Log in

Harvey Mudd College IE 120 - Provisioning Paradise's Journal
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Harvey Mudd College IE 120 - Provisioning Paradise's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Thursday, December 12th, 2002
11:46 pm
Okay, this is really kinda scary. I'm going to admit up front that I didn't finish reading all of the chapters because I really, REALLY didn't want to know. Ugh.

Okay, but anyway, there were a couple things I wanted to comment on. The first was just something that struck me as funny. On page 197-8, Schlosser talks about how White Castle "even sponsored an experiment at the University of Minnesota in which a medical student lived for thirteen weeks on 'nothing but White Castle hamburgers and water.'" Okay, let's face it, college students can live on anything for 13 weeks. Look at Platt! I just find it amusing that this experiment was meant to make people trust hamburger meat.

But seriously, the stuff in our meat is really scary. As I read the first chapter of the book, I got really hungry thinking about all of the hamburgers and tacos and how they were probably a lot better in the beginning of the chains' existence. But the more I read, the worse I feel. Apparently this book has made a number of people vegetarian... I'm not sure if I'm ready to become one of them, but this book definitely helped. Yech!
10:43 pm
Posting....why not?
So I'm not too sure if we needed to post this week, but one more can't kill me. I already posted on last week's topic so Fast Food it is. I thumbed back thru the fast food readings that i read way back when and there was one story that stuck out in my memory more than the others. The Carl's Jr. story.

I think it stuck with me the most because it illustrates how times have changed. Originally these places had simple beginnings, a guy with a hot dog cart, or the two brother's that couldn't deal with punk teenagers anymore. It adds some fun and some humanity to the fast food wars to know they had people and not logos running them at one point.

Everything is now owned by Disneyland. And even though Carl Karcher fought to get what he started back, it is nothing like where he began. The story the rest of the book paints of today's fast food business is a far cry from its Humble So Cal beginnings. And despite being better informed now about the evils of fast food I still know that it is 11:13 and I have plenty of time to get to In & Out and I still intend to go. And if I miss that one, Gag in the Bag has 24 hr drive thru.
Friday, December 6th, 2002
3:43 am
1) Before I got here, I thought Southern California = nice sunny beaches with white sand (Baywatch), lots of rich people (Beverly Hills 90210), etc. I thought LA would be pretty much like NY (Seinfeld), being a big city and all. I didn't know that California is so sharply divided into northern and southern parts. As for people, I imagined them to be wealthy and hard working (ie well dressed, healthy, and young) except for those surfer boys. California is much more normal than I expected.

3) Image certainly has a lot to do with how we see the world. If you see people on TV always drinking soda, milk, or bottled water, you might unconsciously drink those beverages more often than others. People who are concerned about their health may be willing to buy healthy alternatives like organic fruits and vegetables, meat alternatives like vegeburgers, etc. When there are enough people like that, profit can be made. As an example, there are quite a few bottled water companies and brands for something as "simple" as drinking water.

4) Somewhere along the way, these good eating habits have to do some good for Californians. I would guess only wealthy people who have the time and money can go for healthy alternatives, while poorer people just have to live with what they can afford.
3:32 am
i feel left out...
1) I thought it'd be warm and sunny. For some, I suppose, it is, in fact, warm and sunny. Also, I figured that the food would be horrible, what with me and my funky hawaiian tastebuds. It never occurred to me that SoCal was even supposed to be healthy. I new what organic was (well. sort of. I was aware of it.) but I didn't realize that anyone actually bought (and presumably ate) that stuff (to the health fanatics in class, where can I find fresh/frozen soybeans in the pod? They're fiendishly difficult to find, especially since y'all are supposed to be healthy out here...). In fact, it never really occurred to me that all those women on rollerskates by the beaches in movies were Southern Californians until I visited santa monica sophomore year. But then again, I'm kind of cloolus like that.

3) My mind is working slowly, and the only thing that comes to mind is what dan marley said...

