Caring for one’s children should be a mother’s number one priority, as a society however, we seem to prioritize the modesty of mothers rather than their ability to care for the children.

Imagine. Imagine your first time leaving your home country. Imagine this first time being with your sick child. Imagine not knowing what the future holds for this child. You would do anything thing you possibly could for this child but your lack of resources do not permit you to do much. Instead you do what you can and in this new country, this country you went to to receive care for your sick child, you are criticized for doing all that you can. Imagine.

This was the case for the mother of a beautiful two year old boy named Muajir. She traveled all the way to Israel from Ethiopia with Muajir to get him the lifesaving heart surgery he so desperately needed. During their first week in Israel an American woman who worked in the facility criticized Muajir’s mother for breastfeeding him in front of other American visitors. She was criticized for caring for her child.

“She was criticized for caring for her child.”

It seems extremely disheartening that this woman even had the mindset to criticize a woman from another culture, another country, from a completely different economic and class background than herself. However, this instance would go normally go unnoticed in American culture. Breastfeeding is so stigmatized in American culture that the care of one’s child is put second to what society views as “appropriate.”

Why is breastfeeding openly so stigmatized? The arguments that are commonly used as to why women should not be allowed to breastfeed in public are usually as follows: 1. It is inappropriate for women to reveal themselves in public regardless of what they are doing, and 2. Women’s breasts are for sexual purposes. In fact, even when some people claim that they believe women should be allowed to breastfeed in public they also juxtapose this by also believing that women should be forced to cover up when doing so.

It seems that with all of the progressive steps we have taken in society that the mere slippage of a possible exposed breast while a child is feeding upon in would not be a big of a deal as it has become. However, the sexualization of breasts in our culture would point otherwise.

When a soon-to-be mother goes on YouTube to seek videos of other mothers breastfeeding because she wants to prepare herself to do the same, she is suddenly bombarded with the comments of people that are a direct result of the over sexualization of breasts in our culture. Here are just three examples of comments that were posted under a video of a mother breastfeeding her baby to show other mothers how to:

Sloopy .Dog1 month ago (edited) I wouldn’t mind some of that!  It’s nice to see a woman with natural breasts instead of the enormous silicone monsters that many women seem to desire these days.  You can’t beat the real thing.

agiel ryuji1 month ago do you feel proud because many people who see the video of your baby being breastfed ? oh c’mon…  interest in this video is your tits…

ming siu2 months ago The husband is so generous showing his wifes nice boobs

We can also see this over sexualization of breasts in the media. In the popular American comedy, Grownups, there are numerous scenes in which the breastfeeding of a four year old boy is exaggerated and used as part of the comedy. This is seen through scenes in which another mother covers the eyes of her daughter when the other mother proceeds to breastfeed her child and another scene in which the child being breastfed points to another woman’s breasts and asks for her to breastfeed him insinuating that although young, he was sexually attracted to another woman’s breasts by virtue of breastfeeding.

This is what infiltrates into American culture. What should infiltrate into American culture however is the notion that breasts are meant to feed children and that they are not just for sexual purposes. The fact that breastfeeding is completely natural should also infiltrate American culture so that women who are breastfeeding their children do not feel the need to cover up or that they are doing anything wrong.

With that being said, the entire issue of breastfeeding in public is also a health issue for children. Specific studies have shown that children who are breastfed are a lot healthier than children who are bottle fed. By stigmatizing mothers to the point where they are ashamed to breastfeed their children whenever and wherever they could be hungry could therefore directly affect the health of children in our society by encouraging mothers not to breastfeed.

One study conducted by Bohr, Boardman, and McQueen, who are researchers, found that breastfeeding is associated with waist-to-height ratio in young adults. Although a small finding, it shows how being breastfed can contribute to the overall health of children:

“A recent study from a sample of overweight adolescents revealed that breastfeeding of an infant is associated with lower incidence of obesity and complications related to metabolic syndrome in the offspring. Other studies have revealed that longer duration of breastfeeding of an infant may be protective against obesity in childhood or reduce the risk of being overweight in childhood. Researchers have identified several physiological links between breastfeeding and body size of the offspring. In addition to fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals, breast milk also contains a diverse population of bacteria that colonize the intestinal tract of the infant and may have protective benefits against weight gain throughout life. Breastfeeding duration may also delay the introduction of solid foods for the infant, which has been linked to childhood obesity in some cohorts.”

