The little piggy dragged to market

The image of killing animals in the article is horrible. To be honest after reading this I do not want to eat any meat. We place the animals in horrible conditions and we slaughter them for our pleasure. Animals just like humans are living creatures and treating them badly is just simply not okay. It is hard to think about how badly the animals are treated and then get pleasure from the their misery. Humans have always eaten animals but now we have the technology to do it properly, there is no need to make the animals feel any excess harm. Animals that are killed to be kosher are actually treated well. I only eat kosher meat but if i didn't and I knew the animals were treated this way I wouldn't eat meat at all. I really think we need to put new restrictions on the way we treat the animals before we kill them. The animals should not feel any pain, it just isn't fair to hurt other living creatures for our enjoyment. We all need to voice our opinion and let the meat industries know that what there doing isn't okay and we wont take no for an answer.

Kosher vs.Non-Kosher

When I spent my year in Israel we had a Jewish butcher come to my school and show us how to do a proper slaughtering. When I say proper I mean in a way that would make the animal Kosher. Now the laws about Kosher food are very strict. The animal must have its throat slit deeply enough that it severs both the trachea and the esophagus, this immediately means that any animal I eat will have been killed in a much more humane way. What I find strange about the piece of work is how the vet doesn't have a post to be at, the same way the inspectors have a post. To me the Kosher system works much better because the person responsible for making sure the animal is killed the correct way is the one who kills it. I think that the system described in the article is a system that is only meant to make the public feel better and not actually change anything.

Should We Eat Animals?

Throughout history, mankind has always had the advantage of being an omnivore. We are able to have a choice of what kind of food we eat whether it is animals or plants. The question is however should we eat animals? My answer to that is yes. Animals have been a large part of our diets for centuries from hunting and gathering societies to today where we domestically raise our livestock. However, after reading "This Little Piggy Dragged to Market" my stance on should we eat animals hasn't changed but rather we should focus on how these animals are killed. This article brings up very good points on the barbaric ways animals are killed today and how there are no steps in place to improve it. Animals are being dragged,chocked, and even have the limbs chopped off with no regard to their suffering. I believe we should have respect for our food and have them humanely slaughtered. However, I believe with proper regulation, we can achieve a balance of humanely slaughtering animals and being able to eat meat with a good conscience.

Little Piggy Dragged to the Market

If asked "should humans eat animals" there's a yes, no and maybe. Those who say yes are the majority of humans which isn't uncommon since it is human nature to have an omnivore nature. As a society, America is always putting meat into the equation. "What would this taste like with this? This would be amazing with bacon bits." It would definitely be a loss without meat in our lives not only because of the savor but because of the proteins and health benefits it gives us. On the other hand, there are those who say no to meat because of either religion or way of life. Those who defend the animals will preach about the "animals rights" and how humans are taking that away from these innocent creature. Personally, I'm in between both case. I love animals to death and am always on top of the cruelty cases but I do love my meat here and there. I'm not obsessed but meat has always been in my culture so depriving myself of meat would be a little odd

"This Little Piggy Dragged to Market"

     One view one might have on whether or not to actually eat animals is that yes, of course. Of course we should animals. How else will you get your daily nutrients? Protein and creatinine from various meats and omega-3's from fish and other underwater life are all necessary nutrients needed to sustain our healthy bodily functions. If you look back in time and research what our ancestors ate, they consumed a hefty amount of meat from hunting animals. Also, us humans have canine teeth, two  in the upper jaw and two in the lower jaw, so we are biologically carnivores and we are made to consume meat. In contrast, another view one might have on whether or not to actually eat animals is no, they have feelings and we should care for them. That animals are just like us. These people say that we should eat more plants as if we are herbivores. These people will also claim that eating plants is healthier and that when one is a vegetarian, they live and skinny life.

The Little Piggy Dragged to Market

From the excerpt itself there is more than just a little piggy being dragged to market. Its cows, sheep, chickens, pigs/hogs and all of them are being slaughtered in an inhumane way. There are some people who just don't eat meat and its for this very reason.Others are vegetarians and are still healthy even without their serving of meat. The meat people buy in the supermarket isn't killed the way it should be. The workers beat, harass, and just terrorize these animals because they're going to be killed anyway, that's why when an inspector tries to stop this its the veterinarians just don't seem to care since they are making money off of this practice. And it happens in nearly, if not all meat processing plants. Just like us, these animals have feelings too, they know when they're going to die and when they are being mistreated. As for the people that do beat and abuse these animals before their demise, they're not doing their jobs they're murderers.

Should humans eat animals?

Some might argue that eating animals is barbaric. After reading the article, “This Little Piggy Dragged to Market” I would agree that we should not eat animals. Animals like humans are living creatures with emotions. Yet, we placed animals in awful conditions and mistreat them. We choose to slaughter these animals for our own selfish reasons. Meat is not a necessity, but a want. Animals have the right to live, just like us. Would you like to be cut up piece by piece while still being alive? I bet not. On the other hand, others might argue that eating animals is completely natural since meat is an essential part of a human's diet. Since the beginning of time people have been eating meat, so why should we stop now? Eating meat provides vast nutrients and it’s delicious. The bottom line is that whether we eat meat or not, we should always treat animals with compassion.  

This Little Piggy Dragged to Market

"Should we eat animals?"
The first response that comes to mind is, "well, obviously, we've always eaten animals, we're omnivores." This is completely understandable, and this opinion is in the majority. Why would anyone give up beautiful things like steak and bacon and burgers? The meat we get from animals is extremely important to our diet, we receive necessities like protein, that we can't get from plants.We're omnivores. We're biologically built to eat plants and meat. Of course, you can take supplements, but that won't be as satisfying as an actual meal. Another opinion that people may have is "no, of course not!" and then list reasons as to why they don't eat meat. Some people are vegetarians for health reasons, or for personal beliefs (from political to religious beliefs). If you look at the bigger picture, the .5% to 10% of Americans that are vegetarians (http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/vegetarianism-in-america/)  are just leaving more meat for others to buy. Bless them for giving up their rights to eat whatever they want so that I can enjoy an extra steak.

