“The music Industry can make you feel like a prostitute.” Says Jonathan Davis, the lead vocalist of metal group Korn.

The music industry has a habit of taking talented artists and morphing them into a money making machine. The majority of the world revolves around money and everyone knows this, it is a given. However, when it comes to the music industry what makes the money is the people and who gets majority of the money is the record label. So it is a trend that is seen where talented young women are put in provocative clothing, wearing two pounds of makeup, and told to go on stage and sing a song that has been changed to suit what will sell the best.

Things have become less and less about the talent and the lyrics than about the money that the artist will be bringing in.

The film Beyond the Lights came out in 2014 and besides the love story aspect, it really hit home on this topic. The film stared Minnie Driver and Star Wars actress Gugu Mbatha-Raw, the movie covers the life of a suffering British Pop-star and how she has changed since she first discovered her love of music. It shows her as a young curly haired girl singing Nina Simone’s Blackbird. She goes from a talented to young woman with an incredible voice and a passion for singing to a 23-year-old woman with lingerie and leather hair extensions singing a provocative and highly auto tuned song. Feeling unseen, unloved, and exploited she tries to committing suicide. From this point on she realizes that she doesn’t want to be everything that her producer and record label want her to be. So she removes her hair extensions, fake nails and changes her clothing and she becomes happy again. This movie was all too real for anyone who has undergone the game sort of realization. This is not uncommon, producers have a habit of changing a celebrity to suit what will make the most money and this film was a prime example of how this affects someone’s life.

It may have been a dramatization but the situation still exists in the real world we just don’t see it. We are extremely blinded by fun music and cute outfits we fail to see the what could be going on behind the scenes.

When evaluating the success of musicians in popular outlets like the Billboard Top 100 Artists lists, seven of the top ten artists of the month are female. This is something that is constant throughout the year, that women musicians are at the top of their game. Jennifer Lopez, one of the many women in Billboards list recently spoke out about the dynamic of the music industry. She has been working in the music industry since she was very young and says that to this day the industry professionals value women less than they do men. Which is not surprising because this is a trend throughout the world. However, when you look at the statistics it is hard to believe that the industries top money makers are still respected less and undervalued.

We all know that wage gap between men and women are just one of the many things that set women apart from the rest. Jennifer Lopez recently spoke with W Magazine about her career and is quoted saying “…It’s a man’s world, and, truly, people in a business setting do not value a woman as much as they do a man. I feel like I am constantly having to prove myself. If a man does one thing well, people immediately say he is a genius. Women have to do something remarkable over and over and over. And, even then, they get questions about their love life.” Being an important woman in the industry for more than a decade she knows this sort of misogyny for herself, even if it isn’t realized the workplace is male oriented. After releasing this statement J Lo was scrutinized because later on that week she released a song that was produced by Dr. Luke.

Luke’s name may sound extremely familiar due to the fact that his court case with Kesha is plastered all over the news. Almost everyone knows who Kesha is when they think of Tik Tok and the very memorable line of brushing her teeth with a bottle of jack. However other than this court case many non-music aficionados wouldn’t recognize Dr. Luke’s name or real name Lukasz Gottwald.  And no he is most definitely not a real doctor. He is a guitarist and music producer for many large Billboard artists such as Kesha, Kelly Clarkson, Katy Perry, Ciara, Miley Cyrus, Jennifer Lopez and many more talented women. Many of these women, such as Jennifer Lopez and Ciara were scrutinized for releasing music recently that was produced by Dr. Luke and Kemosabe.

When talking about the inequality in the workplace for women the music industry is a prime example. The Kesha Vs. Dr. Luke scandal is a sexual assault case that is pretty much a prime example of the misogyny in the music industry. What J Lo said was correct; we live in man’s world.  A world where we question a young girl’s accusation of sexual assault against someone who holds power in the music industry and where accusations of rape are not taken seriously.

Sexual assault in the workplace has been recognized as a problem since the 1970’s, over the years it has been recorded that sexual assault is the most frequent cause of death among women. It is hard to record due to underreporting but the estimated prevalence rate of rape and sexual assault is 30% among adult women. Kesha recently created a blog called “The Industry Ain’t Safe” for women to anonymously share their stories of sexual assault and harassment in the music industry.

So why is it that he is currently winning the case? Is it because he is one of the biggest producers in the industry? Is it because Kemosabe needs him? Or is it because he is owned by SONY?

Kesha’s legal battle has been rough, trying to win a case against a label as big as Kemosabe which is owned by SONY is not an easy case to win. Kesha Serbert is suing Dr. Luke and the record label associated to break free from her contract. She signed a six album contract with Kemosabe Records when she was round 16 years old and is accusing Dr. Luke of drugging and sexually assaulting her over the past 8 years.  As well as controlling and psychologically abusing her. However, this case is geared more towards escaping her contract rather than incriminating Lukasz.

In her most recent court ruling Kesha was denied a primary injunction which would have allowed her to record her own music outside her contract. She was denied freedom from someone who drugged her and sexually assaulted her for years, someone who is 20 years her senior and someone who turns to twitter to preach his plea (shown above.)

This is not the only time Kesha has spoken out about her abuse, in 2005 when Kesha was 18 he drugged and raped her at her hotel room after a Nicki Hilton’s birthday party. Because she was intoxicated and because it was 11 years ago makes this invalid even when her mother has proof.

As Jennifer Lopez said women aren’t valued the same as men, in any industry. Clearly we can see this, when Kesha has been assaulted for years and has statements on multiple of these instances along with phone call evidence and eye witnesses it is not enough for her to win. It is not even enough for her intentions to be believed. Many sources believe that she is lying and has been lying for 11 years to break out of her contract. Dr. Luke’s attorney spoke to Billboard (who is owned by SONY) and gave them this statement, “Kesha’s court filings are and have always been a transparent business ploy to pressure Luke into a more ­favorable and lucrative contract.”  Why would this young woman invest 11 years of her life to a lie, and why do we feel the need to question her allegations.

There is a stigma about sexual assault and rape that we need to change, we cannot continue to let this happen. Let Kesha inspire you to take a stand as she has done for so many others, she is not the bad guy in this situation. When it comes to sexual assault and rape 8% of all rapes occur in the workplace and eight out of ten times the person is not a stranger. When it comes to the workplace it often occurs between someone of power and someone of lower standing and 91% of the time the victim is a woman.

With these statistics why should we question Kesha’s accusations, she is a woman, he is in a higher position than her, and he raped her multiple times. That is all that we need to know. Women in the world are lacking a sense of credibility when it comes to this topic. We see it time and time again. There was a time when women didn’t have the right to vote it seems like we have come a long way since then but have we really?

Women need to come together, since Kesha’s case was made public female celebrities have come out to speak on their experiences and to show their support. They have donated their money and created #freekesha. Even Kesha herself is helping other women come out about their abuse on her blog.

While there might not be a lot we can do about individual opinions in regards to powerful people (such as Judges) we can come together as a community to support fellow women so they get the respect that they deserve and not tolerate these situations again.

