food/agriculture

Cross-posted at Jezebel.

gabrielleabelle sent in an online ad for Minute Maid orange juice that reinforces gender stereotypes, particularly that women are desperate to get married and feel competitive with one another regarding their progress toward this all-important goal. The ad is part of Minute Maid’s “Mmojo” campaign, which consists of ads showing people drinking Minute Maid and then instantly being more successful, desirable, and generally awesome. This ad included images of two people who clearly have lots of mmojo and asks how you compare. How could we tell? Well, the guy is covered in lipstick kisses and looks a little overwhelmed by the attention:

Now, how would we know a woman was magically charmed? Oh, that’s right — she’d have managed to get herself an engagement ring:

Because there would be no better proof of a woman’s magical powers than her ability to get a man to propose to her. I can’t even imagine how much mmojo another woman would have to have to top this.

In the U.S., Spam is usually considered a food for poor people; people make fun of it as an inexplicable meat. In contrast, Spam is very popular in South Korea. Spam was introduced to Korea during the Korean War (1950-1953) and today it is a popular food item loved by all walks of life. Growing up in Korea, I distinctly remember that it was “cool” to bring a slice of Spam in a lunch box when I was kids. Even today whenever I go home, my friends take me to eat a spicy Spam stew; it’s a special occasion.

Not at all considered a food for the poor or the “trashy,” as it commonly is in the U.S., in Korea Spam is a luxury item. Spam can be a great gift for your boss or your business clients. The photo below shows Spam for sale at a luxury hotel. The set on the top shelf cost about $60 and the set on the second sells for about $42.

Perceptions of Spam, then, are cultural. From an American perspective, the popularity and prestige of Spam in Korea may seem weird. But from a Korean perspective, it is perfectly sensible… and with boiled rice and kim-chi, totally delicious.

Sangyoub Park is an assistant professor of sociology at Washburn University, where he teaches Social Demography, Generations in the U.S. and Sociology of East Asia. His research interests include social capital, demographic trends, and post-Generation Y.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

Photographer Peter Menzel has a habit of displaying people’s lives in illuminating ways.  Previously we highlighted a project in which he went around the world asking families to pose in front of their house with all of their stuff.  He now has a book, Hungry Planet, featuring photographs of families posting with a week’s worth of food.  It tells a fascinating qualitative and quantitative story of cultural gastronomical difference.

Go to Menzel’s website for more information.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

We’ve featured posts before on how chocolate is often marketed by linking it to sexual pleasure or presenting it as a substitute for love and romance, especially for women. And we’ve written about ejaculation imagery in ads.

John from Facile Gestures and YetAnotherGirl sent us an Australian commercial for Zokoko chocolates that dispenses with any subtlety when connecting their product to sex and ejaculation. It’s…something:

From Copyranter, via Gawker.

Last year I posted about a new ad campaign for Pretzel Crisps. The ads’ use of the phrase “you can never be too thin” inspired one man to alter one ad posted in NYC, including taping up images of news stories about individuals who have died of eating disorders. After the story got some attention, Snack Factory, the company that makes Pretzel Crisps, eventually apologized and said they were taking the ads down.

A victory, right? Except it seems like Snack Factory didn’t quite get the message. They replaced that ad with one that said “tastes as good as skinny feels.”

Dmitriy T.M. let us know that they then also released this ad, which similarly seemed to miss (or not care about) what the concerns were about the original:

So…they reinforced the message about thinness, and throw in an extra insult on top of it. Classy.

Via Jezebel.

Ria sent along an example of something simultaneously routine and jarring.  Disney princess grapes:

Thinking out loud here:  By now, in the U.S., we’re used to thinking about food being branded with mascots, movie/tv show characters, and even corporate entities.  When I posted about Cars– and Disney princess-themed diet snack packs, for example, it wasn’t the branding of food that interested me.  But there is something unfamiliar to me about the associating of grapes with Disney.  I think it has to do with the idea of processed versus “fresh” foods.  In this case, Disney is marking a (genetically-modified) natural product in its natural state.  This feels different than marking a brightly-colored, largely synthetic, already highly-branded foodstuff.  Can Disney really claim grapes?  Celery?  Red peppers?   To me, these are the last things in the grocery store that actually feel as if they come straight from the farmer.  Now they’re taking a detour through the happiest place on earth?

Ria links the new development in branding to the obesity panic and the push for kids to eat healthier food. And she’s suspicious of the linking of corporate interests to health.

What do think?  Are you as weirded out as I am?  Is Ria onto something?  What does it mean!?  What’s next?  Republican Party chicken breasts?  South Park brand brown rice?

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

Kristie C. sent in a Hardee’s commercial for their turkey burger that is an example of something we’ve talked about before: the conflation of women with food products to be consumed and the sexualization of both women and food in ads. But watch closely! It’s very subtle, so you might miss it the first time.

Jeff H. sent in a link to a graphic at Civil Eats that lets you see the rise in U.S. daily caloric availability between 1970 and 2008, and where the additional calories are coming from. They are based on USDA data on food available for human consumption, minus what is wasted through being thrown out, spoiling before making it to the store, etc., to approximate average daily calorie consumption. It’s a rough measure, and clearly actual consumption will vary widely, but the overall changes provide some insights into the changing U.S. diet.

Note: I sometimes used the word “consumption,” “consumed,” etc., in the post since availability is an approximation of it, but as a reader pointed out, I should have been more careful, so I’ve fixed it throughout the post.

In 1970, we consumed had available an average of 2,168 calories per day, and the single largest source was meat/eggs/nuts:

By 2008, we had 2,673 calories available on average. The big jumps were in added fat — there are 231 more calories a day available per person, and it’s now the single largest source of calories — and grains. I was surprised to see how small the increase in added sugars was…and calories available from vegetables and dairy actually went down:

Overall, that’s an increase in available calories of 23.3% during this 38-year time frame.

You can go to the Economic Research Service website and create charts or tables of caloric availability for specific food groups. For instance, the chart on changes in sweeteners shows the jump in use of high-fructose corn syrup, and an accompanying decrease in dextrose:

There’s a lot less whole milk than there used to be:

But we’ve grown to love mozzarella and make a lot more of it:

Or instead of looking at trends over time, you can get the breakdown for one particular year. Here are the sources of our added fats for 2008:

Non-alcoholic drinks (excluding milk):

I warn you, this is one of those things where it seems like you’ll just look for a second, and the next thing you know you’ve spent 45 minutes making customized charts of every possible category of food.

Also, we do not like lima beans:

UPDATE: Reader Chorda provides some context that I think is helpful:

The added fat looks impressive, but because fat has 9 calories per gram that increase ends up only being 25.6 grams of fat over the 1970 amount, or 0.903013 ounce. Yes, less than an ounce of fat can add 231 calories. On the other hand, the additional grains and sugar combined would be 62.51 grams of carbohydrates, or 2.20497 ounces dry weight and 250 new calories from carbohydrate sources.

Just over three ounces of food can make a difference of 481 calories. Eating that extra 3.1 ounces every day for a week is 3,367 calories. One pound of fat is equal to 3,500 calories.

Take two tablespoons of oil. Combine with three tablespoons flour and one tablespoon sugar. That is the largest difference between 1970 and 2008. Could you even get a single pancake out of that?