4) I would say that all the companies need is for you to want the image of health. If you're selling shoes or grips for tennis rackets, I suppose you might want people to be interested in actually being healthy, but for the most part, I don't think it makes a difference to most companies, so long as you keep spending money. On the other hand, you might say that, as far as food is concerned, the image of being healthy is a whole lot better than not trying at all. Say, for instance, that no one's going to change the way you eat (ie, what you end up eating). Given some freaky health fad, though, you might at least go for organic foods, which are healthiER.
1:37 am
Body Image Comes from Southern CA
The fact that Southern California has places like Venice beach, where people lift wieghts and display their physiques simply to be seen shows the basically spurious nature of the California body image. Up until the 50's, there was no such thing as modern body-building, but that changed when people like Reg Park, who came from S. California, concieved of the idea that a body should look good, though not necessarily function well. Before these people, the only reason to lift weights, or excercise was to improve performance in sports. I find it sad that most of the people I see in the weight room are obviously there to look good, rather that to improve their physical performance. I have tasted the so-called healthy california cuisine, and have decided that it too is a sort of fake cuisine, whose only purpose is to look as healthy as possible, without any respect for the taste.

I am not from southern california, so the only thing which surprised me about southern california is how much the healthy-image-conscious society has spread to the rest of the nation. In Salt Lake City, or Seattle, people are exactly the same, and try to exude an image of stylish healthiness, by eating the exact same foods as Califorians, or wandering around in gym clothing, just like in Southern California. I figure this is because everyone watches the same television programs, and they were made in S. California.
1:20 am
I'd say that the image of californians being healthy and eating health food is more prevalent outside of california than in it. The first time I encountered the idea that californians specifically were different from the rest of the country was when my uncle (who is a health food nut in colorado, by the way) said that californians are like granola: some of this, some of that, a few nuts, and occasionally you get a good bit.
I think a lot of the granola-type healthy image of californians is probably a fallback from hippy times, when it likely was true, at least more than now. I have nothing to back this up, but it seems like since food grows so easily here, it would be a likely place for super-duper-freaky-health-nuts to set up a commune or something and grow all their own vegetarian food. Then, because people tend to remember extremes, the picture stuck.
Now, I'd say that people here are probably more health conscious than people in the rest of the country, but that doesn't mean they do anything about it. Just because they know what all the latest diets are doesn't mean they follow them.
Finally, I'll say that the biggest effect of this image of california being healthy has to do with people who are obsessed with getting a perfect tan, and staying thin so they can show off their tans. People think that a tan is a "healthy glow" and everyone wants a tan (as can be seen by self-tanning lotions). This is probably a result of Hollywood, where it's easy to get such a tan. And besides, the only people I know who *really* care about not having tan lines and such are people from southern california.
1:07 am
Trends Start Here
Of course image is stressed in California. Basically California is the starting place for a lot of trends. Everyone wants to mimic the lifestyle of Californias. Part of that comes from the movie industry in Southern California. Movies start popular trends and really define pop culture. So Southern California sets the standards and ideals for people today. Now lets look at this in terms of food.

Organic food kick and health food kick definetly got the jump start from Californians. Now why is that? Well as we've all discussed before, people in Southern California are very concerned with image. Now whether it's material objects, like cars and clothes, or body image does not matter in the culture of California, because really you have to have it all. So a pretty face and nice body will get you far in Los Angeles. That is why people are so concerned with image, because really this town is based on image if you look at it from the stand point of Hollywood. Part of the whole allure to coming to California is to see this imaged based society in action, see all the beautiful people as it were.

Thus there is really no surpris that health foods are popular in this area. Even more so now smoothies, because really everyone is watching their weight because as the saying goes the camera adds ten pounds. So I am not surprised at all with the big boom in smoothie locations in the area.
12:49 am
1) I was born in San Francisco and lived there until I was 7, but we had family friends in LA that we visited a fair bit. Although I consider myself to be from Colorado, the more I think about it, the more sure I am that my perceptions of SoCal were shaped by the time I spent here when I was little. I guess I was sort of aware of the Hollywood aspect of LA, but I wasn't expecting to see movie stars in the grocery store or anything. And my impressions of LA were definitely not based on the Beach Boys (just for the record). As for the health craze... again, I'm not sure that I ever really thought about it in the context of Southern California. Maybe I just didn't watch enough tv as a kid, but I didn't really have a preformed 'LA' in my mind before I got here. I definitely associate the health craze with california, but that's part of the next question...