Unit III Reflection:

1. Because my lede isn’t as straight forward as it would be to an essay my title sets the stage for what people are going to be reading. Without the title the reader wouldn’t know till the fourth or fifth paragraph that I am using Kesha to prove my point. My lede gives the basis of what I am trying to say throughout the article.
2. Using a quote to open my article before the introductory paragraph grabs the readers attention, and sets a precedent for what the next paragraph will be like.  The first paragraph doesn’t give too much a way but also doesn’t read like an introductory to an essay, it gives some small background and to the industry.
3. My idea that is constant throughout the piece is inequality and sexual assault in the workplace, and with that I bring to light a lot of points that I found in my research that a lot of people wouldn’t normally think of. As well as comparing to things relevant in the world right now.
4. The sentence structure and word choice found throughout my article are subjective to my unique brand of writing. I thought out my ideas and points before putting them to paper to make sure that the reader would not be confused when interpreting the article.
5. I brought up unique examples that the regular NYTs reading wouldn’t think of on their own. I avoided cliche ideas on inequality and brought attention to the facts so that they are unable of challenging these ideas.  I organized it in a way that was able to keep the readers attention by adding quotes or examples from current events.
6. As the writer I definitely had my own point of view towards this controversy and it is evident in my writing, I used the research I found in many ways to not only persuade the reader but also to inform the reader enough to make our decisions.
7. I did an extensive amount of research on this topic both during this unit and last unit. Finding a way to specifically include it into my article, while they might not be hyperlinked they were all used to help me complete my writing. I used a visual that included text examples of tweets that I referenced in the article.
8. I used my secondary sources a source of information to fill in the blanks, a way to add context to the article and information for the reader. My primary sources helped me make the connections on sexual assault in the workplace. While I did drop a quote of two in my piece they were quotes that helped my article grow and reach out to both younger (J. Lo) and older ( Jonathan Davis) readers.
9. I persuaded the audience by informing them and showing them points of view that they might not have otherwise noticed. I didn’t only use my side I utilized the view points of others in the industry.
10. I chose a visual that pertains directly to the two paragraphs surrounding it, it is a picture of Kesha leaving court and then two of Dr. Luke’s tweets that I briefly mentioned. It is interesting because it is not just a picture it has more to it and it makes you read. It provides the reader with a little bit of a break and an interesting to visual to what I was saying at the time.
11. The many drafts I did really helped me finalize my piece along with the help of my classmates. The first draft, while small I wasn’t sure how to start or where I was going with my points, it was very choppy and all over the place until the second draft or third draft when everything started to come together. With suggestions and critiques from my peers I was able to finalize my article.
12.  It was hard to use hyperlinks because it was hard to really reference my sources, however when I did I gave direct links to magazines they could look themselves for the information or similar information.
13. My word choice, sentence structure and choice of grammar added to my article and I believe gained credibility with use of my many sources.

It’s 6:30 pm around dinner time and like most families you tune into world news. Evening to evening you see a variety of different things ranging from earthquakes in Ecuador, to poverty in Los Angeles. However, the unfortunate reoccurring subject that is becoming a household name, shocking the world almost daily, and making headlines more often then they should; is the terror group ISIS.

In light of the various attacks in Brussels, Turkey, United States, Paris and all across the world; it is clear that the battle against this inhumane group is nothing but urgent and to put a stop to this madness is going to take a collaborative effort from the White House and nations all around the world. Secretary of State, John Kerry is quoted saying from London England that, “ We all understand, that Daesh, as it is commonly known in the Arab world, is not simply a Syrian problem, not an Iraqi problem, Daesh is a global problem and it demands a coordinated comprehensive and enduring global response.”

Who even are these people and why is this fight so urgent? “ISIS”: short for Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, once started as small portion of Al Qaeda. Today their strength surpasses Al Qaeda by great measures and the terror group is implementing Sharia Law, which is rooted in eighth century Islam to establish a society that mirrors the region’s ancient past. ISIS is Currently collecting taxes and delivering government services while slaughtering prisoners and demanding ransom from many. ISIS now controls its largest city of Mosul, that was taken by them in last June and is said to be bigger then the United Kingdom (I know, scary thought right), and they has a central goal to sow civil unrest in Syria and Iraq with the intent of establishing a single, transnational state based on Islamic law and ultimately to keep the West out of the Middle East.

It is evident that this threat is crucial and poses great danger for the future. The Islamic State has claimed responsibilities for a numerous amount of murders and terror plots.

Much of this horror started about two summers ago when American journalist James Foley was abducted and beheaded on a video that was posted to YouTube, this was also the first time ISIS faced the media headfirst. Following that came a gunman holding a Sydney café hostage, the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Tunisia museum shooting, Yemen Mosque bombing, Cairo embassy shooting, French train attack, San Bernindino shooting, Brussels attack, among many other instances. Loosing lives of loved ones to this group is no means justifiable and we as a human beings need to come together to stand against this.

In the most recent attack in Brussels Belgium, the fighters targeted the Brussels Zaventen airport and a metro station in the city due to Belgium’s “participating in the coalition against the Islamic state.” This most recent attack is one amongst many that clearly proves the intensity in this fight, and the fact that it moves far beyond the grounds of the Middle East.

ISIS has key strategies that allows them to advance far beyond their homeland, revolutionize terrorism and do something that sets them apart from many terror groups of the past. Currently ISIS is recruiting from the internet and using major websites such as Twitter and YouTube to gain influence and spread their message. However, ISIS is not just targeting Muslims who already live on their side of the world. The New York Times reported last month that foreigners make up half of ISIS fighting force, and a total of 4,000 come from the West. ISIS is also known for using the internet to post propaganda videos where fighters clearly speak Western languages, in order to encourage Westerners to come fight in the East.

On a good note, The United States has taken measures into their own hands by sending over many airstrikes to the Middle East. Are air strikes enough though? The US has been sending the most amounts of air strikes, in front of France, then Russia and Australia. Many critics argue that today airstrikes are in no way sufficient to defeat ISIS; Republicans believe that ground troops should be sent to fight the battle.

Obama has been long criticized for being to lenient on his stance on behalf of ISIS. However in mid December in one of his speeches Mr. president was quoted saying, “ISIL leaders cannot hide, and our message is simple: You are next.” With this being said, the public also seems to think that airstrikes are not enough, and a lot of people are not so pleased with Mr. President’s performance in the fight.

Four days Prior to the Paris attacks a poll was taken to measure the Americans take on the way Barack was handling the situation and a total of 64% disapproved on the way things were going.

Evidently, ISIS has not just had an effect on one region; they have affected the US, France, Belgium, Russia, Tunisia and many other parts of the world. With that being said it is not just a one nation fight and the United States cannot take on the entirety of this battle. The fight is too big, and we cannot get into another war alone, this is a conflict that affects nations all across the world. Power in numbers is exactly what we need to put an end to this group.

As of January, the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Australia, and the Netherlands had a collective meeting hosted by the United States’ Defense secretary Ashton Carter. In the meeting they all agreed they must do more to put an end to this mess, the group mentioned in a combined announcement that it has “expressed our broad support for the campaign plan objectives, and the need to continue gathering momentum in our campaign.” Carter also announced that there are 26 nations in the anti- ISIS coalition including Iraq, the US has mapped out an organized plan against ISIS over the next year.

Over the past few years ISIS has been able to gain control over two major cities in Syria and Iraq; these cities allow for ISIS to advance and only terrorize more. Luckily, A primary goal of the coalition is to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces to regain control of Mosul in Northern Iraq and to help the Syrian forces in overthrowing ISIS from their self proclaimed capitol of Raqq, Syria.

The United States has also mentioned that they would be pleased to see more straightforward military contributions, with equipment and training on behalf of the Arab and Asian countries.

It is a peace of mind to know that other places around the world have also taken strides in the effort to slow down ISIS. Canada has sent about seventy troops to serve as advisors to the Iraqi security forces, Germany has also sent troops to help Kurdish forces. Italy has provided monetary support, sending 2.5 million dollars in weaponry and offered assistance in the refueling of planes for airstrikes.

The ISIS fight is seemingly so president that it is a major debate among presidential election today. Each candidate has very strong and differing views, yet the candidate we as a nation choose to be in office will have a major impact on how we defeat this group of evil. Republican candidates Kasich and Trump, although are on the same “side”, they also view the topic very differently.

Kasich wants to put in place a worldwide coalition, including NATO countries along with other Middle East nations, to become involved in fighting ISIS. While Donald has more of a “kill ‘em all” type view, and wants to ultimately bomb everything. However, on the Democratic side, Bernie and Hilary think a little differently. Bernie has said he would also like to build a collation, and would even be willing to work with Russia and Iran to defeat the extremist groups. Hillary on the other hand want to implement more allies planes and strikes.

Regardless of the differences between these candidates, what is most important is that we need to make a collaboration of nations all across world and realize that this fight is nothing short of urgent.

From what has been happening all across the world it is apparent that this fight is extremely important to protect our people, and that this issue is extremely president, innocent people cannot not be loosing their lives to this group anymore. We as the human race need to work together globally to put a stop to this injustice and to prevent future occurrences. No single country is only affected by these tragedies and that is why we need to face this head on collaboratively.

The People of Flint, Michigan have been through enough Governor Snyder!  Do the right thing: Resign from office!

To put some perspective on the over two yearlong water crisis tormenting the people of Flint, one must first understand the history of this city, its relationship with pollution, and the auto-makers who polluted it.

