For our first post (choose "comment" to post) discuss the two texts assigned. Who do you think they were written for? What kind of strategies do they use? Are these appeals and strategies effective for the intended audience? Have you thought much about the connection between meat (or food production) and the environment before?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as how no one wants to go first and I don't want to stay up all night waiting for someone to make the move...
ReplyDeleteRegarding "One Less Burger, One Safer Planet"
I found that the author, Derrick Z Jackson is an African American liberal and the article was published a few months prior to the 2008 presidential election, and the candidates were even named and quoted in the opening paragraph.
Interestingly enough, the article targeted not only the every-day American who chooses a drive-thru as their dinner but also those wealthier Americans, who in doing what they can to help this situation, instead somewhat hurt it more but replacing the meat they had been eating with endangered species. I guess the article essentially targets everyone with the message that the issue of such grand consumption of meat is hurting the world, similarly to the emissions let out by cars and airplanes, wont be resolved until those in the White House realize it and do something about it. So, maybe the author is trying to persuade the readers to make it a point to let their legislators know that they think this problem needs to be addressed.
I all ready somewhat addressed the purpose in saying that the article informs the readers of the dangers of the vast consumption of meat the world is partaking in and that nothing will happen until the government steps up.
One strategy that stuck out was when Jackson compared green house gas emissions to those of cars and planes because the typical American would think greenhouse means something good; "green" is good. But this little statistic contradicts that ideology. Also, Jackson cleverly made this article more personal by saying the overall affects of eating less meat will also be beneficial to individuals, as there will be lower rates of heart disease, colorectal (colon) cancer, and obesity.
Our first author, Michael Pollan, wrote a chapter named Our National Eating Disorder in the book “Omnivores Dilemma.” Since it is a book, it was clearly written for those already have an interest in food and their diets. Pollan wants the reader to understand what they are eating, and why they chose that particular food. He mentions how Americans obsess over their diets yet continue to grow more obese, while the French eat only fattening food and remain slim. He also brings up that from all of our selection in the supermarkets today, ¼ of that can be traced back to a stock of corn. Systematically going through our grocery stores he explains how meat, cereal, condiments, Twinkies, and even cardboard boxes all come from corn. Pollan goes on to write about corn and how it affects us in every aspect of our life. I didn’t think this was very effective. I think he confuses the reader with his drawn out explanations. He makes most of the article about the life of corn, and takes away from his purpose. He didn’t write this to suggest that Americans eat whatever they want for their daily meals, or to talk about how much he likes corn. I believe that he is trying to get across that we are thinking too much into our food, and in doing that way over-producing. Pollan is concerned that the production that we are putting into food could be ruining our environment. Even if the reader could not pull it out of this reading, they could from his article Farmer in Chief which we read in class on Thursday.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the second article “One Less Burger, One Safer planet”, Derrick Jackson agrees with Pollan. He wrote this article for the readers of the Boston Globe. Judging from the context, and the blame they place upon the Bush and other Republican administrations, this is a Liberal newspaper. Jackson’s strategy was to compare the greenhouse gas given off by the production/consumption of meat to being equally as bad for the environment as flying or driving. I think that it was very effective because it related food, something most Americans think of as a necessity, to things which are a general concern to the American public. He is also reaching out to the Liberal readers who are concerned about the greenhouse gases and environment as they proved in this year’s election. His purpose in writing this was to change the readers eating habits, and tell them to cut back on meat consumption. Though it seems obvious, I have never previously thought about meat, and the damage it could be causing the environment. After reading this, I probably will adjust my eating habits.
Regarding "Omnivore's Dilemma"
ReplyDeleteThe author, Michael Pollan, apparently also write for the New York Times Magazine and is hugely into science and environmental journalism. Also, he is the director of the Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, which sounds pretty good to me. The introduction before the first chapter gives an overview of the book, focusing on the question of "What's for dinner?" It points out why we as humans have such an awful time deciding what to eat, since we do not eat just what we know is food and will suffice. Maybe we're just too picky?
The author is writing for the persons who have a problem with the food they are eating now, perhaps don't like the foods that comprise their daily meals. He specifically says if a reader is content with what they eat, then they wont like this book.
The purpose is to educate people on what it is that we are actually consuming when we buy something at the grocery store. In particular, the first chapter shows how so much is made up of corn, which is strange to think, but it of course makes sense that a person can't go stand out in the sun for a few minutes and become completely energized, so we must eat foods that can provide us with this such energy. But why corn?
While somewhat interesting, I feel like this goes into a lot of detail about the significance of corn. I'm not sure if it's really something I care to learn. Yes, I understand that so many things stem from corn and I wouldn't be able to have my favorite cereal in the morning if it wasn't for corn but I'm not entirely certain all this detail is a necessity.
"One less Hamburger..." This article seems to be written for the American public as a way of informing them on the food crisis that may at some random time happen in America. The author pulls us in with a tone that seems to scream he is on to the biggest secret in America. However his information with "scientific" studies to back it up seems to fall short as the author hasn't put anything about the study and what it found. I found his attacks on meat eaters and wealthy ineffective as many of these individuals try to be cautious with Mother Earth. (Despite their HUGE SUV's) I also didn't care about his predictions of presidential hopefuls. He seemed to "quickly predict" each person's response.
ReplyDelete"What's for dinner" was a completely different piece for me and I enjoyed reading his perspective on how humans simply have too many options on food, food is being overproduced and food is being over consumed. All three of this issues lead to waste and health factors as well. He also writes on the effectiveness of corn and its many uses. I found his writing to be much more persuasive and interesting to read.
I have never really considered the connection between meat and the environment before. As a server as Red Lobster for 2 years, I am in charge of training new servers. Part of the written training is how Red Lobster is conservative to the environment and never takes out more than it puts back in to maintain that seafood lovers will be able to dine with us.
As one of many from our generation, I haven’t spent the time to read and learn about the food crisis sweeping our country and its affects on our country temporarily and in the longer term aspect. I began the assignment with reading “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet” which contained several statistics which really forced the reader to be aware of the current situation. The article was written in the home stretch of the presidential election, therefore bringing up both the presidential candidates within the first sentence. The author mentioned how neither of the candidates really has made an effort to inform the nation on the importance of slimming down to save the environment. The article was loaded with statistics from agricultural greenhouse gases to global meat consumption, which proved several valid points that were all supported by statistics. Overall, the author made the article short and sweet while remaining effective in proving his purpose: to inform the general public of America’s food crisis and how it can be fixed.
ReplyDeleteIn the second assignment, the first chapter of “The Omnivores Dilemma” the author takes a different approach to addressing the food crisis. In the beginning he explains how humans, along with other species, are omnivores which makes our range of food much broader, and decisions on what to eat, much more difficult. America is the world’s melting pot, and with all the ethnicities that we are composed of, there are many options when referring to food and different types of food, which again aides to the omnivores dilemma. With the understanding that this is the introduction to a book, I still feel like the author makes a point, but then begins to ramble and reword statements he has already made, which I feel isn’t a very effective strategy. He does bring up some valid points, such as through industry, the natural food chain has been disrupted, and that is what essentially connected us to other animals and the earth as a whole. Through industry and technology, we have what most would consider an abundance of food, which actually brings more problems to the table. By disrupting the process of solely using natural solar energy which at one time grew the crops that were needed, we now depend on fossil fuels to do the work faster. The methods to which we get our food are rushed and done less efficiency then in the past. He used the example of raising animals in confinement with processed foods they would not regularly eat, making them less healthy in the long term, and making us unhealthy as by eating them.
When the author begins to separate into the specified subject of corn, I think he begins to lose his readers with the significance of the overall topic. Corn has and still is a vital part of agriculture and has a daily impact, but I do not believe he needed to devote an entire section to discussing the importance of it. Throughout this introduction to his book, the author does a fairly good job at analyzing the food crisis and making the typical excuses for humans and what we do wrong with poor habits. I think both articles really made their points in which America has a severe eating disorder which affects our health and our environment, and we need everyone to do something about it.
Our first two readings regarding the rhetoric of foods both posed interesting issues. Our first piece, “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet”, was published on Tuesday, April 15, 2008. This is important because we know that this was published before the 2008 presidential election. This is important because these candidates are possibly who the author, Derrick Jackson, is trying to write to. I believe this is who Jackson is writing to. This is important because we are now able to dissect this piece. Jackson starts off his article by predicting what each candidate speech would be about during the week of Earth Day. Although Jackson does not reveal any particular side, we are able to see that he has general perception of each candidate and what they promote. He goes on with some interesting facts on our current food crisis in America. Jackson states that scientists believe that eating less meat could help slow global warming. This raises an interesting point with the recent concerns with ‘global warming’. Later, Jackson discusses the importance of gas emissions and the increased production of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which do not help the ideas of global warming. He also mentions the problem with the lack of land. Jackson is referring to the land needed for our crops and farms. This is very important if we cannot feed the people because we are short on land, which is why Jackson’s ideas on eating less in our culture is so important. If this pace keeps up, who knows what might happen. I think Jackson uses his strategies of blunt facts works effectively. His points are really clear on what could happen to our world.
