1. In Unit I this semester I had a lot of trouble trying to working with a few articles at the same time. Trying to incorporate Food Inc., Consumer Reports, Organic Illusions, etc was very difficult to me. Trying to synthesize different texts was the hardest thing we did this semester. If the “Sort it Out” assignment was not given, I would have been extremely lost. Also learning about the writers project helped in all units. We had to find the projects of each food article and see what each author was trying to say but also when we were researching our topic for the next units, we again had to determine what each article was trying to achieve. I really enjoyed the second and third unit projects because it was about something that I was interested in. Unit I was by far the most difficult because of having to synthesis texts.

I thought a highlight of the semester was a few assignments that helped me immensely for each project. I sometimes would be extremely confused on what we were writing about or what we were doing for our final draft and there were a few assignments that made everything clear to me. The “Sort it Out” assignment for unit 1 helped me organize my thoughts. I was able to clearly determine what each project was, find similar topics being discussed in each article, and then find quotes that agreed or contradicted with the same topics.

 

The “web” document for unit II helped me write out everything I wanted to address in my TED talk.

 

 

Lastly, for unit III the last assignment we did in class. When we had to write list out all of your sources and label them as a secondary, primary, or scholarly source. I’m sure I was not the only one but I was very disorganized with all my sources, I had a ton of paperwork from a lot of research and never really put it down on paper the sources I was going to use so this really helped organize me.

 

The challenges I faced this semester were solved a lot by organization. Organizing my thoughts and putting them down on paper especially helped me when synthesizing texts and helped me in unit I, II, and III.

 

2. I had a term paper due two weeks ago in my sports psychology class. We needed three journal sources. My paper was on athletic injuries and MPFL reconstruction surgery. I went on the library database and almost all of my sources were from ProQuest to find scholarly journals about my topic. Without doing the research I had done in this class, I would not of even thought to use the library’s databases. The research we did in writing was different from other research I have done for classes because I would normally just have to get any source for assignments, never a specific source, a primary or secondary source. I didn’t even know the difference between the different types of sources. In writing I had to go onto databases, find databases that had my topic, select key words that would give me the information I needed, but also eliminate the articles I didn’t want. For other classes, I just go on Google and normally use the first few results.   However, because of the research done in writing, I used the databases to find journal sources for my psychology paper.

The main difference I’ve seen for different research writing situation deals with genre. This was shown with the unit II and III assignments. I used some of the same research but it was composed very differently. For my TED talk I took my research and tried to find pictures that best represented the quotes or information I was taking from a source. For unit III, I was able to keep the quotes but also have pictures if I thought it would help get the point across to readers. There was one picture of Brazilian officials spraying mosquitos in my TED talk and it was the only picture I could find. I thought it was easier to describe the picture in a TED talk versus the unit III article. In the TED talk I was able to say, “this picture shows…” and just talk like a normal conversation. In unit III, I placed the picture where I was talking about what Brazilian official are doing about Zika but it still could be unclear as to what’s happening in it.

3. I was not as interested in Food Politics as I was with my social controversy. When we were in Unit I, I believe that we were given all the research and articles we needed to read and watch to come up with our article. Everything that needed to be included was handed to us so no research was really needed. It was completely different in Unit II and III. It was definitely a lot harder and time consuming having to get our own information but it did enhance my engagement on the topic. I would see different opinions and new information coming out about Zika that would I would find very interesting and want to learn more about. Especially being able to pick our own topic, I assume most of us picked a topic we wanted to learn about so that made us engaged when we were doing things for our topic. For unit II when we needed to complete the “Sources that matter” worksheet I was getting very annoyed of research. Having to find six different databases got very tedious. I would find a few articles from two or three databases and think those articles would good enough but having to keep looking was very annoying. Especially because I had trouble finding some databases, it was very time consuming.

I thought the first unit was the longest. It dragged on for so long and not being that interested in food politics compared to the other unit assignments, I was bored with the first unit. It was interesting at first but I got less engaged as the unit continued and got creeped out from food politics and never cooked the raw chicken I had in my freezer.

