Food, Inc. -- How Industrial Food is Making Us Sicker, Fatter, and Poorer--And What You Can Do About It

I enjoyed this article a lot based on the fact that it was a Q & A. I felt that the information provided gave me more insight opposed to a regular article. This way, the reader can really benefit in regard to the given topic and what it has to prove. I was particularly intrigued by the question on page 13: "Now nearly ten years have passed. How has the story of America's relationship to food changed in that time?" I really enjoy the changing aspect of any dilemma or problem. Like the issues we have covered in relation to food and its production (where/what are we eating?), I enjoy seeing the ending result to see if a technique has worked or failed. So I initially gravitated towards this area. Schlosser states: "There has been a sea change in American attitudes towards food, especially among the educated and the upper-middle class. And there is now a powerful social movement centered on food. Sustainable agriculture, the obesity epidemic, food safety, illegal immigration, animal welfare, the ethics of marketing to children--all of these things are now being widely discussed and debated (13). I enjoy the aspect that these things are broken down. It creates a general, organized idea in which society may feel that it's possible to start corrected the flaws. I particularly like that he mentioned "marketing to children". I feel as though this hits hard and over time, the ending result proves to creates problems. The movie, Super Size Me, devoted a section to just this: the fact that television pushes so so hard to suck children in. Whether it's a celebrity who is paid to help market the product or if it's a cartoon character--either way, it's something worth taking note of.

Response for Food Inc.

Based on what our class has read as a whole in regard to food and its production, I can honestly say that I wasn't too surprised what Food Inc. had to offer. I suppose my main issue/question is that if the production of food and treatment of workers/animals is so bad (even the case where the small child died)--what's being done to change these problems into something more positive? I sympathized greatly with the farmers, the mother who lost her child, and the older gentlemen at the end of the film, Moe. My question is what can be done if anything? It seems as though wanting to change for the better is ideal, but is that enough? I consider the corporations basically have the main say--it just seems like a wasted effort. I suppose I can appreciate an individual or group attempting to fight for what's right, but it really seems as though nothing is going to happen. If something does, I feel the result is so little that it'll eventually mean nothing. I had a problem with the ending credits in the film too. The words and suggestions flashing on the screen were inspirational, but to me, doing something that in my opinion seems minimal, won't in the long run make for an overall positive change. The movie posed all of these problems and issues, and the credits rolled and had answers/suggestions. I feel as though American loves convenience and money--and with those two things, it seems unlikely that attitudes will change over night. I'm saddened that something so drastic has to happen first (the child dying) before there's even talk of change.

The Omnivore's Dilemma response (1-31)

I wasn't sure what to expect when I started reading Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. Upon the first few pages0, I was amazed at the amount of information given and it was yet another reality check in relation to where a person's food comes from. Before I started the first chapter, I was intrigued how much I was reminded of Schlosser's lecture: "Move over to Meat, though, and the chain grows longer and less comprehensible: the label doesn't mention that the rib-eye steak came from a steer born in South Dakota and fattened in a Kansas feedlot on grain grown in Iowa" (Pollan 17). It really makes me question where food comes from. I suppose it should have been more obvious that the process was so calculated out considering his never ending list of food and products that have corn in them and basically calling the human race corn people.

Another aspect that I found was interesting was that despite how we as a society are so dependent on corn, Pollan suggests that it is just as dependent on us as well: "Corn is the hero of its own story, and though we humans played a crucial supporting role in its rise to world domination, it would be wrong to suggest we have been calling the shots or acting always in our own best interest. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that corn has succeeded in domesticating us." I like this way of thought because it offers a unlimited possibility in regard to a food's potential.

In regard to the rest of the book, I'm anxious to find out how/what Pollan will say about other foods and how they interact with society.

Michael Clayton response

I enjoyed this film. It was obvious how the idea of toxic discourse was going to play into the plot: the overall effects of the agrochemicals and their role throughout. I'm reminded of numerous readings that involve land destruction and their effects on people as well as Schlosser's lecture and how he states how messy the fast food industry is, and how once you're presented with the closer reality of it all, it's at that point where things become more and more difficult. The idea of greed and money and their effects ties nicely into toxic discourse as a whole, and the movie proves this. The movie's conclusion deals with money and shows Michael waiting for Karen. He confronts her, then demands $10 million for his silence. Granted, I silently cheered when Michael did what he did, but Gilroy seems to hit on a point on how these little things contribute into a larger scale and with that said, the grand scheme of things eventually unwinds as well, creating more problems. Even before the movie's ending, there's the instance in the office where Michael gets the $80,000 bonus for his debt, however, there's a point of confidentiality, preventing him from hurting the firm. There constantly seems to be this secrecy. It's hidden and because it's not presented offers an idea of wonderment.

Eric Schlosser's lecture at Ohio University

          For owning Fast Food Nation and seeing movies like Super Size Me, I felt like I knew a little of what Schlosser's lecture would consist of. To a point that was true, and then I was truly being informed as he started giving the hard facts about the fast food industry. To a point, his lecture connected nicely with a lot of what we're talking about in class. For example: toxic discourse and how the impact of the fast food industry is impacting our country, health, well-being, society, children, and the world. Schlosser hit on the fact that with huge companies such as McDonald's, there is a huge lack of information that's being given to the public and the ending result show the customer being misinformed by the information that they should know.

          As Schlosser continued by offering his audience more shocking insight, he touched upon describing the feedlots from these huge slaughter houses and how because of waste contamination and runoff, the ending result produces water pollution which in turn effects the people that live near by if they use that for their water supply. This to me was a perfect example of toxic discourse. I remember Schlosser quoting Ray Croc saying that if he saw his neighbor drowning with his/her business, that he'd be the first to go over and put a running hose in their mouths. A slightly humorous quote at first, but consider the lack of care that Schlosser talked about in regard to the fast food industry, this type of action doesn't seem to sadistic to consider when presented with the facts.

As the idea of nature starts to play a more crucial role throughout our class readings, we see that in Thoreau's work, isolation and humanity are a point of strong focus. Upon incorporating these themes throughout other readings, it becomes apparent that although isolation and humanity are present, there are other contributing factors that change and alter the big scheme of things in relation to how they contribute within nature. Below are some observations I had in mind while reading the pieces:

One main theme I want to focus on with this blog post is humanity's contribution in regard to nature and what the ending result may imply. With this, Williams' piece comes to mind: the idea that other humans are doing nuclear testing and its effect on other humans as well as the environment. By reading some of this, I can't help feeling guilty. No so much on my part, but humanity in general. I suppose it creates more of an awareness where I consider rather than not think about doing something that could potentially harm the earth in some shape or form. I'm also reminded of Hogan's piece and how she made a choice to save the fetal mice from the biting ants. The process to save the lives of the mice potentially ended the lives of the ants. Here, we see that human instinct plays a role in nature.

As for the Positions piece, I feel I fall into the category of Environmentalism. I feel as though I'm aware in regard to little things such as recycling and buying local when/if I can. Athens, Ohio, is a community in which I feel partakes in those types of things. It's not so much revolutionary, but it's enough to gather attention. For example: I live close to the Village Bakery, and I noticed that they have put solar panels on their roof for solar energy.

http://ecoenglish-rouzie.blogspot.com/