ReplyDeleteOur second piece was a section out of the book Omnivore’s Dilema. The author and the published date are not mentioned. This makes interpreting this piece much more difficult. In the introduction, “Our National Eating Disorder”, the author poses some very interesting ideas. The author’s ideas are much stronger because some of his ideas are so straight forward. This is an important strategy because it makes his ideas stronger because they are to the point. He also uses some ideas that are a little less conventional. I am speaking of his idea of ‘carbophobia’. He uses this term, which really caught my attention, to help illustrate our unhealthy American society is suddenly trying to become fit by being on ‘low-carb’ diets and eating more meat. He also later talks about a bread and pasta ban which actually hurts our economy by having bread shops and pasta companies out of business. There is too much in this piece that I could not even mention, but I think the author is writing to Americans as a whole and a society, to help them see what problems face us, and what needs to be done before something horrendous occurs.
In the article, “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet”, I believe that the intended audience is the American population, as well as the three presidential candidates at the time the article was written (John McCain, Hilary Clinton, and Barack Obama). While the three candidates may not have been the actual intended audience, they will indeed have somebody in his/her campaign notice and read it. The actual audience is the American population, from the frequent fast-food diners to the wealthy Americans, who harm the environment by endangering fish. This article was written in April 2008, in the midst of the presidential campaigners’ who’s who of health care policies, opinions on the war in Iraq, and environmental policies, also commonly referred to as an election year. The author, Derrick Jackson, appears to be quite liberal, as he calls the work done by the Bush administration as “encouraging outrageous consumption and inspiring no sacrifices”.
ReplyDeleteThe tone of this article is troubling but insightful, and the opening paragraph is so sarcastically perfect, you can’t wait to read more. One of the strategies Jackson used was giving statistics. By claiming that “scientists concluded that eating less meat will help slow global warming”, and “stabilizing agricultural emissions would require a 10 percent cut in global meat consumption” the author makes eating less meat seem like an unavoidable way to save the environment. I believe that these strategies are effective for the intended audience. The emotional appeal of this article plays to the go-greeners, anyone who eats food, and the environmentalists. Americans are more likely to believe new concepts when they are backed by statistics and facts, even if the origin of the statistic is unknown.
In the excerpt from The Omnivore’s Dilemma, the intended audience is those suffering from the American national eating disorder, which Michael Pollan describes as all Americans. The national eating disorder is described simply as “what’s for dinner”, with the underlying issue being the unhealthy American population obsessed with the idea of eating healthy. Simply by calling this the “American paradox”, Pollan played to my emotional appeal. I realized I’m not the only one suffering from this unspoken of national eating disorder!
One of the strategies Pollan uses is humor. He uses humor to enlighten a rather grave subject. His use of calling American’s omnivores may seem humorous; however, the definition of an omnivore is one who quite literally takes in everything. As Pollan points out, food is no exception. The passage where Pollan talks about humans not knowing what “plants” are in a majority of the food in our supermarkets is eye-opening as well as amusing, such as listing Pop-Tarts and Lunchables as “unclassables” and reminding us that the “deathless Twinkie is constructed out of some formerly living creature”. Another strategy used is talking about inanimate food as if it were human. He describes the corn’s reliability on humans who produce it, corn sex, and corn’s feelings toward carbon (it will take whatever it can get, it’s not picky). The subheadings reinforce this (“Corn Walking”, “The Rise of Zea Mays”, “Married to a Man”, etc).
I think that these strategies are effective for the intended audience. The humor makes the excerpt easy to read, while opening the mind to what people are actually eating for dinner. By focusing on one food, corn, which is in almost everything Americans consume, and using specific examples of foods, the unhealthy obsessed Americans can relate it back to his/her diet.
I have never really thought about the correlation between food and the environment before. The idea that flatulence emitted methane and nitrous oxide is connected to global warming is something I had never thought about before. Nor did I realize that corn was a rather important ingredient in many of the foods I eat and a cause in the national eating disorder. It’s the little things about food, such as eating one less hamburger a month, or truly understanding the diet Americans put themselves on, that could save a nation and aid in the environmental policy of the nation.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles were very informing, touching on all aspects of food. One less Burger, One Safer Planet, written by Derrick Jackson informed the entire Boston area of the red meat epidemic. Jackson cautioned his readers that eating meat affects the plant significantly. He explains in a slighted humor fashion, the consumption of red meat, results in increased flatulence “the methane and nitrous oxide being released (that includes flatulence and gases from manure) is significant”. Contributing to the problem faced today with Global warming.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both articles I understand the pros and cons of watching what you eat. I am a 21 year old female, who considers herself to be healthy and an, “enjoyer of food”. I do not plan to cut red meat out of my diet, or as Pollan mentioned, whole grains; such as bread, spaghetti, and cereal.
I enjoyed Michael Pollan’s article of eating better, and thought it was educating and entertaining. He uses a lot of statistics when explaining the origins or corn and how people as an economy use corn in every aspect of life. I enjoyed his stylistic humor when describing mans Marriage to Corn or vice-versa, followed by Corn Sex.
Our first piece, "One Less Burger, One Safer Planet, was seemingly written for a liberal audience, as it seems to have some knocks on Bush at the end of it. It claims that Bush offered no sacrifice regarding global warming except for the September 11th attacks. This just seems to say that Bush didn't really do much to try to help the global warming cause. The way that the article relates food like meat and fish to ideas such as global warming do seem like good ways to appeal to a conservative audience. Overall i think the author did a good job of appealing to his intended audience, as well as to some conservatives. He did make these issues of how eating less meat could help slow global warming appealing to everyone, describing our consumption of meat as not only harmful to the environment, but also harmful to our health. That is something that anyone can relate to. Even if a reader is not concerned with global warming, he or she is surely going to care about their own well being. Before reading articles like this one I had never really related food to the environment before, and I have definitely never thought about how the food we eat speeds up global warming. I think these are interesting issues to know about. It brings about a good point about how many little things we as a nation can do to better ourselves regarding issues such as global warming and the environment. I also liked the point about how when wealthy nations do cut back on meat consumption, they replace it with endangered fish and shrimp, which doesn't really help the problem at all.
ReplyDeleteThe second piece was a chapter from Michael Pollen's book, which, before I even read it gave me a fairly good idea how it would be written and who it would be written for. The article we read in class was by him, and came from a liberal magazine, so this tells me that he obviously is also writing for a liberal audience. But, the article in class did very well in making the issues relevant to everyone, as did this piece. Since this article was longer, there is just so much to write about, but I just want to focus on the parts of it that stuck out to me. The first thing that jumped out to me is how often he talks about corn. I mean i know corn is important, it just isn't the most interesting food item that I eat, so that made it a little harder to follow. But, I did think it was interesting to find out how big of a role corn plays in every type of food, from being food for animals that become steak, to being in chicken nuggets, to being turned into corn syrup to go into drinks like pop. Another interesting point is the introduction, where he tells that the point of the book is essentially to inform us all on how to eat better. I mean America is such as obese nation now that this seems like a very relevant topic to write a book on. It goes in to great detail about our eating habits, and I think this is very interesting. So many Americans don't even realize what they are really eating, or that the food they choose to eat could inevitably kill them. I also liked the point that as humans we can modify food in ways that no other species can, which greatly impacts the kinds of foods we choose to eat. I also thought it was cool how he brought up how Twinkies really come from some sort of living creature, no one really ever wonders about stuff like that when they eat "junk food".
The two articles “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet,” written by Derrick Z. Jackson and the first chapter of the Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan seem to be written for two very different audiences. Jackson’s article appears to be more directed towards a casual news reading audience, whereas Pollan’s article seems to be directed towards an audience more interested in the current food industry. One of the main reasons I say this is because of one of the most obvious differences between the two texts, that being the length. Jackson’s article is much shorter and two the point, which doesn’t command as much of a person’s attention as Pollan’s entire book about the subject. Jackson also uses specific “out there” facts (or facts about the food industry that many people may not know) in order to get a reader interested immediately, such as citing the methane production of cows digestive systems. Jackson also uses a strategy of not holding one candidate above all the others, he seems to be sarcastically critical of each candidate, thus not offending any supporter of a particular candidate and turning them off to the idea. Being a reader of this text that has taken environmental study courses (and participated in a debate about the harms of factory farms) this information was really basic. Pollan’s book seems to be directed towards people who already know the basics, but really want to get into the meat of the issue. He uses a lot of repetition in his first chapter talking about his project in the book. I suspect that this is used so that the reader doesn’t forget the reason he/she is reading the book in the first place. He also is much more casual in his writing; it’s less of a report and more of a one-sided discussion about his personal experiences with the issue.