Another study, conducted in Vietnam by Hanieh, Ha, Simpson, Thuy, and Thoang, prominent researchers, showed how children that are breastfed have less of a chance of going to the hospital with diarrhea and pneumonia. In Vietnam, there is a very high mortality rate of children dying from these two causes. The results they found in regard to children who were breastfed as opposed to children who were not were stunning:

“Of the 1049 infants seen at 6 months of age, 8.8 % required inpatient admission for suspected pneumonia and 4 % of infants required inpatient admission for diarrheal illness. One third of infants (32.8 %) were exclusively breast fed at 6 weeks of age. Exclusive breast feeding at 6 weeks of age significantly reduced the odds of inpatient admission for suspected pneumomia (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.39, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.75) and diarrheal illness (OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.88).”

The results of both of these studies are extremely significant when looking at how to view mom’s breastfeeding in public. Instead of shaming women, as a society, we should be accepting women who are openly breastfeeding. It is clear that breastfeeding is healthy for the child and so it should not even be a question as to why women should be allowed to openly breastfeed in public. Denying women that right would be denying that women the right to feed and care for her child. Not only is breastfeeding good for the baby’s health, but it is also good for the mother’s health. Studies link breastfeeding to lowering mother’s risks of breast and ovarian cancers, type 2 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis. Sr. Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, a professor of medicine at University of California, Davis, said that if all women in the United States breastfed then around 5,000 women a year could be spared from breast cancer.

Regardless of what legislation says, women are denied the access to feed their children through the ignorance of others who are not aware of legislation that protects mothers who are feeding their children, or through the stigmatization that leads mothers to feel too uncomfortable to feed their children openly. Amber Hinds, a mother and lactation counselor and blogger, wrote an article titled Why I Am Glad Someone Told Me To Stop Breastfeeding In Public for the Huffington Post where she describes what it was like when a lifeguard told her to breastfeed in the bathroom at a public pool. She stood up for herself and said that she was able to feed her child in a public place and the lifeguard then left her alone. However, for her this was a moment where she realized how women who are unaware of their protections or even too embarrassed by such encounters, could take an encounter like this to heart and refrain from breastfeeding openly. The fact is, even some of the most influential women in our society are forced and shamed into breastfeeding behind the doors of a bathroom. The stars and the wives of stars at the Oscars are notoriously forced into the bathrooms to pump their breasts and feed children whose immune system are not even completely developed yet.

 

While the situation of mothers being shamed for breastfeeding openly is a serious problem that mothers and soon to be mothers face in society, some mothers are not taking it and are speaking up about how their bodies should not be sexualized while they are doing their motherly duty of caring for their child. An online community of women who are tired of feeling shamed for something that is natural and healthy for their children created an online community called Virtual Lactivism where they share pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Although women are still shamed for doing what is natural and what is healthy for their child, at least mothers are standing up for their rights as mothers.

UNIT 3 REFLECTION QUESTIONS

[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?

 

I used my title of the article and the lede to draw in my readers attention. My title being “The Shame of Feeding Your Child” and the lede being “Caring for one’s children should be a mother’s number one priority, as a society however, we seem to prioritize the modesty of mothers rather than their ability to care for the children.” My aim is to show the raeder from early on that breastfeeding one’s child is simply just caring for one’s child in the same way that one would bottle feed a baby. They both focus the reader’s attention to the fact that breastfeeding is just feeding one’s child and how it is ridiculous that it is so stigmatized. Both are a clever way of invoking emotion because no one could argue that feeding a child is not important.

 

[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?

