Do you know where your children are…because I doubt it’s the fruit section of the supermarket. But does that even matter anymore when the entire system has formed its own agenda?
The idea of food safety is so common in our day to day lives but it is still not taken seriously enough when both major companies and the government thrive on the fact that they can cover up these safety issues in spite of their ‘publicized efforts’ to help. The food industry has not been helping anyone but themselves, and this has become apparent in the last few years.
Many investigative journalists and brave writers have gone out in search of the truth about the food industry and what they found was definitely a wake up call. It is one thing to hear about an outbreak or two on T.V and brush it aside; it is another to completely disregard countless warnings about food safety that could endanger your well-being or even life. This is why when it comes to seeing who is really being protected we must look into the big food corporations and how the government is allowing them to get away with so much.
Food safety has become something completely different than what the average American comes to think of. It used to be the idea that both the corporations and government were on the people’s side, fighting for our health and vitality; it is no longer so.
Food safety has now become big corporations fighting to gain as much leeway from health regulations so they can stay within ‘code’ and adding other ingredients to counter balance the bacteria living within. Safety has become fighting against the bacteria that is already there, rather than fighting to never have it present at all. This then becomes a vicious cycle. The more the government allows this to go on, the more and more leeway the government gains and continues to abuse the system.
So when it comes to food safety, who is it really saving?
When looking at statistics on food-borne illnesses in the U.S. alone, we begin to see just how careless our government has been. “The most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of food-borne disease in the United States defies belief: 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, 5,000 deaths” (Nestle, 27). Now what could be so safe about that? Nestle is a revered professor on food safety and wants to inform us all on what the dangers could be, because aren’t we all what we eat? She wants to bring forward facts from her own research and knowledge and give true information to those willing to listen. Because if all we ingest are toxins and runoff medication, what do we then become?
This doesn’t sound like food safety at all, this sounds like food politics. Covering up this immense number and making it sound as if these small outbreaks didn’t truly affect many people at all. “It was only a few people” (or so we saw on T.V.), “why should we stop our daily lives to worry about such an issue?” This excuse cannot be used so loosely anymore, especially when we begin to see how the government responds to these issues.
If you go on the internet to see how the government responds to food-borne illnesses, it seems to take it much more seriously on paper. The steps that need to be taken just aren’t being taken to the best of the governments ability and it is beginning to show. When searching the internet on how the government deals with food borne illnesses we are directed to a site named FoodSafety.gov. How convenient. The page that promotes safety has the url of GOV and yet the protocols they promise to enforce are not being taken seriously.
This all becomes relative to the American people until one sees just how close this could be to their own front door. This is why the government should be stepping in and helping rather than covering up. As both a large enough entity and ‘protector’ of the people, this is one of their largest tasks, and they are failing. And to an even further extent, they are guilty. We see this plainly in the documentary Food, Inc.
In Food, Inc. we learn so much about the food industry and what this enormous job entails if we want to improve our food. We get to not only hear but actually see where our food is truly coming from, and it is not a pretty sight. Robert Kenner, the director of Food, Inc. felt it was time the people of the United States could finally see where their food was coming from and what was being put into it.
“80% of all antibiotics are used on factory farm animals. This statistic at first seemed unrealistic. How was it possible that all the people in the U.S. were only using 20% and then we essentially were eating what was left. What ends up happening is now Americans have a much larger intake of antibiotics than they thought. They are consuming all these products without realizing the consequences behind them.This then becomes an enormous problem that the government isn’t taking care of. This ‘overdose’ of medication is too much for the body and more than usual, they are left regretting that last burger at 2AM.
In Blake Hurst‘s article, he speaks about how although some produce is organic it doesn’t mean it is completely free of pesticides or additives. To grow organics they are allowed to use certain pesticides as long as they are natural ingredients. This is one of the large inconsistencies that Americans have. Even though something is organic, the fine print doesn’t mean the same thing that has been ingrained into our heads. This then goes back to the main issues in Food, Inc. and Nestle’s article, even though things may be understood to be a certain way that is not always the case, and even Hurst, who is on the ‘other side’ of food safety can see holes in the system in which he works.
Organic doesn’t always mean completely free of pesticides and that can be a common misconception. The food industries are thriving on these misconceptions so they can label certain items and charge more, even when the content isn’t completely true. Although Hurst is for conventional farming and it seems he is anti-organic, he is still fueling the fire and informing us on what he feels are issues with farming and pesticide quantity. And the government allows this to happen without a second glance. Once we look deeper into what the contents are, we learn just how misguided and malinformed we are.
This becomes extremely apparent once we read the Consumer Report, “You Are What They Eat.” This is a non-biased publication that brings different information to the table on food safety. It provides countless professionals as well as company players to give info and statistics on food safety subjects. One of their biggest points is if it is okay to eat meat that has been fed animal feed.
