1.  My title does a satisfactory job of drawing in the reader. Anyone that can speak has, at this point, some awareness of the racial tensions in America. I invite the reader to explore these racial tensions in the context of the student loan debt situation. It accurately displays the controversies surrounding the topic at hand, but leaves the reader wanting to explore more into the topic.
2. The article starts with a statement everyone can agree on. This is done so that if the reader holds different views from my own, they aren’t immediately scared off. This also serves as an introductory statement, providing the reader with context of the topic at hand. Then, a couple of sentences in, I come at the reader with the faults in the student loan process. This differs greatly from the neutral tone at the start of the article, accentuating the controversies and exigency of the topic.
3. For the responses I have received from the TED Talk, and student feedback, many people are not aware of the severity of the student loan debt situation, especially for minority students. Therefore, I am lead to believe that my claim and topic are significant and not obvious to most people. I do not feel as though my topic is common knowledge or a cliché.
4. I could have developed my clearness more, as my topic has many different socio-economic implications. It was difficult to balance both the social and economic aspect of the topic. Student loan debt is obviously impacting the economy negatively, but is also affecting minority communities socially. Stigmas attached to minorities can be dissolved if minority and non-minority students had same graduation rates and income levels.
5. The organization of the piece could have been more apparent. Transitions between small paragraphs is a technique that could have greatly benefitted my piece. For the scrambling exercise I learned that my transition between sections was not immediately apparent. However, I do not feel as though my topic was a cliché, or vague. I specifically address the concerns with student loan debt, and tried to avoid general common knowledge.
6. I used some of the many sources I had researched from my Unit II assignment in the article. I attempted to use these articles to either support an argument I made, or to illustrate statistics on my topic that illustrate the dire student loan debt situation in this country. As for a persuasive stance, I first made sure all my data and sources were accurate, which would establish credibility. This would lead to a more persuasive argument.
7. I used a total of 7 sources and 1 visual source in my piece, which were fairly easy to incorporate. One thing I noticed about my topic early on is that many people have written about it, and it is an issue of high importance in society. Therefore, finding supporting data and sources was not very difficult.
8. I enjoy the use of hyperlink, and find incorporating the hyperlink into a sentence to be an interesting challenge. I contextualize the sources by introducing them, with a sentence or two. Then I hyperlink the source in a sentence such as “A Demos analysis on the Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances shows that, on average White high school dropouts have around the same wealth as a Black college graduate.”
9. I attempted to use statistics to appeal logically to the reader, which was simple because this is an economical topic. The use of several reputable sources and the attempt at a sophisticated tone helped build credibility. The most difficult rhetorical appeal to implement was ethos. This topic is very serious and emotionally taxing for students. Every time I think about my student loans, I get anxious and somewhat depressed. To display those feelings of dread to an audience was no small task.
10. I enjoyed the visual I incorporated into my piece very much, as it displays the massive debt these students are graduating with. I did not provide commentary on the image, as I felt that it spoke for itself. Explaining the image would only take away from the effectiveness of it, in my opinion.
11. The development from the earlier drafts was quite a process, as I had not started with many hyperlinks in the article. The remaining drafts were spent properly incorporating these sources into my piece, while making the transitions as smooth as possible.
12. Again, I found that my use of hyperlinks was executed well enough. I did not simply plop down a link for the reader to browse. With every link, there was some context preceding them that established what the link would be discussing. I tried my best to make the links appropriate and as relevant as possible.
13. I read my piece aloud a couple of times to make sure that grammatically the article is correct. Incorrect grammar and spelling is a surefire way to remove credibility, and a piece with grammar mistakes should never be printed in a prestigious webpage such as the New York Times.

Not many people would argue against the belief that education is a vital part of humanity, but some still do not treat it as such. Young minority and non-minority students are being put through an educational system that, admittedly, has many flaws. The most concerning flaw occurs right at the end of these student’s academic careers: college. A student faced with the financial and mental burden that is college will at times make a decision that can impact them financially 15 years later.

