John Carino

WRT 205 Reflection

[1]  How well does the title provocatively focus the reader’s attention, as well as the lede? Is it thoughtful, creative, clever? Does it lead the reader into the text and provide some insight into the issue?

The title of an article or piece of writing is a very powerful tool. A writer has essentially one line to draw the attention and interest of a reader. A catchy title has to be provocative, or maybe raise a question that may intrigue a potential reader. With this article title I chose to propose a question that relates to the topic I continue to discuss. “Was Japan just in their decision to scrap Zaha Hadid’s competition winning design?” I do a few things here, I place an action that is an important part of my article, presenting that Japan had scrapped Zaha Hadid’s design. This way the reader has an idea of what the topic I may be exploring is. I continue by questioning the justness and morality of this decision, hopefully gaining the interest of the reader who may now be thinking and curious of what they could have done to raise this ambiguity of their actions.

 [2]  How well does the introductory section of the article invite the reader into the paper, as well as offer up exigency?  How does it locate a problem or controversy within a context that provides background and rationale?

I began my article with a lede that presents statement about money in reference to architecture, then lead that into how that relates to Japan’s actions. I share a broad statement about Japan’s overall reasoning for scrapping her design, but then hint that that may not be the real and only reason. This gives the reader some context to the situation, but intrigues them to continue reading. The problem that it locates within the controversy is that Japan is making a claim for their reasoning, I begin to hint that this claim may not be as accurate and true as the say it is.

[3] How well does the writer offer up a strong ‘idea’ that requires analysis to support and evolve it, as well as offers some point about the significance of evidence that would not have been immediately obvious to readers.?

               I am making a bold claim by saying that Japan lied to and deceived Zaha Hadid. This argument requires thorough support through analyzing all perspectives and developments of the situation. I also believe that as an architecture student there were aspects I was able to see analyzing and studying my sources that others may have not fully understood or picked up on. I attempt to relay these in my article in a clear and understandable way.

 

[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics?

               I articulate my own style when I input my opinion when appropriate. I also chose a topic that I believed not many people outside of the architecture discipline would know about. I hope that the readers would gain new insight into a field they did not know much about and how influential something like this could actually be to them.

[5]  How well does the writer recognize that a NYTs Magazine audience will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped or poorly explained? (that is, did the writer avoid cliché and vagueness or address points/issues readers are likely to have?)  How well did the writer decide about how to develop, sequence, and organize material?

I attempted to avoid vagueness and general statements by integrating many quotes and first hand details from sources that are difficult to misinterpret. My piece synthesizes years of development of this case, which has been in development since 2012. I follow the progression as a narrative, analyzing and giving my opinion on each development along the way.

[6]  How well does the writer research a controversy, develop a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic,  and join the ‘debate’ by making an argument of importance? 

               I originally came across this controversy through research when attempting to find architectural controversies at an international scale. This topic in particular interested me as I was able to form a basic opinion pretty quickly from my first few sources I read. I knew however it would require more extensive reader to be able to construct a strong supported argument that could convince an entire audience. The implications of this controversy go beyond just Japan and Zaha Hadid and her firm, as it could affect thousands including the local community and the millions of people watching the Olympics if the stadium is unfinished or has any flaws due to a rushed construction. I hope in my argument to share the controversy, and not only who is at fault but what consequences their decisions may have.

[7]  How well does the writer meet or exceed research expectations of assignment requirements (6 appropriate secondary sources, 1 visual source, (or more) and primary research? ).

               As this topic is significantly centered on a physical structure, visuals are a powerful tool that I utilize to support me argument. For example showing the similarities between Kuma’s design and Hadid’s. I also show the amount of progress Hadid had made in her design already when Japan scrapped it, presenting how she should rightly be paid for her work. I also integrate many quotes from many participants in the controversy, giving the reader personal opinions that give new perspectives to the situation.

[8]  How well does the writer integrate secondary and primary sources (that support and complicate the topic) effectively into the text, introducing and contextualizing them, and “conversing” (i.e. no drop-quoting) in ways that deepen and complicate the analysis?

               Integrating quotes is important, I give context to my quotes so that they cannot be misinterpreted. Allowing for a quote to be misinterpreted completely defeats the purpose of utilizing one. Quotes are power tools, that when integrated correctly can really help create a convincing argument. I use quotes in my article in just that way.

