1400 word final revisions included

Passing the Blame On Food Safety

By Alana O’Neill

If “you are what you eat,” then shouldn’t you know who’s controlling what you eat? The controversial nature of food safety yields an unproductive environment for change and with no one unanimously at fault (government, consumers, food producers, or workers) unhealthy and unsanitary methods of food production continue to affect consumers. Our food is passed along a chain of procedures, each segment playing a part in the quality of the consumers’ nourishment.

A key to invoking change is placing blame. Someone should step up and claim responsibility for the faults in the food safety system. The issue at hand however, is that segments involved in food safety would prefer play the “blame game” rather than step up and take ownership of the issues at hand. One segment under constant ridicule is the food industry. Throughout these five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat”, “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety” there are many different voices either condoning or criticizing the ways of the food industry.

Consumers rely on producers to provide a clean and safe environment for the livestock, which in turn produces safe meat. The same assumption carries on for the produce; a clean and safe environment. Consumers also rely on the government to not only recognize any shortcomings with the food production process, but to adjust to any changes and keep regulation frequent and up to date when needed to protect consumers. Food producers rely on the consumer to prepare the food properly, which includes washing hands, through cooking, and the avoidance of cross contaminations. Producers also rely on their workers to undergo the necessary sanitation processes. The government has the authority to regulate and therefore be reliable for food safety to a certain degree. Yet, there is not a cohesive balance between the food producers and the food regulators. Food producers push back on the government in a somewhat bullying manner to the point where the government acts frivolously.

            Food Inc., a documentary that criticizes how much control the food industry has, speaks to the audience to invoke change. One of the first lines said in the documentary, as a way to summarize the overall theme was, “the industry doesn’t want you to know what you’re eating, because if you knew, you wouldn’t eat it.” Food Inc. makes it clear how much control the food industry actually has, stating that never in history have food companies been as big or as powerful as they are now. As also mentioned in “Resisting Food Safety,” the four leading firms are controlling a huge proportion of the industry and are continuing to grow. Tyson, for example, after its merge with IBP, “controls 28% of the world’s beef, 25% of the world’s chicken, and 18% of the pork” (Nestle, 44). These industries, along with many others that make up the remaining percentage of food producers, seem to intentionally keep consumers in the dark making them unaware of the industry’s production methods and the food they are consuming.

Evidence of this is presented in Food Inc. Fast food restaurants fought with the government about putting labels on their food. The government advocated that consumers have the right to know what is going into their bodies, and against the wishes of the fast food industry, nutritional labels were to be visible on their menus.

Another example that emphasizes the amount of control the food industry has is through government manipulation. Food Inc., “You Are What They Eat,” and “Resisting Food Safety” all mention the leniency of the government. Food Inc. talks about how food producers are actually a part of the government and they are making decisions about food regulations. Sections in “You Are What They Eat” example how industries are able to find loopholes in regulations and laws, and then the government’s (lack of) reactions.

An example of this is the ban on feeding the protein from cow ruminants to other ruminants, ideally preventing the spread of mad cow disease. However, rather than honoring the nature of the regulation, food producers would take the protein from cow ruminants, even from downer cows, and feed it to pigs, chicken, and fish. Then those remains would be fed to back to the ruminants.

The whole argument about government in this article was that the government is too slow in creating bans and too lax in enforcing regulations. “Resisting Food Safety” has evidence of the influence of the food industry on the government saying the Congress overruled FDA attempts to restrict the use of antibiotics in feed because of the intense pressure from the livestock producers. The food producer’s lobbying pushes Congress into clashing with the FDA until, eventually, the FDA backs down.

Even with substantial evidence of the power the food industry has, many companies and producers argue that they are not at fault for consumer sickness and, in fact, the consumer is at fault. As mentioned in “Food Safety,” in the industry’s eyes, food producers are not liable to control food safety because the consumer most likely inadequately underwent the necessary food preparation steps. Although it is proven that actions taken in the food production process (i.e. ammonia injections, pesticides) can and have led to contamination and illness, food industries continue to imply that food preparation the most crucial step in making the food safe. It is true that high heat can make the impact of pathogens on peoples’ health minimal to non-existent, however this cannot be the only boundary between safe and unsafe food. Many foods are eaten raw or without much cooking. Foods in this category need to be safe without relying on heat. “Resisting Food Safety” also briefly touches on this topic explaining how the food industries do not express self-blame. Food industries are very comfortable with placing the blame elsewhere, for example to consumers, the government, and even workers. There is evidence that inadequacy from each segment can lead to unsafe food, however it is wrong and unfair for a segment as powerful as the food industries are to deny responsibility and place the blame elsewhere.

Despite the aforementioned arguments against the food industry control, Blake Hurst, writer of “Organic Illusions,” contradicts these arguments in an attempt to bring justification to the actions of the food industry. “Organic Illusions” expresses that the amount of control is fundamental for the efficient production of food and, contrary to the previous sources, does not have as many negative health impacts from the conventionally produced food.

Hurst’s piece consists of comparing the methods of conventionally produced foods to organically produced foods by stating first, why people perceive organic as better, then, his logic to disprove this common assumption. Throughout the piece he pulls examples that support the amount of control the food industry has. One point he makes is about the pesticide exposure. He goes on to state that the food industry’s conventional farming is actually better and healthier for people than the organic alternative. He backs this up by saying that pesticides are going to be on foods regardless, and on most foods, the pesticide level is too low to cause any harm. However, he implies that organically produced food is actually worse because natural pesticides are less effective and therefore need to be applied in much higher quantities than their man-made counterpart. Another example of how Hurst believes the food industries have an appropriate amount of control is environment preservation. Hurst says that conventional farming preserves nature better because it takes less space to produce the same amount of food conventionally than it does to farm organically.

These five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat,” “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety,” are just a few of the countless number of pieces speaking their own opinions about food production. From the sources collected in this instance, there are more arguments against food industries than for. With this being said, there is also a theme among the pieces against the food industry that exercise an opinion about power and control. Most of the food producers have too much control and are not paying enough attention to the health and well being of their consumers. Throughout these pieces it is clear that food safety is an issue that needs to be faced head on, however the difficulties of doing so can be overbearing. Change has to happen collectively throughout all parts of the chain (food producers, government, and consumers). However, the lack of cohesiveness throughout impedes the movement towards a healthier environment.

Reflection Questions

1. My understanding of the “writer’s project” is the writer’s main takeaway from their piece. It is not as simple as the overall idea, it is a specific thought that should stay with the reader even after he/she finishes reading the piece. I believe I was able to identify the text’s projects well, even if some pieces have similar main ideas. A lot of the texts aimed to inform the reader, although in different ways. For example, Hurts tried to convey his opinion using satire and a fluid approachable way of writing. Nestle, on the other hand, used her credibility as leverage to inform the reader and used a much more serious tone. My “project” was to get readers thinking about how complicated the food industry is. It is a balance between all the segments mentioned in my blog post (consumers, government, producers, workers) and not one can be solely blamed. With that being said, I do try to convey that the food industry delusional in how much blame they should actually take. I do believe that they are responsible for some of the food safety issues and I do believe that they are not doing all in their power to change that.
2. The “Sorting it Out” worksheet was actually very beneficial. It allowed me to refresh my memory on each piece and pull main ideas. Once the main ideas from each piece were all written out on front of me, it was much easier to see similarities and differences in each piece. The most helpful section for me on that worksheet was the last part (below part f). I had me write the source and a passage or quote, then an arrow going to a different source with a different passage. The passages from source 1 and 2 were different, but similar. The arrows did this again with a third passage. This made me find something specific in three different articles and make it much easier to relate them in my essay.
3. Synthesis to me is a way to make the piece you are writing more than just a list of facts. With synthesis, the passage becomes more interesting because topic A can connect to topic B 1that unknowingly is intertwined with topic C. It is important because if passages didn’t have synthesis it would simply be a summary of each article read in the order it was read. I struggled incorporating it into my draft at first but in my final work as exampled through the paragraph that starts with “Food Inc.” I Synthesized Food Inc. with “Resisting Food Safety” and “You Are What They Eat”.
4. My own accomplishment is refining my voice. Also because we took so much time writing this, I had a lot of time to make revisions and come by with a fresh eye. Also I was able to not only read texts, but also analyze and apply them to my life. Especially this topic. A lot of the things learned about food I did not know before reading this.
5. I feel like I always knew that I wanted to talk about the government, but over time the topic changed from government regulations to placing the blame/responsibility on different segments, which includes some aspects of the government. I actually had 5 different Ledes that I could not choose from and Becca chose one during the peer revision so I went with that. The Ledes were, “Not only do people often have very little information of what they’re putting in they’re body, but also who’s controlling what goes in.” “Not only do people often have very little knowledge of their food, but also who’s controlling it.” “You may think what goes into your body is your choice, but its not.” “Food production is still and always has been a very controversial topic” “If “you are what you eat” then shouldn’t we know who’s controlling what we eat?”
6. As a way to organize, I wrote the body paragraphs first and just made short simple statements to make sure I got the information out and then I would keep adding to make it sound like my writing and how I want it to come across. I then finished with the conclusion and introduction to sum up what I’ve written in the body paragraphs. This is the example of the first draft about the Blake Hurst paragraph “There is, however, still some fight that the amount of control the food industry has is just. “Organic Illusions” expresses that the amount of control is fundamental for the efficient production of food and how, contrary to the previous sources, don’t have negative health impacts from the conventionally produced food. In fact, Hurst continues with saying that these industries are helping the environment by taking up much less space than if they were to produce naturally.”
7. Excerpt from final that synthesizes three texts “Another example that emphasizes the amount of control the food industry has is through government manipulation. Food Inc., “You Are What They Eat,” and “Resisting Food Safety” all mention the leniency of the government. Food Inc. talks about how food producers are actually a part of the government and they are making decisions about food regulations. Sections in “You Are What They Eat” example how industries are able to find loopholes in regulations and laws, and then the government’s (lack of) reactions.” This evolved because this is the main topic in my article that all three pieces talk about so I thought to keep it short concise and simple to wrap the texts all into one idea
8. These were the Ledes I was deciding from “Not only do people often have very little information of what they’re putting in they’re body, but also who’s controlling what goes in.” “Not only do people often have very little knowledge of their food, but also who’s controlling it.” “You may think what goes into your body is your choice, but its not.” “Food production is still and always has been a very controversial topic” and “If “you are what you eat” then shouldn’t we know who’s controlling what we eat?” (I picked the last one with the help of Becca). Her feedback was that I should still use the other ledes somewhere else in the passage but the last one was the best one to start with.
9. I’d like to work on making my writing flow. Because I write in sections often times my writing doesn’t flow as well as I’d like it to. To combat this to the best of my ability, I just try and reread my writing and tweak little things as I go. Definitely coming back after not seeing it for a day makes reading it over more effective because I am looking at it with a fresh eye.