David Bossman, recent president and CEO of the American Feed Industry Association recounts its safety. “The food supply as it comes from the production source is very, very safe. We’ve seen that from all sources. And you can eat meat with confidence that not only is it safe, but it’s getting safer because of all the things that industry is doing” (Consumer Reports, 27). This man is a key player in the government as he has a job in the American Feed Industry Association. He has a much larger say in what would be fed to the animals we eat than the people, of course he would defend the actions of the food industry, for he is the man making money from it. Being president of the company only enforces his opinion to support it.
Those fighting against feed had another opinion entirely. Carol Tucker-Foreman, director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, said nearly the opposite. “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be, and the FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality. Contaminated animal feed can result in contaminated food, putting the public health at risk” (Consumer Reports, 27). This woman has no ties to the large corporations or feed developers. She is just a woman who wishes to better the lives of countless Americans with the knowledge she has. This is the kind of information that the government isn’t giving us and in turn is betraying our trust in the government.
So before you decide to trust everything you hear on the news or something in a magazine, just think. Stop and think. Am i being told the truth about what I’m eating or should I take another look. It may end up saving your life.
Reflection:
- My understanding of the writer’s project is to get deeper into the meaning of a text. Not to have one main thesis and base your entire paper on it but to have a more fluid project. Of course you need to have a certain main idea, but the rules are slightly changed. You don’t have to live in the parameters given by conventional writing but rather are given the freedom to choose words, phrases, and ideas that may otherwise have been left out from the argument. In my own article I feel I did this by making my main argument on food safety and drawing different opinions and quotes together to support how the government is failing to deliver on the subject. I also got to use more of an opinionated mindset in this paper which I usually do not get to do in the more conventional pf papers.
2. The sorting it out workshop I feel was most useful for its organizational skills. I personally do not enjoy the outlining process and this workshop forced me to sit down and truly think before I wrote a word of my blog. This was an odd experience for me, since I do all the outlines in my head. I found what was most useful was having to look for the passages ahead of time. I usually look for passages to fit my arguments once i reach that part of a paper. In this assignment I had to do the opposite. I shaped the argument around the different key passages I was taking from the articles. This became extremely helpful in this format since I am used to a different and much longer writing style, while these were choppy and to the point.
3. Synthesis was to somehow take different opinions and ideas and shape them into a singular argument. This was a challenge since some of the articles had completely opposing views from the others. For instance, when using Hurst in this article against food safety, I took how although he was for conventional farming, he was bringing other less reviewed safety issues to light. This was a way to use the source and still get valuable information.
4. During this unit I truly feel I have learned so much about food and where it comes from. I never found myself so involved at the grocery store. I usually just went for whatever it was that I usually bought, but I now take a second look. This would have gone on the same if not for this class. I also like the writer’s project. Having to veer from the thesis style writing was something I never thought I would do!
5. My main idea came with the title of this article “Food Safety, Who’s Safety.” I feel this is already honing in on what I wish to convey to my fellow readers. It is important for me to give them the info offhand since this is a blog post. Therefore, I made sure it was right in the audience’s face. The evolution then continued once I began to attack the main topic in the first few paragraphs, most specifically in the 5th when I go on to say exactly how I feel about big corporations and the governments lack of control. This is where my paper truly builds momentum.
6. When I wrote the first draft of this paper I just wanted to get all my ready information out there, so I did. I put all the passages I had ahead of time first. They were what I used to fuel my argument, but I obviously couldn’t start with them. So I worked around these main passages that I really wanted to be center arguments for my paper and went from there. In my later draft we can see that the passages are not right at the beginning but I have put my argument (and sass) at the beginning. This then allows for my point to be set and then the support afterwards.
7. One example of how I synthesized was near the middle of my paper. It shows two similar views and one alternative view, but they all come together for my argument. This then goes back to the main issues in Food, Inc. and Nestle’s article, even though things may be understood to be a certain way that is not always the case, and even Hurst, who is on the ‘other side’ of food safety can see holes in the system in which he works. This came together towards the end of my draft when all these passages were already down.
8. The lede that I had in my first draft was not very enticing, but rather more informative. “The idea of food safety is so common in our day to day lives but it is still not taken seriously enough when both major companies and the government thrive on the fact that they can cover up these safety issues in spite of their ‘publicized efforts’ to help.” That was my first lede, and although it was good for my paper later on, it was not my final lede. It was not until I was in class that I realized how much better it could get. This is when I came up with my new lede, “Do you know where your children are…because I doubt it’s the fruit section of the supermarket. But does that even matter anymore when the entire system has formed its own agenda?”
9. I would like to further work on the writer’s project since it was very difficult to stride from the thesis base paper that has been engraved in my mind. As an ETS major I adore using large vocabulary and make the piece fluid and nice to the ear. It is one of my favorite parts of my writing, but I cannot always get away with it. It isn’t the only writing I will need to do and I have to more easily veer from its coarse.