In 1907, GM founded what would later be a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company.  The company set its headquarters in Flint, Michigan.  It would employ as many as 349,000 people in plants around the world.  Several of these plants were located in Flint, and others in the neighboring towns of Saginaw, Pontiac, and Lansing.   It was an industry that boomed, and directly contributed to the growth and prosperity of the city.  Times were good for the residents of Flint, for years.  Little did these residents realize, however, that their city was being poisoned.

The development of automobiles and their supporting components, like any young technology, used toxic chemicals that even today remain in the environment of most industrial cities.  Flint’s relationship with lead actually began almost 80 years ago.  David Rosner, who teaches History & ethics of public health at Columbia University explains:  “By 1936, the car industry had become very dependent on lead. It went into their batteries and welding, paints, lacquers, enamels and other finishes, as well as the gasoline GM cars depended on. As any old car enthusiast knows, when refinishing an old car, make sure to wear a mask. Huge amounts of lead and other toxins were pumped into the air, water, streams, and ground in and around the mammoth car factories in Flint and other Michigan cities. It is unlikely that anyone living in or near Flint then—or today—could escape the impact of unrestrained pollution.”

Lead was also used in the residential infrastructure mating welds that connected Flint’s municipal water supply to each house that received water service.  Most of these houses were built in the 1930’s and 40’s, when the danger of lead was unrealized.  And even with lead in the pipes leading up to the homes, citizens were in no danger, as long as the lead stayed in the pipes.  For over 50 years, Flint’s residents got their water from Lake Huron distributed by the Detroit Water and Sewage Department (DWSD).  The water system was adequate and safe.

Things began to turn badly for the citizens of Flint in the late 1980s, when GM closed several factories.  The city suffered severe economic depression from having more residents than available jobs.  A resulting spike in crime rate followed and Flint became known as “one of the most dangerous cities in the United States.”  Eventually the city’s coffers ran dry and the local treasury found itself in a series of economic crises.  Governor Rick Snyder sent an 8 member review team to Flint to assess its economic status.  The team recommended appointing an emergency manager to make drastic changes to try and save Flint from bankruptcy.  That manager looked over the budget and attempted to cut costs wherever possible.  One of these savings would come by changing water supply from Lake Huron to water from the Flint River.  The change would save the city a total of $4 million.  The switch was made and a new water was flushed through the old pipes that comprised Flint’s aging distribution network.  With the new water differing chemically from the old water, a far more corrosive water was now interacting with the lead solder welds that had been safe for so many years before.  Lead then leeched from those welds and entered the homes of most of the residents of Flint.

So now there are economically depressed, crime-ridden citizens, who have grown up in an environment polluted by lead (and other toxins), receiving tap water which contains dangerous levels of lead.  This lead, when consumed, can cause lead poisoning and Legionnaires disease.

Residents complained about the water’s color and odor.  But for months they were ignored and told that the water was fine.  It took almost a year of complaints and investigations until, finally in October 2015, officials switched the water supply back to the DWSD.    But the damage to the welds was done.  Filters were supplied to residents, but there was little more the city could do in the short term.

Today the residents of Flint find themselves in terrible position.  The pipes leading up to the homes must be replaced in order to eradicate the poisoned welds.  The many cases of lead poisoning and legionaries disease must be dealt with for years to come.  Steps need to be taken to hold the people responsible for this disaster accountable for their actions.  The related health costs are estimated of over a billion dollars.

Governor Snyder claimed that the reason for this crisis was failures on multiple levels of government.  He was pressured to release emails regarding his handling of the situation.  The New York Times reviewed these emails: “the documents provide a glimpse of state leaders who were at times dismissive of the concerns of residents, seemed eager to place responsibility with local government and, even as the scientific testing was hinting at a larger problem, were reluctant to acknowledge it.”

So it seems Snyder and his cohorts were more interested in finding where to place the blame then actually doing what was best to immediately fix the problem.  The role of a governor is to fix the problems that face his state by delegating the responsibilities to his officials.  He is much like the CEO of a company.  He is responsible for the overall success of his state.  If a CEO were running a company that faced such catastrophic failures with a portion of his company, there is good chance he would be out of a job once the dust settled.

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber resigned from office in 2009 over a scandal involving his fiancée’s role as an advisor with a conflict of interest.  No people were injured in this controversy and the lies amounted to little more than a few fibs to make money.  In Michigan, however, the citizens were ignored and lied to about critical issues affecting their very survival.  Congressman Matt Cartwright (Rep Pa) scolded Snyder during a Congressional hearing on the state of the water in Flint, MI: “There you are dripping with guilt but drawing your paycheck, hiring lawyers at the expense of the people and doing your dead-level best to spread accountability to others.  Pretty soon we will have men who strike their wives saying, ‘I’m sorry dear but there were failures at all levels.’ People who put dollars over the fundamental safety of the people do not belong in government, and you need to resign!”

The story continues to develop as investigations into the events lead to conclusions of who is responsible.  Michigan’s attorney general is filing criminal charges against three government employees involved in the water crisis in Flint.  The state alleges the workers tried to hide problems with the city’s contaminated water supply.

Attorney General Bill Schuette is charging two state environmental officials and a Flint city official with felonies for misleading regulators about the amount of lead in Flint’s water and falsifying reports about the water quality. Schuette alleges the criminal activity involved “intentionally tampered (sic) with evidence of lead levels on certain water samples in homes of residents of Flint.” For his part, Governor Rick Snyder says he finds the charges “troubling.” But when the Governor was asked if he feared he had done anything that could result in criminal charges, Snyder responded “I don’t believe so.”

His answer is less than inspiring and somewhat tinged with equivocation.  Even if Snyder stays free of criminal charges, his actions as a governor were inadequate to say the least.

Every week there is a new development, and with no shortage of dramatic events.  Just yesterday it was reported the first person to file a suit over the wrongdoings affecting Flint residents was shot and killed in her home.

A bigger problem than one city

Flint’s situation has brought to the attention of Americans something that few give much thought to: dilapidated infrastructure.  It is out of sight and therefore, out of most of our minds.  But when something catastrophic goes wrong, and something as integral as water distribution becomes compromised, we are forced to evaluate the state of our infrastructure, which is sadly outdated.

The cost of repairing and replacing the 13,000 lead service lines damaged by the Flint water change is anywhere from $55 million to $400 million.  Plans are currently underway to have the system repaired within a year.

Flint is reflective of water distribution systems in most other cities across the U.S.  Though they don’t have the lead problem Flint does, they do have an outdated infrastructure that can be a danger and at the very least, inefficient.  Also included under the category of infrastructure are; roads, bridges, dams, sewers, electrical grids and tunnels.

It is a tough sell to get politicians to allocate money for a mostly hidden cost.  So these structures suffer years of neglect.  The American Society of Civil Engineers rated America’s infrastructure with a score of D+.  It will take billions of dollars to make the repairs and replacements necessary, however, the work must be done before we face another consequence of inaction, such as the one the residents of Flint are facing.

In order to avoid another disaster like this one, experts should be involved in a decision making process like this.  If only Flint officials had consulted a water resource engineering firm before they made this decision, this whole thing could have been avoided.  In the future, decisions like these will most likely be made under much more scrutiny.

In an effort to save $4 million, over a billion dollars will have to be spent in order to fix this one single problem.  If any good can come out of this, hopefully it forces us to be made aware of the serious infrastructure neglect in this country and take steps to update these systems.  The residents of Flint will suffer, and hopefully not without affecting a nationwide change that is paramount in our country.

• You were asked to first perform a quick-n-dirty search on your topic, then moved into the more sophisticated library databases. Please describe how you progressed from the general to the specific.  What worked?  What didn’t work?  Snafoos?  Advice for future researchers?  Be specific.

At first I just tried to get any source that seemed at least somewhat relevant. Then I read through a few, skimmed through a few, and I was able to collect a couple of key words that I would then use when I moved to the library databases. That allowed me to use key words that were more direct and to the point.

• Which sites or search engines yielded the most substantial results for you (think back to the search engines you were introduced to and the library databases that Patrick Williams walked you through) AltPress, Lexis Nexus, Proquest, etc.? WHY?  And HOW? Be specific.

