“These companies have legions of attorneys.  And they may sue even if they know they can’t win, just to send a message.” This quote is by Eric Schlosser in the documentary Food Inc. To put this quote in context, Eric Schlosser, a journalist, is talking about the food industry and their insane amount of power when it comes to the production of food in our country. The documentary Food Inc. aims to show the food industry as it really is. In other words, it shows the food industry from the side that consumers do not usually see. For example, consumers do not see how powerful the food industry really is until they are the ones fighting it. An example that the documentary used was the battle between Monsanto and a farmer who they were sewing for saving soybeans. Monsanto is a company that essentially has control over all soybean production because of their patent on the bioengineered soybean. Monsanto has the money and the resources to fight average farmers even if they only have suspicion that the farmer is using their patented soybeans against their patent agreements. This example just shows the power that the food industry has over producers. Those who produce our food our essentially puppets controlled by the food industry. Therefore, issues of food safety are widespread and out of reach not only by the consumer, but also by the producer.

To show the extent of how important food safety is and how it is neglected by the food industry, Food Inc. highlighted the story of Kevin. Kevin was two years old when he contracted E. coli from food and ended up hospitalized where he then died from the infection. His mom has been in a legal battle ever since. She has fought the government for more safety regulations when it comes to food, however, the food industry, highly backed by the government, is not easily budged and it has been a long and hard battle.

While the food industry claims that there are many safety regulations put in place to monitor the safety of food, evidence has surely proven otherwise. The article You Are What They Eat  provides various reasons to be concerned with the meat we are eating in the United States of America in regard to animal feed. The director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, Carol Tucker-Foreman, is quoted in this article saying “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.” This article quotes Fred Angulo who is the chief of the CDC’s foodborne and diarrheal branch who says that “connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult.” While it is hard to pinpoint human illnesses to animal feed, the article also notes that there have cases of salmonella linked to animal feed and the most recent case occurred in 2003. With that being said, it is obvious where the concern lies and that is with consumers. The fact that human illnesses are hard to trace already puts the food industry at an advantage. Saying that they are hard to trace does not mean that they are not a concern because even the CEO of the American Feed Industry Association is quoted in this article saying that feed can become contaminated because “people make mistakes.” Thus putting the consumer on the end of the mistakes that may end up with a foodborne illness while the food industry can blame it on an accident, if in fact, they are even caught.

The fact is is that it is hard to pinpoint where illnesses come from. The article Resisting Food Safety even shows how foodborne illnesses go unnoticed most of the time leaving the food industry off the hook and the consumer to suffer. The article states that even with 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths yearly in the United States of America “most episodes are never reported to health authorities and their cause is unknown.” The article not only highlights the severity of foodborne illnesses, but also how the use of antibiotics in animals can make foodborne illnesses even more severe. Using antibiotics creates a resistance to bacteria and therefore “If antibiotic-resistant bacteria infect people and cause a disease, the disease will be untreatable.” However, this article goes on to state how the drug industry does not agree with any attempt to hinder the use of drugs in animals for food even with the alarming evidence of how dangerous it can be to humans. In this scenario, the drug industry, as well as the food industry uses their power to maintain control over production even when the health of their consumers are at stake.

Organic Illusions, although arguing that organic food is worse for the consumer than conventionally farmed food, also notes how foodborne illnesses are neglected in light of those in the food industry. Organic Illusions argues that the organic industry is one built off the profits they can make by creating the image that organic food is better for people than conventionally farmed food. The argument the article makes is that the Stanford study found that E. coli is more prevalent in organic food. While this argument may not be from the most valid source, it still acknowledges how food safety is less important than the profits of the industry itself.

Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives is another article that positions the food industry as a powerful industry that would rather benefit than make food safe for its consumers. The article states that “Food safety (or the illusion of safety) is being positioned to secure capital rather than public welfare.” The article discusses an E. coli outbreak in contaminated spinach that sickened people in 26 states, over the course of six to eight weeks, and caused at least three deaths. It took about a week to find the distributor (Dole) and the article said that it would have taken even longer to find the contamination source insinuating that that was never discovered. Again, this article shows how, in this situation, the government and food industry responded but this was only in the case of a widespread and tragic instance. Also, how steps were only taken to secure the contaminated food but not to actually find the contamination to prevent it.

Often times the journey that our food takes may seem simple taking it from the farm to our table, it is much more complex than that. The food arrives to our tables after it makes its way through a complex network of farms, slaughterhouses, transport systems, processing plants, and then finally to the grocery stores where we buy our food. In addition to all of this there is also a bureaucratic environment that complicates the process of getting the food from the farm to our tables even more difficult.

While the text argues that there needs to be more government regulations in regards to the handling of the food we eat, my own view is that the government does not have enough resources to do so, nor the power to do so because of the lobbying done by the industrial food complex. The United States government relies upon two agencies to thoroughly inspect the food that we as consumers eat. These two agencies are the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration(FDA). The USDA is tasked with inspecting and regulating the meats being processed at the slaughterhouses, the carcasses of animals, as well as poultry. Whereas the FDA is responsible for regulating drugs consumed by both humans and animals, tobacco, the safe and responsible transportation of food, and the additives that are put into food. Though these two agencies have different responsibilities, they are faced with the same issue, a stunning lack of resources to effectively complete the task they are given. The federal government employs about “700 FDA inspectors [who] must oversee 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations”(Nestle). Similarly to this account, the USDA “has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg establishments –and– that slaughter and process 89 million pigs, 37 million cattle, and 7 billion chickens and turkeys, not to mention the 25 billion pounds of beef and 7 billion pounds of ground beef produced each year”(Nestle). Due to the tremendous responsibility that these organizations are tasked with, food that is not fit for human consumption often slips through the proverbial cracks and onto the dinner table.

Throughout the process of getting the food from the farm to the table, it becomes exposed to certain substances that can cause detrimental effects on human health. One particular foodborne illness that is common is the E. Coli virus. E. Coli bacteria is found in the digestive tracts of livestock, it becomes exposed to the consumer when the bacteria laden manure is used to fertilize crops. Though there is no way to eradicate the E. Coli bacteria found in the digestive tract of livestock, there is a way to reduce the chance of having food tainted by the bacteria, and that is the growing system utilized by the farmer. According to Blake Hurst there are two farming systems, those being the conventional approach and the organic approach. The conventional approach involves the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in order to help the plant grow and remain healthy. On the other hand, the organic method does not use such strong pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic alternatives. After detailing the differences between the different farming methods he then goes on to say “organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in e. coli”(Hurst).