3) Alright, not to be hypocritical, but in this context, the first thing that comes to mind are images of perfectly proportioned people on the beach who work out and eat whatever the current trendy diet is. And, I associate this with Southern California. Perhaps as the home of the movie and commercial industry, people expect everyone in LA to look like the models on tv. And to be perfectly honest, the film industry probably draws in a lot of appearance-driven people, though not enough to account for the craze that swept through all of Southern California. Still, it's easier to be drawn into the body image game when so many people in a city depend on how they look for a living. Just a thought. Oh, and I agree that the media has a lot to do with this too. Continually talking about the importance of this and that today, and then proclaiming it to be detrimental to one's health tomorrow? I mean, honestly, no wonder it's a craze! No one can keep track of what's good for you and what's going to kill you!

4) Does the body image fad mean we have healthier people? Well, maybe. I mean, at least recently, part of the whole body image seems to involve being physically active, which is definitely good for you... However, I agree that being thin is not necessarily an indication of health, even though that is what society looks for.
Thursday, December 5th, 2002
11:36 pm
1) I am from the bay area, so I have visited southern California a few times throughout my childhood. Ever since I watched television shows like Baywatch, Beverly Hills 90210, etc, I have thought, what a weird place they are portraying. I never completely believed that the lifestyles portrayed were realistic but in some sense I don't know how true or not they are. None of my expectations are true for Claremont but I haven't spent a lot of time outside of this area since I have been here.

3) The image of California being health conscious influences Californians to think about their food more. Relating to the idea that organic does not equal healthy, the focus on healthier foods brought about more stringent guidelines for nutrition labels on food. I don't know how that relates to profit, but I would guess that the push toward having vitamin and nutritional content on labels originated in California. It is also interesting to note that in Australia, and probably other places, the laws on food labels are less stringent. Some foods there have full labels like ours but I believe only an ingredient list is required.

4) I agree with what other people already said -- the existence of an image of being healthy does not imply that people actually are healthy. Something that annoys me is when someone is thin, people tend to think "oh, that person must eat right and exercise" when that is not necessarily the case. I know a lot of not so small people who take very good care of their bodies but because of genetics and/or liking to eat a lot, they have a hard time being thin. That's one of the many ways this image does not make sense to me.
9:50 pm
Well, among other things, I would really appreciate it if you guys have sources that talk about Californians thinking healthy but not actually being healthy, because I could really use them for my research paper.

Aside from that . . .

2) I'd definitely say that Southern California is portrayed inaccurately sometimes, but movies and TV never display much accurately. It's interesting though because I was in England once, walking in a park with my cousin (who was about 6), and some little kid approached us because he heard me talking and heard my accent. He asked where I was from, and when I told him California, he said "Do you eat health food and make your own clothes?!"

Anyway, though the "Baywatch" image of LA is greatly exaggerated, I think that some people around here (who are from So. Cal) have that image as well. For example, one of my friends has a brother who went to Cornell for college after growing up in LA, and his complaint (which I'd guess is totally unfounded) was "the girls are ugly here, there were more pretty girls in LA." I personally think that that's probably total bull, but I don't really know how you can tell something like that.

3) I definitely get the impression that there's a big focus on "being healthy" around here, but by the profits that fast food chains draw in it's obviously not something that people actually do. Something I was planning on discussing in my research paper is that there are plenty of people who eat organic foods, which they claim is because they want to be more healthy -- but they sell organic hamburger meat, organic pie, organic cake, organic chocolate, etc etc. Obviously "organic" doesn't mean "healthy."

4) I think it's just the image of health. Like I said before, if you have any resources which have studies that have evidence for this claim, please let me know!

And as a side note, I too thought it was totally ridiculous that someone in the middle of the country would attach a surfboard to the top of their car. That just seems kind of dumb. Then again, people wear Britney Spears roller skates, so . . .
4:25 pm
Californians think healthy not live healthy
Is California portrayed accuratley in the media? Sure, as accurately as the media portrays anything. A key part of entertainment and advertising is exaggeration. So the overly health concious, perhaps health obsessive, image of California may be over t he top but the basis of the generalization is true. Californians want to be health aware. (That could be said of many places in the US)

Repeatedly in my research for this course it has come up that the health food, exercise, lifestyle kick originated i n the west. Some say it started in Southern California specifically. And while I agree that the trend is reinforced by TV and movies I dont think this attitude can be attributed only to the media. It comes from Californians, if it didnt then the media w ouldn't cater to it.

I dont think Californians pick up the health craze because the media feeds it to them. It genuinely is part of the community and the media and other industries use that to make money. The question about whether this actually cont ributes to a healthier California is the real issue. And my answer is no.