Now, the fact that an 18 year old, who has come out of high school with only an introductory economics class under their belt must make a decision worth tens of thousands of dollars is absurd to begin with. For some students, this decision costs months of potential in the job industry, along with any additional debt they acquire. This opportunity has been especially difficult for low income minority students across the country. A Demos analysis on the Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances shows that, on average White high school dropouts have around the same wealth as a Black college graduate. These numbers are what discourage minorities from attending university. They figure that if they’re not going to be making as much money as a White high school dropout, there is no point in going to college. People like Michelle Obama are trying to avoid adoption of this mentality by young minorities. While the Obama Administration has implemented programs to aid minority students, such as the Student Loan Forgiveness Program, it fails to address deeper socio-economic problems faced by minority students who end up dropping out of college.

This article from The Guardian displays a quote by the First Lady telling graduates of Booker T Washington high school, a school mainly comprised of minority students, to pursue an education. It reads “’Do you hear what I’m telling you… Because I’m giving you some insights that a lot of rich kids all over the country – they know this stuff, and I want you to know it, too. Because you have got to go and get your education. You’ve got to.’” While the First Lady’s words certainly seem sincere, all of the numbers point against her arguments.

Not only are minority students making less money on average than their White counterparts, they also have on average more student debt. A Gallup study on student loan disparities between race shows that 50 percent of black college graduates will leave their college with more than $25,000 in student loans. This is significantly more than the 34 percent of white graduates with more than $25,000 in student loans. The choice many minorities must make ends up losing them thousands of dollars either way. One must choose between only achieving a high school degree and living in poverty or going to college and acquiring thousands of dollars in debt.

In addition, this Bloomberg article cites a study done by the University of California, Los Angeles. It has shown that “The average student loan bill for both groups is about $8,000. But that’s half the $16,000 average wealth of black families and only 7 percent of the average $124,000 wealth of white families.” The staggeringly low average black family wealth has made many black students unable to afford such bills, making them default on their loans and sometimes even drop out.

Many minority students have decided to try out the college life, and end up defaulting on the loans they have. This ruins credit scores and can make buying a car, home or even acquiring a job impossible. This situation has plagued many minority households, and adds another figure to the staggering amount of low-wage workers in our country. The outcome of one’s life can start as early as age 17, which is a frightening thought. Many of these minority students come from a household where their parents, while supportive, do not know enough about economics to assist their children.

Not only is the financial aspect of the student loan system sometimes too much to bare for these minority students, but the social aspect as well. There have been many students, much like the person telling their story in this New York Times article that have ended up not being able to afford college due to family issues. The article tells of a minority student in their mid-twenties, reminiscing about their decision to default on their student loans. “By the end of my sophomore year at a small private liberal arts college, my mother and I had taken out a second loan, my father had declared bankruptcy and my parents had divorced.” Familial issues, such as parent’s divorce or the death of a parent are expected to not interfere with student loan payment by the government, which is absurd. The Obama Administration could easily fix this issue by giving more forgiveness to students of families with these issues.

The Obama Administration has been attempting to update the previously ineffective Student Loan Forgiveness Program. While they’re headed in the correct direction with this Program, the fact remains that the average student loan is unnecessarily high. Student loan debt levels have reached $1.35 trillion in the United States alone. Debt has risen by an average of $100 billion per year since 2007. The average student loan debt amount for a person ages 25-35 is $20,000. For some minority graduates, this is higher than their yearly income. While education has been increasing and unemployment has been decreasing, student loan level is getting to a point where college will be simply unaffordable for many households across the country.

We’ve seen politicians like Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders make promises to help the enormous student debt issue. There is no guarantee that Sanders will take office, however. Also, like Mrs. Obama, talk is not only cheap; it’s $20,000 in debt. Every year these political figures wait to make a move to fix the debt problem, $100 billion is taken from these student’s pockets. At the current rate, the student debt level is set to surpass the current mortgage debt level in less than a decade. It is a problem that, many times, in order to acquire the debt that comes with a mortgage, we must first undertake student loan debt. The repercussions of waiting for a politician to fix the student debt problems can range from graduates losing their homes to much worse. The economy and job market will not just wait for someone to come around and fix it, so we have to take action as soon as possible to help students avoid a grim future.

