How much do you actually know about what is in your food? In recent years several publications have examined the food industry. The discussion is complex, filled with criticisms and shared blame but most consumers are in the dark about the pertinent issues.

All issues related to and relevant to food safety are reflective of a three way power struggle between the industry, the government, and consumers. This matters because the industry is more impactful than the government in certain areas. Consumers should be concerned because they are increasingly at the mercy of the economic-interest of major food corporations. After reading various texts, there are a few topics that I could clearly identify at the crux of the debate. Criticism of government regulation over the food industry, and the dangers of foodborne illness was featured in almost every reading.

The Consumer Reports article You are What They Eat inquiries into the lack of government monitoring of the food fed to the animals we eventually eat and the adverse effects thereafter.  By providing the current narrative between industry and concerned officials, the article effectively attacks the credibility of food industry executives. After highlighting the inclusion of waste and antibiotics in the feed of farm animals such as cows and chickens, David Bossman the CEO of American Food industry Association is quoted as saying “You can eat meat with confidence that it’s not only safe but getting safer” (Consumer Reports, 27) Yet, other officials admit to being aware of the potential for the feed to still become contaminated in several parts of the process. Two key observations made by the text are that the appropriate organizations do actually have oversight and final approval over feed ingredients, and even still certain health labels and claims on food are unverified.  I wish to add that this is one of the most important manifestations of the food industry’s power over consumers. Families and individuals are severely disadvantaged, and at times endangered, when shopping because they don’t where there food comes from or how it is produced and must trust labeling. As a reader and consumer of food, I naturally wondered why the government would be so negligent in this area. The investigations conducted in the documentary Food Inc. do the work of providing some answers.

In the film, the directors and producers examine every aspect of food production in an attempt to spotlight controversial industry practices for an uninformed audience. Eric Schlosser, the author and co-producer, explains that “For years during the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist to the beef industry in Washington; the head of the F.D.A. was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association. These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies that they’re supposed to be scrutinizing”. (Food Inc.) This is possible due the fact that only a handful of companies control the food system, another observation made in Food Inc. What Schlosser is speaking to at the end of that quote has actually been a continuing occurrence through recent history. The trend illuminates how the amassing economic power of food corporations is being transformed into political power, further tipping the balance of influence away from the government. The two publications I’ve discussed thus far attacked the issues of regulation from the outside attempting to peek in. Marion Nestle was able to provide more of an authoritative insight in her article Resisting Food Safety.

Pulling from her experience as the senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services, Nestle critiques the internal structure of regulatory agencies. She argues that the system is outdated by providing the facts and statistical details as to why government action is so limited. She insists that there is more protection for producers than the public, “If anything the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable…The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was…minuscule by any standard of federal expenditure”. (Nestle, 59) The arguments made by Nestle about the daunting tasks provided to food regulation organizations stood out to me. Extending the text’s observation that regulatory government agencies are more concerned about vying for resources and jurisdiction than public safety, I wish to add that the dilution of their responsibilities contributes to the dilution of their power. It is this environment that influences the behavior noted by Nestle.

Foodborne illness is the danger fostered by current regulatory practices.  This issue is framed by power as well. As the current system is constructed, all the texts point to the fact that consumers, the industry and the government are all severely disadvantaged when it comes to preventing foodborne illness.

The major function of Consumer Reports as a publication is to caution and advise uninformed consumers. This particular article is characterized by explaining the source and risks of two major food related afflictions.  They are effective in this effort by clearly elucidating how infectious prions in beef feed can lead to mad cow disease in humans and antibiotics in chicken feed can expose people to arsenic, in a concrete and organized arrangement. Yet, even though the sources of the diseases are known, the author explains how preventative efforts are still hampered. “The FDA is aware of a handful of incidents worldwide in which salmonella infections in humans were linked to animal feed… connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult” (Consumer Reports, 28). Extending the text’s observation about the difficulty linking feed ingredients to foodborne illness, I wish to add that the dangerous aspect of this issue is that the industry again reigns superior in influence. If it is difficult to link the ingredients known to have potential for harm to actual outbreaks, it is easier to defend their inclusion.

In contrast to Consumer Reports, in addition to providing information Food Inc. makes effective rhetorical appeal to emotion in order to make its arguments. The inclusion of Barb Kowalcky’s story regarding her son Kevin emphasizes the dangers of foodborne illness in a way that effectively hits home. Ms. Kowalcky narrates how her son developed hemolytic-uremic syndrome in reaction to contaminated hamburger meat, while playful photos and videos of the deceased play on screen. Her experience expands on the difficulties of foodborne illness touched upon in Consumer Reports. “It took us almost two or three years and hiring a private attorney to actually find out that we matched a meat recall”. Kevin’s Law, passed after his 2001 death, gives the USDA the power to close down plants with contaminated meat. What was alarming to me was that the government didn’t already reserve this power and that it took death and years of lobbying for them to assume this power. The Kowalcky family was powerless to prevent their son from eating the tainted meat. The industry lacked significant power to identify and contain the contaminated food, and the until Kevin’s law the government lacked the power to shut down production of contaminated meat.