The big business being generated by the healthy living atmosphere puts lots of inaccurate information out there. But even if it were all true it wouldnt change the fact that mos t people are too lazy to put the effort into being healthy. Healthy is just an image, a talk, a walk, a business card. It is not something really achieved by most of the people selling it or buying it.

One of the few positive things to come from people trying to capitalize on the trend is that money is dedicated to finding the next best thing, and innovation and research for health purposes cant be a bad thing.
4:25 pm
Californians think healthy not live healthy
Is California portrayed accurately in the media? Sure, as accurately as the media portrays anything. A key part of entertainment and advertising is exaggeration. So the overly health conscious, perhaps health obsessive, image of California may be over t he top but the basis of the generalization is true. Californians want to be health aware. (That could be said of many places in the US)

Repeatedly in my research for this course it has come up that the health food, exercise, lifestyle kick originated i n the west. Some say it started in Southern California specifically. And while I agree that the trend is reinforced by TV and movies I dont think this attitude can be attributed only to the media. It comes from Californians, if it didnt then the media w ouldn't cater to it.

I dont think Californians pick up the health craze because the media feeds it to them. It genuinely is part of the community and the media and other industries use that to make money. The question about whether this actually cont ributes to a healthier California is the real issue. And my answer is no.

The big business being generated by the healthy living atmosphere puts lots of inaccurate information out there. But even if it were all true it wouldnt change the fact that mos t people are too lazy to put the effort into being healthy. Healthy is just an image, a talk, a walk, a business card. It is not something really achieved by most of the people selling it or buying it.

One of the few positive things to come from people trying to capitalize on the trend is that money is dedicated to finding the next best thing, and innovation and research for health purposes cant be a bad thing.
3:46 pm
Some stuff to post about
Here is some questions you can post about if you don't have something in mind already

1) If your not from Southern California, what impressions did you have about the culture of Southern California and particuarly LA before you got here? Basically, what image came into your head when you thought about Southern California? What things shaped this image (media, TV, movies?)? Is California what you expected?

2) If you are from Southern California do you feel like Southern California is being portrayed or has been portrayed in the past inaccurately? Do you feel like the portrayal of Southern California in things like movies and TV actually affects the culture of Southern California?

3) How do you think the image of California affects the way that Californians think about health or food? How can the "image" of California (and perhaps the resulting insecurities of Californians) be turned into profit for the health and food industry? Do you have any examples?

4) Do you think all this promotes the actual health of Californians or just the image of health?
Friday, November 22nd, 2002
10:04 am
good idea, bad implementation
I went to a private elementary school, so I do not have much experience with the disgusting school lunches. All I have experienced was in high school. Next to the normal lunch line we had a variety of other windows for fast-food vendors. We had McDonalds, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Subway. And that's in addition to the soda and vending machines in the hallways. How's that for corporate infringement in the schools? Everyone liked the fast food better than what the school could offer, and so most people ate that. I don't have much of a problem with soda machines at the high-school level, but I echo others sentiments when I say that I don't think there should be soda machines at the elementary school level.

Like many government programs, the idea is great, but the implementation is horrible. There is quite a bit of funding out there, but instead of it going towards developing healthy eating habits at a young age in our kids, it is going towards developing unhealthy and disgusting food options. Think of THE CHILDREN!

My 2 cents
2:57 am
In my school lunch experiences, what first comes to mind is that school lunch was an abomination. In elementary school I usually brought lunch from home. When I had to eat school lunch, the only food I remember enjoying was the spaghetti with meatballs, which was spooned out of a large container with an ice-cream scoop -- I will spare you a description of the Sloppy Joes. I also remember seeing numerous posters promoting the NSLP, but given the incredibly low quality of the food, the advertising campaign basically had a negative effect on the students, if any. During middle school, I also tried to avoid eating school lunch, but an a la carte service gave me the option of cheap pizza if I didn't bring a lunch. During high school, I only entered the cafeteria once. In fact, the cafeteria could only hold about 200 students, which represented about 10% of the student body. In retrospect, based on my experience, it seems that nutrition is emphasized, weakly, in elementary school, but then fades away completely during middle or high school, leaving students ignorant of reasonable dietary planning skills. I believe this may be contributing to the rise in obesity among children and teenagers.