ReplyDeleteI have thought about it a lot, mostly because of the classes I’ve taken and because I went to college at Bowling Green for awhile, where there is a strong movement in relation to environmental issues. There’s a lot of wind turbines and recycling up there. It is a big issue, however. I never realized it entirely until I took a trip to Europe and decided that I wouldn’t eat any fast food while I was there. I realized how far removed we really are from our foods. In many places in Ireland, when you’re close to the coast you eat seafood and when you’re inland you eat local meats. The menu’s at restaurants change constantly and its genuinely better food. The grocery stores are usually much smaller and there are still open markets where meats and vegetables and other foods are sold daily. Also, while staying with friends and family, one thing I noticed is that their refrigerators are much smaller, as they don’t store as much food as we usually do.
In the “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet” article, I found many cliché rhetorical devices that seem to plague so many in the genre of “nobody really cares about this subject.” In the “nobody really cares about this subject” genre we find articles on Nostradamus, trains, men’s fashion, and food. While these are certainly not the only subjects in this genre, these were the wittiest I had to put forward at 12:34 ante meridian on the day this critique is due. Perhaps the most overly used tactic that is present in this article is the sense of doom. Yes, if you can link your lonely subject to that of the end of the world or biblical afflictions upon humanity, you’re in. This article takes the “if you eat a burger you’ll kill a polar bear” stance and does a halfway decent job at defending itself against its own stupidity. I really love the euro-centric stance that is China and India are going to causes lots of problems down the proverbial road simply because people living there will eat all of our food.
ReplyDeleteThis article is clearly intended for people who are willing to change anything about them after about five minutes of manipulated thought. I say manipulated and not careful because a careful thought could not be achieved after five minutes of an introspective self-inquisition. This line particularly made me realize who this article was for “Ah, but what about hamburgers?” This style of writing is for the writer looking to ask simple questions and proceed to answer them by way of their sophomoric research and logical leaps that are a rare treat outside of medical facilities. I like to call this the “reverse straw-man argumentative flaw” because it really presents the reader with the image that the writer is a “straw-man” and that their argument is utter silliness. Inconsiderate as I may be, if someone is willing to subject themselves to the public, scrutiny must certainly be applied.
These types of arguments may prove to be effective on people unwilling to look up a counter point to the article they just read, or unwilling to see through the nonsense the writer presents. However, for the learned person, articles such as “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet” are an embarrassment and need not be taken seriously. On a personal note, I do agree with the basic premise of the article and the point it is trying to revel to the reader, though, this argument is made much better elsewhere.
On the “Omnivore’s Dilemma” excerpt, I was overwhelmed with the revelation that somebody else, who wrote books, agreed with me. They too saw right through the absurdity that was the, well, food commentary industry. This is a ridiculous group of people who are either people who do not cook, do not farm, or do not research nutritional biology that make statements which cause people to react. Such an example is the Atkins diet. Humans lived for thousands of years with bread, so why in god’s name would anyone decide eating it was a bad idea. This hype and malarkey was finally being pointed out by someone with credibility.
The book is aimed at people either sick of the newest food fad or people seeking the newest food fad but stumbled upon a book at that appears to be the anti-fad. Then again, every fad has attempted to be the anti-fad, hence its initial appeal.
The rhetoric used worked well, and carried a proper theme, logic. This whole book it just one small logical step to the next as it presents well crafted arguments. While no “Second Treatise on Civil Government” or “Das Kapital” it does allow for some great arguments to unfold.
Overall this was a well written article, despite it not being able to change my views on food.
It is now 1 ante meridian and I apologize for any spelling or grammatical mistakes.
I feel that the article by Derrick Jackson was meant for the everyday citizen that wants to be involved with the everyday “crisis” that we are face. That “crisis” just so happens to be global warming. The simple solution seems to be that we just need to eat less meat. Doesn’t that sound so very simple? One of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard is to eat less meat. Many other things depend on those animals. Such as the fertilizer we use for our food all the time. Not a big deal though. Maybe we can just use some more pesticides and artificial growth hormones, sounds even better. Emissions are the problem that we face and that is what needs to be dealt with. Not wither we need to eat more or less beef.
ReplyDeleteThen he goes on to make fun of the competency of prior presidents. It seems so simple how we can solve a situation on paper in some lame article and then everyone thinks they know how to efficiently solve the problem. Well, walk a day in the life of people who grow your food and then come back with your super answer of, “Let’s eat less meat!”
I believe that an Omnivore’s Dilemma is about just what it asks. Also, it is written obviously for the people who already have a problem with the food they eat and have a problem with your regular food intake. No, you cannot eat whatever you want and get away with it. Pollan wants the readers to know what they are eating and why. Like a high protein diet and why it is necessary to stay away from bread and pasta. Obviously if you are dieting it is not because you are exercising everyday or even every other day. It is because you don’t “have time to” exercise. You do not need the stored energy that carbohydrates provide. Food is needed for the present. I also believe that in his explanation of corn and how it affects our daily lives, he confuses the reader with his long, drawn out thought process which completely takes away from his point. His point is that we need to worry less about what we eat and worry more about the nutritional or what has went into the food to make it what it is.
Do I feel that he is a sane human being, no. He cares way too much about corn, more than any human being should. Again, this article was very involving but in a negative perspective. It is not just the food we are eating but also the exercise that we are getting. How many people do you know that make a late night run or even eat three times a day? The follow up is, do they exercise or have some physical activity that burns calories at all? Do you really see anyone forcing food down your throat and then telling you too go sit for the rest of the night and watch TV? A warning label will now be attached claiming that greasy, oily food will cause heart disease and laziness.
“One Less Burger, One Safer Planet” seemed to be written for those interested in achieving a healthier environment, whether liberal or not. The opening paragraph griped about our presidential candidates and their pitiful attempts to garner votes with loaded words pertaining to their environmental strategies. Jackson leaves no candidate untouched, displaying each of their wrongs. Had he laid into one candidate more than the other, I would say he was writing for one side (meaning liberal or conservative), but he seems to be spouting a general disdain for all candidates and their lack of trying. He uses a lot of statistics and quotes, which have logical appeal and gives his writing credibility along with a bit of an information overload. The first two paragraphs are more an introduction to subsequent onslaught of facts. Jackson also employs the use of a few cliché phrases which lessen the effect of his writing, even though overall it is well-written. He also is mostly clear and concise, as journalism should be.
ReplyDeleteIf someone reading wanted to better the environment, this article would easily strike them, but for big meat eaters, I believe it would be like telling fish to grow lungs. However, in tandem with the other reading, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” I can see how Jackson’s plea for people to change their diets makes sense. There are other choices out there besides the Big Mac or Whopper. But convincing people would be tough.
Pollan’s book has many strategies, ranging from statistics to quotes, to personal experience and actual data hunting. He talks about corn in-depth, although he doesn’t seem to get his point across. To me the chapter was simply factual. I realize the title is “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” but all his talk about corn just made me wish for some corn-on-the-cob slathered in butter with a light dusting of salt. I’m not sure who his intended audience would be because I am confused if he is trying to show us how valuable corn is to our society, or that we need to be independent of it. At times when he delves into the scientific parts of corn breeding, reading became a bit tedious. But it again shows he really did his research and certainly knows his stuff.
