Safe and Healthy Foods: Responsibility of The Consumers, Producers, Or Regulators?

We all tend to go to the store, read a few labels, compare prices and buy whichever food fits our interest and budget, correct? We buy things that may sound healthy or seem to have the best price. We are quick to trust the labels that say “all natural” or “organic”, and trust that we are getting our money’s worth. But is this always the case? Are these labels really as factual as they seem? Are producers as concerned with our health as we think they are? In order to be certain that products are healthy, not only do the consumers need to be more aware of what goes into the food they buy, but also there must be tighter regulation on food production.

Companies function in ways that will help them achieve their ultimate personal wants, and people forget to take this into consideration when they shop. Some companies’ main goals are to make the most profit from their product, while others actually aim to ensure safe foods for their customers regardless of the cost. In the article Resisting Food Safety, Marion Nestle states 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. In addition, Consumer Report’s article You Are What They Eat discusses how companies choose to feed their animals and prepare them for the market, stating that the goal is to “fatten animals as fast and as cheaply as possible.”(pg. 1) This claim shows that they are focused on efficiently increasing profit rather than the health of consumers or animals, while traditional farmers put more focus on their product. With this in mind, the big producers are going to feed the animals whatever it takes to grow the animals quickly as economically reasonable as possible. The health of consumers is not their number one goal. Most consumers do not understand that the chicken and other produce they consume are placing them at a higher risk for food poisoning or possibly even obesity. Despite the fact that the FDA and USDA have approved all of the ingredients used in animal feed, we should not assume that it is good for us as humans. Consumers must understand that certain foods are not necessarily healthy for us just because they are FDA approved.

For consumers who believe in buying the most healthy and appropriate food, there are always the organic options. Consumers tend to believe that organic products are better for them, while Hurst, a conventional farmer, arrives at a different conclusion. While the Consumer Report article supports 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 farmers 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 the organic foods people buy may be just as unhealthy as conventionally grown food, yet it is more expensive because of “special” qualities. Despite Hurst’s not so positive connotation of “organic”, he does believe in consuming food that is good for you, while doing so in a more economically reasonable way. One interesting claim that Hurst makes is that companies get away with numerous things that fool organic consumers, such as organic foods being “labeled as organic because producers certified that they have followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims.”(pg. 4) 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?

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. 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)”(pg. 28) 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. Similarly, You Are What They Eat extends the idea because it discusses about poor regulation monitoring. Companies are going to feed whatever 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 for improperly cooking their product, making it seem as if they are not at fault for consumers getting different types of food poisoning like E. Coli and Salmonella. This issue cannot be blamed on consumers when new bacteria and diseases are arriving yearly.

The documentary Food Inc. is a good example of how the blame for unsafe food is also being tossed around. Food Inc. questions the efficiency of the system of food production and regulation. In the documentary there is a story about a young boy from Colorado named Kowalcyk, who died in 2001 after developing hemolytic-uremic syndrome from eating a hamburger contaminated with E. Coli. After Kevin’s death, Kevin’s Law was proposed which would give the United States Department of Agriculture the power to close down plants that produce contaminated meat. The law was finally passed after 4 years and many claims from companies that they were not at fault. The fact that it took so long for the law to pass shows how much power the food industry has over consumers, the USDA and the FDA. The company that is 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’s argument expresses that the industry is changing rapidly, creating more and more unsafe food. With their arguments, we should take away the fact that we must more aware of what we buy and where we buy.

Furthermore, 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 also confirms that companies can get away with their own ways of production easier than we think. The FDA and USDA have limited control on how companies grow their food, which also coincides 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.

Labels, certification stamps, and prices are not always the best way to choose our foods. All they do is make their product seem the healthiest. They distract us from the hidden facts that their product may cause future health risks or that a product is produced at the lowest level of organic as possible while getting us to pay as much as possible. Should the FDA, USDA, and government allow this? As a consumer, it is important to do your own research if you want to buy the best things for yourself. Although we need to be aware of what we are buying, it is also the ethical responsibility of the companies to have interest in the consumer’s health while making their products. Until the FDA, USDA and government begin to centralize and up their standards and regulation process, we will never be 100 percent sure about the production and safety of our food. This issue may seem insignificant to some, but it will become a bigger problem once things previously accepted as “healthy” turn out to be unhealthy, and our hard-earned money spent on “healthy food” goes to waste.

Reflection Questions:

• To me, the writers project was a way to get a better understanding of the writers’ purpose and goal of the article. I was able to identify a text’s “project” by picking out the main focus and analyzing how they chose to send out the message. My “project” was to help consumers understand that our products are not usually as good for us as we think. I try to get this point across by pointing out the flaws in the regulation system and explaining how most companies’ main focus is not the actual health of the consumer.
• The sorting it out workshop was a little bit difficult to complete. Especially part E. The part I found most useful was part F (the last part where we connected, found similarities and differences in arguments). It made it easier to see the connections between the articles when writing the final paper.
• Synthesis is tying in main ideas and points together to create an argument of your own. Synthesizing helped me come up with more points and topics that I was able to use in order to fuel most of my article.
• One accomplishment that I was able to achieve was comparing and contrasting opposing views to help support a main point in my argument.
• To create a main idea, I took a few points that stoop out to me in the articles, then compare and contrasted them in order to find a common theme.
• I started by having the readers see how this issue affects their lives. (Talking about the things they purchase and food labels in the beginning) I transitioned into talking about why companies function they way they do (personal interest: first main paragraph) and ending with how they are able to function how they do. (Regulations: toward the end)
• I was able to synthesize 3 texts in my article when I use Nestle, Consumer Reports, and Food Inc. to talk about how the blame for unsafe foods is tossed around.
• For creating the lede, I found the article we read useful. I tried to incorporate the 5 W’s. When we looked at examples, I picked the style that worked best at grabbing my attention to use in mine. I found asking questions very useful. In my first lede, I asked questions pertaining to food safety, and then in my final draft the questions shifted the questions to the consumer’s interest in the foods they are buying.
• In the next unit project I would like to work on synthesizing even more. I still believe in need more practice. Synthesizing better will make my whole paper better as a whole.

Out Of Our Hands But Onto Our Plates

We live in a country that was founded on the freedom of choice and people’s say in government. Is it not ironic then that we have so little say on what we are actually eating? The most fundamental element of our very human existence is out of our hands and into the hands of those who have the power to control it.

It’s not just about choosing what we consume, it is also choosing our safety in consuming it. In a country whose food industry is based off of profits and efficiency, it is no wonder that regulations put in place to protect our safety, actually might not be as safe as we would like to think. Even more troublesome though, is the power the food industry has. With the government backing their every move, they have little to no reason to actually care if their regulations are not acting as they should.

“These companies have legions of attorneys.  And they may sue even if they know they can’t win, just to send a message.”

According to Eric Schlosser, in the documentary Food Inc., the food industry in our country has an insane amount of power.

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.

There are some farmers who support big companies such as Monsanto, only adding to the argument of the food industry’s actual power. For example, Blake Hurst, a farmer backs up Monsanto and conventional ways of farming. Although a farmer himself, his alliance with big companies just shows his position in the conversation.

Monsanto is one company that shows 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 0517h7 from food and ended up hospitalized where he then died from the infection.

Even Hurst’s controversial article positions E. coli as an important factor when looking at the food industry. The argument the article makes is that the Stanford study found that E. coli is more prevalent in organic food. While this argument is one from Hurst in support of conventional farming, it still acknowledges how food safety is less important than the profits of the industry itself. In Kevin’s situation, his mom has been in a legal battle ever since the E. coli infection.

Unfortunately, the food industry, highly backed by the government, is not easily budged and it has been a long and hard battle. “Food safety (or the illusion of safety) is being positioned to secure capital rather than public welfare.” States Laura B. Delind and Philip H. Howard in Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives.

 Adding to the E.coli conversation, this 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.

Steps were only taken to secure the contaminated food but not to actually find the contamination to prevent it. It is no wonder Kevin’s mom is having a hard time working with the government in response to regulations that do not work.

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.”

Meanwhile, Fred Angulo, who is the chief of the CDC’s foodborne and diarrheal branch, is also quoted saying 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. Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives already put that into perspective by describing how they never found the source of contamination even in such a widespread illness outbreak that resulted in deaths.

