What will it take for the USDA to protect the American people? Lately it appears that our government isn’t worried about reforming its safety procedures. The calls for financial profit and economic growth are draining out the nations cries for change.

While more people are becoming more inclined to inquire about the food and drug industries, the power that these organizations have over the American people are still overlooked. This is due to the strong ties that these companies have to the US government. These connections are exposed through many mediums of communication, specifically in the documentary Food Inc., and in the piece “Resisting Food Safety” by: Marian Nestle. This impact is pivotal to be aware of, as it directly impacts the nations present state, and future. While the cost effective and efficient nature of using technological and scientific mutations in the food industry is undeniable, the compromise of individual safety through the production of GMO’s and emitted pollution via pesticides are too impactful to ignore. This aspect of the nation’s food industry is enabled by large corporations, often more powerful than the government, that therefore directly influence the health of our people and planet.

One of the most impactful aspects of the food industry is the production of feed for livestock. This is due to the fact that feed that is meant for an animal can be equally as influential on the health of the person eating it. The issue of animal feed divides people, essentially depending on whether they value a greater chance of personal health, or cost and efficiency. In the article “You Are What They Eat” it is noted that there are many potential risks in the production of feed. David Bossman, a former president of the AFIA stated, “feed can become contaminated…people make honest mistakes.” It’s impossible to ignore the inconsistency in the food safety based off this dialogue. Furthermore, corporations have been known to expose feed to clay, potentially increasing the risk of toxic contamination from the farm to the dinner table.

The current governmental systems regulating food and drug corporations are the reasons why we are so susceptible to the contaminations mentioned by Bossman. Mass confusion and danger can be attributed to the divisions of power, and the lack of size of the USDA and the FDA. Marian Nestle delves into these issues in her piece “Resisting Food Safety.” The sectors of separation between the two organizations are complicated and specific. For example, the USDA begins inspections at the slaughterhouse, while the FDA’s inspections end there. Additionally, the USDA inspects meat and poultry, while the FDA does not. These differences in authority can cause mistakes, as the two groups must work together closely, often analyzing products from the same corporation. Even more worrisome is the vast array of industries that they must oversee. Nestle includes, “The USDA has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg establishments.” In a more specific instance, it is also cited that in today’s poultry industry, “each USDA inspector must examine 35 birds per minute.” These statistics are alarming, as the room for error appears large. Clyde Haberman of The New York Times provides a similar take on these practices in his article, “Action and Dysfunction in the U.S. Food Safety Effort.” Haberman focuses on the FDA, as he notes that the organization accounts for the examinations “of roughly 80 percent of the nation’s food supply.” This large amount of responsibility, accompanied with the noted thirteen fractions of power within the FDA, its complexity alone is enough to turn some heads. Ultimately, the calls for reform from Haberman and Nestle are warranted. While the US government invested a combined $995 billion in the USDA and FDA in 2000, it is clear that both organizations are in dyer need of a larger workforce, as well as increased funding.

American health is the primary concern of the food industry’s inclusion in government practices. The lack of regulations on food and drug corporations effects future generations. American director and producer Robert Kenner commented in his film Food Inc. that “one in three children born after 2000 will contract diabetes.” This statistic is alarming as it shows how the socioeconomic climate of our nation and the food industry are directly correlated to an American’s health. Another devastating effect of this claim the film is seen through Barbara Kowalcyk’s story. Kowalcyk tragically lost her son to e coli after he had eaten a hamburger from a “Jack in the Box” chain restaurant. It is remarkably terrible that a perfectly healthy toddler can lose his or her life in days after simply eating at a fast food restaurant. Occurrences like this one make it apparent that our food can be lethal. It almost sounds irrational due to the common shared ideology that organizations like the FDA are established to protect people. This often leads people to not look towards the food industry when they are sick, even though their illness may be directly linked to it. This attitude is highlighted in Nestle’s work. Nestle recounts an instance in which she attended a family party decades ago. Many guests had contracted food poisoning from the evening. Nestle states that they “did not report our illnesses to health authorities…we did not try to trace the source of the outbreak.” She additionally goes on to note that she assumed that these minor sicknesses were “a normal part of daily living.” These perspectives are ones held by many in the nation. It is often difficult to have the awareness to trace back a food-borne illness to a specific company, as food poisoning is so common. However, this explained commonality is what is most alarming. While one instance may highlight a minor case of food poisoning, another situation may include an outbreak of listeria or e coli.

