Drew Andros

M/W 3:45 PM

1447 words

 

Unit 1 Blog Article:

Throughout the course of time, food has been an everlasting staple to all species. It is a reason for people to get together and communicate, it’s a reason to celebrate and relax, and it’s a necessity in order for the body to be properly nourished. However, over the past century or so, food has become less of a gathering tool, and less of a reason to get together, and it has simply become a way to make money.

In the centuries prior to this one, home-cooked meals, fresh food, and delicious ingredients were all a staple of the American household. People would invite their friends and family over, cook food, and relish the opportunity to enjoy each others company. However, as stated above, the last 60 or 70 years has brought us a massive change in society that now sees food as only a commodity in order to profit. Of course, with every statement, there are limitations. Food is still used by many people, both in this country, and around the world, to relax and enjoy, however as a whole, there have been a plethora of reasons as to why we are starting to see food as simply a way for large corporations and farmers to make money.

In the documentary Food, Inc., the narrator discussed how the rise of the fast food industry and the “conveyer belt/mass production” system created an atmosphere that changed the landscape of food production forever. At that point, growing food became less and less about growing fresh products that tasted great, and more about growing and using pesticides to mass produce things that could be given to chains like McDonalds, who could then turn around and give these large companies a major profit because of the bulk with which they were buying. When the food market became more about creating money and supplying large amounts of both meat and produce to giant companies, rather than allowing small time farmers to create fresh food that could be better quality, the entire dynamic changed.

Now, we live in a society much different than the one half a century ago. While it seems that our food is relatively easy to purchase as a consumer, we are blissfully unaware of the difficulties and struggles that go into processing our food, as well as the harsh conditions that many farmers must go through in order to take care of their families. Although, as I stated above, we live in a society that puts a greater emphasis on quantity than quality, there are still farmers out there that are trying to stay with old traditions and create good quality food; however, those farmers will most likely either be eaten up by the large companies, or unable to compete with them because of the price difference. Also in the Food, Inc. documentary was a very depressing narrative that showed small farmers having to cooperate and create farming environments that they weren’t morally comfortable with, because of how it affected the animals. However, if they were not to oblige and go against the companies for whom they worked, they would lose massive amounts of money that would disallow them to provide for their families.

One of the main issues we face today in the food industry is safety of the food that we are growing and consuming. We have had a handful of foodborne illnesses over the course of the last 30 years, however, people, in general, don’t seem to be very concerned about the fact that they may be eating tarnished food. They simply expect the government to look out for them and “vet” the food before it arrives in their refrigerator, however in many instances, that is just not the case. The government may not be impartial, first of all, and may have some of the large food corporations in their back pocket, but even more terrifying than that is the peoples’ unawareness to the potential problems that foodborne illnesses can create. According to Marian Nestle, food is a very difficult illness to pinpoint, and as a result, foodborne illnesses are not tracked very well. She states that “Attributing a bout of diarrhea to food rather than other causes is no simple matter. Most of us eat several foods at a time, several times a day, in several different places. How could we possibly know which food might get us sick, especially if there is a delay in the onset of symptoms. I can not imagine bothering to call a doctor about a brief stomach upset” (Nestle 37). This quote perfectly illustrates the difficulty with creating a society where we can honestly track the health and safety of food, beyond what the government already has implemented as safety standards, such as the USDA, the FDA, the CDC, amongst other organizations. Nestle is a professor of sociology and food studies at New York University, and she gave us a perfect anecdote to sum up America’s ignorance to the harsh realities of foodborne illnesses. She says in her article “The Politics of Foodborne Illness” that she and her family were at a dinner party in the 1970’s, and many people got sick afterwards. Now, instead of going to the doctor and making sure that they were truly okay, or calling the company that supplied the foods they ate and asking them if there had been any other reported outbreaks of illness, the people simply took Advil, Tylenol, and within a few days there were back to normal. Now, while it is definitely a positive that nobody got seriously hurt, or worse, died, it speaks to how uninformed and unaware these people were to the serious dangers of food. Now, that was 40 some years ago, however the true message really hasn’t changed. People simply expect the government to have their best interest in mind and to monitor everything that they are putting into their mouths, and that simply isn’t the case time and time again. Thus, Nestle argues that there needs to be more government intervention, as well as more self-teaching when it comes to people and their food.

As discussed above, consumer awareness is a major part of creating a society with good food that is both tasty, and safe. While it should be the job of the government to make sure that people are eating safe food, we also need to encourage a society of people who understand the nuances of the food industry and how to spot food that is both safe and unsafe.

Whether or not organic food is better for someone is a very big debate in this country at this point in time. On one hand, companies like Chipotle thrive off of organic food and use it as a selling point. However, there are people, like Blake Hurst, who feel like eating organic is simply a way to drive up prices on food, and it allows farmers who do grow organic to charge their prices at a higher rate in order to increase profits. In addition, he argues that studies have shown that organic foods can actually present a greater health risk to society than genetically modified foods. He states in his article “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. Pesticide exposure is hard to understand and scary, but pesticides on food are typically found at levels thousands of times lower than harmful levels. E. coli, which comes from fecal matter, just kills people” (Hurst Pesticides and Policies). E. Coli is extremely dangerous, and as a result, this Stanford Study does bring up legitimate questions about whether or not eating organic is truly better for one’s health.

All in all, the food debate has completely shifted over the course of the last generation or two. While small time farming that focused on freshness, the best ingredients, and moderate prices was the narrative in the food industry 60 or 70 years ago, large corporations and mass-producing has taken over. As a result, farmers are going out of business and the market is being taken over by a handful of large companies. In addition, people are generally unaware about what they are putting into their mouths and are completely oblivious to whether or not they are being served safe of unsafe food. In order to ensure the safety of the American people, and to also keep the government and food growers responsible for what they serve us, it is our duty to become more knowledgeable about food, and to also become cognizant of the changes in the food industry that could very well affect our health.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

https://blackboard.syr.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-3960432-dt-content-rid-   11963849_1/courses/33872.1162/Nestle Resisting Food Safety.pdf

 

https://blackboard.syr.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-3960433-dt-content-rid-11963850_1/courses/33872.1162/Consumer Reports You are what they eat.pdf

 

https://www.aei.org/publication/organic-illusions/

 

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i8/Keeping-Food-Safe.html

 

Food Inc.

 

 

 

Reflection Questions:

1. For me, the writer’s project refers to the message that the writer was trying to get across to the reader. It focuses on the key points that they were hoping would come through in their article. I was able to identify the specific project used by the different writers by simply reading the text, annotating it, and then looking for main theses and points. In this article, my own project looked at multiple things, including the naivety of people when it comes to the food they eat, the argument surrounding organic vs. non-organic, and also government intervention into our food.
2. The entire Sorting it Out worksheet I found to be incredibly beneficial when completing my blog article, however I would have to say that finding the key terms of each article was especially beneficial because it allowed me to find similarities within the articles, as well as give me an understanding of the main points of the article.
3. To me, synthesis revolves around understanding the cohesion with which this essay was put together. There needed to be a flow to it, as well as making sure that my points were properly sorted out and put on paper so that the reader could understand where I was coming from.
4. During this unit, I accomplished becoming more aware of food safety, and the general food industry. I was completely unaware, to be honest, of the industry before this class and so I do feel like learning about it is an accomplishment in itself.
5. My main idea simply started as a belief that people were unaware of the food that they were putting into their mouths, and it evolved into something much larger. At the end, it was evident that I discussed multiple facets of the food industry, including food safety, government intervention, organic vs. non-organic.
6. Throughout the course of the essay, I tried to divide the article up into main points. Whenever a main point shifted gears into something else, I made sure to start a new paragraph. In addition, it has been shown that people can only focus on small bits of information at once, so dividing something up into a bunch of little paragraphs allows for people to be more willing to read it, rather than to simply keep it in a big block of text.
7. “As a result, farmers are going out of business and the market is being taken over by a handful of large companies. In addition, people are generally unaware about what they are putting into their mouths and are completely oblivious to whether or not they are being served safe of unsafe food. In order to ensure the safety of the American people, and to also keep the government and food growers responsible for what they serve us…” In this little excerpt, I discussed the food market changing to support big business instead of small time farming, as well as food safety, and lastly, government intervention into our food.
8. In the beginning, my lede was very long and drawn out, and as told by our professor, as well as the person I worked with one on one, I had to shorten it. as a result, I made sure to make it concise and bring in something that was attention grabbing and would be interesting for the reader.
9. I would like to work on transition statements throughout the course of the next couple unit projects. I felt like they were good in this specific blog article, but that there is definitely room to improve. Smooth transitions are imperative to an essay’s success, so I want to make sure that I do well with them.