Want to know how tracing food illnesses can be difficult? Nestle highlighted an instance where health officials traced one hamburger back to slaughterhouses in six different states and around 443 cattle. How could one possibly find the source of contamination of a hamburger induced foodborne illness? The fact that the food industry operates in such a way leaves them and the government off the hook.

In response to that, 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 in You Are What They Eat said that feed can become contaminated because “people make mistakes.” Thus putting the consumer on the end of the mistakes that may result with them getting a foodborne illness while the food industry can blame it on an accident, if in fact, they are even caught.

Another way the government and food industry are off the hook when it comes to food safety is because many illnesses go unreported according to Nestle.

Nestle 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.”

Nestle 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.

Does the food industry and government’s monopoly over the food in this country really leave consumers in jeopardy? Should consumers be concerned when buying a package of meat because what the meat previously ate is not listed in the ingredients? Food that sustains their lives nowadays can end it just as easily. The fact is that regulations are put in place, but that does not mean that their health standards prevent food from contamination. Nor do these regulations protect the average consumer in the face food foodborne illnesses. Put in the position such as Kevin’s mom, whose son died from contaminated food, what more could possibly be at stake? The fact is that no one wants that to be their loved one but that is also what is at stake when it comes to the food industry and the government’s jurisdiction over it.

 

Reflection Questions

Unit I / 10%

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

 

 

 

• Describe your understanding of the “writer’s project”? How were you able to identify the texts’ “project”? Discuss your own “project” as it pertains to this particular blog article.

 

The writer’s project is what an author intends to get across to their readers. It is what the author wants the reader to take away from their piece. To identify a texts project, one must thoroughly read through the entire text and take note of keywords, arguments, and phrases. Then one must think, what did the author intend to help me understand and intend to show me? For example, my project for the Huffington Post Blog article is to add to the conversation about the power of the food industry and how it effects the safety and health of consumers. I aim to show how the food industry is more concerned with their own power than with the safety of their consumers and how their negligence when it comes to food safety is able to happen because of their said power.

 

• 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 Sorting It Out Workshop was an all-around helpful worksheet to complete. Actually writing out the writer’s project for each source was very helpful because I was then able to see in a few short sentences what the author’s purpose of the text was. Then that really helped at the end of the worksheet when I was pulling out quotes to connect and synthesize the texts. Since I was already able to see the purpose of the articles, it made it easier to find quotes that could relate to each other. It gave me a good starting point to find out their similarities. For example, while all of the articles had to do with safety in the food industry, I was able to find that they all talked about food borne illnesses. By knowing that Consumer Reports talked mainly about animal feed, I then looked for a health issue with animal feed and one that was very prevalent was food borne illnesses. Knowing this, I was then able to go back into the texts and pick out quotes that had to do with food borne illnesses from each source.

 

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

 

Synthesis is the ability to connect different texts in a manner that creates a cohesive argument. It is not just summarizing the different texts and explaining similarities between them, but it is looking for patterns between the texts on certain topics and being able to use information from each text to build upon each other in a cohesive manner. This is very important because in doing this, a writer is able to pull important information from each text and use it in a way that makes sense and shows the important information, all while creating one’s own piece of writing. For my blog article, I used synthesis throughout my entire piece. For example, after identifying the writer’s projects for each text and looking for patterns within them in the Sorting It Out Workshop, I was able to see that they all talked about the problem of foodborne illnesses in the food industry. For example, I used Nestle’s example of how one hamburger was traced back to slaughterhouses in six different states and around 443 cows to show how contaminated food is hard to trace back to its origin, to add on to the point in Delind and Howard’s article when they mentioned how an E. coli outbreak was never traced back to the original origin of contamination.

 

• Describe your own accomplishment (ofsomething) during this unit.

 

During this unit, I learned about the importance of hyperlinks to online articles. Although it might not seem like much, this was a big accomplishment for me. My background in writing comes from my Sociology and Women and Gender Studies majors where writing research papers and reading responses make up a good portion of my course load. With that being said, it has been engrained into me to cite cite cite and cite! Even if I am unsure if information is just common knowledge still be safe and cite! I am used to professors telling me that there is no such thing as too many citations. This was a difficulty when writing this online blog because I was writing it in terms of citing it back to the different sources I used rather than using the sources to make a cohesive argument for an interesting article. When I learned of the hyperlinks however, that made me feel one hundred times more comfortable with writing the article. The hyperlinks became my way of citing information and it thus made me more comfortable. It also showed how this writing technique is a lot different than what I am used to, but helped me become more comfortable with it

 

• 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 started with the Sorting It Out Workshop. When I was looking for quotes that I could use to connect each text I started with the Consumer Reports article because of how specific it was to animal feed. I realized that a main concern of this article was foodborne illnesses and realized that every other source also had something mentioned throughout it about foodborne illnesses. So then I searched through the other sources to find what the aid about foodborne illnesses and found that they all had one thing in common: foodborne illnesses are a problem that should not be overlooked. That is how I got the main idea. What is at stake? Foodborne illnesses. Who does it put at stake? The consumers. Then I looked for specific examples within each text to show how foodborne illnesses put the safety of consumers in jeopardy because of their danger and the food industry and government’s help in fighting them and putting in place regulations that are effective. That is how I came to create my final draft, by using the examples I found within each text and synthesizing them to fit my argument.

 

• 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.

 

In my first draft, I just organized my article by the different sources I used. I did them one by one and described their position on how they add to my article by using specific examples from the text. Then when working on my next draft, I reorganized the article by seeing what examples fit where and what texts could I put together tomake the article flow better and synthesize the texts and their arguments. So then working on my final draft, I had my article organized by the different examples I found within each additional text and by how what I wrote about with each article fit together with the others.

 

• 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.

 

“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 0517h7 from food and ended up hospitalized where he then died from the infection. Even Hurst’s controversial article positions E. coli as an important factor when looking at the food industry. The argument the article makes is that the Stanford study found that E. coli is more prevalent in organic food. While this argument is one from Hurst in support of conventional farming, it still acknowledges how food safety is less important than the profits of the industry itself. In Kevin’s situation, his mom has been in a legal battle ever since the E. coli infection.

Unfortunately, the food industry, highly backed by the government, is not easily budged and it has been a long and hard battle. “Food safety (or the illusion of safety) is being positioned to secure capital rather than public welfare.” States Laura B. Delind and Philip H. Howard in Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives.”

 

This is a section from my paper where I show three sources to shape my initial argument. I show how food safety in regard to foodborne illnesses is a problem within our food system by describing Kevin’s story of how he died from contaminated food with E. coli 0517h7 present in it and then showed how even though Hurst is controversial when discussing food politics, he was even able to agree that E. coli is a problem within our food system. Then to tie the problem of foodborne illnesses back to the initial question of whose at stake, I used a quote from Delind and Howard to show how the government makes us believe we are safe when we really can see that we are not.

 

• 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?

 

In earlier drafts, I just used something that I thought would be interesting and pull readers in to read. Then, after completing the body of my first draft I was able to use a lede that still meets the requirements of interesting enough to pull readers in, while at the same time making it specific to my particular discussion. At first my lede was very long and wordy, and advice I received was to separate my lede from my introduction. In doing that, my lede for my final draft was able to be more consise, relevant to my article, and still maintain its specific purpose of grabbing the reader’s attention.

 

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

 

During my next unit projects, I would like to work more on the ability to adapt my writing style for the specific purpose of writing. As stated earlier, I had some trouble creating an article that did not read like a research paper. Although I feel comfortable with my ability to write an article now, I would like to work more on my writing adaptability so that when I sit down to write anything, I am better equipped to write in a style for a specific purpose and feel comfortable writing whatever I am given to write.

Why is the government allowing the food industry to poison you? Wouldn’t you feel unsafe knowing that the government is not paying attention to what’s in your food? Well this is only partly true. The food industry is controlled by huge corporations who decide everything from policy to how much farmers get paid. This results in a system that is cutthroat and industrialized leading to food that is unsafe. The government cannot do much to stop this due to the power and deep pockets that these corporations have.

The Food industry has had a drastic shift in how they produce their products. Food Inc. explains that 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, as Blake Hurst explains, and he’s planting using techniques that would maximize his yield and profit. Now, this probably isn’t the way you would want your farmer to be thinking. 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 whole process lacks oversight and is run more like an industrial business than a food producing farm.

The processes that are being used are scientifically improved every day to give higher yields. As Robert Kenner, the director of Food Inc. explains, “Back around the turn of the last century, the average farmer could feed six or eight people. Now the average American farmer can feed 126 people.”

