As we begin to delve deeper into the world of food and production it is clear that an environmental crisis has begun to emerge. After reading “One less burger, one safer planet” by Derrick Z. Jackson and the first chapter of Michael Pollan’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma,” the health of the earth’s food source is brought to our attention. Not only is produce and food supplies dwindling, the production of these sources is taking a toll on the earth. Both articles were written with the intent of introducing the idea that the production of food, along with consumption, must be altered if there is any chance that the earth can survive. In these articles, information regarding the “nation’s eating disorder” are brought to the readers attention so that light can be shed on the problems people have eaten their way into. Jackson’s article focuses primarily on meat and the affect meat ingestion has on greenhouse-gas emissions. He encourages the reader to put down the steak knife if he or she wishes to breathe in fresh air. Jackson uses numerous statistics in his article as a method of showing just how detrimental agricultural gases and meat consumption is to the environment. As stated in the article, “Agricultural greenhouse gases are about 22 percent of all emissions around the world.” This is unacceptable if the nation hopes to have any chance at slowing global warming. This method is appropriate for the intended audience as he is speaking to those who are politically involved, since he mentions the presidential candidates, and those who are environmentally savvy. Jackson hopes to reach out to these people on an intellectual basis by giving facts and stating his point bluntly. This way, the reader is confronted with the issue and cannot get around it any other way. Jackson informs that the burger must go. Pollan on the other hand, writes to the average consumer. People who ask the question, “What should I eat?” His article sticks its head into the food pyramid and looks to see what kind of bite it can take. He takes the reader back through the food chain and explains why people eat what they do. Pollan uses many strategies in his article from referencing past dietary changes of the nation to dissecting the reasons people eat. His target seems to be about simplifying the way people consume. Pollan’s strategies are applauded, due to the casual and conversational tone. He also brings up the idea of over producing and analyzing food. While this is interesting, Pollan goes too far in depth for the average reader to give his or her full attention throughout the piece. No matter, both of these authors have brought up important and significant questions regarding what we eat and how it is put on the table. They definitely have food and the environment on their mind. I have also done my research on food production and energy resources. Last year in English I wrote my final paper on how the manufacturing of food has an affect on natural resources. While I did not focus on meat, I did find that the manufacturing and packaging of meat plays a role in the loss of energy. Our land, water, and natural resources are all in jeopardy due to the overuse and waste caused by food production. Food consumption is not something to be taken lightly, and if a solution to these problems is not found soon, the environment will be eaten right from under us.
Patrick Jackson I think that the two texts were written for the American public and any other country that consumes an immense amount of food, especially meat. In the introduction of Omnivore’s Dilemma written by Michael Pollen it discusses how the American culture towards food has undergone a variety of diet changes based on the media, dieticians, scientific studies, and dietary books. The redirection of what is nutritionally “correct” to eat has been a topic that pelages the minds of Americans, but yet we are the most overweight and obese country in the world. In the year 2002, Robert Atkins told Americans that they could eat more meat and lose weight if they stopped eating bread and pasta (Pollen 2). This statement can directly relate to the American public because the Atkins diet is common knowledge. When this dieting frenzy began to become popular I can vividly remember bakeries closing because of lack of business. Pollen mentions this in the Introduction: “The blamelessness of stake restored, two of the most wholesome and uncontroversial foods known to man-bread and pasta-acquired a moral strain that promptly bankrupted dozens of bakeries and noodle firms” (Pollen 2). I thought the strategy of One Less Burger, One Safer planet was more direct with a lot of statistics that have a direct correlation with the higher we eat on the food chain, the more we hurt our environment. I thought this was an effective strategy because Derrick Z. Jackson was going to need some influencing statistics to get Americans to reconsider the amount of meat we eat. In the book Omnivore’s Dilemma, the strategy consisted of relating to the reader, then sliding a statistic in to strengthen his point. Michael Pollen’s content makes you think about everyday things that a person typically doesn’t think about. For example, in his first chapter he discusses how most of what Americans eat is corn. Then Pollen began to show how corn was an ingredient for twenty five percent of grocery items in the store. He did this by listing all of the “fancy” names they give corn on the back of food labels. I think this strategy was very effective because it makes the American reader undoubtedly consider what Pollen is stating. The content of these writing sort of overlap, or correspond to each other. For example, in the article by Jackson discusses how Americans are consuming too much meat and its harmful for the environment. Then the introduction in Pollen’s book reminds us of the Atkins diet phase that stormed through America putting bakeries out of business. I also appreciated how the content for Jackson’s articles was more directly related to the argument than Pollens. Pollen makes a lot of good points, but then sometimes he would lose me in the middle of transitioning from one argument to the next. I never thought about the impact I was having on the environment by eating so much meat. Even after these writing I will not change my diet until it reaches a national level, so that I will know that what I am doing has an impact. I think that meat is an important part of my diet and I maybe I can cut back a little. Overall, the information made the reader question their diet, realizing it can have a negative impact on the environment.