To help these young adults, we must first educate them in financial decisions they will make in the future. From my understanding and experience, economics classes teach these teens about GDP on the macro-economic scale, but fail to stress the importance of decisions the teen will be making in the next 10 years of their lives. Many counselors will tell students to go to college, no matter what kind of debt the student may acquire. This way of thinking does not benefit the student at all. If the student did not achieve as much as they would have liked to academically, I’d would highly advise them to take a semester, or even a year off to gain work experience, and more importantly, wisdom. It would be more beneficial than spending thousands of dollars getting a degree that would land them in the same job position that they would have been in, had they worked instead of going to school.

Writer Gerard Kelly touches on these issues in his piece, It’s Poverty of Ambition, not Student Debt, that’s Keeping Poor Children Away from University. He asserts that “The biggest hurdle poor pupils face is mental, not financial. They think that university isn’t for them. Thanks to the antics of the NUS et al their fears are reinforced.” Students from all around the world are facing this heavy burden, and the stress and anxiety that comes with it. At times, one can sympathize with some students’ decisions to drop out of college, although many are against it.

The Obama Administration has been urging minority students to stay in school, no matter the cost. While they seem to have the best interest of these students in their minds, the current student loan debt situation is a hurtle that some minority students simply cannot overcome. Many of these students end up dropping out of school, 69 percent of them stating student loan debt as the reason. These students end up going against the Obama Administrations intentions, therefore, some action must clearly be taken to make attending school seem more appealing to these students. Either a much needed lowering of tuition across colleges or additional funding from the government must be provided. This same government, by the way, has profited over $1 billion from Federal Student Loan programs in the last decade.

While data shows that minority students are, on average, being affected most negatively by these loans, the government does not discriminate when it comes to taking money from students. This is a problem for minority and non-minority students alike. The only demographics profiting from these outrageous debt levels are the government and the institutions that set these prices. We should not let money restrict our education.

Bernie Sanders: Monsanto and the FDA (6/17/1994)

Yes, we’d all like to know what is in our food. At the moment, we do not have a way to track our meals from the animal it came from to its packaging at the supermarket, and we’ll likely have to wait decades before we see any improvement on that front. However, with the elections coming up later this year, now would be a perfect time to address what the government is doing to make sure we all eat pathogen-free meals.

Who is on Our Side?

The debate on what we should put in our food is one that has been occurring since before many of us were even born. Humans have been eating for… well, just about as long as we’ve been around, and the argument over what we should and can eat cannot be traced back to a single source.

For just as long as we’ve been discussing our food, the question of who holds power, not only related to what we eat, but to our lives in general has been discussed. Long ago we created organized government in order to help us answer these important questions. Nowadays, we wonder if the government we helped create is really on our side in choosing what we should eat. Although discussing what we should put in our food is a meaningful debate, we should be addressing how the government needs to take further steps to convince us that they are concerned with our health.

We are the scientists who conduct research on various foods. We are the article writers who report the findings of our own kind. One could even argue that we are the people that choose what we should and shouldn’t eat. There is one problem in this debate, though. We’ve segregated ourselves into different groups lobbying for the abolition of different foods others of us may have enjoyed. This tear in our society has blurred the lines of who “we” are. Who is looking out for our best interests? Who is in the food business for selfish reasons? This new school of debate is relatively new compared to what we’ve been used to.

The Food Dispute

Since the dawn of the food debate, it has been a fairly black/white argument against the major food corporations. Companies like McDonald’s have been feeding us unhealthy food since its inception in 1940. Critics argue that McDonald’s does not care for our health, and is only in the market to make money. In the 2008 American documentary Food Inc., major corporations like Monsanto Company, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, and Perdue Farms are asked to be interviewed on what methods they use to manufacture our food. Every single one of them declined an interview.

While people on the other side of this debate agree that these companies are nowhere near innocent, they retort that it is up to us as individuals what we want to feed us and our children. This disagreement has led to the debate on organic vs. non-organic means of production.  Thousands of people have argued, with experts like Blake Hurst and Food Inc.‘s own Michael Pollan leading each side of the debate.

