1. Reflect on your work over the semester. What were some of the highlights, surprises and/or challenges you encountered as a researcher and a writer? Why might these experiences be important to your development as a research writer? Provide specific examples.

I think that overall this semester I became a much better writer through research and analysis. From the first unit, I was able to gain an understanding of what the writer’s project is and how to analyze it. From there I was then able to translate that into my own work especially with the unit II assignment. I found myself taking secondary sources and using them as my own to provide support for my take on the controversial topic of paying college athletes. I also was not really aware of the online library databases that were available and after the workshop with Patrick, I was able to find much better and more credible sources that I found necessary for the type of controversial topic I had. People don’t want to see that you got your sources from opinionated sources, the better articles provide the facts behind your stance, and I believe that I did that very well.

 

2. How do the practices for research and research writing we have been doing this semester contrast or relate to other research work you are encountering or may encounter in the future (think across contexts–school, professional or personal research and writing)? Are there practices, learning or ideas from WRT 205 that you believe may be useful in current or future research writing situations? Have you developed any new understanding about the differences among and between research writing situations? Try to be as specific as possible. Include examples.

I would have to say that the library databases was the most helpful lesson that I learned. It allowed me to gain access to so many sources that I could also potentially use in future classes. In the business school we are always writing and doing case studies that involve scholarly sources and references. It is always necessary to make sure that the information is from the most credible sources and there is not fraudulent or incorrect numbers involved. This summer I will also be working for an investment bank in which I will need to put together presentations and analysis of my own. I have learned the importance of purpose as well as Kairos and exigency and how important there are to the relevance of the topic being discussed.

 

3. Reflect on the topic of inquiry: Food Politics and Social/Political Controversies. How did research and writing impact your engagement, interest or understanding as you worked within this inquiry?  Provide 2 or 3 examples.

For the first unit and working with Food Politics, it allowed me to explore an avenue that I wasn’t really aware of before. I was like most consumers who believed that food was out of our control. As the unit developed, I began to realize the importance of food safety and how corrupt the food industry actually was. I began to research articles on my own and visit websites that provided information on what consumers can do to spark change in the industry and regain control of our food system. As we moved into the political controversies in unit II it was difficult to choose a stance on my topic. The debate about paying college athletes is not an easy one, but as a student-athlete myself it made it even harder. As the evidence began to pile up against the NCAA and large institutions that pointed out the amount of money that they were hauling in, and the difference between the expenses on scholarships being given out, I made my claim that college athletes should be paid. My understanding of each of the topics grew immensely throughout each unit and I feel as though I am knowledgeable about each.

 

4. If you could continue working on one of your pieces, which would it be, and what would you want to do? Why?

I would definitely continue working with my political controversy. I feel that I found a substantial amount of information on the topic, and was definitely able to take my stance and get my point across about why student athletes should be paid, but I would have like to explore a bit more into how it would be possible. By this I mean some methods that could be used for the distributions of stipends beyond that of a scholarship. With the limitations of the length of the article I found myself focusing more on the why aspect and less on how it would be done.

5. If you were to choose one of your pieces from this semester (Unit I, II, III) to share with someone outside our class, which piece would you choose and with whom would you share it? What reaction would you hope for or anticipate? Why?

I think I would definitely like to share my ted talk with someone. I feel that it would be most beneficial to share it with someone that is not a student-athlete already, and maybe someone that has a significant amount of power in regards to the topic. I would hope that they would understand the amount of exploitation that is occurring and they corruption and unequal treatment in college sports. People are unaware of this issue of the NCAA generating nearly $1 billion in revenue off of the college athletes’ hard work. It takes a tough individual to play division I college sports and to be able to balance the long 40 hour weeks dedicated to that sport, and keep up with the demands of being a full time student. The institutions have allowed the incentives of money and greed to take over the true people that matter in this case, the athletes themselves.

The average salary of a Division I men’s football coach is $1.64 million, and $1.5 million for their counterpart, men’s basketball coaches whose team makes it to the NCAA tournament. Yet, the NCAA a “non-profit” organization had an annual revenue just shy of $1 billion in 2014 according to USA today, with 90 percent coming from March madness alone. With major college sports generating this type revenue year-in and year-out it’s difficult to grasp where all of this money is truly going, and why hasn’t it been returned to the stars of the show, the athletes. A majority of people may be unaware of the reality of this grueling business and its corruption. Throughout this piece I would like to bring forth the issues behind the scenes and discuss the potential, but controversial, topic of paying college athletes. Although division I college athletes are legally amateurs by the NCAA rules, they are acting as full-time employees to the university and generating millions in revenue of which they are not seeing a penny of. In the big picture, scholarships are not adequate compensation for the revenue being produced, and therefor college athletes should receive stipends beyond their scholarships.

