1400 word final revisions included

Passing the Blame On Food Safety

By Alana O’Neill

 

If “you are what you eat,” then shouldn’t you know who’s controlling what you eat? The controversial nature of food safety yields an unproductive environment for change and with no one unanimously at fault (government, consumers, food producers, or workers) unhealthy and unsanitary methods of food production continue to affect consumers. Our food is passed along a chain of procedures, each segment playing a part in the quality of the consumers’ nourishment.

A key to invoking change is placing blame. Someone should step up and claim responsibility for the faults in the food safety system. The issue at hand however, is that segments involved in food safety would prefer play the “blame game” rather than step up and take ownership of the issues at hand. One segment under constant ridicule is the food industry. Throughout these five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat”, “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety” there are many different voices either condoning or criticizing the ways of the food industry.

Consumers rely on producers to provide a clean and safe environment for the livestock, which in turn produces safe meat. The same assumption carries on for the produce; a clean and safe environment. Consumers also rely on the government to not only recognize any shortcomings with the food production process, but to adjust to any changes and keep regulation frequent and up to date when needed to protect consumers. Food producers rely on the consumer to prepare the food properly, which includes washing hands, through cooking, and the avoidance of cross contaminations. Producers also rely on their workers to undergo the necessary sanitation processes. The government has the authority to regulate and therefore be reliable for food safety to a certain degree. Yet, there is not a cohesive balance between the food producers and the food regulators. Food producers push back on the government in a somewhat bullying manner to the point where the government acts frivolously.

            Food Inc., a documentary that criticizes how much control the food industry has, speaks to the audience to invoke change. One of the first lines said in the documentary, as a way to summarize the overall theme was, “the industry doesn’t want you to know what you’re eating, because if you knew, you wouldn’t eat it.” Food Inc. makes it clear how much control the food industry actually has, stating that never in history have food companies been as big or as powerful as they are now. As also mentioned in “Resisting Food Safety,” the four leading firms are controlling a huge proportion of the industry and are continuing to grow. Tyson, for example, after its merge with IBP, “controls 28% of the world’s beef, 25% of the world’s chicken, and 18% of the pork” (Nestle, 44). These industries, along with many others that make up the remaining percentage of food producers, seem to intentionally keep consumers in the dark making them unaware of the industry’s production methods and the food they are consuming.

Evidence of this is presented in Food Inc. Fast food restaurants fought with the government about putting labels on their food. The government advocated that consumers have the right to know what is going into their bodies, and against the wishes of the fast food industry, nutritional labels were to be visible on their menus.

Another example that emphasizes the amount of control the food industry has is through government manipulation. Food Inc., “You Are What They Eat,” and “Resisting Food Safety” all mention the leniency of the government. Food Inc. talks about how food producers are actually a part of the government and they are making decisions about food regulations. Sections in “You Are What They Eat” example how industries are able to find loopholes in regulations and laws, and then the government’s (lack of) reactions.

An example of this is the ban on feeding the protein from cow ruminants to other ruminants, ideally preventing the spread of mad cow disease. However, rather than honoring the nature of the regulation, food producers would take the protein from cow ruminants, even from downer cows, and feed it to pigs, chicken, and fish. Then those remains would be fed to back to the ruminants.

The whole argument about government in this article was that the government is too slow in creating bans and too lax in enforcing regulations. “Resisting Food Safety” has evidence of the influence of the food industry on the government saying the Congress overruled FDA attempts to restrict the use of antibiotics in feed because of the intense pressure from the livestock producers. The food producer’s lobbying pushes Congress into clashing with the FDA until, eventually, the FDA backs down.

Even with substantial evidence of the power the food industry has, many companies and producers argue that they are not at fault for consumer sickness and, in fact, the consumer is at fault. As mentioned in “Food Safety,” in the industry’s eyes, food producers are not liable to control food safety because the consumer most likely inadequately underwent the necessary food preparation steps. Although it is proven that actions taken in the food production process (i.e. ammonia injections, pesticides) can and have led to contamination and illness, food industries continue to imply that food preparation the most crucial step in making the food safe. It is true that high heat can make the impact of pathogens on peoples’ health minimal to non-existent, however this cannot be the only boundary between safe and unsafe food. Many foods are eaten raw or without much cooking. Foods in this category need to be safe without relying on heat. “Resisting Food Safety” also briefly touches on this topic explaining how the food industries do not express self-blame. Food industries are very comfortable with placing the blame elsewhere, for example to consumers, the government, and even workers. There is evidence that inadequacy from each segment can lead to unsafe food, however it is wrong and unfair for a segment as powerful as the food industries are to deny responsibility and place the blame elsewhere.

Despite the aforementioned arguments against the food industry control, Blake Hurst, writer of “Organic Illusions,” contradicts these arguments in an attempt to bring justification to the actions of the food industry. “Organic Illusions” expresses that the amount of control is fundamental for the efficient production of food and, contrary to the previous sources, does not have as many negative health impacts from the conventionally produced food.

Hurst’s piece consists of comparing the methods of conventionally produced foods to organically produced foods by stating first, why people perceive organic as better, then, his logic to disprove this common assumption. Throughout the piece he pulls examples that support the amount of control the food industry has. One point he makes is about the pesticide exposure. He goes on to state that the food industry’s conventional farming is actually better and healthier for people than the organic alternative. He backs this up by saying that pesticides are going to be on foods regardless, and on most foods, the pesticide level is too low to cause any harm. However, he implies that organically produced food is actually worse because natural pesticides are less effective and therefore need to be applied in much higher quantities than their man-made counterpart. Another example of how Hurst believes the food industries have an appropriate amount of control is environment preservation. Hurst says that conventional farming preserves nature better because it takes less space to produce the same amount of food conventionally than it does to farm organically.