[9 How well does the writer persuade an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority on which you have built your research?  How strong and effective is the writer’s use of rhetorical tools (ethos, logos, pathos)?

               I am able to persuade the reader by sharing multiple sources that are factual and opinionated that reach similar conclusions about the morality of Japan’s actions and decision making. By being clear in my writing, my ideas can more easily be absorbed by readers.

 10] How well does the writer select appropriate, interesting, revealing visual?  Has the writer placed a visual strategically in the essay and provided relevant commentary on and/or analysis of them?  Do the visuals contribute to the essay in meaningful ways (i.e. would the essay be affected if the writer took the visual away)? 

               I utilize multiple visuals, including a video to help the reader understand a visual context to the argument I am making. Visuals are particularly important in my article because architecture is a profession that manifests itself through buildings and images. Without giving a visual context to the reader, I cannot possible fully relay to them all the information they need to make their own decision or opinion of what to believe.

[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments?

               Various drafts are import to narrow down and figure out exactly what claim you want to make. They are also important to figure out the best way to organize the order of paragraphs and how to frame your argument, as well as integrate your own opinion in supported ways.

[12]  How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate?

               I utilize hyperlinks by embedding a video that is very revealing to a point I make. In particular that Zaha Hadid and her firm had put a significant amount of work and progress into their design. What better way to describe that then share a video showcasing the work?

[13]  How well did the writer edit for grammar, style, and usage effectively? Does the writer’s attention to sentence level issues help him/her establish authority or credibility on the issue? 

               Having good grammar is always good because it shows you are well educated and have reviewed your work multiple times. Style is important because it gives your work personality, and when you are making a claim and trying to convince a reader of something, some of “you” has to come through your writing so it is not bland, and your reader can relate more. Using the style of a New York Times article with short paragraphs helps the reader grasp each argument, piece of information, and claim one piece at a time. It also requires the writer to place more precision on each of these paragraph, making sure each is clear and articulate.

Was Japan just in their decision to scrap Zaha Hadid’s competition winning design?

John Carino

In the world of architecture, sometimes the decision to build comes down to money. Money drives everything, and often it unnecessarily complicates situations. In the case of Japan’s scrapping of Zaha Hadid’s 2020 Olympic Stadium design it seems money have not been the main reason despite their claim.

When Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe scrapped British-Iraqi architect Zaha Hadid’s design for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic stadium, it was due to claims of spiraling material costs. While rising construction costs is an existing problem, Zaha Hadid and her architects argue the reasons behind the Tokyo government dropping her design were illegitimate and go beyond just the rise of financial issues.

In 2012 Zaha Hadid Architects won an international competition with their design for an 80,000 seat stadium that would be used for the 2019 Rugby World Cup, the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, and would exist as the home for Japanese sports for the next century.

Zaha Hadid’s world famous works include the 2012 Aquatics Centre for London’s Olympic Games as well as the in-progress production of the 2022 stadium for the football World Cup in Qatar.

For the 2020 Olympic Stadium project, Hadid produced a “streamlined design with two gigantic arches, resembling a cyclist’s helmet” (Kyodo). Hadid is known for her futuristic and progressive designs, and, this design in particular started to turn heads, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

Zaha Hadid’s design for the stadium began receiving heavy criticism from famous Japanese architects as soon as it won the international competition. These high profile Japanese architects include Toyo Ito, Sou Fujimoto, Kengo Kuma, as well as Fumihiko Maki. Between these architects there was mutual agreement that her structure was too large and expensive, they also stated that Hadid did not understand the building site’s context, which also upset the site’s community.

The local community of the stadium site held a 500-person protest in outrage against the design. Along with believing the costs were too high, these architects and community members believed her hyper-modern futuristic design did not integrate well into its surroundings. While a hyper-modern design may seem appropriate to send a message to the world about Japans forward-thinking and technological advances, they felt it did not appropriately reflect cultural Japanese values and would inappropriately stand out in their community.

Her design disappointed more than just Japanese architects. Barcelona’s Olympic Stadium architect Arata Isozki called her project “a monumental mistake” (Japan). He claimed it left him “in despair”(Japan) and saw it as a “disgrace to future generations” (Japan). Zaha Hadid was shocked and disappointed in her treatment surrounding the project, especially when they dropped her design to host a new design competition so late into the design process.