On an unrelated note, after pouring through the readings I find myself agreeing with with Ross regarding the widespread assumption that milk and other dairy products are a necessary element in a person's diet. In fact, cow milk (as opposed to goat milk or human milk) is relatively difficult for anyone, not just the lactose intolerant, to digest. To me, this misconception underscores Michelle Simon's labeling of the U.S. government as a complete pawn of the meat/dairy industry. I don't want to seem too reactionary here, but I feel that as American society continues to be corporatized, the government will increasingly cave in to the needs of the dominant interest groups. How will this affect school lunch programs? From a research standpoint, I doubt that much federal money will be appropriated to the study of child nutrition -- any research would likely be directed toward making sure kids are eating the items on the USDA food pyramid. I would venture to guess that even if independent studies found that vegetable alternatives to meat and dairy products were significantly healthier for children, the USDA would stall the designation of new nutrition guidlines for years.
3:05 am
We to begin since we are sharing stories about our experiences with school lunch
I figured I would share my most prominent experiences. At about the age of 5 I became a vegetarian of my own volition and all of my school lunch experiences stem from the lack of variety and nutritional value of the vegetarian foods. My elementary school lunches consisted of PB&J and a carton of milk or sometimes they would make a cheese sandwich consisting of two slices of American cheese on wonder bread. It never changed ever day it was the same food so at some point I just stopped eating lunch. I found that the same was true thought middle and high school. These meals did not ever provide the balanced and healthy meals that they claimed to provide. In fact the cafeterias where usually littered with posters promoting the basic food groups and balance etc. etc. For an institution that spends so much time claiming the importance of the school lunch to a child’s education it does a poor job of living up to it. It seems almost like the lottery system that is supposed to get money for schools but they spend most of it on advertising.
The controversy of soda in school just amuses me. I don't really understand the stigma against soda. Certainly soda does not have the same nutritional value as milk but is most schools soda is a replacement for the little carton of apple juice or fruit punch drink and these barely contain more nutritional value than soda. All of this comes from a generation of people who grew-up being told that soda is junk food. We were always told that soda was going to rot your teeth but juice has just as much and often more sugar per vol. The only reasonable answer that I can think of is that the dairy farmers of the US have an incredible political sway, which is now only begin to switch hands
1:23 am
One issue brought up in the various readings on the NSLP was the prevalence of fluid milk in every school lunch plan. We were raised with the notion that milk is a healthful food, and certainly is necessary for the nutrition of children. Contributing to this view has been both education campaigns inside of school as well as intensive advertising campaigns (one of the articles mentioned that the budget for the "Got Milk?" campaign was $190million!). Indeed, I can still remember being taught in elementary school about nutrition using the predecessor to the food pyramid, the food square. For those of you who don't remember, the food square was a square evenly divided into four regions, dairy, protein (meat), starches, and fruits/vegetables. I remember this campaign because we discussed it in one of my high school classes, and we found that on the back side of every classroom food diagram from this era was the copyright of a dairy producers consortium. As such, I wonder if our emphasis on milk is not really a reflection of the power of the fluid milk industry as opposed to a nutrition concern. Particularly telling was the insistence that California need provide both lowfat and whole milk at every meal despite the high content of milkfat in whole milk and the increased risk of coronary-artery disease that is associated to a diet of whole milk. Finally, the readings hilighted the fact that certain ethnic groups have problems digesting milk and dairy products (for example the high rates of lactose intolerance among asians), and so for states as pluralistic as California milk seems inappropriate.

While the consumption of milk is institutional at schools, most states have a ban on the sale of carbonated beverages through school meal programs. At the same time, schools are increasingly contracting with soda companies for pouring rights and vending machine placement. The ban seems to be in recognition of the fact that children get 11% of their calories from such beverages and that carbonated beverages interfere with calcium absorption, which is of great importance in children. However, the lucrative contracts provided by soda companies seem to be churning out a generation of soda addicts (myself included). I'm not sure what to make of this state of affairs except to wonder how long it is before soda become part of school lunch.