People like Pollan and Hurst have been arguing on the use of antibiotics and different chemicals in our food for the better part of a decade now. In their article You Are What They Eat, Consumer Reports offers a viewpoint on the argument. They raise the question “If all animals were raised organically – on feed lacking pesticides, animal byproducts, and antibiotics – would our food supply be safer?” responding “Yes, in some ways. There would be less risk of mad cow disease, little or no arsenic in chicken, and fewer bacteria able to resist antibiotics. But there’s no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden-variety bacteria, including salmonella.” Consumer Reports takes a mildly impartial stance on the issue, at least compared to experts Blake Hurst and Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health Marion Nestle.

Hurst, one of the most vocal supporters of the non-organic side of the argument has made his point very clear over the past 10 years. 4 years ago he published his article, Organic Illusions to reiterate his conclusions. He believes that “Plants and animals aren’t the least bit interested in the story the farmer has to tell. They don’t care about his sense of social justice, the size of his farm, or the business model that he has chosen…That means that when organic and/or conventional farmers provide the environment necessary for growth, plants and animals respond. It would be a shock if this did not occur, and it shouldn’t really be a story at all.”

A very controversial opinion to hold, indeed. Hurst’s ideals are met with opposition from many people like Nestle, who believe that “The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture affects food-borne illness in ways that are especially troubling. Growers treat infected animals with antibiotics, of course, but they sometimes give antibiotics to whole herds or flocks as a preventative measure.” Nestle argues that giving antibiotics to entire herds can make bacteria like salmonella grow resistant, and survive the cleaning process of the meat.  The problem is that there are simply too many variables that can influence bacteria in our food. In many cases of breakouts of illness, the point at which the food became infected is almost never known. This debate will therefore continue into the foreseeable future, perhaps for long after we are gone. Therefore, this article is not written to address the issue of what we should put into our food, but who we can trust to make sure we do not fall ill.

The Government and Our Food

Although the experts mentioned disagree adamantly on how we should process our food, they all agree on one point: our government may not have our best interests in their warm hearts. We can all agree that we must put a certain amount of trust into our government. Hurst mentions that “It is the position of the critics that you just can’t trust the government on these issues, which may indeed be the case. But the question arises: How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety or organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses?” The short answer? We can’t. Well, not to the extent that we do.

According to Consumer Reports many investigations “[Raise] 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.” Nestle shares the same opinion, stating that “We will see that food-borne illness is more than a biological problem; it is strongly affected by the interests of stakeholders in the food system – the food industry, government (agencies, Congress, and the White House), and consumers.”

Roberto A. Ferdman of The Washington Post also addresses issues of FDA and USDA oversight in his interview with Bill Marler, a lawyer specializing in food-borne illness. When asked to speak about his “few major frustrations with food safety in the United States,” Marler solemnly explains that “On the FDA’s side, which is 80 percent of our other food supplies and imports, there’s a skeleton crew of inspectors,” and that “Most of the food-borne illness outbreaks that [Marler has] been involved in over the past 20 or 30 years, most of the manufacturing facilities have never had an FDA inspector in them.”

So, everyone is in agreement that the government is not doing as much as they can to monitor the safety of the food we are eating and feeding to our children. Instances have occurred in the past decade where organic and non-organic foods alike have cause food-borne illnesses in people. Why not address the oversight of both foods instead of uselessly discussing which food we should eat? It seems concerning that not only are members of the government not regulating the food we eat properly, but also are making money from these big name companies. The candidates running for office cannot answer questions on steps they will take to ensure that our food is safe if they are not asked. It is up to us, the people eating these meals to bring it up. After all, when is the last time you heard of a government official suffering from the effects of E. coli?

 

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 thorough analysis of the texts before we began writing definitely helped me better understand the “writer’s project.” Analysis helped me look at this organic vs. non-organic debate in a more objective manner. Deeply analyzing what strategies these different writers implemented into their pieces helped with my own final piece immensely. Also, looking deeply into the ideas presented in these sources helped me find a topic that they all discussed and work on synthesizing all of their ideas to discuss my “project.”

• 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 probably the most useful tool in helping me write my blog article. The very meticulous organization was something I was never used to. I always used to grab ideas from hundreds of notes I had taken on different pieces, but this workshop helped very much in synthesizing specific ideas from each article. In particular, looking for similar words in article assisted me very much in locating related passages. It was then easy to pick out quotes from pieces that were related and synthesizing them into my piece.  