 

 

 

 

Next time you’re in line at your favorite fast food place, read between the lines on the Dollar Menu. It takes some doing, but when you finally see it, it’s pretty obvious that the biggest seller on the menu is exploitation.

Michael Pollan is concerned with the exploitation of animals. Consumer Reports backs up what he says in popular food documentary Food Inc., by director Robert Kenner. Michael Hurst has a counter to this in an op-ed he wrote on the apparent evils of organic farming. Marion Nestle, a nutrition scientist, sociologist, and compelling author, ties it all together with a concise history of the decrepit government bodies that are supposed to ensure our food is safe.

But the exploitation includes all of that and more. From the farm to the table, exploitation has become the base for a lopsided food pyramid. Farm workers and owners, cattle and poultry ranchers, seed cleaners, and consumers are all on the losing side of a battle aimed at cutting food costs right to the bone, bringing the end consumer more, faster, cheaper, and more dangerous than food has ever been in American history.

But there is hope for some of those caught in our tangled food web. NPR has featured many articles on the myriad number of localities across the US that have been in talks to increase the minimum wage of fast food workers to a living wage of at least $15 an hour.

Luckily, our own state of New York has finally passed such a bill.

Let us shift our focus at the start of the chain of woes that have befallen our food system; the farm.

According to testimony in Food Inc. the government subsidizes corn below the cost of production, to the point that American farms dedicate enough of their land and resources to produce around 30% of the world’s corn on 30% of American farm land.

That corn is used, as Pollan discovered, in pretty much everything.

“So much of our industrial food turns out to be clever rearrangements of corn,” states Pollan. He went looking for the source of the so-called diverse food products on most grocery store shelves.

What he discovered was that most foods contain a number of corn-derived ingredients, one of the most common being much maligned High Fructose Corn Syrup. What’s worse is that humans aren’t the only ones subsisting on a corn-rich diet.

In an effort to fatten up feed animals in record times, farmers have fundamentally changed the diet of most farm animals to rely on, you guessed it, corn.

Pigs never evolved to eat corn. Neither did chickens. Fish, well, there’s a lot of stuff we feed fish that they never would find in the rivers, lakes, and oceans of the world. But cattle — ruminants — definitely didn’t evolve as corn-sumers.

In order to make the cows bigger faster, and because corn is so much cheaper than any time in prior human history, farmers began putting it in the feed.

This is fundamentally bad for cattle, animals that have special stomachs designed to help them digest their primary food source; that is, grasses. Those special stomachs contain bacteria, actually E. coli bacteria.

In a truly grotesque scene in Food Inc., a man with his hand stuffed into the rumen of a cow through a hole in it’s side says, “There’s some research that indicates that a high-corn diet results in E. coli that are acid-resistant. And these would be the more harmful E. coli.”

Anyone who’s read the news or turned on the radio knows that E. coli is a hot-button topic that keeps popping up, year after year, month after month. We all know that Chipotle, the fast Americanized Mexican joint beloved by college students everywhere, has had to contend with an E. coli outbreak in just the last couple of months.

Back on the farm, we’re feeding the cows corn. The corn is causing the cows to produce the harmful strains of E. coli in their stomachs. That doesn’t even get to the fact that those cows are sometimes too fat and weak to stand, and where they’re sitting, laying, or standing is often ankle deep in cow feces and urine.

The next link in the chain, and final stop for the sickly cows, is the slaughterhouse. No longer looking like the slaughterhouses of 1800’s America, these monstrous factories are contending with E. coli and other bacteria in interesting ways, such as dipping slaughtered animal parts, meat products now, into tanks of ammonia.

E. coli, as mentioned before, has grown acid-resistant, and also antibiotic resistant. According to Marion Nestle, “nearly 25 million pounds of antibiotics are used in animal agriculture, whereas just 3 million are used for human infections.” In the end, if contaminated meat does get through this process, just one slaughtered cow can contaminate up to eight tons of ground beef, according to Consumer Reports.

Now that meat is packed up and sent all over the country and even globally. If that meat is contaminated, so then become the people that eat it.

What, if anything, is the solution? Some argue that a shift back to organic farming methods, what our great-great-grandparents would have just called ‘farming’ in their time. But Michael Hurst thinks that such a change would actually be worse for the environment than current ‘conventional’ methods which utilize persistent chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Hurst makes the argument that, “it takes fewer acres to produce the same quantity of food conventionally than it does organically,” but doesn’t offer any source or research to back this claim up.

Even if conventional farming takes up less land, and produces more, do we really want companies like Monsanto to hold a monopoly over our seeds? Moe Parr, a seed cleaner interviewed extensively in Food Inc. certainly doesn’t think so.

Monsanto was, as Parr said, “suing [him] on the basis that [he is] encouraging the farmer to break the patent law by cleaning their own seed.”

Monsanto, a multi-national corporation that holds a virtual monopoly over seeds in the United States, felt it necessary to intimidate farmers out of cleaning seeds which those farmers would have used to grow more plants next season. But instead, they must buy new seed from Monsanto every season. And, even if you don’t use Monsanto seed, you can be sued by them if they find any of their products growing in your fields. So if the wind blows a little Monsanto pollen your way, you’re fucked as well.

We’ve got a corporation holding our seeds hostage for ransom, and we’ve got a government subsidized food system that can’t even police itself for food safety producing meat that can kill. But let’s look at another link in the chain: the foodservice employee.

From first-hand experience, having worked in it for over a decade now, I can explain what the foodservice industry is like.

We’re criminally underpaid, often earning only what the state minimum wage is. We’re expected to work long hours in dangerous (350 degree deep-fat fryers, chargrills, ovens, knives), often cramped, high-stress environments producing food, you guessed it, fast and cheap.

When we’re sick, we can’t afford to take the day off. Cooks work with tissue stuffed up their noses just so they can pay rent. Dishwashers duck out of the kitchen to go barf behind the dumpster and then come back to clean your plates. We often have to work multiple jobs, more than 40 hours a week, especially in fast food, because those corporate behemoths know they don’t have to offer benefits if their employees aren’t full-time.

If that doesn’t sound fair, it’s because it isn’t. When we’re worried about out own well-being, the phrase “the customer is always right” really means “the customer has no idea what it’s like in the kitchen” and yet they expect it faster, cheaper, and exactly how they ordered it. And they sure as hell don’t expect to get sick from it.

If we want to see our food system made safe again, we need a radical shift in how food is produced, distributed, and managed from farm to table.

---

 

Critical Reflection:

1- The writers project is their end-goal. It encompasses what they are writing about and why, who it’s being written for, and what they intend for the reader to gather or learn from it. Each of the texts for this project had easy-to-grasp writer’s projects. Food Inc. dealt with a few specific themes (corn, food costs, sickness, and corporate greed. Hurst was blatantly obvious in attacking organic farming. Nestle also dealt with themes of illnesses and government oversight. The Consumer Reports article was very clear in addressing issues of food safety and foodborne illness, and how that all impacts humans.

I wanted to focus on the fact that in all of this, one thing is clear: exploitation, in an unfair and unjust manner, is at the heart of the American food system. From harming animals with improper feed and how that harms people with foodborne illness, to how the cheap/fast model of consumption in the US makes for unfair treatment of foodservice workers.

2- The Sorting It Out workshop seemed redundant to the notes and the chart that was made that included all of the pertinent information found in each text. However, the way it helped to connect the dots between texts by quotations and themes helped to synthesize an argument and draw parallels between each text in a manner that made it easier to synthesize my own project.