While I have never thought about the connection between meat and the environment too much (I have always heard the cow and CO2 thing), it is interesting. The problem is no politician will stand up and say “No more meat on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday.” And without a bigwig in Washington to start a national decree against meat eating, there will be no significant changes in the eating habits of Americans. Sadly, I may be among those dooming the earth to a severe climate change because I enjoy meat too much to give it up. Nothing is more satisfying to me than a piece of rare meat. But if a politician were to limit the amount of beef one was allowed to buy through some sort of food stamp program, where you only got so many stamps for those t-bone steaks every month, I would comply begrudgingly. I still want my children to be able to live on this earth after all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the first article One Less Burger, One Safer Planet by Derrick Z. Jackson I felt that his intended audience was not only the American people but also people from all over the world who eats meat. In his article Derrick goes into detail explaining to “us” (omnivores) why it is important to cut down on eating meat. I think Jackson is not only speaking to Americans yet I believe his main focus is Americans. Although through out the article he references many different countries that share the same issues that America has he clearly states “we in the obese United States must redefine what constitutes, to borrow from McDonald's, a "happy meal." The fact that he said “We” tells me he is talking about we the American people who are meat-eaters. His actually audience was Boston Globe readers. Like Jackson wakeup call about foods we daily digest the Omnivore’s Dilemma gave me a serious wakeup call about the many different things (species) we eat. He calls it the principal food chains that sustain “us” today: the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer. By looking at his word choice you would assume that the writer intended audience is people who would eat any type or many different types of food including both plants and animals. I mean the title of the book is the Omnivore’s Dilemma! When I read the first page I was attracted by the title. Another strategy the writer use was different analogies “though in Meat the creaturely character of the species on display does seem to be fading as the cows and pigs increasingly come subdivided into boneless geometrical cuts. Also the term species continues to cross the page making me think twice about my daily diet. I was thinking about how I ate a JR beacon cheese burger, a five piece, a small fry some (sweet and sour sauce), a turkey sandwich, 6 Oreos, and the classic Nacho cheese Doritos. I am one out of a million who can relate to not eating very healthy. Reading the Omnivores dilemma I realized all the processed foods I constantly find myself eating. “There must be a hundred different species in the produce section…alone”. That scares me. I once had seen a documentary about chicken that’s really not chicken being sold as chicken that’s what I thought about. I thought about the chicken I am eating could be a pidgin or even worse. The question that comes to my head; how can I treat my body better by eating healthy? What foods are actually healthy?
ReplyDeleteReading the One Less Burger One Safer Planet and the Omnivores Dilemma It made me want do more for myself. I thought more about my environment and I wanted to do something for the planet. If we all could just watch the things we ate, think about our health and environment before we just think “I’m hungry, let’s go to Wendy’s” we could live a lot longer like Jackson said “There would likely be other benefits, such as lower rates of heart disease, colorectal cancer, and obesity, and preservation of the habitat for all kinds of species. If we could possibly stop heart disease, obesity and preserve the habitat of all kinds of species that would cause people to live longer healthier lives and possible happier lives for animals and us, human beings.
“One Less Burger, One Safer Planet…” seems to be an article written for the American public. The author just wants to make it known that food crises are a large threat even here in the United States. Personally I have never taken the time to even think that we had a food crisis on our hands here. The article was written during the near end of the election, which meant that the article clearly brought the candidates into the picture even though it seemed that neither one ever took much time to speak of this problem to the public.
ReplyDeleteIn the article it was stated that “The study said that stabilizing agricultural emissions would require a 10 percent cut in global meat consumption.” This of course means that the crisis is not just a problem in the United States, but worldwide. Personally I do not see people willingly committing to a cut in their consumption of meat at this point in time. This is because it doesn’t seem like there is any immediate danger waiting right around the corner.
Back home in northern Ohio, my parents own a seafood shop where customers can come in and shop for fresh locally Farm Raised fish and shrimp. There is also a wide variety of oceanic fish and shellfish. The article talks about the problems of demanding extremely high amounts of fish. The winter holiday season without a doubt creates the largest demand for shrimp and salmon. It was not uncommon for the shop to easily run out of the supply that my dad would attempt to “over-stock” on in one day, and the process would repeat for about a week or so after the holidays.
There is a butcher shop right around the corner from the seafood store, which has easily become known to be one of the busiest places to shop in my hometown. It seems that people can’t get enough of the fresh beef, chicken, and pork that is sold in the store. However, lately both the seafood and the butcher shops have taken a blow with all of the problems our economy has been going through. People have less money to spend on the top dollar meat and simply go to a cheaper brand or store. I assume that other food markets like these two have taken the same loss, even though I am sure it is varied on how bad the loss is, a loss is still a loss.
After reading the article I believe that the author did make some good points and arguments. I just do not feel that right away the public is going to accept the idea of cutting back on the way that they consume meat and fish. As I stated earlier, I have never taken the time to realize there was a food crisis on our hands. But now that I know about the possibilities of it I may take more time to research on it, but I do not expect my menu for dinner to change anytime soon.
I think all three of the articles, Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat, A Carnivore’s Delight Poses an Ethically Meaty Dilemma, and the Urban Farmer, all share a common purpose of educating the public about safer, more humane choices for eating meat, but each of the articles does it in a strikingly different manner.
ReplyDeleteApparently a lot of other writers were writing about what Christine Lennon wrote in Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat. I found a lot of such articles when I Google searched her. I thought it was very interesting how she related the compromise of choosing humanely grown meats to the compromises in marriage. It made the article seem less like a piece saying “Don’t eat meat injected with hormones!” and more like a piece saying “Like in a marriage, there is always a way to compromise between two extremes.” It makes the article more readable and more enjoyable, I think.
Then I read what I would like to call a slap-in-the-face article, A Carnivore’s Delight Poses an Ethically Meaty Dilemma. Mark Morford used a crazy amount of satire, irony, and sarcasm throughout the piece, but particularly in the opening paragraphs that make this piece impossible to put down. He also used insanely good imagery! (I wish I could write like him!) After researching him, I found that this would be a typical piece for him; his writing was described as controversial and non-journalistic in style, attitude, and tone on Wikipedia. (I also found that he was suspended twice for his writing, so he obviously doesn’t care what anyone else thinks!) One thing that surprised me was that he wrote that the naturally raised meat tasted the best and was also the cheapest, but didn’t we talk about it not being cheap and that’s why the majority of Americans can’t afford it?
Lastly, The Urban Farmer. I thought it was interesting to write a piece in the interview style because it gives a real person’s perspective and her whole story. However, I didn’t think there was anything extraordinarily riveting about the piece.
For this assignment I felt that all four of the articles that were written were intended for the public. Each one seemed to bring up some sort of a problem or dilemma that can be brought up with the process of eating meat. It did seem that beef was the main target of each article. This is especially true when the authors mentioned the ideas of the large scale factory farms that are becoming more popular in small towns. Personally I will never give up meat and become a vegetarian, I just feel it is no way to live; you lose too many important vitamins and other important parts of a healthy diet. Even Jonah Goldberg speaks about how vegans must take supplements and vitamins to gain all the things that they miss from not eating meat.
ReplyDeleteIn the “Meatpaper Interview” I thought the author, Amy Standen, broke her article up in to good pieces. Each question that she asked Novella Carpenter was different from the others but still could be tied into her piece very easily while still holding an easy to follow sort of flow. I also thought that when the ideas of “Babe” and “Charlotte’s Web” were used as a good way of connecting to those people that do not have any kind of experience with farming. It was a good way for her to make it known that just because someone raises an animal just outside her apartment doesn’t make it any less of a “farm animal.” I felt that this piece would be interesting for someone to read, it is not every day that you hear of someone that takes the time to raise all of their food instead of going to the market to buy it.
Personally I felt that the remaining three articles could be grouped together pretty easily, in the way that they all seemed to use a way of making the audience feel there was something wrong with the way things do turn out at times. For example the idea of factory farms again. In the article “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” the reader gets a picture painted out for them as they read “he provides a compelling critique of factory farms, which cram thousands of cows, pigs or chickens into rows of cages in warehouses, feed them drugs to plump up their meat and fight off the illnesses caused by these inhumane conditions, and produce innumerable tons of environmentally destructive animal waste.” It is not the type of picture that many think of when they think of a farm. Another picture that one can see is brought up in “Well Done” by Jonah Goldberg, when the idea of “Carnophobia” is brought up in the very first paragraph. I felt that the use of that word and the illnesses that follow it in the sentence were used well as an attention getter.
With this assignment, it seems like three of the assigned readings to a turn from the initial focus we had associating with the food crisis here in America. The first reading, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat”, discussed both views as a meat lover who lives with a stubborn vegetarian. The author, Christine Lennon, was not very formal in her writing style while stating her statistics and bringing personal stories to her article. I feel she was very effective in getting her point across. She brought up the fact that we should support eating meat, with limitations, and support the small farmers throughout America that raise cattle the right way, feeding them the right amount of nourishment. She brings up how the ‘factory farms’ cram the animals in an unreasonable amount of space, and feed them all the wrong things to just make the meatier so that they could be sold. Health issues would essentially be the long term effect on the consumer, because of what the animals are fed. Even her husband, the once vegetarian, and several other friends of the author have moved away from the vegetarian and vegan habits. Many of these people are supporting the small farms by buying the meat from these farmers to receive proper nourishment knowing that the animals were not treated poorly, and they can actually be aware of what they are eating.