Food safety is becoming a larger and larger issue every year as companies sacrifice safety for an increase in profits. The FDA and the government might seem like they are doing their job, but this is not the case as they are highly ineffective in making sure that the food that we eat is same to consume. If food safety is to become a lesser issue, there are going to need to be major changes made to the FDA and the other governmental agencies in charge. After reading the following articles and pieces of writing, “Resisting Food Safety“, “You are what they eat“, “Food Inc.”, “Organic Illusions,” and an outside news article. It is clear that this is a major issue that needs to have action taken in order to squash it.

In Marian Nestle’s “resisting food safety” the lack of organization and integration between the USDA, FDA and the government is exposed. “Any facility producing a food that involves both agencies must deal with inspectors operating under two entirely different sets of guidelines and schedules.” (Nestle, Page 57). The egg industry for example has three different agencies involved in regulations and food safety. This is an issue because they don’t work together making it harder for the company to please each of the agencies. It also makes it less efficient as they don’t work together and pool their resources together, instead they act completely independent of each other. Making their already small budget even less effective.

“You are what they eat” takes on a different approach by focusing on the issues with the feed supply and how little the government is doing about it. The FDA doesn’t seem to truly care if the acts that they put in to place, are actually followed. “Four years after the feed ban took effect, the FDA still had not acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle.” (You are what they eat, page 29). This just shows that the FDA put in place a policy and doesn’t even make sure the firms are following it. It seems like they made the act to please the public, yet don’t care about making sure the act is used to its full potential.

Marian Nestle further more extends this idea that the FDA does not go all the way with its policies. “The initial system worked well to keep sick animals out of the food supply but was poorly designed to deal with the challenges of microbes.” (Page 55). In this passage Nestle is talking about a policy that was put in place to make the feed safer for the final product. However, she points out that it might help some of the issues, but they completely ignored the issue of microbes. Which she argues is the main issue for food safety and the FDA needs to do more to control.

Blake Hurst’s “Organic Illusions,” focuses more on the false idea behind organic foods. His argument is that organic foods are not as safe as most people think. He even argues that they might be more dangerous and that the farming techniques are more impractical. “We don’t have enough land to turn our backs on the work of generations of agriculture scientists and industrial farmers, and we can’t afford the opportunity costs of a return to some romantic version of agriculture.” (Organic illusions). Basically saying that with the current demand it isn’t possible to produce enough food using organic methods, instead we have to keep “industrial” farming. But hopefully with better regulations that can improve food safety. Organic illusions also focuses on how Organic food isn’t the answer to safer and healthier food. This is an issue as the other texts offer organic food as the main way to avoid all of these food safety issues.

Next is Food Inc. which shows how big business is ruining farming and with it is producing more issues with food safety, while the FDA sits idly bye. The reason why they don’t intervene much is, as shown in Food Inc., most of the FDA has connections to a lot of these big meat packing businesses such as Tyson. A lot of the higher ups in the FDA has other motives when it comes to food safety. Often making decisions that benefit the big businesses rather then food safety as a whole.

Another trend that is seen in most of the sources, is that the FDA is severely under budgeted and doesn’t have the money to control all of the food that is consumed in the United States.“About 80 percent of seafood sold in the US is imported. Yet the FDA test only about 2 percent.” (You are what they eat, Page 30). This is just one example of how little the FDA is able to regulate compared to the huge quantity of food that is being produced as well as imported. The FDA only has 700 employees to regulate not only all food but meat poultry and eggs. They also regulate all drugs that are used in the United States. They are severely under manned in order to effectively regulate all of the markets they are responsible for. Due to this they only do inspections every one to five years. It is not frequent enough to squash the issue of food safety. The USDA does a better job as they have 7000 employees which allows them to inspect almost daily. (Nestle). Yet with the lack of solid policies even the USDA struggles as they regulate all meat after the slaughterhouse.

Luckily, the FDA is starting to notice these issues as well as the rise in food-borne related illnesses. “The eight per cent increase is due to a number of factors, including $268.7m in user fees for projects tied to a number of areas including the implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FMSA).” (Food Ingredients First). Although it might not be a huge overhaul, it is a step in the right direction. The proposed budget would be $5.1 billion for the period of October 2016 to September 2017, meaning that it would not have an impact for a decent amount of time. Just another reason why the FDA is struggling as everything moves on a very slow basis. They are always reacting to a problem rather then trying to prevent them from happening. The FDA and other government agencies responsible for food safety are constantly playing a game of catch up, and losing. Big business knows this and has the resources to exploit it. Food Safety wont begin to decline as an issue until the FDA and other government agencies begin to take charge and make changes before an issue arises.

Unfortunately, it is easier said then done. Although an increase in budget by a small percentage sounds good. It is nowhere near what they need. They are still severely under budgeted and understaffed to effectively prevent the issues of food safety. $5.1 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but as a percentage of how much the government spends it is next to nothing. Food-borne illnesses are becoming a huge problem in the United States as big outbreaks such as Chipotle are becoming more and more common. An issue as large as food safety, which is causing millions of illnesses and thousands of deaths, deserves a much larger budget in order to attack it in an effective manner. Yet the issue continues to grow and the FDA continues to sit idly by, just doing enough to satisfy most people, but not enough to actually tackle the issue.

Food Safety is a growing issue as more and more food becomes contaminated. Causing the amount of Americans getting food borne illnesses to rise, including the deadly ones such as e coli. The FDA and the other government agencies responsible must begin getting larger budgets as well as producing policies that can better regulate the food in America. The government needs to allocate some of its trillion dollar budget in order to tackle an issue that is increasing every year, and next to nothing is being done about. The FDA and other government agencies are slowly beginning to do a better job, but they still need to do a much better job.