3- Synthesis is the fundamental core of most of the academic writing I’ve done as an anthropology student. By drawing on multiple sources, sometimes disparate, synthesis helps to draw conclusions or back them up. It gives credit to the author by sort of saying, “I understand these sources and the sometimes subtle ways they support each other, or how I can use them to support each other and myself.” The core of my project is a synthesis of how each text makes subtle or not so subtle reference to the various forms of exploitation that

The core of my project is a synthesis of how each text makes subtle or not so subtle reference to the various forms of exploitation that are a part of the US food system.

4- The most difficult aspect of this project that I was able to accomplish is figuring out how to write in a blog style, given that the last 7 years of my schooling has been primarily writing in purely academic styles.

5- I knew from the start that I wanted to focus on inequality or injustices in the food system, having seen Food Inc. prior to this course. When we got into the other texts, I started to realize that there was something that was common to them all, but it was hard to figure out exactly what it was. It wasn’t until nearly the middle or close to the end of my first draft that I realized that my main idea was ‘exploitation.’ It evolved rapidly into my final draft as I reflected on my own experiences and the things I’ve seen while working in the foodservice industry (everything from fast food to franchise chains to local, small business and the kitchen at a Whole Foods).

6- My first and later draft were not well organized, and I didn’t get to the human exploitation element of my argument until the very end. I decided to use Food Inc. as my starting point, since it really brings up each topic I wanted to touch on. My earlier draft says “The human element is addressed by Food Inc., Consumer Reports, and Marion Nestle, although not completely. Most of what is addressed by the authors and experts of these pieces is due to food borne illness or other persistent dietary problems like diabetes or malnutrition.” I realized I needed to either back this up, or change how I approached it, and so I focused the discussion of human exploitation as those texts discuss it on foodborne illness, rather than critiquing them for not talking about it in other ways.

7- I synthesize what’s seen in Food Inc, and what both Consumer Reports and Marion Nestle have to say about foodborne illness concisely where I wrote –

“Back on the farm, we’re feeding the cows corn. The corn is causing the cows to produce the harmful strains of E. coli in their stomachs. That doesn’t even get to the fact that those cows are sometimes too fat and weak to stand, and where they’re sitting, laying, or standing is often ankle deep in cow feces and urine.

The next link in the chain, and final stop for the sickly cows, is the slaughterhouse. No longer looking like the slaughterhouses of 1800’s America, these monstrous factories are contending with E. coli and other bacteria in interesting ways, such as dipping slaughtered animal parts, meat products now, into tanks of ammonia.

E. coli, as mentioned before, has grown acid-resistant, and also antibiotic resistant. According to Marion Nestle, “nearly 25 million pounds of antibiotics are used in animal agriculture, whereas just 3 million are used for human infections.” In the end, if contaminated meat does get through this process, just one slaughtered cow can contaminate up to eight tons of ground beef, according to Consumer Reports.”

Only when I sat down to finish the final draft did I realize the way those three texts complimented each other and how that worked for my own argument.

8- My first lede was awful, convoluted, and too long.

“When you step in line at your favorite fast food place, you’re probably only thinking about how hungry you are, and how cheaply you can feed yourself. You aren’t going to be thinking of the personal, local, or global impacts that the dollar menu truly has. Only a small handful of corporations are in control of most of the food on the shelf at your local supermarket, according to Michael Pollan. With a virtual monopoly over the global food market, these corporations rely on coercion, scare tactics, and abhorrent abuses of humans and animals to deliver to you the cheapest but most costly meals in history, and it’s bound to get worse before it gets better. Sickness, poverty, and death are the backbone of the food industry, and the few that control it don’t dare to admit it. In just a few years we’ve managed to completely transform the ways we grow, handle, and prepare foods, and those changes are taking a toll on everyone involved, from farm to table, cradle to grave.”

I knew I needed to shorten things up and leave the reader wanting more.Next time you’re in line at your favorite fast food place, read between the lines on the Dollar Menu. It takes some doing, but when you finally see it, it’s pretty obvious that the biggest seller on the menu is

“Next time you’re in line at your favorite fast food place, read between the lines on the Dollar Menu. It takes some doing, but when you finally see it, it’s pretty obvious that the biggest seller on the menu is exploitation.”

I think I give the reader something to think about and wonder where I’m going while challenging them to want to learn what I really mean. Honestly, the feedback I received of the first draft was positive, but I knew when reading it that it just dragged on too long.

9- I want to work on my lede more as well as the blog format with more of my own voice and opinions in it.

Farm fresh, organic, anti-GMO. All are key words that pop out to any consumer when they are shopping in the grocery store. But how natural and safe is the food we eat? For some, it is shocking that here in the US, with all of our regulations and restrictions that food is produced the way it is. Think the government has control over the food industry? Wrong. Follow the money. It will lead right to multinational corporations who are the ones controlling food production. Several authors have articulated their own views on food production in their own publications, with arguments varying from whether organic or conventional farming is better and food borne illnesses, but all noting somewhere that these problems come from a lack of government control.

One of the biggest issues with food production in the US is where the power lies, and it does not lie in the government’s hands. Marion Nestle, an author and NYU professor argues in her publication, “Resisting Food Safety”, that the government needs to intervene more in the food production process.

 

Change is attempted in the 1970’s when the CDC begins conducting studies about food borne illnesses to find out how big of a problem they really are. “Nearly half the participating states were reporting no outbreaks or very few, suggesting considerable underreporting” (Nestle 38). One of the biggest reasons for their results is many people do not report when they get food poisoning, they think it is just something that happens from time to time. Are you kidding me? The fact that people accept that is why the food industry continues to have problems with quality control. The CDC attempted to expand what they thought be signs of food borne illnesses, such as a person experiencing diarrhea. Granted an episode of diarrhea does not necessarily mean someone has a food borne illness, but the CDC is just trying to get their numbers up and if that happens, then maybe policies will change.

People seem to be assuming that they were the only one who got sick from eating that food whereas in reality thousands of others could have gotten sick too, because an entire line of food that was produced could have been infected with a food borne illness. Like hello, there are other people that exist outside of you. One example of a food borne illness is E. coli. What is E. coli? Oh it is just a potentially fatal food borne illness that is transmitted via fecal matter. Now if someone gets a food borne illness from E. coli, it will be reported, as Nestle points out in her article, because of how potent the bacteria is. But for smaller cases that are not, there still could have been an entire line of food that affected thousands. Now granted, this study was done 40 years ago, more people today realize how big of an issue food borne illnesses are.

Reporting food borne illnesses however should not be solely up to consumers to make reports, the FDA should be cracking down on food producers. But as Nestle states, this is another area where problems lie. The FDA only has about 700 food inspectors nation wide and are tasked with overseeing 30,000 food producers, 128,000 grocery stores, 785,000 commercial and industrial food establishments, 1.5 million vending machines, and oh yeah, all the food imported into the US. What lamebrain in Washington said, yeah that’s humanly possible.

All of these places are supposed to be inspected annually, and with the nearly nonexistent number of inspectors, the FDA is only able to check about 2% of these places annually. Fantastic! In fact, in another article, “You Are What they Eat”, by Consumer Reports “loopholes still allowed certain risky feedstuffs to be fed to cattle and their ruminants…‘the FDA does not know the full extent of industry compliance’” (CR 29). This proves that the FDA does not have a handle on what goes on in the food industry and neither does the government because food manufacturers are able to get away with giving potentially disease infested feed to animals and if the FDA is not able to inspect producers, people will continue to get sick and the government still will not be able to do much without sufficient evidence.

These articles and statistics are dated so when looking at an article written in 2009, the picture of control in the food industry looks a little nicer. A 2009 article written by Common Dreams, claims the Obama administration is in the process of investigating Monsanto, a seed company that provides seed to nearly all farmers in the US, for anticompetitive activity. Common Dreams states at the beginning that Monsanto is not an entirely evil corporation responsible for issues in the food industry, but they are a big problem. Basically, Monsanto has become a monopoly in the seed market, which is illegal. However, Monsanto cleverly gets around this by spending big money lobbying to get their people jobs within the government. This is a classic case of a company exploiting its power to get what it wants. By putting its people on the inside, they now gain even more control and power over the food production industry and protect themselves. So this raises an important question, if the Obama administration is trying to sue Monsanto, will it even be possible with Monsanto’s people on the inside?