These five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat,” “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety,” are just a few of the countless number of pieces speaking their own opinions about food production. From the sources collected in this instance, there are more arguments against food industries than for. With this being said, there is also a theme among the pieces against the food industry that exercise an opinion about power and control. Most of the food producers have too much control and are not paying enough attention to the health and well being of their consumers. Throughout these pieces it is clear that food safety is an issue that needs to be faced head on, however the difficulties of doing so can be overbearing. Change has to happen collectively throughout all parts of the chain (food producers, government, and consumers). However, the lack of cohesiveness throughout impedes the movement towards a healthier environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflection Questions

1. My understanding of the “writer’s project” is the writer’s main takeaway from their piece. It is not as simple as the overall idea, it is a specific thought that should stay with the reader even after he/she finishes reading the piece. I believe I was able to identify the text’s projects well, even if some pieces have similar main ideas. A lot of the texts aimed to inform the reader, although in different ways. For example, Hurts tried to convey his opinion using satire and a fluid approachable way of writing. Nestle, on the other hand, used her credibility as leverage to inform the reader and used a much more serious tone. My “project” was to get readers thinking about how complicated the food industry is. It is a balance between all the segments mentioned in my blog post (consumers, government, producers, workers) and not one can be solely blamed. With that being said, I do try to convey that the food industry delusional in how much blame they should actually take. I do believe that they are responsible for some of the food safety issues and I do believe that they are not doing all in their power to change that.
2. The “Sorting it Out” worksheet was actually very beneficial. It allowed me to refresh my memory on each piece and pull main ideas. Once the main ideas from each piece were all written out on front of me, it was much easier to see similarities and differences in each piece. The most helpful section for me on that worksheet was the last part (below part f). I had me write the source and a passage or quote, then an arrow going to a different source with a different passage. The passages from source 1 and 2 were different, but similar. The arrows did this again with a third passage. This made me find something specific in three different articles and make it much easier to relate them in my essay.
3. Synthesis to me is a way to make the piece you are writing more than just a list of facts. With synthesis, the passage becomes more interesting because topic A can connect to topic B 1that unknowingly is intertwined with topic C. It is important because if passages didn’t have synthesis it would simply be a summary of each article read in the order it was read. I struggled incorporating it into my draft at first but in my final work as exampled through the paragraph that starts with “Food Inc.” I Synthesized Food Inc. with “Resisting Food Safety” and “You Are What They Eat”.
4. My own accomplishment is refining my voice. Also because we took so much time writing this, I had a lot of time to make revisions and come by with a fresh eye. Also I was able to not only read texts, but also analyze and apply them to my life. Especially this topic. A lot of the things learned about food I did not know before reading this.
5. I feel like I always knew that I wanted to talk about the government, but over time the topic changed from government regulations to placing the blame/responsibility on different segments, which includes some aspects of the government. I actually had 5 different Ledes that I could not choose from and Becca chose one during the peer revision so I went with that. The Ledes were, “Not only do people often have very little information of what they’re putting in they’re body, but also who’s controlling what goes in.” “Not only do people often have very little knowledge of their food, but also who’s controlling it.” “You may think what goes into your body is your choice, but its not.” “Food production is still and always has been a very controversial topic” “If “you are what you eat” then shouldn’t we know who’s controlling what we eat?”
6. As a way to organize, I wrote the body paragraphs first and just made short simple statements to make sure I got the information out and then I would keep adding to make it sound like my writing and how I want it to come across. I then finished with the conclusion and introduction to sum up what I’ve written in the body paragraphs. This is the example of the first draft about the Blake Hurst paragraph “There is, however, still some fight that the amount of control the food industry has is just. “Organic Illusions” expresses that the amount of control is fundamental for the efficient production of food and how, contrary to the previous sources, don’t have negative health impacts from the conventionally produced food. In fact, Hurst continues with saying that these industries are helping the environment by taking up much less space than if they were to produce naturally.”
7. Excerpt from final that synthesizes three texts “Another example that emphasizes the amount of control the food industry has is through government manipulation. Food Inc., “You Are What They Eat,” and “Resisting Food Safety” all mention the leniency of the government. Food Inc. talks about how food producers are actually a part of the government and they are making decisions about food regulations. Sections in “You Are What They Eat” example how industries are able to find loopholes in regulations and laws, and then the government’s (lack of) reactions.” This evolved because this is the main topic in my article that all three pieces talk about so I thought to keep it short concise and simple to wrap the texts all into one idea
8. These were the Ledes I was deciding from “Not only do people often have very little information of what they’re putting in they’re body, but also who’s controlling what goes in.” “Not only do people often have very little knowledge of their food, but also who’s controlling it.” “You may think what goes into your body is your choice, but its not.” “Food production is still and always has been a very controversial topic” and “If “you are what you eat” then shouldn’t we know who’s controlling what we eat?” (I picked the last one with the help of Becca). Her feedback was that I should still use the other ledes somewhere else in the passage but the last one was the best one to start with.
9. I’d like to work on making my writing flow. Because I write in sections often times my writing doesn’t flow as well as I’d like it to. To combat this to the best of my ability, I just try and reread my writing and tweak little things as I go. Definitely coming back after not seeing it for a day makes reading it over more effective because I am looking at it with a fresh eye.