Discrepancies among the NCAA

With an annual revenue of $912.3 million in 2015, the NCAA is considered a 501(c) (3) organization. Meaning that they are tax exempt under the IRS, and are pooled among other organizations such as Red Cross and the Salvation Army. But, in economic terms, the NCAA would qualify as a monopsony. This means that they are one buyer within a market of unlimited sellers, and in this case the sellers being the athletes selling themselves to colleges and receiving zero for their labor. The organization has made it clear that they will not condone the paying of college athletes that they consider to be “amateurs.” The term amateurism is expressed on NCAA.org and described as being the “bedrock principle of college athletics,” and “being crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority.”

In 2012 the NCAA signed a 14-year agreement with CBS and Turner Broadcasting System for the rights to March Madness worth $10.8 million. In 2016 this contract was extended to 2032 in another $8.8 million deal. $1.5 million is the cost for a 30-second advertisement spot during the tournament. (Read more about revenue breakdown)

 

The underlying statement being made here is that these are “student-athletes,” with an emphasis on the student. However, graduation rates may tell a different story. There are two measures to ensure that an athletes earn a degree. First the U.S. Department of Education’s Federal Graduation Rate, and second the NCAA’s Graduation Success Rate. According to the NCAA, 100 percent of the members of the Duke men’s basketball team who entered as freshman in 2007 graduated. But, the federal measurement, which takes into account the percentage of full-time college student-athletes who enter as freshmen and finish with a specific degree within six years, calculated that only 67 percent of male players during that time period actually graduated. There is a large discrepancy among these numbers that may be due to the NCAA failing to take into account the “one-and-done” players, career ending injuries, or even drop outs. As long as these players were in good academic standings before their departures, they are also added to the positive graduation rates.

Where is all the money going?

               Coach Krzyzewski, head coach of the Duke men’s basketball made a whopping $7,233,967 last year, along with another $5,400,000 made by John Calipari, Kentucky men’s basketball coach. Clemson University have written plans to build a $55 million complex solely for men’s football that includes sand volleyball courts, laser tag, movie theatre, barber shop and other amenities. Combined 48 of the schools from the wealthiest conferences spent $772 million on all athletic facilities. But, according to CBS News, only 3 percent of men’s basketball programs turned a profit last year. This may be due in part to cost pressure from the top schools to pay the coaches extremely high wages. Also, a report released by Delta Cost Project found that Division I universities on average spend about three to six time as much per athlete than they do on academics per student. Reminder, the NCAA’s main opposition to paying athletes is that they are “students first.” It’s hard to believe that these college athletes aren’t considered full-time employees that putting in over 40 hours of work just related to their sport each are students-first. After practice, film reviews, and scheduled lifting the players can finally get to their schoolwork. Such high demands of being an athlete have recently been linked to pooling athletes’ into general majors together. Evidence shows that the majority of college athletes have chosen a major in general studies. This due to a lack of ability to maintain the balance between their sport demands and school, or even because the coach told them to in order ensure eligibility. What does this say about the universities and the employees (coaches) who are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of the student-athletes? This situation has been corrupted and solely geared towards maintaining eligibility for top players in order to win games, rather than planning and pursuing a career for the future. The matter of fact is that college athletes being exploited for their work, or in this case their athletic performance while continuously turning nearly $1 billion into a yearly loss by wastefully spending money on extreme facilities that are exclusively geared towards athletic benefits and not academics. The NCAA and institutions pride themselves on the notion of having the best interest of the student-athletes in mind, but I’m not so sure this is the reality.

Reality of Full-rides

Not only is the money being generated by college sports an at-large issue, but the cost of being a full-time student-athlete on a full scholarship is often misleading. People often assume that there is a surplus of full-scholarships, or that scholarships are more than enough to “hand out.” However, the average amount of money awarded to division I athletes was $13,821 for men and $14,660 for women. Also just about 3 percent of all high school athletes will receive a complete full ride to play in college. There are also strict rules that have been put in place by the NCAA that establishes how many scholarships each team at a university can receive. Only six sports, commonly referred to as “head-count” sports, which include football, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s gymnastics, volleyball and tennis, have enough full-scholarships to cover the team in its entirety. On the other hand the rest of the collegiate sports teams are limited by the NCAA as to how many full rides that they receive.

