Elena Shippey
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110 – Section G
20 February 2019
Food: Feeding our Bodies and Beyond
Eat or die – it is quite simple. For nearly anything with a pulse, food is a critical point for survival. Although its primary purpose is nutrition, humans have uniquely given meaning to their meals beyond being what merely keeps them alive. A surplus of time, money and energy goes into preparing and enjoying these meals, solely by choice. In Lizzie Widdecombe’s article “The End of Food,” she shares the day-to-day struggles of entrepreneur Robert Rhinehart and his business partners while starting up a software plan. In a pinch for money and food, Rhinehart successfully develops a nutritional alternative that can potentially replace food altogether. His product is called Soylent: a concentrated powder mixture of necessary daily vitamins and nutrients. What started off as a temporary solution to high grocery bills has become a cheaper, easier and more efficient way to fuel the body. It is so economic that Rhinehart believes it to be a leading component of “ ‘the college-student fridge of the future’ ” (Widdicombe 6). Rhinehart also vouches for the fact that Soylent actually works. After thirty days of the replacement diet, he claims “my physique has noticeably improved, my skin is clearer, my teeth whiter, my hair thicker, and my dandruff gone” (Widdecombe 2). There seems to be solid proof of an effective, more efficient alternative, yet people are persistent in more costly meals in terms of time, price, and work. Although Rhinehart shows Soylent has its economic benefits, there is profound cultural value in food that could not exist if replaced with the dietary alternative. Sharing a meal is what makes people feel and experience human connection; without this communal experience, the connection can be lost, damaging the intimacy and closeness that composes human relationships in the future.
On a societal level, food is of the utmost importance to people. That being said, most people cannot remember what they ate for dinner two weeks ago. This is completely normal. There are so many combinations of foods that provide the body with the nutrients it needs, it would be ridiculous to remember every combination of food for every meal consumed. One probably remembers their favorite meal and maybe their least favorite meal, but for the most part, memories of food fade into the background. When a meal is forgotten, then the food served its purpose. It did its job. The food is a medium for which people get together – a gateway to communion. It is not about the lasagna that took three hours to prepare, but rather the loved ones who gathered to enjoy the meal. It is not about whether the ratio of ricotta cheese to homemade sauce was spot-on, but rather what happened over dinner – the stories, the jokes, the conversation. This is what we take with us. These interactions are the memories, not necessarily the plates of food. When I think of food, I am reminded of sharing my favorite meal – cheese enchiladas from my favorite Mexican restaurant- with my mother after figure skating practice. “Sometimes mom splurges and lets us get totopos and salsa with dinner.” I never actually cared if I got the chips and salsa or not. Just entertaining the conversation of “can we get it?” was enough for me. Chips or no chips, the meal was an excuse to interact and spend quality time with an important figure in my life: my mother.
Food being used as a method for union potentially takes advantage of the fact that its primary purpose is to nourish the body. In this way, food as a limiting resource may be taken for granted. When it comes to food, nourishment is usually an afterthought, if that; some people eat without thinking of its dietary importance much at all. In American culture, food is used as an excuse to hang out. Commonly, people meet with friends or family while conveniently fueling their systems at the same time. “Hey, let’s grab coffee” usually doesn’t mean “hey, next Wednesday I’m probably going to have a 2pm crash – let’s caffeinate at the same time so we can get through the rest of the day.” When making food-related plans, logistics like these are usually not considered. Getting coffee is almost never about the coffee itself; rather, it is an excuse to sit down for two hours and catch up with close friends and loved ones. Food is such a convenience that it is consumed recreationally here, yet there are people who struggle to access food on a daily basis. In the United States, culture revolves around food – especially food in abundance. Superbowl parties, potluck dinners, Thanksgiving. There is more food than necessary, and rarely does it all get eaten. The food that gets wasted from these events is far more than it should be. Perhaps Americans should feel a sort of guilt for abusing the raw, fundamental function of food. It is a lucky thing to have a surplus of food for holidays and get togethers, and it is crucial to recognize not everyone is as lucky. Food is an extremely valuable resource; people should be more mindful of its limiting supply. Although switching over to Soylent would likely cut down on these food waste issues, the meaning of the events may diminish without the uniting tool of food.