Zaha Hadid had a different perspective of why her design was scrapped. She claimed, “This shocking treatment of an international design and engineering team, as well as the respected Japanese design companies with whom we worked, was not about design or budget” (Press).       

Hadid stated they just did not want a foreigner designing their national stadium. She called the Japanese architects who criticized her hypocrites, because they had all worked abroad themselves. She even stated “The fact that they lost is their problem, they lost the competition. If they are against the idea of doing a stadium on that site, I don’t think they should have entered the competition” (Japan).

“Due to 25 percent rise in costs across Tokyo’s construction market, the authorities used costs as an excuse to swap for a Japanese architect”(Press)

In response to the claims of a steep annual increase in construction costs Hadid responded “It is not the case that the recently reported cost increases are due to the design, which uses standard materials and techniques well within the capability of Japanese contractors and meets the budget set by the Japan Sports Council” (Japan). She claimed the increased cost of her project was a result of rising construction costs, not due to her design. Hadid argued by scrapping her design, they were setting them up for an entirely new set of problems and costs.

“It is disappointing that the government did not even consider working with the existing design team to build on the two years of design work they and the Japanese people had invested”(Wainwright). – Spokesperson for Zaha Hadid architects

This video rendering that expresses the extensive work Zaha Hadid and her team had already placed into the project.

Hadid argued that the Japanese government did not even attempt to work with her to revise her design. She claims they could have made it work, arguing that all of these delays that the government caused may make the stadium not ready for the Rugby World Cup and possibly even the Olympics, including an extended construction deadline which increases costs significantly after such a long construction delay. Hadid claimed her project construction would have already been in progress.

“Work would already be underway building the stadium if the original design team had simply been able to develop this original design, avoiding costs of an 18-month delay and risk that it may not be ready in time for the 2020 Games” (Press).

In July of 2015 Japan hosted a new design competition to pick a project to replace Hadid’s. Hadid’s argument seems to gain validity as the winner of the new design competition was Japanese architect Kengo Kuma, one of the architects that had previously criticized Hadid. Outrage continues to be drawn as his design had striking resemblance to Hadid’s design in plan and circulatory design aspects.

Zaha Hadid began to suspect collusion by the Japanese government as it seems their reasons for scrapping her design continue to become more illegitimate with its new developments, claiming: “sadly the Japanese authorities, with the support of some of our own profession in Japan, have colluded to close the doors on the project to the world” (Zaha Hadid accuses).

Hadid claimed Kengo Kuma’s replacement design has “remarkable similarities to her own” (Zaha Hadid accuses). She argued that they are very similar in shape and layout. She even asserted, “in fact much of our two years of detailed design work and the cost savings we recommended have been validated by the remarkable similarities of our original detailed stadium layout and our seating bowl configuration with those of the design announced today”(Press). Kuma responded to these accusations claiming, “In the design, I would like to say there are no similarities at all” (McCurry)

While Kuma’s design had a cost estimate of $1.4 billion and Hadid’s came in around $2.3 billion the multitude of factors and controversies surrounding Japan’s decision-making and treatment of Hadid seem unjust. They did not even attempt to work with her, and the tension grew between Japan and Hadid as legal issues arose surrounding Hadid’s payment for her work.

Organizers of the Olympics were refusing to pay Hadid for her scrapped design until she gave them all of the copyrights on her designs and signed a gag order. They also demanded that she and anyone at her firm not discuss or comment on the project. When giving over the copyrights the agreement that the Japanese government is demanding she signs “specifies that the stadium’s new design team is “allowed to use any product of work… regardless of its copyright”” (Zaha Hadid refuses).

Hadid brought forth her issues with the similarities of Kuma’s new design to the Japanese Sports Council. She hoped discussions could be held for her and her firm to be rightly treated and paid for the thorough design work created by her and her firm. If the issues cannot be resolved, Hadid claimed they would “take legal actions if our concerns are not promptly addressed to our satisfaction” (McCurry).

Is it not hypocritical for the JSC to claim they are not copying Hadid’s design, then forcing her to give up all her design copyrights so they can legally do just that? While the Japanese government may have had some justification in their decision to drop her design and while their reasoning was not always necessarily wrong, they took an inappropriate and deceptive approach by scrapping her design and trying to legally pressure her out of her copyrights and hard work.