1. A writers project was something that I have  never heard about before WRT 205. However, I believe I have a solid grasp on what it is. Basically it is the reason why a writer is writing something as well as their motives behind it. Googling the author and learning more about them almost always helped me recognize their project. In my case for this paper my project was to show the issues of food safety and more specifically the issues with the government and try and give example of how they could improve.
2. The part that helped me out the most was the quotes and the arrows connecting them. This is because it helped me get direct evidence from the sources that were related to each other which made analyzing easier. It also helped me organize my paragraphs so they could flow better together.
3. Synthesis is basically using multiple sources and finding parts where they connect with each other, whether they are agreeing with each other or not. My first draft was mostly just showing what each source said, as the drafts went on to my final paper I began to add analysis of their connections to each other.
4. One main accomplishment that I had during this first unit was getting a great understanding of the issue of food safety and food borne illnesses. It was something that I had no knowledge of before and since then I have learned a significant amount about the topic and have a very good grasp of what is going on.
5. My first main idea was just showing what the issue of food safety was and a little bit of background. I quickly realized that this was too broad and I needed to get more specific. I ultimately decided to focus on how little the FDA is doing about it and what they need to do in order to slow down the issue of food safety. I realized I needed to get more specific when it was tough to synthesize the sources as there wasn’t any specific argument to try to find in the sources.
6. I decided to organize it by having a different main point in each paragraph and then adding a few sentences of synthesis. I did this from the beginning and thought it glowed nicely so I did not change it very must from the beginning. However one thing I added was the outside source at the end to provide additional evidence.
7. “This is an issue as the other texts offer organic food as the main way to avoid all of these food safety issues.” Here I was talking about how Hurst’s article says that organic food isn’t as safe as we believe it is. All of the other sources name it as an alternative to big business food which has issues with food safety.
8. Old:Food safety is becoming a larger and larger issue every year as company’s sacrifice safety for an increase in profits. The FDA and the government might seem like they are doing their job, but this is not the case as they are highly ineffective in making sure that the food that we eat is same to consume. If food safety is to become a lesser issue, there are going to need to be major changes made to the FDA and the other governmental agencies in charge.

   New:Food safety is becoming a growing issue every year as large companies sacrifice cleanliness and health for profit. The FDA and government agencies responsible are under budgeted and under manned causing them to be highly ineffective in halting this issue of food safety.

   The new one is much more concise and specific which was the issue with the first one and the feedback that I received on it.

9.  One thing I would like to work on for future projects is my ability to fluidly go from one point to another. I think although it isn’t terrible in this paper there is definitely a lot of room for improvement for future projects.

Brandon Zirzow

As the organic revolution continues to gain momentum, the perception of how the public views the traditional (conventional) way of farming continues to be manipulated by big industry in order to fuel the rather weak argument for establishing an all organic food industry.

When it comes to organic produce many of us (the public) have been lied to and deceived by propaganda, sent out by big-time organic corporations, without realizing the lack of credible evidence proving any nutritional benefits. Many people simply do not understand what it takes to certify something as organic, “The word “organic” refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution” (Mayo Clinic Staff). This lack of knowledge creates a false understanding of the true (if any) health benefits of organic food. In the pure definition of organic there was never reference to any safer procedures or healthier food production.

As the movement for healthier and safer (organic) food continues to gain recognition with the millennials, many people have started to question the extent of the safety and regulation of produce in the United States. There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety the public now demands from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.

As the population continues to increase with higher life expectancies, thanks to newer technology and better medication, there is an ever growing demand on farmers for an even more increased produce yield. In result, as argued in Robert Kenner’s Food Inc., many large food corporations have quickly expanded making regulating each and every factory, slaughter house, and barn even more feasibly impossible for the government to do just based on the sheer number of investigations they are responsible for. In Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, Nestle starts to explore how the government is tasked with breaking down and taking on the task of regulating the entire food industry in the United States. In this piece, Nestle argues that as the produce industry continues to expand the expectations for the government, from the public, to regulate ALL produce becomes more and more impossible.

The majority of the food regulated by the government is overseen by 2 agencies; the USDA and the FDA. Each is responsible for different parts of the regulation process where the FDA is in charge of regulation up until the slaughter house and inspects all foods except meat, poultry and eggs; where the USDA is then in charge of the rest of the regulation process beginning at the slaughter house and inspects meat, poultry, processed meat and eggs. Because of the recent expansions in the food industry both agencies have recently become extremely over worked and as stated by Nestle, they are tasked with an impossible task of regulating the entire food industry, “By the early 1980’s, for example the poultry industry had already expanded far beyond any reasonable inspection capacity” (Nestle, 59).Already by the 80’s, Nestle explains how the poultry industry has reached a size beyond reasonable inspection capacity.

As the food industry continues to grow so does the responsibility of regulating it. Nestle goes into further detail and provides the overwhelming statistic of the amount of establishments each agency is each responsible for, “In 1975, USDA officials examined 14 billion pounds of birds at 154 plants; just six years later they had to inspect 29 billion pounds at 371 plants. The USDA has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg establishments – and 130 importers- that slaughter and process 89 million pigs, 37 million cattle and 7 billion chickens and turkeys not to mention the 25 billion pounds of beef and 7 billion pounds of ground beef produced each year” (Nestle, 59). Those statistics are quite overwhelming and the FDA doesn’t get it any easier, “If anything, the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable. About 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. The agency also must deal with food imports, which comprised 40% of the country’s supply of fresh fruits and vegetables and 68% of the seafood in 2000” (Nestle, 59). Not only are both agencies significantly understaffed but they are also greatly underfunded, “The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was just $283 million in 2000, miniscule by any standard of federal expenditure”(Nestle, 59). As proven by Nestle the demand on the government to regulate the entire food industry is physically impossible, and even if it were are the health and safety benefits of having an all organic produce system much more significant than the conventional one?

Many people have come to believe the fictional narrative that organic food is a safer and healthier option than traditionally grown produce, but as argued by Blake Hurst in Organic Illusions, the advantages of having a theoretically all organic system does not outweigh the disadvantages. Even with a major increase in the demand for organic produce the size of the industry is still relatively insignificant, “Despite the growth in organic food sales, they only constitute 4 percent of the dollar value of all foods sold; and since organic foods often cost twice of what conventionally grown foods do, the quantity of organic sales constitutes considerably less than 4 percent of the total market” (Hurst). The margin of income when growing all organic food is radically less than that of traditionally grown produce.

Another disadvantage argued by Hurst is that the extra production steps required to grow all ‘organic’ food would require an unrealistic number of increased employment in the food industry, “Millions of additional hands would be needed to produce food on America’s farms without modern technology. In many places around the world where organic farming is the norm, a large proportion of the population is involved in farming. Not because they chose to but because they must”(Hurst). Growing organic food not only takes more care and more time but would require people in the industry to leave their current jobs to join the farming industry!

Lastly, Hurst argues that there is a lack of proven significant health benefits that the organic narrative claims to provide, “The Stanford study found that organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in E. coli” (Hurst). This document by Hurst really starts to uncover the truth of organic food and the lack of significant health benefits that the public have been repeatedly led to believe.

After looking at these texts it is already clear that one; the process of regulating the entire food industry in the United States is an unfathomable task for the government (by itself) to accomplish and two; that even if it was feasibly possible to have an entirely organic food industry, the health benefits and relative safety of the food in the United States would not be significantly impacted.

After reading a snippet of a headline talking about the seriousness of foodborne illnesses and the poor safety regulation job the government does, many simple minded consumers jump to the conclusion that the traditionally grown food they eat is substantially less safe than organically grown food. When in fact, most of the public does not understand that traditionally grown food is equally as safe and goes through extreme testing and research.

The amount of research and testing done regarding the safety of our food is overwhelming.

Many organic consumers claim that the traditional animal feed is unsanitary and contains harmful bacteria and pathogens, but as put forth in You Are What They Eat, from consumer reports, the opposite is actually true, “The waste is processed until it bears no resemblance to its former self. Thomas Cook, president of the National Renderers Association, told us that after the rendering process thoroughly heats, presses and grinds animal tissue, it “looks like a pile of brown sugar”” (Consumer Reports, 27). Not only is the procedure highly regulated and sanitary but there are also multiple health benefits often times not spoken of, “Phillip Petry, president of AAFCO, speaks of the merits of chicken waste. “There is a yuck factor because it doesn’t sound at all appetizing he says, but the nitrogen level in poultry litter is real high, so they get a real good protein jump out of that”” (Consumer Reports, 27). The animal feed that traditional farmers use not only save a large amount of resources by recycling waste but it has also been found to boost the nutritional factors of the produce.

Traditionally grown produce has been a key contributor to successfully developing society into the technologically advanced, mass media culture that we live in today.

Ever since the industrial revolution, farming has mostly become mechanized and replaced with new technology in hopes of producing higher produce yields. The result, the ability for humanity to exponentially expand as less people were required to produce more produce. Today, some people argue that this method, that has got us to where we are today, is unsafe and unhealthy and to promote a healthier style of living we should eat only organic food. As argued in Consumer Reports, You Are What They Eat, the traditionally grown food process, has historically and currently, goes through extensive safety tests and regulations providing extremely safe and healthy food. Hurst argues in, Organic Illusions, that a majority of the public misunderstands what organic food really entails and the extent of the absence of any proven health benefits. In Resisting Food Safety, Nestle argues that the public demand to have an entirely organic produce system would be physically and economically impossible. The lack of government funding and man-power leaves the FDA and USDA with the next to impossible task of regulating all produce (and some imports) within the United States.