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

Synthesis to me is an accurate and fair way of incorporating sources into an argument one is trying to make in order to further strengthen ones argument and, by extension, piece in general. This strategy helped me a great deal when trying to mention the sources we had worked on. For example, I used Nestle and Hurst’s very opposing points to bring into light the heated debate that has been occurring for many years now in the food industry.

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

This unit not only taught me to consider what I should and shouldn’t eat, but also helped me grow as a writer. I realized halfway through discussing the sources in class that choosing points addressed in two different sources and comparing them is a very effective way of really understanding what it is that these writers/directors are trying to accomplish by making the pieces they make.

• 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?

I began with an event that I thought was interesting and would generate a ton of controversy from the very people we’ve discussed in class (outbreak in Chipotle) to the topic of government oversight and power in the food industry. I made this shift because speculating what the experts we’ve discussed would think about an outbreak seemed less effective to me than writing about something these experts have all actually discussed in their pieces.

• 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.

Splitting the article into different sections with titles was most effective in organizing my piece. It helped me determine when I should start making transition sentences and when I should start wrapping up an argument I had been working on. For example, the passage “Although the experts mentioned disagree adamantly on how we should process our food, they all agree on one point: our government may not have our best interests in their warm hearts,” uses the topics discussed in the previous section to strengthen points made in the coming section.

• 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 entirety of the “Food Dispute” section is spent analyzing different opinions held by experts we have discussed. The following section then synthesizes an argument every source we have read makes, displaying how it should be a topic of discussion.

• 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 was not even aware that we would have to incorporate a lede. When we discussed what a lede is and examples of it in different articles, I realized that a lede is something I had read in almost every article I’ve ever read, but didn’t know there was a name for it. Making the lede concise was quite a task, and gave me new appreciation for the meticulousness of writers.

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

I would like to seek out more help from the on campus writing helpers. I know that as writers we tend to miss mistakes we make, and that other people are more likely to catch both spelling/grammar and writing mistakes we make. I’ve also always been generally weak on revision and wish to spend more time revising my work.

Yes, we’d all like to know what is in our food. At the moment, we do not have a way to track our meals from the animal it came from to its packaging at the supermarket, and we’ll likely have to wait decades before we see any improvement on that front. However, with the elections coming up later this year, now would be a perfect time to address what the government is doing to make sure we all eat pathogen-free meals.

Who is on our side?

The debate on what we should put in our food is one that has been occurring since before many of us were even born. Humans have been eating for… well, just about as long as we’ve been around, and the argument over what we should and can eat cannot be traced back to a single source.

For just as long as we’ve been discussing our food, the question of who holds power, not only related to what we eat, but to our lives in general has been discussed. Long ago we created organized government in order to help us answer these important questions. Nowadays, we wonder if the government we helped create is really on our side in choosing what we should eat. Our government needs to take further steps to convince us that they are concerned with our health.

We are the scientists who conduct research on various foods. We are the article writers who report the findings of our own kind. One could even argue that we are the people that choose what we should and shouldn’t eat. There is one problem in this debate, though. We’ve segregated ourselves into different groups lobbying for the abolition of different foods others of us may have enjoyed. This tear in our society has blurred the lines of who “we” are. Who is looking out for our best interests? Who is in the food business for selfish reasons? This new school of debate is relatively new compared to what we’ve been used to.

The food dispute

Since the dawn of the food debate, it has been a fairly black/white argument against the major food corporations. Companies like McDonald’s have been feeding us unhealthy food since its inception in 1940. Critics argue that McDonald’s does not care for our health, and is only in the market to make money. In the 2008 American documentary Food Inc., major corporations like Monsanto Company, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, and Perdue Farms are asked to be interviewed on what methods they use to manufacture our food. Every single one of them declined an interview.

While people on the other side of this debate agree that these companies are nowhere near innocent, they retort that it is up to us as individuals what we want to feed us and our children. This disagreement has led to the debate on organic vs. non-organic means of production.  Thousands of people have argued, with experts like Blake Hurst and Food Inc.‘s own Michael Pollan leading each side of the debate.

