Pollan, Michael. (2006)
The Omnivore's Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals
Michael Pollan's article "The Omnivore's Dilemma," examines how farming, and eating habits and lifestyles have changed through the production of processed foods. There was once a time when producers and consumers cared about eating healthy, but the food industry has changed the view and diet of how Americans eat. The article observes what we actually should be eating for dinner instead of corn and soybeans. Pollan examines that the answer is simplistic, yet hard to discover because of the multiple food choices consumers are offered. Pollan explains the impact that corn has had on the production of our food. He discovers it is difficult for consumers to understand the origin of food because of the many states it goes through to be processed. Pollan also reminds us that the production of corn has led to pollution, killing both animal and plant life and eliminating our healthy food supply.
Pollan, Michael. (2006) The Omnivore's Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals
0 Comments
Author Martin Hintz and Pam Percy, discuss whether organic or nonorganic food is the answer to a proper diet.The authors discuss what makes a food organic and what does not.
They point out that, "products can only be labeled "100% organic" if they are completely organic or made of all organic ingredients." If a label says that a product is "organic," it means the product is made up of at least 95% of natural ingredients. If a label states, "Made with organic ingredients," it means that at least 70% of the ingredients are natural in the product. The authors continue on to inform readers that a company may state in its ingredients, "made with organic ____," but that does not mean the entire food product is organic. The authors urge readers that it is also important to look into meat and egg labels. In the end of the article, the authors give us a list of fruits and vegetables that consumers should be aware of because of the amount of pesticides retained. "Beware the Foods You Eat" Thin skinned fruits/veggies such as strawberries, bell peppers, apples, and green beans. See the complete list on the website at The Organic Debate. Authors: Martin Hintz. Pam Percy. The Organic Debate. GM Today. Milwaukee's Lifestyle Magazine. May 2010 The author examines the history and rhetoric of the Slow Food movement, relating it to protests against globalization.
Stephen Schneider (2008) Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of the Slow Food Movement. Summary:
The movie Food Inc. brought some insightful views to me about the food industry. The film documented how slaughterhouses produce mass quantities of meat to feed our nation. It observed how chemicals and antibiotics are injected into animals to make them grow quicker so that more can be produced faster. The video also pointed out that animals such as cows and chickens are fed corn instead of grass because it is cheaper and makes the animals fat faster. Through the documentary, unsanitary living conditions were observed and the abuse of slaughterhouse workers was revealed. The film also interviewed farmers who had been forced to buy seed from Monsanto instead of cleaning their own seed. Also highlighted in the film was a mother who had lost her son to E-Coli, in which he received from a hamburger. Robert Kenner - Producer, Director Eric Scholsser - Producer (2009) My View: One thing I found most disturbing is how workers and animals are mistreated in slaughterhouses. I am blown away to learn that the FDA and managers/owners of slaughterhouses do not show more concern for the cleanliness and health of the animals and workers. Who cares if your dinner is standing in manure until it's ready for slicing? Who cares if the meat we eat is loaded with antibiotics and chemicals? Who cares if the FDA has decreased its amount of inspections over the years? Who cares if workers have infections and health issues from working in slaughterhouses and on top of it, have no health insurance to get medical attention? Oh, that's right, all of this is no problem because the advertisers, producers, and politicians say everything is fine. Another thing I found interesting is the control that McDonald's (Eww) has on the production of food. McDonald's is the largest consumer of beef, pork, lettuce, chicken, and apples. So as demand of these foods increases at Mc.D's, the more chemical filled and corn raised cows we will eat because companies are trying to make money. Honestly, I do not think this is necessary. I feel that organic grown food and grass fed cows and chickens can feed the world. Have we ever tried it? Not in this age. If everyone owned, produced, and sold their own food, the world would be fine. But will that ever happen? No, and for many reasons that are obvious. Not only that, the government wouldn't allow that. The article, "Fast Food Nation: Why the Fries Taste Good" by Eric Schlosser, provides a lot of factual information about the introduction of frozen french fries and J.R. Simplot. However, I did not find why fries taste good.
