Beyoncé Breaks Racial Barriers For The Benefit of Our Country

Beyoncé performed her new single Formation at the 2016 Super Bowl highlighting black culture and received negative backlash. Why is this? Was her message really negative? Did she have some good points? If you watched the performance, what was your initial response?

Reflecting on 50 years of Super Bowl halftime performances, Beyoncé’s “Formation” performance at this year’s Super Bowl must have been the most controversial. The halftime show created political tension and negative backlash toward Beyoncé. This performance may even be more controversial than Janet Jackson’s performance in which her breast was suddenly exposed, causing the NFL a great deal of embarrassment while families stamped the show as inappropriate. Beyoncé’s performance at Super Bowl 50 created the same notion along with a massive political issue regarding race and police brutality. Days after her performance, social media began “Boycott Beyoncé” hashtags and anti-Beyoncé rallies according to Fox News because many did not believe her performance embracing black culture was appropriate. Considering the Super Bowl is one of the most viewed sporting events in America and is where we are able to celebrate parts of American culture like BBQs and witty commercials, we all expect to see a very “American” musical performance every year at halftime. If America is a place that encourages all people to be proud of who they are and where they come from, how can lyrics such as “I got hot sauce in my bag, swag” and “I like my negro nose and Jackson 5 nostrils” be taken offensively to some, especially coming from a highly respected and empowering African American woman? How can any of the words in Beyoncé’s song Formation be offensive in any way toward police officers? Why are officials embarrassed by Beyoncé’s expression of a very American black culture?

Beyoncé’s performance was intended to be more empowering than offensive by embracing current black culture. Many Americans were not ready for such a fiery performance, which showcased an all-black cast of dancers, confidently dressed in tight leather outfits and military berets reminiscent of the Black Panthers. If America really takes offense to this sort of celebratory display from African-Americans, racial injustice and discrimination will never truly fade. The negative backlash to Beyoncé’s empowering lyrics, music video, and outfits worn during the performance proves there is still a present negative view on black culture. Although a number of Americans did not appreciate the performance, most did and found it extremely powerful and admirable. We all need to face the realities of racial injustice in America.

Racially-driven police brutality has been an issue since the 1950s and there have been many movements in effort to end the issue.The Black Lives Matter movement that started in 2013 and the Black Panther movement from the 1960s are prime examples. Considering Beyoncé is such an empowering woman in America to people of many races, her platform allows for her pro-black message to be heard. Included in her pro-black message is her confidence in the Black lives Matter movement, which came about after numerous cases in which unarmed black citizens were killed by police. The Black Lives Matter movement is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-black racism that exists in society. Although this message is expressed in her music video in a scene with children and the words “don’t shoot us” written behind them on the wall, she does not mention these ideas in the actual song lyrics. Black lives matter is a relevant topic in current black culture, which is why she incorporated this idea in her video.

There is a distinct difference between anti-police music and music embracing black culture. Beyoncé’s lyrics simply confide in the embracement of black culture and pro-black attitudes, but many people are still considering the song to be anti-police because of imagery (that wasn’t included in the Super Bowl performance) like the “don’t shoot us” scene in the music video. However, anti-police music is nothing new and “Formation” is far from anti-police. The first major anti-police song came about in 1988 from the rap group known as NWA. If we compare Beyoncé’s lyrics to the historical NWA’s song “F the police” where their lyrics have a blatant anti-police message, we can see how Beyoncé’s song is harmless and strictly pro black. “F the Police” has a strict anti-police and police-brutality message that should not be compared to Beyoncé’s Formation lyrics. They refer to police officers as “nothing” and “punks”. Beyoncé’s lyrics do not mention the behaviors of police and their duties. In Beyoncé’s interview with Elle magazine, she was asked, “What do you feel people don’t understand about who you really are, and in particular about the message you’ve put forward with Formation?” She responded saying, “I have so much admiration and respect for officers and the families of officers who sacrifice themselves to keep us safe. But let’s be clear: I am against police-brutality and injustice. Those are two separate things.”

We can call Beyoncé’s song “pro-black” and say that it “empowers women” because of the way she mentions and embraces many black cultural qualities. For example she embraces stereotypes when she says “I like my Negro nose and Jackson 5 nostrils” and “I got hot sauce in my bag, swag.” Beyoncé also empowers black women by saying “earned all this money but they never take the country out me”. She is implying that she will always remember and embrace where she comes from regardless of her becoming upper class. Furthermore, the Super Bowl happens to be in February, which is also Black History Month. Black History Month is dedicated to African American culture and its history, so it should not be considered bizarre or wrong for Beyoncé, an inspiring black female artist, to express her appreciation toward her black culture. She also says in her Elle magazine interview discussing the Formation criticism, “If celebrating my roots and culture during Black History Month made anyone uncomfortable, those feelings were there long before a video and long before me.” Beyoncé is not creating new issues and sending people negative police messages, but she is making this shaded issue and idea relevant. America needs to address and work toward solving these issues rather than attacking Beyoncé for shining light on them. How else can awareness be spread if nobody says anything?