While this situation may seem to only effect the Japanese Sports council and Zaha Hadid and her architects, it actually has massive implications that could affect thousands or millions of people. This stadium will affect the lives of everyone in its local community for generations. The construction of this structure is also important, consider if the project is now rushed because of these issues, could there be safety problems for its users if it is not built to the highest standard?

Perhaps by not going with Hadid’s design Japan may influence millions of people by the consequences of their actions. Consider if the stadium is not finished in time for the 2020 Olympics? This then becomes an international issue that will place Japan in a difficult situation.

Despite the many ways this situation could have developed, tragically on the night of March 31, 2016, Zaha Hadid passed away. The Japanese Olympic Prime Minister Toshiaki Endo respectably responded “although (the design) was scrapped, I would like to thank her for the contribution she made, the innovative design contributed greatly to Tokyo’s bid to host the Olympics”(Kyodo).

While Hadid’s firm may continue to communicate with Japan to resolve these issues, it is more important to reflect on the influence Zaha Hadid had on the architectural profession in her lifetime. She was the first woman ever to receive the Prizker Architecture prize, an award equivalent to the Nobel Prize in its prestige. Her futuristic and organic flowing designs have been recognized and praised by the world and the architectural profession. Japanese architect and critic of her 2020 stadium design praised Hadid whom he claims “had an amazing sense of designing architecture filled with aerodynamics all through her career”(Kyodo). She pushed boundaries, and her work will continue to influence and inspire architects for generations to come.

 

Works cited:

“Japan Scraps Hadid’s Tokyo 2020 Olympic Stadium.” Dezeen. 17 July 2015. Web.

Kyodo. “Tributes Follow Death of Architect Zaha Hadid.” Japan Times. 1 Apr. 2016. Web.

McCurry, Justin. “Tokyo Olympic Stadium Architect Denies Copying Zaha Hadid Design.” The Guardian. 15 Jan. 2016. Web.

Press, Associated. “Japan Picks Olympic Stadium Design to Replace Zaha Hadid Plan.” The Guardian. 22 Dec. 2015. Web.

Wainwright, Oliver. “Bye Bye Zaha, Hello Fried Egg! New Designs Unveiled for Tokyo Olympic Stadium.” The Guardian. 16 Dec. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Accuses Japanese Government and Architects of Collusion over Tokyo Stadium.” Dezeen. 22 Dec. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Forced to Throw in the Towel over Tokyo Olympic Stadium.” Dezeen. 18 Sept. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Refuses to Hand over Copyright for Unpaid Japan Stadium Designs.” Dezeen. 14 Jan. 2016. Web.

 Images:

Image 1: http://www.designboom.com/architecture/kengo-kuma-tokyo-national-stadium-japan-sport-council-12-22-2015/

Image 2: http://archinect.com/news/article/145735758/tokyo-olympics-refusing-to-pay-zaha-hadid-for-work-on-the-national-stadium

Image 3: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/architecture/zaha-hadid-appreciation/

 

Shouldn’t we make sure the food we eat is safe?

John Carino

The burger you ate today is not as safe as you assumed when you bought it. Everybody knows that cows eat grass, but it is less known that the cows whose meat most grocery stores sell, were raised eating corn. This seems like it would not be much of an issue if it weren’t for the fact that this diet increases the likeliness of spreading dangers such as E-coli. Food plays a vital role in our daily lives. Without it we cannot survive, so shouldn’t it be a priority to make sure that what we eat is safe?

American food has become industrialized to meet the needs of consumers across the country. However, this resulting industrialization has begun to lean more towards the “industry” than “food” in the food industry. Companies have begun cutting corners to maximize production and profits. Consequently, the quality of food being produced has decreased drastically causing many problems. While promoting public awareness about issues in the industrial food system is important, there needs to be a more significant movement towards instigating change in the industrial food system and improving government regulation of the industry. These changes would include more transparency of food production to consumers and preventing money –saving “shortcuts”, for example by feeding animals what nature intended for them. These operations create a safer well-being for Americans from issues such as food borne illnesses and diseases.

