Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Binge Food Eating: A Modern competitive sport in the USA

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Binge Food Eating: A Modern competitive sport in the USA

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 21, 2020

URL

Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest

Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest | Source: Jeff via Flickr

Eating food as a professional sport may seem odd to a lot of people, but many such competitions exist today in the USA. While competitive food eating contests have been around for years, it was only in the late nineties that it got the status of a sport. There is even an organisation named “Major League Eating” headquartered in New York which governs all eating competitions worldwide since its foundation in 1997.

It's not just about the participants. The sport has got its fair share of the audience too, particularly in the US.  Some of the most popular contests include Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest, the Zombie Fest at Long Beach, California, The World Slugburger Eating Championship, in Corinth, Mississippi, The World Famous St. Elmo Shrimp Cocktail Eating Championship, Indianapolis, and many more.

And the insane records that people make at these competitions might just blow your mind away. For instance, Joey Chestnut holds the record for eating 70 hotdogs and buns in 10 mins in 2016 at the Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest. Matt Stonie holds the record for devouring 43 slug burgers in 10 minutes at The World Slugburger Eating Competition in 2014!  Looks insane? Well, it's just one of those things that make America so great! Or does it?

While competitive eating has truly become a huge affair in the United States, many people are particularly skeptical of the same. Many animal rights groups question the morality of such competitions wherein so many animals are consumed in such a short time. Others have the issue of the sport being offensive to people who cannot afford to have enough food in a day. However, the biggest argument against these eating competitions is how they have become a symbol of freedom. The critics say that freedom from unnecessary regulations makes sense in the context of a free democratic and liberal society, it does not mean that we indulge in a gross display of excessive consumption.

The dangers associated with the sport are not limited to morality and freedom. People who participate in the contests have to go through potentially injurious training to stretch their stomach for the sport. These training regimens include consuming more than a gallon of water, eating 200 chicken wings, and the list goes on.

Despite all the dangers associated, the sport continues to grow and thrive. The raging rivalries between participants like Joey Chestnut and Matt Stonie make then Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo of the competitive food eating. With the audience base steadily growing over the years, Competitive Eating has truly become a phenomenon in the United States. Riding on the increasing popularity of this sport, Nathan’s saw a monumental increase in their hot dogs’ sales from 250 million to a billion between 2003 and 2014,when the competition was broadcasted on ESPN .

It all boils down to the numbers of the loyal fan following which a sport or sports-person commands. As long as there are people who enjoy watching food being stuffed in insane amounts as a sport, there will always be people ready to make money by contesting and organizing these festivals. After all, that is the beauty of corporate America- whatever sells, will stick around!

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:00 PM

With a new Anti-Terror Act: Philippines take another step towards authoritarianism

On July 3, 2020, President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte signed a new Anti-Terrorism Bill, which was rushed through the houses of Congress without appropriate discussion, and has amassed protests and disapproval within the nation and abroad since its draft was first announced.

The Confederation of Lawyers in Asia and Pacific (COLAP) has raised concerns that anti-terrorism bill of the Philippine government is “violative of human rights and the due process of the law.” It's statement opposing the the bill stated following concerns with the bill:

  1. It punishes suspected individuals for organizations who are proscribed as terrorists and that the very broad and vague definition of terrorism under the bill poses danger to the basic freedoms of the people.
  2. The suspect’s right to due process of law is virtually denied and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court is virtually negated.
  3. It enable the President-backed Anti-Terrorism Council to label any individual or group as a terrorist “without the opportunity of being heard.
  4. Any member or sympathizer of a proscribed organization is punished as a terrorist even if he or she does not actually take arms against the government.
  5. The bill encroaches on one’s privacy as it gives the government access to personal and bank information and freezes bank accounts and assets.
  6. The bill violates the sovereign rights of states and the internationally mandated norm that criminal jurisdiction is confined to the territories of a state, citing its extraterritorial nature.

Hundreds of protestors took to the streets of Manila protesting the bill on 27th July when President Duterte gave his annual State of the Nation address. While it is true that the has nation faced the threat of terrorism in recent years, it is also agreed upon that Duterte’s response has been perhaps equally brutal.

This bill was also criticised by the Christian religious organisations which issued a joint declaration on this law. They stated “We are bothered by the broad and vague definition of terrorism and terrorist. It can include acts of dissent, free speech, right to assemble, right to organize, freedom of belief, among others. By such a broad definition it is open to abuse and misuse.”

An opposition Congress member, Edcel Lagman and two lawyer groups of Philippine approached the Philippine Supreme Court and asked it to strike down the new anti-terrorism law, or parts of it, as they called it unconstitutional for infringing on civil liberties.

The Philipino American Student Association (FASA) also denounced the new anti-terrorism law in its Instagram post which stated, “FASA sa UW denounces Duterte’s signing of the Anti-Terrorism Bill to which its terms do nothing to resolve the true terrorism in our nation and instead conducts an outright assault on the freedom of speech from our people living on the motherland and even Filipinx abroad,”

International Human Right organisation, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Nicholas Bequelin, in response to this law said, “Under Duterte’s presidency, even the mildest government critics can be labelled terrorists. He further stated, “This law’s introduction is the latest example of the country’s ever-worsening human rights record. Once again, this shows why the UN should launch a formal investigation into ongoing widespread and systematic violations in the country.”

Prior to this, Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ received global scrutiny, especially for the numerous extrajudicial killings that have occurred since he came to power and the effect of this aggressive policy on the poorest citizens of the nation.

Apart from this, he has also repeatedly voiced opinions in favour of martial law and silenced news media that spoke against him. But he seems to be encouraged largely by his own people, among whom Duterte continues to be popular.

Many have called Duterte the ‘revival’ of authoritarianism in the small Southeast Asian country, which has only recently seen some semblance of democracy after years of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos (of whom Duterte was a close family friend).

The Philippines is walking a thin line between fascism and democracy, and which side it ends up on depends not only on the actions of its government, but just as much on the actions of its people.

Read More