Aside from lyrics, Beyoncé and her dancers’ all-black outfits perhaps play a role in this political controversy. They are wearing outfits that considerably resemble those of the participants in the 1966 Black Panther movement. The dancers wore all-black leather jackets and shorts along with military berets that are similar to the Black Panthers’. Although many people associate violence with the Black Panthers, the Black Panther Party’s original purpose was to patrol African American neighborhoods to protect residents from acts of police-brutality. They fought for better gun control laws in order to make the lives of African Americans safer. Beyoncé and her dancers wore these outfits to show respect to some of the people who made a difference in black history, which should not be surprising during a time such as Black History Month. Even though Beyoncé and her dancers looked outstanding in their outfits, there was a negative association between their Panther-esque uniforms and the KKK. In the article “Sheriffs: Beyoncé is ‘inciting bad behavior’ and endangering law enforcement” by the Washington post, a sheriff named David Clarke makes the point that these outfits are similar because they were both worn by people involved in groups who participated in violent acts. He says that we would also be appalled if anyone was to wear “hoods and white sheets”. Many claim the Black Panthers were also a hate group toward police officers, but their main focus was to fight against police brutality. In light of the all-black outfits worn in the performance, Beyoncé was paying also homage to the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. In the 1993 super bowl, MJ performed wearing a piece that looks just like the one Beyoncé wore in her performance. In an interview after the performance with Beyoncé by EXTRA, Beyoncé says “…it’s the 50th anniversary, so I gave love to my favorite performer.” Aside from the outfits, she also mentions Jackson 5 in her lyrics when she says, “I like my negro nose and Jackson 5 nostrils.” So instead of shunning Beyonce for her performance and outfits, we should appreciate how she was able to show respect to those who made a difference in black history.  

In addition, African American female artists have a harder time earning respect than any other artists. In an article named “Hip Hop Herstory” the author, Jodi Merriday highlights some of the accomplishments of many popular female hip-hop artists and how they have changed the industry. The author details the lack of recognition the artists receive and the hardships they face in the industry. Her research also discusses Hip Hop culture, production and music, while also providing a womanist perception of lyrics from artists like Salt N’ Pepa, MC Lyte, Queen Latifah and Sister Souljah. So, as an African American artist, Beyoncé is already in a category that makes it hard for people to appreciate what she has to say. Trying to convey a pro-black message is even harder because of the fact that America already tries to push aside issues regarding race. A black woman sending out a pro-black message should be appreciated and valued rather than debated. We should accept these types of performances so future generations of all races can do the same and embrace their respective cultures.

In America, we are told to express ourselves, to be proud of our culture and who we are. Criticizing Beyoncé’s performance is doing the exact opposite. It’s 2016, and an empowering African American woman speaking about racial issues and showing her black pride frightens America. The problem is not Beyoncé herself or her black pride, but it is the fact that America is too sensitive and uncomfortable addressing racial issues and black culture. No matter how hard we try to ignore and avoid drawing attention to racial inequality, the problem still exists. Continuing this behavior will make future generations afraid of making efforts to solve racial inequality and other sensitive issues. Instead of looking at Beyoncé’s performance in a negative light, we should embrace what she says in her lyrics about black culture and appreciate that she wants to make people feel empowered.

Unit reflection:

• The title focuses the reader’s attention because it expresses the main point that her performance was positive and the point of it was to help better our country and not cause more racial bias. It is a bit creative because is raises the question “How did her performance help our country? (Which is addressed in the article) Yes, the title does provide insight to the issue. I think my lede could have been a bit stronger to be honest.
• The intro of the article is inciting to the reader because it talks about the Super Bowl and this is something of interest to many Americans because many people watch it. The super bowl was fairly recent which is another reason why it can be considered inviting and this is why it also reflects exigency. It locates a problem because it mentions the immediate backlash from the performance such as boycott Beyoncé hashtags and rallies.
• The writer offers a strong idea by showing the positive connections between Beyoncé’s performance to black history. The writer also mentions the point about February being black history month. This should automatically open the readers mind to acceptance of the performance. Not many people took this into consideration before judging her performance.
• I used many relevant connections and back-up to support the ideas. The historicized topics help make the main points stronger. It helps the reader understand the true meaning of some of the ideas conveyed in her performance and also helps to clarify some of the invalid argument of the controversy.
• In my writing, I address the fact that the audience will challenge my ideas by being descriptive about the performance and giving background history of some of the things that she presented in her performance. By doing this I was able to eliminate vagueness and questions about historic topics presented in her performance. I tried to use quotes directly from Beyoncé so that points are less arguable. I organized the article so that the main issues people had with the performance were addressed first, and then I gave information about Beyoncé’s character and role in society that helps support why her performance is so meaningful.
• I was able to create an importance of the debate by talking about the future issues that will come about it if Beyoncé did not do what she did. I was able to utilize research by providing quotes from Beyoncé directly on the topic of her performance, which made my arguments stronger. I tried to develop a persuasive stance by letting people know why her performance was important in today’s society.
• I was able to use 6 sources. My primary source was from an interview with Beyoncé in Elle magazine. I was able to use direct quotes from her answers to questions about the backlash from the performance.
• I was able to use historic information to help back up Beyoncé’s reasoning for some of the things she did in her performance. I was also able to use to secondary sources to help define and explain things such as the black lives matter movement. My sources deepened the meaning of the text because it helps readers understand the importance of black history in her performance.
• The use of rhetoric is present in my article when I talk about American values and cultures. This makes the readers reflect on their beliefs and values as Americans. (When I talk about how America is a place that we are supposed to be proud of who we are and our background) I also try to persuade the readers that if we don’t accept these types of performances, racial discrimination will never end.
• The first visual I chose was used to show how powerful Beyoncé and her dancers seemed onstage. It also allows to the readers to see the outfits that were described later in the article. The second image of Beyoncé next to Michael Jackson wearing the same outfit was used to show a detail that many people did not realize. Michael Jackson had an influence on her performance, and I think that detail is interesting that many people did not know before reading my article. I did not include an analysis of my photos but what was shown in the photo was described in the writing.
• My opening paragraph changes a lot from my first draft to my final draft. One of the biggest improvements over the course of editing and workshops was my claim. I was able to make it more detailed and specific to what I was going to talk about in my article. All of the work we did analyzing our sources made it easier for me to include them in my final draft.
• I only used a few hyperlinks. I tried to use them for articles from well knows news sites such as Fox News and things that people might want more information on such the Black Lives Matter Movement.
• I tried to make sure my sentence structure was appropriate for the New York Times. I tried not to make them too vague and I tried to make each sentence have meaning. My sentences were able to establish my credibility because I did not leave room for doubt or unsure thoughts. Since I was trying to persuade readers, I made sure my sentences were to the point.

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.

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 best 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” and “organic”, and trust that we are buying the best thing for our buck. But is this always the case? Are these labels really as true as they seem?

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

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

While reading these articles, it seems as though the issue of consumers not buying and consuming what they think is good for them comes from limited FDA and USDA regulations and extremely strong power held by large companies and the government. Referring back to the article Resisting Food Safety, Nestle states that “it should be evident that people involved with every stage of food production, from farm to fork, must take responsibility for food safety to prevent animal infections (producers), avoid fecal contamination (processors), and destroy food pathogens (handlers/consumers)”. She is ultimately saying that everyone blames each other for the issue of unsafe food. Nestle’s claim is that when it comes to food safety, billions of dollars are at stake, and industry, government, and consumers collide over different beliefs over interest in product value, economics and political power. She demonstrates how powerful food industries oppose safety regulations and deny accountability. Similarly, You Are What They Eat extends the idea because it talks 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, so it seems as if they are not at fault for someone getting food poisoning, for example E. coli. 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 placed on someone else. Food Inc. questions the efficiency of the system of food production and regulation. In the documentary there is a story about a young boy named Kowalcyk of Colorado, who died in 2001 after developing hemolytic-uremic syndrome due to eating a hamburger contaminated with E. Coli. 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. It took 4 years for this law to pass. The fact that it took this long for this law to pass goes to show how much power the food industry has over consumers, 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 just need to be more aware of where and what we buy from.

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

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 us to have future health risks or 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 wan to buy the best things for yourself. Yes, we need to be aware of what we are buying, but it is also up to the companies to do what it right and have interest in the consumer’s health while making their product. Until the FDA, USDA, and government begin to centralize their standards and regulation process, we will never be 100 percent sure about the production and safety of our food. Although this issue may seem insignificant, it will soon turn into a bigger problem once everything that appears to be healthy for us really isn’t and or hard earned money spent on “healthy foods turns into a complete waste.

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

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

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

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

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