In addition to the government not having a firm grasp on the activities of multinational food companies, they are also lacking in the organic foods section. In an article written by Blake Hurst, he claims that no testing is done on foods with organic labels to see if they are in fact organic and the producer followed all the guidelines. Now, Hurst’s article, “Organic Illusions”, needs to be taken with a grain of salt because the man has no sources, he just sort of rambles on about his own beliefs about the food industry, while once or twice mentioning some Stanford study, but never giving real data. However, if Hurst’s claim is true, then lack of testing is a major issue. Hurst claims the reason for organic food’s success is due to marketing and people view organic food as healthier for them. The major issue here is if people think that what they are buying is better for them, but no testing is being done, then consumers are being misled. If government testing is required on organic foods, not all because that would be impossible, but testing of certain batches of food produced, then food companies will not be able to get away with selling something misleading.

While some argue that organic food offers no real health benefits, farmer Joel Salatin from the documentary Food Inc. says otherwise. The food Salatin produces contains considerably less bacteria and chemicals than food produced by major companies. And he was almost shut down because all of his food production takes place in the open air, instead of the much healthier disease infested factory. Salatin states during his interview that the government wants to shut him down because they think there are more bacteria and pathogens flying around in the open air that can contaminate his food. In Salatin’s case, the government is actually trying to shut down the wrong person because of his methods. This is just another prime example of the government believing the way major food companies produce is the safest and best way. If the government does its job and starts taking control over the food industry rather than just seemingly letting companies do what they want and not really having consequences, then food may actually become safer for consumers.

Ultimately, government control is necessary for safer and better food. As shown by the authors and documentary, the government does not have the control over the food industry that it needs to. The US food industry contains many problems from lack of FDA employment to allowing producers to give potentially bacteria infested feed to their animals and not testing organic foods. This lack of involvement means more consumers could get sick and food producers can continue to do what they do without consequence. Government involvement is just the first step in producing safer food.

Reflection:

For the writer’s project, my understanding was using the readings and film to find common arguments between all the sources and analyze and synthesize those arguments. In the sorting it out assignment, the most helpful section for me was finding the passages that connected and shared the same type of idea. That section definitely made things easier for me when I started writing the article and was trying to make connections. The connection section in sorting it out also helped me to figure out which ideas and arguments I should lead with, in order to make my article flow and also be compelling. To me synthesis is being able to make connections between articles and arguments. It’s important to do this because if you’re working with many different texts but never connect them the entire article feels disconnected. My accomplishment during this unit was definitely formatting my article to flow and sound the way I wanted it. When I started writing at the beginning I had 3 long paragraphs and once I was able to break them down more, the article seemed to come together well. For the main idea I looked at all the articles and tried to find common points they shared. This way it’d be much easier for me to connect the articles together by finding common ground between them. At the beginning my organization was pretty horrendous. My paragraphs were too long and had multiple arguments woven into them. I went to the writing center in order to work with someone to figure out how I could reorganize my article so the paragraphs were shorter, but I wasn’t compromising the writing. I successfully synthesized 3 texts in the beginning of my article when I’m talking about government control and food borne illnesses. The food borne illness part of my argument on government intervention had a lot of good information behind it, so the biggest thing for me was to make sure that the reader wouldn’t get lost in all the information, that I explain along with giving data. As the process went on, I found that my writing seemed to technical, lots of data, not enough analysis, so once I fixed that it flowed much better. For me the lede actually wasn’t too challenging. What I try to do when I’m working on an opener for a writing assignment is to just write whatever comes to mind and then work from there. When we did peer editing I was told my lede was too long, so I tried to make it as concise as possible, in order to grab the reader, but not bore them with a long sentence. One goal I have to work on for the next assignment is to keep my lede concise and to really try and get as much analysis out of the sources as possible.

Work Cited:

Hurst, Blake.  “Organic Illusions”.  American Enterprise institute.  1 Oct. 2012.  Online article.

Kenner, Robert, dir, Food Inc.  Magnolia Pictures.  2008.

Nestle, Marion.  “Resisting Food Safety”.  Online article.

Richardson, Jill.  “Sick of Corporate Control Over Your Food?”.  Common Dreams.  28 Dec. 2009.  Online article.

“You Are What they Eat”.  Consumer Reports.  Online article.

https://myaquanui.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ecoli.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/content/images/episodes/foodinc_444.jpg

http://indianapublicmedia.org/eartheats/files/2010/02/foodinc2.jpg

What goes into a $1 MacDonald’s Big Mac? Well, according to McDonalds’ website, it includes two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions on a sesame-seed bun. Now, let’s look a little closer and focus on just the cheese. Its main ingredients are milk, cream, water, cheese cultures and cheese enzymes. Looks good. The list doesn’t stop there, though. For creamy, even melting, there is sodium citrate and sodium phosphate in the cheese. For texture and flavor, there’s salt, citric acid, lactic acid, acetic acid, sodium pyrophosphate and natural flavor. For consistent color, there is “color added.” For slice separation, there is soy lecithin; and to prevent spoilage, there is sorbic acid. This is all that goes into one tiny slice of American cheese. But let us put aside how over-processed our food has become. The bigger question is, how can all that work culminate in a burger that cost a mere dollar? Is the system actually so streamlined and efficient or are there a multitude of costs that are deliberately hidden from us?

In 2008, the documentary, Food Inc shocked the public by revealing what goes into their food. It also exposed the laws and regulations that allow for such horrors to happen. While it seems like food policies are drafted with our interests in mind, it is actually the opposite. Many of the policies protect the food industry by deliberately withholding information and creating the illusion of cheap, safe food. Food industries fight almost desperately against any sort of transparency. They fought against calorie information, trans fat, country-of-origin labelling for meats and GMO labelling. Veggie Libel Laws make it against the law to criticize the food industry’s foods. In Colorado, you can actually go to prison for it. The Cheeseburger bills makes it incredibly hard for consumers to sue food producers for enabling obesity. The FDA and the USDA have such a convoluted division of responsibilities yet do not actually have the power to recall food products. The list goes on, but flies under the radar. Consumer Reports released an article focusing on what goes into feeding the meats we eat. Chicken can be fed processed feathers, feces, meat and bone. Downer cows—cows too sick and diseased to be sold for meat—are regularly fed to chicken, fish and other cows. Farmed salmon are fed concentrated fish meal and fish oil. It doesn’t take an expert to say that this sounds ridiculous. Why is nobody stopping this practice? Why do we never hear about this on our regular news outlets?

All this is enabled by the practice of regulatory capture. Many FDA and USDA officials were former employees of these big food companies that the organization regulates. Monsanto’s former executive, Michael R. Taylor is Commissioner of the FDA. Margaret Miller was a chemical laboratory supervisor at Monsanto but her job in the FDA now involves approving reports like those she wrote. This conflict of interest has resulted in heavy subsidies on the fast food industries that feed the big meat and corn industries. A meal at MacDonald’s isn’t actually cheaper to the consumer than a healthy, home cooked meal. It is heavily subsidized to make it appear so. Policies subsidize the ingredients, the factories and even the workers who put together these cheap burgers. Over half of all fast food workers are enrolled in one or more public assistance programs, getting 7 billion dollars of aid. This enables fast food companies to pay minimum wage, which further subsidizes their costs. As these atrocities pile up, it creates the illusion that unhealthy fast food is cheaper, tastier and, by far, more desirable than healthy food; this creates a conundrum for the poor whose financial strains denies them the power of choice.

The individual consumer can, of course, influence this. This is where the business oriented system works in the customer’s favor. If there is a demand, there will be a supply. The prevalence of organic food is an example of this. Big companies such as Walmart and Wegmans started looking into organic options when consumers started to grow interested in organic foods. Marketed for their health value due to not utilizing chemical pesticides, organic food became popular with consumers seeking a healthier option after several prolific health scares. With increased demand, organic farmers were able to expand both their business and product line. Nowadays, most supermarkets have an organic section and the selection of organic foods are ever expanding. The same applies to safe food. We can choose to buy free-range eggs and pasture-fed beef. Every time we purchase, we are voting. It is our choice to vote for safety and transparency or blissful ignorance.

