Research Paper On Superfreakonomics

Locavores consume only locally grown foods in an effort to reduce their carbon footprints and lose weight, among other reasons. The popularity of locavorism has grown dramatically over the last decade, and its merits are extolled by scientists and ordinary consumers alike. The locavore movement seems to be indisputably beneficial to the environment, the economy, and to consumer health, yet close examination of its common tenets reveals issues which should be taken into account before beginning a locavore diet.

Saving the planet is a topic that is taken seriously by a huge part of this planet’s population. James McWilliams argument, “The Locavore Myth: Why Buying from Nearby Farmer Won’t Save the Planet,” explains why people need to buy food from people other than the local farmers. He believes that the focus of the locavore movement on transportation is wrong because the real problem lies within the energy-hogging factors in food production. McWilliams also went on to explain that another mistake that the locavore movement made was how food miles were calculated. He believes that a truck with 2,000 apples driving 2,000 miles would consume the same amount of fuel as a truck that carried 50 apples to a local shop only 50 miles away. James McWilliams states that “The critical measure here is not food miles but apples per gallon.” He also argues that taking meat out of a person’s diet would cut down on the carbon footprint of his or her dinner because it takes less energy to bring plants, rather than meat, to the table.

The graph presents the fact that the production of food products create the large majority of emissions. For example, gas emission released from the transportation of red meat is dwarfed by the amount used in its production. This shows that eating local is not a sufficient way to counter energy use and gas emissions as many would think it to be. McWilliam’s “On My Mind: The Locavore Myth” also provides insight into the movement’s lack of energy use. While discussing the importation of foreign food, the author states “...and you discover that factors other than shipping far outweigh the energy it takes to transport food… transportation accounts for only 11% of food’s carbon footprint” (McWilliams). This shows how insignificant eating locally is for saving energy and cutting down on emissions as transportation doesn’t account for nearly as much as other aspects. Eating locally will not have do a significant job in helping a community save energy.

There is way too much fascinating information to unpack in this book - 99% of the 400 million turkeys consumed in America annually are artificially inseminated by humans! (p. 90). And we totally misunderstand lactose intolerance (p. 136-37). One would have to read this book one hundred times over to fully critique its value. But it is good! Great even. There is so much to learn about the world and how food systems affect climate change and how climate change affects ecosystems and all living things. Kingsolver provides a tool for change through this book by suggesting ways of living that reduce our harmful footprint on the earth. She does this by sharing her story of eating locally for a year and pairing those stories with loaded insights about how the current industrial food and farm systems are ultimately destroying the world. At the very least this book should cause people who have not before, to stop and evaluate their participation in this industrial food system. Their actions and inactions may even be changed by their uncomfortable awareness of how most of us are eating.

It has recently been brought to my attention that our school is looking to adopt a sustainable menu into our meal program and I would like to give my viewpoint on the matter. As one many students here at Oxford Academy this change will affect me directly. Although people may at first oppose this conversion I think if we are able to overcome the first obstacles, this change would bring a great positive impact to the environment and the health of our students.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma, written by Michael Pollan, gives light to the question, “What should we have for dinner?” that he thinks Americans today cannot answer simply due to the fact that there are too many food options. This book serves as an eye-opener to challenge readers to be more aware and accountable of what is consumed daily. In order to understand fully where our food comes from, we must follow it back to the very beginning. Pollan goes on to discuss three different modern food chains in which we get our food: the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer. By tracing our food back to the beginning, we can understand that most of the nutritional and health problems America is going through today can be found on the farms that make our food and the government that can decide what happens. America deals with many food related illness such as, heart disease, obesity, and type II diabetes. Majority of a human and animals diet consists of being corn-fed leading to a high cause of obesity in the United States these are just some of the many diseases that come with over processed foods and diets we are unaware of. In this study, we will highlight the environmental and health issues and impacts related with modern agriculture and how these systems can be made more sustainable.

While everyone may love to go out and enjoy a fine meal with friends and family, most will never stop to think the process of how the food came about, or the production thereof. John Oliver’s piece on “Food Waste” outlines all the problems of food waste and how they can impact society, animals, nature, and even the farmers who harvest the produce. America and its businesses should try to decrease the amount of food being wasted. By doing so, not only are we a contributing factor to help reduce waste, save time and money, but we are also aiding the less-fortunate in a society, while still saving natural resources and the planet as a whole.

