You may think your food supply is safe, but is that really in the best interest of producers? If it was, why has there been an epidemic of food outbreaks over the past decade? Perhaps the only health food producers are concerned about is the health of their bank accounts. Regulating agencies should ignore relations with food producers and begin regulating our production system so it can be as safe as can be from the farm to the consumer.

It is impossible to deny that that over the past decade, the technology used in the United States’ food production system has improved greatly. The United States is now able to produce a great deal more crops, such as corn or soybeans, in a fraction of the land required in the 20^th century. Another scientific and agricultural accomplishment that the food production industry is responsible for is the significant reduction in time of growth for chickens. In the mid-20^th century it took roughly about 3 and a half months to raise a full grown chicken, today on the other hand a full grown chicken can be produced in less than 50 days. This rapid advance of the food production industry is the result of the growing population and demand for food in the United States.

Although these advances have allowed us to have a steady food supply, they have also presented problems for regulating government agencies. These advances create loopholes in existing regulations in which food producers can take advantage of.  Another problem is the close relationships that some of the regulating agencies have with food producers. Top food producers are able to pressure regulating agencies, such as the FDA or USDA, in order to sway regulations in their favor.

Issues are made clear, from multiple viewpoints in Food Inc., You Are What They Eat, Marian Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, and Blake Hurst’s Organic Illusions. These texts have brought up issues and controversies that I have not heard about before in my life. These texts have been able to provide me with both sides of a “war” that I did not really know was going on. I admit I was ignorant to the supposed corruption between food production companies and Federal agencies such as the FDA, as well as the lack of consideration for the health and safety of the general public. I knew money made the world go round but I thought we at least cared about ourselves as a society more than making money. This appears to be one of, if not the largest motivating factor in this ‘war’ we call food politics. All of the pieces we have read or watched have had consistent themes throughout one another, although they did not necessarily take the same stance on the same issues.

Organic Illusions by Hurst was clearly against the method of production used by the organic food industry and one of his main arguments was that organic production is not efficient enough to sustain the entire country, and would require more workers to join the work force. “People who are now working in other industries would have to leave them in order to provide the manpower necessary to replace technology in agriculture, and what they would have produced in those careers would figure into the cost of organic farming. These opportunity costs would be huge” (Hurst). It is clear that this argument is based on the premise that it would cost too much money to have only organic, ‘healthier’ food.

 

Similarly, In Food Inc. Carole Morison was explaining how she was being forced to always upgrade to new equipment, along with various other farmers interviewed during the film. In particular Morison was in the predicament where she needed to upgrade her chicken coop to an enclosed version, which was even more inhumane than the conditions that chickens were currently in. These chickens would die daily due to sicknesses caused by living in close quarters in their own feces. This shows that the food producers don’t care about the safety of the animals or the people that consume them, and that they only care about making extra money by having more chickens in a smaller inhumane space and upgrade fees. Perhaps it is a bit harsh to say that the food producers do not care about the consumer, however it appears to seem like the consumer’s health is not the main priority.

Continuing with the common thread of money being the most important factor, in Nestle’s “Resisting Food Safety” she clearly addresses many current and growing problems relating to our food supply and the increasing number of food-borne illnesses. She calls out organizations and federal agencies on their corruption and oversight of food handling and contamination issues going on with our food supply. The FDA states that “When two or more cases of foodborne illness occur during a limited period of time with the same organism that are associated with either the same food service operation, such as a restaurant, or the same food product.” (FDA).

The official FDA website also go on to say that “State agencies also play a major part in identifying and investigating foodborne illness. Depending on the state, the departments of health, agriculture, and/or environment may be involved in collecting information about cases of foodborne illness (surveillance), investigation and response” (FDA). Meaning that the FDA as well as the USDA and many other government agencies are directly responsible for overlooking our food sources to see where things are supposed to be getting contaminated, and addressing the problem with a solution that is reasonable and effective.

 

Yet, Nestle explains how agencies such as the FDA are not able to put regulations in motion due to a lack of funding. And this should be striking because it shows how we don’t have a priority for the general public’s food safety.

Nestle and Food Inc. both bring up the argument that there are people who hold positions of power in government agencies such as the FDA that have close connections with Big name food producers, such as Monsanto. In “You Are What They Eat” both sides of the argument on food safety is brought fourth. However a common theme throughout the article that struck me was when the people working for the food industry were saying that these cheap and fast solutions that kill bacteria on our food, instead of addressing the issue that is actually causing the growth of harmful bacteria on our food. For example, they say that cattle and chicken are still fed corn based feeds. This corn based fed is known to causes growth of unwanted bacteria inside the animals that eat it, however it is significantly cheaper to feed the animals corn because it is cheaply available. Michael Pollan, an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in various publications around the world exposing the problems in the food production industry, says in Food Inc. “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” This requires food producers to use ammonia solutions on possible contaminated meats, which is also shown in Food Inc. This means that food producers would rather save money on feed and have a cheaper, not necessarily safer, solution to food contamination, instead of addressing the source of the food contamination, the feed.