This is the breakdown of full-scholarships per team allotted to the non-head count sports by the NCAA

Yet, this organization has an annual profit of about $145 million and is only returning about $12.3 in expenses for scholarships to the universities. This could be the biggest discrepancy for the NCAA and one of the main reasons that player’s unions and other people are demanding reform. In the 2011-2012 fiscal year, a study was conducted by Ithaca College researchers that reported the average expenses that a college athlete was required to pay beyond their scholarships was about $4,000. “Free rides” fail to cover the cost of living for a typical college student, but these athletes are still students before anything. Cell phone bills, gas money, groceries and rent for housing off campus are just a few of the additional expenses that a college student may see. These expenses may be taken care of if the players were able to have a part-time job, but once again the NCAA bans in-season work. Often it can even be difficult for athletes to find the time or money to get in three meals a day with their schedules. Recently University of Connecticut basketball start Shabazz Napier spoke out about this issue and stated, “there are hungry nights that I go to bed starving.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdRk2DYolM)

Opportunity for Reform

The NCAA has a significant issue that must be attended to within the near future. With the multimillion dollar enterprise claiming itself as a non-profit organization through the IRS, it has come to a point of college athletic exploitation. The organization continues to fight off any efforts to find more money to pay student-athletes directly through stipends, but also wishes to leave the gap between their profits and the limited number of scholarships allotted to the non-head count sports. Also, they are holding onto their belief that these athletes remain students-first, when there is an abundance of evidence that points directly to men’s basketball and football simply being farm systems for the professionals to pick from. It seems that there needs to be a re-evaluation as to how much money is being spent on facilities and coaching, and more time spent of finding ways to bring the money back directly to the athletes themselves. After all, these college athletes are indeed the money-makers.

References

Deford, Frank. “Deford: Paying College Athletes Would Level The Playing Field.” NPR. NPR, 2 Apr. 2014. Web. 5 Apr. 2016. <http://www.npr.org/2014/04/02/297898279/deford-paying-college-athletes-would-level-the-playing-field>.

“NCAA.org – The Official Site of the NCAA.” NCAA.org – The Official Site of the NCAA. NCAA, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2016. <https://www.ncaa.org/>.

Nocera, Joe. “Let’s Start Paying College Athletes.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Dec. 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-start-paying-college-athletes.html>.

Sanderson, Allen R. and John J. Siegfried. 2015. “The Case for Paying College Athletes.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1):115-38.

Strachan, Maxwell. “NCAA Schools Can Absolutely Afford To Pay College Athletes, Economists Say.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2016. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/ncaa-pay-student-athletes_n_6940836.html>.
Zirin, Dave. “An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Should Be Paid.” The Nation. The Nation, 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://www.thenation.com/article/economist-explains-why-college-athletes-should-be-paid/>.

 

Were you aware that the average chicken farmer invest nearly $500,000 a year and only makes about $18,000? Or even that in the 1970s the top five beef packers controlled 25 percent of the market, and now the top four are in control of more than 80 percent? How does it make you feel that you don’t have the right to know where your meats are coming from, or if they are at risk of containing a deadly strain of Escherichia Coli?

The film Food Inc. puts the power of emotion to use by exploring the reality of these facts within the documentary. The film’s aim is to explore what’s, “behind the veil of corporate farming,” and it does so by providing the viewer with powerful evidence that demonstrates the authority that the big food corporations possess over their farmers, workers, and also regulatory agencies.  Experts such as Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, an investigative writer, Barbara Kowalcyk, a food safety advocate, and Joel Salatin, an American holistic farmer all give the film high credibility. After viewing the film, I felt somewhat dumbfounded by the things that I saw. First, comprehending the grasp that the big companies like Tyson, and Purdue have on their farmers disgusted me. Carole Morison, a former Purdue chicken farmer, has had enough of what she has deemed to be immoral farming. She is interviewed about her experience and states, “I understand why farmers don’t want to talk, because the company can do what it wants to do as far as pay goes because they control everything.” This quotation, and the interview, shows how one-sided these contracts with the big food companies truly are. Her contract was terminated due to her lack of interest in changing her chicken coups to Purdue’s standards, and her disgust with the antibiotics and abnormal growth of her chickens. Not only do they control the farming portion of the meat packing industry, but the film unveils a far more concerning issue. It explains how many of the members of the FDA and USDA are former members of the beef industry. Notably, during the Bush administration, the chief of staff of the USDA, James F. Fitzgerald, was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry, and also the head of the FDA, Lester M Crawford Jr., was the former executive VP of the National Food Processors Association.