4. I would continue with my Unit III NYT article. I can see why its weird that I want to continue working with a article that I wrote two days before the final draft was due, but I really think I could add a lot more information if I had time. I would first want to take it to the writing center but I would want to add more insight from athletes. I looked very hard for athletes from other countries opinions on the Zika crisis but I think maybe if I tried going onto websites that other countries use to see other opinions on Zika. My first draft of the essay was about how it’s not fair to women athletes because they are the ones mainly affected by Zika and question if it affects athletes from underdeveloped countries. I think if I had more time I could work that into my final idea that the public can’t try and pressure athletes or backlash them if they choose to not compete in the games. I could incorporate the idea that the public just can’t pressure female athletes to compete. Maybe if I could find fans reactions to Solo’s quote because she is very well known in America and a key component to the defending Olympic champion soccer team. I could tie their reactions into how the public can’t decide if the virus is actually dangerous or not because it’s the athletes that are sacrificing themselves and putting themselves at risk.

 

5. I would want to show my mom my Unit III NYT magazine article. I would want to show my mom because she is a nurse in the wound care center of her hospital. My mom being a nurse and having the maternal instinct, is very careful when it comes to health issues and being protective as a mom. That’s why I want to show her this article because I want to know what she should think athletes should do. My mom loves sports and has always been a huge fan of soccer because I’ve played it all my life. I want to know her reaction after reading the quote form Solo and Musnicki. I know a part of her would be worried for their kids if they contract the virus, but the other part of her wants to see a competitive Olympic games. Because I have played soccer all my life, I would imagine my mom putting myself in one of the female athletes shoes. I would hope my mom would say to go to the Olympics because if I had the chance to compete in the Olympics for the soccer team, I would go no matter what. I respect my parent’s opinion a lot and would need full support from them to compete. I’m curious to see what my mom thinks about competing or not for a daughter of hers, an athlete she doesn’t know personally, or if it was herself. I would want my mom to say yes to all situations. Take in the information we know about Zika and what we can do to prevent it and try as best as you can to try and not contract the disease.

The Public Can Only Support The Athletes Who Choose

To Not Attend

The Zika virus has been causing Brazil many problems and seems to be getting more and more dangerous. CNN wrote that the virus is “scarier than initially though.” Because the summer 2016 Olympics are being held in an area tormented by Zika, athletes have been speaking out about this controversy and contemplating whether or not they will travel to Brazil to compete in the upcoming games. The public cannot do anything about this situation. If athletes believe there is to high of a risk of getting infected, forcing those athletes to compete would be unethical. The public can do nothing about the athlete’s decision to not compete in the 2016 Olympics.

Zika was first isolated in Uganda in 1947 with a few cases reported in Asia and Africa. In 2013, there was an outbreak in French Polynesia, and now in 2015 there is an epidemic in Brazil. The Ades mosquito is what transmits Zika. Many people will be asymptomatic, but if symptoms do occur, the common ones are eye redness, fever, rash, and joint pain. The most dangerous symptom that involves women is microcephaly. Microcephaly is a neurological brain disorder that can be passed down from the mother to the fetus and cause abnormally small heads in children because of defective brain development. This side effect, shown in the picture below, could have spooked many people as pregnant women have been advised to not travel to the games and the World Health Organization has declared the Zika epidemic a public health emergency of international concern.

With the Zika virus troubling the Rio Olympics, how can the public react if some of the world’s top athletes do not compete? The Zika virus has been shown to be transmitted by mosquito, but recently the virus has become more dangerous because the Center for Disease Control, (CDC), has reported that it can be transmitted sexually as well. The virus has already spread to the United States with a total of 358 cases of Zika, some of them being acquired vector borne, but mostly have been travel associated. 31 cases have been reported where the person was pregnant, and seven cases where Zika was acquired sexually. Much of the news in America focuses on what’s happening with Zika in Brazil, very little of it shows what’s happening in regard to cases being reported here in the US.

The question is do athletes have an obligation to compete in the games because of respect for us as spectators and the Olympic games? No, and there is nothing we can do about that. Olympic athletes don’t owe us anything. They are the ones that have made tremendous sacrifices in their lives to get to the level they are at now. If they feel that Zika is to harmful for their bodies or to their future children and decide not to compete, the public can do nothing. Asking a person, whatever their status, to make them sacrifice their body or child because we want them to win a medal is unjust. It is not up to the public to decide whether Zika is dangerous and should affect the Olympics. There is not much known about the virus but athletes will take in the little information they know about the virus and make the best decision they think is right for them, not for us as spectators.

Some athletes who have spoken out are Hope Solo and Megan Musnicki. Hope Solo, the staring goalie for the United States Women’s national soccer team, told Sports Illustrated in February, “If I had to make the choice today, I wouldn’t go. Competing in the Olympics should be a safe environment for every athlete, male and female alike. Female athletes should not be forced to make a decision that could sacrifice the health of a child.”  Other athletes, like Meghan Musnicki who won gold in the women’s eight boat in 2012 said, “It’s never entered my mind not to go. It would be the pinnacle of my rowing career to represent the US again at the Olympic games. I’m not intending on being pregnant before the games or immediately following the games.”