During the authors childhood in Henry county, Kentucky he witnessed enormous amount of farming and that is why Henry County was known for its farming. They were small family owned farms which were all taken care of by the families. Everything that was produced was organic without the help of any advanced farming tools. As time went on the author noticed that slowly the people were being replaced by machines. And since some farmers were getting richer and richer others were becoming smaller. The bigger companies were crushing the samll farms which was quoted in the article "And so those who could not get big got out."

-Artur

The Agricultural Crisis as a Crisis of Culture

Farming has not been the same for the past 50 years, technology plays a large role in controling the way foods are produced.  Technology can shorten the length of labor used when farming as well as increase production. Those who have not touched soils in their lives have begun to farm. It's all possible because of technology. There are no longer a limitation of farming for only farmers, businessmen have taken matters in their own hand. Farming has always been passed down from generations after generations, a cycle in which the foods that were grown were free of "poison". Farmers go out of business because of businessmen, how ironic is that? Those who have absolutely no clue how to farm has controlled most of the farms. What will happen to farmers who can't farm? Technology can also hurt the lives of farmers, what use to be something so clean and untainted has become a disturbance for farmers. Farmers no longer control their own farms, businessmen with technology own the farms. As newer technology emerges the less "real"farmers there will be.

The Agricultural Crisis as a Crisis of Culture

The farming culture has changed throughout the years. The farms use to be small where families grew gardens, produced that own meat,milk, and eggs. They weren't forced to produce food and they produced only small amounts. Field work were mostly done by horses and mules. Farmers had lived the lifestyle they want and there was no one to control them or tell them how to farm their farms,plant their plants. In the decades since WWII, farms has changed dramatically. The government has pressured farmers to increase mechanize. Farms and farmers are starting to decrease. Their harvest are depending more and more on the people. Farmers start to worry about the money, producing and consuming wise. Nowadays there aren't any market that pay for minor produces. A few of anything wouldn't satisfy anyone, instead large production is required from these farms. The farming culture has changed a lot in the modern days due to societies demands.

The Agricultural Crisis as a Crisis of Culture

This article talks about the personal experience of the author. During author's boyhood, Henry County was a place where people produce their own meat, milk, eggs, and growing their own farms with a forceful life. But after WW II all things get a change. More and more lands are owned by the speculators and people with technological agriculture. With the highly develop of the farming, the life of the farmers then starts getting more comfort, as Maurice Telleen called "the world's first broad-based hedonism". But, author's point on this high develop farming is not quite positive. He thinks food should be grow in cultural way, and cannot produced with technology. He had relates this to a policy, "Get big or get out". The economic force from the government. He also gives out example of the harm of the scientific agriculture to the nature and the whole universe system. However, the develop of scientific agriculture is continuing.

Agricultural is Crisis as a Crisis of Culture

“Agricultural is Crisis as a Crisis of Culture” is about cultural and social of farming communities.

The author tells us his own personal experience from Henry County, Kentucky. There farmers

need grow a lot of different crops during the growing season, and sell some of these crops for

profit. Unfortunately, many of farming communities are disappearing from across the United State

in few years later but only a few people are continue farming. Farms are becoming increasingly

industrialized and mechanized. The author think the food is a cultural product and can not be

produced by technology. The author also described the relationship between the agriculture and

the environment is very important because an agriculture system can not survive without the

natural system but these natural systems are being damaged by using farming techniques such as

synthetic fertilizers.

Supersize Me

Morgan Spurlock, the filmmaker of Supersize me goes on a "McDiet," meaning he'll only eat McDonalds and nothing else for 30 days straight. He does this to prove that the food McDonald serves is unhealthy and it is one of the main causes for obesity in America. Of course, if you eat fast food for breakfast lunch and dinner then you'll gain a lot of weight. That is what 2 teenage girls did and they became overweight, then they decided to sue because they faced the consequence of their poor decisions. Another topic that was brought up in call was fat shaming. The film showed people on a much heavier side, but how are you so sure that all those people are obese because of fast food? It could be in their genes that they are relatively obese and can't control it. From a political standpoint, not much is being done to at least stop the fast food restaurants because it brings in revenue and that's what all big corps want and why their unhealthy foods are priced are cheap with high calories.

-Navin Persaud

The Documentary Super Size Me by Morgan Spurlock is very interesting. Two girls had the idea of sewing McDonalds because they feel that eating at McDonalds got them fat. I personally think there claim is ridiculous because they wanted to eat at McDonalds so they did. McDonalds is very good at advertising to children. The bottom line is that the people who walk in to McDonalds do so because they want to and opt in to going there. At the beginning of the movie Morgan goes to three different doctors to record his health statues. Morgan is a very healthy man with no physical problems. Morgan goes on a McDonalds diet, three times a day for thirty days the only thing he can eat is McDonalds. He said the first three days were the hardest, he even threw up one of the meals. Another addition to the diet is that any time one of the employees says "do you want this super sized" Morgan must say yes. Morgan wants to see what effects this will have on his body. In class, we watched about half of the movie but Morgan has already gained a significant amount of weight and said to have pains in his chest and gut. Morgan is not feeling or looking as well as he did before the diet started.  I never watched this movie before but i am afraid the worst is yet to come regarding Morgans health. 

Super Size Me

         Super Size Me is a documentary film which depicts an experiment conducted by Morgan Spurlock in which he ate nothing but McDonald's meals on a daily basis for 30 days.  The idea was inspired from a lawsuit back in 90th when 2 teenage girls sued McDonald's for their obesity. Some critiques argued that all what Spurlock did was to restate what people already knew as a fact - "Fast food is bad for you". Personally, I think that if everyone would realize the negative impacts of Fast Food on their well- beings, there would not be 1 out of 4 Americans who decide to eat at McDonald's on a daily basis. In the film, Spurlock tries to show the dangers of Fast Food through a real experiment rather than stating negative nutritional facts from a newspaper or a book about Fast Food which I think would not be very informative to a Fast Food consumer. Although, one of the doctors claims that the human body is extremely adaptable, Spurlock's well-being gets worse and worse throughout the experiment. Nonetheless, Spurlock was able to show that McDonald's do not really care about the unhealthy food they distribute which ultimately leads to diseases such as obesity, but they care mostly about the profit they make out of their products which some people believe are "physiologically addictive and physically harmful".f

