One would think that the government would prioritize public and animal health when it comes to putting food on our table, but the real priority for food producers, the government and its regulatory agencies: money. A lot of it. The food industry is continuing to grow and change rapidly with a rise in demand and production. The United States Government is the watch dog over the food industries giving the responsibility to a handful of agencies. An example that can prove how the food industry has changed is the time it takes for a chicken to grow. In the 1950s it took about 3 months to fully raise a chicken, now it takes only 49 days. That’s about half the time! How does that happen? Something is doesn’t seem right and this is what we will discuss in this post. The food industry has evolved substantially in the past century, however, the government hasn’t been able to properly enforce regulations thus creating regulatory loopholes that food producers are able to bypass. Although the government is heavily influenced by these top companies, change can happen with the public being exposed to and aware of all of these faulty practices that are putting money at a higher priority than the health of its consumers.

GREED: MONEY OVER EVERYTHING.

One thing that I have recently started to realize is that money runs this country. It’s as simple as that. As populations grew so did the demand for food. Farmers needed to produce more and faster. The example mentioned above truly shows how farmers have been altering their practices in order to keep up with the rising demand. How can the amount of time a chicken fully grows be cut in half? One answer that I can give you is that it definitely is not natural or healthy. Not only is it unhealthy food but it’s food that costs nothing (I wouldn’t even consider it food). In a debate between Michael Pollan, who is an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in many publications highlighting the problems of the food industry, and Blake Hurst, who is a scholar and farmer, many of the problems in the food industry were brought up Michael Pollan said, “our food system is broken. It’s not serving consumers and it’s not serving farmers. Farmers have to get much bigger to get even. Farmers are not making a lot of money and they are dependent on federal subsidies. There is this flood of cheap food which turns out to not be a good thing.” Like Pollan mentioned, farmers are barely breaking even so one can see why such cheap food is being fed to animals. As a matter of fact in You Are What They Eat, they say that “every year in the U.S., 11 billion pounds of animal fat is recycled into animal feed.” We’re feeding the animals that we eat recycled animal fat? Why is that? Because it’s cheap. In addition the article says that for food producers and companies “the goal: to fatten animals as fast and as cheaply as possible.” Now, what are the consequences of trying to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible?

In Food Inc., Michael Pollan said that “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” We have all heard of the recent outbreaks of E. Coli that have happened at Chipotle which even made the store close all of its chains on one day. E. Coli is no joke and people can lose their lives but one thing that really angers me is that the practices the food industry is using today produces more E. Coli. Michael Pollan also goes on to say “give an animal grass in one day and 80% of the E. Coli they have will be gone.” But why don’t they feed their animals grass if it got rid of all that E. Coli? Because they wouldn’t achieve their “goal” and their chickens wouldn’t be able to grow fully in 49 days.

 

REGULATORY LOOPHOLES

One of my biggest concerns about the food industry are the regulatory loopholes that are present and so easily accessible. In You Are What They Eat by Consumer Reports the problem is introduced right off the bat. “Our investigation raises the concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the food supplies……Regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection.” Regulatory loopholes can allow any type of infection! The United States Government has the responsibility to protect its citizens but yet there are regulatory loopholes in an industry that provides the food that we put on the table for all types of people to eat from little kids to the elderly. Make’s sense, right? Food is a life necessity and we cannot live without it but yet we can’t be sure about the safety of the food we put on our tables? That’s scary. One question on my mind is how are there regulatory loopholes? I believe the following reasons from a few experts help answer that question for us.

In Organic Illusions by Blake Hurst, he points out something that doesn’t make me feel any better. Hurst says, “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims. So, even if all procedures are followed, it’s possible that conventional pesticides are present—either from drift from neighboring conventionally farmed fields, or because the producer has been less than honest in his certification.” Although he says organic foods, what makes me think that only pertains to organic food? How are food producers able to lie about how they grow their food? God knows what type of containments people have been consuming with there food. This is a prime example of the government and regulatory agencies not doing their job. If these loopholes are present in the food industry, I can only imagine what kind of loopholes can be exposed in all other industries. In You Are What They Eat, it is also mentioned that “about 80 percent of seafood sold in the U.S. is imported. Yet the FDA tests only about 2 percent of those imports, mainly for drug residues.” Wow. If food that is imported is barely tested for contaminations (mainly drug residue but they should be looking for ALL possible containments) then it must be extremely easy for food that is produced domestically to pass tests and end up on our plates. The inspection and testing procedure is completely broken and it needs to be fixed. Farmers can lie about the way they grow their food and much testing isn’t done. The government can do more but they haven’t and in You Are What They Eat, it says that “the Government Accountability Office, has called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s data on inspections of animal feed producers “severely flawed.” Yet federal food-safety agencies have failed to tighten restrictions.” How have these food agencies failed to tighten restrictions?