One reason that there have not been significant safety improvements in the food industry is because of the government’s lack of involvement in making sure these companies are not taking shortcuts. In “You are what they eat” the writer shares “our investigation raises concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” (26) Understandably, the government is not capable of regulating all food manufacturers at all times because “the FDA can’t blanket the country with inspectors, so it delegates much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70 percent of feed-company and renderer inspections.” (27) This delegation of regulation has resulted in a significant loss of control from the government. States are often less likely to take a stand against these industries than the federal government for a couple reasons. They are less likely partly because of the importance of profits these companies makes as well as because of the control these powerful companies may have over more local governments. These companies have simple goals, “to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible.” (26) The problem with this having this goal and finding loopholes is the compromise of quality and safety, putting consumers as risk. These “regulatory loop-holes could allow mad cow infection, if present, to make its way into cattle feed; drugs used in chickens could raise human exposure to arsenic or antibiotic-resistant bacteria; farmed fish could harbor PCBs and dioxins.” (26) The federal government needs to take a stand and instigate firmer regulation, even if it compromises fiscal profits. The more powerful these companies become the less ability the government will have to make sure the food consumers buy is safe. Consumers have very little power in fighting these food industries, they cannot simply stop buying food. That is why it is important that the government plays a big role in standing up making sure they stop hurting their consumers.

Not only is the food consumers buy not always safe, these companies also deceive consumers into thinking what they are buying is often healthier and more nutritious than it actually is. Blake Hurst in “Organic Illusions” shares how two contrasting studies present contradicting results to how nutritious “organic food” really is. Hurst writes “a recent study by a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” (2) The food industry heavily relies on misleading consumers to sell many products at escalated prices. Many companies that sell “organic” foods are owned by the larger conventional brands that they pretend to be competing with. This is another form of deception and sly misleading that needs to be stopped. Hurst argues “the organic farming narrative depends upon the belief that conventional farming sacrifices the present for the future, that the chemicals and fertilizers applied by conventional farmers poison the soil, and that this careless use of the unnatural will infect the things we eat and the productivity of our farms and ranches.” (3) However, this argument for the organic food industry is compromised by the studies that find no differences in nutritional value of foods after over half a century of hybrid seeds and 2 decades of genetically modified seeds. This does not necessarily mean there is no difference at all between conventional foods and organic, “the Stanford study found that organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in E.coli.” (3) It seems one bad quality has been traded for another, yet the food industry has been able to turn out higher profits from organic foods by misleading consumers with lies. Hurst shares “even if a naturally produced pesticide is less toxic than its synthetic counterpart, it may be applied at much higher rates than the comparable manmade chemical.” (7) One way to combat this and other deceptions by the food industry is to make sure they are not able to hide information to mislead consumers. This can be achieved by calling for complete transparencies within the food industry about how the food was produced and what products have been added to the product and the process. By advocating for more clear and detailed labels consumers can be significantly more informed on their decision making when purchasing food. This will also require government intervention but also consumers to take a stand.

Consumers blindly accept the lies fed to them by the food industry. Marion Nestle writes in “Resisting Food Safety” that “they accept at face value the endlessly intoned mantra of industry and government: the United States has the safest food supply in the world. Whether this assertion is true is a matter of some debate.” (27) The food industry has become more and more powerful and continues to fight and beat the government in every attempt to regulate their processes. Nestle presents that “food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. They lobby Congress and federal agencies, challenge regulations in court, and encourage local obstruction of safety enforcement.” (27-28) Not only do they fight against the government, but also heavily against activists who are fighting for their right for safer foods. An article by the US News Health shares “The food industry works aggressively to discredit its critics. According to the 2008 JAMA article, the Center for Consumer Freedom boasts “[our strategy] is to shoot the messenger. We’ve got to attack [activists’] credibility as spokespersons.” The website even revers to Nestle as “one of the country’s most hysterical anti-food fanatics.” It seems difficult to combat an industry with so much financial, political, and publicity power, but it is not impossible.

By creating a more transparent food industry and instigating stricter regulation, the food industry could return to serving a primary purpose of meeting the needs and safety of consumers, not just to churn our profits and mass produce products. One small step at a time of making the right decisions in making food safe will have a significant impact on creating a safer America. It will take time effort from much of the population, but it is not an unreachable goal, and with the safety of millions of Americans at stake, it is necessary.

Works Cited:

“You Are What They Eat.” Consumer Reports, January 2005.

Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions.” The American, October 1, 2012.

Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.

Voiland, Adam, and Angela Haupt. “10 Things the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know.” Health.usnews.com. March 30, 2012.