The issue of food safety recently garnered national attention when the popular fast food restaurant Chipotle recently had an E. Coli outbreak in some of their locations. The Center for Disease Control found that there were two different outbreaks of E. Coli. The first outbreak was much larger than the second one and “55 people in 11 states”(NPR) whereas the second outbreak “infected 5 people in Oklahoma, Kansas, and North Dakota”(NPR). Another thing that contributes to the issue of food safety is the food that livestock consumes before being slaughtered. In a report published by Consumer Report it was found that “10 percent to 30 percent of feed can differ radically from what cows and poultry would eat in their natural habitat”(Consumer Report). The purpose of doing so is that a farmer can fatten up their livestock in the most rapid and cost effective manner. However, this does come at a price, the difference in dietary substanance often has adverse health effects on the animal which in turn leads to the increased of foodborne illness on the consumer’s end.

Due to the attention that this food safety crisis caused, there has been an increased call for the government to step in and introduce stricter regulations regarding the safety of the food that we consume. As previously the government already employs two food regulatory agencies, those being the FDA and the USDA, however, they do not have the resources to effectively protect the general public. Though the government has tried to increase its regulatory power, special interest groups and the large agricultural companies lobby and try to prevent the federal government from being able to enact harsher regulations and legislation. The 2008 documentary regarding the U.S. agricultural system, Food Inc., reveals that during the Bush administration several of his appointed leaders were part of the special interest groups who would have suffered had tougher regulations been enacted. For example, the head of the FDA during his presidency, Lester M. Crawford Jr. was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association. In addition to this, the appointed chief of  USDA James F. Fitzgerald was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington. Coinciding with this, in 1998 meat and poultry associations used their influence by suing the USDA into stripping them of their power to shut down food processing plants if they repeatedly failed microbial testing done by the USDA.

Clearly the journey our food takes from the farm to our table is far more complex than what it seems. The journey displays the complex relationship between the industrial food complex, government regulatory agencies, and the special interest groups who are trying to get their agenda pushed to the forefront of public attention.

Works Cited:

Nestle, Marian. “Resisting Food Safety.” (n.d.): 1-19. Print.

Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions – AEI.” AEI. N.p., 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Kennedy, Merrit. “E. Coli Outbreaks At Chipotle Restaurants ‘Appear To Be Over,’ CDC Says.” NPR. NPR, 01 Feb. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

You Are What They Eat. Rep. N.p.: Consumer Report, n.d. Print.

Food, Inc. Movie One, 2008. DVD.

Food safety is a huge problem in the United States and it is related to the issues of money and power. Throughout the industry, there are many problems resulting in unsafe foods. These problems can be traced to industry heads trying to make more money and lack of government regulation. The lack of regulation can be traced to conflicts of interest and money being poured into the government from the food industry. Throughout the whole food industry, all levels of the industry are trying to make higher profits by making the food process more industrialized and efficient, but leaving behind all oversight of the meats or produce, resulting in product that may be contaminated with no way to stop it.

The Food industry has had a shift in how they produce their products. As Food Inc. explains, the way farming has changed in the United States is drastic. When the word farmer is said, most people naturally picture the stereotypical farmer in the mid-west with his hat and his tractor planting his crops. Unfortunately, only part of this is true. The farmer is very likely to be a business man and he’s planting using techniques that would maximize his yield and profit. It is probably not the safest method. The farmer is most likely planting a genetically modified organism (GMO) seed. The chemicals that are used to plant these crops can be dangerous. The vegetables are then picked up and run through machines to be sold to distributers. The processes they use are scientifically improved every day to give higher yields. The farmer is trying to have high profits because he has many bills due to lack of government regulation. He has to pay for his seeds, even though his crops produce seeds, because big corporations like Monsanto control the industry. When we think of meat, the process is also not quite like what we think. The cattle are raised until it is of slaughter age. While it is being raised, it is often fed things that are not natural to the animal’s diet. For example, Consumer reports has an articles named “You Are What You Eat”. In this article, it is stated that “Processed feathers are an acceptable source of protein in cattle feed”. In addition, the article also describes how animal “waste” is used to be fed to other animals. Antibiotics are also put in the cattle’s food to prevent outbreaks of illnesses. The industry is doing this to increase their profits. If cows are healthier and fatter, there is more meat to sell. Since the waste is naturally produced, it means that there is no need to spend much money on food to feed the cattle. All this increases the profit margin for the farmers. When the consumer (also known as the reader) puts this meat into their mouth, they are also eating everything that the farmer fed to his cattle. This is dangerous because the cattle were given drugs, which can be bad for humans. Although farmers have to ask the government for permission before adding a new ingredient to the food supply, it is not highly regulated. This means that farmers can cut cost as much as possible by feeding cattle foods that are not natural or healthy for them, but make them fatter.

Government oversight is weak at best for the food industry. One of the reasons for this might be the amount of money that the government sees from the industry. Taxes have to be paid for all the food that is eaten or produced. Taxes are also paid for all the ingredients that are used to prepare the food whether it be chemicals, seeds, equipment, or food for cattle. Farmers are also a big supplier of jobs for local towns. This means that if a farm is making more money and hiring more people, it looks good for the representative of the government from that area. As a result, the government representative is not going to be looking for ways to implement regulations on the industry that is making him look good. On a bigger scale, there is a lot of money involved when candidates are trying to be elected to office. Since the food industry is so large and powerful, they are in the position to make large contributions to campaigns and they can lobby representatives of the government already in office. All this doesn’t mean that the government is doing nothing and looking the other way however. Instead, the government puts forward regulations that are either extremely difficult to oversee or regulations that require too many inspectors to oversee successfully. An example of this is the division of responsibility between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Some examples of the division include the USDA being in charge of soups with more than 2% meat or poultry while the FDA being in charge of soups with less than 2% meat or poultry. Similarly, if you have spaghetti with meat stock it is the responsibility of USDA, but the FDA is in charge of spaghetti with no meat stock. This means that if an agent of the USDA walked into a restaurant and saw a meal prepared that consisted of spaghetti with marinara sauce and it had a violation of the code, the agent wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. With regulations like these, it is very hard to catch violations in progress. If the government would try to make these regulations more viable by simplifying them, there would probably be a negative reaction coming from the food industry. This in turn would mean less money being given to the representatives that are trying to change these policies. In addition, many of the unelected members of the government who can make policies are involved in the food industry one way or another. Many of these people were executives in companies before their post with a government agency. After the current presiding administrations leaves office, many go back to the industry. Why would these members of the government make their lives harder in a few years? They don’t pass the necessary policies because they know that these new policies would make their lives more difficult in the future and would mean lower profits for the company they would work for.