Super Size Me

In the Documentary Super Size Me by Morgan Spurlock we see an average American man wanting to try out the very popularized lifestyle of fast food eating Americans. This man Morgan Spurlock as we viewed in the documentary was on quest to find out if eating fast food for 30 days straight all three meals of the day would either effect his weight, his health or worst case scenario kill. What I think the film is depicting about politics is that politics has little to no control over the servings and types of food that these corporations are feeding the public.  From what I understood from the few parts we watched of the documentary was that Morgan was making it known to everyone that fast food companies such has Mc Donalds has a bigger affect on society then politics do. Companies like Mc Donald have a bigger impact and in some ways controls communities more then politics do. As Morgan stated that these fast food companies control many aspects of the peoples lives and the generations that follow. I've seen Mc Donalds control my generations very drastically from luring us in from when we were kids which is a smart idea they came up with because from then own that's all we grow up with memories of Mc Donalds which keeps us coming back. I think what Morgan might prove at the end of the documentary is that these fast food corporations will have/are more of an impact then politics will and if we don't start to improve on a simple task of moderation or politics making requirements to certain foods and ingredients our nation might become the unhealthiest or most obese nation in the world.

Supersize Me

The documentary "Supersize Me," by Morgan Spurloc, a somewhat controversial filmmaker, focuses on obesity in America. Morgan leaves his healthy lifestyle behind, and embarks on a 30 day journey eating nothing but McDonald's. This was inspired by a lawsuit in which two girls that ate nothing but fast food sued McDonald's for their obesity and health issues, claiming that McDonald's was to be held responsible for their weight gain. Spurloc states that the two girls willingly ate at the fast food establishments, and that it was their lifestyle choice to eat that food. We can see Morgans health declining after only a few days into his experiment. He has thrown up, and complained of chest pains. One thing this documentary is criticized for is "fat shaming." I don't believe the clips and images of obese people are designed to shame them. If you're filming a documentary about obesity, you will OBVIOUSLY include clips of obese individuals. Yes, it is understandable that some people have a genetic predisposition towards being heavier, or some people have illnesses that promote weight gain, but the fact that obese people are filmed is not an example of "fat shaming," it is merely a depiction of the reality that the documentary exposes. If you were to film a documentary about drug users, there would most likely be scenes of people doing drugs. Just because a documentary is a bit aggressive and controversial, it does not steer away from the facts that it produces.

Super Size Me

In the movie Super Size Me by Morgan Spurlock, we see a pretty healthy guy embark on a social experiment where for 30 days he will be having a Mcdonalds only diet. Everybody knows Mcdonalds is not a healthy food source, but this documentary brings up the question how harmful is McDonalds to your body? Although, we haven't seen the entire documentary, we are able to see there are certain changes your body will go through to adapt to the extra calories being eaten. One thing that really stood out to me is the size proportions. America really is the land of the big, but seeing a cup that holds a gallon of soda really illustrates the reality that people drink them on a normal basis and Fast foods are one of the main if not the most leading cause of Obesity in the United States.

Super Size Me

The movie that we are watching in class is Super Size Me. The main character, Morgan Spurlock, criticizes McDonalds for the main cause in making people fat. Now obviously, the worlds biggest fast food chain isn't "making" people fat but the way they are marketing all of their unhealthy food very much makes it seem like they are. Morgan gained about 25 pounds by the end of the 30 day period he embarked on. One point that we discussed in class was that, why do you think the movie is mainly focusing on taking mini clips of extremely obese people? My view on this question is that, the main reason why the movie was made was to show how fast food chains are causing us Americas to gain pounds after pounds of unhealthy fat. So, when Morgan goes on showing his audience the obese people eating the junk food, it is not mock or make fun of them, but rather give us a reason to stay away from this packaged garbage.

Super Size Me

In the movie "Super Size Me" they were giving out mini interviews/questionnaires to the locals out in the community. There was a particular interview that caught my interest because of how true it was. A French, middle aged woman was talking about the differences between the USA and France. One of her points was how a small drink in the USA is a large in France and the other point was basically how the American motto is to sue. I thought the sueing comment was hilarious but after thinking about it, it does make sense. The film even goes to mention personal responsibility which makes you question why Americans aren't taking any of it and why they aren't taking that first step to benefit themselves.

Super Size Me

I have only had McDonald's a few times in my entire life. this is because it normally isn't kosher so I couldn't eat it. However, while I was in Israel i saw that there was a kosher McDonald's. when I saw it I got very excited,I thought that I would finally be able to try a delicious Big Mac or some Mcnuggets. I was extremely disappointed though after I tried it and I didn't particularly enjoy it. After having this experience I no longer have any urge to eat McDonald's so the movie Super  Size Me doesn't really make sense to me for a two reasons. The first is why would anyone want to eat that much McDonald's when it doesn't even taste good, I know that it is cheap but there are other cheap foods out there. The second thing that confuses me is why is anyone taking the case of the two girls seriously. Anyone who has taken a bite of McDonald's can immediately taste how unhealthy it is.

The Trouble With Fries

When people mention fries, we will think of fast food. What is fast food? Places like McDonald’s, KFC, and Popeye’s immediately comes to mind. As we know, fast food is harmful because when we eat it for a long time continuously it will damage our body. So why do people still love it? Because it’s fast? It’s tasty? We are not sure. Fast food has become more and more popular over the years. People are talking about it and there are many scientists discussing and investigating ways to make fast food healthier. In my opinion, fast food has already become an important part of our lives and most people cannot stop eating it because it has become a habit. However, we can try to change fast food instead of changing people’s mind. Let’s make fast food healthier and then make people aware that it is not unhealthy anymore.

Super Size Me

In the film Super Size Me the argument is we the consumers are not taking responsibility for our own actions. Instead we are blaming the fast-food industry for making unhealthy choices. I myself choose to eat salty, greasy and unhealthy foods when I can eat a salad. McDonald's, like any other big corporations, is selling what people want to eat and would generate more profit. The fast-food industry is a reflection of our mentality of self-indulgence. For there to be a change in the fast-food industry, we need to own up to our mistakes and fix them.

