Concussions in the NFL are a major problem. It is pretty hard to find a player in the league who goes their entire career without ever having one. Excessive head trauma can lead to a condition called Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). This condition causes many health issues that can make former players’ lives miserable. A major problem with CTE is that it increases the suicide rate by over 30%. While repeated concussions can ruin a player’s life, should the NFL do anything to stop them?

Research on the human brain for damage caused by playing football only started recently. When it was first discovered, it was not widely accepted. In fact, ESPN states that the NFL only recently came out and accepted that playing football and having CTE are related. According to the Boston University CTE center, one of their first studies came out and revealed that 87 of 91 former NFL players had CTE. While this number is scary, there are certain things that should be noted. To start of, since this was one of the first studies, the only brains that had to test were those of players who had donated them. Players would’ve only donated their brain if they thought something was wrong.

Secondly, since these are former football players, it can be assumed that they played quite a while ago. So while there is a direct correlation between football and CTE, equipment was different and not as safe as it is today. If the study was done on players today, which is not possible, the numbers would most likely be lower.

So what’s the danger in CTE? What makes it such a problem?

CTE has many symptoms. Many of them would be expected from traumatic brain injuries such as memory loss or confusion. The problem is there are many others such as depression, anxiety, suicidality, parkinsonism, and dementia. Yes, players are more likely to kill themselves because they had repeated concussions. Many players cannot enjoy their lives after football because they are too anxious and can’t think correctly. Many players have even confessed to not remembering their children’s names at times. As if all this wasn’t bad enough, then there are all the secondary problems. When people get anxious and depressed they tend to resort to drugs and alcohol which created a whole new set of problems. Nate Jackson and Thurman Thomas two former players who experience these symptoms everyday.

Former Buffalo Bills running back Thurman Thomas recently spoke about the effects of his concussions while playing in the NFL. He spoke at a concussion awareness event. Thomas spoke about how he has mood swings and “On so many days, I have to apologize to my family for them”. As he was speaking to the crowd, he had to stop several times because he couldn’t focus and forgot what he was talking about. Thomas also spoke about how he carries a notebook around everywhere he goes that describes what he is doing, just in case he gets lost or forgets. These are clear sign of brain damage after a 13 year NFL career.

Nate Jackson played in the NFL from 2003-2008. He had multiple concussions and often times played through them without telling team doctors. He says this is necessary because if you start missing time, you will be cut from the team. Now retired, he talked to Sports Illustrated about the impact the concussion had on him. He says “I am sad and I am depressed and suicidal thoughts, like raindrops, come down from the sky on seemingly sunny afternoons.” He then says that after doing it all and seeing the effects, if the NFL were to call him and he were able to get a job playing football, he’d do it again.

Yes, he’d do it again!!

Why would players put themselves in harms way even though they know the danger? Well the way Nate Jackson explains it, many players have no other skills, therefore football is all they have. Therefore, the NFL has to do a better job protecting the players. But at what costs? Should the game change? Should it just be better equipment? What has to be done?

The game of football, especially the professional game in the NFL, is a brutal game. You have muscular men that weigh more than 200 pounds in many cases running full speed into each other with the intention of hitting as hard as possible. It is only natural that injuries are going to occur. According to Frontline, over the last few years, concussions have been going up in the NFL. This is due in fact to the fact that they are being closely monitored. Before 2012, players were only diagnosed if they told someone about the symptoms. Now, there are officials on the sidelines looking out for players with concussions. This is part of the effort by the NFL to make the game safer and not have players have long lasting concussion symptoms.

People watch football for this brutality. America loves how rough this sport is. There is a reason the Super Bowl is always one of the most watched events on TV every year. So how can the NFL make the game safer without losing money? That’s they key to making football safer for players.

In 2014-2015, the NFL made $12 billion dollars, according to CNN money. Yes, that’s billion with a B. Every year, the amount of money they make increases. As football gets even easier to watch with the increase in technology, the NFL’s revenue goes up. If suddenly players stop hitting hard and can only hit certain regions of the body, as the NFL has proposed, then the amount of people watching will drop and the NFL’s revenue will follow. Anyone who doubts this should watch the video at the bottom of this paragraph showing some of the most entertaining NFL hits. There will be no more argument on what makes football so popular. Therefore, what can the NFL do. It’s already made it illegal to use the head/helmet as a weapon when tackling. Should they just say this is as safe as football is getting or continue changing the game?