Since food is an intricate part of all of our lives, one would think that the food industry would be closely regulated. However, the FDA does not have the funding it needs to enforce all of the laws regarding food safety. This leads to self-regulations by companies who feel that profit is often more important than enforcing regulations. “The role of government in food safety demands particular notice. Current laws grant regulatory agencies only limited authority to prevent microbial contamination before food gets to the consumer” (Nestle 28). How are consumers supposed to protect themselves from harmful bacteria such as e-coli, when we can’t rely on our government to protect the consumer?

The continuous outbreaks of food born pathogens, such as e-coli and salmonella, show that there are many flaws in the regulation of our industrial food industry; however there have not been many steps towards stricter regulations due to the power these large companies have over our government. Changes in regulation have been attempted but larger companies have pushed back against these changes that would harm their profit and efficiency. “The culture of opposition to food safety measures so permeates the beef industry that it lead, in one shocking instance, to the assassination of federal and state meat inspectors” (Nestle 28). The power of the industrial food system lies in the fact that money often controls our governmental system, not integrity. The health and wellbeing of the consumer is put at steak when profit and efficiency is valued over safety.

There are not enough laws in place protecting the rights of the consumer and too many allow large corporations to control politics. There seems to be a disconnect between the process of food production and the information that is released to the consumer. The majority of consumers are unaware of the conditions of how their stake is produced, or the control that a handful of companies have over their meal. According to Food Inc., there is an illusion of diversity in our economy when it comes to food production. There is a uniformity that comes with mass production. This can lead to many problems concerning health and the ethics of the food industry.

The industry needs to address ethical concerns. The regulations and laws regarding food production are hindering efforts to keep the consumer safe. The consumer deserves to be informed so that they can make safe and educated choices. The blame is placed on the consumer. Big businesses have too much power over legislature. Instead of looking for an alternative solution, the food industry relies on self-regulation. “Government oversight of food safety has long tended to provide far more protection to food producers than to the public” (Nestle 30). Recently with more food born illnesses being traced back to our food production system, the government has been forced to take a closer look. Part of the problem is that our government agencies like the United States Food and Drug administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture do not simply have the manpower to enforce laws and regulations.

Safety is a major concern when dealing with our food supply. Our current regulatory system is failing There are recurring outbreaks of food born illnesses, such as e-coli and salmonella every year. “According to a recent report from the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ‘There is considerable potential for contaminated animal feed ingredients to move between and within countries. This could result in widespread and rapid dissemination of a pathogen to geographically diverse animal herds and in turn, to a range of human food products” (Consumer Reports). There are many concerns ranging from the spread of pathogens, to the use of pesticides or antibiotics.

Our regulatory system is out of date. Pathogens have adapted and have grown increasingly more aggressive. This is due to the increase in the use of antibiotics in the process of raising animals for slaughter. The way that our food industry functions have changed drastically since many of the food regulation laws were passed by congress. Our governmental system and regulatory system was not prepared for bacteria to change as fast as our processing system. Changes in our society and food system have helped foster more dangerous microbial pathogens. These new strains are becoming harder to kill and resistant to antibiotics.

The reason for this change in antibiotics and pathogens is due to the fact that farmers have been adding antibiotics to animal food in order to stave off infection. This seems like a good idea in theory; however this overuse of antibiotics on otherwise healthy cows is endangering the consumer. Mass production does not have space for inconsistencies like infection and disease. Our change from traditional farming methods to mass production is due to the changes in our society. As a society we need to make sure that our regulatory system stays up to date with the consequences of new technology. “Each link in the production, preparation, and delivery of food can be a hazard to health. While technologies designed to improve the safety of the food supply hold promise, changes in food processing, products, practices, and people will continue to facilitate the emergence of foodborne pathogens into the next century” (Altekruse 291).

Since our world is ever growing and the globalization of the food industry is in full swing, the dangers of the spread of pathogens are ever present. “The trend toward greater geographic distribution of products from large centralized food processors carries a risk for dispersed outbreaks. When mass-distributed food products are inter- mittently contaminated or contaminated at a low level, illnesses may appear sporadic rather than part of an outbreak” (Altekruse 288). With widespread trade and global food production, the United States needs to do a better job of regulating the food that we allow across our borders. There have been many outbreaks that were traced back to produce that was produced in South America and other counties with less regulations.

There are many concerns that the consumer needs to think about when regarding food safety, but the blame should be directed toward the industrial food companies and the government. There needs to be stricter laws regarding food production. Even though these sources have varying levels of concerns with the food industry, it is clear that something needs to change.

Companies like to function in ways that will help them achieve their ultimate wants and needs, and people forget to take that into consideration when they shop. Some companies’ main goal is to make the most profit form their product; others main goals are to ensure safe foods for their customers regardless of the cost. In the article Resisting Food Safety, Nelson makes the point that food safety politics involves diverse stakeholders with highly divergent goals. She is getting at the fact that companies function differently depending on their personal desires. To extend this idea, Consumer Report’s article You Are What They Eat discusses how companies choose to feed their animals and prepare them for the market, it states “The goal: to fatten animals as fast and as cheaply as possible”. This claim proves that they are really out for the money. Not the health of consumers, or animals as opposed to traditional farmers. With this in mind, the producer is going to feed the animals whatever they want in order to grow the animals as economically reasonable as possible. The health of consumers is not their number one goal. Consumers do not understand that the chicken and other produce that they consume are placing them at a higher risk for health complications. Despite the fact that the FDA and USDA have approved all of the ingredients used in animal feed, I take it that not all of it is good for us as humans. People need to understand that just because the FDA approves our food, they are not always the best.

For consumers who believe in buying the most healthy and appropriate food, there are always the organic options. Which consumers tend to believe is better for them, as Hurst arrives at a different conclusion. While Consumer Report offers the option of shopping organically, Hurst’s article Organic Illusions opposes organic farming and proposes conventional farming because of its economic and environmental reasonability. Hurst’s article sheds light on the hidden facts about the unreality of organic food. His claim is that conventional farming is more reasonable for today’s economy and supply demand. Hurst states that it takes fewer acres to produce the same quantity of food conventionally than it does organically, even though there is a yearly yield decline for organic products. This also confirms that different famers have different beliefs in farming. Hurst’s being that we should farm in ways that helps sustain the environment. Hurst also helps us understand that organic foods people buy may be just as unhealthy as conventionally grown food, yet it is more expensive because of its special qualities. One claim that I find interesting that Hurst brings up is that companies get away with many things that will fool organic consumers such as that fact that “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers they have followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims.” This ties into the issue of poor regulation by the USDA and FDA. Hurst makes the point that if they can get away with many faults that people don’t know about, why spend so much money on the product? Another