Another issue of interest in the reading was an article which stressed pushing school lunch toward vegetarian and vegan foods. While it is quite clear that school lunches are controlled to a great extent by the various meat industries, I worry that a totally vegetarian response to this state of affairs may be harmful as well. Specifically, the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine report urges schools to pursue vegetarian or all vegan options and to rid school diets of animal fats and proteins in favor of a carbohydrate heavy diet. One problem I have with such a suggestion is the lack of balance in such a diet. Vegetarians and vegans especially who are conscientious of their nutrition know that achieving the correct balance of vitamins, protein, and the like takes some effort and planning. I worry that a move toward vegetarian and vegan options in schools without intensive education and menu balancing may lead children to consume very unbalanced diets at a time critical to development (specifically, I don't think that the policy of serving whatever crop we're subsidizing in a given week is the correct approach to nutrition). Second, in research I'm doing for my paper topic I find a lot of evidence critical of the low-fat, animal protein free diet. While obesity and related diseases have been skyrocketing over the last two decades, our consumption of animal fats and proteins has actually decreased while our consumption of low-fat carbohydrates has actually increased. It seems increasingly tenable to recommend a well-rounded diet as opposed to either the current high-protein and fat or recommended low-fat low protein diets. Whether we can escape the rhetoric and the agendas of those controlling school lunch politics remains to be seen.
1:10 am
Please Sir may I have some more?
I always found myself unsatisfied with the small portions provided by school lunches. When I went to elementary school in California, I remember the quality level of food being pretty decent, but who am I kidding I was in elementary school. Everything back then tasted good, and they always left me asking for more. But the school wasn't really serving lunch for kids like me.

I suppose that more people brought their lunches in my elementary school than bought lunch. I honestly believe that the target group for school lunches are really the kids that don't have the money to spend on fancy packed lunches. In my elementary, middle, and high school, the large majority of students that bought lunch we not paying full price for their meals. The state was either subsidizing or covering the price of the lunch. For this reason alone, I believe that the state should really focus it's efforts on getting a well balanced meal. For some students get most of their daily nutrition from the school lunch.

This really presents the government with a problem though, because they will have to increase the quality but cover the price increase, if there is one, for most of the people who buy lunch. I have no solution for this, except make the lunches so good that everyone will want to buy lunch even if they can their own lunch.
2:03 am
It's hard for me to comment on school lunches. I really never ate them. As a matter of fact few of my friends did either. In elementary school it was all about the bag lunches, because quite honestly the food was disgusting and my parents knew it. In middle school we had this great thing called ale cart. I guess it was kind of like school lunches as in the school was serving us food but there was an entirely different school lunch line as well (that looked pretty bad). Ale carte was pretty good for you actually because they didn't serve bad things your options were a pre-made sandwich, soup, or the salad bar (all of them being yummy). Of course, what really seperated those items from the regular school lunch program is that we paid cash or bought punch cards to get them, so they were more expensive then the regular school lunches and I imagine not funded through the government. In high school we had an open campus so the days that I ate Pizza Hut breadsticks or school lunch tator tots on campus were the healthy eating days if you know what I mean. It is really unbelievable that kids in my high school ate fast food everyday for lunch. So what is the worst thing about school lunches, well the food of course but realistically as my middle school proved there is healthy ways around it if people are willing to pay more money. Which is a problem in some areas and for some families. After reading through some of the literature I think the main problem is kids are given too many choices. In middle school were the ale carte choices were salad, sandwhich, or soup it was cool to eat healthy and get tomato soup or the salad bar. We weren't getting all the food groups but then again one of the food groups was not tator tots. Compare that with high school when we had all the choices we wanted and we always picked junk foods. If I had a choice, I would offer less choices, become less obsessed with offering a meat/meat or bread/bread choice at every meal and more obsessed with offering a few really good choices, and fresh fruit and a salad bar. I would also totally elimnate all soda and fast food from schools. Like Julia my school also got money from Coke (they paid for a light display sign). There is no reason why a school should offer kids such unhealthy items, and no teenager needs more soda then what he can get on his free time.
12:36 am
When I was in elementary school, the lunches weren't bad-- there was a choice between a cooked meal, usually something like a fairly healthy burrito, and pre-made peanut butter sandwich. When I got to high school, they got rid of any cafeteria, and got a Pizza Hut in instead (there was also a bagel cart which no one went to). In our school, you basically either ate Pizza, or you brought your own lunch. As I remember, the only soda machines were Pepsi machines, so I think Pepsico (which I think owned Pizza Hut at the time) owned our school. Personally, I find it somehow distasteful for large companies to monopolize the food supply to a school, and keep the food unhealthy. No wonder Americans are so fat; and this epidemic of obesity will cost the tax payer money in the form of future medical care.
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com