Dignity

Is fast food political? The answer is yes it is. According to the article and Tapia herself, she had to work 2 jobs just to get her paycheck home to her children. Those 2 jobs were both at McDonalds and she gave up her current job at a big university hospital to get a job that paid her minimum wage and no benefits whatsoever. Fast-forward to 2014 and the salary of workers for fast food companies are still held back by the government. However, until recently Obama pledged to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. People view fast food in political terms because workers get no benefits and they aren't well paid, therefore they turn to the government for help to intervene and help bring what all workers should have.

-Navin

They say I say

In the book They say I say, the author talk about a few key elements to help you become a more effective writer.  I agree with the author suggestion that using a writing template helps you get started and lay the ground work of your paper. Some people might think that it takes the creativity away from a writer, but in my opinion, with all the ground work you lay by  using a writing template and knowing what to write about in each paragraph makes it a lot easier to construct a solid essay.

They Say I Say

There are many different writing styles, each one of them is different and shows you something about the author. The book They Say I Say says that you always need to give an opposing opinion when you write. I don’t think this is necessarily always true. I believe that there are times when you don’t need to give the other side of an argument. Some examples of these cases are, if you don’t have a good way to disprove the opposing argument, if it would do nothing but confuse your reader, or if it is an essay that is trying to make a quick point. However I do agree that there are many cases where showing both sides of an argument would help. 

French Fries

Zac Welgrin
There are thousands of different kinds of foods out there, ranging from steak to eggplant parmesan. But I had never really thought of french fries as an important food. After reading both The Trouble With Fries and Why The Fries Taste Good I see that I was wrong. I never would have thought that selling french fries could turn someone into a multi-billionaire like J. R. Simplot. Or that one of the things that put McDonalds on the map was their french fries. To me french fries were always just a small side dish, a commodity, not something that people put real time and effort into.  

They Say I Say

Before reading "They Say I Say", I believed that a good argument essay supposes have a strong disagreement with other statement, which I have struggle a lot in my writing. Also, in most of my argument essays, I didn't enter the conversation very deeply, I only use the facts that support my position, and think less about other fact with opposite position than me. After reading the first 29 pages of "They Say I Say", I learned that we can use "they say" to motivate our position and keep us at the topic which lead us to the deep conversation. Instead using the well known statement, we also can use some people who made a provocative claim. A good use of con statement will make your essay gets better.

They Say I say

After reading the first few pages of the book, They Say I Say it amazes me how bad of a writer I actually am. Last week I had to write an essay for my primary source analysis to state whether I agree with the documents my professor gave me. After handing in my final work, I confidently walked away believing I would receive at least an A. It wasn't until I read the introduction of They Say I Say, that I noticed I made quite big mistakes in my essay. Like the author had wrote, I didn't give a clear reason which side I took. I was too focused on being indecisive that I did not make a straightforward point. I dragged my paragraphs for too long and misdirected my entire essay. I will continue reading this book, hoping that I can improve immensely on my rugged writings.

They Say I Say

This book is formatted to help students respond to the given thesis using their own knowledge. The "They Say I Say" concept is a developed method used by writers. Templates from this method helps writers "devote their attention on forming the structures of what is being said." Also, they bring out aspects of our thoughts or remarks that we don't even realize we had. I believe that this method is useful in writing, because it helps us organize our thoughts. It also helps the writer be more specific about their argument.

"Dignity" by William Finnegan

In the excerpt "Dignity" William Finnegan does show us multiple times how fast food is politics. For example how there was a protest in the year 2013 in over hundreds cities fast food worker were protest better wages and a fast food union which received so much acknowledgement that "president Obama renewed a long-neglected bill that pledge to raise federal wages." In my opinion politics doesn't have much to do with fast food restaurants. From what I read and understood from Finnegan's Dignity it sounds more like a war or a fight against the corporation the employees work for. As shown in "Dignity" the McDonald corporation sued the London Greenpeace for libel because it was enforcing there protest on the corporation which made the corporation feel like they we're being "attacked", reading this made me realize that big corporations such as the Mc Donald corporation if in any way feel threatened or if the corporation is at risk of changing they will hire the best lawyer to help shut down whatever union or protest against them. Politics is some what viewed in fast food chains but not in the employers favor but in the corporations favor. Since these corporation of fast food chain are so big they have so much power and money that if they want something done stopped or changed they will be able to do it but when it come to politics with employers not much can be done unless all these employes all over the United States revolt like they did in 2013. Politics are not that much involved unless the big corporations want them to be involved, the employees are usually just constantly in fights with the big corporations they can't win against. People view fast food in political terms because of how big of an impact it has in our society like for example obesity, how it affects the life of poorer society, and the plentiful jobs it offers to society, but when It comes to wages and benefits politics is really restricted since they don't own the corporations. How I think of it is politics don't own these corporations and corporations are just out to make profit so if they don't want to offer jobs they don't have to and as we see for example nike corporation they have almost all their jobs in china where the wages are less then a dollar a day because they're out for the profit. Politics may have some roles in fast food corporation but when it comes down to it it's very miniscule.

Dignity by William Finnegan

 

           “Dignity” by William Finnegan gives a clear and better perspective to a reader to understand in depth why Fast Food is political. The article presents a lot of cases which directly link Fast Food to politics; however, one of the main ones which clearly stood out to me was the Labor Activism. At first, The Service Employees International Union, the second-largest union in the United States, was quietly funding the fast-food campaign which was initially sparked by Arisleyda Tapia, a single mother with a five-year-old daughter and a former McDonald’s employee, and her co-workers. The purpose of the movement was the demand to increase the minimum wage. Initially, the demand to increase the minimum wage was thought to be something that only the employees of McDonald’s or any other Fast Food franchises would want; however, a recent study states that 52 percent of fast-food workers are enrolled in, or have their families enrolled in, one or more public assistance programs such as SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). That’s being said; the amount of support to those people who work for low wages exceeds the total sum of $ 7 billion and certainly government distinctly relies on its tax payers to cover up the gap. That’s it why the protest was not only supported by the employees, but also by general public and by politicians. President Obama renewed a long-neglected pledge to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10, in 2014. Even though he did not quite succeed, it was a big step towards supporting the objectives of the movement and taking under consideration its demands. It’s not only the wages and the public assistance programs that connect Fast Food and politics but also it is the marketing of Fast Food to the younger generation. Statistics show that 1 in 3 children in the US is overweight and marketing Fast Food is one of the main reasons why the country is currently encountering the obesity and other health issues. “Each year they, Fast Food franchises, spend $2 billion on marketing food to kids and the vast majority of that is junk food.” says Juliet Sims, one of the consumer groups leading this political food fight with the Prevention Institute. Thus, it is believed that government should make certain policies that would decrease the negative impacts of major companies such as McDonald’s and other Fast Food franchises that have a tremendous impact on both our economy and society.