 

My introduction section of the article is a story of an event I witnessed. The story gives some personalization to the issue of breastfeeding in public and shows how common and normal it is for someone nowadays to criticize a woman for breastfeeding openly. The context of the story is of another woman from anther community being criticized due to her lack of decency while breastfeeding by an American woman. The child was very sick and had to go to another country for treatment and all the mother in this situation was doing was caring for her child in the only way that she could being that he was extremely sick. While this story is not your typical story, t shows how ignorant American culture can be when confronted with a woman breastfeeding. It locates the problem of women breastfeeding in public and how people will look at it as immodest and inappropriate rather than seeing it as a mother who is taking care of her child. While there are many issues and controversies that can be discussed in regard to mothers breastfeeding, the one I chose to focus on was how women are shamed for taking care of their children with the main reason behind this shame being that women’s bodies are over-sexualized.

 

[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.?

 

My “strong idea” is that mother’s should not be shamed for breast feeding in public because what they are doing is taking care of a child and that shaming women for taking care of their children is inherently wrong. This idea requires analysis because it needs to show both side of the argument. By showing that the reason women are criticized for breastfeeding because other people think it’s inappropriate, I needed to further expand on how it is not inappropriate. By drawing upon specific studies whose findings revealed that breastfeeding is healthier for children and for the mother, I was able to show that breastfeeding in public should not be stigmatized because it actually effects the health of mothers and children. Also, I drew upon other findings such as YouTube comments that sexualize breastfeeding mothers and accounts of mothers who were actually shamed. By showing this side, I was able to show that breastfeeding is stigmatized and shamed in society because of people deeming it indecent. Upon analyzing the health findings from the research and the evidence of the over-sexualization of women’s bodies, I was then able to analyze this issue to show that the reason people shame women for breastfeeding in public is not as strong as the reasons that women should be allowed and feel comfortable to breastfeed in public.

 

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

 

I focused the article on one specific issue of breastfeeding politics for clarity and not to confuse the reader. Even though I showed both sides of the argument, I made sure to keep the article focused. It was very unique because I brought in a personal story as the introduction and even used other sources of primary data to help support my take on the issue. My style flowed throughout the entire article and I kept the flow of the article focused and only used evidence and sources for my article that added and aided my specific focus while at the same time complicating it to show different sides. At the same time tough, I did not use sources or evidence that did not relate to my article that would have just added unneeded information. The historicized topics can be seen where I draw from movies, previous research, and then drawn upon a news article from not too long ago.

 

[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 made sure to stay away from clichés and overgeneralize my argument by drawing upon significant sources of information. I used numerous sources to show how breastfeeding is sexualized. For example, I included YouTube comments that are blatantly sexual and sexist in regard to a breastfeeding mother. There is no way to argue that what these comments are saying is not sexual. On the other hand though, I also drew upon a news article that talked about how women at the Oscars had to breastfeed and pump their breasts in the restroom to show how this sexualization affects women. Then to show how breastfeeding should not be shamed because of its health benefits I drew upon specific research studies that found links to children’s health and breastfeeding. I also used quotes from the research about their findings to show the reader just how significant the health findings are. By using a wide variety of sources that included YouTube comments, news articles, and experts in research, my argument is very well-rounded and shows that it is not just what I bleive but also what others believe and what others have found in research.

 

[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?

 

To develop my argument, my sources range from research in the health of children and mothers to simply just YouTube comments. This wide range of sources create a very well-rounded and persuasive argument because I am able to show the reader that I have researched extensively about the topic. This argument joins the debate by drawing on both sides of the specific controversy while at the same time sticking to a very clear stance that is well thought out and well researched.

 

 

[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? ).

 

In this article, I used six secondary sources that include three research articles and three news articles. I also used three primary sources that include a personal story, YouTube Comments, and even a movie. I used two visuals in the article. One that is a picture of the mother and child from the personal story and one that reflects a point that a news article made. I used more research sources than needed, more primary sources than needed, and more visuals than needed. Howevr, every source that I used fit into the article and argument in a coherent way and added to the Kairos and exigency of my topic.