I tried to use the databases that were provided and I did get a couple of articles but what I found was that due to the nature of my topic, it was more beneficial to go directly to google and read some articles from their that were simplified. I read through a few articles using the library databases and like I mentioned, I was able to collect some sophisticated key words that yielded a good amount of useful sources.

• Describe what you’ve learned about the research process (please don’t tell me “well, it takes time” or “it’s hard” or disingenuous comments—please try and be honestly reflective here). Use specific references to your own work.

I found that at times I wasn’t able to find useful articles because I was searching directly for articles that answered my question. After I realized that wasn’t working for me, I split my topic into sections and decided to search for articles based on those sections. At the end, I was able to answer my question by combining these sections together.

• Describe the challenges of this assignment, “The TED TALK.” What did you struggle with—and why?

The biggest challenge was my lack of experience with speaking to an audience directly. I also struggled with just find useful articles like I just explained. At first, I struggled with not finding articles but then when I had to present, I struggled with talking about the material in all of the articles I found within the 5 minutes that I was allotted.

• Describe your understanding of exigency and kairos—how does it pertain to your topic? Your research?

In order to give a good controversial presentation, the topic must be presently controversial. These words essentially mean that the articles found through research and the topic itself must be semi-recent otherwise nobody will have heard about it and that means that it probably isn’t important anymore. Discussions about a topic from 30 years ago can be very different it the topic were to be discussed again today due to a ever-changing culture.

• Describe your comfort level in navigating the library’s databases (specifically the search engines Patrick showed us) (1 being extremely unfamiliar—10 being masterful)—and explain.

I would say I’m about a 6 with comfort level. I still have a tough time using the different search assists that the databases provide but after I found a good method of finding good key words to search, utilizing the search databases became more easy.

• Explain the genre expectations of a TED TALK and how you were able to successfully adhere to these in your own TED TALK to the class. Please be specific.

With regard to expectation, I think it was important for me, especially with the nature of my topic, to keep the material at a level that people without any prior knowledge could understand. Most of my articles did this already but I had to go through and really try to understand the material so that I could do a better job explaining it. The biggest, and probably the hardest, was to be confident in the research I did and what I was saying. It is very hard for someone to pay attention to and believe in a presentation if the person presenting can’t get out a full sentence without using “um” multiple times. I was guilty of it but I tried to be conscience of it.

• As we shift to Unit III, you’ll draw from all the research you’ve compiled in Unit II, as well as additional primary research on the controversy. What type of primary research is feasible for the upcoming Unit? What are your ideas and what arguments are you looking to collect still?

Articles that come from people who work directly with nuclear energy will strengthen my argument. It will make it seem true because the person that would have written the article will have been directly in contact with the topic. I think it is imperative that I gather more articles that offer more contradicting views and maybe try to refute or agree with those arguments instead of ignoring them.

• What was something that we did as a class, discussed in conferences, did as homework, etc. that was helpful for your understanding of assignment or research? Why?

The best part of either the speed debating or putting the topics on paper on the board. Each of these allowed other perspectives to be heard and it provided a path for ideas to be shared. Even if someone said something that wasn’t true, it provided research material to prove that said idea wasn’t true.

If corporations are legally people, then why are they not susceptible to food borne illnesses and death like the rest of us? Corporations in the big food industry have been controlling federal regulations to raise profits at the expense of public health because why would corporations care about something that can not affect them?

The industrial farming industry is vast and complicated. There are legal, political, environmental, and social issues that are all interconnected and many proponents on either side of the debate between conventional farming versus organic farming. Conventional farming is big, efficient and influenced by factories more than the idea of a rural farm in Middle America. Organic farming on the other hand has the ability to change the way we perceive where we get our food from and the process it takes to get to us.

There are many players in the industrial farming industry. But maybe there are not as many as there used to be. As little as 40 years ago the top five beef packers controlled about 25% of the market. Today, the top four control over 80% of the same market. As shown in Food, Inc. there were thousands of functioning slaughterhouses. Today there are only 13 in the United States.

Perhaps one of the largest players in the food industry would be Monsanto, who back in the 1950s was a chemical company that produced things like DDT and agent orange. Robert Kenner, director of Food, Inc., believes that large corporations such as Monsanto have created a monopoly on the majority of the food industry in the United States. Because of this, regulations and food safety have become secondary to the bottom line of these corporations and people, like Tom Roush who was sued by Monsanto because of patent infringement, are suffering because of it.

These large scale agriculture corporations are able to control regulations through lobbying the government. As Mariam Nestle said in her book “Resisting Food Safety,” there has been a “historic closeness of working relationships among congressional agriculture committees, federal regulatory agencies, and food producers.”

As we saw in the Bush administration the head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Lester M. Crawford Jr., was also the former executive VP of the National Food Processors Association and the chief of staff at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), James F. Fitzgerald, was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington.

With all the food borne illness in the United States you would think that Congress or the federal government would intervene at some point. However there are people like David Bossman, recent CEO of the American Feed Industry Association, who lobbied to congress that “… you can eat meat with confidence not only because it is safe, but it is getting safer with all the things that industry is doing.” Notice that he did not say what the government was doing to make meat safer but what the industry was doing. Consumer Reports would argue in “You Are What They Eat,” that the lack of regulation within this industry is what has created this major problem within our feed stock. They argue that the antibiotics we feed animals and the actual feed both pose major health risks to the American people especially if there is no one to regulate it.

In 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted only 9,164. One might be able to argue that this decrease in the number of federal safety inspections would lead to a higher incidence of outbreak of major food borne illnesses like salmonella and E. coli 0157h7.

The USDA once was able to test for those types of bacteria in processing plants and if a facility repeatedly failed tests the government had the authority to shut it down. That is until meat and poultry associations sued the government and the USDA lost that power.

In the article by Consumer reports, people like Carol Tucker-Foreman, argue “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be, and the FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking then reality. Contaminated animal feed can result in contaminated food, putting the public health at risk.”

It is also argued that these major food industries have created condensed living conditions for animals and have huge processing plants for meat which increase their risk for viruses, diseases and cross contamination. The largest in the world, in Tar Heel, N.C, is Smithfield Hog Processing Plant where approximately 32,000 hogs are killed every day. This increased risk of infection and disease leads conventional farms to imbed antibiotics within the chicken or cow feed to reduce this risk.

The conditions that are described are the same as the conditions represented in Food Inc,. Carol Doberstein lost her contract with a major chicken distributor because she refused to create a completely blacked out environment for her chickens.

Another farmer described in Food Inc. was Paul Salitin who displayed his methods of farming to far less likely to have any incidents of food borne illness despite his open air work environment.

Maybe his methodology of wholesome organic foods and food processing is the way to go.

People like Blake Hurst would disagree with this idea of what organic farming is. In his article “Organic Illusions” he cites a study by Stanford that concludes the idea of organic farming is not actually safer nor is there any extra nutritional value to be gained from it. He says that there was actually a higher percentage of E. coli in organic foods than in conventionally farmed foods.

Hurst does not think the idea of organic farming is based in science saying “we are not having a debate over science, because that science is settled. We’re having a debate about processes, narratives, and good intentions, and maybe even about style.”

Hurst believes in telling a story. And in his article he is trying to portray organics as a phase and something that is unrealistic to the average farmer. It is interesting that at the beginning of his article he acknowledges that Stanford, the only source he uses, has actually received large donations from Cargill, who is a major food company that ranked 12 on the Fortune 500.

“My message is this: Our food system is broken. It’s not serving consumers and it’s not serving farmers,” says Pollan in a debate with Hurst. While the National Corn Growers Association calls his views “naïve and dangerous,” there are many followers of Pollan who are beginning to understand the ideal of shopping locally for organic food.

Hurst on the other hand, in the same debate with Pollan said, “I don’t think it’s realistic to feed 6 billion people with no technology. We can’t do it. We have to have access to commercial fertilizer, pesticides, and we need to have access to genetically modified seed. He objects to all these things.”

Either way we look at it the current “Food Empire” here in the United States is whack and things need to change not only on a federal level but also on a state and local level. People need to start caring about what goes into their food and the process it takes for food to reach the general public. If we live in a democracy the number citizens surely dwarf the number of corporations, and the safety of the many outweighs the financial safety of the few.