 

 

 

Seeds of Doubt vs The End of Food

In the passages, "Seeds of Doubt" and "The End of Food" we are able to see two very opposing arguments on the same thing which is how we should consume food in the future. In  the first passage Seeds of Doubt you are able to see Vandana Shiva's crusade against genetically modified crops and her firm opposition to the "globalization and to the use of genetically modified crops". She argues that the current model of industrial agriculture which is heavily reliant on "chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil fuels" are an ever growing burden on the Earth one that is not going last forever. Her main proposition is to have more diversity in crops, greater care for the soil, and more support for people who work the land every day. Also, she has contempt for farmers who only grow one type of crop for they are ruining the soil and thus "destroying this beautiful world". However, in the next passage "The End of Food" we see an argument from the other side of the spectrum and his name is Rob Rhinehart who is a tech entrepreneur who studied engineering at Georgia Tech. His argument is that food was an inefficient way of getting what we needed to survive for "fruits and vegetables provide essential vitamins and minerals, but they're mostly water". Through very intense research he was able to come up with the 35 essential nutrients required for survival and ordered them in powder form which when combined with water become soylent. His invention of Soylent snowballed into something that had massive funding and popularity from all over the country. It was even heralded as "the end of food". Rhinehart believes farms are "very inefficient factories" and that it should become more industrialized not less and it should be automated. By comparing these very two different minded individuals I have come to the conclusion that food should be more organic. If food is organically grown we can enjoy the foods we eat and the taste and flavor that comes with them. In addition, food is not only about eating its a cultural thing too, it brings families closer together. If food is only in powder form then we miss out on many things such as the culture part and what we enjoy today. Also, there would be economical consequences too such as powder form would be cutting out the farmers and the agricultural jobs that are out there.

Seeds of Doubt, The end of food

In the passage, Seeds of Doubt, Vandana Shiva is clearly against the idea of globalization and genetically modified crops. She focuses on how dependent people are on fossil fuel in order to genetically modify these crops. She's also really concerned that the farmers are destroying "This beautiful world" as she mentions early in the passage. Her priority is to preserve the environment and she doesn't want to see it be harmed by such pesticides and cheap use of water. In the other passage, The End of Food. Rob, Rhinehart who is an entrepreneur, stresses that the physical for of food is unnecessary and inefficient. He bought the food in pill form made a drink infused with the essential chemical components that food contains and blended them with water. He felt as if what he did was the most efficient way to survive and that he didn't need real food. This man thought that food was coming to or should be coming to an end and that food needed to be synthetically processed in a form that was efficient unlike, in his opinion, farms. He felt as if farms were inefficient factories. I feel as if he may have stumbled upon something revolutionary but it may go against what a lot of people are used to and the transition could take a while. I also agree with Vandana Shiva about how the environment should be preserved but i agree with Rob even more because if it is efficient; why not use it? 

The Trouble with Fries

McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and many other fast food corporations are indeed political. Ever since Ray Kroc invented the first "McDonald" french fries, more and more McDonald restaurants rose, as well as the demand for these foods. As the years progressed, the quality of the foods has been released to the public which resulted to many opinions against it and many scientist trying to combat it. In "The Trouble with Fries", a team from Auburn University (Auburn Team) attempted to create a ground beef that would cut two-thirds fat and succeeded. This is why people view fast food in political terms. Whenever the public opinion changes, fast food corporations are taking the next step to meet the needs and are always expanding their business for the common goal of more profit. In the end after four years, the reduced fat meat, or The AU Lean, was taken down because eating "healthy" wasn't in the public's agenda.

The Trouble With Fries by Malcolm Gladwell

     McDonald's has been around for a little over 50 years and is now the biggest fast food chain on Earth. Back in the day, we really did not care what we ate. But over the course of a few decades, we are now finding out that all these trans fats and unhealthy calories are leading to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The political reasoning behind fast food and its vast amount of health concerns is that we are the people who are being affected by this mass produced food. We should be changing the ingredients and the way the food is cooked so that it is much more healthy. Also, we should start teaching and training our children on how to eat healthy, what to and what not to eat, and how do keep active and motivated in keeping a healthy BMI. People view fast food in political terms because all these multi-billion dollar fast food chains are all over the world now and they affect almost, if not, all people around the world.

Dignity

The fast food industry is not designed for people that are trying to make a living for a long term. I believe that as soon as you are past your 20's, working in the fast food industry renders you unfavorable to future employers. Most people working these "McJobs" are college students and teenagers...why? because they just want money, not a living. Making a living and making money are two different things. To have a job to make money is a temporary position, it will not lead you to any future glories, it's just for people that need or want to make some side money, that have no real experience in the labor force. To make a living is to have a long term job, to have stable pay from which you can actually live, without the need of government help.
One question that I have is why would a nurse, someone with a degree, albeit from another country, aim so low? This woman could have gone to school, and kept practicing nursing at some clinic or hospital. It's not a miracle for new immigrants to be able to make something of themselves, my family came here with a mere two thousand dollars, now both of my parents are working high ranking jobs, my mother a Dean of Ultrasound and Queens Hospital Center and my father one of the head engineers at a facility off the coast of Manhattan. No McJobs, aim straight to where you deserve to be.