ReplyDeleteThe second article, “Well Done”, actually was more reversed from the first article, because this article was explaining how the population in Europe is actually converting to being Vegetarian and Vegan. The craze started because of the high demand for meat, the illnesses caused by the low quality meat, and from pictures of slaughtered animals. European countries base many of their traditions based on food, but because of the problems associated with meat, these traditions have been abandoned. The meat problem has even caused many high quality restaurants to go Vegetarian, with no meat items on the menu. The author, Jonah Goldberg, used very sarcastic words to show his view on being Vegetarian. He mentioned how some people believe animals have feelings and that groups such as fruitarians, will only eat fruit so they won’t have to kill anything for nourishment, and only eat fruit because it’s lively. Most people like this, and eco-Vegetarians, do not like change or development with the environment, therefore disapproving of anything related to killing animals or disturbing the land. The author brings up the basic fact that humans are meant to eat meat, our bodies and teeth were made for the consumption of meat and when you do not eating, you’re depriving your body of its nourishment. Towards the end of the article, he even brings up a disturbing story of a fruitarian ultimately killing their infant due to malnutrition which validates his point.
In the final article in the “Meat paper”, the author interviews Novella Carpenter who lives in a one bedroom apartment in Oakland California, and is running a farm in her back yard. She raises the animals and kills them herself, and also grows her own vegetables in her garden. Like the first article, she mentions how she does not like the idea of “factory farming” and that if everyone would do a little bit of what she does, it could solve a lot of problems. She was once a vegetarian, but realizes her way of getting food Is a nourishing and conscientious way of obtaining her food. She doesn’t like the grocery store and this saves her time, and she knows where her food is coming from. All articles proved there points in eating meat for nourishment, but also the Vegetarian view and health risks over in Europe, and gradual health risks with the factory farms.
Today’s assigned readings were all about being able to eat meat without breaking your morals. All three authors agreed that one can eat meat while being ethical. Our first author Mollie Katzen, author of “Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat,” wrote about her vegetarian husband, and his decision to eat meat once again. They came to a compromise to eat a small amount of meat, raised by local ranchers. Katzen explains that many vegetarians find comfort in the fact that the cattle they are eating was once able to roam large pastures and eat green grass. She also writes that eating meat occasionally is better for ones health then a complete vegetarian diet. She explained that soy foods, which replace meat in many vegetarian diets, are highly processed and contains many chemicals. She also explains that small farmers produce better quality meat because they are not pumping them full of growth hormones.
ReplyDeleteOur second article, “The Urban Farmer,” was actually an interview conducted by Amy Standen with a local woman who raises turkeys in the back of her one bedroom apartment in an urban area of California. She raises her meat in the backyard, because she wants to know where her food came from and how it died. She goes on to say that she gives her animals a good life, and slaughters them humanely. At 6 months her turkeys will reach a point where they do not get bigger. She then slaughters her meat. She rationalizes this by saying wild animals die young in nature, so it is like reaching the end of their life cycle.
In third article, “A Carnivore’s Delight Poses an Ethically Meaty Dilemma,” our author Mark Morford confesses to eating meat but always from small farmers. Morford made this choice after driving past an industrial size slaughter farm where he describes the conditions as packed with unhappy cows and dirt instead of grass.
All these authors agree that ethically, environmentally, and health wise eating less meat from small time farmers is the right thing to do. They all wrote these articles to inform the public about better eating choices. I agree, however I don’t think it is as easy as that. All of these authors are from California, where there are many small time cattle farmers. In Cincinnati and where I come from, there are barely any farms. Obtaining meat from a small time farmer would be a chore most wouldn’t go out of their way for. Hopefully as Amy Staden wrote, it is the future. Transporting meat to all cities isn’t going to last forever, and everything will become more localized.
This week we have three articles to read and they have all conjured very different responses. Still, all of the pieces touch on matters of eating healthier and safer when it comes to meat. Christine Lennon writes about compromise in her article, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat.” Mark Morford gives witty insight on red meat and the way cattle is raised. And finally, Amy Standen interviews Novella Carpenter about killing animals close to home in “The Urban Farmer.” All three articles mention balance between vegetarianism and the carnivorous approach, small farms versus large factories, and knowing where food comes from opposed to knowing nothing about the product. Humanely raised meat is an important topic in Lennon’s piece. She cleverly brings in the component of compromise, both in her marriage and in her eating style. I like what Joanne said about the approach Lennon took in her article. She didn’t shout about why people should not eat meat at all, but rather used everyday events to show that there can be compromise between two extremes. Lennon says, “Eating meat selectively is better for the planet and our own health.” She and her husband both support small farms and locally grown cattle who are grass-fed and are humanely raised. Lennon makes a good point when she says, “What’s good for the environment, what’s good for cattle, is also good for us.”
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, Morford says that being “careful and aware” when it comes to enjoying a locally raised cow is the new medium between avoiding any meat in a diet and eating extreme amounts of hormone injected slabs of beef. Morford’s piece is choc full of satire, whit, and disgusting adjectives to describe processed meat. This method grabs the readers’ attention and might evoke a few laughs. He is blunt and to the point with his opinions and provides humor with facts. Morford goes to the extreme by describing meat as being “mystery gunk” and “large and reeking.” This may gross some people, but also, it rouses the drive to read further how to avoid such “freakishly brown fat laden gunk.” Morford, like Lennon, says that supporting small farms that raise their cattle on green grass can provide both a mouthwatering meal and contribute to a safer environment.
In the last piece, a new method of writing is introduced. Standen goes to the urban city of Oakland, California to interview an interesting character Novella Carpenter. After experimenting with vegetarianism for a few years, Carpenter decided to take things into her own hands, literally. She now has a farm/slaughterhouse running from her small apartment. Carpenter raises turkeys from babies until it is “their time” and then dinner is served. In relation to Lennon and Morford, Carpenter believes that knowing where an animal was raised and killed is important when planning a meal. When talking about the turkeys she says, “And so you’re harvesting them like an apple or anything else you’ve been cultivating.” The article is interesting because of the point of view, and the casual approach of dialogue between Carpenter and Standen. This also breaks up the article so that it doesn’t get too boring or monotonous. In the end, all authors suggest biting into a nice piece of humanely raised, grass fed cut of meat.
It is very obvious who these articles were intended to: the general public of America. It became clear in Christine Lennon's article titled "Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat". She states in the very beginning that she is meat lover. As the article progresses, it is easy to tell the intent of the article is not to get America to stop eating meat, but rather to eat better meat. And it is also a message to hardcore vegetarians that there is a new phase of eating meat that was "grass fed" and all natural.
ReplyDeleteIn Max Morford's article "A Carnivore's Delight Poses an Ethically Meaty Dilemma", it is painfully clear that he is trying to get more people to realize what they are eating. He uses images that a hard to deny of being unethical, such as "It's a veritable candy store wasteland of prisons and landfills and toxic waste sites and ...it's dotted all the way down with weird little forgotten farming/industrial towns". He is basically telling us that we are still eating McDonald's hamburgers because we or oblivious to how the meat is raised.
I thought the most interesting article of the four was the interview with Amy Standen, the urban farmer. It seems that she lives off of sustainability. Use what you need and don't waste what is not needed. It is also clear that she is interested in the unhealthy aspects of being a vegetarian, calling herself "junvielle" when she was one herself.
I agree with Amanda, that the most interesting article was The Urban Farmer. The interview shows that you can raise an animal, care for it, giving it the best possible life for a farm animal. Still she is able to take the necessary actions to slaughter. She made it very clear that there are boundaries to raising then killing. She also pointed out that she only eats the meat that she kills. After reading all four articles I can now understand why people decided to stop eating beef, or properly raised animals. I feel like I can make an educated decision about the foods I decide to eat. Rather than listening to vegan, vegetarians, or like Goldberg so humorously pointed out, fruitarians. I could never see myself becoming a vegetarian, but I can see myself being more conscious of the beef I purchase. I also can not see myself eating another burger from any fast food restaurant, let alone anything
ReplyDeleteThe first reading, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat”, discussed both views from both a meat lover and a stubborn vegetarian. Christine Lennon, the author, is the meat eater. She expresses her views but with mush regard to a vegetarian’s viewpoint. She doesn’t overstate her facts by adding her opinion in the facts to try and persuade anyone into becoming an omnivore. In her article she is talking to the entire public. I believe her goal is just to inform vegetarians, healthy eater, and others who want to become healthier. She states both sides of views in each of her arguments and believes that it is a good way to undercut the big “unhealthy” farming operations. I understand what others want from the farming community, but there is no way that it could ever be able to happen on a large scale. The amount of time, care, and land involved in this method that the average farmer would not be able to survive with the income. He would be operating at a deficit. Personally love meat. I cannot even go a full day without eating meat at least twice in a day. I don’t even eat just a plain cheese pizza.