Reflection Questions

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

-Finding the “writer’s project” is key to understanding the argument and greater point of any source or project. From the examples we went over I was able to find the writers project by studying the evidence they presented and analyzing their arguments to find what point they were trying to make. For example, in the Kanye West music video studying the imagery used and listening closely to the lyrics allowed me to figure out what he was trying to make clear. My “project” with this blog article was to present the biggest issues with the food industry today and suggest possible solutions that could be considered to instigate change.

 

• Describe your completion of the “Sorting it Out” workshop? What sections were most beneficial to the development of your ideas—and why? Discuss how this workshop assisted in development of draft and/or assignment organization?

-The most beneficial section from this worksheet was anaylizing the main argument that each article/report was trying to make. By figuring out what each source had to offer specifically helped create a stronger thesis that consisted of a few key arguments. This workshop allowed me to clearly brainstorm and build on my ideas in a cohesive way, by initially forcing me to find out the key concepts then by finding specific evidence from the text that supported them.

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

-Synthesis is key when attempting to make a clear argument. If you are trying to make an argument and your evidence does not relate to your argument or at all to other evidence your claim will seem weak and unsupported. I synthezised the main arguments from each source to support my thesis of how America needs to instigate change in the food industry. I also utilized my outside source to support the evidence from the other articles. For example, the article I used comments on how Marion Nestle is viewed by the food industry as “one of the country’s most hysterical anti-food fanatics.”

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

-During this unit I feel there were a few skills I familiarized myself with that I was new too. I have never attempted to write I a “blog/article” format before. This required me to learn a few new skills and writing techniques.

5.)  Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution?

-My main idea evolved as I gained more evidence exploring the articles/sources in more depth. What began as an unsupported claim vilifying the food industry became a well-supported argumentative piece that begins to even offer solutions to the issues presented. For example, I was initially aware that the food industry mislead consumers, but by further examining the given texts I was able to prove how they do so through false claims and misunderstanding on terminology such as “organic.”

6.) Discuss what organizational strategies you implemented in order to structure this blog article. Provide examples from a section(s) of an earlier draft and other excerpts in later drafts to support your response.

-To structure this blog article I considered how a person hopes to consume information. I lead with a catchy introduction to grab their attention, present the topics I intend to discuss, then present an open ended question that my arguments throughout the blog support. In an earlier draft I had written out the topics I intended to discuss in an outline including: How the government needs to step up, how the food industry deceives, and how the food industry is fighting anyone that tries to oppose it. My arguments against these points answer the question I pose of “shouldn’t it be a priority to make sure that what we eat is safe?”

7.) Provide an example of the final draft where you successfully synthesize 3 texts in a concise and direct manner. Discuss how this evolved throughout the drafting process for you.

-In my conclusion I connect the main arguments from each text to suggest what actions could be made to create a positive future for American food safety. I proose “By creating a more transparent food industry and instigating stricter regulation, the food industry could return to serving a primary purpose of meeting the needs and safety of consumers, not just to churn our profits and mass produce products.” Through the drafting process I was not as sure what proposals I could make about how to fix these issues but further analysis of the texts led me to this argument.

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

-My original lede was not significantly different from my final blog. The tips from the worksheet we went over in class were helpful to simplify and reinforce the lede I had written.

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

-I would like to figure out how to narrow down my arguments into a more precise response. I often use too many works and by figuring out how to share my ideas more clearly I will be able to write more convincing works of writing.

 

John Carino

Writing 205

Amy Barone

Food Politics

2/21/15

 

Everybody knows that cows eat grass, but it is less known that the cows whose meat most grocery stores sell were raised eating corn. This seems like it would not be much of an issue if it weren’t for the reason that this diet increases the likeliness of their meat being dangerous to eat and spreading dangers such as ecoli. Food plays a vital role in our daily lives. Without it we cannot survive, so shouldn’t it be a priority to make sure that what we eat is safe? Food in America has become industrialized to able to meet the mass needs of consumers across the country. However, as a result of this industrialization emphasis has begun to lean more towards the “industry” than “food” in the food industry. Companies have begun cutting corners to maximize production and profits. As a result of this the quality of the food being produced has changed drastically and many other problems have been caused. While promoting public awareness about issues in the industrial food system is important, beyond just spreading awareness there needs to be a more significant movement to instigate change in the industrial food system and improvements in government regulation of this industry. These changes would include more transparency of food production to consumers and fewer “shortcuts” being taken to save money, for example feeding animals what nature intended for them. These operations would result in a safer public well-being for Americans from issues such as food borne illnesses and diseases.