There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety the public now demands from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.

Works Cited

• Consumer Reports, “You Are What They Eat”, January 2005. (26-30pg)
• Hurst, Blake, “Organic Illusions”, American Enterprise Institute, October 1, 2012
• Kenner, Robert, Food Inc., Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2008
• Mayo Clinic Staff. “Nutrition and Healthy Eating.” Organic Foods: Are They Safer? More Nutritious? Mayo Clinic. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
• Nestle, Marion, Food Politics: “Resisting Food Safety”, University of California Press, 2013. (27-61pg)

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.
  • To me the writer’s project encompasses the argument in its entirety and explains the reason the author is composing the piece. When identifying the writer’s project in other texts locating the author’s thesis and carefully reading the conclusion can help determine the author’s ‘project’. My own ‘writer’s project’ focused on the public’s false view of organic food and the misconception that organic food is healthier and safer than the current government regulation system.
• 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 last part of “Sorting it Out” where we were asked to synthesize specific quotes from each text really helped me form and structure my essay. This part made me tie direct relationships between the different sources instead of trying to summarize each text and then relating them to each other. By doing this I started to realize distinct similarities and differences in not just the content but also how each of the pieces was written and composed.
• Describe your understanding of synthesis. What is its importance? How did it manifest within your drafts and/or final blog article? Provide examples.
  • My understanding of synthesis is refining an argument between different sources down to its most basic and concise form by drawing similarities and differences between arguments. Its importance is to help explain and bring together the main argument of a piece and brings together multiple forms of credible evidence. It helps tie everything in the piece together. Synthesizing in my blog was really evident when I compared arguments from the different sources, “As argued in Consumer Reports, You Are What They Eat, the traditionally grown food process, has historically and currently, goes through extensive safety tests and regulations providing extremely safe and healthy food. Hurst argues in, Organic Illusions, that a majority of the public misunderstands what organic food really entails and the extent of the absence of any proven health benefits. In Resisting Food Safety, Nestle argues that the public demand to have an entirely organic produce system would be physically and economically impossible.
• Describe your own accomplishment (of something) during this unit.
  • During this unit I furthered my understanding of how blogs are composed and the specific genre expectations that come with it. I hadn’t done much blog reading or composing previously but I learned that it can provide a different style of writing and can display information to a larger less-informed target audience more effectively than a research paper or book can.
• Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution?
  • My first draft at a main idea was, “How does our current government produce regulation system compare to other regulation systems and the relative safety of our food”
• When trying to further develop and synthesize my argument I tried to better relate my main idea to the texts and have them influence my approach to forming an argument.
  • My final draft’s main idea was, “There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety we demand from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.” This thesis came through the multiple rewritings of my first draft. I focused on developing a stronger argument that further questioned the referenced texts.
• 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.
  • When organizing the blog I started off by explaining my argument and then used each of the sources to individually respond to my argument and then further related and connected them later in the piece. This allowed for a greater understanding of each individual piece and the argument each was displaying before trying to compare and relate them to each other.
  • “The majority of the food regulated by the government is overseen by 2 agencies; the USDA and the FDA. Each is responsible for different parts of the regulation process where the FDA is in charge of regulation up until the slaughter house and inspects all foods except meat, poultry and eggs; where the USDA is then in charge of the rest of the regulation process beginning at the slaughter house and inspects meat, poultry, processed meat and eggs. Because of the recent expansions in the food industry both agencies have recently become extremely over worked and as stated by Nestle, they are tasked with an impossible task of regulating the entire food industry.” This paragraph exemplifies the organization strategies in that it gives a substantial amount of background information on the topic before discussing the arguments specific argument.
• 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.
  • “As the movement for healthier and safer (organic) food continues to gain recognition with the millennials, many people have started to question the extent of the safety and regulation of produce in the United States. There are no doubt many individual improvements that can be made regarding the regulation of produce in the food industry in the United States but the extent of the safety the public now demands from the government to have a ‘perfect’ regulation system would be economically irrational and feasibly unreasonable.”
  • This paragraph from my paper accompanies an argument that can be related back to each of the documents and furthers a different analysis approach to the produce industry.
• 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?
  • First lede draft: “When it comes to organic produce many of us (the public) have been lied to and deceived by propaganda, sent out by big-time organic corporations, without realizing the lack of credible evidence proving any nutritional benefits.”
  • The big thing I focused on when revising and developing my lead was forming a stronger and more legible argument as well as quickly grabbing the reader’s attention. The feedback I received talked about developing an argument that related to a bigger issue and could be supported or analyzed through the multiple texts.
  • Current lede: “As the organic revolution continues to gain momentum, the perception of how the public views the traditional (conventional) way of farming continues to be manipulated by big industry in order to fuel the rather weak argument for establishing an all organic food industry.”
• Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects.
  • When progressing into the next Unit I would like to focus on further revising my paper and writing a more concise piece. I want to focus on writing and saying more in a piece but using less words.

Earlier this year 55 people were infected with e. coli in eleven different states from Chipotle. The causes for the outbreak are still unknown. The Chipotle on Marshall Street at Syracuse University was always packed every night with people trying to eat. Imagine if your teachers, yourself, or friends were one of the people who became extremely ill because of what they ate.

We eat food at least three times a day. People will go to the grocery store and just put things in the cart barely looking at the packaging. The public assumes that the food we eat is safe because the FDA and USDA regulate it knowing little about how the food industry works. The government is thought to have full control of the food industry but with the daunting task of inspecting millions of places with powerful companies seeking profit and efficiency, big business uses its power to control the food industry to maximize revenue. Big companies pressure the government into lessening regulations that are beneficial for them because they are resistant to food safety when it comes to maximizing profit. The public is in the dark when it comes to the food industry business and process of food making.

The government doesn’t have its leash tight enough on the food industry because they can’t tame the big businesses running the industry. It seems like the U.S. government is controlling the food industry, but actually big businesses are the ones in power because former CEO’s of their companies have roles in the government. The government is maintaining an illusion that the food industry is okay to the public when it really isn’t.

The problem in the food industry comes from all levels. The government, the producers, and the consumers all contribute and support the unruly food business. Nobody is willing to take the blame for problems that arise. Marion Nestle, a professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, in her book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety, specifically chapter one “Resisting Food Safety,” talks about how producers, processors, and the government are trying to place blame on each other when outbreaks of food borne illnesses occur. Nestle states how today’s food production encourages bacteria and viruses to spread with animals living in such close quarters. Not only are the living conditions poor, but the people raising the animals on the farm, or killing them in the slaughterhouse, are not educated enough to know how to protect themselves and the public from bacteria. Outbreaks are reported to the media but in the past decade, they have gotten nastier because bacteria like e. coli 0157:H7 have changed over time to be able to withstand extremely hot temperatures.

Nestle describes conditions where animals are held in large holding pens where they stay in extremely close contact among other animals until death where touch is only needed to spread pathogens. It is evident that there are people involved in every stage of food processing. Everyone must take responsibility for food safety but taking responsibility makes the businesses liable if something happens. That is why processors blame producers, the government blames processors and producers, and everybody blames the consumer. Each system of food processing (meaning producers and processors) doesn’t want to take the blame for anything because it can be devastating to business profits.

Earlier this year when the Chipotle outbreak occurred, its stock dropped 42 percent. Money is a reason why producers try to wash their hands clean of any responsibility.   Because we eat food so often, it is very hard to determine where a food-borne illness was contracted. But consumers, even after hearing of an outbreak, will still keep eating at that place. Chipotle still has lines and yet had massive outbreaks all over the country. Even though there could be repercussions, the government needs to get a better hold of the food industry so problems will be addressed. In order for the changes to happen, the public needs to be informed.

One thing to be informed on is what Eric Schlossar, writer of Fast Food Nation, states in the documentary Food Inc.(2008).  He says that the top four companies control 80% of the food industry. These companies have enough power to “bully” smaller companies, farmers, and to some extent, the government. The strength of companies like Tyson, Smithfield, and Monsanto pose great obstacles for the government when these businesses are trying to get regulations passed because they have people on their side working in prominent positions in the government.

In their article “You Are What They Eat,” Consumer Reports writes, “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” (26). Animal waste is recycled into feed, which is inhumane. Putting that into perspective, animals are fed their own waste, humans are eating the animals, and thus we are essentially eating animal waste as well. Plus, the effects of animal waste in humans are still unknown.