While reading these articles, it seems as though the issue of consumers not buying and consuming what they think is good for them comes from limited FDA and USDA regulations and extremely strong power held by large companies and the government. Referring back to the article Resisting Food Safety, Nestle states that “it should be evident that people involved with every stage of food production, from farm to fork, must take responsibility for food safety to prevent animal infections (producers), avoid fecal contamination (processors), and destroy food pathogens (handlers/consumers)”. She is ultimately saying that everyone blames each other for the issue of unsafe food. Nestle’s claim is that when it comes to food safety, billions of dollars are at stake, and industry, government, and consumers collide over different beliefs over interest in product value, economics and political power. She demonstrates how powerful food industries oppose safety regulations and deny accountability. This is a similar idea expressed in You Are What They Eat. The article extends the idea because it talks about how there is poor regulation monitoring so companies are going to feed what ever they want to their animals, knowing they may get away with it, but then blame the consumer or deny the fault when something goes wrong. Companies will blame the consumers so it seems as if they are not at fault for someone getting food poisoning or E. coli. This issue cannot be blamed on consumers when new bacteria and diseased are arriving yearly.

The documentary Food Inc. is a good example of how the blame for unsafe food is also placed on someone else. Food Inc. questions the efficiency of the system of food production and regulation. In the documentary there is a story about a young boy named Kowalcyk of Colorado, who died in 2001 after developing hemolytic-uremic syndrome due to eating a hamburger contaminated with E. Coli. Many months after Kevin’s death Kevin’s Law was proposed legislation that would gave the United States Department of Agriculture the power to close down plants that produce contaminated meat. The fact that it took so long for this law to pass goes to she how little power the government has over such larger companies that produce our food. The company responsible for his death would not take the blame for the incident and it seemed as if the problem did not matter. In the documentary, Michael Pollan along with Nestle expresses that the industry is changing rapidly, creating more and more unsafe food. With their arguments, I believe that we just need to be more aware of where and what we buy from.

To go even further, the article GRAS Out: Surprising Number of Unregulated Chemicals Found in Food by Twilight Greenaway expresses how laws created by the USDA and FDA are intended to apply to common food ingredients like vinegar and vegetable oil. The laws allowed companies to consider certain foods “Generally recognized as safe”. This does not necessarily mean they are good for us. This fact also confirms that companies can get away with their own ways of production easier than we think and that the FDA and USDA is very limited to telling companies how they should grow their food, which also coincide with an argument from Nestle’s article that the USDA and FDA have different responsibilities and only search for a limited amount of things when inspecting our food.

It has become frustratingly obvious that food safety, more than ever before, has taken a backseat to production efficiency and maximum profit. Blatant ignorance controls and justifies every aspect of a process that could very simply be regulated to adhere to strict quality control standards. While it seems that government has in place regulatory agencies overlooking issues of food safety, it has been made clear that profits are more important than public health. Although they claim to have the publics safety and best interest in mind, these agencies are under funded and under staffed, heavily influenced, lobbied and riddled with regulatory loopholes. When it comes to the food we eat, these government agencies have continually dropped the ball. At times with disastrous and fatal results. Through the hard work and research of food activists such as Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, as well as, documentary filmmaker Robert Kenner, and Marion Nestle Professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, along with many other investigative news journalists and publications including Consumer Reports, the public has become more aware and better educated regarding the shady practices of food manufacturing and production. According to Ms. Nestle, the most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of foodborne disease in the United States is 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths. Furthermore, although outbreaks of foodborne 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. If it sounds like, or is assumed that, government agencies such as the FDA and the USDA would protect the consumer by every means at their disposal, fact could not be further from the truth. Ms. Nestle continues, because federal policies cannot ensure that food is safe before people bring it home, government agencies shift the burden of responsibility to consumers. Government oversight of food safety has long tended to provide far more protection to food producers than to the public. Today, an inventory of federal food safety activities reveals a system breathtaking in its irrationality: 35 separate laws administered by12 agencies housed in six cabinet-level departments. At best, a structure as fragmented as this one would require extraordinary efforts to achieve communication, let alone coordination, and more than 50 interagency agreements govern such efforts. This lack of proper regulation is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to food safety, and further investigation exposes alarming practices at the conventional farming level. According to Consumer Reports, life on today’s farm – often a 30,000-cow feedlot or a 60,000-chicken coop, and the need for huge quantities of high-protein rations as well as, the need for slaughterhouses to find a cheap, safe way to dispose of waste gave rise to a marriage of convenience between renderers and food producers, and to the inclusion of animal by-products in animal feed. Through this practice, food animals are now being fed processed feathers, floor wastes from coops, plastic pellets, as well as, meat and bone meal. These waste products, mixed with corn and soybean meal, make up 10-30% of the feed produced for these mega-farm feedlots. It does not take a food safety expert to see all that is wrong with such a practice. Although many of those who work in big business food production decline to be interviewed about their process, much of the ignorance involved in their decisions and practices have come to light. Blake Hurst, commercial farmer and president of the Missouri Farm Bureau has stated, plants and animals aren’t the least bit interested in the story the farmer has to tell. They don’t care about his sense of social justice, the size of his farm, or the business model that he has chosen. Plants don’t respond by growing better if the farmer is local, and pigs don’t care much about the methods used in the production of their daily rations. The absurdity of such statements is fundamental to the myriad of problems that have engulfed the commercial food industry. When farmers such as this, and the government agencies that oversee these practices believe the current methods of production best provide a plentiful and affordable food supply, it becomes painfully obvious that profits are the driving force behind this line of thinking. 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, and more recently by the courts. These facts have been substantiated and echoed by others also investigating the food industry. In his Documentary, Food Inc., award winning filmmaker Robert Kenner has brought to light many other disturbing facts related to food safety. According to interviews with Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, five companies control 80% of the meat production in this country. Of these companies, ALL have ties or close relations to members of congress or other judicial or political figures. At this alarming statistic, it is not difficult to see that conflict of interest is obviously ignored so as to benefit big business and their partners. From lack of proper food inspection and regulatory loopholes, to the antibiotics and inedible ingredients put into animal feed, to the ammonia and other chemicals mixed into ground beef and more, every step of the food manufacturing process is rife with unthinkable disregard. Farming is no longer farming. We are no longer eating food, and what we are eating is the idea of food. When the agencies trusted to oversee food safety have such unimaginable conflicts of interest, how can they be relied upon to give truthful and accurate information on the supposed organic foods also regulated under their authority. Although the FDA and the USDA certify certain foods as organic, claims such as no antibiotics administered, no hormones administered and no chemicals added are unverified. So are claims by some beef brands that their cattle are raised on an all-grain or all-grass diet.