In every day life, we eat around three meals a day, and how often can we say that we truly have thought about how our food was produced or how the process was regulated? Most people don’t consider where their food comes from or who looks over it and that is a problem. Food borne illness kill around 5,000 people a year. That is just the number of casualties, the number of people effected by food born illness yearly is around 76 million, which is an extremely serious number that touches all of us Americans.

     There are handful of government agencies that look over the United State’s food production. The two primary agencies being the USDA and the FDA. Both agencies look over some of the same areas, however, they also regulate different aspects. In “ Resisting Food Safety” by Marion Nestle some of these guidelines are described. Nestle states that the FDA regulates: “ All foods (except meat, poultry, and processed eggs), they do regulate animal drugs and feeds” (Nestle, Pg56) The article also states the USDA’s regulations as: “ Meat, poultry, processed eggs, safety of eggs, egg products, inspects corn, fruits, vegetables, protects animals and plants from disease, and conducts research on food safety.”(Nestle, pg.56) The USDA regulates much more because there are various branches found inside of the USDA such as the FSIS, AMS, GIPSA, APHIS, and ARS. Even though the FDA and USDA are separate agencies, there is a very thin line between what they regulate. That statement sounds confusing  but Nestle provides good examples to support how feeble and vague the guidelines are. Nestle shows a graph that describes the regulations as: “ The USDA regulates hot dogs in pastry roll, and the FDA regulates Hot dogs in rolls. The USDA regulates soups with more than 2% meat and poultry, and the FDA regulates soups with less than 2% of meat and poultry. The USDA regulates corn dogs, the FDA regulates bagel dogs.” (Nestle, pG 57) These regulations are unlikely to be dangerous, however, it shows how 1% too much of meat and poultry can change the jurisdiction of the inspection which involves a terrifying amount of complexity and it seems highly unnecessary. The goal is to make sure that people are safe while eating, but that goal gets obstructed when the regulators get caught up in arguing about what should be surrounding a hot dog.

     To make things even worse, the USDA has only 7,000 inspectors that regulate 6,000 meat, poultry, an egg establishments and 130 importers. These importers slaughter hundreds of millions of animals and produce billions of pounds of meat that need to be inspected by the scrawny team of 7,000. Another figure to prove how insanely low the USDA’s number of employees is falls in the poultry plants. The poultry plants slaughter 90 birds per minute meaning that every USDA inspector needs to inspect a staggering 35 birds per minute. How on earth is someone expected to check an entire bird in less than 2 seconds? Its absolutely absurd to say the least. It is hard to believe but the FDA’s demands are worse. The FDA has only 700 employees that inspect 30,000 food manufacturers, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 food establishments and 1.5 million vending operations. If one were to calculate with the vending operations alone it would lead to every inspector having to check 2,142 vending operations by themselves, without any other aspects of the FDA’s responsibilities involved. These numbers are not only unreasonable but impossible. These kinds of figures lead people to ask why we have so few employees regulating something so important. These agencies are in charge of the safety of the American people in terms of the food that they consume and the fact that the two most important divisions have less than 8,000 employees is completely disgusting. For a matter as serious as the health of hundreds of millions there should be at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of employees regulating our safety in the food industry.

     The problem of food safety grows even deeper when it comes to the employees working in the processing plants. In “Resisting Food Safety” Nestle discusses a statement from Eric Schlosser, one of the head producers of Food Inc. by stating: “Much of the actual work in the food industry—in agriculture, slaughterhouses, processing plants, and places where food is served—is carried out by immigrants, teenager, and other groups payed at minimum wage. (Nestle, Pg 31) This statement is very concerning and in Food Inc.(Produced by Eric Schlosser provider of info for the previous quote), a documentary on the food industry, the topic of immigrant workers in the meat industry is brought up. At Smithfield, one of the nations leading meat producers, thousands of immigrants are hired a year to work on the production line. The immigration of these people started in response to 1.5 million Mexican farmers being put out of work in due to the drug wars combined with the farmers realizing that their careers wouldn’t support their families due to a lack of income. These workers are brought to the US to work for these huge corporations and the only way to stay here is if they maintain these jobs. Their families, healthcare, and housing all rely on their jobs and the corporations hiring them know that and will exploit them because of it. A Smithfield worker was quoted in Food Inc saying: “The people at Smithfield know you cant live without the job so they hold it over you.” (Smithfield Worker, Food Inc.) These major companies give these people an ultimatum with only one outcome and thats to work for them or lose everything. Corporations like Smithfield also have very disturbing standards when it comes to this immigration. To start off, immigration is illegal, however, these corporations still immigrate workers in to the United Sates which is very corrupt. To worsen things, these companies also sign deals with The Department of Immigration to deport a set number of employees daily by giving them addresses and names. For example, Smithfield deports 15 employees a day. These double standards are unethical and wrong without a doubt but the real question is why aren’t agencies such as the USDA or FDA doing anything about it? How are they allowing illegal immigration and even worse, how are they letting these immigrants handle our food? This whole system is very corrupt. In Food Inc Eric Schlosser articulates: “ Government turned a blind eye on companies bringing in immigrants.”( Eric Schlosser, Food Inc.) We are not completely sure why the government does this, maybe it has to do with the amount of power that these corporations have and it also might have to do with the fact that these workers can be exploited and payed little to no money, nevertheless, it’s still messed up. Immigration is a very sticky situation and it needs to be cleaned up for the sake of the people being exploited, and for the health of the American people because of the responsibility that these corporations place on these immigrants to handle and process our food.

     Another problem with agencies such as the FDA, is their lack of enforcement and quickness. In “You are what they eat” by Consumer Reports, Fred Angulo, chief of the CDC’s food borne and diarrheal branch is quoted saying: “ It would help to have a “farm to fork” surveillance system such as those in Europe that looks for contamination in feed, animals, the marketplace, and humans.” (Fred Angulo, You are what they eat, pg.28) This idea would require a system for feed processing that would be very similar to animal processing with built in procedures to prevent contamination. Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine says: “the agency is engaged in the discussion with the feed industry” (Sundlof, You are what they eat, pg 28)This shows how the FDA was considering the idea, however, an FDA spokeswoman at the time added to that by calling the system a “priority, but it may not be fully implemented until 2007.” (FDA spokeswoman, You are what they eat, pg28) This issue was published in 2005, meaning that the system would be put into place 2 full years later. If this system is working so well in other continents and if it’s a so called “priority” then the system should be in place within months. In Food Inc. we also see a lack of urgency with the case of 2 year old Kevin. In the documentary a boy named Kevin was killed by E-Coli at the strikingly young age of 2 by eating tainted processed meat. The story is utterly heartbreaking but the part that really stuck out to me was the way that the FDA handled the situation. Kevin had already died, leaving his family in agony and after tons of complaints and yelling out, the FDA called a voluntary recall after 16 days. This product not only took the life of a young boy but it was also able to run rampant around the country infecting more and more people for over 2 whole weeks. Kevin’s mother explained in the film that she wanted nobody else to go through what her family had to and that’s why she begged that the FDA call for a recall. It appears that the FDA has the ideas and tools that they need to create change for the health of the American people, however, they don’t enforce these changes in a timely manner leaving more people vulnerable to food borne illnesses such as E-Coli that killed baby Kevin.

     America needs to address the problems at hand in regards to food safety. We need to ask questions, we need to think about what we’re eating every time we eat. We can’t keep putting our health in the hands of the FDA and USDA while they focus on pointless regulations, have a lack of employees, cave in when it comes to corruption, and while they lack force in creating change when an issue rises that can either benefit or hurt the people of America. The food industry is only owned by a handful of corporations, however, the people who give them their power is the consumer or in other words all of us Americans. We can change the system as one and we can make sure that these agencies in charge protect our safety efficiently and properly when it comes to the food we eat by speaking out or refusing to buy these products.