ReplyDeleteThe second article, “Well Done”, I feel that it is a ridiculous idea that people convert to being vegan because they see pictures of animals being slaughtered for their food. No longer would they want to drive a care if they saw how they put it together. IT IS A PROCESS THAT IS DONE FOR YOU FOR NURISHMENT. Illness is a more substantial argument. I may eat less meat but it wouldn’t be completely cut out of my regular routine. I would definitely become more cautious about where I get my meat from though. There would not be a time I wouldn’t think about it while I was eating meat, unless it was wild game I fetched myself. As for the high demand, I really don’t know what to tell you. Move. As for the author, Jonah Goldberg, I believe that very sarcastic language was used but it was used very well to prove his point. The article was even brought to the point of bringing up a real event of a baby being killed because of malnutrition on the mother’s part. That is ridiculous to think that a mother was so stuck in her ways that she watched as her baby slowly deteriorated until its death.
The final article, “Meat paper”, is an interview about Novella Carpenter. She is living in a one bedroom apartment in Oakland California, and has a farm in her back yard. She has the whole shebang going on. Animals and a garden, this is all because she does not like the way that big farmers are growing food for the mass population. I do believe that it is a great idea once again in theory, but after a while it would become so overwhelming. Not even to mention that you neighbors would be complaining like crazy. On top of that, if you lived in a town, there are ordinances passed so that almost no one could do this even if they wanted. A life with farming, a real job, and a kid would be ridiculous for even the most goal oriented families.
The three articles assigned for today seemed mainly to deal with the issue of how to eat meat in a more cautious way, taking many factors into account, such as who killed the animal, where it came from, and what it ate before it was slaughtered. These articles also educated me on vegetarians, and provided some insight into why people choose to abstain from eating meat. This was interesting to me since I have been eating meat my whole life. I never really knew too much about the idea of not eating meat, and I never really understood how or why people did it. In the article titled “Why vegetarians are eating meat”, it explained that many vegetarians are eating meat that comes from small preserved farms where the animals are grass fed and not treated so terribly and unnaturally before they are slaughtered. This allowed me to understand why many vegetarians have a problem with eating meat, because of where it came from. This is interesting to me because I have always eaten meat and never given a thought to the fact that it was at one time a live animal. I just see it as food and eat it. It was never more of an issue than that. But, from these articles I see how many people see problems behind eating meat. However, the point is brought up that eating meat may contribute to a healthier lifestyle that allows a person to have more energy. So, these articles can be relevant to anyone to is interested in how to eat healthy.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that I thought was interesting came from the interview with the farmer who butchers and eats her own meat. She brought up the point that she sees in ethical when she eats meat that she herself kills, so that she knows it is clean, and she knows where it came from. This makes sense to me, and probably to many others who are against the cruel treatment of animals. Even if you are someone who doesn’t really care about that, it could still be in your best interest to eat meat that came from a farmer like this because it very well may be better for you. It wont have any extra chemicals and such in it, and it isn’t really processed. The animals are also naturally fed.
I think these three articles could be geared toward anyone really. Even if you are not someone who is worried about eating meat, the points in the articles can still be very helpful in knowing what kind of meat is better to eat. This could help improve one’s diet and overall health, and everyone is concerned with that. This is more of what interests me about these articles, because to be honest I really don’t care about how the animals I eat were treated before they were killed, or what they ate, or where they were raised. I just care about how it tastes, and that may seem wrong but when I eat it those things about food that was once live animal don’t really go through my head.
The reading assignments for today give a little bit of insight into the reasoning and ethics of whether or not people eat meat. From what I’ve read, it seems like most vegetarians do not eat meat because they don’t agree with the methods used to produce it. This is a fair argument. While I am not a vegetarian myself, I can respect people’s decision to avoid eating food that comes from a violent background. Most vegetarians just do not want to support the mass raising of livestock just to brutally kill it. These giant farms keep thousands and thousands of livestock in miserable conditions only to slaughter them when they have eaten enough hormones and steroids to get meaty enough.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to hear, however, that more and more vegetarians are turning to small farm meat products. The small farms have much less livestock, meaning that they can give more time and attention to the animals, there are less diseases being passed around, and consequently, the animals do not have to be fed any hormones, antibiotics, steroids, or any other nonsense. This is a very acceptable system, I think, and an increasing number of vegetarians are starting to agree.
In my opinion, eating small farms’ meat as opposed to large, commercial meat, is a much better option than being a vegetarian. While some people take their vegetarianism responsibly, others do not, and they neglect their bodies and it’s nutritional needs. I have known far too many vegetarians that are always tired and weak because they do not get enough protein in their diet. It’s hard for me to watch them mistreat themselves while trying to save the mistreated animals that they refuse to eat. The growing popularity of organic, humanely raised livestock, is a great step in the right direction to solving this nutritional and moral battle that people fight every day.
I think that all of these articles were targeted towards Americans, in general, not just meat eaters and vegetarians. In the article, Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat by Christine Lennon favors the vegetarian audience, but also can be read by a meat eater as well for many reasons. The main topic in this article is a “safe” alternative for eating meat, rather then the factory farmed animals that are feed food that is hard to digest and possibly given steroids, by buying produce that was locally raised on a “natural” farm. This information raises awareness for vegetarians by displaying that there are farmers that take care of the animals, making the meat more acceptable morally and heath wise. And for omnivores, explains a vegetarians’ viewpoint regarding their choice as well as having alternative options for meat. The other articles follow this similar pattern, explaining why vegetarians’ are now starting to eat meat and showing better types of meat to eat.
ReplyDeleteI think all of the articles strategies in making the reader feel as though the meat we consume is an inhumane and unhealthy act, if you take it that way. I think the article is informing about vegetarians decisions to try to stay health by not eating an essential nutrient. I guess it is worth giving up a good amount of strength to let other people consume the animal instead. This way they won’t have a guilty conscious. I’m not saying we shouldn’t consider organisms feeling, but pick and choose your battles. Was man created for the animal, or was the animal created for man! I think we need to take better care of what God gave us, such as this earth. But we need to take care of other people and nations as well. Besides that, I think the articles provided detailed examples of why food has became such an issue in America. Not only do we have problems with food shortages, but people have a problem eating what has been graciously provided for them as well. maybe that’s one of the reasons we’re in the predicament we’re in now, lack of giving thanks.
I think the content for these articles are somewhat interesting. I didn’t know that people were vegetarians because of the mistreatment of animals. I know that sounds ignorant, but there are children in Africa fighting wars, there are people all over the world are starving, and there is a lack a love towards the all mighty God and yet people are still worried about small issues such as how a cow is killed. I think that is stupid, considering that no animal that hunts ever thinks about the prey’s way of death. For example, when the female lion hunts does she sterilize it or give it a pain killer before the kill? I guess what hurts me so bad is people choices on what they invest their life into. The world is having a major food shortage, but yet we have people that refuse to eat meat, even though the articles mention how the vegetarian diet is unhealthy, but won’t give to the poor or needy. I think that man’s wisdom ultimately leads to destruction.
In reading these four articles, I felt that people will do anything if it can be justified. Vegetarians eating meat is the major theme in all of these articles. In "A Carnivore's delight Poses an Ethically Meaty Dilemma" by Mark Morford and "Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat" by Christine Lennon had a similar style and message. Both articles were simple and to the point. They both had a well-rounded argument about why it is not only alright for vegetarians to induldge in meat on occasion, but that they should for health reasons and for the sake of the animals as well. All audiences could become more aware and gain incite with both these articles.
ReplyDelete"The Urban Farmer" by Amy Standen is an interesting article for all to enjoy. It brings up some issues that people are concerned with as well as just curious about. It does this by taking a very odd situation and trying to relate it to vegetarians and meat-eaters alike. Novella Carpenter is a woman that raises livestock and grows vegetables in a small yard outside of an apartment building for her consumption. (I wonder what her neighbors think?)
In this interview, some topics are discussed that effect all of the population. For example, why eating meat is alright and how to be conscientious while doing it. However, this article picked a situation that is unlikely for the average person. i felt that it should have had some suggestions on how to get meat that is ethically acceptable without going to the back yard to kill it ourselves.
The last article was "Well Done" by Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg is on the New York's best seller list and is most known for his political views. This article is about eating meat. I must admit that I openly laughed out loud while reading this article- several times. I thought it was a very humorous article that made it extremely difficult to disagree with. This article has no factual information. It does not have any helpful information. It's only purpose is to make one chuckle while reading it and for all of those that eat meat guiltless everyday (which is most of the population) to feel even less bad for it while reading this.
I am somewhat concerned with what I consume. It is hard not to with this day and age of diets, organic labels and food crisis. I do feel that if we keep analyzing what we eat and break it down enough, we will never want to eat anything again.