 

One reason that there has not been significant change in the problems caused by the food industry is because of the government’s lack of involvement in making sure these industries are not taking shortcuts. In “You are what they eat” the writer shares “our investigation raises concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” (26) Understandably the government is not capable of regulating all food manufacturers at all times because “the FDA can’t blanket the country with inspectors, so it delegates much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70 percent of feed-company and renderer inspections.” (27) As a result of delegating regulation, the government has lost significant control over the industry. And states are often less likely to take a stand against these industries because of the importance of profits these companies makes and the control these powerful companies may have over the more local governments. These companies have simple goals, “to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible.” (26) The problem with this goal and finding loopholes is it compromises the quality and safety of the products they are producing, which therefore puts consumers as risk. These “regulatory loop-holes could allow mad cow infection, if present, to make its way into cattle feed; drugs used in chickens could raise human exposure to arsenic or antibiotic-resistant bacteria; farmed fish could harbor PCBs and dioxins.” (26) The federal government needs to take a stand and instigate more firm regulation, even if it compromises the profits of these companies. The more powerful these companies become the less ability the government will have to make sure the food consumers buy is safe. Consumers have very little power in fighting these food industries, they cannot simply stop buying food. That is why it is important that the government plays a big role in standing up to the companies and making sure they stop hurting their consumers.

Not only is the food consumers buy not always safe, these companies also deceive consumers into thinking what they are buying is often healthier and more nutritious than it actually is. Blake Hurst in “Organic Illusions” shares how two contrasting studies present contradicting results to how nutritious “organic food” really is. Hurst writes “a recent study by a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” (2) The food industry heavily relies on misleading consumers, as a result of this they are able to sell many products at escalated prices. Many companies that sell “organic” foods are owned by the larger conventional brands that they pretend to be competing with. This is another form of deception and sly misleading that needs to be stopped. Hurst argues “the organic farming narrative depends upon the belief that conventional farming sacrifices the present for the future, that the chemicals and fertilizers applied by conventional farmers poison the soil, and that this careless use of the unnatural will infect the things we eat and the productivity of our farms and ranches.” (3) However, this argument for the organic food industry is compromised by the studies that find no differences in nutritional value of foods after over half a century of hybrid seeds and 2 decades of genetically modified seeds. This does not necessarily mean there is no difference at all between conventional foods and organic, “the Stanford study found that organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in E.coli.” (3) It seems one bad quality has been traded for another, yet the food industry has been able to turn our higher profits from organic foods by misleading consumers with lies. Hurst shares “even if a naturally produced pesticide is less toxins than its synthetic counterpart, it may be applied at much higher rates than the comparable manmade chemical.” (7) One way to combat this and other deceptions by the food industry is to make sure industries are not able to hide or mislead consumers. This can be achieved by regulating complete transparencies to the food industry about how the food was produced and what products have been added to the product and the process. By advocating for more clear and detailed labels consumers can be significantly more informed on their decision making when purchasing food. This will also require government intervention but also consumers to take a stand.

 

Consumers blindly accept the lies fed to them by the food industry. Marion Nestle writes “they accept at face value the endlessly intoned mantra of industry and government: the United States has the safest food supply in the world. Whether this assertion is true is a matter of some debate.” (27) The food industry has become more and more powerful and continues to fight and beat the government in every attempt to regulate their processes. Nestle presents that “food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. They lobby Congress and federal agencies, challenge regulations in court, and encourage local obstruction of safety enforcement.” (27-28) It seems difficult that there is any way to overcome such a powerful industry, but it has been done in the past. Look at the decline of the tobacco industry as a precedent. With the joint forces of consumers and the government problems because acknowledged and actions were taken to protect consumers.

In conclusion by creating a more transparent food industry and instigating stricter regulation, the food industry could return to an industry with a primary purpose to serve the needs and safety of consumers, not just to churn our profits and mass produce products. One small step at a time of making the right decisions in making food safe will have a significant impact on creating a safer America. It will take time effort from much of the population, but it is not an impossible goal.

Works cited:

“You Are What They Eat.” Consumer Reports, January 2005.

Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions.” The American, October 1, 2012.

Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.