But of course, governmental policies are making it very hard to choose, even for those who have a choice. The choice is even harder, and sometimes impossible, for those who don’t. For those less well off, the choice between a cheap burger and a far more expensive healthy meal is made for them, whether they prefer the burger or not. This goes back to the idea of the $1 Big Mac. The poor go for the cheap calories. This produces the illusion of demand and feeds the industries. In turn, the companies produce more supply, resulting in a vicious cycle. Our policies does little to alleviate this and instead, most of them support this trend. It is not enough to educate the public if we are barraged by attempts to un-educate, attempts enabled by the very organizations that are supposed to protect us. Eating better needs to start from the policies, or even by ensuring that food safety laws are really ensuring only that.

Pierce Noonan

Prof. Amy Barone

WRT205

Unit 1 Blog Article

The Truth Behind Food Saftey

The way we eat has changed more over the past 50 years than the previous 10,000 years before that. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It is a great representation of the idea on how much change our generation has accomplished. However, when we have a food system that is being brought up with topics like federal oversight, E. coli breakouts, and even abusing and bullying local farmers and seed planters; there is definitely still room for improvement. Our food system is being blamed for lying to the consumers about the truth behind the production of food and exactly how safe these products on our shelves of a food market are. The major companies in our food system are abusive to smaller workers to an extent that it needs to be contained. Federal oversight to the point where the consumer is hurt by food borne illnesses is a major problem and there must be an answer to this issue.

There are food industries and producers that oversee consumer health in exchange for high production rates and vast money income. Federal oversight is a problem that occurs when it comes to the production of food. There have been numerous documentaries, articles, blogs, and other pieces of writing that try to state the overall issue of federal oversight. In one of the highest viewed documentaries ever, Food Inc., producer Robert Kenner said, “The industry doesn’t want you to know exactly what you are eating.” This is because what we are actually putting into our system is much different than what it tastes like. From a Consumer Reports article, “You Are What They Eat;” the title says it all. We are eating what the animals ate in the past and this is not always a good thing. From this article, it is spoken that “Cattle and chickens are still given plant-based feed: Corn and soybean meal make up 70 percent to 90 percent of most commercial animal feed. But the remaining 10 percent to 30 percent of feed can differ radically from what cows and poultry would eat in their natural habitat.” That 10 percent to 30 percent could harm the animals and then that means it is likely to harm the consumer as well. Furthermore, “The government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog, has called the US Food and Drug Administration’s data on inspections of animal-feed producers “severely flawed.” When the FDA is being called out for flawed inspections, then what else is there to protect the consumers?

Not only does the government and food industries neglect their flawed work, but consumers are being punished with food borne illnesses, like E. coli. E. coli is a bacteria that forms from fecal matter and is proven to be harmful and in some cases fatal. From Food Inc., expert Barbara Kowalcyk lost her 2 and half year old son to this deadly disease. This is a loss of life because of the lack of moral and sustainability in the food system. Along with the loss of life to her son Kevin, E. coli breakouts across the US have been sprouting including the most recent Chipotle Mexican food chain incident. According to the FDA website, “The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) along with state and local officials are investigating two separate outbreaks of E. coli O26 infections that have been linked to food served at Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants in several states.” According to this credible website, as of January 27, 2016, the CDC reported a total of 55 infected people with 21 reported hospitalizations within these states. This along with all of the small cases of other food borne illnesses that aren’t reported are a major issue. How can we eat something if we are not 100 percent sure it is healthy enough to make it through the night without having to call a doctor? E. coli merits extra attention because it shows how well the food system and society changes and how to provide new opportunities for the spreading of disease through food. From an article by Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, “Resisting Food Safety,” “E. coli infections originate from farm animals, and such animals increasingly harbor this variant.” Running back to the original topic of federal oversight; where the food is produced is where the problem holds and turning the other way from such conflicts results in lack of trust in the food production process, especially sometimes resulting in the worst case, loss of life.

Not only does this disease erect at the hands of the producers watch, the ingredients farmers give their animals are creating other issues as well. From the Consumer Reports article, mad-cow disease is brought up and it is explained that such an illness is transferred up the food chain. From this article, a protein known as a prion, “can be malformed and infect cud-chewing animals with mad cow disease.” This illness is spread throughout the community it lives in and eventually infects other organisms beyond that ecosystem. Even in an article, “Organic Illusions,” by a Missouri farmer and frequent contributor to The American, Blake Hurst, he argues the effects of organic against conventional styles of farming. It is stated that, “organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in e. coli.” No matter how you make food or treat it, there are chances of e. coli. However, food borne illness is a problem that effects the consumer because producers and whoever is in charge do not commit to the responsibility of providing healthy food products.

In most cases, farmers farm for bigger companies and they are doing what their contract tells them to do. For example, an expert chicken farmer, Carol Morison, had her contract terminated by a bigger company because she wouldn’t upgrade to the closed window ventilation housing. She was one of the only people that admitted, on Food Inc., that what farming has become shouldn’t be called farming anymore, rather an assembly line. It is a problem that the people like Barbara Kowalcyk, who lost her son to a disease that came from a food that got passed by inspection, can’t even tell a documentary analyst what she ate and why because she was afraid of being sued by the food agency. Not only is federal oversight a major problem, but the way the food agency is protected by themselves is also a major problem.

Abuse is a word that is used in just about any category, you name it. Child abuse, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, verbal abuse, and even food abuse. Small time farmers are being abused and treated maliciously. From Food Inc., a seed farmer laughed when he was asked the question, “What happens if a farmer saves the seeds?” He then answered, “There is only one company that does this now and that is Monsanto.” Then, he explains that Monsanto will investigate anyone who tried to save seed. Another seed cleaner Moe Parr was brought to trial after Monsanto had set up an investigation into him and other local seed cleaners. Moe Parr said, “What scared me the most…” and then explained that Monsanto had records of every call, text, and credit card purchase he has made. Moe Parr had to settle with Monsanto because he could no longer pay the bills. Moe Parr was bullied by Monsanto and he is definitely not the only one to ever have been. The almost monopolized company of Monsanto, is not even worried about the government or other industries on stopping them because of the amount of income and power they indeed control.

There are so many questions that can be asked about what is being done to prevent the bad habits of our food system. How much can we, the consumers, do to make a change? Well we can only do as much as we are allowed to. The food system may have changed extremely, however it is in need of an even bigger change. Many people like Robert Kenner, producer of Food Inc., and Marion Nestle, nutrition specialist and writer of “Resisting Food Safety,” are announcing the truth and are fighting to make a difference in our food society. Others like Consumer Reports’, “You Are What They Eat,” and Blake Hurst’s, “Organic Illusions,” are arguing to inform the reader and let the world know exactly what is at steak(stake) when it comes to the food that we eat every single day.

 

Reflection Questions

Unit I / 10%

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

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

The writer’s project is the idea the writer wants to project to the reader. The project of a text is what the reader is objected to find out and is the idea behind the entire writing. A text that helped me understand what the writer’s project should be was Joseph Harris’ “Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts.” Joseph Harris explains in a professional point of view that, “A project is usually something far more complex than a main idea, since it refers not to a single concept but to a plan of work, to a set of ideas and questions that a writer ‘throws forward’” (Page 17). To identify a texts project, you must simply figure out what it is the writer wants the reader to think about the text. For this Unit 1 blog article, I was able to identify the texts’ project by first understanding the assignment. My project for my blog was intended to be telling the reader the actual truth about the food society. Telling the reading all about federal oversight along with the effects of it including food borne illnesses.

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

The sorting it our workshop was very helpful for the completion of this blog. My most beneficial section was definitely section E. Getting a group of words about each passage and seeing which articles go together well and support each other was very helpful on linking references. Also the source direct passage section was helpful for going between the articles and maintaining a strong detailed paragraph.

