First off, women are supposed to have more body fat than men, because they bear children. In America, however, it’s quite opposite, and women are supposed to be skinny. This sickens me because 1) That means girls will try to be skinner, causing various body image issues, and not enjoying themselves, and 2) Because ultra-skinny supermodels are incredibly unattractive to me (and I think most guys would agree) and that means girls will all try to be super skinny when they could be more attractive to the opposite sex as they are, being what they perceive as “fat.” It’s stupid.

The obesity epidemic makes people resort to “no calorie” foods, such as Splenda or Aspartame, which cause all sorts of problems because they aren’t REAL sweeteners, they’re chemically altered. So people focus on eating foods without any fat at all, and often eat too many simple carbohydrates instead, which translates into increased insulin production and turns the sugars into fats. So it’s a confusing, market-driven process where the newest fad is capitalized by companies.

What people don’t realize is that some people are genetically more fat than others; if we didn’t have the capability for storing fat, how would it help us? There was a reason we had the capacity to store fat long ago, because it served a purpose. When someone goes dramatically over the line in obesity, in a way that is detrimental to their physical health, that is bad. But having a few extra pounds has not been shown to dramatically impact health; eating patterns or genetics have. If people exercise and eat well and are mentally stable, they are as healthy as they can get. One also has to look at America’s scorecard: #1 most competitive nation, and #1 in stress levels–does anyone think that our capitalistic, competition-focused, hard-working system has anything to do with health?! No, after all, stress doesn’t hurt you…

The idea that one can grow food on their own and create masterpieces with only a select group of plants for each season is amazing in its rediscovered significance–and is this sense of independence not part of our nation’s dialogue, as it has been for centuries? The immigration of various groups to the US meant that there was no previous ethnic bloodline (although “white” became the majority later on). The people came from their respective backgrounds, buying into the American creed of hard work, sacrifice, liberty, freedom, and equality. This has carried us through the decades as a liberal democracy.

But like the Horatio Alger stories where, for example, a dishwasher could rise to the top as an executive, these ideals have become more myth than truth. People are constrained by the demanding hours of an intense professional life, and for the poor, one that requires a pricey education for credibility. So while these ideals are still present, they are utilized in the sense that large corporations–in this case, growers of corn and producers of processed food–have “liberty” and the “freedom” to sell their products. But as Pollan has recited in his works, buying food today relies on ignorance and absent minded consumption. It doesn’t reflect the real cost–to the poor, who do not have the freedom to buy quality produce, or to the environment, which is not treated equally. It is a sacrifice, but not for the advancement of one’s career.

Kingsolver conveys the idea that one can be truly American again; being in the Appalachian mountains of the South illustrates a patriotic, down-home sense. Her family, in raising these crops, achieves freedom from oppression by the giant conglomerates. They sacrifice and work hard to achieve these goals, and the equality among consumers that was lost so long ago to the commodities of corn and cheap calories is now balanced at the farmer’s market. The “miracle” of this book is that it underlines our American values so well–Kingsolver’s pathos makes her happy to cook; prideful in her crops’ sustainment from start to finish. It is universal for humanity–and simultaneously an embodiment of American values.

Pollan’s grounds come from personal experience (ethos) on the farm, and through Joel’s explanations. He further solidifies the claim that our current food industry is bad by making comparisons of the pastoral Polyface Farm to Big (USDA-Backed) Business. In this comparison, the coordination and implementation of feeding animals, housing them, disposing of their feces, maintaining their health, impact on the environment, and replenishing the overall cycle is stated in plain view–and it’s clear that his warrant–that flesh should not be made of grain, antibiotics, unhealthy conditions, and pollution–is, without a doubt, correct.

The Whole Foods theme centers around an enlightened awareness of the implications of food consumption–something most Americans haven’t done–and the resulting desire to be mindful of the origins of purchased food, its health benefits, and its pleasure factor. Whole Foods appeals, using pathos, to the person who gains satisfaction from eating organic, natural food. Yet the argument that organic food is better food is somewhat intangible in terms of taste–the implication is similar to Michael Pollan’s article, “Unhappy Meals.” Just as nutrients like Omega-3s and antioxidants are individually undetectable, pesticides and hormones are quite invisible. This is why shoppers are persuaded, in just the same way, to buy food that is biologically liberated–it frees them from the bittersweet guilt that conventional American consumption typically embodies, as seen by shelf upon shelf of foods proclaiming their organic-ness. The only drawback is the high price that Whole Foods demands. A little known fact, however, is that the cost of not eating well is much higher in the long run–meaning medical care–than it initially appears. Still, one can get good food from a traditional grocery store. The difference is how Whole Foods argues that their food is not a commodity, but a key to resonance with what once was man’s natural relationship with nature. 

Whole Foods itself has a somewhat contradictory premise, as it has prepackaged yet fresh food and cooked delicacies in buffet form. Apart from the usual self-selection, there are droves of fresh dishes waiting to be eaten, and mini restaurants waiting for your order. So, one can arrive and find all the healthy foods desired, and leave with his or her fear of treated and processed food temporarily masked; or one can arrive and examine the concocted dishes displayed, and realize that while organic usually signifies “healthy” for the eater, it also means the eater probably came due to a phobia of any “bad” food. As seen by the dishes on display, Whole Foods’ cooked meals attempt to bring people back into the context of food as not just a part of culture, or as a daily hassle, but as an art, an emotional experience; something to be enjoyed and revered. Food is made part of humanity again, not as compounds to be dissected and analyzed–in this way, the enlightened shoppers looking for healthy food, probing for “organic-this” and “free range-that,” can choose to let go of their anxiety and start living again.  

Intellectuals shopping at Whole Foods have the insight and money to buy healthy food–but this doesn’t mean they’ve avoided the affliction of American dieting and “nutritionism.” Whole Foods would only feed this drama if it weren’t for its meal buffet–the two kinds of food, prepared and unprepared, turn out complimenting one another, letting one see what can be created out of raw ingredients. This is what Whole Foods should stand for–a relief from our misguided food culture, not just through healthy eating, but through happy eating.    

What’s for sale at HEB and not at Whole Foods

 
Prepackaged fresh food in the fruit section

The imagined, ideal audience is the people the person has in mind when arguing. However, the real audience includes those not in this group–therefore, evidence is needed to back these claims. This is where the arguer must go beyond sentimental persuasion and use his or her personal experience and logically infer the issue at hand.An example of this in class was the “Hot Pockets” sketch by Jim Gaffigan. The comedian starts out immediately with a self-test, mentioning background information that he had a bad experience with the meal. This provides the audience with affirmation that he is a credible source, and resonates with other experiencers of the Hot Pocket thrill-ride. To make sure he includes the real–and not just imagined–audience, the comedian makes fun of white trash and then identifies with them, empowering both communicator and receiver as knowledgeable and receptive of one another. Through satirizing NASCAR and mocking NASCAR fans’ perceived view of himself, he appeals to more of the audience. Gaffigan then discusses the horrid effects of eating the meal, satirizing the corporation distributing Hot Pockets and its jingle by use of pathos. Again, he supports this emotional appeal to the weak stomach via his personal experience. This example is powerful in the use of humor to make an argument, involving pathos and ethos to believe such statements.