Vinodh Valluri

University of Texas at Arlington

December 2009

We are what we eat!

Late morning on a slightly sordid Sunday, I sat pondering about the vast field of
environmental sustainability, trying to choose a topic of interest suitable for this essay, when my
stomach gave an unapologetic grumble. Acquiescing to it, I strolled off casually to the nearest
vending machine to get something to eat, not having the time to cook a hearty meal, what with
final exams looming ahead. Standing in front of the dignified digital screen, trying to select an
offering that had the best value for my money was a bit embarrassing at most. However, the
ordeal passed soon when my eyes fell on a tastefully wrapped honey bun and I swiped my debit
card painlessly. My calculating mind took me back to the price tags in the machine, and I patted
myself on my back for the good deal: $1.15 for 170 grams of a sweet treat that now put off my
lunch for a couple of hours more (680 calories? Boy! is that enough?) Now, I explored the
wrapping further out of interest, and knitted my brows reading the list of nearly unpronounceable
ingredients and began to wonder why titanium dioxide, ethoxylated monoglycerides, and
sodium propionate should be part of a regular edible snack. Now, my granny would never have
made honey buns, but what she would have used to make em if she did would be things she
knew how to spell!
To carry out my investigation further would have been necessary, but I refrain
from dealing with a death by details scenario. Alternately, it would be easier for us to carry out
an intellectual rambling following this lead. Let us start at the original definition of the product,
honey buns are probably defined simply as: rolled dough spread with sugar and nuts then sliced
and baked in muffin tins with honey or sugar and butter in the bottom. This particular honey
bun - the one in my hand, however, seems to be a different animal, like one 'bred in captivity'. It
differed from the original exclusively because of the presence of the monstrous ingredients
spelled out earlier, some of which are listed as possible carcinogens, or having cytotoxic and
genotoxic effects, in US Material Safety Data sheets. Should I let my qualms be quelled by a
salesperson who gives logical and economic reasons to justify the additives? He might say Sir,
please be glad that you are not hungry anymore, and that you neither paid a huge price, nor
traveled too far, nor wasted a lot of time when an important assignment was due or "This
produce needs to have a long shelf-life.. blah.. blah.. blah.."
I am clueless. How is it that we have unresistingly accepted this ironical
convenience? How could the corporate manufacturer convince not one or two persons, but the
whole society that it is okay for honey buns to not even have honey, but be filled with a host of
substances that do not belong in the original recipe? Maybe, it is not his fault altogether. As
humans, we are prone to commit mistakes, to misinterpret facts, and to misconstrue truth; but
how far is ignorance from imbecility? The culprit is definitely not Mr. Titanium Dioxide - he
is not the one to take the blame if my stomach disagrees with a decent dozen of these buns a
month. After all, society (hem... hem... just the powerful section of it) sanctions and affirms his
presence in my snack based on acceptability (now, however is THAT defined?). One could go on
and find reasons not to blame the scientists, the salespersons, or the senators. Instead of deciding
who to shift the blame on to, let me ask if I should question myself first. As a customer (or
consumer), am I the primary reason for a societal habit such as this? The simple economic rules
of demand and supply are the foundations of our current economy. Then, is it safe to assume that

Vinodh Valluri

University of Texas at Arlington

December 2009

our behavior itself is the directing force behind our economy? If this is true, how must our
behavior be such that our purchases keep socio-economic & environmental health intact?
Food is a fundamental necessity of all living beings, but humans alone get their
food plastic packaged (mostly with preservatives). Delving deeper, we should ask ourselves if it
is a sign of progress that we are the one group of mammals that get their food transported from
halfway across the globe. It is not fair to compromise the fidelity (purity of definition and
character) of the very things that make it feasible for us to exist. The answers to questions like
these are not easy because they involve the sustenance of prestigious people around the world.
Similar answers were sought by Jared Diamond in Collapse, when he wondered what the Easter
islanders were thinking when they cut down the last tree on the island. Our situation is not so
dire, but could be worse if we do not begin to seek these answers now.
However, our usual knee jerk reaction is to seek answers from without - from
governments, corporations, or the church, and not seek answers from within. How can we be
sure that they hold all the right answers, and even if they do, are willing to make the monumental
changes that are required? A congressional representative is quoted to have said to a group of
grassroots activists, You take the lead, and your leaders will follow. Environmental
responsibility connects closely to social and economic problems, and activists need not be alone
in spearheading the change that needs to happen. Each individual has an equal opportunity to
lead, especially if he/she is a leader already. It is choice, not chance, that defines our destiny.
Decision makers at the top, middle and the bottom, all the layers of our societal pyramids will
have to consider their choices if we intend to redefine our destiny. Then, the most essential
thought processes we will benefit from adopting will be those of simplicity, austerity, and purity
(defined as something being in its natural state, devoid of pollution). What is more simple to
create a mlange of chemicals, manufacture them separately, combine them in forms that need
greater infrastructure and energy to upkeep or to cultivate wholesome food grains, and use
natural ingredients in all of our manufacturing? It seems that our society chooses the first option,
furthering our disconnectedness with Nature and deepening our already too human misery. It is
time for us to remake those definitions, and redefine life to enable it to continue on this planet.
For instance, it is time for a PhD. in engineering to reiterate the fact that the recipient has
engaged in philosophical discourse and intellectual deliberation enough to apply his competence
in perfecting the services that science should provide to help society run smoothly.
I will only hope that no thoughtful customer might spend a while ranting about
honey buns or their shoelace, and that the scientist, the senator and the salesperson will get
together to discuss the ethics that should guide their daily activities. Caught in a mirage of
wealth, of which a single penny one may not enjoy after death, we are trapped in a flawed chase.
The chase for riches is a hopeless one that leads to exhausting exasperation, and leaves us only
thirsty and faint. It is time to return to a new cradle, one where our umbilical cord connects not
only to Mother Nature, but also to Father God. To understand the oneness that pervades all
forms, and to respect it in our daily undertakings will be necessary if we are to be thankful for
the planet we live in and the very food we eat
"If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
J.R.R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings -The Hobbit.