1. It took me a while to understand the writers project but after a little I was able to comprehend more. I was able to identify the text’s projects by catching their main themes and trying to see what the underlying messages were. My project was to shed light on the food industry’s regulatory agencies and how they don’t properly protect our people. I tried to make it adamant that we need to unite as one and realize that we can make change as the consumer who holds all the power.
2. I really enjoyed the section of the Sorting it out workshop when we drew 3 texts together using that system of arrows. It was very helpful in bringing my ideas together and grouping them based on their similarities. This system overall helped me gather my thoughts and properly organize my article.
3. I understand that synthesizing is to combine ideas to fit a certain theory. In writing it is very important that you organize all of your points in a comprehendible manner that all fits together in the end. I looked through the various texts that I was going to use and I synthesized my ideas into one main point while connecting each text to another one by one.
4. I feel that I was able to accomplish a real understanding of my problem and I feel that I connected with this issue on a personal level which helped me write in more depth.
5. I began by criticizing agencies such as the FDA  and USDA for not properly regulating our food, from there I was able to dig deeper and get very specific details and figures to back my claim up. While writing the draft I was able to stay on track with the main focus but I was also able to incorporate the corruption and immigration issue that I hadn’t originally planned to include. I was able to connect “Resisting Food Safety” and Food Inc. to show how corrupt the system is which I was proud of since I had never thought of it before.
6. I organized the article by having the intro be an inviting and interesting lede with a question and some interesting stats in an attempt to grab the readers interest. From there I had a section where I talked about the agencies in charge and how they get caught up in confusing regulation standards that distract them from the real problem. I then went into a very numerical section where I talked about the lack of employees and how disgusting it is that less than 10,000 people regulate our safety. I then went to the immigration topic, and followed it up with a section on the lack of enforcement by these agencies. I summed it up at the end and talked about how we hold all he power as the consumer and that we can demand that these agencies change for the better.
7. I synthesized “Resisting Food Safety”, “You are what they eat”, and Food Inc. by stringing together their info on the agencies. “Resisting Food Safety” and “You are what they eat” were especially easy because they focused heavily on these agencies. Food Inc came into play with the whole immigration topic that was created in the drafting process. These 3 texts come together slowly but in the end they work out well in supporting each other.
8. I ended up keeping the same lede that I started with. I believe that the first sentence being a question really draws the reader in. I also think that the inclusion of various statistics that relate to the reader can help as well so i kept those aspects.
9. During the next Units I’d like to write to the best of my ability and make sure that I research even more than I did for this Unit to makes sure that I have as much information as possible.

In my opinion, the greatest movie of all time is Remember the Titansm nothing else quite captures the essence of Northern Virginia football, which is where im from, while also inspiring me to try my hardest through adversity. One of the most iconic scenes in the entire movie happens during the montage of training camp where Coach boone goes “Everything we gonna do is changing. We are change. We’re gonna change the way we run. We’re gonna change the way we eat. We’re gonna change the way we block. We’re gonna change the way we tackle. We’re gonna change the way we win.” This scene is so important to the rest of the movie because it shows how important change is to being the best you can be. Coach Boone’s message really resonates because if you don’t change with the times, you will become left in the dust by your competition and stuck with a losing record. While Coach Boone may have been talking about football here, this sentiment of change goes right along with the corruption of our modern government and the ineptness of the FDA. Marian Nestle talks about the lack of institutional regulation in her piece, “Resisting Food Safety,” Nestle argues that the lack of institutional control on the food industry has allowed the large food corporations to become too big to fail, to go along with their endless power in Congress. Nestle highlights the amount of lobbying that the food industry does in congress to prove her argument. Robert Kenner’s documentary, Food Inc. takes a first hand look into the world of the meat corporations in an attempt to show how evil and backwards their methods for producing food are. Blake Hurst in his Organic Illusions piece, has the dissenting point of view, that a Stanford food study proved that the conventional, modern, farming methods are not only moral, but also the healthiest way to prepare our meat. Hurst does believe though, that the government can not be trusted either way to do its job correctly. The Consumer Report, You Are What They Eat, that shines a light on the new corn feed supply used by modern meat corporations, tries its best to be non-partisan in its method, but ends up proving that the huge food corporations really do not care what they put in our food, as long as it continues to make a profit. The Washington Post took an in depth look into the food additives that are being put into our food and found that in general, the FDA doesn’t even know of the presence of newer chemicals. These articles all argue and discuss different issues and benefits of the modern food industry, but all five of these articles come to the exact same conclusion, that the US FDA is not doing enough to properly regulate what goes into our food.

Nestle argues throughout the article that government lobbying is the culprit behind the complete lack of control for the current food industry. Early on in her piece she writes “Food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. (Nestle)” This lack of control has led to a food industry that no longer has to worry about being given sanctions for contaminated food and it has created a culture of lies and deceit all in the favor of making a bigger profit margin. The biggest issue with capitalism, is that without regulation, companies will try their darn hardest to achieve the largest profit margin possible. They do not care about morality, its all in the name of making more money. Nestle later says “Attempts to give federal agencies the right to enforce food safety regulations have been blocked repeatedly by food producers and their supporters in Congress.” Nestle’s argument that the influence of big money in congress has inhibited the regulatory agencies is absolutely correct. By not separating big business and Congress, the government has allowed itself to become corrupted to the whims of the huge corporations who are dodging the rules to gain more money.

Carol Tucker Foreman, The Director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, had a very pointed opinion towards the current FDA regulations about the feed used for cows. She says “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.” Consumer reports in general is a mainly unbiased information piece, but their tidbits about the risk towards unregulated animal feed show the limits to our government. Plus, if it can be proven that this feed supply is significantly worse for you than old-fashioned grass, then the government could have a big scandal at their hands. It would be proven that corruption in the government is actually affecting their decision making, proving that the influence of big business has corrupted our government. Consumer reports opened their report by saying “Our investigation raises concerns that the Federal Government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.”

While Blake Hurst in general has conflicting viewpoints with the rest of these projects, the one thing that he agrees is the biggest problem in the modern food industry, is the unreliability of the government to safely regulate out food. He points this out by saying “But the question arises: How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety of organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses? (Hurst)” Hurst is very distrusting of the government, despite the fact that the government is supporting his way of farming. He statement here is contradictory to the rest of his argument since in general he is using the governmentally funded study, to prove that conventional farming is just as safe as organic farming. Hurst also uses the British government to back up his opinion by saying “The British version of the Food and Drug Administration commissioned a study in 2009 with results strikingly similar to Stanford’s. This is not surprising to most farmers, who have to deal with what is, rather than what someone might wish.” Hurst’s distrust of the American government continues since he feels like he must use the British FDA to sound credible. Ironically, Hurst is still showing that the government can’t be trusted to accurately and uninhibitedly prove that conventional farming is safe.

The most damning piece of evidence against the current regulatory system occurs in Food Inc. when the Title card shows “In 1972, the FDA conducted approximately 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted 9,164.” This fact truly highlights how far the government has gone from trying to regulate our food. All four projects are arguing different things about the food industry, but the one theme throughout all four, is that the US government is too weak on the food industry because of the lobbying and influence of big money companies buying their way to freedom. Eric Schlessar can see that the big business has infected Congress when he says.  “These companies fight, tooth and nail, against labeling. The fast food industry fought against giving you the calorie information. They fought against telling you if there is trans-fat in your food. The meat packing industry for years prevented country-of-origin labeling. They fought not to label genetically modified foods; and now 70% of processed food in the supermarket has some genetically modified ingredient.” The food industry is on of the most powerful corporations in America because without them, the entire country could starve. This power has given them the ability to change our food to make it cheaper to produce but unhealthy to eat. No other corporation has this kind of bargaining power, so food corporations have been allowed to run amok with little to no regulation.

The FDA appears to be increasingly more corrupt as the years go by, highlighted by the Washington Post article which discusses the new chemicals being put into our food. When the FDA deputy commissioner was asked about the FDA oversight into these new chemicals, he said “We simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals” His willingness to give up this type of information is remarkable because it shows how inept the FDA is at regulating one of the fastest changing markets in the economy. By admitting that he doesn’t know what is going into our food, Michael Taylor (The commissioner), has shown us just how useless the FDA has become. The only reason the FDA exists is to keep us safe, and if they can’t do that, then there really is no point to having them exist.