As you can see in this picture from 1950 to 2008, animals are fed drugs and their own waste to grow faster. The government is aware of what is given to animals and the toxins that humans are exposed to when waste is given to the animals we eat; however, they are not able to do much about it because of how many billions of dollars the drug companies make by selling their drugs to corporations and how little money it takes to recycle waste into food.

Nestle writes, “The FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress,however, overruled this idea under pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of the drugs” (Nestle 46). With the pressure placed on the government, there still lie regulation loopholes because billions of dollars are at stake. Food Inc. depicted how these businesses allow animals to live in wretched conditions where there is no sunlight, manure on the ground, and dead animals lying around. They feed the animals waste as “needed protein and other nutrients” and drugs in order to fatten them up cheaper in the shortest time period (26).

That quote, which is taken from Consumer Reports, is what businesses are using to justify feeding animal waste products, for the nutrients and protein. They are unwilling to sacrifice profit for food safety.  When humans eat animals, food contains antibiotics in them; thus, humans can become immune to antibiotics that would normally help cure diseases. Nestle writes in another chapter, “Deregulating Dietary Supplements,” “its difficult to believe that this situation is in the best interest of the public (220).” The government is aware of the immunity that can occur and poses to be the top dog in the food industry and have the publics best interest, but can’t do anything about the antibiotics because of how few but powerful companies there are nowadays in this industry.

Schlossar, in Food Inc., says that there are only 13 slaughterhouses today. In the past, there were many companies, producers, and slaughterhouses distributing the power. Each company has so much leeway that even the government can’t control them.

Due to the lack of public knowledge about the food industry we are not able to make better decisions as consumers. This makes me question how much we really know about this business. There are plenty of articles and movies showing the sketchiness of the production of food but the public does not take the information seriously enough. Whether the public chooses to look the other way or just assume that what we eat is safe, humans need to be aware of the problems.

Many people would turn to organic food as the other option. Sometimes organic food is going to cost too much, but the public needs to be aware of what is going on so changes will occur. If the public decides to boycott one brand because of unruly practices, changes will happen. “Organic Illusions” by Blake Hurst creates doubt in the reader’s mind about organic vs. conventional farming. He writes, “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims” (Hurst 5). This makes the government’s role questionable in organic farming.

If the government is not checking whether or not organic food is actually organic then how is the public supposed to know if organic food is actually healthier and worth the extra money? The picture below is concerning because the FDA and USDA do not have enough manpower to regulate imports, warehouses, slaughterhouse, and farms. If the government can’t even regulate conventional farming, how can they regulate organic farming as well? It’s an extremely important job but one that is not being done to the best extent. Overall, the government oversight of the food industry is a mess and needs to improve because there is too much to regulate for the system that we have now.

If the government fails to step up to big businesses there will be more outbreaks, more deaths, and the businesses will keep profiting. Consumers will still be exposed to the harmful toxins that are put into animal feed that can lead to food-borne illness. More deaths will occur due to outbreaks and the public will still be ingesting antibiotics daily.  People will become very concerned about the government and its role in protecting the people. If food is something that we need to survive, it needs to be well regulated to ensure safety and well being. It’s significant to end with a quote by Robert Kenner who stated it best in Food Inc. when he said, “The industry doesn’t want us to know the truth…if you knew the truth, you might not want to eat the food.”

UNIT 1 REFLECTION:

As I reflect on this unit I realize that trying to determine a writers project is pushing beyond the text of what the author is clearly stating but also trying to figure out what they are trying to accomplish by saying it. When reading an article find the main ideas, key words, and phrases to determine the project. A good question to ask yourself when trying to determine a project is, “What is the author trying to achieve/what issues are brought up?” After you figure what the author is trying to say, you can see how they relate examples to their ideas. My project for my blog article was to get the reader to understand that the government is not in full control of the food industry. There are companies using their power to influence the industry to benefit their company. I tried to use pictures that relate to my topics in the blog that would visually represent what I am trying to get across.

As I mentioned in class, the most helpful part of the Sort It Out workshop was section E where we had to find key words of phrases from each article. This allowed me to put the article’s key phrases side by side and see the differences and commonalities. This helped me be able to synthesize all the texts. After doing this I was able to determine my topic for my essay and base my claim around the key phrases I saw in all the articles.

Synthesis is the combination of ideas. It is important because when writing a blog that has to incorporate four different sources, you have to be able to incorporate all the materials. To do this, I had to try and find a common theme. Being able to synthesize the materials and find the common theme of government was how I came up with my topic for my blog. I thought this was the hardest part of this unit. I found it difficult to incorporate Organic Illusions by Hurst because it had a different viewpoint on the food industry.

A big accomplishment of mine from this unit was learning how to synthesize multiple texts. Since Food Inc., Marion Nestle’s article, and Consumer Reports had the same stance on the food industry, they were easy to bring into the blog and use as evidence supporting my claims. It took me a long time to figure out how to use Organic Illusions. Once I found a way to incorporate Hurst’s article, I felt really accomplished because I tried to use the article to make the reader question the government and its power.

My main idea was first going to incorporate profit. I wanted to talk about the money side of the food industry and how that was affecting production. After, I realized that money had to be a reason why companies behaved they way they did. Because of that, I changed my idea to focus more on how big businesses are using the government to lessen regulations in order to enhance their profits. I first made this as a lede, “The government is thought to have full control of the food industry but with the daunting task of inspecting millions of places with powerful companies seeking profit and efficiency, big business use their power to control the food industry to maximize profit.” After, I realized this is more of a main idea than a lede. It’s not creative enough to draw a reader in. It was convenient that my rough draft of my lede wound up being what I focus my paper on.

The Sort it Out workshop was the main organizational strategy I used. I was able to pull quotes from different passages that related to the same topic. That really helped me organize my thought because I had to write down the project and main ideas of each documentary or article. At first my structure of my blog was more like an essay. Two women at the writing center helped me break up my paragraphs and talk in a way that was more like a blog. For example, I had a over ten sentence paragraph and one lady helped me figure out where my topics changed a little which helped me determine where to split up my paragraphs.Nestle writes, “The FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of the drugs” (Nestle 46). With the pressure placed on the government, there still lie regulation loopholes because billions of dollars are at stake. Food Inc. depicted how these businesses allow animals to live in wretched conditions where there is no sunlight, manure on the ground, and dead animals lying around. They feed the animals waste as “needed protein and other nutrients” and drugs in order to fatten them up cheaper in the shortest time period (26).

This exert from my blog I think is a good quote from where I connected Food Inc., Consumer Reports, and Nestle’s article in a concise manner. This evolved partially due to the last section of the Sort it Out workshop. The last part of the workshop allowed me to find quotes from different pieces that connected with each other. I changed one quote from the Sort It Out workshop because it didn’t fit well with the other quotes.

My first draft of my lede wound up being the main idea of my blog. “The government is thought to have full control of the food industry but with the daunting task of inspecting millions of places with powerful companies seeking profit and efficiency, big business use their power to control the food industry to maximize profit.” That was my first draft. I thought about it more, and realized that it wasn’t going to draw a reader in. I tried to make my lead more creative by coming up with a dog and leash metaphor, “ The government doesn’t have its leash tight enough on the food industry because they can’t tame the big businesses running the industry. It seems like the U.S. government is controlling the food industry, but actually big businesses are the ones in power because former CEO’s of their companies have roles in the government. The government is maintaining an illusion that the food industry is okay to the public when it really isn’t.” I tried to say that the government is the dog owner that can’t control the dog. I thought it was creative and would draw a reader in. In my rough draft, it also didn’t state how businesses control the industry so I added another a few more words to state how the people in charge of regulations are on the same side as big businesses.

I want to get better at determining the author’s projects. I believe once I can go deeper in finding the project, I’ll be able to synthesize more clearly and then create a better final draft. Also writing to the draft of a blog is something I want to work on so my paragraphs aren’t to long, my visuals go with the text, and I have proper and useful hyperlinks. I do like using the blog format because of the freedom it gives me to use visuals that I wouldn’t be able to do in an essay. I normally don’t read blogs and have been writing essays my entire life so I do think blogging is a genre that is challenging.

     This unit made me realize that there are a lot of things going on behind closed curtain that the public is unaware of. The government seems to have an invisibility cloak over the food industry, hiding the public from the truth of what is really going on. Before we watched Food Inc. I went to the grocery store and bought chicken. That chicken is still in my freezer untouched. I am grossed out about how the animals are treated and the feed that they are given that I haven’t cooked the chicken.

This unit has made me interested in the food industry. I have already visited Marion Nestle’s blog and plan on reading her book Food Politics.