I realized while reading these three articles how important it is to know exactly what kind of life that chicken, cow, pig, or turkey had before it was served on my plate. I’m not going to lie when I read the article about the young lady farming from her house, I thought to myself that is disgusting and that can’t possibly be the best means of farming. But surprisingly Novella Carpenter has the type of farm many would agree with. Christine Lennon would defiantly agree with Novella “pasture raised” animals. Christine would probably say the animals in Novella’s farm was allowed to graze the old fashioned way instead of being fed an unnatural and difficult to digest diet of mostly corn and other grain. Well actually I don’t know if the Lennon’s would agree with that apartment farm. If you ask me those living conditions are inhumane for the animal and the person/ persons living in that 1 bedroom apartment. I can’t imagine how that little apartment smells. Although Novella raised her animals of the foods in her garden which are “all natural” and didn’t use chemicals, I feel that those living conditions of the animal are pretty nasty. Just from looking at the picture on the front page of the article it doesn’t look like she have the cleanest land and it looks like it is very space limited. I mean in order for the animal to graze the pastures it have to be pastures. In the Urban Farmer I believe Novella intended audience was people like me who are totally against urban framing. She wanted people to know there is nothing wrong with raising your animals in the inner city. She often justified why it is some what better to just raise your turkeys in your 1 bedroom apartment. “You see the conditions that [factory- farmed animals live] in…you don’t know where the meat came from, you don’t know how it died or anything about it” (The Urban Farmer, paragraph 11). She is saying at least with my meats you know they came from a lady on Craigslist. In the Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat article and the Well Done article both writers are explaining to there audience which are vegetarians and omnivores why there are few vegetarians in America and increase in other countries. Christine Lennon feels that a lot of people convert to being a vegetarian because of the terrible animal conditions. Her husband went through the stage of being a vegetarian but she found some organic farms and got him to start back eating cows. Not just any cows though, they have to be raised on a farm that feed them natural foods not processed foods. The reason why Americans switch from being vegetarians to omnivores is because we have so many resources so we often justify our actions. One may say it is wrong to eat meat. The Lennon’s would say it is wrong to eat soy based processed fake meat. They would agree if your going to eat meat eat Beef with benefits.
As we begin to delve deeper into the world of food and production it is clear that an environmental crisis has begun to emerge. After reading “One less burger, one safer planet” by Derrick Z. Jackson and the first chapter of Michael Pollan’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma,” the health of the earth’s food source is brought to our attention. Not only is produce and food supplies dwindling, the production of these sources is taking a toll on the earth. Both articles were written with the intent of introducing the idea that the production of food, along with consumption, must be altered if there is any chance that the earth can survive.
ReplyDeleteIn these articles, information regarding the “nation’s eating disorder” are brought to the readers attention so that light can be shed on the problems people have eaten their way into. Jackson’s article focuses primarily on meat and the affect meat ingestion has on greenhouse-gas emissions. He encourages the reader to put down the steak knife if he or she wishes to breathe in fresh air. Jackson uses numerous statistics in his article as a method of showing just how detrimental agricultural gases and meat consumption is to the environment. As stated in the article, “Agricultural greenhouse gases are about 22 percent of all emissions around the world.” This is unacceptable if the nation hopes to have any chance at slowing global warming. This method is appropriate for the intended audience as he is speaking to those who are politically involved, since he mentions the presidential candidates, and those who are environmentally savvy. Jackson hopes to reach out to these people on an intellectual basis by giving facts and stating his point bluntly. This way, the reader is confronted with the issue and cannot get around it any other way. Jackson informs that the burger must go.
Pollan on the other hand, writes to the average consumer. People who ask the question, “What should I eat?” His article sticks its head into the food pyramid and looks to see what kind of bite it can take. He takes the reader back through the food chain and explains why people eat what they do. Pollan uses many strategies in his article from referencing past dietary changes of the nation to dissecting the reasons people eat. His target seems to be about simplifying the way people consume. Pollan’s strategies are applauded, due to the casual and conversational tone. He also brings up the idea of over producing and analyzing food. While this is interesting, Pollan goes too far in depth for the average reader to give his or her full attention throughout the piece. No matter, both of these authors have brought up important and significant questions regarding what we eat and how it is put on the table. They definitely have food and the environment on their mind.
I have also done my research on food production and energy resources. Last year in English I wrote my final paper on how the manufacturing of food has an affect on natural resources. While I did not focus on meat, I did find that the manufacturing and packaging of meat plays a role in the loss of energy. Our land, water, and natural resources are all in jeopardy due to the overuse and waste caused by food production. Food consumption is not something to be taken lightly, and if a solution to these problems is not found soon, the environment will be eaten right from under us.