There is another question on the table as to whether or not these coffee dates, parties, and dinners are a waste of time. Robert Rhinehart’s invention of Soylent allows for the body to get all its necessary daily nutrients while maximizing temporal efficiency by cutting out the time it would take to cook or go out to eat. Rhinehart asserts that it is easier to get more done when “you don’t have to stop for lunch” (Widdicombe 14). By cutting out travel time from lunch breaks, work days could indeed be more productive. Additionally, Rhinehart argues that, with Soylent, “your energy levels stay consistent” so “afternoons can be just as productive as mornings” (Widdicombe 14). Not only does Rhinehart hold time efficiency close to him, but consistent productivity in the ability to exert energy to work is just as important. In terms of time, Rhinehart seems to believe that more is more. On a societal scale, people desire more time to be able to do more things. Based on his argument on his meal-replacing invention, it feels as though Rhinehart is suggesting quantity over quality. More time available means more time to work, which is a good thing, right? Soylent gives the body more energy so it can do more work, which is a good thing, isn’t it? Not necessarily – it depends on who you ask. The amount of time a person has is not as valuable as how the time is spent. One may be able to maximize their time throughout the day with Soylent, but it does not automatically equate to a happier, more fulfilling life. If the time that would have been “wasted” by eating or preparing a meal was replaced with work, does that necessarily increase quality of life and overall happiness? Potentially the answer is yes, in which case the person should pursue Soylent and take advantage of the ease and accessibility it offers. This would work for busy individuals like Rhinehart himself, or the group of college students he mentions having such busy schedules that the quick meal maximizes work and study time. Although beneficial for some, others would be worse off with Soylent because they work better with the punctuality that a lunch break provides. For many people, including my mother, this rings true.
When my mom was working as a goldsmith, she would go on lunch break with her coworker, Ellen, who is a close family friend to this day. On Wednesdays, they’d go to what is now my favorite restaurant in the world and eat what is now my favorite food in the world.
My mother enjoyed her lunch breaks because they offered her a time away from her workplace to enjoy herself. If she had not left work every day for lunch, life would be much different for both her and myself. Eating (or drinking in the case for Soylent) at work makes it difficult to separate work from enjoyment. The majority of people need this separation to help maintain their mental stability. Keeping occupation and recreation too close together may cause them to merge, making life as a whole seem like a task. Without these lunch breaks, my life would be different as well. These outings my mother went on continued long after her coworker left the job, and after she left the job herself. She continued going to the restaurant for pure enjoyment – for the past memories as well as the present experiences. My mother mentioned “I would eat them every week when I was pregnant with you. As soon as you were born, you started coming to the restaurant…” Because she continued this weekly custom, my mother helped introduce me to my favorite meal: enchiladas. Every time I eat enchiladas now, I think of where the memories all began twenty or so years before I was even born. I think of those memories and hold them close. If my mother had spent her lunch breaks in her office with Soylent, this custom, and huge part of my life, would have never come into existence.
At the end of the day, it is important to be satisfied with the life one lives. Time is extremely valuable; it should not be spent trying to buy more time for the future, but spent living in and enjoying the present moment. Rob Rhinehart has proved his Soylent has its share of benefits in health, time, money, and overall effort. The invention compliments some people’s lifestyles nicely, in which case they should pursue the dietary switch. For others, this change would harm more than it would help; time in the day can get thrown off or lost without the punctuality of a meal. Regardless of a person’s commitment to Soylent, it is vital to maintain some connection with food. People hold attachment to their food far beyond the function of nourishing the body. Food is a key component of culture in America and around the world, so to cut ties with food would be to lose a piece of our humanity.
Works Cited
Widdicombe, Lizzie. “The End of Food.” The New Yorker, 12 May 2014, pp. 1-18. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/12/the-end-of-food.