Earlier this year, 53 people were infected with e. coli in 9 different states from Chipotle. The causes for the outbreak are still unknown. The Chipotle on Marshall Street here at SU was always packed every night with people trying to eat. Imagine if your teacher, yourself, or friend was one someone that became extremely ill because of what they ate. We eat food at least 3 times a day. Most people go to the grocery store and just put things in the cart barely looking at the packaging. The public assumes that the food we eat is safe because the government regulates it knowing little about how the food industry works. The government is thought to have full control of the food industry but with the daunting task of inspecting millions of places with powerful companies seeking profit and efficiency, big business use it’s power to control the food industry to maximize revenue. Big companies pressure the government into regulations that are good for them because they are resistance to food safety when it comes to making money. Therefore, the public is in the dark when it comes to food industry business and process of food making.

The problem in the food industry comes from all levels. The government, the producers, and the consumers all contribute to the unruly food business. Nobody is willing to take the blame for problems that arise. Resisting Food Safety, written by Nestle, a professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, talks about how producers, processors, and the government are trying to place blame on each other when outbreaks of food borne illnesses occur. Nestle sates how today’s food production encourages bacteria and viruses to spread with animals being in such close living quarters. Not only are the living conditions poor, but the people raising the animals on the farm, or killing them in the slaughterhouse are not educated enough to know how to protect themselves and the public from bacteria. Outbreaks are being reported to the media but from the past to now, outbreaks have gotten nastier because bacteria like ecoli 0157:H7 have changed over time to be able to withstand extremely hot temperatures. Animals are being held in large holding pens where they stay in extremely close contact until death where touch is only needed to spread pathogens. It is evident that there are people involved in every stage of food processing. Everyone must take responsibility in food safety but taking responsibility makes the businesses liable if something happens. That is why processors blame producers, the government blames processors and producers, and everybody blames the consumer. Each stage of food processing doesn’t want to take the blame for anything because it can be devastating to business. Earlier this year when the Chipotle outbreak occurred, there stock dropped 42 percent. Money is a reason as to why producers try to wash their hands of any responsibility.   Because we eat food so often, it is very hard to determine where a food borne illness was contracted. But consumers even after hearing of an outbreak will still keep eating. Chipotle still has lines and they had massive outbreaks all over the country. Even though there could be repercussions, the government needs to get a better hold of the food industry so problems will be addressed.

Eric Schlossar, writer of Fast Food Nation, states in Food Inc. that the top 4 companies control 80 % of the food industry. These companies are so powerful that they are able to “bully” smaller companies, farmers, and to some extent, the government. The strength of companies like Tyson and Monsano pose great obstacles for the government when they are trying to get regulations passed because they have people on their side working in high spots in the government. Consumer Reports writes, “the need for slaughterhouse to find a cheap, safe way to dispose of waste gave rise to a marriage of convenience between renderers and food producers, and to the inclusion of animal by-products in animal feed” (26). Animal waste is being recycled into feed, which is inhumane. Plus, the effects of animal waste in humans are still unknown. Animals are being fed drugs to grow faster and there own waste. The government is aware of the toxins that humans are exposed to when waste is being fed to the animals we eat, however they are not able to do much about it because of how many billions of dollars the drug companies make of selling there drugs to corporations and how little money it takes to recycle waste into food. Nestle writes, “The FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of the drugs” (Nestle 46). With the pressure placed on the government, there still lie regulation loopholes because billions of dollars are at stake. These businesses allow animals to live in wretched conditions where there is no sunlight, manure on the ground, and dead animals lying around. They feed the animals waste and drugs in order to fatten them up cheaper in the shortest time period. They are unwilling to sacrifice public food safety for profit. The government is aware of this but can’t do much about it because how few companies there are nowadays in this industry. Each company has so much leeway that even the government cant control them.

Due to the lack of public knowledge about the food industry we are not able to make better decisions as consumers. This makes me question how much we really know about this business? There are plenty of articles and movies showing the sketchiness of the production of food but the public does not take the information seriously enough. Sometimes organic food is going to cost too much but the public needs to be aware of what is going on so changes will occur. If the public decides to boycott one brand because of unruly practices then changes will happen. Organic Illusions by Blake Hurst creates doubt in the readers mind about organic versus conventional farming. He writes, “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” (Hurst 5). This makes me question the government’s role in organic farming. If the government is not checking whether or not organic food is actually organic then how is the public supposed to know if organic food is actually healthier and worth the extra money? The FDA and USDA do not have enough manpower to regulate imports, warehouses, slaughterhouse, and farms. It’s an extremely important job but one that is not being done to the best extent. Overall, the government oversight of the food industry is a mess and needs to improve.

If the government fails to step up to big businesses many things are going to be affected. Consumers will still be exposed to the harmful toxins, which the causes in humans are unknown, that are put into animal feed that can lead to food borne illness. More deaths will occur due to outbreaks and the public will become very concerned about the government and its role in protecting the people. If food is something that we need to survive, it needs to be well regulated to ensure safety and well being.

Robert Kenner stated it best in Food Inc. when he said, “The industry doesn’t want us to know the truth…if you knew the truth, you might not want to eat the food.”

Food safety is becoming a larger and larger issue every year as companies sacrifice safety for an increase in profits. The FDA and the government might seem like they are doing their job, but this is not the case as they are highly ineffective in making sure that the food that we eat is same to consume. If food safety is to become a lesser issue, there are going to need to be major changes made to the FDA and the other governmental agencies in charge.

In Marian Nestle’s “resisting food safety” the lack of organization and integration between the USDA, FDA and the government is exposed. “Any facility producing a food that involves both agencies must deal with inspectors operating under two entirely different sets of guidelines and schedules.” (Nestle, Page 57). The egg industry for example has three different agencies involved in regulations and food safety. This is an issue because they don’t work together making it harder for the company to please each of the agencies. It also makes it less efficient as they don’t work together and pool their resources together, instead they act completely independent of each other. Making their already small budget even less effective.

“You are what they eat” takes on a different approach by focusing on the issues with the feed supply and how little the government is doing about it. The FDA doesn’t seem to truly care if the acts that they put in to place, are actually followed. “Four years after the feed ban took effect, the FDA still had not acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle.” (You are what they eat, page 29). This just shows that the FDA put in place a policy and doesn’t even make sure the firms are following it. It seems like they made the act to please the public, yet don’t care about making sure the act is used to its full potential.

