Did you know the Earth is hotter than it’s ever been? In Paris back in December, The United Nations convened and over 126 countries agreed that there is definitely a problem. Yet, back in the US, it doesn’t seem like it’s a big deal.

The common narrative, especially in the states, is that global warming is only a long term issue. Most people think the dangers associated with climate change are in the distant future. The latest climate change statistics are evidence of just the opposite. 2015 was the hottest year ever recorded only to be followed in 2016 by the hottest January ever. The following February, according to NASA, was the most unusually warm month in over a century.  It is very clear within the scientific community that global warming is real and is having traverse effects right now. There are many potential dangers and risks associated if there is continued non action. The Environmental Protection Agency has continuously detailed the threats posed to agriculture, transportation, human health as well as other various sectors. In addition, on April 4^th The Obama administration released a 332-page report that illuminates how global warming may sicken U.S. Citizens. The report warns of contaminated air, water, and food.

The EPA’s website says “The severity of these health risks will depend on the ability of public health and safety systems to address or prepare for these changing threats” (Impacts, EPA). This is important because it means that the longer we wait to address this issue the more dangerous it becomes. That is why it is so important that we change current blasé narrative. As we delay action we simultaneously debilitate ourselves. Every single day the corrective and protective potential of climate change policy decreases.

Economics is often used to argue against climate change policy. The case is made that renewable energy sources are still too expensive as opposed to coal technology. This is becoming increasingly false. Energy.gov provides comparative figures that show that cost of wind, solar, and electric technologies have decreased and their deployment has increased. Climate Change has the potential to devastate economy as well. A study published in the Nature science journal states that “unmitigated warming is expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality” (Nature). The estimated costs of damage due to future droughts, floods, and heatwaves numbers 1.7 trillion U.S. dollars.

Hopefully by now you are on board with the informed, in thinking that this is huge deal. If you are like me then your first question is probably, “is anything being done about this”? That question brings us back to the U.N. meeting in Paris I mentioned earlier.

The Paris agreement has a very clear focus, stating in it’s opening

“Recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions” (1, UNFCCC)

Every signing country is required to make certain pledges or commitments in greenhouse gas reduction. Certain countries have also pledged to subsidize clean energy in other developing countries. The year 2020 has been set as a checkpoint and or deadline for progress. In addition to global emission, certain benchmarks were made for global rise in temperature. The convention aimed to keep it below 2 degrees Celsius with the goal being 1.5 degrees. The language of the document utilizes the word “ambitious” often to emphasize the belief that countries should be challenging themselves in efforts to shift to cleaner energy sources. The Paris agreement not only calls for quantitative progress but qualitative as well, referring to policy. “Recognizing the importance of the engagements of all levels of government and various actors, in accordance with respective national legislations of Parties, in addressing climate change” (21, UNFCCC).

 

 

In fact, the success of this agreement is solely dependent on resulting domestic policy, in the agreeing countries. All the agreement really is tangible commitment by the associated countries to do their best to convince their home governments that climate change initiatives are a priority. The Paris agreement has been lauded by some as historic. While in its existence it is somewhat unprecedented, many have criticized the acclaim it has received, arguing against its effectiveness. Some feel the national commitments are either unrealistic or too complacent. In the time following the agreement, preceding its signature, it has become apparent that the critics may have a point.

Globally, there has not been drastic successful legislation that aims to address climate change. The documented pledges of countries such as China and the European Union have been called into question not only externally, but internally as well. Developing countries such as India, one of the largest global contributors to greenhouse gas pollution, are apparently still anticipating international subsidiaries and therefore has been stalled in their energy efficiency efforts.

The United States hasn’t made much better progress towards their goals either. Although, aggressive legislation does exist, it just has yet to pass. Obama’s Clean Power Plan aims to reduce the carbon emissions specifically from power plants. It requires states to submit detailed plans in the near future, that are designed to achieve just that. However, on February 9^th when brought to the Supreme Court the document was delayed. The court stayed the ruling on the plan, pushing back the decision. The delay of the decision in turn delays any resultant action, should it be passed. The court’s decision is representative of the strong dissent, within the government, to aggressive climate change policy. “By staying the rule, the court heeded the concerns of more than two dozen mostly red states and energy companies that oppose it” (M.S.L.J., TIME magazine).

Is this the first time your hearing of this decision? I wouldn’t be surprised; this news hasn’t received much mainstream circulation. Our own carbon emissions threaten to destroy the world and it’s not on the front page. That’s precisely the problem, and exactly why, as it stands, the Paris agreement is doomed to fail. The Paris agreement isn’t political action. The Paris agreement constitutes a tangible promise between world leaders to take political action. As far as the U.S. is concerned, it will be difficult to keep that promise. The Republican party doesn’t even acknowledge global warming as an issue. In an election year, the leading GOP candidates do not hold a stance on the climate change in their platforms. There was a whopping total of one question about climate change in all of the GOP debates thus far.

Bernie Sanders often criticizes the media for its lack of coverage on climate change. This criticism is crucial to ending the current narrative. If the public knew more about the recent drastic changes to global climate, they would be just as concerned as the U.N. Record breaking temperatures should become common knowledge. Issues such as gun violence, while an important national concern, are sensationalized and given mass coverage. Climate change cannot attract ratings because there currently appear to be no victims. What we as citizens must realize is that we all as humans will be the victims. The scary thing is, that if we wait until that is abundantly evident, we will have waited too long. It truly is on us. For global warming to be prioritized in American media and politics, it must first be a priority in the hearts and minds of American people. This article may serve as a conversation starter, but in order for this country to live up to its status as a global leader and for the future of human existence, it is up to you to keep the conversation going.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

http://energy.gov/articles/clean-energy-economy-three-charts

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v527/n7577/full/nature15725.html

Climate Change Could Wreck the Global Economy

http://www.economist.com/node/21679865

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/02/americas-battle-over-climate-change

https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/

http://www.eenews.net/special_reports/global_climate_debate/stories/1060032233

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-world-has-changed-since-paris-climate-pact-20142

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

 

 

 

 

How much do you actually know about what is in your food? In recent years several publications have examined the food industry. The discussion is complex, filled with criticisms and shared blame but most consumers are in the dark about the pertinent issues.

All issues related to and relevant to food safety are reflective of a three way power struggle between the industry, the government, and consumers. This matters because the industry is more impactful than the government in certain areas. Consumers should be concerned because they are increasingly at the mercy of the economic-interest of major food corporations. After reading various texts, there are a few topics that I could clearly identify at the crux of the debate. Criticism of government regulation over the food industry, and the dangers of foodborne illness was featured in almost every reading.

The Consumer Reports article You are What They Eat inquiries into the lack of government monitoring of the food fed to the animals we eventually eat and the adverse effects thereafter.  By providing the current narrative between industry and concerned officials, the article effectively attacks the credibility of food industry executives. After highlighting the inclusion of waste and antibiotics in the feed of farm animals such as cows and chickens, David Bossman the CEO of American Food industry Association is quoted as saying “You can eat meat with confidence that it’s not only safe but getting safer” (Consumer Reports, 27) Yet, other officials admit to being aware of the potential for the feed to still become contaminated in several parts of the process. Two key observations made by the text are that the appropriate organizations do actually have oversight and final approval over feed ingredients, and even still certain health labels and claims on food are unverified.  I wish to add that this is one of the most important manifestations of the food industry’s power over consumers. Families and individuals are severely disadvantaged, and at times endangered, when shopping because they don’t where there food comes from or how it is produced and must trust labeling. As a reader and consumer of food, I naturally wondered why the government would be so negligent in this area. The investigations conducted in the documentary Food Inc. do the work of providing some answers.

In the film, the directors and producers examine every aspect of food production in an attempt to spotlight controversial industry practices for an uninformed audience. Eric Schlosser, the author and co-producer, explains that “For years during the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist to the beef industry in Washington; the head of the F.D.A. was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association. These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies that they’re supposed to be scrutinizing”. (Food Inc.) This is possible due the fact that only a handful of companies control the food system, another observation made in Food Inc. What Schlosser is speaking to at the end of that quote has actually been a continuing occurrence through recent history. The trend illuminates how the amassing economic power of food corporations is being transformed into political power, further tipping the balance of influence away from the government. The two publications I’ve discussed thus far attacked the issues of regulation from the outside attempting to peek in. Marion Nestle was able to provide more of an authoritative insight in her article Resisting Food Safety.

Pulling from her experience as the senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services, Nestle critiques the internal structure of regulatory agencies. She argues that the system is outdated by providing the facts and statistical details as to why government action is so limited. She insists that there is more protection for producers than the public, “If anything the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable…The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was…minuscule by any standard of federal expenditure”. (Nestle, 59) The arguments made by Nestle about the daunting tasks provided to food regulation organizations stood out to me. Extending the text’s observation that regulatory government agencies are more concerned about vying for resources and jurisdiction than public safety, I wish to add that the dilution of their responsibilities contributes to the dilution of their power. It is this environment that influences the behavior noted by Nestle.

Foodborne illness is the danger fostered by current regulatory practices.  This issue is framed by power as well. As the current system is constructed, all the texts point to the fact that consumers, the industry and the government are all severely disadvantaged when it comes to preventing foodborne illness.

The major function of Consumer Reports as a publication is to caution and advise uninformed consumers. This particular article is characterized by explaining the source and risks of two major food related afflictions.  They are effective in this effort by clearly elucidating how infectious prions in beef feed can lead to mad cow disease in humans and antibiotics in chicken feed can expose people to arsenic, in a concrete and organized arrangement. Yet, even though the sources of the diseases are known, the author explains how preventative efforts are still hampered. “The FDA is aware of a handful of incidents worldwide in which salmonella infections in humans were linked to animal feed… connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult” (Consumer Reports, 28). Extending the text’s observation about the difficulty linking feed ingredients to foodborne illness, I wish to add that the dangerous aspect of this issue is that the industry again reigns superior in influence. If it is difficult to link the ingredients known to have potential for harm to actual outbreaks, it is easier to defend their inclusion.

In contrast to Consumer Reports, in addition to providing information Food Inc. makes effective rhetorical appeal to emotion in order to make its arguments. The inclusion of Barb Kowalcky’s story regarding her son Kevin emphasizes the dangers of foodborne illness in a way that effectively hits home. Ms. Kowalcky narrates how her son developed hemolytic-uremic syndrome in reaction to contaminated hamburger meat, while playful photos and videos of the deceased play on screen. Her experience expands on the difficulties of foodborne illness touched upon in Consumer Reports. “It took us almost two or three years and hiring a private attorney to actually find out that we matched a meat recall”. Kevin’s Law, passed after his 2001 death, gives the USDA the power to close down plants with contaminated meat. What was alarming to me was that the government didn’t already reserve this power and that it took death and years of lobbying for them to assume this power. The Kowalcky family was powerless to prevent their son from eating the tainted meat. The industry lacked significant power to identify and contain the contaminated food, and the until Kevin’s law the government lacked the power to shut down production of contaminated meat.

Nestle’s article, being more factual and educational in nature pinpoints, the specific challenges faced by organizations in identifying the source of foodborne illness. She notes “most episodes of food poisoning are not very serious… it is difficult to collect accurate information about the number of cases and their severity”. (Nestle, 37) She is also able to tangibly clarify what I have observed as prioritizing of economic interests over public safety.  Nestle provides data showing how foodborne illness presents a multi-million dollar cost to the industry in the form of recalls and loss of reputation. I similarly hold one of the text’s position that consumers do share some of the responsibility in issues of food safety.  This was a perspective touched on in all articles in fact. Food Inc., tries through rhetorical exercise to emphasize the power consumers have by selective spending when it comes to food. Consumer Reports urges people to utilize their local means of political influence to affect change by signing petitions and such. Yet, as Nestle observes the blame and responsibility is shared equally between producers, consumers, and regulatory agencies. Although, revisiting these issues of food through the framework of power, it becomes clear that power is concentrated in the industry. Therefore, so should accountability for food safety.

Our country’s food system is far from perfect. Marion Nestle accurately describes my attitude towards the issue when she states “The costs of foodborne illness to individuals, to society, and to food companies should encourage everyone to collaborate in efforts to ensure safe food.”(Resisting Food Safety, 61). We consumers have to stop buying into common narrative and false sense of security regarding what we eat. The potential dangers are very evident and acknowledged by all interests involved. We cannot rely on the government, their influence has been tempered by a complex system of checks and balances. A system where their power is imbalanced and too often checked. It is our best interest to demand better.

 

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.

 

I understand the writer’s project to be the arguments or observations they are trying to make and how they go about making them. In order to identify the texts projects, I first tried to synthesize the author’s thesis, and then identify different compositional strategies they employed. My project with this particular blog article was to compile information on food safety and present it through the framework of power. My overall thesis was that consumers need to reclaim power in the equation, and I used the various arguments made by the texts to highlight where power currently lies.

 

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

 

I appreciated the Sorting it Out workshops for organizing my thoughts. I found the sections connecting passages in the text and identifying the various projects to be extremely beneficial when it came to writing the article. The workshop helped me address all prompts for the assignment and then figure out how to present it.

 

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

 

Synthesizing in my understanding if concretely expressing the main arguments of the text, providing key details and evidence, without summarizing. Its importance lies in the analysis of the text, which manifested directly into the article.

 

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

 

I think the practice in synthesizing, helped me read texts more critically. An accomplishment for me was identifying and utilizing evidence from the differing text effectively in my article, finding connections and relevance.

 

 

 

 

• 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 original main idea was just the focus or thesis of my 500 word reading response. “After reading the texts, there were several issues prevalent throughout all of the texts. The topic of government regulation over the food industry was touched upon briefly in almost every reading. Two in particular went into depth over the actions and lack of actions on behalf of organizations such as the FDA and the USDA.” After the sorting it out workshop, my main idea developed more into my own observations and opinions about the food industry “All issues related to and relevant to food safety are reflective of a three way power struggle between the industry, the government, and consumers. This matters because the industry is more impactful than the government in certain areas. Consumers should be concerned because they are increasingly at the mercy of the economic-interest of major food corporations.”

 

 

• 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.

 

My lede is designed to draw the readers attention the issue of food in general. My introductory paragraph is where I declare my observations and main idea. I tried to organize the article around the issues transitioning from text to text. After synthesizing the text as it related to the issue I was discussing at a particular point, I made sure to highlight how the argument or issue relate to my main idea and opinions. I often utilized my topic and concluding sentences to compare and contrast the articles and their various approaches. I nested the textual evidence in the heart of paragraphs to support the claims I made in my synthesis of the texts. My concluding paragraph revisits the main idea but ends with my own personal assertions and opinions.

 

 

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.

 

“The Consumer Reports article You are What They Eat inquiries into the lack of government monitoring of the food fed to the animals we eventually eat and the adverse effects thereafter.  By providing the current narrative between industry and concerned officials, the article effectively attacks the credibility of food industry executives.”

 

“In the film, the directors and producers examine every aspect of food production in an attempt to spotlight controversial industry practices for an uninformed audience.”

 

 

“Pulling from her experience as the senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services, Nestle critiques the internal structure of regulatory agencies.”

 

In earlier drafts, my synthesis was just a statement of the author’s project or thesis. After the lede workshop, I revisited the synthesis and focused on being concise and informing the reader about the most important things I want them to know about the texts.

 

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

 

My lede did not undergo much change from first to final draft. I felt I really benefitted from the workshop we did in class. I immediately knew I wanted to incorporate a question in order to draw the reader’s attention. I figured it would work effectively since the issues of food involve so many questions.

 

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

 

I would like to improve on composing more concisely when appropriate.

All issues related to and relevant to food safety are reflective of a three way power struggle between the industry, the government, and consumers. This matters because the industry is more powerful than the government in certain areas. Consumers should be concerned because they are increasingly at the mercy of the economic-interest of major food corporations. After reading the texts, there were several issues prevalent throughout all of the texts. The topic of government regulation over the food industry was touched upon briefly in almost every reading.

Each text observed and commented on the over the actions and lack of actions on behalf of organizations such as the FDA and the USDA. The Consumer Reports article You are What They Eat article inquiries into the lack of government monitoring of the food fed to the animals we eventually eat and the adverse effects thereafter.  It also provides the current narrative between industry and concerned officials. Highlighted in the article is the inclusion of waste and antibiotics in the feed of farm animals such as cows and chickens. The article states that the appropriate organizations do have oversight and final approval over feed ingredients. Yet even officials in the food industry are aware of the potential for the feed to still become contaminated in several parts of the process. The question Consumer Reports raises is whether the rules surrounding food supply are strong enough, and whether or not government enforcement is expansive enough. “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be and FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality” (Consumer Reports, 27) Another of the text’s observations was that certain health labels and claims on food are unverified, I wish to add that this is another power of the food industry over consumers. Consumers are disadvantage by not knowing where there food comes from or how it is prepared and must trust labeling.