Blake Hurst explains that with one of the worst droughts in California’s history, the amount of production, or the yield, was still higher than the yield in 1993. This means that even though California’s environment is downright horrible for farming right now, the yields are still better than they were in the 90’s. Makes sense and seems great right? Not exactly. These high yields are being achieved by using techniques that aren’t at safe and are putting your health at risk.

Farmers are trying to have high profits because they have many bills due to lack of government regulation. According to Food Inc., they have to pay for their seeds, even though their crops produce seeds, because big corporations like Monsanto control the industry. This causes farmers to spend money that doesn’t have to be spent and have to save money in other areas, resulting in farming that isn’t as safe.

When you go to the supermarket, you wouldn’t want to buy vegetables or meat that have been produced by a farmer with the business mind frame, but unfortunately that’s what you are purchasing.

When we think of meat, the process is also not quite like what we think. The cattle are raised until they are of slaughter age. While they are being raised, they are 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 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 eating everything that the farmer fed to his cattle. Doesn’t that sound delicious? So what’s the problem? It is dangerous because the cattle were given drugs, which can be bad for humans. The farmers can feed their cattle almost anything they’d like so they can make a bit more profit and in the meantime poison the consumer. They are able to get away with it because the government is not fully regulating the food industry.

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. All he wants to do it win, and this helps him get there.

On a national 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. However, this doesn’t mean the government is doing nothing, even though that wouldn’t be hard to believe. Instead, the government puts forward regulations that are either extremely difficult to oversee or regulations that require too many inspectors to oversee successfully. Sounds like the government really wants to help the problem right? An example of this is the division of responsibility between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which Marion Nestle points out. 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. Sounds like great governing and regulation.

With these regulations, 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. Christopher Leonard explains how damaging proposing food regulation can be when he says “In 2010 and 2011 when there was a really ambitious reform agenda proposed by President Barack Obama, it was absolutely dismantled, pushed back and defeated by the meat industry lobbyists”. He continues on to say that it probably “did more damage than if they had not proposed to do anything”. Instead, the propose policies such as the one Marion Nestle points out. Part of the reason why proposing changes can be so damaging is that the food industry has some of its most powerful former executives working for the government. Food Inc. explains how some food industry executives work for the government and after the governing administration is over, they go back to the food industry. These executives in the government are unelected and it would not be unreasonable to believe that they are in their positions due to the contributions they made to elected members of the government.

Why would these members of the government make their lives harder in a few years?

The former and future executives of the food industry working for the government don’t pass 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.

Big corporations unfortunately control the way the food in America is produced today. Christopher Leonard explains that these corporations not only have the money to be able to manipulate the market whichever way they want, but they have the customers locked in. There are four companies that produce 85% of the meat in this country. This is very important information for several reasons.

1. The first reason why it is so important to understand that these companies have so much control is that these companies control the prices on the meat market. Over the last several years, meat prices have been going up, yet corporations like McDonalds can sell you cheap meat because they are the largest buyer of ground beef a year. Food Inc. explains that McDonalds can raise the price of the market, but still sell you cheap, unhealthy beef.
2. Another reason this is important is because they can also choose what to pay farmers. If they pay farmers less than what they used to be paid, as is the case, farmers will only have two options. They will have to find ways to raise their cattle for cheaper or they can go bankrupt. If they raise their cattle at a cheaper cost, there is likely to be problems such as outbreaks of diseases or cattle being fed things that are not natural to their diet.
3. Lastly, these corporations have so much power that when they do force these farmers to go out of business, the US federal government ends up paying the debt accumulated by these farmers. This just goes to show how powerful these corporations are and their control in the government. Not only do they get to bankrupt the farmers, but then they get to call the government to clean up the mess with your money. So instead of being able to use that money towards improving things like education, the government takes your money to bail out the farmer that was forced to bankruptcy by the company that is ripping you off at the grocery store.

Another example of a company that controls the market is Monsanto. Robert Kenner says that Monsanto owns the GMO seed for corn through a patent. Farmers who want to plant corn have to plant this GMO or risk legal action from Monsanto. Even though they have their own seeds, they have to use the corporation’s seed. If it does go to the legal system, Monsanto can outspend any individual farmer and win the case. Monsanto is rumored to have surveillance teams that look for farmers who are cleaning and using their own seed. They will take legal action on these farmers, ultimately leading them to use Monsanto’s seed. Corporations like these have the power to control the food industry, manipulate the government, and ultimately can do whatever they want with their food and no one will know or say anything for fear of what these companies can do.

The food industry is a very powerful industry that gets anything it wants or needs to make higher profits. The government is almost incapable of helping the consumers because of the power that the food industry has. If consumers want a change and wants this revolutionary change in the food industry to stop, they will have to stand up to the food industry. Without your money, the food industry has nothing. So the next time you go food shopping pay attention to where your food is coming from, who produced it, and what did they use to produce it.

 

 

Reflection questions:

1. 1. The writers project is what a writer intends to do with a project. If the author wants to convince you of a certain point or just bring to light an idea, that will be his/her idea. It is helpful to read the text and research the author to see what the project is. It is not always clear from the text. Sometimes after seeing what their experience is, it is easier to understand their project. My project in my blog is to bring to light the fact that the food industries power controls all regulation and results in unsafe food. I also propose several ideas on why the food industry is allowed to have so much power.
   2. I completed the sorting it out activity at home when it was assigned. This helped me for several reasons. It was the first time that I was able to tie together multiple texts and find quotes that relate to each other. With this, it became evidently clear to me what I was going to write about. The part where we connect quotes was most helpful to me.
   3. Synthesis is comparing two or more sources through writing. The importance of it is being able to tie together the sources and see what similarities and differences exist among the different sources. During my draft, there wasn’t much synthesis. I mainly pointed out different ideas from the different sources. As I moved into my final draft, I connected the different sources together. A good example is when I talk about how farmers are more business like now a days and they are not the typical farmer we imagine. I state “. Food Inc. explains that 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, as Blake Hurst explains, and he’s planting using techniques that would maximize his yield and profit.” Here two sources are tied together to explain the same idea.
   4. During this unit I accomplished two things. I learned the components of an article and how to write one. I also learned how the food industry works. Although this is not a WRT 205 skill, I think that it is something that everyone should learn about so we can at least be educated about where our food comes from.
   5. The main idea started when I wrote my writing response. I started talking about the money and how it leads to power which was used to control the industry. I wrote “The amount of money in the food industry means there is also a lot of power involved. Companies like Monsanto control both the farmers who are using seeds and the members of government putting forth the regulations.” I then decided to write my blog about how this power impacts food safety and why nothing is done about it. An example of my main idea is seen in the blog when I state “The reason we have a problem is because of the money and power that are involved. The government lets the industry chose what policies go into place. These policies aren’t always the safest.” You can see how the main idea evolved from companies have power, to why does the government allow this and what are the ramifications. The evolution can be attributed to further research. When I kept looking for information, I noticed that the problem wasn’t that these companies have the power, the problem is that these companies are given the power by the government in order to gain money. Its almost like an exchange of power. The government gives the industry power in exchange for money and votes so the government can be powerful in other areas.
   6. I didn’t really use one organizational strategy. I first got my idea while writing the reading response. From there I reviewed my notes and found that I could definitely write a blog about this. I started collecting good quotes from the different texts and looking for a source that would be good for my argument. An example of a draft came from my reading response. This is where I first started discussing the idea of money and power in the food industry. I wrote “The amount of money in the food industry means there is also a lot of power involved. Companies like Monsanto control both the farmers who are using seeds and the members of government putting forth the regulations”.
   7. An example of three texts being synthesized is when I discuss the policies and how or why the government comes up with them. I bring Nestle’s example of the dysfunctional policies and explain it with Food Inc.’s explanation of who runs these departments for the government. I then bring in my source which explains what going against the food industry and proposing good policy can do.
   8. My first lede was “Food safety is a major problem in the United States. Money and power have a huge role in the policies and the production of the food. However, the industry is the one deciding which policies get put into place. How is this possible? Why is the government letting the food industry choose what is important and what isn’t? The food industry is 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.” This was more of an essay introduction than an article lede. Instead, I decided to scrap it and move towards a shorter and more direct lede. After my classmates gave me suggestions, I came up with “Food safety is a problem in the United States. The reason we have a problem is because of the money and power that are involved. The government lets the industry chose what policies go into place. Why does the government allow this and look the other way? How are these companies so powerful and rich? The food industry has become an industrial machine geared towards making money and is no longer about feeding the country.” While reading my final draft, I realized I needed something more powerful. I retyped my lede for a third time and came up with a more powerful statement: “Why is the government allowing the food industry to poison you? Wouldn’t you feel unsafe knowing that the government is not paying attention to what’s in your food? Well this is only partly true. The food industry is controlled by huge corporations who decide everything from policy to how much farmers get paid. This results in a system that is cutthroat and industrialized leading to food that is unsafe. The government cannot do much to stop this due to the power and deep pockets that these corporations have.”
   9. During the next unit, I would like to write a research article. I would like to be able to find my own articles and write an opinion that I have. While I was able to do that this unit, I also had to synthesize the sources and use the idea presented within them instead of using them to backup an idea that I am proposing.