 

[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?

 

For all of my secondary sources and primary sources I explained their importance and their context in my specific argument. All of the sources that I used were ones that fit into my argument and so it was not hard to integrate them because the information I extracted from them were key factors in my argument. I used two quotes from two of the research articles that show how breastfeeding affects children’s health but I only did so after explaining them first. They were both bolded and separate from the article to be used as a rhetorical device that would catch the reader’s attention and really highlight the findings of both of the studies. All of the sources used were very different from each other but their differences all fit together to make one cohesive argument.

 

[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)?

 

My article is very persuasive because the amount of sources, studies, experts, and how different all the sources are show how much research that I’ve done. The primary sources also show how knowledgeable I am on the topic because I am able to extract data from sources in which data had not yet been extracted. My argument was very logical because I was able to show both sides of the argument but clearly take a stance and show how one side makes more sense. I was also able to draw upon the emotions of readers because no matter what stance they take on the argument, it would be almost impossible to argue that feeding children is not important. By putting the issue in such simplistic terms at first and by using a real world example, I am able to draw upon the reader’s emotions and sympathy for mothers who just are doing what mothers should do and that is taking care of and feeding their children.

 

 

[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)?

 

The first visual is placed at the very beginning of the article and it is of the mother and child whose story introduces my article. This makes the article seem more personal from the very beginning and gives a face to the topic. It is placed at the beginning because not only is it placed with the story it depicts, but it is used as a visual to make the reader want to read more and to develop a relationship with the article from the very beginning as it is obvious that the picture is not a generic picture but rather one from someone’s personal phone or camera. If I took this visual away the reader might not be as drawn to the personal story because it would seem less real. The second visual is placed at the end and depicts a scene that I described from the news article about the Oscars where mothers had to feed babies and breast pump from a dirty bathroom. Bathrooms are inherently dirty places because of what they are meant for and they are meant for anything but feeding. This visual shows the reader just how awful it is that mother’s would have to feed or breast pump in a bathroom. Without the visual, the reader would not get to see just how disgusting this scenario is.

 

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

 

I did a 800 word draft, a 1250 word draft, and edited all drafts (including my final draft) based off of the comments I received and what we went over in class. I expanded upon each draft by using the comments, edited my lede, and picked apart my drafts during workshops. After reading the New York Times article online about Mind Craft, I was able to see how a New York Times article looks and reads and then used that as platform when I went back and edited.

 

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

 

I used a hyperlink to all of the sources that I used. They are very appropriate and effective because they take the reader directly to where my data came from. If my reader wanted to know more about the findings of one of the studies, they would be able to click on the hyperlink and go directly to the research article. Or if the reader did not know the movie I was talking about and wanted to see it on their own, they would be able to go directly to the movie’s IMBD page.

 

[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?

 

In editing, I made sure to read through my sentences to make sure that they flowed correctly and that they were not confusing to understand. I also corrected all of my grammar and spelling mistakes to make the article more professional. Because my sentences were packed with information detailing my specific argument, they were very focused and remained on topic the entire article. The focus throughout my article helps establish my credibility because I never once went off topic and was very professional in my writing.

 

 

Out Of Our Hands But Onto Our Plates

We live in a country that was founded on the freedom of choice and people’s say in government. Is it not ironic then that we have so little say on what we are actually eating? The most fundamental element of our very human existence is out of our hands and into the hands of those who have the power to control it.

It’s not just about choosing what we consume, it is also choosing our safety in consuming it. In a country whose food industry is based off of profits and efficiency, it is no wonder that regulations put in place to protect our safety, actually might not be as safe as we would like to think. Even more troublesome though, is the power the food industry has. With the government backing their every move, they have little to no reason to actually care if their regulations are not acting as they should.

“These companies have legions of attorneys.  And they may sue even if they know they can’t win, just to send a message.”

According to Eric Schlosser, in the documentary Food Inc., the food industry in our country has an insane amount of power.