Dignity: Inside the Fast-Food Labor Protest

When asked if fast food is political, my answer is an automatic yes. People view fast food politically based on how the government plays a huge role in fast food workers lives. The government has the control of raising the minimum wage and issuing a law that benefits the workers to have medical insurance. In the article Arisleyda Tapia try's to make her point across to the reader by using pity methods. From what I've concluded, she seems selfish. There will be nationwide impact if the government implemented a two dollar increase. Food prices will also go up. The standard of living will still be the same. But I do believe that the government should intervene with fast food company's to create a plan that all workers who work within a period of time should be able to have proper medical insurance. 

The Trouble With Fries

Fast food slowly become a major food in our daily menu. Fast food has a great impact in our life, the whole society has discuss about whether fast food is good for us or not. People are discuss about the ingredients in the fast food, this leads to a huge influence on the political problem. The FDA takes this too seriously, "The FDA has required all Olestra products to carry a somewhat daunting label saying that they may cause "cramping and loose stools"". But actually, Olestra helps people to lose weight and lower cholesterol. This has questioning me that, is fast food really killing people? The scientists at Auburn University makes a new product in science, AU Lean. Au Lean reduces the fat in ground beef, make burger be healthier. However, McDonald/Fast food  makes a great revolution in our food history.

The Trouble with Fries.

Yes, fast food is potential in todays society. With fast food restaurants such as McDonald, growing more because of the peoples demand of fast and on the go type of food. However, most people never wondered how these fast food restaurants process these food. Food that are created to last a long time and that can harm our health. Even when McDonald's do make a healthier menu why do we tend to go toward the more "unhealthy" side? According to Gladwell, when fast food restaurants list the ingredients that the healthier menu is made out of, we would think that its less tasty and would go back to the food that we don't know anything about. I think we should try to eat the more healthier menu compare to the unhealthy menu for the benefits of our health.

Is fast food political

Like anything else that involves controversy, the issue of fast food and all that comes with it can certainly be considered to be a political topic. From the time Ray Kroc made his first McDonald's french fries in 1954 and up until today, the past 60 years have seen many changes to what we call fast food. Some changes have involved taste and methods of food preparation, while others, especially in the last two decades, have centered around the health consciousness of our society. The problem seems to be that no one has figured out a way how to make the food taste as good as it can while making it as healthy as possible.  Even the few supposed "breakthroughs" that have made a splash with nutritionists and health care professionals, such as Olestra and AU Lean Burgers, the catch is that it's nearly impossible to please everyone. If someone looking for a healthy alternative is made aware of the fact that it is indeed a healthy alternative, it's just not going to taste as good. Studies mentioned in the the article "The Trouble With Fries" by Malcolm Gladwell make it clear that consumers just won't want to patronize products that are advertised specifically as being healthy or better for you. And while it may not be politically correct to only focus on one aspect and not the other, the real trick would be finding the next Ray Kroc, who just might be able to make everyone happy all the time.

"The Trouble with Fries"

Yes, fast food corporations like McDonald's are powerful forces in the politics of this nation. Fast food chains are lucrative businesses which are fast growing. It also contributes to our country health problems and increases the cost of health care. In Gladwell's article "The Trouble with Fries" he explains the strategies and tactics fast food franchisers such as McDonald's are utilizing to improve the way food is prepared and promoted. I really wonder about the sincerity and the effectiveness of their efforts. It is clear that the fast food industry is trying to improve its image by offering a healthier menu; however, let's not forget that its ultimate goal is to make a PROFIT. I believe that real change is up to us the consumer by changing our eating habits, eating meals at home, not falling for the enticing advertisements and low food prices. In the end it'll be costly to our health and pockets.   

Seeds Of doubt

Vandana Shiva is one of the most respected and acknowledged environmentalist. She is a strong supporter of a lifestyle without biochemical food which is a problem for the rest of the world. In her point of view biochemical agriculture is very unhealthy and it could kill a lot of people over time. She is a person that strongly believes that organic food should be the main way of producing food. The reason she is weary is because the herbicides used on the plants can travel through the wind and eventually affect the organic farms. In my opinion Shiva has no right to say that Biochemical production is bad and its bad for the people. People should eat what they want and if the food is not natural then they have to live with the consequences. Everyone knows that the food they eat has hormones in them but they eat it anyway. 

-Artur

Vandana Shiva is an environmentalist from India, who traveled Europe, South Asia, Canada, and the United States. At age 61, she has won many medals, one of her most famous one is the Right Livelihood Award, which is often called the alternative Nobel Prize. Shiva argues that the prevailing model of industrial agriculture, pesticides and fossil fuels place a burden on the Earths resources, leaving a huge amount of the population to hunger. Shiva believes products of agricultural biotechnology is destroying this beautiful world we live in.  The global food supply is in danger and the world population is expanding dramatically.

-Harpreet

The End of Food

Rhinehart created something out of nothing, from being broke to having his creation of Soylent. After reading this article, I have a huge interest in Soylent. I don't think I will have such unshakable fortitude that he has. Not having food for an entire day will definitely kill me mentally. Food to me is more than just supplying my body with nutrients. Its a comfort and enjoyment that I love. Its fulfilling to feel completely full and still eat food. I understand that it can help with American obesity and it is much lower in cost but will it is not something that can ever replace food. Cultures are based on the foods we eat, and if we are unable to enjoy the food we eat how is one to express their culture. Imagine everyone in the world eating the exact same thing, what would it be like? There won't be those moments where you try new foods and explore exotic foods. What would happen to your favorite foods? Soylent may not be for everyone but I think it's worth trying for those who are anorexic and bulimic. They are able to consume nutrients and feel satisfied. It's a drink that won't make you gain weight and gives you the energy you need to do daily activities.

The end of food

With the population doubling throughout the years sooner or later there wouldn't be enough food to feed everyone. We need to figure something to replace food before there isn't any food left to eat. Rheinheart had though of drinking soylent to replace food. Is it a good idea to drink chemicals in placement of food? Would these chemical drinks have any bad effects? As the author mentioned, when he tried the "soylent diet" he only felt sick in the first week. Maybe these drinks aren't as bad as we think it is if it makes us healthier and it helps us lost some weight. But even if we can survive with these soylent drinks, we are still missing out on the proteins that vegetables and fruits give us. Proteins that can't be chemically made. When there is not enough food in the world to feed everyone, what would really happen? Are we really going to depend on the soylent as our food supply?