This portion of the film leads into one of the most heartfelt pieces of evidence, children dying of a particular deadly pathogen in contaminated foods. E. coli 0157:H7 is the strand of E. coli that killed Kevin Kowalyck, son of Barbara Kowalyck, whose story is repeatedly shown throughout the film. Kevin is a victim of a foodborne illness. He was only two years and eight months old when the illness killed him in just twelve days! Barbara struggles to enact transformation in government regulation as we watch her bring the case of her son to state and federal courts to dispute new regulations. This horrifying tragedy is also very closely related to a portion of the book Food Politics, by Marion Nestle called, “Resisting Food Safety.” Nestle has a Ph.D, M.P.H., and is a professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. In her research about issues of foodborne illness she enlightens the reader about the politics and power behind food safety. Her book provides data from the past thirty years on the number of outbreaks and deaths of certain pathogens, and brings forward the statement that the food corporations and the government aren’t doing their part to ensure the safety of the consumers. In addition, Nestle also gives us some insight into it being an unreasonable task for the FDA and USDA to oversee the entire food production in the United States. Only 700 FDA inspectors are responsible for overseeing 30,000 manufacturers, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial establishments, 128,000 grocery stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. To me this seems like a nearly impossible task, and the USDA doesn’t do much better considering that they have twice as large of a budget than the FDA and ten times the workers, according to her research. The USDA only regulates twenty percent of the food supply, and just fifteen percent of foodborne illness is reported under their jurisdiction in 2000! Marion Nestle’s aim of her piece is to provide stakeholders perspectives on the issues and how each parties’ goals are not aligned. The manufacturers claim that profit is maximizing shareholder wealth, but there has got to be a consensus to make safety the number one priority.

Consumer Reports, “You Are What They Eat,” is very closely related to the facts that Food Inc. displays in the film. This piece is aimed at the health conscious and concerned consumers, so it exhibits a variety of input from experts of science and other areas of expertise. The article’s purpose is to expose the benefits and risks behind the processed feed that is being given to our livestock. Food Inc. brings forward the issues of using corn to speed up the cows life spans so that they are able to be fattened and slaughtered within just 14 months! Consumer Reports takes a look at the use of other feed ingredients that are at risk of contamination. Yet, David Fairfield, the director of feed services for the National Grain and Feed Association argues that, “animal protein products, meat and bone meal, and blood meat are nutritional feed ingredients.” However, according to the CDC (Centers for Disease and Control Prevention) these processed feed ingredients have far more potential for being contaminated. The biggest issue that we are facing is linking the contaminations with actual human illness. There is just simply not a big enough system to control and inspect the origins all of the contamination. In 1997, a feed ban was enacted by the FDA to prevent infectious prions, or proteins that could lead to mad cow disease. However, the FDA’s enforcement of this ban has been very slim. They admitted that the results of their inspections were “severely flawed” due to a lack of compliance by the manufacturers. With this type of system that we have in place where these companies can skew and deflect attempts at inspections and regulation, we are not going to be able to enact change. Our government must to take control of the situation and spend the necessary capital to regain control of the food industry and ultimately provide safety to our consumers.