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

Synthesizing a text does not just mean summarizing it, however it is similar. Synthesizing a text means combining ideas and allowing an evolving understanding of the text itself rather than just stating the important points of a text. Synthesizing is important because while you are indeed summarizing the text, you are combining and proving the facts at the same time. Combining two different passages from two completely different texts, however still getting the point across to the reader is a very good skill for writers. I synthesized in my sorting it out workshop a lot along with the drafts and final piece. I combined the ideas of 3 different writers’ blogs to correlate into one idea (Federal Oversight or Food borne illnesses.)

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

Personally for me I believe during this unit I achieved a lot. One big and important accomplishment that I think is because of Amy is speaking out in front of a class without being nervous or embarrassed. I am not a very loud person and public speaking is one of my least favorite things to do. Also, writing wise, I believe I have a better understanding on writing blogs or articles in general. Usually most of my papers in the past have been essays where i would not need all of the tools I used in this unit. Synthesizing, along with creating good leads were also two accomplishments I had.

• Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution?

The main idea of my blog for my paper really did not change much. From the first draft to the last I kept the same approach on writing the article. My main idea was federal oversight and the food borne illness we receive as the consumers. In my intro I state that pretty clearly and it was the basic structure for my entire piece. I began without an introduction and then produced an intro and closing at my final draft.

• 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.

While writing this blog article, organizational strategies were implied. I created a ‘sorting it out’ workshop to help me synthesize my article by combining multiple passages from multiple articles. I created drafts along with writing responses to blackboard about class activities which ended up helping a lot in the creation of this blog article. For example, the “thoughts on Nestle” discussion helped me get a better understanding of the article by Nestle. This along with the Kanye West writers project, which also helped by giving me a better understanding on how to synthesize an article with a song. Organizing this article was pretty simple with everything I was given to help me. Without these, my article would be all over the place and I would not have been as successful.

• 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.

In my final draft I synthesized texts multiple times. In the second body paragraph I began talking about food borne illnesses and the effect federal oversight has on the consumer. I combined the works of Food Inc. along with “Resisting Food Safety” by Nestle and my own article from the FDA website. I talk about how a little boy was killed because of food borne illnesses and I then linked that idea to the recent outbreak of the chipotle Mexican restaurant e. coli scandal along with some information on e. coli from the Nestle article. I tried to involve as many articles as I could with as much information and combinations and this was definitely one of the trickier parts to this piece of writing.

• 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?

At first I had no idea what to use as my lead. So I decided to go with a fun fact if you would say about the evolution of our food system and it ended up working out for me. After thinking of the lead, which I got from Food Inc., I decided to run with it and my article ended up becoming more and more complete and organized. I got good feedback from my peer advisor on my article about my lead and that was a major reason why it ended up staying. Along with the fact that it is perfect for my project as well, I thought this was one of my stronger areas.

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

I would like to figure out how to incorporate better vocabulary along with different ways to keep the reader interested. I do not know a lot of tricks about writing in general and I would enjoy writing a lot more if I could read a piece I have written and say wow did I really write this it is really good! I read other students drafts and say wow, solid writing and then I read mine and I think the professor will not enjoy mine as much as others. Other than that idea, I would like to become a better reviser, meaning I want to be able to edit my paper with authority and believe in my changes to a draft. Sometimes I do not want to change too much to an article, maybe I am just lazy or I am afraid I will put a dent in my paper.

 

When we think of food what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Is it how well it’ll taste once we cook it? Maybe if you sauté it the juices will be more vibrant and ready to be served for dinner? Or are you more concerned with the quality and nutrition of your food?

Whether an experienced foodie or a newcomer to the ways of the food world these are all questions you’ll most likely have at some point while dining. Yet do we as consumers of all of these delicacies ever truly wonder what it is that we’re eating, where did it come from, who do we have to thank for the steak or lettuce on our plate?

Knowledge is power; it can build something up or tear something down. So maybe it’s time to stop believing everyone has your best interests in hand and to start taking action on what you believe is best for you. You are not just an average citizen but the person who buys the meat, the vegetables, the person who keeps the system afloat, the consumer and ruler of how our world should work.

The food industry has been on the burn for many years but it was only but until the past 10 years that we’ve seen a cry for awareness. There is a silent battle going on behind the supermarket lines and it’s time for the rest of America to know what’s going on. Documentaries such as Food Inc. have been filmed to show us the “nitty gritty” of the food industry, its ups and downs but mainly its downs. Whether it is the skyrocketing increase in diabetes within this country or how our economic status influences the quality of our food.

“I’m always struck by how successful we have been at hitting the bull’s-eye of the wrong target. I mean we have learned- for example, in cattle we have learned how to plant, fertilize and harvest corn using global positioning satellite technology, and nobody sits back and asks, “But should we be feeding cows corn?” We’ve become a culture of technicians. We’re all into the how of it and nobody’s stepping back and saying “But why?” – Joel Salatin (Food Inc.)

The documentary never shy’s away at showing us the grotesque and the stats behind conventional farming. There is also the abuse towards animals and the conditions in which they are thrown. The fact that we feed cows corn feed, knowing fully well that their bodies were not built for it just goes to show where we stand in the tide that is the food industry. Of course this is just one of many outlets that have reported about the food industry and it’s tricks of the trade. From an article about food safety and government regulation by Nestle to Consumer Reports tackling the meat industry in their article titled “You are what they eat”. There is a plethora of information and arguments when it comes to the double-edged sword that is our food industry. So where should you as a consumer stand amongst all of this chaos? Where do you begin your journey to educate yourself on what goes into your food and what expectations are reasonable and which ones aren’t?

The bigger companies that claim they run the food business in the best manner to the local farmers who would have you boycott these systems in lieu to their suffering and their animals suffering, there is no real right or wrong. There is only change. Our system needs to change but maybe not in the way  big bill industries would like, nor how the FDA would have it regulated. The same way we value teaching history to our children and value debating in college settings is the same way we should value educating ourselves in what goes on with the food we eat. What’s meant to go in our bodies and what doesn’t as the title of consumer reports article suggests “You are what they eat” but can’t we also say “We are what we think?” It took me all but a few seconds to plug in “chicken antibiotics” into a search engine and I got a plethora of information.

A website called www.nationalchickencouncil.org was one of many that caught my eye. It not only gives you information on chickens but also what certain food jargon means, such as antibiotic free compared to raised without antibiotics. It also contains many stats and surveys that convey where consumers stand when it comes to purchasing and consuming chicken. (As recent as of 2014.) So if people are willing to eat chicken more than ever as the consumer surveys suggest. Why is it that the idea of antibiotics not tackled more frequently? This is just one of many issues we as consumers seem to look the other way for. Ask yourself why that may be.

 

“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” –Consumer Reports

Ranging from issues with animal feed to antibiotics being fed to our chickens. Consumer Reports brings up many of the same issues Food Inc. does, however they cite many studies and also corporation’s (such as the FDA and CDC) own statistics to back up the claims they make on how we as a people deserve to know what goes into our food and we deserve to have a say in that process as well.

 “Whether this assertion is true is a matter of some debate. Safety is relative. The most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of foodborne disease in the United States defies belief: 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, 5,000 deaths.” – Resisting Food Safety (Nestle)

Nestle chimes in with the numbers and political agenda that have plagued the food industry. There is a blatant problem with how the system works and the government knows it. Resisting Food Safety takes what Consumer Reports is trying to do (Educate the people.) and adds on what I’d call a wake up punch to the gut.

“Most of us do not worry much about the possibility that foods in our supermarkets might be contaminated and dangerous, and we act on the basis of what Nicols Fox calls the “unspoken contact” among food producers, government regulators, and the public to ensure that food is safe.” – (Nestle)

So maybe it’s not just the government who blatantly disregards the holes in the system but maybe it’s also our lack of knowledge and denial that the system needs changing. The information is there for the “harvesting”. We as day-to-day consumers need to stand up, make a stance, educate ourselves, and advocate for the changes our system needs! Whether you take a stance on how antibiotics are used, the treatments of crops, or even just the political pool of the industry; you have a voice and you should use it, just like Nestle, the people involved in Food Inc. and Consumer reports! Be a part of a needed revolution! You are what you eat; you are what you think, from the food on your plate to the laws of each state.