On the opposition of individuals like Nestle and Kenner are authors like Blake Hurst. Hurst explains his support of the food industries use of GMO’s in his article “Organic Illusions.” In the work he preaches about the positive influence on production that this practice, among others, enables. He states, “Millions of hands would be needed to produce food on America’s farms without modern technology.” This thesis does have some truth to it. While the use of pesticides in the raising of livestock has received some heat recently, it can be acknowledged that these strategies do save time and money. Another viewpoint that Hurst mentions in his writing is the improper understanding of the word organic in society. One of Hurst’s frequently used sources is a study conducted at Stanford University. The study highlights the finding that organic simply means the product is more environmentally sustainable, rather than it being healthier. He additionally cites that while the organic industry is growing, it’s from an extremely small base. Specifically, organic products account for “only 4% of dollar value of all food sold.” His disdain for a makeover of the raising of livestock is extremely apparent, and one that counters attacks made by Nestle, and Kenner amongst others.

The power of corporations within the food industry has proven to be too powerful for them to sustain, however, strong ties to the US government have prevented them from reforming. The documentary Food Inc., and the piece “Resisting Food Safety” by: Marian Nestle. This influence is important to be aware of, it impacts every citizen in the nation. Ultimately the choice of companies to prioritize cost effectiveness over the safety of their consumers is the primary reason for a call for change that has struck the US as a whole. Moving forward, it is important to be aware of the impact that the food industry can have in daily life. More specifically, what can one do to invoke evolution in the industry, as well as educate others on the current epidemics the nation is facing.

1. The writer’s project can be defined, as what the author attempted to convey to the audience is his or her piece. It can include themes and messages included in the writing to get their point across. To identify the writer’s projects in the pieces I analyzed, I looked for key terms and phrases they used. In addition I researched the authors in order to get a better understanding of their viewpoints and backgrounds. My own project in the blog article is to help purport the idea that the food industry needs to be exposed for the wrongdoings they’re enacting currently in the social landscape. I wanted to advance my ideas by using information provided in class through texts and videos.
2. The most helpful section in the sorting it out workshop personally was the section that enabled me to extract key terms from each source. This made it easier to make connections between the sources. In regards to my draft, the section allowed me to organize which sources I wanted to couple together and synthesize further. Specifically, Nestle’s and Habersman’s analysis of the USDA and FDA became clearly connected.
3. Synthesis is defined as the comparison of multiple texts and sources in order to make connections, arguments, and discrepancies. This came alive when I wrote about Hurst. Hurst’s ideas differed greatly from the rest of the sources that were compiled. His opposition made it easier to compare and contrast, and ultimately synthesize.
4. Personally, I feel much like I’m much more knowledgeable of the food industry and the effect that it can have on my family and me. Moving forward, I will be more health conscious, and sympathetic for those falling victim to these large corporations.
5. Initially my focus was on the corruption of lobbyists and the US government as a whole. As I continued to draft my focus became specifically on the corruption of the USDA and the FDA, and the impacts that these organizations have on society.
6. Organizationally I wanted to provide sources that aided my thesis in the beginning of the blog, while providing an alternative perspective at the end. This would show my priority in the work, yet provide an opposing viewpoint.
7. I synthesized works by Hurst, Nestle, as well as the film Food Inc. This was used in order to show the difference in priority of those critical in the food industry, as well as depicts varying opinions on safety.
8. I was told that my previous ledes weren’t opinioned or provocative enough in earlier drafts. As a result I attempted to show clearly what side of the discussion I fell under.
9. I would like to better my synthesizing capabilities even more. I feel like I can do better in that regard.