Marian Nestle further more extends this idea that the FDA does not go all the way with its policies. “The initial system worked well to keep sick animals out of the food supply but was poorly designed to deal with the challenges of microbes.” (Page 55). In this passage Nestle is talking about a policy that was put in place to make the feed safer for the final product. However, she points out that it might help some of the issues, but they completely ignored the issue of microbes. Which she argues is the main issue for food safety and the FDA needs to do more to control.

Blake Hurst’s “Organic Illusions,” focuses more on the false idea behind organic foods. His argument is that organic foods are not as safe as most people think. He even argues that they might be more dangerous and that the farming techniques are more impractical. “We don’t have enough land to turn our backs on the work of generations of agriculture scientists and industrial farmers, and we can’t afford the opportunity costs of a return to some romantic version od agriculture.” (Organic illusions). Basically saying that with the current demand it isn’t possible to produce enough food using organic methods, instead we have to keep “industrial” farming. But hopefully with better regulations that can improve food safety. Organic illusions also focuses on how Organic food isn’t the answer to safer and healthier food. This is an issue as the other texts offer organic food as the main way to avoid all of these food safety issues.

Next is Food Inc. which shows how big business is ruining farming and with it is taking down food safety, while the FDA sits idly bye. The reason why they don’t intervene much is, as shown in Food Inc., most of the FDA has connections to a lot of these big meat packing businesses such as Tyson. A lot of the higher ups in the FDA has other motives when it comes to food safety. Often making decisions that benefit the big businesses rather then food safety as a whole.

Another trend that is seen in most of the sources, is that the FDA is severely under budgeted and doesn’t have the money to control all of the food that is consumed in the United States.“About 80 percent of seafood sold in the US is imported. Yet the FDA test only about 2 percent.” (You are what they eat, Page 30). This is just one example of how little the FDA is able to regulate compared to the huge quantity of food that is being produced as well as imported. The FDA only has 700 employees to regulate not only all food but meat poultry and eggs. They also regulate all drugs that are used in the United States. They are severely under manned in order to effectively regulate all of the markets they are responsible for. Due to this they only do inspections every one to five years. It is not frequent enough to squash the issue of food safety. The USDA does a better job as they have 7000 employees which allows them to inspect almost daily. (Nestle). Yet with the lack of solid policies even the USDA struggles as they regulate all meat after the slaughterhouse.

Luckily, the FDA is starting to notice these issues as well as the rise in food-borne related illnesses. “The eight per cent increase is due to a number of factors, including $268.7m in user fees for projects tied to a number of areas including the implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FMSA).” (http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/News/FDA-Seeks-Eight-Per-Cent-Budget-Uplift-to-Improve-Food-Safety-Standards.html?section=Food%20Ingredients%20News&tracking=All%20News&article_type=article). Although it might not be a huge overhaul, it is a step in the right direction. The proposed budget would be $5.1 billion for the period of October 2016 to September 2017, meaning that it would not have an impact for a decent amount of time. Just another reason why the FDA is struggling as everything moves on a very slow basis. They are always reacting to a problem rather then trying to prevent them from happening. The FDA and other government agencies responsible for food safety are constantly playing a game of catch up, and losing. Big business knows this and has the resources to exploit it. Food Safety wont begin to decline as an issue until the FDA and other government agencies begin to take charge and make changes before an issue arises.

Unfortunately, it is easier said then done. Although an increase in budget by a small percentage sounds good. It is nowhere near what they need. They are still severely under budgeted and understaffed to effectively prevent the issues of food safety. $5.1 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but as a percentage of how much the government spends it is next to nothing. Food-borne illnesses are becoming a huge problem in the United States as big outbreaks such as Chipotle are becoming more and more common. An issue as large as food safety, which is causing millions of illnesses and thousands of deaths, deserves a much larger budget in order to attack it in an effective manner. Yet the issue continues to grow and the FDA continues to sit idly by, just doing enough to satisfy most people, but not enough to actually tackle the issue.

Food Safety is a growing issue as more and more food becomes contaminated. Causing the amount of Americans getting food borne illnesses to rise, including the deadly ones such as e coli. The FDA and the other government agencies responsible must begin getting larger budgets as well as producing policies that can better regulate the food in America. The government needs to allocate some of its trillion dollar budget in order to tackle an issue that is increasing every year, and next to nothing is being done about. The FDA and other government agencies are slowly beginning to do a better job, but they still need to do a much better job.

Farm fresh, organic, anti-GMO. These are all key words that pop out to any consumer when they are shopping in the grocery store. But how natural and safe is the food we eat? For some, it is shocking that here in the US, with all of our regulations and restrictions that food is produced the way it is. Think the government has control over the food industry? Wrong. Follow the money. It will lead right to multinational corporations who are the ones controlling food production. Several authors have articulated their own views on food production in their own publications, with arguments varying from whether organic or conventional farming is better and food borne illnesses, but all noting somewhere that these problems come from a lack of government control.

One of the biggest issues with food production in the US is where the power lies, and it does not lie in the government’s hands. Marion Nestle, an author and NYU professor argues in her publication, “Resisting Food Safety”, that the government needs to intervene more in the food production process. In the 1970’s the CDC began conducting studies about food borne illnesses to find out how big of a problem they really are. Their results, not enough evidence to warrant any major policy changes. One of the biggest reasons for their results is many people do not report when they get food poisoning, they think it is just something that happens from time to time. Are you kidding me? The fact that people accept that is why the food industry continues to have problems with quality control. People seem to be assuming that they were the only one who got sick from eating that food, whereas in reality thousands of others could have gotten sick too, because an entire line of food that was produced could have been infected with a food borne illness. Now granted, this study was done 40 years ago, more people today could realize how big of an issue food borne illnesses are. However, it should not be solely up to consumers to make reports, the FDA should be cracking down on food producers. But as Nestle states, this is another area where problems lie. The FDA only has about 700 food inspectors nation wide and are tasked with overseeing 30,000 food producers, 128,000 grocery stores, 785,000, 1.5 million vending machines, and oh yeah, all the food imported into the US. What lamebrain in Washington said, yeah that’s humanly possible. All of these places are supposed to be inspected annually, and with the nearly nonexistent number of inspectors, the FDA is only able to check about 2% of these places annually. Fantastic! In fact, in another article, “You Are What they Eat”, by Consumer Reports “loopholes still allowed certain risky feedstuffs to be fed to cattle and their ruminants…‘the FDA does not know the full extent of industry compliance’” (CR 29). This quotation shows that the FDA does not have a great handle on what goes on in the food industry and neither does the government because food manufacturers are able to get away with giving potentially disease infested feed to animals and if the FDA is not able to inspect producers, then people will continue to get sick and the government still will not be able to do much without sufficient evidence. These articles and statistics are dated so when looking at an article written in 2009, the picture of control in the food industry becomes a little nicer. In a 2009 article written by Common Dreams, it says that the Obama administration is in the process of investigating Monsanto, a seed company that provides seed to nearly all farmers in the US, for anticompetitive activity. Basically, this means that Monsanto has become a monopoly in the seed market. Finally, after years of bowing down to the food industry the government is taking action. The only question is how long will this last?

