Reading assignment 2a entitled The State of the Eco-Union is about sustainable agriculture. The article covers the sustainability of caring for not just the physical health of farm animals, but also their mental health, questioning whether we should be doing something ecologically just because we can, and the entrepreneurial aspect of small, eco-friendly farming.
One of the author’s large arguments is that organic food products have now become mainstream enough that everyone knows what an organic product means, which has inevitably made organic less than organic set out to be. With the government’s organic certification process, they have corrupted the organic movement. I both agree and disagree with the author’s …show more content…
The author also speaks about paranoia when it comes to foodborne illnesses and the relation that plays organic food production. He argues that the U.S. is overzealous in eradicating any potential illness outbreaks from food. While he drifts a bit into stories about a friend in France, he does bring up a few good points in terms of food-safety and the false notion that organic, raw, or naturally eaten foods (like unwashed eggs) are not as safe as irradiated foods. I agree with this argument, pointing to European countries who don’t homogenize dairy products and have low incidences of foodborne illnesses related to the consumption of raw dairy products. Additionally, if we were as concerned about food safety as we appear to be, we would ban the same types of harmful food additives as most industrialized nations, such as farmed salmon, genetically engineered papaya, arsenic, flame retardant drinks and synthetic hormones.
Conclusion In short, I agree with most of the arguments the author has in terms of the overall health of our organic farming. We need small, artisanal, organic farmers to help keep the organic movement moving in a positive direction. However, I would disagree that government involvement is entirely bad. Instead, I would state that the government has given us a minimal
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Yes, the government owns the word organic and they have the power to decide what the term actually means, for example the ‘organic’ food that is produced in these industrial organic farms are subject to the same repugnant conditions all other conventional farms are subject to. As a father, I can recall making decisions on purchasing the more expensive food item because it was right next to the “bad one” and the “good one” had on the label that it was organically made so I never bothered to read the label. If I would’ve stopped and read the labels, I would’ve discovered that the good decision that I had made for the health of my family was actually just as bad as the food we are trying to stay away from. Even the stores such as Trader Joes and Whole Foods are guilty of having tainted food in their aisles. Growing up with a mother that is conscious of her health, these “healthy” food markets are a shock to find out they are killing us too. In an article by Darla Cameron and Peter Whoriskey, Who is behind organic brands, they say that “Consumers may not know that these 92 organic food brands are owned by some of the nation’s largest food processors.”, the largest food processors are in deep with government that there is not enough regulations to
Should the thought of catching the virus E. coli make Jimmy jump for joy? No it shouldn’t, which is why we should all pay more attention to our meat industry. Robert Kenner analyzes the food industry, and all of its components. Kenner shows the nation where our food comes from, and how it is produced.
For example, the film presents the counterproductive result of feeding cows with contained brains of infected cows that spread a deadly disease through the cattle known as ‘the mad cow disease’. This type of intensive farming is characterized by its use of antibiotics and pesticides that cost higher prices for farmers. Some farmers turn into the industrial farming not always by choice but for companies that own or influence those intense farming practices. There is two agribusiness that has a monopoly the market by selling agricultural technologies to farmers such as pesticides, GMO, and fertilizers that often influence the public policy and farming practices. This system is unsustainable and produces cheap food products which cost is not included in the market but people end up paying for due to the externalities on health, social and environmental problems. As the documentary highly at the start, Americans hate the most the inconvenience of things and therefore some people take for granted their food and prefer to consumed processed products that are toxic, other people who live in food deserts do not have much choice to consumed these toxic products but is the system that limits their accessibility to affordable fresh
According to Pollan, the reality of organic food chain is largely inaccurately reported. “Today it takes between 7 and 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to deliver one calorie of food to an American plate " (Pollan 238). For example, although supermarket produce and goods may have the label of organic, it has been shipped all around the country in vehicles powered by fossil fuels. Many literary critics focus their reports on some small and non-representative organic farms which follow the organic ideal, while making the public believe such is the reality of all the farms producing organic food. Also, Pollan argues that USDA must be responsible for the degradation of the organic food chain by setting weak standards on the definition of organic. For example, the USDA rules that dairy cows must have access to pasture, but such a standard is so vague that many organic farms only keep a tiny and nominal pasture in order to label their products as organic. Also, the large companies operate in industrializedabel their product as organic as long as they meet the vague standards set up by the USDA but such industrial organic food does not resemble what organic originally means. Although small farms often come closer to the ideal and are even more productive acre-for-acre than their large-scale
Have you ever wondered if organic foods are actually better for you? What if organic foods are not actually healthy and are just an immense scam from food companies to take your money away from you? In the documentary, In Organic We Trust, the narrator Kip Pastor attempts to persuade the viewers that although the food system may be flawed, organic foods are actually better to consume. Pastor’s use of pathos and logos in this documentary are extremely credible and well structured, but the ethos Pastor provided in this documentary are not as well structured as the pathos and logos. Pastor doses an excellent job in structuring the film “In Organic We Trust”, in an attempt to send his message across to the viewers. In the documentary in order
With the organic industry booming and up until recently showing an annual growth rate of 20% it has been necessary for the federal government to step in and regulate the previously self regulated industry. Initially, regulation of this industry was implemented by private nonprofit organizations and some state governments as a way to put an end to consumer fraud and to ensure the integrity of organic food. This
Over the last few years, awareness of organic food has risen. Due to this, the demand for organic food is a factor which is influencing the farmers to switch to use this technique, and it is being sold in specialty stores and conventional supermarkets. Organic products contain numerous marketing claims that it is healthier, it offers more value, and the farming is more environmentally friendly than traditional foods, so, how does one determine if organic is the way to go? Some argue that there is evidence that supports and demonstrates why organic foods and farming are better overall, while others insist that conventional foods and agriculture can offer the same benefits as going organic. There is no right or wrong answer. Within this
The first introduction in the film is multiple images of farms, and agriculture of all kinds. Then the author quickly states that farms do not look like they use to. The message, and start of this film is to inform the viewer about the changes in agriculture, and present ideas about where our food actually comes from. The purpose of the film is to introduce to consumers the risk of eating foods that are owned by large corporations. This film addresses issues with large corporations owning all food sources, treatment of animals, and food-borne illnesses.