I think this second assignment took a much different approach in the rhetoric of foods. These three articles, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat”, “Well Done”, and “The Urban Farmer” all had the same general topic but also all took a different approach in portraying their ideas. To me, it seemed that all three articles were writing to the same audience, the public as a whole. They were not writing to anyone in particular, they were just trying to get their message across to as many people as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe first article, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat”, written by Christine Lennon, took an interesting approach on the subject. Lennon was writing towards not only vegans, but also meat eaters and she did this in an interesting was. Lennon used her personal life which is a nice strategy used in writing because people can easily relate to things that way. Lennon, the die-hard meat eater married a vegetarian for seven years. But why did he start eating meat? After the couple had done plenty of research on meat production and the benefits from farm raised animals, they came to an agreement that Lennon would eat less meat and her husband would start eating meat, only if it were farm raised. They do this because is it a much healthier product. The point Lennon is trying to make here, I think, is that they’ve ‘found a healthy balance between two extremes’, die-hard meat eaters and vegetarianism.
Our second piece, “Well Done” written by Jonah Goldberg took another approach to educate people on the subject of vegetarianism. Goldberg’s piece was written in 2001, so we know that this information is eight years old. Goldberg takes a more global position on the subject. Goldberg uses a lot of statistics on various countries and how many people they have who are vegetarian and how fast that number is growing. He said that in Europe, numbers are increasing tremendously year to year because of the Mad-cow disease. I think the purpose Goldberg is writing this is to inform his audience, the world considering this is a National Review, of the reasons selective counties are becoming more and more vegetarian and why the United States are so far behind in this movement.
Our final piece, “The Urban Farmer”, written by Amy Standen, was a very interesting interview with an urban farmer. Standen’s piece was written in March of 2008, so the information is very recent. We know that she is writing to vegetarians, informing them of the new way of eating meat. We also know that her article is in a magazine on the west coast. Standen uses a strategy of conversational interview which is a much different style in writing. Some people may read this more because of the laid back format. It is an interesting approach to writing. And I think the author has several points she is trying to get across. First of all, she is talking about the importance of eating healthy foods and home grown products and why this is so important. She also trying to get people educated on the new way of being a vegetarian, and the idea that eating farm raised animals, gaining a much greater nutritional value while still not corrupting animals.
By starting out by watching an animation about the animal factories, I could infer we’re continuing with the topic of meat, and the significance of buying meat from small family farms. This short film used the Matrix to base the story line from, even having the part where the main character picks the red pill to see the truths of reality. Like in the article “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” by Christine Lennon, this animation mentions the negative facts of factory farming, and how the animals are treated very poorly, and pumped with antibiotics to stop them from sickness from the poor conditions. This animation is to again inform the readers on how these animal factories affect the animals and the consumer in a negative fashion. Along with this animation PETA’s video, “Chew on This” was another video activating animal rights and how poorly animals are treated because of the high demand of meat products by the American society. Peter Singer’s article “Vegetarianism” is again supporting the views of vegetarians. He brings up references of Hindu traditions and the first diets of humans, in that we were vegetarians and only ate meat if it was not killed intentionally.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay “New Grub Sheet”, the article mentions the tear there is in society when it comes to the topic of meat. In Michael Pollan’s bestseller book Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of The Four Meals he is really negative when it comes to the idea of eating meat, and many of his readers agree that we shouldn’t eat it if we don’t know where it comes from. Many CEO and other members of the opposing crowd who are in charge of these larger meat companies tend to differ in thinking that they are a larger version of a family farm and that they are really doing no harm. The country is continued to be split if they should or should not eat meat, and if its appropriate to eat meat, where is it acceptable to get meat?
At the polar end of the spectrum, any of the Hillshire Farms meat commercials is definitely in the support of any type of meat from any type of animals. All the commercials have American pastimes such as football and grilling in it, with everyone supporting the taste and desire to eat meat. I think they take it a little over the top when it comes to their commercials about meat because I feel like it is overdone. Regardless, these commercials are really opposite compared to anything we have been reading or watching because it is in support of the eating and purchasing of meat as a part of the American culture.
After reading the article from last weeks assignment I find myself no longer wanting to eat meat from fast food restaurants, or anything else for that fact. Each author is dedicated to convincing the reader that their ideas of food are the best. In the article written by Christopher Shea, Ideas + Reviews, we learn about the ideas of authors and their opinions on the consumption of food. Shea points out the views of many authors who wrote about food in some form. Shea mentions Michael Pollan’s ideas about eating foods that are raised naturally on a farm, rather than animal factories. Shea also discusses food pessimist, Bill McKibben ideas about eating all natural foods. McKibben believes eating right will help the environment, “the planet is already buckling under our consumption habits”.
ReplyDeleteReading everything assigned has skewed my views about the food I consume. Ideas + Reviews as well as the videos watched for this week has changed my view of the way I eat and what I eat. Not only are the commercials and short clips eye opening, but they give you an idea of what is going on in the world. I embraced the ideas of not only vegetarianism but also eating farm raised animals. The use of words and their way of phrasing their ideas in “Chew on this” appealed to my emotions. Where in The Meatrix, there were strictly facts about the meat industry, which made me rethink my ideas of meat. In The Meatrix you can see humor, facts, and things that also appeals to ones emotions. These are all ways in which writers like Michael Pollan, might use words to convince readers that his ideas are the best.
The commercials we watched also played with words and the idea of meat. Making it seem as though “meat”, is the “thing to do”. I looked at the comments of the viewers and they all seemed to enjoy the commercial and its use of humor. The commercial made it seem as though meat was the next best thing, everyone is eating Hillshire Farms' meat, now so should you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI started off with the Meatrix. Once again I believe that the target audience was everyone because the clip told me so. It was stated that the only people that could do anything about inhumane farming was the consumer. Do I feel that large factory farming such as this is inhumane? Yes. But do I feel like I need to go on a vegetarian spell to boycott the fact that we need to improve our farming techniques? No. Even though I would never alter my omnivorous ways, I do believe it is quite triadic to what extends we go to make things happen. If something becomes too expensive find a cheaper alternative. Maybe that should be that American modo. Or even, you make it, we’ll buy it. We seem to think that no matter what we do doesn’t have a consequence. When we think or actions may have a consequence we test them. Oh sure, nothing may come up on tests, but as we can see that is not the truth. Each year more and more people have cancer, and each year more and more people die from heart disease. What do you think may cause this? You’re thinking exactly what I am thinking. It’s not what we are doing but it is how we are doing it and what is done to solve the problem, such as throwing antibiotics in animal feed. That has to be the easiest way out of the situation. That is what we Americans do and who we are.
ReplyDeleteIn a whole other mood and way of thinking are the Hillshire Farms commercials. Hillshire Farms wants to sell you meat. No matter what kind or what you are using it for. They want to sell you meat. They have meat all over the spectrum. The site is littered with images of cooked meat, packaged meat, and families cooking and eating eat. Almost like it is the new in thing to do. It is hilarious to me seeing people portray eating meat as if it is what families do and that meat is so delicious. I mean, I believe meat is awesome, but man, it is not that good.
In the article “Vegetarianism”, I believe it is meant for the general reader. The basis for the article is when and where vegetarian came from. The article lacks a little luster in the persuasive end but give facts, even though they are weak. The rest of the article is spent telling us the same thing every other article we have read that is pro vegetarian. A vegetarian’s three major lines of argument are health, ecology, and a general concern for the animals. After the statement about the main points, the article briefly gives an argument, the same as every other, and then doesn’t bother adding any more input. Brief and vague, just the way I like it.
Finally is the PETA video. I do believe that it is informative and tries to persuade the viewer about our meat crisis. What I don’t get is if this is such a problem isn’t PETA in charge of the situation anyway. Yes, once again a video telling us how bad animals are being treated for the food we need and eat ever day. It is the harsh reality that we live with every day.
These series of articles and movie clips show both sides of food. Some are more graphic then others but all are very informational in the side they are trying to push for. In the article title “Vegetarianism” written by Peter Singer, Peter discusses, basically, the history of vegetarianism. Peter discusses how vegetarians started from its earliest roots to what it is today. We know from this piece that it is a relatively old because it was published in 1995. We can also tell by his bibliography that he was educated on the subject matter. I am not quite sure who he is writing to. I think he is writing to people in general, not necessarily picking one side over the other. This is just an informative piece covering the mile stones of vegetarianism, which leads into the purpose. I think the purpose was to educate people on the history of vegetarianism. So I think the strategy of his work being written in an educational, chronological mannered structure is effective in this piece.