There is an injustice sweeping through our nation undetected by the general public. The average American has no idea what they are putting into their bodies on a daily basis, how unsafe our regulatory food system is, or how much power the industrial food system has over our country.

Can our society be saved or are we doomed to by our naivety?

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 food 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. Corporations are hiding behind legislature and attorneys; they know that their practices often put lives at risk, but are willing to look past this issue in the name of progress. Transparency and the well being of the consumer should be their primary concern.

The industry needs to address ethics as well. 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.

Another concern is the fact that money from cooperation’s often sways legislature in their favor. It is impossible to make any progress when the companies we are fighting to change hold all of the power in our political system.

Safety is also 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.

---

“Did you know that 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States are for use on livestock and poultry, not humans?

The majority aren’t even given to animals that are sick. Instead, it’s normal practice in the meat industry to mix these drugs with livestock food and water day after day as a substitute for healthier living conditions and to make chickens, pigs, and cows grow faster.” – Natural Resource Defense Council 

---

Our regulatory system is out of date. Pathogens have adapted and have grown increasingly more aggressive (Nestle 40). 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. There are not enough precautions taken with new technologies and practices to insure they are safe in the long run.

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). It is clear that we are heading down a road that we haven’t faced before regarding food and public health. These challenges and concerns are only going to escalate in the coming years. If the food industry does not regulate its use of antibiotics and other production practices, then the health of our nation could be at risk.

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 and dispersing at a faster rate. “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 intermittently 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. It does not matter how we improve our own industrial food system, if we continue to allow contaminated food from other countries onto our tables.

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. The industry has been self-regulated for too long. It is clear that these companies are only looking out for themselves. This task is made even harder by the secrecy of the food industry; however things will never change unless we take a stand.

Many of these concerns revolving around antibiotics and other drugs use on processed meat can be avoided by buying organic meat. (Consumer Reports) As the consumer it is our job to decide what we put into our bodies. Some may not agree that organic farming is the answer to this predicament, however “we can afford a food system that provides lots of choices” (Hurst 1). Even though there are varying levels of concerns with the food industry, it is clear that something needs to change.

As consumers, we deserve to know what we are putting into our bodies. The industrial food system is afraid of our opinions. Sadly, many consumers are not aware of the power their voices hold. When it comes down to it, these greedy corporations will only be swayed by one thing.

Money.

It is time to start making conscious and educated decisions on what we are eating. If we stop purchasing these unregulated products and opt for more sustainable and local option, then the food industry will be forced to change their ways for the better.

 

---

Citations:

Altekruse SF, Cohen ML, Swerdlow DL. Emerging foodborne diseases.Emerging Infectious Diseases. 1997;3(3):285-293.

Food, Inc. Directed by Robert Kenner. Food, Inc. Accessed February 28, 2016. http://www.takepart.com/foodinc.

Nestle, Marion. Politics of Foodborne Illness.

“Organic Illusions – AEI.” AEI. Accessed February 28, 2016. https://www.aei.org/publication/organic-illusions/.

“You Are What They Eat.” Consumer Reports. January 2005. Accessed February 28, 2016.

---

 

Reflection

1.) 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.

The “writer’s project” is the claim or the main point of a piece. It is a combination of what the writer wants the reader go get from their article and why it is important. Often the “project” of the texts revolved around the thesis of each. Once I read each text and identified key points and arguments than I was able to formulate a clear project for each. My project for this particular article was to bring awareness to the fact that the food industry has many flaws such as antibiotics use and other health risks. These flaws are due to the lack of regulation and government oversight.

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?

Section D was the most beneficial for me because it forced me to go back and find the main argument for each paper. After that I could start to focus on what aspects of these texts interested me. Section E was also helpful. This forced me to find key phrases that linked these texts together. In doing so I organized my thought more and was able to better synthesize the texts. This workshop also helped me organize my quotes and connect them in a way that made sense. I feel that my first draft was stronger because of this. I was prepared to integrate facts as well as synthesize the texts.

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

Synthesis is going a step further than summarizing. To synthesize is to connect ideas from multiple texts and draw further conclusions with your observations. I struggled with this at first, but I feel that I moves away from summarizing. My final drafts uses sources to connect ideas and prove my claim, while reflecting on the overarching themes of each piece. An example of this would be my discussion of organic foods with Consumer Reports and Hurst.

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

I feel that I am better at connecting main themes in multiple texts to support my own argument. The synthesis workshops forced me to connect ideas from multiple texts to support my claim.

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?

Originally I knew that I wanted to discuss the corruption of the food industry. The “sorting it out” workshop helped me narrow my focus to the regulatory system and how there are many health concerns that the consumer should be aware of. An example of this would be the additional source that I used focused on antibiotics and how our industrial food system operates. I chose this article to support my claim, but also give a different perspective. The evolution of my draft is due to the fact that I had to go back into the texts and read them for the purpose of supporting my claim and identifying their “purpose”. By doing this I was able to better understand what information would be helpful in my article.

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.

In my original draft there were not many quotes or facts, but I used many opinions. As I went along in the process I added additional sources and quotes. An example of this would be

“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).

By adding this source I was better able to backup my ‘purpose’ and support my argument.

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.

“Many of these concerns revolving around antibiotics and other drugs use on processed meat can be avoided by buying organic meat. (Consumer Reports) As the consumer it is our job to decide what we put into our bodies. Some may not agree that organic farming is the answer to this predicament, however “we can afford a food system that provides lots of choices” (Hurst 1). Even though there are varying levels of concerns with the food industry, it is clear that something needs to change.”

In this section I quote Consumer Reports, Hurst, and reflect on Food, inc.. Thought out my draft I reflect on many of the ideas in the same paragraph but usually quote only one or two. This is because I have synthesized the main ideas and interwoven them into my text as I progressed in my drafts.

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?

Original – “There is an injustice sweeping through our nation undetected by the general public.”

Final – “There is an injustice sweeping through our nation undetected by the general public. The average American has no idea what they are putting into their bodies on a daily basis, how unsafe our regulatory food system is, or how much power the industrial food system has over our country.

Can our society be saved or are we doomed to by our naivety?”

I kept the original sentence, but added on to elaborate on what the reader could expect. There was a bit more drama in the second draft, in order to keep the reader’s attention. The feedback I received was positive and said that it was a strong lead because of the powerful statement.

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

I think I can still improve my synthesizing. It was not made clear to me exactly how to do this, but I feel like I have improved through out my drafts.

 

 

 

 

1400 word final revisions included

Passing the Blame On Food Safety

By Alana O’Neill

 

If “you are what you eat,” then shouldn’t you know who’s controlling what you eat? The controversial nature of food safety yields an unproductive environment for change and with no one unanimously at fault (government, consumers, food producers, or workers) unhealthy and unsanitary methods of food production continue to affect consumers. Our food is passed along a chain of procedures, each segment playing a part in the quality of the consumers’ nourishment.

A key to invoking change is placing blame. Someone should step up and claim responsibility for the faults in the food safety system. The issue at hand however, is that segments involved in food safety would prefer play the “blame game” rather than step up and take ownership of the issues at hand. One segment under constant ridicule is the food industry. Throughout these five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat”, “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety” there are many different voices either condoning or criticizing the ways of the food industry.