People like Pollan and Hurst have been arguing on the use of antibiotics and different chemicals in our food for the better part of a decade now. In their article You Are What They Eat, Consumer Reports offers a viewpoint on the argument. They raise the question “If all animals were raised organically – on feed lacking pesticides, animal byproducts, and antibiotics – would our food supply be safer?” responding “Yes, in some ways. There would be less risk of mad cow disease, little or no arsenic in chicken, and fewer bacteria able to resist antibiotics. But there’s no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden-variety bacteria, including salmonella.” Consumer Reports takes a mildly impartial stance on the issue, at least compared to experts Blake Hurst and Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health Marion Nestle.

Hurst, one of the most vocal supporters of the non-organic side of the argument has made his point very clear over the past 10 years. 4 years ago he published an article named Organic Illusions to reiterate his conclusions. He believes that “Plants and animals aren’t the least bit interested in the story the farmer has to tell. They don’t care about his sense of social justice, the size of his farm, or the business model that he has chosen…That means that when organic and/or conventional farmers provide the environment necessary for growth, plants and animals respond. It would be a shock if this did not occur, and it shouldn’t really be a story at all.”

A very controversial opinion to hold, indeed. Hurst’s ideals are met with opposition from many people like Nestle, who believe that “The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture affects food-borne illness in ways that are especially troubling. Growers treat infected animals with antibiotics, of course, but they sometimes give antibiotics to whole herds or flocks as a preventative measure.” Nestle argues that giving antibiotics to entire herds can make bacteria like salmonella grow resistant, and survive the cleaning process of the meat.  The problem is that there are simply too many variables that can influence bacteria in our food. In many cases of breakouts of illness, the point at which the food became infected is almost never known. This debate will therefore continue into the foreseeable future, perhaps for long after we are gone. Therefore, this article is not written to address the issue of what we should put into our food, but who we can trust to make sure we do not fall ill.

The Government and our Food

Although the experts mentioned disagree adamantly on how we should process our food, they all agree on one point: our government may not have our best interests in their warm hearts. We can all agree that we must put a certain amount of trust into our government. Hurst mentions that “It is the position of the critics that you just can’t trust the government on these issues, which may indeed be the case. But the question arises: How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety or organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses?” The short answer? We can’t. Well, not to the extent that we do.

According to Consumer Reports many investigations “[Raise] 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.” Nestle shares the opinion, stating that “We will see that food-borne illness is more than a biological problem; it is strongly affected by the interests of stakeholders in the food system – the food industry, government (agencies, Congress, and the White House), and consumers.”

Roberto A. Ferdman of The Washington Post also addresses issues of FDA and USDA oversight in interview with Bill Marler, a lawyer specializing in food-borne illness. When asked to speak about his “few major frustrations with food safety in the United States,” Marler solemnly explains that “On the FDA’s side, which is 80 percent of our other food supplies and imports, there’s a skeleton crew of inspectors,” and that “Most of the food-borne illness outbreaks that [Marler has] been involved in over the past 20 or 30 years, most of the manufacturing facilities have never had an FDA inspector in them.”

So, everyone is in agreement that the government is not doing as much as they can to monitor the safety of the food we are eating and feeding to our children. Instances have occurred in the past decade where organic and non-organic foods alike have cause food-borne illnesses in people. Why not address the oversight of both foods instead of uselessly discussing which food we should eat? It seems concerning that not only are members of the government not regulating the food we eat properly, but also are making money from these big name companies. The candidates running for office cannot answer questions on steps they will take to ensure that our food is safe if they are not asked. It is up to us, the people eating these meals to bring it up. After all, when is the last time you heard of a government official suffering from the effects of E. coli?

Who is on our side?

The debate on what we should put in our food is one that has been occurring since before many of us were even born. Humans have been eating for just about as long as we’ve been around, and the argument over what we should and can eat cannot be traced back to a single source.