 

 

References:

 

• Food, Inc. Movie One, 2008.

 

• Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: U of California, 2010. Print.

 

• “Consumer Reports Online.” Consumer Reports Online. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

 

• “Home – The National Chicken Council.” The National Chicken Council. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.

 

 

Reflection Questions

Christopher Rivera

Unit I / 10%

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

1. Describe your understanding of the “writer’s project”? How were you able to identify the texts’ “project”? Discuss your own “project” as it pertains to this particular blog article. The writer’s project incorporates a topic they’re talking about, why they are talking about said topic, and their main reasoning/opinion about said topic. I was able to look at the various texts we read in class and identified the projects by looking for where major facts were situated and what the writer’s thoughts on these facts were. My project was to use the sources and facts we came across in class and my own research to try and influence people into educating themselves more on what’s really going on in the food industry.
2. Describe your completion of the “Sorting it Out” workshop? What sections were most beneficial to the development of your ideas—and why? Discuss how this workshop assisted in development of draft and/or assignment organization? Working with brainstorming really helped. Also summarizing the main argument of each source also helped me condense my writing so I could hone in on the exact bits of the articles I was using.
3. Describe your understanding of synthesis. What is its importance? How did it manifest within your drafts and/or final blog article? Provide examples. Synthesis in my understanding is when the sources you have work well and build off one another. An example of this that I used in my final blog articles would be the connection of foodborne illness and how they are our rather aren’t addressed as they should (Nestle/Consumer Reports.)
4. Describe your own accomplishment (ofsomething) during this unit. I accomplished the ability to condense what I want to argue in fewer words than I’d usually do. As an ETS major we learn to give us much details as possible but this assignment required the opposite of that so it was a bit of a struggle. I overcame it though.
5. Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution? My main idea started off as mere rant about how people don’t educate themselves enough when it comes to food safety. As I incorporated my sources into my post I then realized I had the opportunity to maybe influence or even educate those reading my blog post. So although still at heart a sarcastic rant about how people are biased and in denial my post became more educational and argumentative as well. This came a long due to my use of synthesis with my sources.
6. Discuss what organizational strategies you implemented in order to structure this blog article. Provide examples from a section(s) of an earlier draft and other excerpts in later drafts to support your response. Going off of my response to question 5, I really used my sources to coincide with one another so they could build off each other and make the argument of the post stronger than if I were to have just used my own opinion or only one source.
7.  Provide an example of the final draft where you successfully synthesize 3 texts in a concise and direct manner. Discuss how this evolved throughout the drafting process for you. I successfully synthesize Food inc, consumer reports, and Nestle by the end of the blog post. After discussing each source on it’s own I used all of their main points and joined them together to push the idea of educating yourself about the industry further. It even helped me along the lines of my conclusion as well.
8. Discuss the evolution of the ‘lede’ in earlier drafts and its final version (provide examples of each): where did you begin, what feedback did you receive, and how did it end up in final blog article? At first I wanted to be funny or even sarcastic with my lede to catch the readers attention but then I thought, maybe I should structure my lede like the intro to a cooking show. Whenever you’re changing the channel on tv sometimes those intros catch your eye and you end up watching someone cook for 30 minutes. I thought I could do the same but for my blog post. Victoria thought it was a great idea compared to my draft I shared with her in class.
9.  Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects. I’d like to really hone in on being able to condense more and also be more precise. I felt at times my ideas exploded and flew all over the place and I deleted a lot of my content to get back into the fray of things. I need to work on that.

 

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

Who is on our side?

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

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

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

The food dispute

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

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

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

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

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

The Government and our Food

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

According to Consumer Reports many investigations “[Raise] concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” Nestle shares the opinion, stating that “We will see that food-borne illness is more than a biological problem; it is strongly affected by the interests of stakeholders in the food system – the food industry, government (agencies, Congress, and the White House), and consumers.”

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

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

Pierce Noonan

Prof. Amy Barone

WRT205

1400 word draft

The way we eat has changed more over the past 50 years than the previous 10,000 years before that. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It is a great representation of the idea on how much change our generation has accomplished. However, when we have a food system that is being brought up with topics like federal oversight, E. coli breakouts, and even abusing and bullying local farmers and seed planters; there is definitely still room for improvement. Our food system is being blamed for lying to the consumers about the truth behind the production of food and exactly how safe these products on our shelves of a food market are. The major companies in our food system are abusive to smaller workers to an extent that it needs to be contained. Federal oversight to the point where the consumer is hurt by food borne illnesses is a major problem and there must be an answer to this issue.

There are food industries and producers that oversee consumer health in exchange for high production rates and vast money income. Federal oversight is a problem that occurs when it comes to the production of food. There have been numerous documentaries, articles, blogs, and other pieces of writing that try to state the overall issue of federal oversight. In one of the highest viewed documentaries ever, Food Inc., producer Robert Kenner said, “The industry doesn’t want you to know exactly what you are eating.” This is because what we are actually putting into our system is much different than what it tastes like. From a Consumer Reports article, “You Are What They Eat;” the title says it all. We are eating what the animals ate in the past and this is not always a good thing. From this article, it is spoken that “Cattle and chickens are still given plant-based feed: Corn and soybean meal make up 70 percent to 90 percent of most commercial animal feed. But the remaining 10 percent to 30 percent of feed can differ radically from what cows and poultry would eat in their natural habitat.” That 10 percent to 30 percent could harm the animals and then that means it is likely to harm the consumer as well. Furthermore, “The government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog, has called the US Food and Drug Administration’s data on inspections of animal-feed producers “severely flawed.” When the FDA is being called out for flawed inspections, then what else is there to protect the consumers?

Not only does the government and food industries neglect their flawed work, but consumers are being punished with food borne illnesses like E. coli. E. coli is a bacteria that forms from fecal matter and is proven to be harmful and in some cases fatal. From Food Inc., expert Barbara Kowalcyk lost her 2 and half year old son to this deadly disease. This is a loss of life because of the lack of moral and sustainability in the food system. Along with the loss of life to her son Kevin, E. coli breakouts across the US have been sprouting including the most recent Chipotle Mexican food chain incident. According to the FDA website, “The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) along with state and local officials are investigating two separate outbreaks of E. coli O26 infections that have been linked to food served at Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants in several states.” According to this credible website, as of January 27, 2016, the CDC reported a total of 55 infected people with 21 reported hospitalizations within these states. This along with all of the small cases of other food borne illnesses that aren’t reported are a major issue. How can we eat something if we are not 100 percent sure it is healthy enough to make it through the night without having to call a doctor? E. coli merits extra attention because it shows how well the food system and society changes and how to provide new opportunities for the spreading of disease through food. From an article by Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, “Resisting Food Safety,” “E. coli infections originate from farm animals, and such animals increasingly harbor this variant.” Running back to the original topic of federal oversight; where the food is produced is where the problem holds and turning the other way from such conflicts results in lack of trust in the food production process, especially sometimes resulting in the worst case, loss of life.

Not only does this disease erect at the hands of the producers watch, the ingredients farmers give their animals are creating other issues as well. From the Consumer Reports article, mad-cow disease is brought up and it is explained that such an illness is transferred up the food chain. From this article, a protein known as a prion, “can be malformed and infect cud-chewing animals with mad cow disease.” This illness is spread throughout the community it lives in and eventually infects other organisms beyond that ecosystem. Even in an article, “Organic Illusions,” by a Missouri farmer and frequent contributor to The American, Blake Hurst, he argues the effects of organic against conventional styles of farming. It is stated that, “organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in e. coli.” No matter how you make food or treat it, there are chances of e. coli. However, food borne illness is a problem that effects the consumer because producers and whoever is in charge do not commit to the responsibility of providing healthy food products.