Our current system needs to change if we are to adapt to the fast changing world around us. Not only do we, as a nation, need to create a divide between the big money corporations and our Congress, we also need to get rid of the corrupt culture that surrounds the US government. If, and only if, we do those things will I be able to continue to have confidence that the food I eat, will not make me sick. It is our duty as a country to change the culture of the Congress. Just like in Remember the titans, if Coach Boone hadn’t changed the way TC Williams played football, then they never would have won the state championship, our congress needs to change its ways if we want to remain as a dominant country in the world. In the end, America is a democracy where whomever gets the most votes wins, usually at least, so the only way for there to be rapid change in this country is by all of its citizens going out and actively participating in politics. But most importantly, we need to vote.

Unfortunately, this assignment has caused me to think about food safety more than I would care to.  And I say “unfortunately” because I would rather go on living in the bliss that was my ignorance.  I don’t want to think about the potential of arsenic in the chicken wings I wanted to order.  I don’t want to  consider getting sick at the thought of eating a medium rare burger.  I just want to order something and eat it with no regard to anything other than the potential of indigestion.  But now I am forced into an awareness that, of course, is better.  It also angers me.  The businesses that grow richer at the behest of my fears anger me.  The politicians who line their pockets for re-election with the donations made by such companies are not what are founding fathers intended.  So I have little else to do but complain.  In that respect, this was a good assignment for me.  It allowed me to get some things off my chest.  I usually write poetry when I feel I have no other recourse.  This exercise enabled me to write poetically about the topic.  And I feel better now.

Growing up within a family of cattle ranchers from southwest Montana, I assumed I understood the where, how, and why in regards to where our food comes from. From a very young age, I was enthusiastically involved with the inner-workings of the ranch and jumped at every opportunity to work along side my uncles and older cousins. Not a glamourous job, however, the merits of hard work produced a respect and understanding for the way our food is produced. The animals on our farm were never mistreated, and quite the contrary, were looked after in a respectful and caring way. Knowing the other farmers and ranchers in the area solidified my understanding of food production, and at this young age believed this was common practice for farms nationwide. It was not until I was much older that the realization of corporate farming came into focus. With feedlots packed with cattle by the tens of thousands, this type of farming, along with chicken, pig, and big business agriculture, have created a vicious system of
inhumane practices. The treatment of these animals, from questionable feeding practices to the general lack of care for these animals and the foodborne illnesses in question, is a direct result of these mass production practices. Without proper food production practices, combined with strict oversight and regulation, the commercialization of food production has created a tsunami of problems that can no longer be over looked.
It has become frustratingly obvious that food safety, more than ever before, has taken a backseat to production efficiency and maximum profit. Blatant ignorance controls and justifies every aspect of a process that could very simply be regulated to adhere to strict quality control standards. While it seems that government has in place regulatory agencies overlooking issues of food safety, it has been made clear that profits are more important than public health. Although they claim to have the publics safety and best interest in mind, these agencies are under funded and under staffed, heavily influenced, lobbied, and riddled with regulatory loopholes. When it comes to the food we eat, these government agencies have continually dropped the ball. At times with disastrous and fatal results. Through the hard work and research of food activists such as Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, as well as, documentary filmmaker Robert Kenner, and Marion Nestle Professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, along with many other investigative news journalists and publications including Consumer Reports, the public has become more aware and better educated regarding the shady practices of food manufacturing and production.
According to Ms. Nestle, “the most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of foodborne disease in the United States is 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths. Furthermore, although outbreaks of foodborne illness have become more dangerous over the years, food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. If it sounds like, or is assumed that, government agencies such as the FDA and the USDA would protect the consumer by every means at their disposal, fact could not be further from the truth. Ms. Nestle continues, “because federal policies cannot ensure that food is safe before people bring it home, government agencies shift the burden of responsibility to consumers.” Government oversight of food safety has long tended to provide far more protection to food producers than to the public. Today, an inventory of federal food safety activities reveals a system breathtaking in its irrationality: 35 separate laws administered by12 agencies housed in six cabinet-level departments. At best, a structure as fragmented as this one would require extraordinary efforts to achieve communication, let alone coordination, and more than 50 interagency agreements govern such efforts. This lack of proper regulation is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to food safety, and further investigation exposes alarming practices at the conventional farming level. According to Consumer Reports, life on today’s farm – often a 30,000-cow feedlot or a 60,000-chicken coop, and the need for huge quantities of high-protein rations as well as, the need for slaughterhouses to find a cheap, safe way to dispose of waste gave rise to a marriage of convenience between renderers and food producers, and to the inclusion of animal by-products in animal feed. Through this practice, food animals are now being fed processed feathers, floor wastes from coops, plastic pellets, as well as, meat and bone meal. These waste products, mixed with corn and soybean meal, make up 10-30% of the feed produced for these mega-farm feedlots. It does not take a food safety expert to see all that is wrong with such a practice.
Although many of those who work in big business food production decline to be interviewed about their process, much of the ignorance involved in their decisions and practices have come to light. Blake Hurst, commercial farmer and president of the Missouri Farm Bureau has stated, “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 rations.” The absurdity of such statements is fundamental to the myriad of problems that have engulfed the commercial food industry. When farmers such as this, and the government agencies that oversee these practices believe the current methods of production best provide a plentiful and affordable food supply, it becomes painfully obvious that profits are the driving force behind this line of thinking. Attempts to give federal agencies the right to enforce food safety regulations have been blocked repeatedly by food producers and their supporters in congress, sometimes joined by the agencies themselves, and more recently by the courts. These facts have been substantiated and echoed by others also investigating the food industry. In his Documentary, Food Inc., award winning filmmaker Robert Kenner has brought to light many other disturbing facts related to food safety. According to interviews with Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, five companies control 80% of the meat production in this country. Of these companies, ALL have ties or close relations to members of congress or other judicial or political figures. At this alarming statistic, it is not difficult to see that conflict of interest is obviously ignored so as to benefit big business and their partners. Although in a perfect world to have farmers such as Joel Salatin, full-time farmer at Polyface Farms who employs the strictest standard of environmentally-friendly farming practices, as a model for what farming and ranching could and should be, the reality is that we need food produced on a massive scale. However, with the current practices in place that give advantage to the big corporations in farming, and that turn a blind eye to the ridiculous number of violations committed by these individuals, there is very little hope that clean and healthy foods can be produced within this system.
From lack of proper food inspection and regulatory loopholes, to the antibiotics and inedible ingredients put into animal feed, to the ammonia and other chemicals mixed into ground beef and more, every step of the food manufacturing process is rife with unthinkable disregard.
Farming is no longer farming. We are no longer eating food, and what we are eating is the idea of food. When the agencies trusted to oversee food safety have such unimaginable conflicts of interest, how can they be relied upon to give truthful and accurate information on the supposed organic foods also regulated under their authority. Although the FDA and the USDA certify certain foods as organic, claims such as no antibiotics administered, no hormones administered and no chemicals added are unverified. So are claims by some beef brands that their cattle are raised on an all-grain or all-grass diet. Until the loopholes and conflicts of interest are eliminated and proper regulation is the standard and common practice within the food production industry, these problems will only get worse. With a population that is growing by leaps and bounds, not only is the question how will we feed everyone, but how to feed them safely and with the maximum amount of nutrition possible. Corporate farming and ranching is a huge problem that has run away with itself and until proper regulation and loopholes are addressed the dangers associated with foodborne illnesses will only get worse.

Reflection Questions
Unit I / 10%
Using the homework, in-class workshops, revision workshops, etc.