 

 

 

 

As you can see, some athletes are concerned the virus is a threat and others are not fazed by it. Most athletes who are not worried about becoming pregnant any time soon are okay with competing. The virus affects the female athletes who are planning on starting a family within the near future, hence why American Officials have left the decision up to each individual athlete on whether or not they are going to compete in the games.

Sexual transmission can scare many athletes as well because like the Boston Globe states, “When they prepare for the Olympics, elite athletes put their lives on hold. Some take a leave of absence from college or career. Some put off weddings. Some wait to start families. So it is not a coincidence when some Olympians welcome babies a year or two after their Games.”  Once Zika has been cleared from a woman’s blood, Zika would not affect future pregnancies if she were not pregnant when she contracted the virus. But, it is unknown as to how long it takes for Zika to be cleared from a person’s blood. This takes the disease to a new level of danger because a woman that’s not pregnant can contract the virus and if Zika is still in her blood when she finally becomes impregnated in the future, her child could be affected with microcephaly or any other side effects of Zika. This is a main concern for some athletes that plan on starting a family in the near future.

CNN in April this year came out with an article stating that the virus has not only been linked to microcephaly but also, premature birth, eye problems, and other neurological conditions. Now information also states that Zika exposure can affect pregnant women in all trimesters, not just the first. As the clock ticks closer and closer to the Rio Olympics, more dangerous information is being discovered and reported regarding Zika.

With all the new information about Zika being more dangerous then first expected, if athletes choose not to compete, the public has no right to backlash them. They have worked their whole lives to compete in an Olympic games so they want to compete and will do whatever they can to compete, if they believe Zika is to risky, it is their decision to back out and the publics job to support them.

With Zika running wild in Brazil and a lot of information unknown about the virus, will all of the top female athletes in the world compete in the Olympics? If Hope Solo, considered one of the best keepers in the world, if not the best, doesn’t travel to the games, how will that affect the US women’s soccer team’s performance? The same goes for other athletes who have qualified and do not compete. The virus makes it a tough decision for athletes who have worked their whole lives to compete in Olympic games. I myself being an athlete wouldn’t know what to do. But whatever decision each athlete makes, the public needs to support them because they are doing what they believe is best for their safety and the safety of any future children. It is not fair to coerce an athlete to compete.

Zika is mosquito borne, similar to malaria. Malaria is more prevalent across the world so I looked up ways to prevent malaria and compared them to what Brazil is doing to try and stop the spread of Zika. UNICEF.org‘s big reason for prevention for Malaria is by mosquito nets being placed around all entrances and exits and especially making sure to be under a net when sleeping. Also, having air-conditioned rooms to drop temperatures and taking antimalarial medication as directed. Spraying your room before bed with a pyrethroid to kill bugs that may have come in during the day and covering any bare areas on your body with lose fitted clothing has also been suggested.

Brazilian officials have stated many times that the Olympic games will take place during August, which is Brazil’s winter, so the weather will be colder meaning there will not be many mosquitos out. They have also had many workers out spraying mosquitos and trying to get rid of standing water to eliminate breeding sites.

Brazil seems to thinks that the cold weather makes Zika a non-issue. Maybe if there was a vaccine for Zika it would not be an issue, but because there is no vaccine made to combat Zika, health officials are doing their best to educate the Brazilian population on their role in fighting Zika.

When wiping out the entire population of the Ades mosquito is almost impossible and the government’s main hope for containing Zika being the weather, will athletes think the precaution being taken are enough to compete?

With headlines of articles about Zika being titled, “Zika virus ‘scarier than initially thought’” from CNN, “Zika is Coming” from the New York Times, “Zika virus hasn’t been contracted in KC, but mosquitoes that can carry it are here” from the Kansas City Starr, and “The Rio Olympics are a mess 7 months before the opening ceremony” from Business Insider, how are athlete not supposed to be extremely worried about their safety.

With the media portraying Zika as a very threatening virus and the decision on whether to compete in the Olympic games left up to each individual athlete, the public can do nothing but hope that each athlete will make the best decision in this situation.