Nestle’s article on food safety in particular addresses the complicated politics that involve the government’s ability to properly regulate the United States’ food production standards and safety protocols. “Although outbreaks of food-borne illness have become more dangerous over the years, food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal”(Nestle, 27). Nestle points out that major food industries have significant power when it comes to rallying against an unfavorable regulation proposed by government agencies.

This claim is further backed up by Food Inc. when the small farmers that were fighting a very powerful company, Monsanto who is the creator of genetically modified soy beans. The fact that Monsanto is the creator and patent holder of these seeds not only gives them total control over their product, it also gives them legal and financial power over the farmers that use their seeds. Monsanto has made it illegal for farmers to save their seeds, which is a serious concern for neighboring farmers that do not use Monsanto products. Roger Nelson was interviewed in Food Inc. because he was being sued by Monsanto for promoting other farmers to save their seed by continuing to save his non-genetically modified seed as well as his clients’. Ultimately, Nelson was unable to continue running his farm and business due to a copious amount of legal fees.

Furthermore Nestle goes on to say in her article “the FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under the pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of drugs” (Nestle, 46). Perhaps this is a wake up call for government agencies to take power away from the businessmen and into the hands of the correct regulating agencies that way the public can be assured a safer food supply.

In conclusion, the food production industry has advanced technologically and agriculturally over the past 50 years and has been able to successfully implement advances that have made life as it is today possible. However, the priorities of the food industry may not be oriented toward the consumer as much as we may think. There is a veil of secrecy when it comes to the general public’s knowledge of food politics and outbreaks. All of these texts share the same information stated in a way that supports their arguments that helps pull back this veil of secrecy, however the most common theme when you look from an unbiased perspective is that it is easier for the food industry to find a cheap adjustment to the system we have instead of changing the parts of the system that need to be. It all seems to boil down to money being the main wall that is preventing the proper regulations to take place to make our food supply safer.

 

 

 

Reflection Questions

Unit I / 10%

Using the homework, in-class workshops, revision workshops, etc.

 

 

• 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.
  1. The writer’s project is his/her use of voice, sources, tone and intent in order to really grab the attention of the reader. The writer’s project is to engage his audience with credible, relevant facts and debates. In order to understand the writer’s project you have to be able to use the author’s voice, as well as facts presented in order to see what they are trying to relay to their audience. My writer’s project was to address government regulating agencies inability to reform our food production system as well as the motivating factor behind the wall blocking regulation, money.
• 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?
  1. The entire work sheet helped me formulate my ideas in a way that flowed cohesively. It really helped me grab a hold of the synthesis aspect of this assignment. The part that was most helpful for me was the section connecting the passages from different articles together. This section helped me the most with figuring out my claim.
• Describe your understanding of synthesis. What is its importance? How did it manifest within your drafts and/or final blog article? Provide examples.
  1. Synthesis is important because it allows readers/writers to find the main connecting arguments between different pieces of writing. Synthesis uses different sources with varying view points to help support one main claim. The use of synthesis can make your use of sources more effective if done correctly. I believe a good example of synthesis in my article is when I talk about the FDA website and Nestle on agencies role in regulating food production.
• Describe your own accomplishment (ofsomething) during this unit.
  1. I feel like I did a good job of connecting the different texts together to support my one argument without misinterpreting any texts. It is important to keep the true nature of your sources when quoting, otherwise you are not credible.
• 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?
  1. I started off writing down reoccurring topics that occurred in the texts we read. Then I picked out the most important topics in my eyes and began researching the texts specifically for the idea that money was holding regulation back, and that agencies aren’t capable of regulating the system. I discussed how this made me feel and then discussed why this should be a concern to the consumer.
• 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.
  1. Initially I started off the first draft of my article building off my 500 word response to the texts. That’s when I began really connecting the texts to one another. Then once I had my research done and my basic connections made I was able to strengthen and add to my current responses. Initially my report was written in long paragraphs, much like an essay. However in the final draft I believe I shortened up the paragraphs to an appropriate length.
• 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.
  1. In my draft I synthesize Food Inc., You are What They Eat and Resisting Food Safety. I used these texts to support my arguments about the animal feed and regulating agencies.
• 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?
  1. Initially I did not have a lede because I was unable to make it to class for that workshop. However on the second draft of our lede’s I was able to formulate a basic lede that I was told grabbed the reader’s attention, it just needed to relate back to my claim a little more to make it stronger. In my final draft I adjusted my lede to further support my argument.
• Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects.
  1. I would like to focus on being more concise. I have gotten used to the engineering style of writing. I would also like to get out of the habit of writing an essay style piece of writing.