1.) 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 synthesis of research, information, and quotes to compose a concise understanding of the material and to develop this into a blog-type format. From several sources on the subject of corporate farming and food borne illness, an attempt to combine this information into a quick reading and yet informative document, has been the goal.
2.)  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” worksheet is very helpful in the organizing of all source material. Drawing connections between these sources by briefly listing their content and literally drawing lines to connect similar thoughts and ideas.
3.)  Describe your understanding of synthesis. What is its importance? How did it manifest within your drafts and/or final blog article? Provide examples.
– To combine the essence of a lot of information into a precise and focused document.
4.)  Describe your own accomplishment (of something) during this unit.
– There is still a lot to learn through the practice of synthesis. Though barely scratching the surface of what this style of writing can accomplish, I feel a greater understanding can only come through further writing.
5.) Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution?
– The main idea was always to take a stand and express a certain combative uneasiness with the discovery of facts connected to the issue of food borne illness. The evolution of this article came in understanding that a lot of information had to be condensed into a short and concise reading.
6.) Discuss what organizational strategies you implemented in order to structure this blog article. Provide examples from a section(s) of an earlier draft and other excerpts in later drafts to support your response.
– For someone who enjoys long precise explanations, and see’s no end to research, the challenge with this writing was to trim the fat and then trim the fat again. The organizational strategies came mostly from the ‘sorting it out’ worksheet to find the essence of what needed to be presented and what we could do without. From an earlier draft, (The modern American supermarket has on average 47,000 products. Of these products, the majority have been processed and produced under sub-standard conditions with sub-standard ingredients. Seventy percent of these foods contain GMO’s) seemed to not be necessary in the sense that my article was focusing more on food borne illness and its cause. Although this information was important and concise, more could be said with less.
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.
– I don’t believe there is a truly successful synthesis of this manner. Although there is a synthesis taking place, the challenge has been to find a way to really tighten this up. The synthesis seems to take place over the course of a whole paragraph, and attempts at trying to accomplish this in one or two sentences has been unsuccessful in my view. Synthesis seems to be an exercise in fine-tuning, saying more with less, and success at this type of writing needs the benefit of lots of practice.
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?
– The ‘lede’ in this article did not find its way until late in the process, and therefore did not receive necessary feedback. Due to the personal nature exposed by mentioning my upbringing, there was much thought and concern as to how to present this passionately yet with modesty as well. (Growing up within a family of cattle ranchers from southwest Montana, I assumed I understood the where, how, and why in regards to where our food comes from.)
9.) Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects.
– Although much was learned from the process of synthesis, an intriguing and informing exercise, there is still much more to be learned about synthesis.

“700 FDA inspectors are in charge of overseeing 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishment, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores and 1.5 million vending operations.” This quote by Marian Nestle brings up the important note that the FDA has a limited number of inspectors that inspect more than they can handle which results in the many outbreaks of foodborne illness because not ever meat or produce is inspected properly. Food regulatory agencies have trouble inspecting all of the meats and produce we come in contact with due to the overall scale of our food systems. Also big companies have almost total control over our food system.

The articles we read in class have shown that our food regulatory agencies are not on top of inspecting our food systems for illnesses and sanitation. The articles show us the hidden truths of what really happens to the food we eat as it goes through the processes between farm to fork. Food Inc., “Resisting Food Safety,” and “You Are What They Eat” focus mainly on the hidden truths of our food system such as the poor living condition and the diseases that the farm animals can get. “Organic Illusions” discusses more of the conventional vs organic argument but also discusses some of the unhealthy aspects of organic foods such as having to use more pesticides and having a higher risk for e coli.  All of them show what the food systems can get away with.

The articles all discuss the inner workings of the food system. They give us a closer look into where our food starts off at to the many processes it goes through before ending up on our plates. More specifically the articles and movie point to all the negative points of the food system. Examples include the poor health conditions chickens are grown in to the possibly cannibalistic food feed to cows. The movie Food Inc. showed that chickens are grown at a rate so fast their bones and organs cannot keep up with them. The chickens in the movie could barely take a few steps before their legs gave way. The article “You Are What They Eat” mentions that there is no regulation on animal feed so it is alright if meat scraps from chickens or pigs are in feed for cows to eat.

The argument of conventional vs organic foods are also brought up by the articles. Conventional means the animals and produce are grown by using standard farming methods. Organic means the produce seeds are GMOs that help bring out desirable traits in the produce such as being resistant to herbicide or pesticides and making them contains vitamins and nutrients that produce would not normally contain so it is “healthier” to us.  The article “Organic Illusions” by Blake Hurst in particular discusses the argument that conventional foods are just as good as organic foods.  “Organic Illusions” discusses more of the conventional vs organic argument but also brings up some details about organic foods having higher e coli content than conventional foods. The use of pesticide is also brought up in “Organic Illusions” with the article saying that much more pesticides are used on organically grown foods. The pesticides used are organic and not as strong as inorganic pesticides as a result more has to be used to get the same effect. This leads to the produce also having higher pesticide content.

Food Inc. said that there are former employees of big farming companies working in congress and Supreme Court and as such have leeway. Monsanto was a company the movie focused heavily on. Monsanto is huge company that makes seeds, herbicides, and pesticides. Monsanto has former employees that hold seats in office and as a result have the support of these people. Other small companies don’t have this kind of support from the government. In the movie Monsanto bullied and sued farmers that did not stick there their strict guidelines about what they could and could not due with the products they were given. The movie also showed that Monsanto kept a private list that contained all the names of the farmers that did anything Monsanto did not like such as reusing seeds the next year or not throwing away all ungrown seeds at the end of the harvest. On Monsanto’s website they have a section that addresses what we saw in the movie about their company. The most important question they answered was about former Monsanto employees working for the government and about the influence the may have over food policies. The website says former employees do not influence the decisions of the government to help the company. The website goes on to say that the movie says a lot of incorrect statements about their company such as their policies for suing farmers. They even tell us more about the case between Monsanto and Moe Parr. In the movie Moe Parr was shown being sued by Monsanto for cleaning Monsanto seeds. The website say the movie left out some information about the trial such as Moe selling the cleaned Monsanto seeds for profit which is illegal.

All the information given from the articles, movie, and website show that there is a lot to our food system. From companies like Monsanto having former employees work in the government to more pesticides being used in organic foods, there are many problems with our food system. If more people were aware of these problems, maybe the way our food system could change. In Food Inc. a mother lost her son to contaminated meat. Through her determination she was able to get congress to pass Kevin’s law, named after her son. This law requires the USDA to search and identify any pathogens in food and makes it easier for the USDA to shut down any food plants that fail quality standards. With enough outcries from people our food system can change Kevin’s law proves this.

Reflection

1. The “writer’s project” is the main idea of paper. The projects are what the author is trying to convey the reader. In class we talked used the example of Kanye’s music video blood diamonds. We said his project was to show how people receive these diamonds without knowing where there from and the work that’s put into mining them. To find the project we context clues given in the lyrics and the actions seen in the video.
2. The “Sorting it Out” workshop was helpful for getting my ideas out and brainstorming what I wanted to focus on in my essay. The section we worked on in class was the most helpful. In that section we started with one idea and expanded it with evidence and a claim to pull it all together. And we got peer feedback on our claim which helped improve it. After making adjustments to the clam I used in my essay as a thesis.
3. Synthesis is a short summery of the material. It is important because it gives all the important ideas and details to those who have not read or seen the material. I used synthesis in my essay when I talked about the articles we were given in class. I had to synthesize the information given so my reader could get a better understanding of what each article was about an example of this is in my fourth paragraph where I had to give a short synthesis about the organic illusions article.
4. During this unit I learned about the writer’s project. I am now able to identify a writer’s project from reading or seeing the material.
5. My main idea started out with the food system is terrible because of what we saw in the movie Food Inc. The movie showed us chickens that are cooped inside and never see daylight, chickens are made to grow at an accelerated rate and their bones and organs cannot keep up with the growth, the horrible conditions of slaughter houses, and that our food system is mainly owned by five or six big companies. As we read the articles my main idea changed to the food system needs to change. There are many problems but a lot of the problems can be changed with public outcry. Kevin’s law was passed due to one mother’s determination. And it was through public outcry that organic foods became as popular as they are.
6. I organized my essay by the issues in our food system that I thought were the most important.
7. I synthesized the articles we used in class in my third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. In paragraph three I synthesized from the “You are what they eat” article. I discussed the issues with animal feed and the infections found in animals due to the feed. Paragraph four was about “Organic Illusion” and the debate between organic vs conventional. Organic foods having more pesticide used and having higher e coli content then conventional foods. Finally paragraph six is about the issues Food Inc. brought up about Monsanto. Originally I was not going to synthesize the texts and instead just quote from them but I wanted to explain why each article was important.
8. At first I didn’t have a lead. In my draft I went right into the information. However in my final I use a quote by Marion Nestle that fits with what my claim form the sorting it out worksheet.
9. For the next unit I would like to be better at organizing my essay and better at synthesizing the next articles we read.