REFLECTION:

1. When researching Zika, I found this really good phrase that drew me into an article, “Scarier than initially thought.” After I saw that, I thought it would be a good title because Zika, being scarier than initially thought, is what is causing the athletes to make the tough decision on whether or not to attend. I tried to have a subtitle for my article but was getting very confused with the website. I wanted the subtitle to be, “the public can only support the athletes who choose not to attend.” I couldn’t figure out a way to make that go directly underneath the main title so I just put it right above the top picture. I believe my first sentence could be more creative. It does state the issue but could have been said in a more creative way.
2. The picture at the very top gives the reader an idea of what the article will be about and the opening paragraph sets the stage for the Zika virus affecting athlete’s decisions. I showed exigency by mentioning that the Zika virus is plaguing the summer 2016 games that are occurring in just a few months and stated how some athletes may not compete. My main focus on the article was that the public couldn’t force an athlete to compete but only support their decision so I made sure to put that in the first paragraphs to give the reader my controversy.
3. My idea and was that the public can’t pressure athletes to compete because they want them to win a medal or the USA to be dominant in the Olympics. I kind of developed it to saying that it wasn’t the publics right to decide if Zika was actually dangerous or not and if it should affect the Olympics. I gave information on how the media was portraying Zika, how other diseases mosquito transmitted were contained, and some of information about it to kind of say that it’s the athletes bodies, lives, and their future children’s lives at stake so they make the choice on competing. Plus, that there shouldn’t be pressure from the public because that is unethical.
4. The way I tried to organize my presentation was to state the issue, give background information on the Zika for readers who didn’t know much about it, state my opinion on the topic, and then give information recent information on Zika and how dangerous it could actually be. I thought that adding how malaria, another mosquito borne illness, was treated and how Brazil is just mainly banking on the weather to protect everyone was unique.

5. Like I said in the last question, I tired to give background information on Zika at first, then give recent information and always relate that back to the virus becoming more dangerous and that is why its making it a tough decision for athletes because it seems the close and closer the Olympics get, more sketchy information comes out. Some readers may think that athletes owe it to their country to compete in the Olympic games but I challenged that idea.

6. I changed my argument at the last minute. I was taking the stance that I was sick of Zika only affecting women and making female athletes choose whether or not to compete in the Olympic games. I went to the writing center three times and the people editing it said it was fine. The last person I went to on Friday said my article was very “sourcie.” I didn’t have much voice in my piece and that I was all over the place going from source to source. That is when I changed my argument and went the different route on the public can’t pressure athletes to compete. I wasn’t able to go to the writing center again because the final draft was due Monday. So I restarted my article and tried to change my focus to what the athletes are taking into consideration regarding Zika, how that could affect their decision to compete and what the public could do if they wouldn’t. I made my debate by stating that athletes don’t owe the public anything. I tried to bold main points of mine to make sure that stood out in the article. I used the research about Zika and the information that the public knows about it a big reason as to why athletes are questioning to compete.

7. I actually didn’t realize that we had to include all six secondary sources that we had listed that one-day in class. When the writing center guy told me that my article was very “sourcie,” I went in the complete opposite direction. I only included two different quotes from athletes stating their opinion, information from CNN, statistics from the CDC, and a quote from the Boston Globe. There are a few times where I could have stated this was from… for example, my information about malaria prevention, I got from UNICEF which could be another secondary source. I also used some titles from different articles about Zika to see how some media can be scarring people about the virus. A few were visuals. I tried more to add more of my voice and opinion on the issue instead of using sources like my first draft had.

8. Every time I utilized a source I tired to talk around it and give contextual information to introduce it or state information about it after the quote. I at first thought I needed to cite each quote but then realized that there are no page citations in an article.   I used some titles of articles about Zika to show what the virus’s reputation was in the media. The quotes I used were to give top athlete opinions on the issue and question how if Solo didn’t compete, how would that affect female soccer? The quote from the Boston Globe was to show that Olympians live abnormal lives. They put off a lot of things to train and compete so a virus like Zika, which could damage their future children, could cause major concern.

9. I used logos when comparing malaria versus Zika preventions. How with malaria there are actual things being done, like mosquito nets up, and medical treatment that could help. Zika has no medical help, no vaccine in the making, and Brazil counting on the weather as their main source of protection. I don’t establish much credibility. I could of stated how I am an athlete and what I would feel like in an Olympians situation with the games coming up. I established pathos by showing the picture of microcephaly and describing what is it. The CDC statistics are shocking because I never thought that many cases were already reported here in the United States. Plus, the quote from the Boston Globe can make the readers feel bad for athletes who have put off families to compete, and if they do compete and contract Zika, they could be left with an Olympic medal but also a child with microcephaly.