As a readers and food consumers, we naturally wonder why the government would be so negligent in this area. The investigations conducted in the film Food Inc. does the work of providing some answers. The directors and producers perform investigative work into every aspect of food production in an attempt to pull back the veil over food industry practices. Eric Schlosser, the author and co-producer, explains that “For years during the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist to the beef industry in Washington; the head of the F.D.A. was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association. These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies that they’re supposed to be scrutinizing”. (Food Inc.) This is possible because only a handful of companies control the food system. This is a significant trend because it illuminates how the amassing economic power of food corporations is being transformed into political power further tipping the balance of influence away from the government.

Marion Nestle in her article Resisting Food Safety argues that food safety rules and regulations are outdated.  Pulling from her experience as the senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services, she attempts to provide and authoritative insight into the inner workings of regulatory agencies.  She provides the facts and statistical details as to why the actions of regulatory agencies are so limited. She insists that there is more protection for producers than public, and explains why it is difficult to connect foodborne illness to production. “If anything the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable…The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was…minuscule by any standard of federal expenditure”. (Nestle, 59) The arguments made by Nestle about the daunting tasks provided to food regulation organizations stood out to me. Extending the text’s observation that regulatory government agencies are more concerned about vying for resources and jurisdiction than public safety, I wish to add that the dilution of their responsibilities contributes to the dilution of their power. It is this environment that influences the behavior noted by Nestle.

One of the risks associated with lax government regulation is obviously foodborne illness. This issue is framed by power as well. As the current system is constructed all the texts seem to point to the fact that consumers, the industry and the government are all disadvantaged in their attempts to prevent foodborne illness, which is cause for concern. Food Inc. employs a strong emotional rhetoric when addressing the issue. The inclusion of Barb Kowalcky’s story regarding her son Kevin emphasizes the dangers of foodborne illness in a way that effectively hits home. On screen Ms. Kowalcky explains how her son developed hemolytic-uremic syndrome in reaction to contaminated hamburger meat. The most alarming part of the story for me is the legislation that followed. Kevin’s Law, passed after his 2001 death, gives the USDA the power to close down plants with contaminated meat. What was alarming to me was that the government didn’t already reserve this power and that it took death and years of lobbying for them to assume this power. Ms. Kowalcky explains ““It took us almost two or three years and hiring a private attorney to actually find out that we matched a meat recall”. The Kowalcky family was powerless to prevent their son from eating the tainted meat. The industry lacked significant power to identify and contain the contaminated food, and the until Kevin’s law the government lacked the power to shut down production of contaminated meat.

The Consumer Reports article is characterized by explaining the source and risk of two major foodborne illness. It cites how infectious prions in beef feed can lead to mad cow disease in humans and antibiotics in chicken feed can expose people to arsenic. Yet, even though the sources of the diseases are known preventative efforts are still hampered. “The FDA is aware of a handful of incidents worldwide in which salmonella infections in humans were linked to animal feed… connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult” (Consumer Reports, 28). Extending the text’s observation about the difficulty linking feed ingredients to foodborne illness, I wish to add that the dangerous aspect of this issue is that the industry again reigns superior and influence. If it is difficult to link the ingredients known to have potential for harm to actual outbreaks, it is easier to defend their inclusion.

Nestle’s article being more factual and educational in nature highlights the general difficulties of identifying the source of foodborne illness and why it poses such a threat. She notes “most episodes of food poisoning are not very serious… it is difficult to collect accurate information about the number of cases and their severity”. (Nestle, 37) She is also able to tangibly clarify what I have observed as prioritizing of economic interests over public safety.  Nestle provides data showing foodborne illness presents a multi-million dollar cost to the industry in the form of recalls and loss of reputation. I similarly hold one of the text’s position that consumers do share some of the responsibility in issues of food safety.  This was a perspective touched on in all articles in fact. Food Inc., tries through rhetorical exercise to emphasize the power consumers have by selective spending when it comes to food. Consumer Reports urges people to utilize their local means of political influence to affect change by signing petitions and such. Yet, as Nestle observes the blame and responsibility is shared equally between producers, consumers, and regulatory agencies. Although, revisiting these issues of food through the framework of power, it becomes clear that power is concentrated in the industry. Therefore, so should the responsibility and accountability for food safety.