Patrick Jackson
ReplyDeleteI think that the two texts were written for the American public and any other country that consumes an immense amount of food, especially meat. In the introduction of Omnivore’s Dilemma written by Michael Pollen it discusses how the American culture towards food has undergone a variety of diet changes based on the media, dieticians, scientific studies, and dietary books. The redirection of what is nutritionally “correct” to eat has been a topic that pelages the minds of Americans, but yet we are the most overweight and obese country in the world. In the year 2002, Robert Atkins told Americans that they could eat more meat and lose weight if they stopped eating bread and pasta (Pollen 2). This statement can directly relate to the American public because the Atkins diet is common knowledge. When this dieting frenzy began to become popular I can vividly remember bakeries closing because of lack of business. Pollen mentions this in the Introduction: “The blamelessness of stake restored, two of the most wholesome and uncontroversial foods known to man-bread and pasta-acquired a moral strain that promptly bankrupted dozens of bakeries and noodle firms” (Pollen 2).
I thought the strategy of One Less Burger, One Safer planet was more direct with a lot of statistics that have a direct correlation with the higher we eat on the food chain, the more we hurt our environment. I thought this was an effective strategy because Derrick Z. Jackson was going to need some influencing statistics to get Americans to reconsider the amount of meat we eat. In the book Omnivore’s Dilemma, the strategy consisted of relating to the reader, then sliding a statistic in to strengthen his point. Michael Pollen’s content makes you think about everyday things that a person typically doesn’t think about. For example, in his first chapter he discusses how most of what Americans eat is corn. Then Pollen began to show how corn was an ingredient for twenty five percent of grocery items in the store. He did this by listing all of the “fancy” names they give corn on the back of food labels. I think this strategy was very effective because it makes the American reader undoubtedly consider what Pollen is stating.
The content of these writing sort of overlap, or correspond to each other. For example, in the article by Jackson discusses how Americans are consuming too much meat and its harmful for the environment. Then the introduction in Pollen’s book reminds us of the Atkins diet phase that stormed through America putting bakeries out of business. I also appreciated how the content for Jackson’s articles was more directly related to the argument than Pollens. Pollen makes a lot of good points, but then sometimes he would lose me in the middle of transitioning from one argument to the next.
I never thought about the impact I was having on the environment by eating so much meat. Even after these writing I will not change my diet until it reaches a national level, so that I will know that what I am doing has an impact. I think that meat is an important part of my diet and I maybe I can cut back a little. Overall, the information made the reader question their diet, realizing it can have a negative impact on the environment.
I realized while reading these three articles how important it is to know exactly what kind of life that chicken, cow, pig, or turkey had before it was served on my plate. I’m not going to lie when I read the article about the young lady farming from her house, I thought to myself that is disgusting and that can’t possibly be the best means of farming. But surprisingly Novella Carpenter has the type of farm many would agree with. Christine Lennon would defiantly agree with Novella “pasture raised” animals. Christine would probably say the animals in Novella’s farm was allowed to graze the old fashioned way instead of being fed an unnatural and difficult to digest diet of mostly corn and other grain. Well actually I don’t know if the Lennon’s would agree with that apartment farm. If you ask me those living conditions are inhumane for the animal and the person/ persons living in that 1 bedroom apartment. I can’t imagine how that little apartment smells. Although Novella raised her animals of the foods in her garden which are “all natural” and didn’t use chemicals, I feel that those living conditions of the animal are pretty nasty. Just from looking at the picture on the front page of the article it doesn’t look like she have the cleanest land and it looks like it is very space limited. I mean in order for the animal to graze the pastures it have to be pastures.
ReplyDeleteIn the Urban Farmer I believe Novella intended audience was people like me who are totally against urban framing. She wanted people to know there is nothing wrong with raising your animals in the inner city. She often justified why it is some what better to just raise your turkeys in your 1 bedroom apartment. “You see the conditions that [factory- farmed animals live] in…you don’t know where the meat came from, you don’t know how it died or anything about it” (The Urban Farmer, paragraph 11). She is saying at least with my meats you know they came from a lady on Craigslist. In the Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat article and the Well Done article both writers are explaining to there audience which are vegetarians and omnivores why there are few vegetarians in America and increase in other countries. Christine Lennon feels that a lot of people convert to being a vegetarian because of the terrible animal conditions. Her husband went through the stage of being a vegetarian but she found some organic farms and got him to start back eating cows. Not just any cows though, they have to be raised on a farm that feed them natural foods not processed foods. The reason why Americans switch from being vegetarians to omnivores is because we have so many resources so we often justify our actions. One may say it is wrong to eat meat. The Lennon’s would say it is wrong to eat soy based processed fake meat. They would agree if your going to eat meat eat Beef with benefits.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete