these four categories--meat and fruit, in particular, eat up a chunk of my food money.
Anyway. Food and patterns of consumption fascinate me. When I come back from roadtripping, I'm going to have to keep a detailed log of my food expenditures for a month and see how I stack up against these other families.
Here are the top two spenders:
The Melander family from Germany: 375.39 Euros or $500.07 per week (4 people pictured, assumed $125.02 per person per week)
The Revis family from America (NC, to be specific): $341.98 per week (4 people pictured, assumed $85.50 per person per week)
The two families that spent the least:
The Namgay family from Bhutan: $5.03 (13 people pictured, assumed 39 cents per person per week)
The Aboubakar family, currently living in a refugee camp in Chad: $1.23 (6 people pictured, assumed 21 cents per person per week)
Some thoughts:
I'm astonished--and kind of revolted, actually--at how much processed food the top spenders consumed. The amount of sugar alone from the soda pop is staggering. Hanging out with the particular sub-groups I tend to, I forget how much sugar and other highly-processed foods the average American eats.
Also, while the German family seems to go through a truly fearsome quantity of beer, fresh produce still seems to be a significant part of the diet. I'm trying to look for anything green in the Revis family picture, and all I see are grapes and a couple bags of salad. Of all the food portraits, this is the one I find scariest.
There are also a few issues in terms of making a straight dollar-for-dollar comparison between the various families, largely because the exchange rate can make some of the food seem deceptively cheap--I'm curious to see how the cost of food stacks up against cost of living and average wages in those specific countries, which would give a more accurate picture in terms of the true cost of food for them. There's also the issue of differing family sizes and ages, which I attempted to correct (crudely) with my per-person-per-week calculation. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the more highly-processed the food, the higher the family's grocery bill. And really, look at the sheer quantity of food consumed by the German and American family vs. the family from Bhutan and Chad. OK, the family in Chad is an outlier in many ways because they're in a refugee camp, and the family members have that wasted look that comes from long periods of hunger. But the Bhutanese family look healthy and well-fed, and the amount of food present in the picture seems about equal or even slightly less than the food present in the portrait for the American family--and they're feeding about three times as many people. The gigantor sack of rice consumed by the Bhutanese family probably accounts for a lot of this difference, but seriously: holy consumption difference, Batman.
I attempted to analyze how much of what I eat is processed to the extent that its origins are not readily discernible, and the top five contenders are:
1. Cheese
2. Bread
3. Ice-cream
4. Chocolate
5. Olive oil
Other processed food staples I use on a regular basis include brown sugar (almost exclusively for baking), white rice, cured/processed meat like bacon and sausage, canned coconut milk, flour, various bottled sauces, pastes (vanilla paste = love), powdered spices and condiments.
I then attempted to analyze how much of what I eat is unprocessed/minimally processed, and the top items would probably be meat, eggs, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables (I go through a pretty fearsome quantity of onion, garlic and mushrooms). The bulk of my weekly food bill tends to fall into these four categories--meat and fruit, in particular, eat up a chunk of my food money.
Anyway. Food and patterns of consumption fascinate me. When I come back from roadtripping, I'm going to have to keep a detailed log of my food expenditures for a month and see how I stack up against these other families.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 02:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 06:03 am (UTC)That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw those photos. Ew. I want what the Bhutanese family is having! That looks yummy.
First CSA delivery of the season tomorrow...:happy dance:
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 07:08 am (UTC)#2) There's actually a bunch of produce in the American photo hiding behind the grapes - looks like apples, zucchini, red onions, tomatoes, and some other green thing next to the apples that I can't identify.
#3) Did they really eat all of those spices in front of the tomatoes in one week, or are those just included because they ate some of them?
#4) Those Americans are *big,* on an individual level - the German boys look to be about 13 and 9, the Americans about 15 and 17. Teenage boys eat hells-of high-calorie food (I remember eating around 4.5 Mcal/day at that age, for example). I think some of the consumption difference is accounted for by this fact - I'd bet the American family consumes half as much per kg of body mass as the German, and these Americans all look to be in good, healthy physical condition (which is partly due to smiles & bright lighting).
Now, over half the Americans' food is still preprocessed, which *is* pretty weird in the grand scheme of things - but I feel like the photographer definitely went into this with a specific agenda, and even if we agree with the overall message, the details may be exaggerated for effect.
I think the most startling bit for me was the packaging for everything - the Bhutanese family has everything except the liquids either on the floor or in very permanent-looking bowls; the German family's food containers are almost 100% recyclable, and the Chadian (or are they Sudanese expat?) family gets everything in reusable containers. The American family, on the other hand, has at least 25% of the food in disposable, non-recyclable containers (foam meat trays, tortilla bags, fast food containers).
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 10:08 pm (UTC)Also, your eyes are much sharper than mine--I can baaarely make out the zucchini. Proportionately, however, their fresh produce consumption still seems much less than any of the other families pictured.