The final dispute of this matter concerns the question of organics. Blake Hurst, third-generation Missouri farmer and President of the Missouri Farm Bureau, provides his take on the matter in his published piece, “Organic Illusions.” This article allows Hurst to express his sarcastic tone and thoughts about the illusions of “going organic.” His only use of any evidence or facts come from his reference to a Stanford University study which brings forward the lack of nutritional difference between organics and conventionally farmed foods. However, there hasn’t yet been true evidence of any new studies that have been able to conduct their own data on the subject. I would be very shocked to see that organics were not far more likely to be higher in nutritional value or less apt to contain pesticides, fertilizer, and other harmful things. Another of Hurst’s key points is to illuminate the simple fact that conventional farming is efficient. He eludes to his own knowledge and opinion that it wouldn’t be possible to switch to organics because of its demand for land and labor. Yet there is no evidence that this is the case. Hust’s other claim is that the animals don’t care about the “story” behind their demise. His thought is that organic farming is solely about the ethical processes being used, and how the pesticides and fertilizers are harming the soil. Michael Pollan, author of Omnivore’s Dilemma, has a direct opposition to Hurst’s viewpoints. In the Pollan and Hurst Debate the Future of Agriculture, Michael Pollan explains how our farming system is “broken”, and the farmers who are supposed to be the providers are having trouble even staying afloat under the control of the big corporations. He brings forward the issues of corn being used for almost every food product and its lack of ability to be digested by our cattle. He also responds to Hurst’s comments regarding a switch to organic farming “syphoning” the food supply. Pollan states, “I challenge anyone to prove it, I mean so far, genetically modified crops have not produced increases in yield.” This is a very intriguing statement because a majority of the upside of conventional farming is built of the back of efficiency and higher yields. This is a debate that needs some more research, and several of these matters to be answered using scientific research.

The American food system has become an industrial machine. As consumers we have been unable to see the true issues that lay “behind the corporate veil” of farming. The moral, social, financial, and federal aspects of these issues all have yet to encompass change. Our government lacks the ability to regulate and raise inspections due to their control being overtaken by corporate and political giants. We must come together as consumers and demand change, especially if our government is unwilling to cast its authority over the big corporations. The consumers ultimately make the decision of which foods to purchase, and this may be our only avenue to spark a change directly.

 

Sources:
Batt, Andrew. “Pollan and Hurst Debate the Future of Agriculture.” Market to Market RSS. Weekly Journal Rural America, 16 July 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2016. <http://www.iptv.org/mtom/story.cfm/feature/3661/mtom_20100716_3546_feature/video>.

Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Perf. Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser. Movie One, 2008. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oq24hITFTY>.

Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions – AEI.” AEI. The American, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2016. <https://www.aei.org/publication/organic-illusions/>.

Kowalcyk, Barbara. “CFI  |  THE CENTER FOR FOODBORNE ILLNESS RESEARCH & PREVENTION  |  Kevin’s Story.” CFI  |  THE CENTER FOR FOODBORNE ILLNESS RESEARCH & PREVENTION  |  Kevin’s Story. Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2016. <http://www.foodborneillness.org/kevin-s-story.html>.

Nestle, Marion. “Resisting Food Safety.” Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley: U of California, 2002. 27-61. Print.

 

 

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 goes beyond the actual words and digs deep into diffusing the meaning behind it, or their reason for the piece. You must be able to understand the writer’s background and their point of view on the situation in which they are writing about. My own project of my blog article was aimed to get people’s attention about the lack of authority the consumers of this nation have in controlling our own food supply. And also to make people aware of how our food industry has been monopolized behind the scenes.

• 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?

I used a lot of things from this helpful workshop to concise my ideas and synthesize some of the sources that I was writing about. I mainly used sections B, C, and E. They allowed me to separate my sources and then bring them all back together once I was able to establish each of the writer’s projects and interpret them into my own. I was then able to prioritize my draft based on the sources and also it made it much easier to understand where I wanted to tie them together.

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

Our class discussion and example of Kanye West and Miley Cyrus allowed me to understand synthesis much more. To me synthesis means being able to break down an author’s or artists work and get to the meaning behind it. This involves the use of words, but also is reliant on who they are as a person and the position that they hold in society, or power that they have to assert the information to the public. I think that I synthesized fairly well throughout my article, particularly after noting each subject or source that I used, I was able to break down their aim or reason behind their pieces in each case.

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

I accomplished being something more than just a technical robot-like writer. This assignment pushed me to understand the meanings behind a certain type of writing other than just a technical and formal essay. It also was nice to get a handle on concise writing and taking unnecessary “fluff” out of my work.

• 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?