After reading this article I am confused to find if frozen french fries are real potatoes or potatoes filled with chemicals? The article states, "Simplot’s chemists experimented with various methods for the mass production of french fries." What does this mean? What did they put in the french fries to make them taste better and cook faster? The article did not say what the chemists did. They only shared with us that Simplot grew and processed his own potatoes. Here are some interesting facts I did find from the article: "Ad campaigns made processed foods seem better than fresh ones, more space-age and up to date." Surprise? "French fries did not become well known in this country until the 1920s. Americans traditionally ate their potatoes boiled, mashed, or baked. Today the typical American eats about forty-nine pounds of fresh potatoes every year—and more than thirty pounds of frozen french fries. Ninety percent of those fries are purchased at fast food restaurants." Summary:
Wendell Berry poses some interesting thoughts in his article "The Pleasures of Eating." Berry urges his readers that they must eat responsibly to live free. Often times, eaters just buy food and believe that vegetables and fruit come from a farm. In regards to eaters, he states, "If they think beyond that, they recognize that they are passive consumers. They buy what they want — or what they have been persuaded to want — within the limits of what they can get. They pay, mostly without protest, what they are charged." The point of Berry's writing is to urge the public to look into where their food is coming from, under what condition it was produced, and what chemicals it may contain. He has found that food industries have fooled consumers to buy prepared food. He also points out that the food industry is not concerned about our health, but only concerned about "volume and price." Berry gives us some guidelines to avoid jeopardizing our health and to wake up to what is going on in the food industry. He tells us to participate in food production by growing our own food, preparing our own meals, buying directly from a local farmer or gardener, learning about food production, and being aware of abused animals or plants. Wendell Berry (1990). North Point Press. My View: I have noticed that I have been part of the population of passive consumers. I never thought much about where my food came from, what was in it, and how it was produced until now. I knew everything I ate would eventually kill me, but never honestly cared to the point where I'd watch everything I ate. However, below observes some of the interesting and maybe a bit off topic things I have thought about while reading Berry's article. Berry states, "The food industrialists have by now persuaded millions of consumers to prefer food that is already prepared." I agree that this has become true in our nation. The industry has fooled us to believe that prepared and chemical contained food is safe, healthy, and QUICK. This nation has given us no choice but to work hard, pay taxes, and busily run around to support our families. Is the food industry trying to help us eat dinner quickly so that we can rush to a soccer game or school play, or are they trying to make more money? Let's think about it --- Berry says, "The consumer, that is to say, must be kept from discovering that, in the food industry — as in any other industry — the overriding concerns are not quality and health, but volume and price." "As scale increases, diversity declines; as diversity declines, so does health; as health declines, the dependence on drugs and chemicals necessarily increases." --- Are the FDA, government, and political parties trying to feed us food that is highly chemically contaminated to make us unhealthy, sick, full of disease so that we can seek doctors and health insurance, just to be given drugs, prescriptions, and vaccines so that politicians in power get more money when we have to take out loans just to pay enormous medical bills to make us healthy? What is really going on in America? Are we so naive to believe that this is okay? Berry provides us some answers on how to eat responsibly. I agree that it is important that we should learn the origins of food, prepare our own food, learn about technology and the economy, and grow our own food --- But oh wait, what happens when Congress passes a bill that states we cannot grow our own food anymore because it is unsafe? How can we buy food from a farmer if he is not allowed to produce organic, home grown, gardened food? Bill H.R 875 and S.510 are possible laws that may make farming illegal. Supposedly this is a "rumor", but only time will tell, unless our nation speaks up against it. Does the information in my videos support the purpose of my assignment?
Did you find any questions that you felt were unnecessary to include? Do I need to get more information from any of my interviewees? Did you find the focus of my project interesting? Is my project clear? I really enjoyed conducting my interviews. I was given the opportunity to listen to experiences non-native speakers encountered. Some of my interviewees struggled to fit in, adapt, or communicate with the American society. Most of my interviewees found their first experience in an English conversation difficult because they did not know all the slang and terminology Americans used. They also simply could not keep up in the fast pace that Americans tend to talk. I also learned how some countries value education while others do not. I found that interviewees appreciated America and the English language. At least two of my interviewees commented on how English is the language of the World.
Something I had difficulty with when conducting my interviews was getting some of my interviewees to understand my question and getting them to talk about it. I had a hard time explaining my questions in depth because I'm not always good at going into detail. Even when I did further explain my questions or ask in different ways, I didn't always gets the answers I wanted. I also found that I wasn't very good at interviewing people. During all my interviews I was extremely nervous. It wasn't until my 3 interview that I felt comfortable with the questions I was asking. After dealing with my first 2 interviews, I found ways to better explain myself and get to the real purpose of my interview. I just needed some practice and a better idea of what I was really trying to accomplish. *Research is based off Non-native speakers of the English language that have lived in another country and now live in America: -It's difficult for non-native speakers to jump into an English conversation even with some background and experience in English. -When Non-natives think, the language the thought is it (native-born tongue or English) varies on the situation. -Non-native English speakers have difficulty in school. |
AuthorElementary Education and Writing Arts Student Archives
December 2010
Categories
All
|