John Carino

Writing 205

Amy Barone

Food Politics

2/21/15

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

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

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

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

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

Works cited:

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

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

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

Food Politics: Money Over Everything

            You may think your food supply is safe, but is that really in the best interest of producers? If it was, why has there been an epidemic of food outbreaks over the past decade? Perhaps the only health food producers are concerned about is the health of their bank accounts.

It is impossible to deny that that over the past decade, the technology used in the United States’ food production system has improved greatly. The United States is now able to produce a great deal more crops, such as corn or soybeans, in a fraction of the land required in the 20^th century. Another scientific and agricultural accomplishment that the food production industry is responsible for is the significant reduction in time of growth for chickens. In the mid-20^th century it took roughly a little more than 3 months to raise a full grown chicken, today on the other hand a full grown chicken can be produced in less than 50 days. This rapid advance of the food production industry is the result of the growing population and demand for food in the United States. Although these advances have allowed us to have a steady food supply, they have also presented problems for regulating government agencies. These advances create loopholes in existing regulations in which food producers can take advantage of.  Another problem is the close relationships that some of the regulating agencies have with food producers. Top food producers are able to pressure regulating agencies, such as the FDA or USDA, in order to sway regulations in their favor.

Issues are made clear, from multiple viewpoints in Food Inc., You Are What They Eat, Marian Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, and Blake Hurst’s Organic Illusions. These texts have brought up issues and controversies that I have not heard about before in my life. These texts have been able to provide me with both sides of a “war” that I did not really know was going on. I admit I was ignorant to the supposed corruption between food production companies and Federal agencies such as the FDA, as well as the lack of consideration for the health and safety of the general public. I knew money made the world go round but I thought we at least cared about ourselves as a society more than making money. This appears to be one of, if not the largest motivating factor in this ‘war’ we call food politics. All of the pieces we have read or watched have had consistent themes throughout one another, although they did not necessarily take the same stance on the same issues. For example Organic Illusions by Hurst was clearly against the method of production used by the organic food industry and one of his main arguments was that organic production is not efficient enough to sustain the entire country, and would require more workers to join the work force. “People who are now working in other industries would have to leave them in order to provide the manpower necessary to replace technology in agriculture, and what they would have produced in those careers would figure into the cost of organic farming. These opportunity costs would be huge” (Hurst). It is clear that this argument is based on the premise that it would cost too much money to have only organic, ‘healthier’ food. Similarly, In Food Inc. Carole Morison was explaining how she was being forced to always upgrade to new equipment, along with various other farmers interviewed during the film. In particular Morison was in the predicament where she needed to upgrade her chicken coop to an enclosed version, which was even more inhumane than the conditions that chickens were currently in. These chickens would die daily due to sicknesses caused by living in close quarters in their own feces. This showed me that the food producers don’t care about the safety of the animals or the people that consume them, and that they only care about making extra money on having more chickens in a smaller inhumane space and upgrade fees. Continuing with the common thread of money being the most important factor, in Nestle’s “Resisting Food Safety” she clearly addresses many current and growing problems relating to our food supply and the increasing number of food-borne illnesses. She calls out organizations and federal agencies on their corruption and oversight of food handling and contamination issues going on with our food supply. She also explains how agencies such as the FDA are not able to put regulations in motion due to a lack of funding. This surprised me because it shows how we don’t have a priority for the general public’s food safety. Nestle and Food Inc. both bring up the argument that there are people who hold positions of power in government agencies such as the FDA that have close connections with Big name food producers, such as Monsanto. In “You Are What They Eat” both sides of the argument on food safety is brought fourth. However a common theme throughout the article that stuck me was when the people working for the food industry were saying that these cheap and fast solutions that kill bacteria on our food, instead of addressing the issue that is actually causing the growth of harmful bacteria on our food. For example, they say that cattle and chicken are still fed corn based feeds. This corn based fed is known to causes growth of unwanted bacteria inside the animals that eat it, however it is significantly cheaper to feed the animals corn because it is cheaply available. Michael Pollan, an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in various publications around the world exposing the problems in the food production industry, says in Food Inc. “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” This requires food producers to use ammonia solutions on possible contaminated meats, which is also shown in Food Inc. This means that food producers would rather save money on feed and have a cheaper, not necessarily safer, solution to food contamination, instead of addressing the source of the food contamination, the feed.

Nestle’s article on food safety in particular addresses the complicated politics that involve the government’s ability to properly regulate the United States’ food production standards and safety protocols. “Although outbreaks of food-borne 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”(Nestle, 27). Nestle points out that major food industries have significant power when it comes to rallying against an unfavorable regulation proposed by government agencies. This claim is further backed up by Food Inc. when the small farmers that were fighting a very powerful company, Monsanto who is the creator of genetically modified soy beans. The fact that Monsanto is the creator and patent holder of these seeds not only gives them total control over their product, it also gives them legal and financial power over the farmers that use their seeds. Monsanto has made it illegal for farmers to save their seeds, which is a serious concern for neighboring farmers that do not use Monsanto products. Roger Nelson was interviewed in Food Inc. because he was being sued by Monsanto for promoting other farmers to save their seed by continuing to save his non-genetically modified seed as well as his clients’. Ultimately, Nelson was unable to continue running his farm and business due to a copious amount of legal fees. Furthermore Nestle goes on to say in her article “the FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under the pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of drugs” (Nestle, 46). Perhaps this is a wake up call for government agencies to take power away from the businessmen and into the hands of the correct regulating agencies that way the public can be assured a safer food supply.

In conclusion, all of these texts share the same information stated in a way that supports their arguments, however the most common theme when you look from an unbiased perspective is that it is easier for the food industry to find a cheap adjustment to the system we have instead of changing the parts of the system that need to be. It all seems to boil down to money being the main wall that is preventing the proper regulations to take place to make our food supply safer.

Do you know the true cost of your food? While it may only be a few dollars at the grocery store, in reality your food comes from a poorly regulated industry that is wreaking havoc on the environment and putting your health, and the health of everyone around you at risk.

Our food production technology is at its height, but that technology is  used to grow the profits of the poorly regulated food industry rather than focus on improving public health and wellness. While there are two different agencies watching over our food supply, their duties are intertwined in a way that makes both of them borderline ineffective.

Marion Nestle points out in Resisting Food Safety that the FDA focuses on everything but meat, but even then their duties only end at the slaughterhouse. This means a fairly small agency monitors all of our food, drugs, and even our meat all the way up until it is killed.

At the same time,  the much  larger USDA only monitors animals post-death. The way that the duties are split between the two agencies is mind bending, and shows the convoluted way our food is taken care of. It also shows how easily and often oversight happens regarding our food.

For example, at one point she mentions, “the law specified that the department’s (USDA’s) authority began at the slaughterhouse. USDA inspectors had no right to recall meat once it left the plant. If USDA inspectors believed that a packing plant was producing tainted meat, their only recourse was to deny further inspection, in effect forcing the plant to close.”

The USDA is not able to prevent outbreaks, and if an outbreak does happen, they may not recall the product. This is a clear problem, since their only real course of action is to stop doing their job and shut down a plant in that way. Nestle also points out that the original legislature for the food industry was created to protect the animals, indicating one reason the agencies may have so many issues.

In Food Inc. Kevin’s mom tells the story of how she lost her son, and then mentions Kevin’s Law, which would have forced the USDA to establish performance standards to decrease pathogens in our food, as well as allow the USDA to shut down plants. Kevin’s law was never passed, however Obama did pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011 which upheld some of Kevin’s law. This gave the government slightly more control over what goes into our food, but it still may not be enough.

The most common problems brought to light about the food industry are food borne pathogens. Harmful bacteria such as e. coli, listeria, and salmonella are byproducts of our highly industrialized food production system where there is blood and feces all over the slaughterhouses and animal coops.

These diseases are allowed to spread into our food through various means and can cause mass outbreaks throughout the country. Rather than maintaining a clean environment for the animals and solving the problem at the root, the food industry came up with different way to combat the pathogens.

In Food Inc. they showed that there are small amounts of ammonia mixed into ground beef to try and kill E. Coli. The documentary also talks about how animals are given antibiotics, even if they are not sick, to try and prevent diseases.

Blake Hurst in Organic Illusions points out that harmful chemicals such as ammonia have been shown to not be harmful in small doses; however, he does not mention that there is still a real threat of antibiotic resistance. The antibiotics given to our food is spread to humans when they eat it, this then causes bacteria to build up a resistance to antibiotics, creating much more harmful pathogens.

Another side of government oversight is shown in You are what they eat, which drives home the point that our food may not be what we believe it should be, and there is not much being done about it. For instance, parts of very sick downer cows are approved to be part of animal feed, as long as they are not fed to other cows.