Consumers rely on producers to provide a clean and safe environment for the livestock, which in turn produces safe meat. The same assumption carries on for the produce; a clean and safe environment. Consumers also rely on the government to not only recognize any shortcomings with the food production process, but to adjust to any changes and keep regulation frequent and up to date when needed to protect consumers. Food producers rely on the consumer to prepare the food properly, which includes washing hands, through cooking, and the avoidance of cross contaminations. Producers also rely on their workers to undergo the necessary sanitation processes. The government has the authority to regulate and therefore be reliable for food safety to a certain degree. Yet, there is not a cohesive balance between the food producers and the food regulators. Food producers push back on the government in a somewhat bullying manner to the point where the government acts frivolously.

            Food Inc., a documentary that criticizes how much control the food industry has, speaks to the audience to invoke change. One of the first lines said in the documentary, as a way to summarize the overall theme was, “the industry doesn’t want you to know what you’re eating, because if you knew, you wouldn’t eat it.” Food Inc. makes it clear how much control the food industry actually has, stating that never in history have food companies been as big or as powerful as they are now. As also mentioned in “Resisting Food Safety,” the four leading firms are controlling a huge proportion of the industry and are continuing to grow. Tyson, for example, after its merge with IBP, “controls 28% of the world’s beef, 25% of the world’s chicken, and 18% of the pork” (Nestle, 44). These industries, along with many others that make up the remaining percentage of food producers, seem to intentionally keep consumers in the dark making them unaware of the industry’s production methods and the food they are consuming.

Evidence of this is presented in Food Inc. Fast food restaurants fought with the government about putting labels on their food. The government advocated that consumers have the right to know what is going into their bodies, and against the wishes of the fast food industry, nutritional labels were to be visible on their menus.

Another example that emphasizes the amount of control the food industry has is through government manipulation. Food Inc., “You Are What They Eat,” and “Resisting Food Safety” all mention the leniency of the government. Food Inc. talks about how food producers are actually a part of the government and they are making decisions about food regulations. Sections in “You Are What They Eat” example how industries are able to find loopholes in regulations and laws, and then the government’s (lack of) reactions.

An example of this is the ban on feeding the protein from cow ruminants to other ruminants, ideally preventing the spread of mad cow disease. However, rather than honoring the nature of the regulation, food producers would take the protein from cow ruminants, even from downer cows, and feed it to pigs, chicken, and fish. Then those remains would be fed to back to the ruminants.

The whole argument about government in this article was that the government is too slow in creating bans and too lax in enforcing regulations. “Resisting Food Safety” has evidence of the influence of the food industry on the government saying the Congress overruled FDA attempts to restrict the use of antibiotics in feed because of the intense pressure from the livestock producers. The food producer’s lobbying pushes Congress into clashing with the FDA until, eventually, the FDA backs down.

Even with substantial evidence of the power the food industry has, many companies and producers argue that they are not at fault for consumer sickness and, in fact, the consumer is at fault. As mentioned in “Food Safety,” in the industry’s eyes, food producers are not liable to control food safety because the consumer most likely inadequately underwent the necessary food preparation steps. Although it is proven that actions taken in the food production process (i.e. ammonia injections, pesticides) can and have led to contamination and illness, food industries continue to imply that food preparation the most crucial step in making the food safe. It is true that high heat can make the impact of pathogens on peoples’ health minimal to non-existent, however this cannot be the only boundary between safe and unsafe food. Many foods are eaten raw or without much cooking. Foods in this category need to be safe without relying on heat. “Resisting Food Safety” also briefly touches on this topic explaining how the food industries do not express self-blame. Food industries are very comfortable with placing the blame elsewhere, for example to consumers, the government, and even workers. There is evidence that inadequacy from each segment can lead to unsafe food, however it is wrong and unfair for a segment as powerful as the food industries are to deny responsibility and place the blame elsewhere.

Despite the aforementioned arguments against the food industry control, Blake Hurst, writer of “Organic Illusions,” contradicts these arguments in an attempt to bring justification to the actions of the food industry. “Organic Illusions” expresses that the amount of control is fundamental for the efficient production of food and, contrary to the previous sources, does not have as many negative health impacts from the conventionally produced food.

Hurst’s piece consists of comparing the methods of conventionally produced foods to organically produced foods by stating first, why people perceive organic as better, then, his logic to disprove this common assumption. Throughout the piece he pulls examples that support the amount of control the food industry has. One point he makes is about the pesticide exposure. He goes on to state that the food industry’s conventional farming is actually better and healthier for people than the organic alternative. He backs this up by saying that pesticides are going to be on foods regardless, and on most foods, the pesticide level is too low to cause any harm. However, he implies that organically produced food is actually worse because natural pesticides are less effective and therefore need to be applied in much higher quantities than their man-made counterpart. Another example of how Hurst believes the food industries have an appropriate amount of control is environment preservation. Hurst says that conventional farming preserves nature better because it takes less space to produce the same amount of food conventionally than it does to farm organically.

These five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat,” “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety,” are just a few of the countless number of pieces speaking their own opinions about food production. From the sources collected in this instance, there are more arguments against food industries than for. With this being said, there is also a theme among the pieces against the food industry that exercise an opinion about power and control. Most of the food producers have too much control and are not paying enough attention to the health and well being of their consumers. Throughout these pieces it is clear that food safety is an issue that needs to be faced head on, however the difficulties of doing so can be overbearing. Change has to happen collectively throughout all parts of the chain (food producers, government, and consumers). However, the lack of cohesiveness throughout impedes the movement towards a healthier environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflection Questions

1. My understanding of the “writer’s project” is the writer’s main takeaway from their piece. It is not as simple as the overall idea, it is a specific thought that should stay with the reader even after he/she finishes reading the piece. I believe I was able to identify the text’s projects well, even if some pieces have similar main ideas. A lot of the texts aimed to inform the reader, although in different ways. For example, Hurts tried to convey his opinion using satire and a fluid approachable way of writing. Nestle, on the other hand, used her credibility as leverage to inform the reader and used a much more serious tone. My “project” was to get readers thinking about how complicated the food industry is. It is a balance between all the segments mentioned in my blog post (consumers, government, producers, workers) and not one can be solely blamed. With that being said, I do try to convey that the food industry delusional in how much blame they should actually take. I do believe that they are responsible for some of the food safety issues and I do believe that they are not doing all in their power to change that.
2. The “Sorting it Out” worksheet was actually very beneficial. It allowed me to refresh my memory on each piece and pull main ideas. Once the main ideas from each piece were all written out on front of me, it was much easier to see similarities and differences in each piece. The most helpful section for me on that worksheet was the last part (below part f). I had me write the source and a passage or quote, then an arrow going to a different source with a different passage. The passages from source 1 and 2 were different, but similar. The arrows did this again with a third passage. This made me find something specific in three different articles and make it much easier to relate them in my essay.
3. Synthesis to me is a way to make the piece you are writing more than just a list of facts. With synthesis, the passage becomes more interesting because topic A can connect to topic B 1that unknowingly is intertwined with topic C. It is important because if passages didn’t have synthesis it would simply be a summary of each article read in the order it was read. I struggled incorporating it into my draft at first but in my final work as exampled through the paragraph that starts with “Food Inc.” I Synthesized Food Inc. with “Resisting Food Safety” and “You Are What They Eat”.
4. My own accomplishment is refining my voice. Also because we took so much time writing this, I had a lot of time to make revisions and come by with a fresh eye. Also I was able to not only read texts, but also analyze and apply them to my life. Especially this topic. A lot of the things learned about food I did not know before reading this.
5. I feel like I always knew that I wanted to talk about the government, but over time the topic changed from government regulations to placing the blame/responsibility on different segments, which includes some aspects of the government. I actually had 5 different Ledes that I could not choose from and Becca chose one during the peer revision so I went with that. The Ledes were, “Not only do people often have very little information of what they’re putting in they’re body, but also who’s controlling what goes in.” “Not only do people often have very little knowledge of their food, but also who’s controlling it.” “You may think what goes into your body is your choice, but its not.” “Food production is still and always has been a very controversial topic” “If “you are what you eat” then shouldn’t we know who’s controlling what we eat?”
6. As a way to organize, I wrote the body paragraphs first and just made short simple statements to make sure I got the information out and then I would keep adding to make it sound like my writing and how I want it to come across. I then finished with the conclusion and introduction to sum up what I’ve written in the body paragraphs. This is the example of the first draft about the Blake Hurst paragraph “There is, however, still some fight that the amount of control the food industry has is just. “Organic Illusions” expresses that the amount of control is fundamental for the efficient production of food and how, contrary to the previous sources, don’t have negative health impacts from the conventionally produced food. In fact, Hurst continues with saying that these industries are helping the environment by taking up much less space than if they were to produce naturally.”
7. Excerpt from final that synthesizes three texts “Another example that emphasizes the amount of control the food industry has is through government manipulation. Food Inc., “You Are What They Eat,” and “Resisting Food Safety” all mention the leniency of the government. Food Inc. talks about how food producers are actually a part of the government and they are making decisions about food regulations. Sections in “You Are What They Eat” example how industries are able to find loopholes in regulations and laws, and then the government’s (lack of) reactions.” This evolved because this is the main topic in my article that all three pieces talk about so I thought to keep it short concise and simple to wrap the texts all into one idea
8. These were the Ledes I was deciding from “Not only do people often have very little information of what they’re putting in they’re body, but also who’s controlling what goes in.” “Not only do people often have very little knowledge of their food, but also who’s controlling it.” “You may think what goes into your body is your choice, but its not.” “Food production is still and always has been a very controversial topic” and “If “you are what you eat” then shouldn’t we know who’s controlling what we eat?” (I picked the last one with the help of Becca). Her feedback was that I should still use the other ledes somewhere else in the passage but the last one was the best one to start with.
9. I’d like to work on making my writing flow. Because I write in sections often times my writing doesn’t flow as well as I’d like it to. To combat this to the best of my ability, I just try and reread my writing and tweak little things as I go. Definitely coming back after not seeing it for a day makes reading it over more effective because I am looking at it with a fresh eye.