NFL players know the risks they take by playing the game. Even before testing for CTE began, it was fairly obvious that smashing your head into someone else’s body wasn’t the healthiest thing. Now-a-days, there is no excuse for NFL players to say they weren’t warned. There is so much data to show the dangers of football. Therefore, if players know the dangers shouldn’t they be responsible for whatever happens to their bodies?

There are plenty of people in the world who would love the opportunity to play football. In addition, there are plenty of people in the world who would love to be paid millions of dollars to play football. A recent Business Insider study found that the average salary in the NFL is $1.9 million per year.  If as a player you aren’t willing to put your health on the line for $1.9 million dollars per year, then don’t play the game. The game of football shouldn’t have to adjust to the players.

Many players have retired young recently. Players such as Calvin Johnson have spoken to media companies such as ESPN and said that they retired early due to the fear of what repetitive concussion would do to their long term health. Johnson was scheduled to make $12.9 million in the upcoming season. Yet he stepped away. Many players have followed Johnson’s lead. This is what should be happening. Instead of ruining the game for all those who come after them, players should just step away from the game and allow those who want to play to step in.

Players in the NFL complain about all the risk to their health. Yet there are plenty of other professions where people put their health on the line for a lot less. The Houston Chronicle reports that police officers only average $54,230 a year.

Yet everyday they put their life on the line they risk the same concussion or broken ankle that NFL players risk once a week for half a year. They also have the very real risk of being shot.

The average salary for a coal miner is $50,000. Yet everyday that they go down into the mine, they risk not coming up. They also risk getting terrible diseases in addition to the same concussion that NFL players face when they bang their head.

Across the country there are plenty of industries that are more dangerous than the NFL where the risk to the worker’s health is greater than the NFL. If people can do these jobs or decide to walk away if they don’t want to take the risk, why don’t NFL players do the same?

All this isn’t to say that the NFL should just look the other way. In fact, they haven’t. According to CNN, due to a player lawsuit, the NFL has set up a fund that pays NFL players after their careers are done. The fund was set up as part of the settlement between the NFL and the more than 5,000 former players. This fund has an unlimited amount of money in it. Each player may receive payments up to $5 million dollars. The payments depend upon test results and doctor diagnosis. These payments are similar to pensions that are seen in other American industries such as law enforcement. In law enforcement, if you are injured and as a result cannot have a future career, you are given a certain amount of money so you can live your life. The NFL has done the same. If concussions or head injuries are the reason you cannot move on in life after playing football, the NFL gives the former players an amount that they deem fair in order for them to be able to live their lives.

Some former players still think the NFL is being unfair. Nate Jackson is one of these players. He told Sports Illustrated in his interview that the fund is unfair because ultimately the NFL decided how much money a player receives. Although test results are used to decide how much money each player gets, there is no actual test to date that can detect how much brain damage a player has received. Therefore, according to Nate Jackson, it is unfair the way the NFL distributes the money.

Ultimately, the discussion of whether the game should be safer or players should suck it up and take the money comes down to the fans. Most fans would rather see brutal hits and don’t think of the player’s health. Fans represent dollar bills to the league as the majority of the $12 billion the NFL sees yearly is from fan’s pockets. If fans start demanding a safer game, the NFL will make the game safer. If fans make it clear that they want to continue seeing a brutal game, as they have done, then the NFL will make the game as safe as possible without changing the brutality of the game. Overall, the concussion numbers will not change much unless the game changes. The only thing the NFL can do for the players without changing the game is educate them and make their post-NFL life as easy as possible.

 

 

 

Reflection:

1. The title and lede let the reader know what it going on. It introduces them to the topic/controversy of concussions in the NFL. It lets them know that there is a problem and a hint at what can be done. The rest of the article goes further in depth.
2. The introduction lets the reader know that there is a problem. It starts to introduce the problem and introduces CTE. It lets the reader know that the NFL can do something but leaves suspense regarding whether the NFL should do something.
3. The writer lets the reader know that there is a problem, but it whether it should be fixed is a different story. This is the idea presented. The facts are backed up with evidence and both sides of the argument are presented. Overall, I believe it is a strong argument.
4. The writer shows a pretty unique argument. It is not the typical argument of what should be done, but lets the reader choose what they want after presenting both sides and explains that only the fans can truly make a different in which path the NFL chooses to go.
5. The writer definitely presented the ideas well and they were not vague. The writer’s intention is to present all sides of the problem in order to avoid questions left unanswered. The material is organized in a way so all relevant information is grouped together and there is no jumping around the article.
6. The research is definitely there. There is a plethora of information regarding concussions. The author presented the necessary information without throwing too much information at the reader. The debate the author uses is backed up with all the information needed and is clear.
7. There are more than 6 secondary sources and several visual images. There is also one video to help the readers understand what the author is referring to. There are two primary sources. One is the BU CTE center, which provides the studies. The other is a stat sheet showing the concussion numbers by position and by season. The sources help the writer back up his argument and take it one step further.
8. The sources that the author puts into the article help him further advance his argument. They are not awkwardly placed and flow with the idea. They definitely help advance the argument.
9. The writer tries to persuade his audience to consider his claims by trying to get on a more personal level with them. He talks about how cops and coal miners compare to NFL players. It is fair to assume that many of his readers would be from this class of Americans. By making it more personal, he hopes to get through to them.
10. The reading visual helps gain the attention. The picture of the CTE affected brain right before talking about CTE will get the attention of the reader. The video of hard NFL hits helps prove his point that the hits are what people want.
11. The article improved with all the commentary received in class. The previous TED talk also helped him improve his argument and make it more clear what to talk about. The drafts which were read by class mates definitely helped him improve the writing.
12. The hyperlinks are effective and show the reader where the writer got his ideas from. There are not too many and they are not too long. The hyperlinks only show relevant information, instead of showing the reader every piece of information seen during the research.
13. I didn’t find any issues with the grammar in this article. The style was good. There were long sentences and paragraphs and short one sentence paragraphs as well. The different lengths should help the reader engaged.

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.

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? Throughout the whole food industry, all levels of the industry are trying to make higher profits by making the food process more industrialized and efficient, but leaving behind all oversight of the meats or produce, resulting in product that may be contaminated with no way to stop it.

The Food industry has had a shift in how they produce their products. As Food Inc. explains, the way farming has changed in the United States is drastic. When the word farmer is said, most people naturally picture the stereotypical farmer in the mid-west with his hat and his tractor planting his crops. Unfortunately, only part of this is true. The farmer is very likely to be a business man and he’s planting using techniques that would maximize his yield and profit. It is probably not the safest method. The farmer is most likely planting a genetically modified organism (GMO) seed. The chemicals that are used to plant these crops can be dangerous. The vegetables are then picked up and run through machines to be sold to distributers. The processes they use are scientifically improved every day to give higher yields. As 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 the yields are much higher than they were 23 years ago even though the environment is not cooperation with the farmer. The farmer is trying to have high profits because he has many bills due to lack of government regulation. He has to pay for his seeds, even though his crops produce seeds, because big corporations like Monsanto control the industry. When we think of meat, the process is also not quite like what we think. The cattle are raised until it is of slaughter age. While it is being raised, it is often fed things that are not natural to the animal’s diet. For example, Consumer reports has an articles named “You Are What You Eat”. In this article, it is stated that “Processed feathers are an acceptable source of protein in cattle feed”. In addition, the article also describes how animal “waste” is used to be fed to other animals. Antibiotics are also put in the cattle’s food to prevent outbreaks of illnesses. The industry is doing this to increase their profits. If cows are healthier and fatter, there is more meat to sell. Since the waste is naturally produced, it means that there is no need to spend much money on food to feed the cattle. All this increases the profit margin for the farmers. When the consumer (also known as the reader) puts this meat into their mouth, they are also eating everything that the farmer fed to his cattle. This is dangerous because the cattle were given drugs, which can be bad for humans. Although farmers have to ask the government for permission before adding a new ingredient to the food supply, it is not highly regulated. This means that farmers can cut cost as much as possible by feeding cattle foods that are not natural or healthy for them, but make them fatter.

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

Big corporations unfortunately control the way the food in American is produced today.These corporations not only have the money to be able to manipulate the market whichever way they want, but they have the customers. There are four companies that produce 85% of the meat in this country. This is very important information for several reasons. The first is that these companies control the prices on the meat market. Over the last several years, meat prices have been going up. 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. Lastly, another problem with these corporations having so much power is 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. Another example of a company that controls the market is Monsanto. This corporation 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.

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

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

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