Nestle’s article, being more factual and educational in nature pinpoints, the specific challenges faced by organizations in identifying the source of foodborne illness. She notes “most episodes of food poisoning are not very serious… it is difficult to collect accurate information about the number of cases and their severity”. (Nestle, 37) She is also able to tangibly clarify what I have observed as prioritizing of economic interests over public safety.  Nestle provides data showing how foodborne illness presents a multi-million dollar cost to the industry in the form of recalls and loss of reputation. I similarly hold one of the text’s position that consumers do share some of the responsibility in issues of food safety.  This was a perspective touched on in all articles in fact. Food Inc., tries through rhetorical exercise to emphasize the power consumers have by selective spending when it comes to food. Consumer Reports urges people to utilize their local means of political influence to affect change by signing petitions and such. Yet, as Nestle observes the blame and responsibility is shared equally between producers, consumers, and regulatory agencies. Although, revisiting these issues of food through the framework of power, it becomes clear that power is concentrated in the industry. Therefore, so should accountability for food safety.

Our country’s food system is far from perfect. Marion Nestle accurately describes my attitude towards the issue when she states “The costs of foodborne illness to individuals, to society, and to food companies should encourage everyone to collaborate in efforts to ensure safe food.”(Resisting Food Safety, 61). We consumers have to stop buying into common narrative and false sense of security regarding what we eat. The potential dangers are very evident and acknowledged by all interests involved. We cannot rely on the government, their influence has been tempered by a complex system of checks and balances. A system where their power is imbalanced and too often checked. It is our best interest to demand better.

 

Reflection Questions

• Describe your understanding of the “writer’s project”? How were you able to identify the texts’ “project”? Discuss your own “project” as it pertains to this particular blog article.

 

I understand the writer’s project to be the arguments or observations they are trying to make and how they go about making them. In order to identify the texts projects, I first tried to synthesize the author’s thesis, and then identify different compositional strategies they employed. My project with this particular blog article was to compile information on food safety and present it through the framework of power. My overall thesis was that consumers need to reclaim power in the equation, and I used the various arguments made by the texts to highlight where power currently lies.

 

• Describe your completion of the “Sorting it Out” workshop? What sections were most beneficial to the development of your ideas—and why? Discuss how this workshop assisted in development of draft and/or assignment organization?

 

I appreciated the Sorting it Out workshops for organizing my thoughts. I found the sections connecting passages in the text and identifying the various projects to be extremely beneficial when it came to writing the article. The workshop helped me address all prompts for the assignment and then figure out how to present it.

 

• Describe your understanding of synthesis. What is its importance? How did it manifest within your drafts and/or final blog article? Provide examples.

 

Synthesizing in my understanding if concretely expressing the main arguments of the text, providing key details and evidence, without summarizing. Its importance lies in the analysis of the text, which manifested directly into the article.

 

• Describe your own accomplishment (ofsomething) during this unit.

 

I think the practice in synthesizing, helped me read texts more critically. An accomplishment for me was identifying and utilizing evidence from the differing text effectively in my article, finding connections and relevance.

 

 

 

 

• Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution?

 

 

My original main idea was just the focus or thesis of my 500 word reading response. “After reading the texts, there were several issues prevalent throughout all of the texts. The topic of government regulation over the food industry was touched upon briefly in almost every reading. Two in particular went into depth over the actions and lack of actions on behalf of organizations such as the FDA and the USDA.” After the sorting it out workshop, my main idea developed more into my own observations and opinions about the food industry “All issues related to and relevant to food safety are reflective of a three way power struggle between the industry, the government, and consumers. This matters because the industry is more impactful than the government in certain areas. Consumers should be concerned because they are increasingly at the mercy of the economic-interest of major food corporations.”

 

 

• Discuss what organizational strategies you implemented in order to structure this blog article. Provide examples from a section(s) of an earlier draft and other excerpts in later drafts to support your response.

 

My lede is designed to draw the readers attention the issue of food in general. My introductory paragraph is where I declare my observations and main idea. I tried to organize the article around the issues transitioning from text to text. After synthesizing the text as it related to the issue I was discussing at a particular point, I made sure to highlight how the argument or issue relate to my main idea and opinions. I often utilized my topic and concluding sentences to compare and contrast the articles and their various approaches. I nested the textual evidence in the heart of paragraphs to support the claims I made in my synthesis of the texts. My concluding paragraph revisits the main idea but ends with my own personal assertions and opinions.

 

 

7.) Provide an example of the final draft where you successfully synthesize 3 texts in a concise and direct manner. Discuss how this evolved throughout the drafting process for you.

 

“The Consumer Reports article You are What They Eat inquiries into the lack of government monitoring of the food fed to the animals we eventually eat and the adverse effects thereafter.  By providing the current narrative between industry and concerned officials, the article effectively attacks the credibility of food industry executives.”

 

“In the film, the directors and producers examine every aspect of food production in an attempt to spotlight controversial industry practices for an uninformed audience.”

 

 

“Pulling from her experience as the senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services, Nestle critiques the internal structure of regulatory agencies.”

 

In earlier drafts, my synthesis was just a statement of the author’s project or thesis. After the lede workshop, I revisited the synthesis and focused on being concise and informing the reader about the most important things I want them to know about the texts.

 

8.) Discuss the evolution of the ‘lede’ in earlier drafts and its final version (provide examples of each): where did you begin, what feedback did you receive, and how did it end up in final blog article?

 

My lede did not undergo much change from first to final draft. I felt I really benefitted from the workshop we did in class. I immediately knew I wanted to incorporate a question in order to draw the reader’s attention. I figured it would work effectively since the issues of food involve so many questions.

 

9.) Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects.

 

I would like to improve on composing more concisely when appropriate.