Food packaging is its own rant--I'm often distressed at how much plastic I have to toss when I buy packaged food.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 08:06 pm (UTC)Ok, to be more helpful about it: So what does this mean, from a public policy perspective? Obviously the American and German modes are not really sustainable or achievable for everyone, and obviously people shouldn't have to live like refugees. Let's say that the packaging and processing is as much a problem as the amount of food itself in the First World. Let's also say that the Bhunatese family's food looks as tasty as the others, and that they all have enough to eat. How do we get the whole world on that page? Is it all about local production and distribution? Is that kind of life compatible with modern technological development, and modern economies of scale necessary to feed a world of six billion souls? Is there any place left for the kind of consumer choice that the Western world values? Is picking up a chocolate bar at the Plaid Pantry necessarily an act of conspicuous consumption?
I don't have answers for any of these questions, but I do think it bears mentioning that all Westerners are not necessarily evil because we eat like this. It's a matter of institutional structure.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 10:03 pm (UTC)Eating junk food isn't conspicuous consumption in the traditional sense of the term. Hotels with gigantic fountain displays in the middle of the desert are conspicuous consumers. Some schmuck eating nothing but Ho-Hos on a regular basis is nutritionally fucked, but not conspicuously consuming.
And I would say that the packaging and processing, as well transportation over long distances, are the biggest factors in how destructive our food habits are. Transportation and factory farming are difficult to address, because we've insisted on settling in the thousands (or millions) in areas that are unsuited for the burden--see, e.g., Arizona & Nevada. Displacing millions of people: tricky. In the meanwhile, they need food, so hello Iowa, Nebraska, California and Florida (among others). We in the Pacific NW have a mind-boggling array of foods to choose from; cheap, local, seasonal produce ain't hard to find. Others? Not so lucky.
Packaging and processing, on the other hand: once you get beyond "Freeze this fish so it doesn't rot between the ocean and Safeway" sorts of measures, these are based almost solely on consumer preferences, not the logistics of feeding a population well. (OK, the fish is a bad example, because holy shit do we suck at sustainable fishing, and it's difficult to argue that people in, say, Wisconsin NEED to eat fish in order to remain healthy, unless they're Inuits with delta-6 desaturase impairment. But you get my drift, yes?) In fact, arguably, a population on a minimally-processed diet will be eating considerably healthier and cheaper than a population that isn't. People are stuck in a few modes of thinking that aren't necessarily true:
1. Cooking is difficult. Not that it's the easiest thing in the world, either, but I think there's a mystique that's been deliberately cultivated by various large food companies so that their convenience foods will sell better.
2. Cooking is too time-consuming for a working family. My response to that is: it's not if you prioritize it and make time. Given that the average American adult spends an average of 2.58 hours a day watching TV vs. an average of 0.5 hours per day preparing food, and that things like crock pots and rice cookers can make preparing food extremely fast and simple, I think it's a matter of people not knowing or not caring about what a difference what they eat can make, not merely to themselves, but to the environment. Which leads to point number 3:
3. They don't know the impact their consumption habits have on the world, or they know and don't care, or they know and feel paralyzed by their inability to make any sort of meaningful difference, or they know and disagree that their eating habits can have an appreciable negative impact. But individual action can make a difference in aggregate; Portland is a pretty wonderful testament to that.
These things can only be addressed peripherally via lawmaking; ultimately, you need to change people's minds about food--where it comes from, how it got there, how to prepare it, how to eat. The whole world in general (and America more than most) underwent a massive revolution in how it ate when people realized you could mass-produce cooked food cheaply and make it tasty by pumping it full of sodium and flavoring agents. Whole generations of palates have been ruined. It's time we turn the tides. Eating local and seasonal is an excellent goal, but in the meanwhile, I'd be happy to see people eating minimally-processed.
I'm sorry this entry poked at the button marked "Loathe Self." For what it's worth, my consumption habits are unnecessarily destructive, too. It's part of why I want to take a look at what I'm buying and how much I'm spending on various different groceries once I get back.
rambling and largely unclear post, but I am in a hurry. Pretend I edited it down to around a paragra
Date: 2008-06-13 01:19 am (UTC)Yeah, I remember, vaguely, that food lifestyle . . . but it is just so alien now. By Portland standards, I eat pretty unhealthily, but I am just not even close to the American family there. Every damn thing they have is some brightly colored bag of chemicals! And at least four different brands of fast food. . .
When I lived in Nicaragua, families would shop daily. Not due to spoilage or any such thing, as they mostly just bought beans, rice and oil, but because they mostly could not afford two days groceries at a time. Also there were cultural aspects too, but mostly the workers would get paid each day, come home and give the money to their wife. She would walk to market, buy all the beans, rice and oil she could, cook it up and serve it. The next morning's breakfast was the dinner leftovers, and the cycle would repeat (lunch was typically more of a snack than anything else, and often skipped altogether).
So, anyway, a note on cash calculations: it's not a matter of per capita income or how much a dollar/drachma/euro/whatever is worth. Go for food equivalence to really get it. Assume that a pound of rice is a pound of rice, not a dollar's worth of rice. Ya see ,American food crops are taxed, subsidized, inflated and gouged so much that you really can't convert rice to dollars here, and expect it to mean anything when compared to the rice and currency of another geographic region.
So if family A eats 600 calories of grain, 200 calories of sugars, 500 calories of meat and so on, to see how they stack up against family B you really should stick to calories and categories of food, rather than venturing into the obscure realm of fiat currency, cost of living variations, spending power and so on.