In addition to the government not a firm grasp on the activities of multinational food companies, they also do not have any way of testing organic foods. In an article written by Blake Hurst, he claims that no testing is done on foods with organic labels to see if they are in fact organic and the producer followed all the guidelines. Now, Hurst’s article needs to be taken with a grain of salt because the man has no sources, he just sort of rambles on about his own beliefs about the food industry, while once or twice mentioning some Stanford study, but never giving real data. However, if Hurst’s claim if true, then lack of testing is a major issue. Hurst claims that the reason for organic food’s success is due to marketing and people view organic food as healthier for them. The major issue here is if people think that what they are buying is better for them, but no testing is being done, and then consumers are being misled. If government testing is required on organic, foods, not all because that would be impossible, but testing of certain batches of food produced, then food companies will not be able to get away with selling something misleading. While some argue that organic food offers no real health benefits, according to farmer Joel Salatin in the documentary Food Inc., the food he produces contains considerably less bacteria and chemicals than food produced by major companies. And he was almost shut down because all of his food production takes place in the open air, instead of a much healthier disease infested factory. In Salatin’s case, the government is actually trying to shut down the wrong person, because of his methods. Another prime example of the government believing the way major food companies produce is the safest and best way. If the government can start taking control over the food industry rather than just seemingly letting companies do what they want and not really having consequences, then food may actually become safer.

Ultimately, government control is necessary for safer and better food. As shown by the authors and documentary, the government does not have the control over the food industry that it needs to. From lack of FDA employment to allowing producers to give potentially bacteria infested feed to their animals and not testing organic foods. This lack of involvement means more consumers could get sick and food producers can continue to do what they do without consequence. Government involvement is just the first step in producing safer food.

Unbreakable chain between food safety and desire in money

Would you still be able to buy the product, if the company includes the image of cows being fed with parts of downer cows and thousands of chickens packed over their manures on their advertisement? While the dirty truth should be revealed to the customers, yet producers are busy hiding it. In fact, it turns out that this is not the only secret they have.

As the society changed from domestic to industrial, farming is no longer universal and people do not have enough time to grow their own food or even cook a homemade meal. Therefore, consuming food that is produced by the food industries has become a matter of course and it has been decades since shopping at the grocery stores and eating at the restaurant became part of our lives. Because this has become such a natural thing, “Most of us do not worry much about the possibility that foods in our supermarkets might be contaminated and dangerous, and we act on the basis of what Nicolas Fox calls the “unspoken contract” among food producers, government regulators, and the public to ensure that food is safe”(Nestle, pg. 29). Since, people no longer farm to consume for themselves, all the food we get from the stores and the restaurants goes through lots of process, organizations and people. However, people did not start to put questions about where the food is coming from and how they are produced, until the food bourn diseases and food outbreaks have become an issue and reported through the media. As people started to have some interest in the origin of the food, they started to face the ugly truth. However, when they started to see the part of the truth, it was too late and too many people were already getting sick from the food such as food poisoning. In order to stop the problem, USDA and FDA started to set up the food policy and the rules for the food safety. While some people thought the food safety has been improved by having those rules, which was not the actual problem to solve in the first place, it just worked on easing people’s mind instead of solving the actual problem. If the policies for the food safety do not entirely make our food system safe, then who is it made for? Consumers? The Government? And also, why won’t USDA and FDA try to improve and change it?

      In the film ‘Food Inc.’, while we always had the image that the meat we consume are coming from the animals which have been raised healthily on the green field, that is not entirely true as one of the chicken farmers interviewed in the film, “not farming, a mass production”. The mass production itself shows how the food industry cares more about their profit than the safety of the food. The animals are raised in a very nasty environment and fed with corns instead of what they are supposed to be fed like the grass or other nutritious crops. The reason they are fed with the corn is because it is known for its cheapness and a great way to make them fat easily. In the reading ‘You Are What They Eat’, told us more about the problem in the animal feed. Since early 21^st century, people started to get food bourn diseases from the meat, and they found that cows those have been fed with body parts of downer cows were the cause of the disease.

As much as we care about what we eat, people should also care about what the animals are getting fed with. Like the name of the article, “You Are What They Eat.” We will eventually consume whatever the animals ate. Animals are also living creatures like humans, which means, if we can get sick from eating the wrong food, they also can. Farmers should realize that their job does not stop at selling their products to the big food industries but it continues until the food gets to consumers.

In the article ‘Organic Illusions’, Hurst talks about the truth in organic production. Since people started to have more interest in how to eat healthy, the organic market has grown quickly. Organic farming gave people a positive impression by advertising how it is good for the environment and for humans. However, its popularity did not last long because “organic foods often cost twice what conventionally grown foods do, the quantity of organic sales constitutes considerably less than 4 percent of the total market”. Organic products have more procedures and restrictions than the conventional products. However, it turns out despite of following the organic procedures, it could be not entirely organic, because “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 organic products are harder to grow and has more restrictions, because it is more expensive than conventional products, it has become popular among farmers. However, growing perfectly organic crops needs more care and money than conventional crops. This has tempted some farmers to not to follow some of organic procedure and lie about it. This is a good example of how FDA’s food policy cannot be the only solution in keeping our food system safe. Producers should be more aware of how significant their job is and put their honesty before their profit. As Antonio put it as “ Food safety plans must be developed by a “qualified individuals”…. The qualified individual is responsible for applying the food safety plan.” When producers become more aware of the true goal of their job, a need in improving the food safety plan by FDA will not be much required.

As watching and reading those articles and a film, it seems there is nothing to trust about the way our food gets produced. There are so many problems that the consumers have not been aware of. Unfortunately, unhealthily produced food is not the biggest problem we have. The biggest problem is the way the government, producers and farmers are acting towards their mistakes. In order to find the origin of the problem in the food safety, we have to look into how they have acted. For example, when the mad cow disease happened from feeding some parts of downer cows to other cows, FDA has put the rule about banning downer cows and animal parts known to be infectious prions from human food and also banning in feeding of mammalian blood and blood products to animals. While it seems FDA has acted immediately about the problem, on the other side of the argument tells us “The FDA should have taken immediate action on the promises it made. In what appears to be a guise of considering a bigger step, they did nothing”.

When there has been an outbreak on food, the first organization that can make a big action is the FDA. However, it is ironic that “within FDA itself, the regulation of microbial hazards in food seems less important than dealing with drugs or medical devices” (Nestle, pg. 60), especially when those antibiotics have created another kind of food born illness. Their job is to help the food industry to produce a safe and healthy food by strengthening or changing the food safety policy for consumers. By FDA not taking action immediately, “even with the best of intentions, it would be difficult to keep up with food safety problems given the changes in the U.S. food system since 1906”(Nestle, pg. 59) has happened and this is just the start of the consequences from their action. FDA is not the only group that is avoiding taking the full action towards the truth in the food industry. In the matter of fact, the most responsible group, the producers are also busy blaming the FDA and farmers. As we could see in the film ‘Food Inc.’, the big food companies rejected to be interviewed about how they produce their products and what they do when there has been a problem. This rhetorically shows the audience how they are lying and masked towards what is actually happening in their companies. The main cause how these groups have been acting is because “food safety politics involves diverse stakeholders with highly divergent goals” (Nestle, pg. 60). Every group who are responsible of the problem in the food safety are busy blaming each other when they all have to get together in order to solve the problem.

Recently, FDA has decided to “prevent hazards in the food supply chain instead of a reactionary system based largely on enforcement and punishment.” This new system will allow food companies flexibility “to develop food safety plans tailored to the risks associated with their own products and operations.” I am sure the FDA has discussed about the problem and for a long time and has came up with this new system, but I am afraid that this system will only give the producers more advantage in “messing” with our food instead of become more honest. We, as consumers, should see how effective the new system would be and stay interested in on what we eat and where it is coming from.

Sources:

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/2016/02/prevention-instead-of-correction-fda-implements-n.aspx

Robert Kenner, ‘Food Inc.’

The Consumer Reports, “You Are What They Eat”

Blake Hurst, “Organic  Illusions”

Reflection Questions

1. Writer’s project is the question of intent. It shows the purpose of the text and show its main idea. My “project” was to tell readers that how having a careful attention in what they are eating is very important by supporting the idea with sources that shows the dirty truth behind our food system because of the temptation in  power and money.

2. I only had a general idea of my project but I needed help to shrink the general idea into a specific claim and the workshop helped me in organizing my argument in the text and show the strong claim. Also, by writing down the main argument of each sources that I will use, helped me sorting out which quote and ideas I will highlight about the source and how to use the source in supporting my idea. By visualizing main argument and quotes of each sources, it was so much easier to think how I will relate them together.

3. Synthesis has to summarize the combination of ideas by pointing out the main point of each ideas and by highlighting the key words and quotes. By writing a good synthesis, it will draw better attention from the readers  with relatively short paragraph of key ideas instead of bored them with long, dragging paragraph. It will also help readers in better understanding the text. In third and fifth paragraph in my text, I tried to do a good job in synthesizing the sources I used by telling the readers the main idea of each source and key quotes.

4. Working on the Unit 1 project, I learned how to write a blog post which I never have done before. I could see how blog should be brief but still be able to show writer’s main argument by backing up with sources. Using sources appropriately will not only draw reader’s attention, but also give readers credibility about the text.

5. Honestly, I had a hard time in finding how to relate the food safety with power at the first time. Then, the first primary argument I came up with was to argue that “consumers have right to know what is going on in our food system.” In order to relate this to power, I thought the ignorance of FDA towards the food safety policy will support my argument well. So, I found quotes such as “within FDA itself, the regulation of microbial hazards in food seems less important than dealing with drugs or medical devices” (Nestle, pg. 60)” As I looked at the source to find more quotes, it got me further thinking that it is not only FDA who is being ignorant but also the producers and they could be the one who can actually make a bigger difference in our food system than FDA. The quote “food safety politics involves diverse stakeholders with highly divergent goals” (Nestle, pg. 60), got me thinking that the “stakeholders” are more like producers than the FDA. However, this does not mean that FDA did well in improving or changing the food policy.

6. At first, in order to draw the reader’s attention in the beginning, I tried to write a good lede. My idea of drawing their attention was trying to motivate readers to relate my text into their daily lives which will make them want to read further because there could be an important information that they don’t want to miss about. Therefore, I wanted them to picture the image of extreme case such as “the image of cows being fed with parts of downer cows and thousands of chickens packed over their manures”. Then, I talked about the main ideas in each sources to give readers the sense of what food safety is and what the issue is. While the beginning of the text was more informational by saying “The mass production itself shows how the food industry cares more about their profit than the safety of the food. The animals are raised in a very nasty environment and fed with corns instead of what they are supposed to be fed like the grass or other nutritious crops. The reason they are fed with the corn is because it is known for its cheapness and a great way to make them fat easily. ” , as the  text goes on, it gets more argumentative with supporting quotes “However, it is ironic that “within FDA itself, the regulation of microbial hazards in food seems less important than dealing with drugs or medical devices” (Nestle, pg. 60), especially when those antibiotics have created another kind of food born illness. Their job is to help the food industry to produce a safe and healthy food by strengthening or changing the food safety policy for consumers. By FDA not taking action immediately, “even with the best of intentions, it would be difficult to keep up with food safety problems given the changes in the U.S. food system since 1906”(Nestle, pg. 59) has happened and this is just the start of the consequences from their action.”

7.”As watching and reading those articles and a film, it seems there is nothing to trust about the way our food gets produced. There are so many problems that the consumers have not been aware of. Unfortunately, unhealthily produced food is not the biggest problem we have. The biggest problem is the way the government, producers and farmers are acting towards their mistakes. In order to find the origin of the problem in the food safety, we have to look into how they have acted. For example, when the mad cow disease happened from feeding some parts of downer cows to other cows, FDA has put the rule about banning downer cows and animal parts known to be infectious prions from human food and also banning in feeding of mammalian blood and blood products to animals. While it seems FDA has acted immediately about the problem, on the other side of the argument tells us “The FDA should have taken immediate action on the promises it made. In what appears to be a guise of considering a bigger step, they did nothing”.”

I did not know much about synthesizing and how to write a synthesis, until we did the workshop and looking at the examples in the class. After I learned, I tried to go back to my draft and write a synthesis paragraph after the paragraphs where I explain the readers about the main idea of the sources.

8. I did not have a lede on my first draft, then after the workshop I wrote my lede and got a positive feedback that it draws the attention well and give readers something to think about. So, I stuck with my first lede!

9. I always had a hard time in analyzing and writing research projects in high school. So, I want to improve my analytical skills in the next Unit. Also, since politic was never my first interest and do not know much about it, by working on the next Unit, I hope it will motivate me to have more interest in politics.