Meanwhile, these cows can be fed to pigs and chickens and fish, which can be eventually fed back to cows, causing a possible spread of the prions that cause mad cow disease. Even the restriction of not feeding downer cows to other cows is lax. For instance, “more than four years after the feed ban took effect, the FDA still hadn’t acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle.’”

If the FDA is not taking steps to ensure that mad cow disease is not being spread, are they truly doing what they are supposed to do?

Another consequence of the ever-growing food industry may be an environmental one. According to Cassandra Brooks in Consequences of increased global meat consumption, the worldwide consumption of livestock will double by 2020. Because of this huge increase, the food industry is growing its profits, and ignoring the huge effects they are causing on public health, wellness, and even the environment.

Livestock production has become hugely industrialized in order to meet the demand, and it is taking a toll on the environment. According to the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, “Livestock Production accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, including 9 percent carbon dioxide and 37 percent of methane gas emissions worldwide” (Cassandra Brooks).

Global warming and climate change mainly affect farming communities, the United States experiences some of this backlash, but it is mostly felt in other countries, such as Ethiopia, which rely on farming to survive. Global warming also affects places such as California and Central America, which are the sources of most of our produce. By creating so many greenhouse gas emissions, the livestock industry may be harming the other parts of our food production system, as well as creating worsening poverty and hunger in areas such as Ethiopia.

While global warming is not the focus of this article, it does bring to question the true consequences of our food industry. The food industry has caused many small farmers to go out of business, or switch to industrial farming, which they may despise. It also is responsible for a rise in food-borne pathogens and deaths from these pathogens.

Another consequence may be the rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes. When our food is processed, there are certain ingredients put in like high fructose corn syrup, which is harder to process than simple sugars. This creates a spike in insulin, causing a feeling of hunger more quickly, even though a person may not truly need more food.

Food Inc. shows this when introducing a lower class family that has to feed themselves. Rather than buy fruit and healthier foods in the grocery store, the family eats at McDonald’s most days because they can afford it, and it doesn’t take too much time out of their busy schedule.

Because of their inability to buy nutritious food, the whole family is overweight or even obese, and now has to budget in diabetes medication for the father.

What we should be asking the food industry is, should they really be risking the health and lives of family in order to make a larger profit? Why is addictive fast food so cheap when less dangerous food is too expensive for many people in America?

After realizing these consequences, it may seem that organic foods are the obvious choice, however, many people cannot afford to buy organic food, even though according to You Are What They Eat, Organic food is only 20-30% more expensive.

There are critics to organic food, like Blake Hurst, who in Organic Illusions cites facts from a study done by Stanford University comparing organic produce and conventionally grown produce. According to Hurst, growing all of our food organically will cause a shortage of land, labor and cause us to revert to the early 1900s when tractors did not exist.

While Hurst does bring up certain points, like the fact that the government does not check to see if companies are actually following organic guidelines, and there are natural pesticides. Hurst incorrectly cites the Stanford experiment, which already has results that conflict with other studies.

The main issue in food the food industry today is not whether we should buy organic or conventionally grown foods, but what type of production is best for the future generations to come and how the food we consume will determine the values and industries our country supports.

Throughout the past couple of decades there have been many concerns in the food industry. Consumers have become aware of the treatment and drugs given to the animals that they consume. There has not only been concern in the meat producing section of the food industry, but also in crop production. Farmers are beginning to mainly grow plants that have been genetically modified. This concern stems from people not knowing how these more recent styles of food production affect their health.

In many cases the food industry is abusing the power to produce food. Much of this industry is focused solely on profit and will obtain by making production as cheap as possible, while abiding by all the regulations. Many consumer would think as long as they follow regulations everything will be fine, but what consumers do not know is how loose the regulations and how they are barely being enforced.

Marion Nestle once explained that food producers do not have to recall unsafe foods, but they do because the want the consumer to feel safe buying their product. She connects this with the lack of regulation enactment and enforcement in the FDA and USDA. These government organizations are supposed to be protecting the consumer, but as the filmFood Inc. demonstrated many of the officials appointed to these organizations have been linked to major establishments in the food industry. As a government agency created to protect this country from hazardous food, all they have been successful of is maintaining the industries safety.

Some of the regulations in affect today have only helped the food system become stronger. In meat production the products that are approved to be used in animal feed have grown. According to the article “You are what they” the industry is now allowed to use animal waste, protein products, meat, bone, and blood. These are only ingredients that can be added to animal feed. This does not only seem disgusting, but it is also allowing animals that have been deemed insufficient for human consumption to be used in creating products for animals which will eventually be consumed by the population.

The changes in the animal feed are harmful for the animal’s diet. Today, more animals have been taken off their natural diets and instead have been given feed. The film Food Inc. demonstrated how this could be a problem, but what I find most concerning is that in some cases this new diet can be linked to increases in harmful bacteria. Due to the rising outbreaks recently, any link should be further analyzed.

Many food producers do not only modify the animals’ diet from grass to make production cheaper, but they also administer drugs and antibiotics to create larger animals and to protect against disease. When these companies administer these drugs, they are creating alterations within the way these animals grow. For instance chickens have been given drugs to increase their size and to decrease the amount of time they take to grow. The documentary Food Inc. demonstrated how chickens were dying prematurely and how many of them could not move due to the increase in body size. This is not the only problem. Also, chickens are being given antibiotics in their feed. This is causing them to become resistant to antibiotics and this could make consuming something as common as chicken dangerous for the population. Although many producers and government program swear that everything is safe, consumers still have to question which type of diet they want the animals they eat to have. We have to realize that everything eaten and administered to animals will be carried into our diets when we consume them.

The argument presented so far makes it seem like there is a clear choice as to which foods should be consumed, but the real answer is much more complicated. Over the years the food system has been developed because many people believe it is more “sustainable”.

“Sustainable” is a funny word that has a variety of meanings, especially when it is applied to the food system. We need to work for a “sustainable” future or we need a “sustainable” of farming that will produce enough food for the country. It seems like everyone is searching for their own form of sustainable and this is where the argument over food production can get difficult.

One view which can be represented by sources such as Food Inc., “You are What They”, and “Resisting Food Safety”. These articles offer that the word “sustainable” when being discussed with the current food system is based on creating food that will not demolish the societies overall health. This focuses in on the issues of administering drugs to meat, raising animals in warehouses, and using genetically modified plants. They are right in the fact that each of these factors has repercussions on society. The main concern with the word “sustainable” in this context is that people will become resistant to antibiotics and outbreaks of various bacteria will occur. This is a major concern with the increase in outbreaks related to food borne illnesses lately.

The other main definition for “sustainable” in this context can be represented by the article “Organic Illusions”. This article offers the idea of “sustainable” as being able to support thousands of people on the current food system. This article’s approach suggests that without the mass production that is offered by the current food system, society would not be able to have enough food to survive because there is not enough resources to run an organic food system on this large of a scale. This form of “sustainability” is being formed to protect a society from running out of a food supply.

The word “sustainability” used in different contexts can create a more controversial argument about food politics. There is no easy solution that can be made, but there is common ground that can be acquired on both sides of the issue.

Each of these arguments presented can only represent a glimpse at the errors and concerning facts about the current food system being used in today’s society. What the food industry does not want the consumer to know is that they actually have power in how the food industry can change. The consumer has the power to make purchases and to choose what type of production they support. As the consumer it is our job to purchase products that we can stand behind and be confident in saying I support the food I eat. By doing this the consumer can change the food market entirely, because the one thing that the system is focusing on is making a profit.

In the grainy video of his deposition with the Monsanto lawyers, the farmer hunches over the desk in front of him and intermittently reaches a weathered hand to rub his downcast forehead. His posture emulates defeat and heartbreak. In the documentary, Food Inc., Monsanto is suing Moe Parr for cleaning his own soybean seed and “inducing farmers to break the patent law.”

“This essentially puts me out of business. I am finished,” Parr says.

This anecdote illustrates the control that multinational corporations, like Monsanto, maintain over the farming industry. Their clout and reach is so pervasive and powerful that they can destroy a farmer’s life with a litany of charges completely detached from reality. Parr was forced to settle out of court because he could not afford his legal bills.

“I can remember when the first prohibitions against seed saving came into being. Most farmers were just absolutely disgusted with the whole concept. It’s been interesting over the course of 11 years to watch us go from utter contempt for the notion that we can’t save our own seed to acceptance,” says Troy Roush, Vice President of American Corn Growers Association, in an interview in the documentary.