Seed of Doubt

Our great environmentalist Vandana Shiva, who is a heroine to against the G.M.O. activities. She believes there will be two trends of food growing. One is full of diversity, democracy, freedom, joy, and culture, and another one is monoculture, deadness, and depressed. For the first one, people will celebrate for what they earn from their hardwork. But with the second one, more people will be prozac. She believes what G.M.O. do is to destroy our planet because any seed in the laboratory is abominable to her. We would have no hunger if and only if farmers have the seed. That's because farmers know how to make our land be useful and make less damage to earth. She is the world's most important activist. The article says, "Weissberg Chair in International Studies, calling her “a one-woman movement for peace, sustainability, and social justice.”" Shiva gives us examples of how G.M.O. hurt our life, environment, and  health. The genetic engineering creates more carcinogenic in the plants. The change in gene of the seed is "...like a violation of the rule of life". However, Shiva believes that genetically modified crop have no help to human.

Can You Really Save the Planet at the Dinner Table?

             While reading "An economist’s critique of the Omnivore’s Dilemma" I should emphasize that Tyler Cowen brought up several examples which supremely opposed to Michael Pollan’s beliefs regarding the question, “How should a responsible person eat in the modern world?” Pollan’s suggestion such as eating “free-range” chickens is heavily criticized by Cowen since he points out that those “free-range” chickens often receive only a few inches of additional space than their peers. Also, he states that most of “free-range” chickens prefer to stay inside due to a fear of the unknown waiting outside of those tiny doors of factory farms. Moreover, Cowen invalidates Pollan’s another argument on “guzzling” petroleum for the transportation of Chilean grapes (mentioned in Omnivore’s Dilemma). Cowen believes that from economists’ precise point of view the conservation of energy should be cut from where it is highly effective and makes most sense, not from grape-shipping as mentioned by Pollan in Omnivore's Dilemma. Also, Cowen argues against Pollan stating the fact that New Zealand’s free trade in agriculture policy has flourished the country which is a complete opposite instance to what Pollan argues; Pollan argues about the negative impacts of “free trade in agriculture” towards family farms and markets in his book. Without mentioning any other occasions where Cowen firmly opposes Pollan's argument, I should say that Tyler Cowen makes the strongest case against Pollan's arguments mentioned in Omnivore’s Dilemma by providing several cases at which Pollan's arguments may not be effective or valid. idk

Can You Really Save the Planet at the Dinner Table

This article stood out to me the most because I was curious on how an economist would view Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma. Taking a micro and macro economic class in the past I realized two things 1. I loath economics and 2. Economist take every factor into consideration when handling a problem. They take factors that no citizen would even think about because it might have a chance at affecting the solution. Because of this state of mind, Cowen goes on to state how unattainable it is to make the cost of foods transparent. He also comments on the issue Pollan points out with how transporting foods puts a heavy burden on petroleum. From an economic point of view, we are technically conserving energy because global trade puts food production where it is the cheapest which in return "saves energy by economizing on cost of labor, irrigation, and fertilization, relative to the alternatives." This article does shine a light to an interesting different point of view. 

Can You Really Save the Planet at the Dinner Table ? by Tyler Cowen

     The text talks about three American for supply chains: the industrial, which are factory farming and supermarkets; the organic, which includes family farms and other small-scale producers; and what he calls "the hunter-gatherer" food supply chain, which we experience when scavenging for ourselves. He then goes on talking about how, thousand of years ago, the cows and chicken we eat today used to graze in the wild. They weren't locked up in tiny boxes and fed only corn and soybeans and other foods grown with harsh fertilizer and toxic pesticides. Even the organic food nowadays is not really "organic." The chicken are still locked up in tiny boxes that probably are only a few inches bigger. The text also talks about how everything we eat, technically, adds more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Pollen also tries to make us more aware of how we should increase our conservation for the environment and nature.The transportation costs and risks for bringing in fruits and vegetables all affect the environment. In the end he summarizes his argument by talking about how we should stop growing our own food and pick up a book and learn about food and every detail that goes along with it.

The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, or so the saying goes. The farming industry, or at least today's farmers who try farming like their grandfathers did, has tried its damnedest to go against that old idiom. Just imagine a farmer from the middle of the 20th century gazing at all the machinery and sophistication of a modern-day farm, or better yet walking into a Whole Foods. He might not believe his eyes, but if only he looked at the cash register receipts and books, he might wish he'd been born a century or two later.  Some of the advances of modern-day "factory farming" or "industrial farming" surely have increased the capacity for production and output, and there have been incredible advancements in money-saving technologies, but at the end of the day, not all of these so-called improvements actually provide a better or safer world for farmers, the consumers who support them, or the animals that are raised and then slaughtered by them. Maybe today's idea of a perfect farm is not as "messy and painful, bloody and dirty" as it used to be, but then again, is that really such a good thing?

“The Omnivore’s Delusion”

What I understand from “The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals” is that Hurst is expressing his frustration about people who are against modern farming methods. On his quest to convince us that modern farming methods are essential to our life he doesn't realize that his ranting hinders his viewpoints. For example, he makes a valid argument about pesticides being less expensive. However, he doesn't mention anything about the harmful effects pesticides can have on us. Hurst also makes assumptions about the business man not knowing what he is talking about; for all Hurst knows this business man can have experience in the farming business. I understand that farmers like him want to produce the most food at the lowest cost. However, human health and the environment should be our number one priority.

Recent Blog posts

The Cooking Hypothesis

by JACKIEYU posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

Fire has became a really important discovery in history. It’s so important that it has changed the way we eat food and how we live life. With fire we wouldn’t have to wait till morning for light. We wouldn’t have to eat any rare food. Life wouldn’t we the way or is now if there wasn’t fire. Even though fire is such an importance in life no one ever wondered how fire was first discovered. We also don’t really put much thought into fire. After reading this excerpt, I started to look at fire in a different way. Even if fire is unlimited we should really appreciate the fact that fire was discovered.