Throughout the US there has been the big concern of where the food we eat comes from and if it is healthy. Everyone wants healthy food, yet we fail to eat the healthy food that is right in front of us, instead we eat industrial made food that causes the death of thousands of people each year. In the Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, you explore the pros and cons of our five main food chains; industrial,industrial organic, organic, sustainable, and hunter gatherer. In all ways, the sustainable food chain is the best food chain to feed the US. Animals and plants are developed naturally without any chemicals or pesticides and all of the produce is grown and sold locally and harvested by hand.

It’s no secret, Americans love their processed, energy-rich foods. And undeniably, this love affair has led to an obesity epidemic. In spite of the evidence against processed food, however, there are some who believe the problem may hold the key to the solution. David Freedman, author of “How Junk Food Could End Obesity,” criticizes Michael Pollan for his argument in support of unprocessed, local foods due its impracticality. Freedman’s criticism is based on the idea that “It makes a lot more sense to look for small, beneficial changes in food than it does to hold out for big changes in what people eat that have no realistic chance of happening” (Freedman Sec. 1). He contends that processed foods already play a big part in our diets, so instead of trying to expand the wholesome food business, we should try to make processed foods healthier. Freedman’s argument, however, overlooks many negative effects of processed foods and conventional farming. Michael Pollan’s wholesome food movements takes into account not only the obesity problem, but also the quality of the environment and the rights of farmers. Although Pollan’s solution to obesity may not seem the most efficient or time effective, the trades offs it provides in terms of environmental sustainability and the well-being of farmers outweigh the loss of efficiency.

Consumers have become increasingly detached from their food as America’s food system grows larger and continues to ruin the environment. The main problem is that most consumers do not know how their consumption habits affect the ecosystem around them. Nor do they know about how their food was produced. Information about how and where the food is being produced and wasted is essential, so people can shop responsibly. Short of legislation, Americans make choices at the grocery store. It is essential for all Americans to cast in a vote with their dollars to change the way that food is produced in the United States resulting in more sustainable food being more accessible in the aisles of the grocery store for all Americans.

We can try to reduce the amount of the unhealthy food that we eat everyday such as fast food. And by eating healthy food such as vegetables and fruits. Some studies have talked about the importance of eating fruits in a daily term and how it protects from specific kinds of diseases. For example, eating one or two apples everyday can protect us from some kinds of cancers. Also it can be good idea if we decide to buy our food, or most of it, from the organic farmers. Even though we will pay more money because it is more expensive than the artificially grown food, we will be saving more money that can be spent in medication to restore our health from the possible diseases we might get if we continue eating this kind of

Nations are judged and measured by their production and selling of goods and services. Not only has increased consumerism resulted in ecological imbalance, it is also depleting earth’s natural resources, which in turn is creating an environmental crisis. One of the biggest products being consumed is food. Rapidly growing world’s population requires increased food production. Author Anna Lappe does an excellent job expounding on the impact that food production and distribution has on the environment. Lappe (2015) argues that modern practices of food production directly contribute to air pollution and increases carbon dioxide emissions (par. 11). Crop production uses an absurd amount of land, artificial fertilizer, and harmful pesticides that seriously pollutes the environment and threatens young children and wildlife species. Author Sandra Steingraber (2015) also argues that increased consumerism has led to a high usage of harmful chemicals to produce products for consumers (par.

While all of us relatively understand how driving cars, leaving the lights on, or using too much water can affect the environment, there is one massive human activity that is frequently overlooked—eating. From growing, to processing, to distributing, and finally consuming, our agricultural system uses an immense portion of our planet’s limited resources and emits large amounts of greenhouse gases that have drastic effects on the environment. Because of this, it is imperative to understand the environmental impacts of the type of foods that we choose to include in our diets. While much of today’s population is heavily reliant on animal products, it is evident that a meat-based diet is not environmentally sustainable; on the other hand, a plant-based diet is much more environmentally friendly in terms of the amount of grain, water, and

The issue: We’re eating the planet. All of us - and not in the fun, culinary sense of exploring international cuisine. The amount of food Americans eat exceeds the amount they actually need. Our food choices are high in calories, high in fat, high in sugar, high in resource and energy input, high in everything. The average American eats 258 lbs. of meat every year. That’s roughly 1/10 of a cow, half a pig, one turkey, and 26 chickens. Maybe this doesn’t sound that much to you – but it is 30 times more meat than the average Indian consumes yearly.

Wasting food is a bad habit that affects all of society and we continue to implicate ourselves in the problem. Of the total of food loss that is going on about 40 percent is in the household. Overall a typical household of four loses about 600 dollars in food a year. (Jones 11)