For years, debates over food production and regulation in America have drifted into the national conversation. Arguments defending or condemning conventional farming processes and organic alternatives have been presented in documentaries, op-eds, studies, articles and books. Repeatedly, critics of conventional farming have deconstructed the process while highlighting the safety oversights and the environments created, which appear conducive to food contamination and systemic spread of food-related illnesses. Outbreaks of E. coli, semolina and listeria have claimed headlines and stolen lives. But parallel to discussions over the nutritional value and health risks of mass-produced food, the exploitation of the farmers and laborers involved in the farming industry is another jarring facet of this issue.

The corporations that form the industrial food system exploit theirs workers, as is evident in the working conditions, wages and bullying of farmers and laborers. These corporations are in positions of great power in determining the structure of farming and they repeatedly prove irresponsible with health and safety measures while solely perseverating on their own profit. They can introduce new methods or products that may risk the safety of people and animals, but have the influence to silence pushback from farmers and even government agencies. Corruption between food corporations and government agencies (specifically the personal overlap between those two realms) may be the reason why government agencies, like the FDA, are often willing to bend to the will of corporations.

Large corporations often employ illegal immigrants, a demographic unlikely to vie for better working conditions or wages. Marion Nestle mention in her book that the industry strategically employs larger numbers of immigrants and teenagers, forming an employee demographic less likely to know their rights and more willing to endure minimum wages with no benefits or chances for pay raises. And as is clearly evident in multiple narratives presented Food Inc., large corporations also monitor and control farmers and farm owners. These corporations, with money and connections, are able to change the culture of farming and determine the direction of farmers’ livelihoods.

The documentary Food Inc. emphasizes the ways in which conventional farming exploits both people and animals. The interviews in the documentary with farmers who are buried under debt to large corporations, such as Perdue and Tyson, reveal how the wealth being amassed from food production in the States does not trickle down to the farmers or labors but merely feeds into a larger divide between the rich and poor in America. One chicken farmer in the film, Vince Edwards was told by Tyson that he was not allowed to show his own chicken coup to the documentarians. A jolly and portly Edwards shrugs and grins sheepishly. He doesn’t know why he can’t show the camera crew. But that’s what he has been told. Moments like this illustrate the reach and of these corporations’ power and influence.

However, in his article, “Organics Illusions,” Blake Hurst argued from a stance framing conventional farming practices as almost liberating for participants in its workforce, as opposed to repressive or dangerous. As an actual farmer, he believes modern farming methods actually present many benefits to farm owners and laborers and make their livelihoods and jobs easier and more efficient. Hurst says, “Those of us who grew up with a hoe in our hand have absolutely no nostalgia for days gone by. People love to talk about traditional agriculture, but I’ve noticed that their willingness to embrace the land is often mostly metaphorical.” Hurst harkens back to the olden days emphasizing that conditions today are less physically draining and demand less labor.

Hurst also states in his article that since conventional farming requires fewer workers, the people who would be slaving away in fields, if the world was without pesticides and slaughterhouses, now have more time and space to become playwrights and philosophers and doctors. But in her book, “Resisting Food Safety,” the aforementioned author, Marion Nestle, presents information that dulls the romanticism Hurst paints. Nestle touches on the socioeconomics of the food industry and discussed how corporations hire mostly immigrants and teenagers at meager wages and often in unsafe conditions. And while unemployment has almost returned to pre-Great Recession rates, jobs are always welcomed in the States. But instead of providing jobs and bettering the American economy, some corporations are employing illegal immigrants. Food Inc. showed a corporation that had a constructed a deal with local authorities to only arrest a handful of their illegal immigrants every week so as not to disrupt the flow of production at their factories. Conditions in slaughterhouses are also reported as some of the most dangerous working condition and can be emotionally disruptive. So although fewer people may be hoeing potato fields right now, many are being exploited and abused by corporations.

Food Inc. also reveals the conditions that animals are kept in. Conditions that some argue are cruel and heinous. Scenes in that documentary shows bloated chickens pumped up on drugs to fatten them and increase the corporation’s profit. Their bulging bodies cannot be supported by their spindly legs so their short lives are mostly sedentary. Some corporations require that the chickens be kept in huts that are completely enclosed. Although Edwards refused to show the camera crew the conditions of his chickens, another chicken farmer, Carole Morison, said she felt compelled to speak on the topic despite the repercussions. She told the documentarians she thought current conditions for chickens were inhuman. Further, she refused to enclose her own coup. The film reported that her contract with Perdue was later voided for her actions.

In a Consumer Reports article analyzing conventional farming methods and how there is contamination and oversight in that process, some of the potential sicknesses animals can contract were listed. The article read, “Regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection, if present, to make its way into cattle feed; drugs used in chickens could raise human exposure to arsenic or antibiotic-resistant bacteria; farmed fish could harbor PCBs and dioxins.” This litany of health risks present to animals (and humans that consume them) points to these procedures not being the healthiest and most humane means to farm these animals. These diseases paint a picture of the conditions these animals are kept in as clearly insufficient. Instead of healthy animals being raised and slaughtered in humane and clean ways, they appear to be produced in conditions that are instead conducive to them harboring diseases.

Matt Nolan

Critical research

Draft 2/20

What is in jeopardy with the way that the American food system is being run today? The food industry is corrupted by big companies that are thirsty for money, forcing farmers to use GMO’s and specific feeds/farming techniques. Most of these things are bad for animals, humans, and the environment. The government(FDA,USDA) needs to do a better job at regulating and enforcing their rules on these techniques/practices. Is there a way to fix all of this and have a healthier food system for all of America or will we keep going down the same path?

Large companies have taken over the American food system single handedly in their desire to make the most money possible. They have power and control over farmers by paying them good money to do what they want them to. If the farmer wanted to leave and be out on his own he would most likely go out of business due to all of the surrounding farmers working for the company that they once did. We see this in the video “Food Inc.” where the farmers talk about how they are controlled like puppets. Companies also make seed deals and if you store the seeds or try and sell them you will have a lawsuit coming your way.  The feed that they force their farmers to feed their animals is mostly GMO’s and other parts of chopped up animals. On top of all of this, most of the government and people above the big companies have money invested in them. This makes it almost impossible to change how things are happening now.

The things stated above are bad for America, consumers, animals, and even the environment. How? There are many studies that have been performed to prove this. Many of what is in the animals feed is very disgusting. That means that consumers are eating those animals that grew up eating that feed. “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”(CR Pg.26).Workers are being mistreated in many of the facilities across America. GMO’s are in a ton of the foods that are being sold to consumers. As it says in the article GMO pig feed “Currently, no GE safety testing is required in the U.S. The long-term study revealed that pigs fed a GE diet suffered higher rates of severe stomach inflammation…”. Pesticides and animal waste is being spread into the environment polluting waters that all life drinks on a daily bases.

The government, USDA, and FDA are not doing their jobs to overlook the food industry and protect animals and humans. For example Nestle says that they have a lack of funding and manpower to do the job and keep up with the growing food system. Which leads to a lack of oversight and practices are twisted and there is more room for error which leads to food borne illness and other things. About 80% of seafood in the United States is imported and the FDA tests only about 2% according to consumer reports. That is a ridiculously low percentage to be testing on all imports that could contain toxins and bacteria that could harm consumers. The FDA and USDA need to find a way to get more funding to keep up with the changes in the food system for the good of the consumers.

There are ways to fix this mess that is going on with the food system in the United States. But no one can seem to agree and blames everyone els for the problems. As Nestle says, the government(FDA,USDA) blames the corporations/companies, which blame the consumers and vice versa. Once we get over that we can start breaking down how to solve this problem. As seen in the video “Food Inc.” one farmer did everything the natural way. For example the cows were in a field, ate the grass, and went to the bathroom and the cycle continued. “If the animals were on a grass diet would eliminate 75% of E coli in gut”(Food Inc.).If this was done throughout the US there would be less talk about feed and what environment that the animals lived in. Taking away the big companies that control everything would be another good idea. If food was bought locally that decreases the chances for bacteria and other things to grow with the less time that it is processed, shipped, and stored. Though some would disagree with this hypothesis like Blake Hurst. Hurst talking about a study done at Stanford disagrees “When a study finds no differences in nutritional value after 70 years of hybrid seeds, 60 years of chemical fertilizers, a half century of synthetic pesticide application, and almost two decades of GM seed, its a problem for the narrative of the organic industry”. This is definitely worth looking into but there would need to be more studies done since so many people would be for a more organic old fashioned way of farming.

How will the American food system be in 50 years? No one knows but the way that it is going with corruption starting at the top with companies and government and the bad practices who knows. Hopefully people will start to look into what goes on behind the scenes and what they are actually eating and try to make a change. People need to start being more informed about what they are putting into their body and not being persuaded by company ads and other things. All of there articles bring up great points about what is wrong and what is not wrong with the food system. As it will take a ton of consumers and people that want to do the right thing to make a change for the good of the American food system.