In most cases, farmers farm for bigger companies and they are doing what their contract tells them to do. For example, an expert chicken farmer, Carol Morison, had her contract terminated by a bigger company because she wouldn’t upgrade to the closed window ventilation housing. She was one of the only people that admitted, on Food Inc., that what farming has become shouldn’t be called farming anymore, rather an assembly line. It is a problem that the people like Barbara Kowalcyk, who lost her son to a disease that came from a food that got passed by inspection, can’t even tell a documentary analyst what she ate and why because she was afraid of being sued by the food agency. Not only is federal oversight a major problem, but the way the food agency is protected by themselves is also a major problem.

Abuse is a word that is used in just about any category, you name it. Child abuse, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, verbal abuse, and even food abuse. Small time farmers are being abused and treated maliciously. From Food Inc., a seed farmer laughed when he was asked the question, “What happens if a farmer saves the seeds?” He then answered, “There is only one company that does this now and that is Monsanto.” Then, he explains that Monsanto will investigate anyone who tried to save seed. Another seed cleaner Moe Parr was brought to trial after Monsanto had set up an investigation into him and other local seed cleaners. Moe Parr said, “What scared me the most…” and then explained that Monsanto had records of every call, text, and credit card purchase he has made. Moe Parr had to settle with Monsanto because he could no longer pay the bills. Moe Parr was bullied by Monsanto and he is definitely not the only one to ever have been. The almost monopolized company of Monsanto, is not even worried about the government or other industries on stopping them because of the amount of income and power they indeed control.

There are so many questions that can be asked about what is being done to prevent the bad habits of our food system. How much can we, the consumers, do to make a change? Well we can only do as much as we are allowed to. The food system may have changed extremely, however it is in need of an even bigger change. Many people like Robert Kenner, producer of Food Inc., and Marion Nestle, nutrition specialist and writer of “Resisting Food Safety,” are announcing the truth and are fighting to make a difference in our food society. Others like Consumer Reports’, “You Are What They Eat,” and Blake Hurst’s, “Organic Illusions,” are arguing to inform the reader and let the world know exactly what is at steak(stake) when it comes to the food that we eat every single day.

“The Food and Drug Administration will conduct fewer food safety inspections this year because of the government sequester. The loss of $209 million from its budget will force the agency to conduct about 2,100 fewer inspections.” – Liz Szabo

While we would think government agencies has it in their best interest to protect us, consumers, humans and animals in what we eat; it is evident that this is not the case due to outdated policy and the overlooks in our food system. Although agencies such as the FDA and USDA have a set of jurisdictions, they do exercise their authority in situations that matter the most. A huge flaw within the system starts Congress, and their continued lack of enthusiasm when it comes to inspecting our foods.

This is a topic that concerns all consumers in the United States. We often overlook even such issues because we place our trust in the government and believe that they serve in our best interest because after all we did elect these officials. This article will take you behind the scenes of the food industry and the United States’ government oversight and outdated policy on the topic of food safety.

According to Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at NYU, prior to the late 1800’s, the U.S government took no responsibility for food safety. They were forced to do so by public demands that sparked from journalists frequent visits to slaughterhouses who shared their experiences. This outraged caused Congress to pass a Meat Inspection Act in 1890 that authorized inspection of salt pork, bacon, and pigs intended for export. A drastic blow to the food industry and the government came in 1906 when Upton Sinclair published his expose in the meat industry, specifically the Chicago stockyards. Following the confirmation of these alligations proposed by Sinclair, Congress immediately passed two separate pieces of legislation: the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, both in 1906. Interesting how secret investigations have to be done and publicized to force our government to want to get its act together isn’t it? This is only the start of the problem.

The Food and Drug Administration formed in 1906, the same year Sinclair released his expose, is a federal agency responsible for protecting public health by assuring safety and security of human and animal drugs, biological products, medical services, OUR NATION’S FOOD SUPPLY (this includes food additives), cosmetics and products that admit radiation. I cant help but question whether the founding of the FDA was an act of concern for citizens of the United States or a play to distract citizens from the actual problems that lie within the government. Consumer Reports article, “You are what they eat,” does not hold back and immediately claims that the “federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply.” I agree 100%. The main concern of the United States government is the military, more the half of the country’s budget is dedicated to military spending. They even assert that some regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection. The article informs us that the FDA delegated much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70% of feed-company and renderer inspections. This means that the FDA hands over its responsibility to assure not only our safety but animal safety over to state legislatures. We might think since state legislatures are local when compared to Congress, they would go the extra mile to protect the people, wrong. Many elected government officials are endorsed by these same dictators within the food industry and sadly, local state legislatures are just as correct as the government. Money is a major deciding factor in all business, executive, and even political decisions. While 70 to 90% of cattle and chicken feed is plant based: corn and soybean meal, the remaining 10 to 30% remains questionable. Processed feathers and poultry litter are acceptable sources of protein in cattle feed according to the FDA (yuck). Farmed fish may be given rendered meat, bone and feather meal. The ultimate goal is to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible. Also included in feed are medications given routinely to animals even the healthy ones in order to boost growth and minimize infections. Nestle also takes a stance on mediciations, specifically antibitoics. Antibiotics are chemicals that prevent bacteria from reproducing, when added to animal food or water they tend to grow faster and need less feed. Antibiotic-resistant baateria survives and multiplies causing potential health problems for our animals. The FDA did not always lack in their field, In 1977, they proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed but were overruled by Congress under pressure received from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and makers of the drug.  How much power does Congress hold if they are being manipulated into allowing potential harm into human bodies? One might think the solution to antibiotics is to go organic, but what does it really mean for foods to be “organic”?

In his piece, “Organic Illusions,” Blake Hurst, Missouri Farm Bureau’s Board of Directors President, acknowledges the organic process. According to a Stanford study organic foods were less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, while organic foods were higher in E.Coli. E.Coli is able to accept genes from related bacterial species to form “stable variants” that can pass the borrowed genes along to other bacteria as they divide and multitply. The E. Coli variant known as O157:H7 is especially dangerous, it picks up Shigella gene for a toxin that destroys  red blood cells and includes a syndrome of bloddy diarrhea, kidney failure, and death (Marian Nestle, “Resisting Food Safety, 41). Would you rather risk getting E. Coli, which could ultimately end in death or condone the use of toxins use to kill things such as E. Coli? He questions whether the organic food consumer’s purchase is actually organic because there is no testing done to check. He argues organic foods are labeled organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures.Yet again, here is evidence of government (FDA) oversight where they trust that producers are honest when they say that their foods are organic because of procedures that were followed. Who is to say if these foods are honestly organic? How will consumers know if these producers are telling them the truth or robbing them for their buck? Why should consumers trust producers if they cant even trust their government who took no responsibility for food safety until the last 1800’s?

Nestle argues that by switching to hay there is a 1% chance of an E. Coli presence, which is more appealing to the health on consumer. Meat producers are not likely to favor these approaches because they are concerned about putting the maximum weight on their animals, and drug producers are still concerned with selling antibiotics to meat producers. One may ask why the FDA has no stepped in and demanded producers to take precautionary measures? I’ll tell you why, because $209 million of teh FDA’s bughet was cut and took effect on March 1st, 2013 as part of automatic budget cuts. The blame no shifts immediately back to high up government officials who were responsible for these budget cuts.  Consumer reports argues that animals being raised and fed organic feed would be safer for our food supply in some ways, but there is no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden variety bacteria including salmonella. The alternatives are presented, it is just a matter of producers being willing to accept them. No matter what stand point we view it from, there is no way out of this dark hole we call the food industry. They are backed by government officials and basically have the power to walk over everyone including us. As consumers we never know what we are really eating, we fall into the trap of advertisement, which makes us want to go out and buy these foods. Some of us are restricted by prices and cannot afford to buy the highest quality products and we all know the story behind low quality foods. Many choose to go organic but how would they be able to prove or test this?

Should the FDA consider a new proposal for the restriction of animal feed? Or on a simplier note, is the FDA worthy of our trust? 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations. They only conduct 5,000 inspections annually, visited less than 2% ofthe places under their jurisdiction and inspected less than 1%  of imported foods prior to 2001. (hyper link sources, the first time you talk about it you must source it)