LEAVE A COMMENT

The Brain in Your Gut

by MIKE AZERNOV posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

I do think that we have a “brain” in our gut, it’s really surprising how much we know, and don’t know about the human body. I don’t necessarily agree with Watzke’s “coctivor” suggestion, humans don’t only eat cooked food, we are capable of eating uncooked foods just fine. I didn’t know that early humans had a stomach considerably larger than ours, up to 40% larger. Mankind’s ability to manipulate his food by means of cooking was a big stepping stone, it allowed us to eat a larger variety of foods, if we hadn’t been able to cook, we would have gone down a much more different and radical evolutionary path.

LEAVE A COMMENT

The Brain in Your Gut

by JACKIEYU posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

It never crossed my mind that our gut is our “second brain.” Our guts gives reflexes that tells us when something is right to eat or not. They also digest food instead of the brain sending signals to our stomach to digest the food that we have consumed. When someone have a eating disorder the first thing that would come to our mind would be “oh there is something wrong with that person, their brain isn’t sending signals to make them eat or stop eating.” Which is wrong, because its our gut that sends signals telling the brain when we are hungry or when we are full. Now, I would agree to the saying “Listen to your guts” cause its scientifically prove to be right.

LEAVE A COMMENT

The Brain in your Gut

by JAISONRAJU posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

The speaker Heribert Watzke, in my opinion, was able to successfully convey the message that we are in fact Coctivors (People who eat cooked food) and that our most important evolutionary development was cooking and adapting to our environment. Also, he was able to persuade me into believing that our stomach does influence a lot of our food decisions. His use of the word “Digestive Comfort” actually makes sense to me because if my stomach is hungry I would be open to more types of food than if was not hungry. Overall, Watzke has many many valid points that proves his point that this is a “coctivors opportunity” and that we can discover the balance of taste and reward to satisfy ourselves and finally recognize that cooking is what made us.

LEAVE A COMMENT

“The Brain in Your Gut”

by AMANDARODRIGUEZ posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

“The Brain in Your Gut” was very interesting to watch, but I have to disagree on one of Watzke’s viewpoints. Although most of the food I eat is cooked I don’t necessary think cooked food is the best option for a healthy diet. As far as I know some raw foods provide vital nutrients which otherwise be destroyed through the cooking process. I do agree that cooking is one of the best technologies we have since it’s entertaining and sparks creativity. I also agree that our gut steers us away from foods that don’t sit well in our stomachs and signals us when to eat and when to stop eating. One important fact we should not forget is that people were eating raw food long before fire was invented which is pretty ironic.

LEAVE A COMMENT

The Brain in Our Gut

by NAVIN PERSAUD posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

It is in our anatomy, as humans, to cook what we eat which is true. In doing so, he coins the term coctivore and says it is our human potential to cook what we find and transform it. Generally speaking, we have 2 brains one in our head and one in our guts but we only pay attention to just one. However, our brains tell us when it comes to food, what we want to eat, what we feel like eating and what we should be eating. Our 2 “brains” work differently with our guts composed of the stomach, intestine and colon; they are made up of completely different structures. Maybe it has to do with food choice and choosing whats best for our body as whole instead of just what we think is good for the moment.

LEAVE A COMMENT

The Brain in your Gut

by FENGLIN posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

The video ”The Brain In Your Gut” is about the energy we get from what we eat. As Heribert Watzke says, we get our energy from cooked food. This reminds me of the phrase “You are what you eat” since it’s a similar idea. We get energy after food goes through the digestive system. Different types of food provide different types of energy. The brain, in particular, uses 25% of the energy we get from food. Dr. Watzke suggests that instead of carnivores we ought to call ourselves Coctivors because we cook our food. He says cooking is a very important technology because it allows us to get the energy we need from food. By cooking, humans have been able to enlarge the brain and shrink the gut. Watzke ends the video by saying, ”I cook, therefore I am”. I agree with him and I believe it is true that humans are intended to cook what is eaten.

LEAVE A COMMENT

The Brain In Your Gut

by STACEYCHANG posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

I’m sure many people have heard of the saying “trust your gut” plenty of times in their lives. But what most people don’t know is that the gut acts like a second brain, the brain sending cycles of waves to and from the gut. It’s basically interconnected with another.

The feeling you get when you have trouble deciding between two options. The blood rushing towards your head, making you feel suffocated in your own body. Your palms are starting to sweat, you clench your teeth together in frustration. You might even pace back and forth, going over the pros and cons. Your chest feels heavy and you take deep breaths. You are about to lose your mind! Your brain is about to explode from overthinking. Then, finally your gut gives in. Your gut is subconsciously telling you what you already had in mind. Strange as it might seem, but that’s just how it works. You “trust your gut”, but really its just your brain giving up.

LEAVE A COMMENT

The Brain in Your Gut

by QINGYU posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

I just learned an interesting new word “coctivors”. Foods are one indispensable element of our life, and most of the foods we have are cooked. Our body cannot directly digest the raw food because some might contain terrible bacteria which will injure our body system.  ”The brain in your gut” seems weird at the first time while I heard it. I was thinking that “Is that because our gut can “sing” when we are hungry so it had a brain ?!” Then when I watch the video I figure out that my idea is wrong, there is a brain on our gut. We have two brains that help us to avoid these bad problem to be happen. However, I still think it is weird to compare our gut to brain and I think I will like to learn some cookings.

LEAVE A COMMENT

The Brain In Your Gut

by ZACWELGRIN posted on OCTOBER 6, 2014 [EDIT]

We can learn a lot about what we are supposed to eat by looking at our teeth. We do not have sharp pointed teeth for ripping up raw meat, nor do we have the teeth to grind up tough fibrous plants. Our teeth are meant to chew up cooked food. According to this video our bodies are designed to eat cooked food, this is good for a multitude of reasons. One reason is that it allows us to go almost anywhere because we can make food even if there is nothing edible we will make it edible. Another reason it is good is because we need to cook things to eat we have to create technology to cook, which can help with the advancement of technology. Heribert Watzke even goes so far as to say that we have a second brain that is our stomach. At first this struck me as crazy but then he explains it and it makes more sense. He says that our stomach tells us what we enjoy and what we don’t is based on what is good for us which is why we gag on things like rotten and spoiled food.

LEAVE A COMMENT