Marion Nestle helps answer the question of how these food agencies have failed to tighten restrictions and how they have failed to protect the consumer’s health and interests in his work called The Politics of Food Safety. Nestle says, “attempts to give federal agencies the right to enforce food safety regulations have been blocked repeatedly by food producers and their supporters in Congress, sometimes joined by the agencies themselves.” I can only think of one word to describe this: corruption. Marion Nestle even goes on to say that there has been a “historic closeness of working relationships among congressional agriculture committees, federal regulatory agencies and food producers.” How can it get better if there is such heavy influence from these top companies? According to Food Inc., “in 1910 the top 4 companies had a market share of 25%, today the top 4 have a market share of 80%.” In addition to that, at one point in the documentary it showed how some of the top company executives ended up holding a high level position for the same regulatory agencies that were regulating the companies they used to work for.

Whose interests are put first at that point? The company or the consumer? The company. You would think that it couldn’t go any further than the government and its agencies being heavily influenced however, Blake Hurst from Organic Illusions brings up another controversial point. In his article he references a study that was published from scientists and researchers from Stanford University. The article says that “a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” Later in the article Mr. Hurst then brings this into light that “Stanford University and the authors have been accused of being in bed with food producer Cargill, and all the bishops of the foodie orthodoxy have responded by disagreeing and, in many instances, changing the subject.” Why would food producers, such as Cargill, love a study that says organic food has the same nutritional benefits as food that is grown conventionally? Because growing organic food is more expensive than growing food conventionally. However, that is not the part that strikes me. The part that strikes me the most is the fact that a private university, including professors and scientists that helped with study, are also being corrupt/heavily influenced by these food producers. A study from a private university that used scientists and professors should be telling the truth and if they were telling the truth they wouldn’t be “changing the subject.” Hurst then delivers the final blow by saying, “How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety of organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses?”

To say this is scary can actually be an understatement. Money is starting to run everything, or maybe it already has and I’m just starting to realize it now. When it comes to the food industry, politics shouldn’t be involved as much as they are and money shouldn’t be a higher priority than the health of the consumer. People’s lives are at stake, including young children. Why should I be questioning my trust with the government when it comes to the food industry? I shouldn’t be. Then I start to question many other things such as the medicine that we are prescribed. What’s in it and where is it coming from? I guess the answer to that is that we won’t really know. Change can only come with the public becoming aware of the flaws in the system. With the corruption of these agencies and the amount of influence the food producers have on Congress, it only makes the fight harder. But with wide public support and more flaws being exposed this can change and it will.

 

REFLECTION:

• 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.

My understanding of the writer’s project is to be able to express your own point of views on a particular subject by being able to synthesize outside sources and use them to your own advantage when you are expressing own opinions and when you want those opinions to be expressed as efficiently and clearly as possible. The writer should also establish the credibility of the experts that they are using in their project. I was able to identify texts’ projects by highlighting their main arguments and the evidence that they use to support it. My project was about highlighting the flaws in the food industry and how food producers and regulatory agencies have the wrong priorities in mind.

2.)  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?

The most beneficial section to the development of my ideas was the last section. The last section made it much easier for me to synthesize texts because the arrows are literally pointing at direct quotes from other sources that complement each other. The sorting it out workshop was a huge tool in helping me synthesize my texts as best as I could.

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

My understanding of synthesis is to use the outside sources in your own project in order to add some sort of evidence/credibility/reason to why you think about a certain topic a certain way. In addition to that, synthesis is using the texts to complement each other in order to further strengthen your arguments. For example, in the last two paragraphs, I felt that I was able to use Blake Hurst and Marion Nestle really well with each other to develop my arguments and to add some weight to my arguments as well.

4.)  Describe your own accomplishment (of something) during this unit.

This unit really taught me how to synthesize a couple of text’s and use them to strengthen my own argument. I think that this is something beneficial for me while moving on but I also can probably use more work on synthesizing. In addition to that, I learned about the issues of the food industry and food politics. I also wrote my first blog post ever!

5.) 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 main idea was always mainly focused on the greed and regulatory loopholes that exist in the food industry. There wasn’t a huge amount of evolution in regards to the main idea, however, as I learned how to synthesize better and better it felt like the amount of evidence I can use to support my ideas kept just piling up and up.

6.) 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 main organization strategies were to introduce a quote from an expert and just build off of that. After I would throw in the quote, I would say what I would have to say and then I would bring in another source and expert in order to just keep building off the first quote and to really strengthen my point of views on the particular topic.

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.

I think the best job I did synthesizing was in the second and third paragraph of the regulatory loopholes section. It might not be as concise as it should be but I feel like it is my best job because one source just leads to the other and so on. I think it is also the best part of the project where I use the sources to really strengthen my arguments.

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 didn’t really change since earlier drafts. However, when I wrote it, I wanted to get right to the point and I needed something for the reader to catch onto in order for them to keep reading. Hopefully I was able to accomplish that.

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

I think that one of the next things that I would like to work on is to probably be more concise. This was a big topic for me because I felt like I had to say a lot and there was a lot that I wanted to say. I would’ve really struggled if we were not allowed to go over the 1400 work limit.