The documentary Food Inc. aims to show the food industry as it really is. In other words, it shows the food industry from the side that consumers do not usually see. For example, consumers do not see how powerful the food industry really is until they are the ones fighting it.

An example that the documentary used was the battle between Monsanto and a farmer who they were sewing for saving soybeans.

Monsanto is a company that essentially has control over all soybean production because of their patent on the bioengineered soybean. Monsanto has the money and the resources to fight average farmers even if they only have suspicion that the farmer is using their patented soybeans against their patent agreements.

There are some farmers who support big companies such as Monsanto, only adding to the argument of the food industry’s actual power. For example, Blake Hurst, a farmer backs up Monsanto and conventional ways of farming. Although a farmer himself, his alliance with big companies just shows his position in the conversation.

Monsanto is one company that shows power that the food industry has over producers. Those who produce our food our essentially puppets controlled by the food industry. Therefore, issues of food safety are widespread and out of reach not only by the consumer, but also by the producer.

To show the extent of how important food safety is and how it is neglected by the food industry, Food Inc. highlighted the story of Kevin. Kevin was two years old when he contracted E. coli 0517h7 from food and ended up hospitalized where he then died from the infection.

Even Hurst’s controversial article positions E. coli as an important factor when looking at the food industry. The argument the article makes is that the Stanford study found that E. coli is more prevalent in organic food. While this argument is one from Hurst in support of conventional farming, it still acknowledges how food safety is less important than the profits of the industry itself. In Kevin’s situation, his mom has been in a legal battle ever since the E. coli infection.

Unfortunately, the food industry, highly backed by the government, is not easily budged and it has been a long and hard battle. “Food safety (or the illusion of safety) is being positioned to secure capital rather than public welfare.” States Laura B. Delind and Philip H. Howard in Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives.

 Adding to the E.coli conversation, this article discusses an E. coli outbreak in contaminated spinach that sickened people in 26 states, over the course of six to eight weeks, and caused at least three deaths. It took about a week to find the distributor (Dole) and the article said that it would have taken even longer to find the contamination source insinuating that that was never discovered.

Steps were only taken to secure the contaminated food but not to actually find the contamination to prevent it. It is no wonder Kevin’s mom is having a hard time working with the government in response to regulations that do not work.

While the food industry claims that there are many safety regulations put in place to monitor the safety of food, evidence has surely proven otherwise. The article You Are What They Eat provides various reasons to be concerned with the meat we are eating in the United States of America in regard to animal feed.

The director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, Carol Tucker-Foreman, is quoted in this article saying “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be, and the FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality. Contaminated animal feed can result in contaminated food, putting the public health at risk.”

Meanwhile, Fred Angulo, who is the chief of the CDC’s foodborne and diarrheal branch, is also quoted saying that “connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult.”

While it is hard to pinpoint human illnesses to animal feed, the article also notes that there have cases of salmonella linked to animal feed and the most recent case occurred in 2003. With that being said, it is obvious where the concern lies and that is with consumers.

The fact that human illnesses are hard to trace already puts the food industry at an advantage. Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives already put that into perspective by describing how they never found the source of contamination even in such a widespread illness outbreak that resulted in deaths.

Want to know how tracing food illnesses can be difficult? Nestle highlighted an instance where health officials traced one hamburger back to slaughterhouses in six different states and around 443 cattle. How could one possibly find the source of contamination of a hamburger induced foodborne illness? The fact that the food industry operates in such a way leaves them and the government off the hook.

In response to that, saying that they are hard to trace does not mean that they are not a concern because even the CEO of the American Feed Industry Association in You Are What They Eat said that feed can become contaminated because “people make mistakes.” Thus putting the consumer on the end of the mistakes that may result with them getting a foodborne illness while the food industry can blame it on an accident, if in fact, they are even caught.

Another way the government and food industry are off the hook when it comes to food safety is because many illnesses go unreported according to Nestle.

Nestle states that even with 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths yearly in the United States of America “most episodes are never reported to health authorities and their cause is unknown.”

Nestle not only highlights the severity of foodborne illnesses, but also how the use of antibiotics in animals can make foodborne illnesses even more severe.

Using antibiotics creates a resistance to bacteria and therefore “If antibiotic-resistant bacteria infect people and cause a disease, the disease will be untreatable.” However, this article goes on to state how the drug industry does not agree with any attempt to hinder the use of drugs in animals for food even with the alarming evidence of how dangerous it can be to humans. In this scenario, the drug industry, as well as the food industry uses their power to maintain control over production even when the health of their consumers are at stake.

Does the food industry and government’s monopoly over the food in this country really leave consumers in jeopardy? Should consumers be concerned when buying a package of meat because what the meat previously ate is not listed in the ingredients? Food that sustains their lives nowadays can end it just as easily. The fact is that regulations are put in place, but that does not mean that their health standards prevent food from contamination. Nor do these regulations protect the average consumer in the face food foodborne illnesses. Put in the position such as Kevin’s mom, whose son died from contaminated food, what more could possibly be at stake? The fact is that no one wants that to be their loved one but that is also what is at stake when it comes to the food industry and the government’s jurisdiction over it.

 

Reflection Questions

Unit I / 10%

Using the homework, in-class workshops, revision workshops, etc.

 

 

 

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

 

The writer’s project is what an author intends to get across to their readers. It is what the author wants the reader to take away from their piece. To identify a texts project, one must thoroughly read through the entire text and take note of keywords, arguments, and phrases. Then one must think, what did the author intend to help me understand and intend to show me? For example, my project for the Huffington Post Blog article is to add to the conversation about the power of the food industry and how it effects the safety and health of consumers. I aim to show how the food industry is more concerned with their own power than with the safety of their consumers and how their negligence when it comes to food safety is able to happen because of their said power.

 

• 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 Sorting It Out Workshop was an all-around helpful worksheet to complete. Actually writing out the writer’s project for each source was very helpful because I was then able to see in a few short sentences what the author’s purpose of the text was. Then that really helped at the end of the worksheet when I was pulling out quotes to connect and synthesize the texts. Since I was already able to see the purpose of the articles, it made it easier to find quotes that could relate to each other. It gave me a good starting point to find out their similarities. For example, while all of the articles had to do with safety in the food industry, I was able to find that they all talked about food borne illnesses. By knowing that Consumer Reports talked mainly about animal feed, I then looked for a health issue with animal feed and one that was very prevalent was food borne illnesses. Knowing this, I was then able to go back into the texts and pick out quotes that had to do with food borne illnesses from each source.

 

• 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 the ability to connect different texts in a manner that creates a cohesive argument. It is not just summarizing the different texts and explaining similarities between them, but it is looking for patterns between the texts on certain topics and being able to use information from each text to build upon each other in a cohesive manner. This is very important because in doing this, a writer is able to pull important information from each text and use it in a way that makes sense and shows the important information, all while creating one’s own piece of writing. For my blog article, I used synthesis throughout my entire piece. For example, after identifying the writer’s projects for each text and looking for patterns within them in the Sorting It Out Workshop, I was able to see that they all talked about the problem of foodborne illnesses in the food industry. For example, I used Nestle’s example of how one hamburger was traced back to slaughterhouses in six different states and around 443 cows to show how contaminated food is hard to trace back to its origin, to add on to the point in Delind and Howard’s article when they mentioned how an E. coli outbreak was never traced back to the original origin of contamination.

 

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

 

During this unit, I learned about the importance of hyperlinks to online articles. Although it might not seem like much, this was a big accomplishment for me. My background in writing comes from my Sociology and Women and Gender Studies majors where writing research papers and reading responses make up a good portion of my course load. With that being said, it has been engrained into me to cite cite cite and cite! Even if I am unsure if information is just common knowledge still be safe and cite! I am used to professors telling me that there is no such thing as too many citations. This was a difficulty when writing this online blog because I was writing it in terms of citing it back to the different sources I used rather than using the sources to make a cohesive argument for an interesting article. When I learned of the hyperlinks however, that made me feel one hundred times more comfortable with writing the article. The hyperlinks became my way of citing information and it thus made me more comfortable. It also showed how this writing technique is a lot different than what I am used to, but helped me become more comfortable with it

 

• 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 started with the Sorting It Out Workshop. When I was looking for quotes that I could use to connect each text I started with the Consumer Reports article because of how specific it was to animal feed. I realized that a main concern of this article was foodborne illnesses and realized that every other source also had something mentioned throughout it about foodborne illnesses. So then I searched through the other sources to find what the aid about foodborne illnesses and found that they all had one thing in common: foodborne illnesses are a problem that should not be overlooked. That is how I got the main idea. What is at stake? Foodborne illnesses. Who does it put at stake? The consumers. Then I looked for specific examples within each text to show how foodborne illnesses put the safety of consumers in jeopardy because of their danger and the food industry and government’s help in fighting them and putting in place regulations that are effective. That is how I came to create my final draft, by using the examples I found within each text and synthesizing them to fit my argument.

 

• 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.

 

In my first draft, I just organized my article by the different sources I used. I did them one by one and described their position on how they add to my article by using specific examples from the text. Then when working on my next draft, I reorganized the article by seeing what examples fit where and what texts could I put together tomake the article flow better and synthesize the texts and their arguments. So then working on my final draft, I had my article organized by the different examples I found within each additional text and by how what I wrote about with each article fit together with the others.

 

• 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.

 

“To show the extent of how important food safety is and how it is neglected by the food industry, Food Inc. highlighted the story of Kevin. Kevin was two years old when he contracted E. coli 0517h7 from food and ended up hospitalized where he then died from the infection. Even Hurst’s controversial article positions E. coli as an important factor when looking at the food industry. The argument the article makes is that the Stanford study found that E. coli is more prevalent in organic food. While this argument is one from Hurst in support of conventional farming, it still acknowledges how food safety is less important than the profits of the industry itself. In Kevin’s situation, his mom has been in a legal battle ever since the E. coli infection.

Unfortunately, the food industry, highly backed by the government, is not easily budged and it has been a long and hard battle. “Food safety (or the illusion of safety) is being positioned to secure capital rather than public welfare.” States Laura B. Delind and Philip H. Howard in Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives.”

 

This is a section from my paper where I show three sources to shape my initial argument. I show how food safety in regard to foodborne illnesses is a problem within our food system by describing Kevin’s story of how he died from contaminated food with E. coli 0517h7 present in it and then showed how even though Hurst is controversial when discussing food politics, he was even able to agree that E. coli is a problem within our food system. Then to tie the problem of foodborne illnesses back to the initial question of whose at stake, I used a quote from Delind and Howard to show how the government makes us believe we are safe when we really can see that we are not.

 

• 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?

 

In earlier drafts, I just used something that I thought would be interesting and pull readers in to read. Then, after completing the body of my first draft I was able to use a lede that still meets the requirements of interesting enough to pull readers in, while at the same time making it specific to my particular discussion. At first my lede was very long and wordy, and advice I received was to separate my lede from my introduction. In doing that, my lede for my final draft was able to be more consise, relevant to my article, and still maintain its specific purpose of grabbing the reader’s attention.

 

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

 

During my next unit projects, I would like to work more on the ability to adapt my writing style for the specific purpose of writing. As stated earlier, I had some trouble creating an article that did not read like a research paper. Although I feel comfortable with my ability to write an article now, I would like to work more on my writing adaptability so that when I sit down to write anything, I am better equipped to write in a style for a specific purpose and feel comfortable writing whatever I am given to write.