10. I thought having a picture of what microcephaly looks like was really important because most people haven’t seen a baby with the condition and it is a horrible condition to have. I didn’t really provide captions to my pictures, which could have been helpful. I wanted to show pictures of the Olympic athletes who gave the quotes. The picture of the soccer team winning gold I thought was important because if the starting keeper, the best keeper in the world, doesn’t attend, how will that affect the reining Olympic champions? The Brazilian officers spraying mosquitos in that suit I thought was a good pictures because they are in crazy protective suits that I thought I only see in movies. It shows again, how dangerous this virus is.

11. Like I said before, my first few drafts are completely different from my final one. Every in class peer review was using my old drafts. I went over with my Professor Barone taking the stance of women only being affected but completely changed my argument on the issue at the last minute so I had to re-due my whole article a few days before the final was due. Before I submitted my final draft I sent it to Alana and she gave me some good feedback on what to change or make clear because I was not able to go to the writing center. I thought the last man I spoke to at the writing center gave me good ideas to go with from the argument we came up with.

12. I used hyperlinks when I quoted from things that could be found online. Basically any information I got on a website that could be accessed easily relating to my topic. I also hyperlinked the articles with the headlines that I quoted.

13. Normally before I submit my final drafts I got to the writing center at least 4 times to get a few opinions on my article and different idea to go with my piece. They also correct my grammar and make sure everything is clear. This was the first time I wasn’t able to do that because the last guy I met with made me very concerned for my final draft. I reread my article a few times myself and had two friends read it over to see if there was anything unclear or if grammar mistakes were evident. I hope we caught all of them.

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

We eat food at least three times a day. People will go to the grocery store and just put things in the cart barely looking at the packaging. The public assumes that the food we eat is safe because the FDA and USDA regulate it knowing little about how the food industry works. The government is thought to have full control of the food industry but with the daunting task of inspecting millions of places with powerful companies seeking profit and efficiency, big business uses its power to control the food industry to maximize revenue. Big companies pressure the government into lessening regulations that are beneficial for them because they are resistant to food safety when it comes to maximizing profit. The public is in the dark when it comes to the food industry business and process of food making.

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

The problem in the food industry comes from all levels. The government, the producers, and the consumers all contribute and support the unruly food business. Nobody is willing to take the blame for problems that arise. Marion Nestle, a professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, in her book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety, specifically chapter one “Resisting Food Safety,” talks about how producers, processors, and the government are trying to place blame on each other when outbreaks of food borne illnesses occur. Nestle states how today’s food production encourages bacteria and viruses to spread with animals living in such close quarters. Not only are the living conditions poor, but the people raising the animals on the farm, or killing them in the slaughterhouse, are not educated enough to know how to protect themselves and the public from bacteria. Outbreaks are reported to the media but in the past decade, they have gotten nastier because bacteria like e. coli 0157:H7 have changed over time to be able to withstand extremely hot temperatures.

Nestle describes conditions where animals are held in large holding pens where they stay in extremely close contact among other animals until death where touch is only needed to spread pathogens. It is evident that there are people involved in every stage of food processing. Everyone must take responsibility for food safety but taking responsibility makes the businesses liable if something happens. That is why processors blame producers, the government blames processors and producers, and everybody blames the consumer. Each system of food processing (meaning producers and processors) doesn’t want to take the blame for anything because it can be devastating to business profits.

Earlier this year when the Chipotle outbreak occurred, its stock dropped 42 percent. Money is a reason why producers try to wash their hands clean of any responsibility.   Because we eat food so often, it is very hard to determine where a food-borne illness was contracted. But consumers, even after hearing of an outbreak, will still keep eating at that place. Chipotle still has lines and yet had massive outbreaks all over the country. Even though there could be repercussions, the government needs to get a better hold of the food industry so problems will be addressed. In order for the changes to happen, the public needs to be informed.

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

In their article “You Are What They Eat,” Consumer Reports writes, “the need for slaughterhouses to find a cheap, safe way to dispose of waste gave rise to a marriage of convenience between renderers and food producers, and to the inclusion of animal by-products in animal feed” (26). Animal waste is recycled into feed, which is inhumane. Putting that into perspective, animals are fed their own waste, humans are eating the animals, and thus we are essentially eating animal waste as well. Plus, the effects of animal waste in humans are still unknown.