When I wrote my first draft of the assignment, I had written an extremely long lede. It really wasn’t much of a lede at all actually, but rather I began my draft like an essay format and provided a boring background of what was going to be in my article and also a thesis statement that was far too long. I began focused on what I thought was a good statement, it was along the lines of, big corporate business has consumed our food system, and the government is lacking to ensure that we are consuming safe and healthy foods. But as I came to understand more about what a good lede is I was about to really hone in on being specific and also getting the reader’s attention. I switch my whole focus to asking specific questions that would make the audience want to click on my article. It now reads, “Were you aware that the average chicken farmer invest nearly $500,000 a year and only makes about $18,000? Or even that in the 1970s top five beef packers controlled 25 percent of the market, and now the top four beef packers are in control of more than 80 percent? How does it make you feel that you don’t have the right to know where your meats are coming from, or if they are at risk of containing a deadly strain of Escherichia Coli?” This style came from our lede workshop and the article that we read in class about the tips for good ledes.

 

• 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.

I began to piece my article together based on the sources that we went through in class in chronological order. So, first I wanted to discuss Food Inc. because I knew I had a lot to say about the film, and it also was a great source of evidence to lead into the other texts. I then thought about which texts were most appropriate to go with the things that I was discussing, such as Kevins story and how Marion Nestle’s book dives deep into the issues of foodborne illness. I was also able to find an outstanding video source on the debate between Michael Pollan and Blake Hurst, and I used this video to talk about their opposition of the idea of organics with one another.

• 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.

– This quotation, and the interview, shows how one-sided these contracts with the big food companies truly are. Her contract was terminated due to her lack of interest in changing her chicken coups to Purdue’s standards, and her disgust with the antibiotics and abnormal growth of her chickens. Not only do they control the farming portion of the meat packing industry, but the film unveils a far more concerning issue. It explains how many of the members of the FDA and USDA are former members of the beef industry. (from Carole Morison portion)

-To me this seems like a nearly impossible task, and the USDA doesn’t do much better considering that they have twice as large of a budget than the FDA and ten times the workers, according to her research. The USDA only regulates twenty percent of the food supply, and just fifteen percent of foodborne illness is reported under their jurisdiction in 2000! Marion Nestle’s aim of her piece is to provide stakeholders perspectives on the issues and how each parties’ goals are not aligned. The manufacturers claim that profit is maximizing shareholder wealth, but there has got to be a consensus to make safety the number one priority. (about Nestle’s piece)

– This article allows Hurst to express his sarcastic tone and thoughts about the illusions of “going organic.” His only use of any evidence or facts come from his reference to a Stanford University study which brings forward the lack of nutritional difference between organics and conventionally farmed foods. However, there hasn’t yet been true evidence of any new studies that have been able to conduct their own data on the subject. I would be very shocked to see that organics were not far more likely to be higher in nutritional value or less apt to contain pesticides, fertilizer, and other harmful things. (about Hurst’s “Organic Illusions”)

8.) Discuss the evolution of the ‘lede’ in earlier drafts and its final version (provide examples of each): where did you begin, what feedback did you receive, and how did it end up in final blog article?

My lede began as a rather long statement in which I tried to include a great deal of specific detail. However, after the lede workshop I thought that it would be more beneficial to get the reader’s attention and express my thoughts and specific details within the article. My lede began something like, our food system had become consumed by the authority and money of big corporations, and we as consumers lack the ability to enact change. The government has allowed itself to be controlled by these large profit makers as well, and because of this we have been unable to be provided with safe and regulated food that is reliable. My new lead asks direct questions to the reader in hopes to engage them on a personal level. Were you aware that the average chicken farmer invest nearly $500,000 a year and only makes about $18,000? Or even that in the 1970s the top five beef packers controlled 25 percent of the market, and now the top four are in control of more than 80 percent? How does it make you feel that you don’t have the right to know where your meats are coming from, or if they are at risk of containing a deadly strain of Escherichia Coli?

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

I want to make sure that I save multiple versions of my draft. In this unit I had one working copy that I would just make changes to and then save each time. This made it difficult for me to go back to things that I had already deleted but wished that I could refer back to. I think that this would make it easier for me to pull things from my revisions together instead of just having that current copy to work with.

 

 

While the food industry has become a highly standardized process, as shown in Food Inc., efficiency for the manufacturers may not be the key to satisfying the health and safety of consumers. Our consumers lack the power to ensure that the products they are buying are free from harmful bacteria and disease, this is due to the lack of power that we as consumers have on the regulation of our products. Our government agencies are also being controlled by the big manufacturers and their money, making it a difficult task to provide a more valid regulation process. The film Food Inc. provides the viewer with a vast array of evidence behind the numerous issues that are at stake in this debate. Food safety for consumers may be at the top of the list, but it is the issues of power, money, and lack of the consumers and even the government’s ability to regulate the food process.