“These companies have legions of attorneys.  And they may sue even if they know they can’t win, just to send a message.” This quote is by Eric Schlosser in the documentary Food Inc. To put this quote in context, Eric Schlosser, a journalist, is talking about the food industry and their insane amount of power when it comes to the production of food in our country. The documentary Food Inc. aims to show the food industry as it really is. In other words, it shows the food industry from the side that consumers do not usually see. For example, consumers do not see how powerful the food industry really is until they are the ones fighting it. An example that the documentary used was the battle between Monsanto and a farmer who they were sewing for saving soybeans. Monsanto is a company that essentially has control over all soybean production because of their patent on the bioengineered soybean. Monsanto has the money and the resources to fight average farmers even if they only have suspicion that the farmer is using their patented soybeans against their patent agreements. This example just shows the power that the food industry has over producers. Those who produce our food our essentially puppets controlled by the food industry. Therefore, issues of food safety are widespread and out of reach not only by the consumer, but also by the producer.

To show the extent of how important food safety is and how it is neglected by the food industry, Food Inc. highlighted the story of Kevin. Kevin was two years old when he contracted E. coli from food and ended up hospitalized where he then died from the infection. His mom has been in a legal battle ever since. She has fought the government for more safety regulations when it comes to food, however, the food industry, highly backed by the government, is not easily budged and it has been a long and hard battle.

While the food industry claims that there are many safety regulations put in place to monitor the safety of food, evidence has surely proven otherwise. The article You Are What They Eat  provides various reasons to be concerned with the meat we are eating in the United States of America in regard to animal feed. The director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, Carol Tucker-Foreman, is quoted in this article saying “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be, and the FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality. Contaminated animal feed can result in contaminated food, putting the public health at risk.” This article quotes Fred Angulo who is the chief of the CDC’s foodborne and diarrheal branch who says that “connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult.” While it is hard to pinpoint human illnesses to animal feed, the article also notes that there have cases of salmonella linked to animal feed and the most recent case occurred in 2003. With that being said, it is obvious where the concern lies and that is with consumers. The fact that human illnesses are hard to trace already puts the food industry at an advantage. Saying that they are hard to trace does not mean that they are not a concern because even the CEO of the American Feed Industry Association is quoted in this article saying that feed can become contaminated because “people make mistakes.” Thus putting the consumer on the end of the mistakes that may end up with a foodborne illness while the food industry can blame it on an accident, if in fact, they are even caught.

The fact is is that it is hard to pinpoint where illnesses come from. The article Resisting Food Safety even shows how foodborne illnesses go unnoticed most of the time leaving the food industry off the hook and the consumer to suffer. The article states that even with 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths yearly in the United States of America “most episodes are never reported to health authorities and their cause is unknown.” The article not only highlights the severity of foodborne illnesses, but also how the use of antibiotics in animals can make foodborne illnesses even more severe. Using antibiotics creates a resistance to bacteria and therefore “If antibiotic-resistant bacteria infect people and cause a disease, the disease will be untreatable.” However, this article goes on to state how the drug industry does not agree with any attempt to hinder the use of drugs in animals for food even with the alarming evidence of how dangerous it can be to humans. In this scenario, the drug industry, as well as the food industry uses their power to maintain control over production even when the health of their consumers are at stake.

Organic Illusions, although arguing that organic food is worse for the consumer than conventionally farmed food, also notes how foodborne illnesses are neglected in light of those in the food industry. Organic Illusions argues that the organic industry is one built off the profits they can make by creating the image that organic food is better for people than conventionally farmed food. The argument the article makes is that the Stanford study found that E. coli is more prevalent in organic food. While this argument may not be from the most valid source, it still acknowledges how food safety is less important than the profits of the industry itself.

Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives is another article that positions the food industry as a powerful industry that would rather benefit than make food safe for its consumers. The article states that “Food safety (or the illusion of safety) is being positioned to secure capital rather than public welfare.” The article discusses an E. coli outbreak in contaminated spinach that sickened people in 26 states, over the course of six to eight weeks, and caused at least three deaths. It took about a week to find the distributor (Dole) and the article said that it would have taken even longer to find the contamination source insinuating that that was never discovered. Again, this article shows how, in this situation, the government and food industry responded but this was only in the case of a widespread and tragic instance. Also, how steps were only taken to secure the contaminated food but not to actually find the contamination to prevent it.