As you can see in this picture from 1950 to 2008, animals are fed drugs and their own waste to grow faster. The government is aware of what is given to animals and the toxins that humans are exposed to when waste is given to the animals we eat; however, they are not able to do much about it because of how many billions of dollars the drug companies make by selling their drugs to corporations and how little money it takes to recycle waste into food.

Nestle writes, “The FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress,however, overruled this idea under pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of the drugs” (Nestle 46). With the pressure placed on the government, there still lie regulation loopholes because billions of dollars are at stake. Food Inc. depicted how these businesses allow animals to live in wretched conditions where there is no sunlight, manure on the ground, and dead animals lying around. They feed the animals waste as “needed protein and other nutrients” and drugs in order to fatten them up cheaper in the shortest time period (26).

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

Schlossar, in Food Inc., says that there are only 13 slaughterhouses today. In the past, there were many companies, producers, and slaughterhouses distributing the power. Each company has so much leeway that even the government can’t control them.

Due to the lack of public knowledge about the food industry we are not able to make better decisions as consumers. This makes me question how much we really know about this business. There are plenty of articles and movies showing the sketchiness of the production of food but the public does not take the information seriously enough. Whether the public chooses to look the other way or just assume that what we eat is safe, humans need to be aware of the problems.

Many people would turn to organic food as the other option. Sometimes organic food is going to cost too much, but the public needs to be aware of what is going on so changes will occur. If the public decides to boycott one brand because of unruly practices, changes will happen. “Organic Illusions” by Blake Hurst creates doubt in the reader’s mind about organic vs. conventional farming. He writes, “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims” (Hurst 5). This makes the government’s role questionable in organic farming.

If the government is not checking whether or not organic food is actually organic then how is the public supposed to know if organic food is actually healthier and worth the extra money? The picture below is concerning because the FDA and USDA do not have enough manpower to regulate imports, warehouses, slaughterhouse, and farms. If the government can’t even regulate conventional farming, how can they regulate organic farming as well? It’s an extremely important job but one that is not being done to the best extent. Overall, the government oversight of the food industry is a mess and needs to improve because there is too much to regulate for the system that we have now.

If the government fails to step up to big businesses there will be more outbreaks, more deaths, and the businesses will keep profiting. Consumers will still be exposed to the harmful toxins that are put into animal feed that can lead to food-borne illness. More deaths will occur due to outbreaks and the public will still be ingesting antibiotics daily.  People will become very concerned about the government and its role in protecting the people. If food is something that we need to survive, it needs to be well regulated to ensure safety and well being. It’s significant to end with a quote by Robert Kenner who stated it best in Food Inc. when he said, “The industry doesn’t want us to know the truth…if you knew the truth, you might not want to eat the food.”

UNIT 1 REFLECTION:

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

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

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

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

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

The Sort it Out workshop was the main organizational strategy I used. I was able to pull quotes from different passages that related to the same topic. That really helped me organize my thought because I had to write down the project and main ideas of each documentary or article. At first my structure of my blog was more like an essay. Two women at the writing center helped me break up my paragraphs and talk in a way that was more like a blog. For example, I had a over ten sentence paragraph and one lady helped me figure out where my topics changed a little which helped me determine where to split up my paragraphs.Nestle writes, “The FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of the drugs” (Nestle 46). With the pressure placed on the government, there still lie regulation loopholes because billions of dollars are at stake. Food Inc. depicted how these businesses allow animals to live in wretched conditions where there is no sunlight, manure on the ground, and dead animals lying around. They feed the animals waste as “needed protein and other nutrients” and drugs in order to fatten them up cheaper in the shortest time period (26).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due to the lack of public knowledge about the food industry we are not able to make better decisions as consumers. This makes me question how much we really know about this business? There are plenty of articles and movies showing the sketchiness of the production of food but the public does not take the information seriously enough. Sometimes organic food is going to cost too much but the public needs to be aware of what is going on so changes will occur. If the public decides to boycott one brand because of unruly practices then changes will happen. Organic Illusions by Blake Hurst creates doubt in the readers mind about organic versus conventional farming. He writes, “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims” (Hurst 5). This makes me question the government’s role in organic farming. If the government is not checking whether or not organic food is actually organic then how is the public supposed to know if organic food is actually healthier and worth the extra money? The FDA and USDA do not have enough manpower to regulate imports, warehouses, slaughterhouse, and farms. It’s an extremely important job but one that is not being done to the best extent. Overall, the government oversight of the food industry is a mess and needs to improve.

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

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