 

 

 

John Carino

Writing 205

Food Politics

2/21/15

 

Food plays a vital role in our daily lives. Without it we cannot survive, so shouldn’t it be a priority to make sure that what we eat is safe? Food in America has become industrialized to able to meet the mass needs of consumers across the country. However, as a result of this industrialization emphasis has begun to lean more towards the “industry” than “food” in the food industry. Companies have begun cutting corners to maximize production and profits. As a result of this the quality of the food being produced has changed drastically and many other problems have been caused. While promoting public awareness about issues in the industrial food system is important, beyond just spreading awareness there needs to be a more significant movement to instigate change in the industrial food system and improvements in government regulation of this industry. These changes would include more transparency of food production to consumers and fewer “shortcuts” being taken to save money, for example feeding animals what nature intended for them. These operations would result in a safer public well-being from issues such as food borne illnesses and diseases.

 

One reason that there has not been significant change in the problems caused b the food industry is because of the government’s lack of involvement in making sure these industries are not taking shortcuts. In “You are what they eat” the writer shares “our investigation raises concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” (26) Understandably the government is not capable of regulating all food manufacturers at all times because “the FDA can’t blanket the country with inspectors, so it delegates much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70 percent of feed-company and renderer inspections.” (27) As a result of delegating regulation, the government has lost significant control over the industry. And states are often less likely to take a stand against these industries because of the importance of profits these companies makes and the control these powerful companies may have over the more local governments. These companies have simple goals, “to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible.” (26) The problem with this goal and finding loopholes is it compromises the quality and safety of the products they are producing, which therefore puts consumers as risk. These “regulatory loop-holes could allow mad cow infection, if present, to make its way into cattle feed; drugs used in chickens could raise human exposure to arsenic or antibiotic-resistant bacteria; farmed fish could harbor PCBs and dioxins.” (26) The federal government needs to take a stand and instigate more firm regulation, even if it compromises the profits of these companies. The more powerful these companies become the less ability the government will have to make sure the food consumers buy is safe.

Not only is the food consumers buy not always safe, these companies also deceive consumers into thinking what they are buying is often healthier and more nutritious than it actually is. Blake Hurst in “Organic Illusions” shares how two contrasting studies present contradicting results to how nutrious “organic food” really is. Hurst writes “a recent study by a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” (2) The food industry heavily relies on misleading consumers, as a result of this they are able to sell many products at escalated prices. Hurst argues “the organic farming narrative depends upon the belief that conventional farming sacrifices the present for the future, that the chemicals and fertilizers applied by conventional farmers poison the soil, and that this careless use of the unnatural will infect the things we eat and the productivity of our farms and ranches.” (3) However, this argument for the organic food industry is compromised by the studies that find no differences in nutritional value of foods after over half a century of hybrid seeds and 2 decades of genetically modified seeds. This does not necessarily mean there is no difference at all between conventional foods and organic, “the Stanford study found that organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in e.coli.” (3) It seems one bad quality has been traded for another, yet the food industry has been able to turn our higher profits from organic foods by misleading consumers with lies. Hurst shares “even if a naturally produced pesticide is less toxins than its synthetic counterpart, it may be applied at much higher rates than the comparable manmade chemical.” (7) One way to combat this and other deceptions by the food industry is to make sure industries are not able to hide or mislead consumers. This can be achieved by regulating complete transparencies to the food industry about how the food was produced and what products have been added to the product and the process. This will also require government intervention but also consumers to take a stand.

 

Consumers blindly accept the lies fed to them by the food industry. Marion Nestle writes

“they accept at face value the endlessly intoned mantra of industry and government: the United States has the safest food supply in the world. Whether this assertion is true is a matter of some debate.” (27) The food industry has become more and more powerful and continues to fight and beat the government in every attempt to regulate their processes. Nestle presents that “food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. They lobby Congress and federal agencies, challenge regulations in court, and encourage local obstruction of safety enforcement.” (27-28) It seems difficult that there is any way to overcome such a powerful industry, but it has been done in the past. Look at the decline of the tobacco industry as a precedent. With the joint forces of consumers and the government problems because acknowledged and actions were taken to protect consumers.

In conclusion by creating a more transparent food industry and instigating stricter regulation, the food industry could return to being an industry with the primary purpose of serving the needs and safety of consumers, not just to churn our profits and mass produce products. It will take time effort from much of the population, but it is not an impossible goal.