Food Inc. puts the power of emotion to use by displaying some of these issues in the documentary. The film’s aim is to show what’s, “behind the veil of corporate farming,” and it does so by providing the viewer with powerful evidence that demonstrates the authority that the big food corporations possess over their farmers, workers, and also regulatory agencies.  Experts such as Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, an investigative writer, Barbara Kowalcyk, a food safety advocate, and Joel Salatin, an American holistic farmer all give the film high credibility. After viewing the film, I felt somewhat dumbfounded by the things that I saw. First, comprehending the grasp that the big companies like Tyson, and Purdue have on their farmers disgusted me. Carole Morrison, a former farmer for Purdue, has had enough of what she has deemed to be immoral farming. She is interviewed about the subject and states, “I understand why farmers don’t want to talk, because the company can do what it wants to do as far as pay goes because they control everything.” This quotation, and the interview, shows how one sided these contracts with the big food companies truly are. Her contract was terminated due to her lack of interest in changing her chicken coups to Purdue’s standards, and her disgust with the antibiotics and abnormal growth of her chickens. Not only do they control the farming portion of the meat packing industry, but the film unveils a far more concerning issue. It explains how many of the members of the FDA and USDA are former members of the beef industry. Notably, during the Bush administration, the chief of staff of the USDA, James F. Fitzgerald, was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry, and also the head of the FDA, Lester M Crawford Jr., was the former executive VP of the National Food Processors Association.

This portion of the film leads into one of the most heartfelt pieces of evidence, children dying of a particular deadly pathogen in contaminated foods. Escherichia Coli 0157:H7 is the strand that killed Kevin Kowalyck, son of Barbara Kowalyck, whose story is shown throughout the film. Kevin is a victim of a foodborne illness. He was only two years and eight months old, and the illness killed him in just twelve days. Barbara struggles to enact change in the government as we watch her bring the case of her son to state and federal courts to dispute new regulations. This horrifying story is also very closely related to a piece by Marion Nestle called, “Resisting Food Safety.” Nestle has a Ph.D, M.P.H., and is a professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. In her research about issues of foodborne illness she enlightens the reader about the politics and power behind food safety. The piece provides data from the past thirty years of the number of outbreaks and deaths of certain pathogens, and brings forward the statement that the food corporations and the government aren’t doing their part to ensure the safety of the consumers. In addition, Nestle also gives us some insight into it being an unreasonable task for the FDA and USDA to oversee the entire food production in the United States. Only 700 FDA inspectors are responsible for overseeing 30,000 manufacturers, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial establishments, 128,000 grocery stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. To me this seems like a nearly impossible task, and the USDA doesn’t do much better considering that they have twice as large of a budget than the FDA and ten times the workers, according to Nestle’s research. The USDA only regulates twenty percent of the food supply, and just fifteen percent of foodborne illness is reported under their jurisdiction in 2000! Marion Nestle’s aim of her piece is to provide stakeholders perspectives on the issues and how each parties’ goals are not aligned. The manufacturers claim that profit is maximizing shareholder wealth, but there has got to be a consensus to make safety the number one priority.

Consumer Reports, “You Are What They Eat,” provides evidence of the things that are being fed to our food and how it is affecting us. This piece is aimed at the health conscious and concerned consumers, so it displays a variety of input from experts of science and other areas of expertise. The article’s purpose is to expose the benefits and risks behind the processed feed that is being given to our livestock. David Fairfield, the director of feed services for the National Grain and Feed Association argues that, “animal protein products, meat and bone meal, and blood meat are nutritional feed ingredients.” However, according to the CDC (Centers for Disease and Control Prevention) these processed feed ingredients have far more potential for being contaminated. The biggest issue that we are facing is linking the contaminations with actual human illness. There is just not a big enough system to control and inspect where all of the contaminations are originating from. In 1997, a feed ban was enacted by the FDA to prevent infectious prions, or proteins that could lead to mad cow disease. However, the FDA’s enforcement of this ban has been very slim. They admitted that the results of their inspections were “severely flawed” due to a lack of compliance by the manufacturers. With this type of system that we have in place where these companies can skew and deflect attempts at inspections and regulation, we are not going to be able to enact change. Our government needs to take control of the situation and spend the necessary capital to regain control of the food industry and ultimately provide safety to our consumers.