For just as long as we’ve been discussing our food, the question of who holds power, not only related to what we eat, but to our lives in general has been discussed. Long ago we created organized government in order to help us answer these important questions. Nowadays, we wonder if the government we helped create is really on our side in choosing what we should eat. Our government does not seem to be on our side of the argument on what we should eat.

We are the scientists who conduct research on various foods. We are the article writers who report the findings of our own kind. One could even argue that we are the people that choose what we should and shouldn’t eat. There is one problem in this debate, though. We’ve segregated ourselves into different groups lobbying for the abolition of different foods others of us may have enjoyed. This tear in our society has blurred the lines of who “we” are. Who is looking out for our best interests? Who is in the food business for selfish reasons? This new school of debate is relatively new compared to what we’ve been used to.

The food dispute

Since the dawn of the food debate, it has been a fairly black/white argument against the major food corporations. Companies like McDonald’s have been feeding us unhealthy food since its inception in 1940. Critics argue that McDonald’s does not care for our health, and is only in the market to make money. In the 2008 American documentary Food Inc., major corporations like Monsanto Company, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, and Perdue Farms are asked to be interviewed on what methods they use to manufacture our food. Every single one of them declined an interview.

While people on the other side of this debate agree that these companies are no where near innocent, they retort that it is up to us as individuals what we want to feed us and our children. This disagreement has led to the debate on organic vs. non-organic means of production.  Thousands of people have argued, with experts like Blake Hurst and Food Inc.‘s own Michael Pollan leading each side of the debate.

People like Pollan and Hurst have been arguing on the use of antibiotics and different chemicals in our food for the better part of a decade now. In their article You are what they eat,  Consumer Reports offers a viewpoint on the argument. They raise the question “If all animals were raised organically – on feed lacking pesticides, animal byproducts, and antibiotics – would our food supply be safer?” responding “Yes, in some ways. There would be less risk of mad cow disease, little or no arsenic in chicken, and fewer bacteria able to resist antibiotics. But there’s no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden-variety bacteria, including salmonella.” Consumer Reports takes a mildly impartial stance on the issue, at least compared to experts Blake Hurst and Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health Marion Nestle.

Hurst, one of the most vocal supporters of the non-organic side of the argument has made his point very clear over the past 10 years. 4 years ago he published an article named Organic Illusions to reiterate his conclusions. He believes that “Plants and animals aren’t the least bit interested in the story the farmer has to tell. They don’t care about his sense of social justice, the size of his farm, or the business model that he has chosen. Plants don’t respond by growing better if the farmer is local, and pigs don’t care much about the methods used in the production of their daily ration. If those inputs that animals and plants require to grow are present, plants and animals respond in pretty similar ways. That means that when organic and/or conventional farmers provide the environment necessary for growth, plants and animals respond. It would be a shock if this did not occur, and it shouldn’t really be a story at all.”

A very controversial opinion to hold, indeed. Hurst’s ideals are met with opposition from people like Nestle, who believe that “The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture affects foodbourne illness in ways that are especially troubling. Growers treat infected animals with antibiotics, of course, but they sometimes give antibiotics to whole herds or flocks as a preventative measure.” Nestle argues that giving antibiotics to entire herds can make bacteria like salmonella grow resistant, and survive the cleaning process of the meat.  The problem is that there are simply too many variables that can influence bacteria in our food. In many cases of breakouts of illness, the point at which the food became infected is almost never known. This debate will therefore continue into the foreseeable future, perhaps for long after we are gone. Therefore, this article is not written to address the issue of what we should put into our food, but who we can trust to make sure we do not fall ill.

The Government and our Food

Although the experts mentioned disagree adamantly on how we should process our food, they all agree on one point: our government may not have our best interests in their warm hearts. We can all agree that we must put a certain amount of trust into our government. Hurst mentions that “It is the position of the critics that you just can’t trust the government on these issues, which may indeed be the case. But the question arises: How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety or organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses?” The short answer? We can’t. Well, not to the extent that we do.

According to Consumer Reports many investigations “[Raise] 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.” Nestle shares the opinion, stating that “We will see that foodborne illness is more than a biological problem; it is strongly affected by the interests of stakeholders in the food system – the food industry, government (agencies, Congress, and the White House), and consumers.” If we can’t trust our government, who can we trust?