ReplyDeleteNext are these interesting videos. The ‘Meatrix’ video was interesting because it used a strategy of relating its information to a popular film trilogy, Matrix. This is useful because people can relate to these movies and it acts as an attention grabber to watch this clip. The makers of this video had several points they were trying to make: Animal cruelty, Antibiotic resistance germs, Massive pollution, and it Destroys communities. Obviously this movie clip is in support of vegetarianism, and I think its audience they are trying to get are people who eat meat to see their side of things. The PETA clip was also very interesting. They took an interesting approach in portraying their ideas. They use very graphic pictures and sayings to try and make their point clear. Clearly their audience is people who eat meat to try and get them to stop eating meat. We know that since this clip was made by PETA, we know that this clip is against animal cruelty and for animal rights and protection against them. The Hillshire Farm commercials are obviously for meat because they are a meat producing company. They use interesting strategies of repetition and humor for their commercials. The purpose of these commercials are to get people to buy their product.
I have to say that out of the three articles for January 15th, they each intrigued me in a similar, yet different way. While I’m sure there is plenty of articles and dissertations about food rhetoric out there, these three articles all discussed meat and each person’s view towards it.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat,” by Christine Lennon, she discusses her personal lifestyle and relationship with meat. To hear a real-life account of people who struggle with differing opinions about such a simple staple in life is quite interesting to me. I feel like she wrote this article to primarily let people know what life is like for people living in this situation too. Her audience could be anybody that wants to listen, or anyone that has an active interest in either becoming a vegetarian or becoming a “die-hard meat eater.” I don’t usually find articles that interesting when started off with a personal anecdote because then I set myself up for a story. When that story never comes, but instead, a bunch of paragraphs chocked full of information that I wasn’t ready for, I’m quite disappointed. But all in all I do like how she stresses the importance of supporting promising and/or local people who sell good, healthy products.
Continuing on to the article by Mark Morford, entitled, “A Carnivore’s Delight Poses An Ethically Meaty Dilemma,” I was somewhat taken aback at his personal vendetta against meat. It was at least honest and straightforward, but his very concrete language almost scares me into not eating meat again. Of course I love meat so words probably will never stop me from doing so, but it is quite tantalizing for those out there that are super health conscious, or even on the verge to becoming a vegetarian. It might just be the make or break for them. I really do enjoy how he portrays meat and lets his audience know how much we really are attracted to it. Rather, how much we rely on it. The description of just driving down the highway and paying attention to signs is quite a wake up call for even people like myself.
The last article, which is “The Urban Farmer,” by Amy Standen, was my most favorite piece. It’s got this straightforward quality that will attract anyone that wants an answer as to why people do what they do. Urban farming as a practice really wasn’t brought to my attention until this specific article, but I know of many personal instances where it has already occurred. I believe that simple vegetable gardens qualify, but having farm animals in urban or suburban areas isn’t an idea of the future. Just a few years ago a neighbor down the street had roosters. For what use, I do not know. But bringing animals like that to the city is a start, and it intrigues me.
The articles for week definitely left a different taste in my mouth. I felt like the articles revolved mainly around picking a side, and taking action to support it.
ReplyDeleteThe videos were great, and even though they were simple and animated, the honesty and straightforward quality is always effective in my book.
The first one about the Meatrix was particularly interesting to me because learning about the factory farm industry is relatively a new concept to me. I mean, I basically understood that there were private as well as public farm industry owners, but the negative effect that is really overwhelming the industry surprises me. I feel that because it’s animated and simple it’s directed more towards younger children, particularly middle school aged, but for someone who doesn’t know much about this dilemma, it was just as effective for me as well. The author’s purpose was obvious- they want people to help take action against these industrial giants. I would gladly help but I wish it were simpler sometimes. It’s like the whole child labor issue with Walmart. People try to ban buying at Walmart but sometimes it can’t be helped when you can’t afford another option.
I really did enjoy that opinion column about the ethics of food writing, which was by Christopher Shea. I felt like he did a great job comparing and contrasting the ideas and beliefs of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma against John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods. Even though I have only read the first chapter of his book, Pollan already starts off with quite an interesting comparison between food and its genetic effect on humans. It doesn’t surprise me that Mackey has something to say because Pollan presents such a simple and factual argument when he uses explicit biological information to supplement his beliefs. If he says that organic food is not real or bad for you, and supports it with factual information, people are going to agree with him, therefore allowing Mackey’s company to suffer.
PETA’s video was interesting enough, but I feel they produce stuff like that purely because they are a pro-animal organization and they want to save the animals. They are obviously targeting non-vegetarians, but like I said earlier, I think you need more biological information to actually start to get the attention of those who do eat meat.
Since for some reason I couldn’t load the commercials from Hillshire Farm, the last thing I read was the article by Peter Singer on vegetarianism. I just have to say that he lost me at the beginning. I love history, and it’s usually always very interesting to me, but this didn’t really catch my attention. I feel he wrote this as a quick overview for those who were interested on the subject, but it just didn’t float my boat. Everything that he states in his article has been heard time and time again and it wasn’t really super interesting because it didn’t provide new information.
I think that the videos this week were all about picking sides. Beginning with The Meatrix, they wanted the consumer to reject the meat from large industrial farms. They begin by telling us that we lie to ourselves about where our meat comes from. We are then taken into the industrial farms and shown the cruel practices there. I think that everyone can sympathize with the de-beaking of chickens. To get the consumers report, they even use scare tactics. They spoke about how the antibiotics we are pumping into our food could make a “Supervirus.”
ReplyDeleteThe next video on the list was Chew on This. They are completely against the consumption of meat because of the slaughtering of animals, no matter which small farm they came from. They strategically played off of ones emotions showing cruel videos of helpless animals being brutally killed. I definitely was effective, because I was really upset after seeing that video.
Our last Hillshire Farm video clips, takes us to the opposite end of the spectrum then the previous two. They do not tell you where the meat comes from, or what kind of life that animal had. They simply chant “Go Meat” as they prepare their meals. Though there is no logical basis behind eating as much meat as you can, it is a very effective commercial. The average consumer does not care where their meat came from, and doesn’t want to feel bad every night before dinner.
In the article Vegetarianism, by Peter Singer he takes a new approach to convince us not to eat meat. He takes us back to 1000 BC and tells us how none of our ancestors ate meat, and how it was only permitted after a flood. This makes us remember our religious beliefs, which I have never seen called into question before in any of these arguments. One gets to thinking, what would God (or whoever it is that you praise) think about me eating meat?.
All of this however gets us no where but confused. One article states believable information and just when you get around to believing it, another one bashes it. If the way we eat is a problem, then I’m not sure there is a method to solve it. There will never be total agreement between the vegetarians or the meat lovers. Maybe small farming is a solution in between, but there are hardly enough small farms in the world for Americans to obtain all their meat.
The latest postings online were interesting because they were videos, about meat, other than just written articles. I liked this change because it just gives a different feel to how people look at meat and food. Some of the videos seemed a little extreme, like the PETA video. I mean the points they give were pretty good for the most part, but even some of those were kind of extreme. I think that approach is not as effective as the Meatrix one. That one was funny and that humor that it added seems like it would appeal to a wider audience of people. The PETA video just seems like the people that would agree with it are vegetarians already. Most people that eat meat don’t really think about where it came from, or how the animal that it once was died. Everyone likes a little comedy, and the Meatrix video had that. It still brought up the same points, and it still pointed out how mistreated the animals are before they are killed. It mentions the chemicals that they are fed, which may turn some people off to the meat if they think that it has chemicals in it. It had a much softer tone, and it didn’t make you feel like you were being a horrible person for eating meat. It just offered alternatives, and it still got the point across. When people think they are being told they are wrong, they get defensive and might just ignore the information that is being presented so they don’t feel bad. The Meatrix was actually enjoyable to watch. It even played off of a famous movie that nearly everyone has either seen or heard of.
ReplyDeleteThe Hillshire Farm commercials were very entertaining. They are very effective at advertising their product while keeping the attention of the people watching. They are funny, and have a catchy song to go along with the commercial. These seem to appeal to a very wide audience because they have the song, and they are pretty entertaining. The one on the website with the guy that eats the whole container of meat is pretty funny, just because he just ate the entire container at one time. It seems to be trying to show that the meat is so good that a person could eat it until it is gone, regardless of how much of it there is.
The in class commercials were interesting with regard to how they advertised their product, which was beef. Many of them used celebrities, which appeal to people who think that if someone famous ate that, then it must be good. They also brought it famous orchestral pieces that everyone knows. These commercials were different in that they didn’t bring up anything about how meat is wrong to eat because of the cruelty to animals that comes with it. They are much more upbeat and positive, and I think that these types of ads are easier to watch because they aren’t trying to make you feel guilty or bad about eating meat. They are encouraging it, which suggests that these ads are attempting to grab a different audience. Obviously a vegetarian would not enjoy these ads too much, since they are pretty much praising meat.