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. After reading the following articles and pieces of writing, “Resisting Food Safety“, “You are what they eat“, “Food Inc.”, “Organic Illusions,” and an outside news article. It is clear that this is a major issue that needs to have action taken in order to squash it.

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 of 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 producing more issues with 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).” (Food Ingredients First). 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.

1. A writers project was something that I have  never heard about before WRT 205. However, I believe I have a solid grasp on what it is. Basically it is the reason why a writer is writing something as well as their motives behind it. Googling the author and learning more about them almost always helped me recognize their project. In my case for this paper my project was to show the issues of food safety and more specifically the issues with the government and try and give example of how they could improve.
2. The part that helped me out the most was the quotes and the arrows connecting them. This is because it helped me get direct evidence from the sources that were related to each other which made analyzing easier. It also helped me organize my paragraphs so they could flow better together.
3. Synthesis is basically using multiple sources and finding parts where they connect with each other, whether they are agreeing with each other or not. My first draft was mostly just showing what each source said, as the drafts went on to my final paper I began to add analysis of their connections to each other.
4. One main accomplishment that I had during this first unit was getting a great understanding of the issue of food safety and food borne illnesses. It was something that I had no knowledge of before and since then I have learned a significant amount about the topic and have a very good grasp of what is going on.
5. My first main idea was just showing what the issue of food safety was and a little bit of background. I quickly realized that this was too broad and I needed to get more specific. I ultimately decided to focus on how little the FDA is doing about it and what they need to do in order to slow down the issue of food safety. I realized I needed to get more specific when it was tough to synthesize the sources as there wasn’t any specific argument to try to find in the sources.
6. I decided to organize it by having a different main point in each paragraph and then adding a few sentences of synthesis. I did this from the beginning and thought it glowed nicely so I did not change it very must from the beginning. However one thing I added was the outside source at the end to provide additional evidence.
7. “This is an issue as the other texts offer organic food as the main way to avoid all of these food safety issues.” Here I was talking about how Hurst’s article says that organic food isn’t as safe as we believe it is. All of the other sources name it as an alternative to big business food which has issues with food safety.
8. Old:Food safety is becoming a larger and larger issue every year as company’s 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.

   New:Food safety is becoming a growing issue every year as large companies sacrifice cleanliness and health for profit. The FDA and government agencies responsible are under budgeted and under manned causing them to be highly ineffective in halting this issue of food safety.

   The new one is much more concise and specific which was the issue with the first one and the feedback that I received on it.

9.  One thing I would like to work on for future projects is my ability to fluidly go from one point to another. I think although it isn’t terrible in this paper there is definitely a lot of room for improvement for future projects.

Brandon Zirzow

As the organic revolution continues to gain momentum, the perception of how the public views the traditional (conventional) way of farming continues to be manipulated by big industry in order to fuel the rather weak argument for establishing an all organic food industry.

When it comes to organic produce many of us (the public) have been lied to and deceived by propaganda, sent out by big-time organic corporations, without realizing the lack of credible evidence proving any nutritional benefits. Many people simply do not understand what it takes to certify something as organic, “The word “organic” refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution” (Mayo Clinic Staff). This lack of knowledge creates a false understanding of the true (if any) health benefits of organic food. In the pure definition of organic there was never reference to any safer procedures or healthier food production.

As the movement for healthier and safer (organic) food continues to gain recognition with the millennials, many people have started to question the extent of the safety and regulation of produce in the United States. There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety the public now demands from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.

As the population continues to increase with higher life expectancies, thanks to newer technology and better medication, there is an ever growing demand on farmers for an even more increased produce yield. In result, as argued in Robert Kenner’s Food Inc., many large food corporations have quickly expanded making regulating each and every factory, slaughter house, and barn even more feasibly impossible for the government to do just based on the sheer number of investigations they are responsible for. In Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, Nestle starts to explore how the government is tasked with breaking down and taking on the task of regulating the entire food industry in the United States. In this piece, Nestle argues that as the produce industry continues to expand the expectations for the government, from the public, to regulate ALL produce becomes more and more impossible.

The majority of the food regulated by the government is overseen by 2 agencies; the USDA and the FDA. Each is responsible for different parts of the regulation process where the FDA is in charge of regulation up until the slaughter house and inspects all foods except meat, poultry and eggs; where the USDA is then in charge of the rest of the regulation process beginning at the slaughter house and inspects meat, poultry, processed meat and eggs. Because of the recent expansions in the food industry both agencies have recently become extremely over worked and as stated by Nestle, they are tasked with an impossible task of regulating the entire food industry, “By the early 1980’s, for example the poultry industry had already expanded far beyond any reasonable inspection capacity” (Nestle, 59).Already by the 80’s, Nestle explains how the poultry industry has reached a size beyond reasonable inspection capacity.

As the food industry continues to grow so does the responsibility of regulating it. Nestle goes into further detail and provides the overwhelming statistic of the amount of establishments each agency is each responsible for, “In 1975, USDA officials examined 14 billion pounds of birds at 154 plants; just six years later they had to inspect 29 billion pounds at 371 plants. The USDA has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg establishments – and 130 importers- 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, 59). Those statistics are quite overwhelming and the FDA doesn’t get it any easier, “If anything, the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable. About 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. The agency also must deal with food imports, which comprised 40% of the country’s supply of fresh fruits and vegetables and 68% of the seafood in 2000” (Nestle, 59). Not only are both agencies significantly understaffed but they are also greatly underfunded, “The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was just $283 million in 2000, miniscule by any standard of federal expenditure”(Nestle, 59). As proven by Nestle the demand on the government to regulate the entire food industry is physically impossible, and even if it were are the health and safety benefits of having an all organic produce system much more significant than the conventional one?

Many people have come to believe the fictional narrative that organic food is a safer and healthier option than traditionally grown produce, but as argued by Blake Hurst in Organic Illusions, the advantages of having a theoretically all organic system does not outweigh the disadvantages. Even with a major increase in the demand for organic produce the size of the industry is still relatively insignificant, “Despite the growth in organic food sales, they only constitute 4 percent of the dollar value of all foods sold; and since organic foods often cost twice of what conventionally grown foods do, the quantity of organic sales constitutes considerably less than 4 percent of the total market” (Hurst). The margin of income when growing all organic food is radically less than that of traditionally grown produce.

Another disadvantage argued by Hurst is that the extra production steps required to grow all ‘organic’ food would require an unrealistic number of increased employment in the food industry, “Millions of additional hands would be needed to produce food on America’s farms without modern technology. In many places around the world where organic farming is the norm, a large proportion of the population is involved in farming. Not because they chose to but because they must”(Hurst). Growing organic food not only takes more care and more time but would require people in the industry to leave their current jobs to join the farming industry!

Lastly, Hurst argues that there is a lack of proven significant health benefits that the organic narrative claims to provide, “The Stanford study found that organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in E. coli” (Hurst). This document by Hurst really starts to uncover the truth of organic food and the lack of significant health benefits that the public have been repeatedly led to believe.

After looking at these texts it is already clear that one; the process of regulating the entire food industry in the United States is an unfathomable task for the government (by itself) to accomplish and two; that even if it was feasibly possible to have an entirely organic food industry, the health benefits and relative safety of the food in the United States would not be significantly impacted.

After reading a snippet of a headline talking about the seriousness of foodborne illnesses and the poor safety regulation job the government does, many simple minded consumers jump to the conclusion that the traditionally grown food they eat is substantially less safe than organically grown food. When in fact, most of the public does not understand that traditionally grown food is equally as safe and goes through extreme testing and research.

The amount of research and testing done regarding the safety of our food is overwhelming.

Many organic consumers claim that the traditional animal feed is unsanitary and contains harmful bacteria and pathogens, but as put forth in You Are What They Eat, from consumer reports, the opposite is actually true, “The waste is processed until it bears no resemblance to its former self. Thomas Cook, president of the National Renderers Association, told us that after the rendering process thoroughly heats, presses and grinds animal tissue, it “looks like a pile of brown sugar”” (Consumer Reports, 27). Not only is the procedure highly regulated and sanitary but there are also multiple health benefits often times not spoken of, “Phillip Petry, president of AAFCO, speaks of the merits of chicken waste. “There is a yuck factor because it doesn’t sound at all appetizing he says, but the nitrogen level in poultry litter is real high, so they get a real good protein jump out of that”” (Consumer Reports, 27). The animal feed that traditional farmers use not only save a large amount of resources by recycling waste but it has also been found to boost the nutritional factors of the produce.

Traditionally grown produce has been a key contributor to successfully developing society into the technologically advanced, mass media culture that we live in today.

Ever since the industrial revolution, farming has mostly become mechanized and replaced with new technology in hopes of producing higher produce yields. The result, the ability for humanity to exponentially expand as less people were required to produce more produce. Today, some people argue that this method, that has got us to where we are today, is unsafe and unhealthy and to promote a healthier style of living we should eat only organic food. As argued in Consumer Reports, You Are What They Eat, the traditionally grown food process, has historically and currently, goes through extensive safety tests and regulations providing extremely safe and healthy food. Hurst argues in, Organic Illusions, that a majority of the public misunderstands what organic food really entails and the extent of the absence of any proven health benefits. In Resisting Food Safety, Nestle argues that the public demand to have an entirely organic produce system would be physically and economically impossible. The lack of government funding and man-power leaves the FDA and USDA with the next to impossible task of regulating all produce (and some imports) within the United States.

There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety the public now demands from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.

 

Works Cited

• Consumer Reports, “You Are What They Eat”, January 2005. (26-30pg)
• Hurst, Blake, “Organic Illusions”, American Enterprise Institute, October 1, 2012
• Kenner, Robert, Food Inc., Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2008
• Mayo Clinic Staff. “Nutrition and Healthy Eating.” Organic Foods: Are They Safer? More Nutritious? Mayo Clinic. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
• Nestle, Marion, Food Politics: “Resisting Food Safety”, University of California Press, 2013. (27-61pg)

Reflection Questions

Unit I / 10%

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

 

• Describe your understanding of the “writer’s project”? How were you able to identify the texts’ “project”? Discuss your own “project” as it pertains to this particular blog article.
  • To me the writer’s project encompasses the argument in its entirety and explains the reason the author is composing the piece. When identifying the writer’s project in other texts locating the author’s thesis and carefully reading the conclusion can help determine the author’s ‘project’. My own ‘writer’s project’ focused on the public’s false view of organic food and the misconception that organic food is healthier and safer than the current government regulation system.
• 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 last part of “Sorting it Out” where we were asked to synthesize specific quotes from each text really helped me form and structure my essay. This part made me tie direct relationships between the different sources instead of trying to summarize each text and then relating them to each other. By doing this I started to realize distinct similarities and differences in not just the content but also how each of the pieces was written and composed.
• 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 refining an argument between different sources down to its most basic and concise form by drawing similarities and differences between arguments. Its importance is to help explain and bring together the main argument of a piece and brings together multiple forms of credible evidence. It helps tie everything in the piece together. Synthesizing in my blog was really evident when I compared arguments from the different sources, “As argued in Consumer Reports, You Are What They Eat, the traditionally grown food process, has historically and currently, goes through extensive safety tests and regulations providing extremely safe and healthy food. Hurst argues in, Organic Illusions, that a majority of the public misunderstands what organic food really entails and the extent of the absence of any proven health benefits. In Resisting Food Safety, Nestle argues that the public demand to have an entirely organic produce system would be physically and economically impossible.
• Describe your own accomplishment (of something) during this unit.
  • During this unit I furthered my understanding of how blogs are composed and the specific genre expectations that come with it. I hadn’t done much blog reading or composing previously but I learned that it can provide a different style of writing and can display information to a larger less-informed target audience more effectively than a research paper or book can.
• 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 first draft at a main idea was, “How does our current government produce regulation system compare to other regulation systems and the relative safety of our food”
• When trying to further develop and synthesize my argument I tried to better relate my main idea to the texts and have them influence my approach to forming an argument.
  • My final draft’s main idea was, “There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety we demand from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.” This thesis came through the multiple rewritings of my first draft. I focused on developing a stronger argument that further questioned the referenced texts.
• 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.
  • When organizing the blog I started off by explaining my argument and then used each of the sources to individually respond to my argument and then further related and connected them later in the piece. This allowed for a greater understanding of each individual piece and the argument each was displaying before trying to compare and relate them to each other.
  • “The majority of the food regulated by the government is overseen by 2 agencies; the USDA and the FDA. Each is responsible for different parts of the regulation process where the FDA is in charge of regulation up until the slaughter house and inspects all foods except meat, poultry and eggs; where the USDA is then in charge of the rest of the regulation process beginning at the slaughter house and inspects meat, poultry, processed meat and eggs. Because of the recent expansions in the food industry both agencies have recently become extremely over worked and as stated by Nestle, they are tasked with an impossible task of regulating the entire food industry.” This paragraph exemplifies the organization strategies in that it gives a substantial amount of background information on the topic before discussing the arguments specific argument.
• 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.
  • “As the movement for healthier and safer (organic) food continues to gain recognition with the millennials, many people have started to question the extent of the safety and regulation of produce in the United States. There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety the public now demands from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.”
  • This paragraph from my paper accompanies an argument that can be related back to each of the documents and furthers a different analysis approach to the produce industry.
• 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?
  • First lede draft: “When it comes to organic produce many of us (the public) have been lied to and deceived by propaganda, sent out by big-time organic corporations, without realizing the lack of credible evidence proving any nutritional benefits.”
  • The big thing I focused on when revising and developing my lead was forming a stronger and more legible argument as well as quickly grabbing the reader’s attention. The feedback I received talked about developing an argument that related to a bigger issue and could be supported or analyzed through the multiple texts.
  • Current lede: “As the organic revolution continues to gain momentum, the perception of how the public views the traditional (conventional) way of farming continues to be manipulated by big industry in order to fuel the rather weak argument for establishing an all organic food industry.”
• Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects.
  • When progressing into the next Unit I would like to focus on further revising my paper and writing a more concise piece. I want to focus on writing and saying more in a piece but using less words.

 

 

 

Earlier this year 55 people were infected with e. coli in eleven different states from Chipotle. The causes for the outbreak are still unknown. The Chipotle on Marshall Street at Syracuse University was always packed every night with people trying to eat. Imagine if your teachers, yourself, or friends were one of the people who became extremely ill because of what they ate.

We eat food at least three times a day. People will 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 FDA and USDA regulate 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 uses its power to control the food industry to maximize revenue. Big companies pressure the government into lessening regulations that are beneficial for them because they are resistant to food safety when it comes to maximizing profit. The public is in the dark when it comes to the food industry business and process of food making.

The government doesn’t have its leash tight enough on the food industry because they can’t tame the big businesses running the industry. It seems like the U.S. government is controlling the food industry, but actually big businesses are the ones in power because former CEO’s of their companies have roles in the government. The government is maintaining an illusion that the food industry is okay to the public when it really isn’t.

The problem in the food industry comes from all levels. The government, the producers, and the consumers all contribute and support the unruly food business. Nobody is willing to take the blame for problems that arise. Marion Nestle, a professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, in her book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety, specifically chapter one “Resisting Food Safety,” talks about how producers, processors, and the government are trying to place blame on each other when outbreaks of food borne illnesses occur. Nestle states how today’s food production encourages bacteria and viruses to spread with animals living in such close 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 reported to the media but in the past decade, they have gotten nastier because bacteria like e. coli 0157:H7 have changed over time to be able to withstand extremely hot temperatures.

Nestle describes conditions where animals are held in large holding pens where they stay in extremely close contact among other animals 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 for 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 system of food processing (meaning producers and processors) doesn’t want to take the blame for anything because it can be devastating to business profits.

Earlier this year when the Chipotle outbreak occurred, its stock dropped 42 percent. Money is a reason why producers try to wash their hands clean 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 at that place. Chipotle still has lines and yet 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. In order for the changes to happen, the public needs to be informed.

One thing to be informed on is what Eric Schlossar, writer of Fast Food Nation, states in the documentary Food Inc.(2008).  He says that the top four companies control 80% of the food industry. These companies have enough power to “bully” smaller companies, farmers, and to some extent, the government. The strength of companies like Tyson, Smithfield, and Monsanto pose great obstacles for the government when these businesses are trying to get regulations passed because they have people on their side working in prominent positions in the government.

In their article “You Are What They Eat,” Consumer Reports writes, “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” (26). Animal waste is recycled into feed, which is inhumane. Putting that into perspective, animals are fed their own waste, humans are eating the animals, and thus we are essentially eating animal waste as well. Plus, the effects of animal waste in humans are still unknown.

As you can see in this picture from 1950 to 2008, animals are fed drugs and their own waste to grow faster. The government is aware of what is given to animals and the toxins that humans are exposed to when waste is given 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 by selling their 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. Food Inc. depicted how 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 as “needed protein and other nutrients” and drugs in order to fatten them up cheaper in the shortest time period (26).

That quote, which is taken from Consumer Reports, is what businesses are using to justify feeding animal waste products, for the nutrients and protein. They are unwilling to sacrifice profit for food safety.  When humans eat animals, food contains antibiotics in them; thus, humans can become immune to antibiotics that would normally help cure diseases. Nestle writes in another chapter, “Deregulating Dietary Supplements,” “its difficult to believe that this situation is in the best interest of the public (220).” The government is aware of the immunity that can occur and poses to be the top dog in the food industry and have the publics best interest, but can’t do anything about the antibiotics because of how few but powerful companies there are nowadays in this industry.

Schlossar, in Food Inc., says that there are only 13 slaughterhouses today. In the past, there were many companies, producers, and slaughterhouses distributing the power. Each company has so much leeway that even the government can’t 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. Whether the public chooses to look the other way or just assume that what we eat is safe, humans need to be aware of the problems.

Many people would turn to organic food as the other option. 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, changes will happen. “Organic Illusions” by Blake Hurst creates doubt in the reader’s mind about organic vs. 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 the government’s role questionable 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 picture below is concerning because the FDA and USDA do not have enough manpower to regulate imports, warehouses, slaughterhouse, and farms. If the government can’t even regulate conventional farming, how can they regulate organic farming as well? 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 because there is too much to regulate for the system that we have now.

If the government fails to step up to big businesses there will be more outbreaks, more deaths, and the businesses will keep profiting. Consumers will still be exposed to the harmful toxins that are put into animal feed that can lead to food-borne illness. More deaths will occur due to outbreaks and the public will still be ingesting antibiotics daily.  People 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. It’s significant to end with a quote by Robert Kenner who 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.”

UNIT 1 REFLECTION:

As I reflect on this unit I realize that trying to determine a writers project is pushing beyond the text of what the author is clearly stating but also trying to figure out what they are trying to accomplish by saying it. When reading an article find the main ideas, key words, and phrases to determine the project. A good question to ask yourself when trying to determine a project is, “What is the author trying to achieve/what issues are brought up?” After you figure what the author is trying to say, you can see how they relate examples to their ideas. My project for my blog article was to get the reader to understand that the government is not in full control of the food industry. There are companies using their power to influence the industry to benefit their company. I tried to use pictures that relate to my topics in the blog that would visually represent what I am trying to get across.

As I mentioned in class, the most helpful part of the Sort It Out workshop was section E where we had to find key words of phrases from each article. This allowed me to put the article’s key phrases side by side and see the differences and commonalities. This helped me be able to synthesize all the texts. After doing this I was able to determine my topic for my essay and base my claim around the key phrases I saw in all the articles.

Synthesis is the combination of ideas. It is important because when writing a blog that has to incorporate four different sources, you have to be able to incorporate all the materials. To do this, I had to try and find a common theme. Being able to synthesize the materials and find the common theme of government was how I came up with my topic for my blog. I thought this was the hardest part of this unit. I found it difficult to incorporate Organic Illusions by Hurst because it had a different viewpoint on the food industry.

A big accomplishment of mine from this unit was learning how to synthesize multiple texts. Since Food Inc., Marion Nestle’s article, and Consumer Reports had the same stance on the food industry, they were easy to bring into the blog and use as evidence supporting my claims. It took me a long time to figure out how to use Organic Illusions. Once I found a way to incorporate Hurst’s article, I felt really accomplished because I tried to use the article to make the reader question the government and its power.

My main idea was first going to incorporate profit. I wanted to talk about the money side of the food industry and how that was affecting production. After, I realized that money had to be a reason why companies behaved they way they did. Because of that, I changed my idea to focus more on how big businesses are using the government to lessen regulations in order to enhance their profits. I first made this as a lede, “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 their power to control the food industry to maximize profit.” After, I realized this is more of a main idea than a lede. It’s not creative enough to draw a reader in. It was convenient that my rough draft of my lede wound up being what I focus my paper on.

The Sort it Out workshop was the main organizational strategy I used. I was able to pull quotes from different passages that related to the same topic. That really helped me organize my thought because I had to write down the project and main ideas of each documentary or article. At first my structure of my blog was more like an essay. Two women at the writing center helped me break up my paragraphs and talk in a way that was more like a blog. For example, I had a over ten sentence paragraph and one lady helped me figure out where my topics changed a little which helped me determine where to split up my paragraphs.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. Food Inc. depicted how 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 as “needed protein and other nutrients” and drugs in order to fatten them up cheaper in the shortest time period (26).

This exert from my blog I think is a good quote from where I connected Food Inc., Consumer Reports, and Nestle’s article in a concise manner. This evolved partially due to the last section of the Sort it Out workshop. The last part of the workshop allowed me to find quotes from different pieces that connected with each other. I changed one quote from the Sort It Out workshop because it didn’t fit well with the other quotes.

My first draft of my lede wound up being the main idea of my blog. “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 their power to control the food industry to maximize profit.” That was my first draft. I thought about it more, and realized that it wasn’t going to draw a reader in. I tried to make my lead more creative by coming up with a dog and leash metaphor, “ The government doesn’t have its leash tight enough on the food industry because they can’t tame the big businesses running the industry. It seems like the U.S. government is controlling the food industry, but actually big businesses are the ones in power because former CEO’s of their companies have roles in the government. The government is maintaining an illusion that the food industry is okay to the public when it really isn’t.” I tried to say that the government is the dog owner that can’t control the dog. I thought it was creative and would draw a reader in. In my rough draft, it also didn’t state how businesses control the industry so I added another a few more words to state how the people in charge of regulations are on the same side as big businesses.

I want to get better at determining the author’s projects. I believe once I can go deeper in finding the project, I’ll be able to synthesize more clearly and then create a better final draft. Also writing to the draft of a blog is something I want to work on so my paragraphs aren’t to long, my visuals go with the text, and I have proper and useful hyperlinks. I do like using the blog format because of the freedom it gives me to use visuals that I wouldn’t be able to do in an essay. I normally don’t read blogs and have been writing essays my entire life so I do think blogging is a genre that is challenging.

     This unit made me realize that there are a lot of things going on behind closed curtain that the public is unaware of. The government seems to have an invisibility cloak over the food industry, hiding the public from the truth of what is really going on. Before we watched Food Inc. I went to the grocery store and bought chicken. That chicken is still in my freezer untouched. I am grossed out about how the animals are treated and the feed that they are given that I haven’t cooked the chicken.

This unit has made me interested in the food industry. I have already visited Marion Nestle’s blog and plan on reading her book Food Politics.