Have you ever wondered if organic foods are actually better for you? What if organic foods are not actually healthy and are just an immense scam from food companies to take your money away from you? In the documentary, In Organic We Trust, the narrator Kip Pastor attempts to persuade the viewers that, although the food system may be flawed, organic foods are actually better to consume. Pastor’s use of pathos and logos in this documentary are extremely credible and well structured, but the ethos Pastor provided in this documentary are not as well structured as the pathos and logos. Pastor does an excellent job in structuring the film In Organic We Trust, in an attempt to send his message across to the viewers. In the documentary in order to
As a part of the American Marketing Service (AMS), the NOP was founded in 1939 and strives to develop “national standards for organically-produced agricultural products” (“National”). Their mission is to ensure goods with an organic seal are controlled and distributed as uniformly as possible, and they take every complaint with a heavy hand to keep irregularities to a minimum. In 1990, the USDA was instructed to “establish uniform national standards for organic food and farming, fixing the definition of a word that had always meant different things to different people” (Pollan 154). Since then the term organic has been manipulated and distorted by large companies in order to push their products to as big a market as possible, leaving consumers dazed and confused about the actual standards of the foods they were purchasing. Often times, the true meaning of the extravagant or misleading words on the packaging is hard to translate for the average consumer-organic being no different. The seal that dawns certified organic products provides no insight into the qualifications needed in order to receive that stamp nor is the USDA very forthcoming about the actual meaning of the word organic. Any retailer can slap an “organic” label on their product so long as “at least 95% of the farm-grown ingredients are organic and you sell direct to customers in
Organic farming is becoming an increasingly popular market throughout the world. (Adam, 2004, p. 666). The aims of organic farming are, to decrease pollution, maintain soil fertility and biodiversity, be more sustainable, and have increased nutritional benefits than conventionally grown foods (Yaping et. al., 2003, p. 298). While the aim of conventional farming is to provide safe, proficient supplies of food, in abundance and at low prices (Trewavas, 2001, p.409). Since 1996, the amount of land in the UK dedicated to organic farming has risen tenfold (Adam, 2004, p. 666). As well, from 1992 to 1997, the amount of certified organic cropland in the US more than doubled (Tafel et al, 2007, p.182 ). The main difference between organic and
In recent years, many people don’t go more than a few days without hearing about organic foods in one way or another, whether it be through the media, friends or the numerous labels at the grocery store. For me, whenever someone brings up organic foods, they always put them on a pedestal of health caused by people’s recent disgust with the industrialized way we produce foods, which, to be fair, is not unfounded. I had assumed it was a bunch of gibberish, however, the data suggests a more ambiguous answer.
Organic versus non-organic foods are always being debated to whether they are worth the extra cost. This seems to be an easy question, at first, but begs a more in-depth analysis to come to a conclusion. Organic definitions can vary by government, company and even individuals. Many people have their own ideas of what organic means. My personal definition, before this research assignment, was that organic products were grown with no pesticides, chemical additives, or preservatives and grown in a humane way. Meaning that if it said 100% organic, that is what was meant. This however, is not the case when it comes to the government’s definition of organic, according to T. A. Niewold who wrote, “Organic More Healthy; Green Shoots in a
Although organic foods are found in nearly every grocery store, the average person is unable to differentiate between organic and non-organic food products. Many consumers purchase organic products in the hopes of gaining positive health benefits. (Chhabra, Kolli, et al “Organically Grown Food Provides”) “The current demand for organic foods outstrips the domestic supply, causing retailers in the United States to import $2 billion worth of organic foods annually.” (Crandall, Seideman, et al. ”Organic poultry: Consumer perceptions”) In this paper, I want to define what it means for food to be organically produced, while also exploring the requirements necessary to deem a product ‘Organic”.
“Unquestionably the EU now exerts the most important and effective influence on both British and Irish environmental policy and politics (McGowan, 1999: 175).” The European Union has developed itself into one of the world leaders in relation to environmental standards and its ability to apply legislation to its member states. Both, at present and in the past, challenges and opportunities have been encountered, and will continue to be encountered into the future. Indeed, Europe now directly impacts on food producers and manufacturers through the implementation of various policies such as the Nitrates Directive and issues surrounding Climate Change - both of which are the dealt with in this paper respectively. Through these and other