HW 12 - Final Food Project 2 - Outline

Thesis: Nightmarish industrial atrocities are built into our society and we encourage them in our daily lives, to combat them we must step out of our norms and critic ideas and values our society has hardwired us to think.

Major claim: Fast food is a rapidly growing industry; organic farming which is the supposed alternative will also be far off the mark from combating these atrocities by the industry because organic farming can repeat these same faults of these fast food monsters.

Supporting claim 1: Fast food corporations commit atrocities and are still growing

Evidence: e coli outbreaks from fast food restaurants (jack in the box)

http://www.about-ecoli.com/ecoli_outbreaks/news/jack-in-the-box-ends-e-coli-suits1/

Evidence: correlation between growth of fast food in the past three decades and the booming of obesity, diabetes and heart disease in the U.S.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/05/health/main591325.shtml

Evidence: livestock conditions of animals used for fast food

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/animalwelfare/

Evidence: transportation of food (carbon footprint)

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/08.15.07/50-ways-to-go-green-0733.html

Supporting claim 2: organic farming is the better alternative but organic farming is still counterintuitive to its own philosophy.

Evidence: grass fed beef: less e coli

http://www.organicgrassfedbeefinfo.com/

Evidence: less pesticides, hormones, and fertilizers (carbon footprint reduction)a

http://helpguide.org/life/organic_foods_pesticides_gmo.htm

Evidence: livestock conditions of organic fish

http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/eco-friendly_fish_choices

Evidence: transportation of food from California to elsewhere (carbon footprint)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606113311.htm

Activism in Food (ffp1)

In response to finishing the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and nearing the end of the food unit in class I volunteered for the last two weekends at added-value an urban farm in Redhook, Brooklyn. Tying close with my political beliefs and what was learned in class I believe that participating in growing food locally is important.

It is important for two main reasons; local agriculture means less harm for the environment because of less transportation which burns fossil fuel. As well local agriculture makes it easier for someone such as myself to learn about farming, it is important to learn about this because I want my food to come from farms and not from factories which much of peoples food comes from. Which ties into the second main reason, locality is important because you should be not only aware of the things you use every day but also participate in making them so you can honestly acquire them. For example I enjoy volunteering on the farm because I know that the work I put in is equal to the output and that by farming I have access to more foods.

How this immediate activism in organic farming came to be was out of the education of where our foods come from. I already knew before hand a bit on the conditions of the animals: the cramped quarters, the filthy environment and the fact they are grain fed when they should not be. And honestly I didn’t really care too much I figured “if it’s how America get’s fed, then so be it”, what turned me onto more organic farming was that the alternative also abused their workers which I believed was the worst part of it. This was what I directly learned from class. So when I heard of this farm (through a classmate in fact!) I thought it was very important that I work to get this food rather than supporting these corporations that treat their workers horribly.

This unit in class has opened my eyes to how our food is made, and because light has been shined on this very dark truth I encouraged myself to set out and do something that might not attack this evil but at least not support it. A motivation of mine was my political philosophy of mutualism; of collaborating with others to help everyone who involved themselves, and since I have participated in farming on an organic farm I was actually rewarded with some of the food I helped reap.

Food, inc Response

The main theme of the movie was where the food was coming from. That if we found out where it was coming from we'd be less likely to eat it, the movie tried to shed light on a very dark area. America's image of where food come from is very distorted, always a red barn, roaming cows, fresh grass and beautiful skies. In actuality which the movie aims at is that the cows are in very packed areas ankle deep in manure, corn fed, no grass at all that’s were probably 80% of our beef comes from. Chickens have it no different, packed conditions without any access to light standing in their own feces, if they're standing. Many chickens are modified to grow extremely large breasts and grow very quickly, three times as fast as they would normally grow causing them to be so week under the weight they usually fall down. The working conditions that many fast food restraints and large food companies have for their employees are very poor, for the meatpackers they get low wages virtually no health benefits and are injured excessively, about 1/3 of the workforce in meatpacking factories get injured a year. Chicken farmers are grossly in debt and fast food employees are paid very little and both the fast food and the meatpackers are consistently getting deskilled.

Corn is also in our diet much more than the average American knows the chemist in the movie stated that 90% of food on the shelf either has corn or soy ingredients, and allot of times they have both. The cheap food comes from corn feeding the cows instead of grass-feeding, as well as the low wages of workers and the large amount of government subsidies. This makes it hard for Mexico to compete with us in growing grain. The rancher on the more wholesome farm in Virginia believed that if we view these pigs, cows etc. as merely resources for us to take from and not living organisms we will treat others the same, we can see this in how these companies treat their workers.

I think the main difference in seeing the movie than reading book is that like any comparison when a book (or many) is made into a movie you can get more in depth information from the book. The movie however did offer a visual of what was happening, it's a much difference seeing cows covered in and half a foot deep in feces than it being read. The book also didn't get the very interesting view point of that one farmer in Virginia which I thought had a very interesting perspective on the massive food corporations.

Watching the movie did not help me much, especially after reading the very insightful book. The movie put a visual of what was happening, so instead of the just the facts I have a mental picture of how some of my food is made. This in many ways can be sometimes

FFN Epilogue: Have it Your Way

Précis: Dale Lasater raises cattle (by typical American standards) in a very unconventional way. Growing up with an anti-beef trust activist like his father his cattle are free range grass fed and are not ankle deep in their own manure. Red Top and In-N-Out are fast food restaurants that took the road less traveled and use better quality ingredients and have better conditions for their workers. Corporations don't have all the power, they are always subject to law like everyone else so change can happen in many ways. One being that legislation can be changed and the things that these companies we know are doing so awfully are changed. Another, more approachable way is our vote, through ever meal we can choose to not eat fast food and by doing so these corporations can change like they have in the past for the want of profits.
Gems: "Throughout the Cold War, America's decentralization system of agriculture, relying upon millions of independent producers, was depicted as the most productive system in the world, as proof of capitalism's inherent superiority" (266)"
"I do not believe,' Teller argued, 'that the great object in life is to make everything cheap" (266)
Thoughts and Questions: This last chapter was probably the most useful and the most uplifting. For one they say that it's not impossible to change the food-ways of our country. And Schlosser tells us how, at first I thought the only way was to make legislation which I thought "well how do I fit into that?", but then he says that we can do this by simply not buying fast food. Obvious idea, but none the less smart, if these corporations are as money-grubbing as they put themselves out to be than if people didn't eat there they would surely listen. This is heartwarming for me because I don't eat fast food and haven't had McDonald's in over six years. What made the epilogue such a great part of the book is that before he was smashing these companies with all their faults and now he tells us how change can happen.

Fast Food Nation Global Realization (ch10)

Précis: After communism collapsed in East Germany, McDonald's was the first building to go up in Plauen, Germany. An example of how fast McDonald's and many other fast food chains have grown on a global scale. This American way of life has now spread thanks to these chains, a life style which is very unhealthy mostly attributed to cars and fast food. With McDonald's rapid globalization and realization of harm to communities and cultures many have protested and even demolished McDonald's buildings. Many people who spoke out against McDonald's publicly either apologized after threatened to be taken to court or they accepted the consequences and usually lost the case. Not for Dave Morris and Helen Steel who had an ongoing trial for over two and a half years after they printed leaflets in London slamming the McDonald's corporation. Even through this, McDonald's globalization has made American culture a part of many countries.

Gems: "Today 44 million American adults are obese. An additional 6 million are 'super-obese'; they weigh about a hundred pounds more than they should. No other nation in history has gotten so fat so fast" (240)

"If we eat McDonald's hamburgers and potatoes for a thousand years,' Fujita once promised his countrymen, 'we will become taller, our skin will become white, and our hair will be blonde" (231)

Thoughts and Questions: With a globalization of American corporations there will be an  American invasion onto domestic cultures of the given area. Mixing of cultures can often be a good thing, I like to think that NYC is such an amazing place currently because of that, but this generic building producing unhealthy food, promoting poor working conditions and deskilling the workforce is far from a good thing. So when learning about Jose Bove’s actions it warmed my heart a bit, not so much the demolishing as much as the public activism afterwords, because when it comes down to it, the change comes through the education.

Fast Food Nation What's in the Meat (ch9)

Précis: In Pueblo Colorado an outbreak of E. coli erupted causing much illness. By the time it was figured out that the source was hamburger beef 25 million pounds had already been sold. Centralization of food production (more specifically meat) has been the fault of widespread food borne illnesses. After World War 2 hamburgers became a popular dish, more often eaten by children for their ease of chewing, when an outbreak would occur they would be the one to pay the consequences. The E. coli comes from tainted meat, and the tainted meat comes from cattle living in their own shit literally. E. Coli can be found in 1 in every 100 cattle and even more common during the summer, and when McDonald's can use meat from up to hundreds of them in a single burger the odds don't look too good. Awareness came to public eye when the book Jungle was published by Upton Sinclair, legislation was passed after inspections and safety precautions were put in place. But now with so few inspections these safety regulations are severely lacking. After the severe outbreak of E. coli caused by the restaurant chain Jack in the Box, David M. Theno a food scientist pushed Jack in the Box for better safety regulations and eventually it spread to outside the chain. Even so, when there have been E. coli outbreaks companies would usually have to be pressured by the USDA to recall the beef and would usually recall much less than appropriate especially when the companies could get away with it. When Clinton was pressured for reform in the meatpacking industry a watered down version of his bill came into act where they would use chemicals to destroy most bacteria meaningless E. Coli. With fast food corporations pushing for safer food, much of the unsafe food arrives in school cafeterias. Even so, ridding food of bacteria falls a lot on the people who prepare it, and in many scenarios fast food teenage employees do grotesque things to the food served.

Gems: " The meatpacking industry is also working hard on get rid of the word 'irradiation' much preferring the phrase 'cold pasteurization'" (218)

"3 million pounds of chicken manure were fed to cattle in 1994" (202)

"He became ill on  a Tuesday night, the night before his mothers birthday, and was dead by sunday afternoon" (200)

"Eve suffered terrible pain, had three heart attacks, and had died in her mother's arms" (199)

Thoughts and Questions: I question our democratic system when a corporation can have so much influence over legislation. If these corporations are influencing senators and house members to vote or not vote for something that is against the interest of the people, how then are they at all represented? Especially in the E. coli scenario where it is literally killing people.

Fast Food Nation The Most Dangerous Job (ch8)

Précis: In this chapter Schlosser visits a meat packing factory "somewhere in the High Plains" of Colorado. In it, meat from the recently slaughtered cattle dances around on hooks from the ceiling and conveyor belts where employees attack the carcasses with knives to make the meat easily eatable to the consumer. This profession is currently the most dangerous job in the United States with an outstanding injury rate of over three times that of a typical American factory. Workers stun the strong animals so they can hang the bodies from the ceiling so that another worker can slit its neck; blood saturates the workplace and their clothes. With roughly five thousand cattle entering a day the assembly line can often be very rushed increasing the chances of an injury usually involving a knife as it is the primary tool used by workers. Currently workers are more than encouraged to not report these injuries, payment in the form of bonuses is the strong incentive among middle management to enforce that the workers keep their "complaints" at a minimum. The workforce is largely comprised of minorities who can often not speak English and get much more pay than they would than from where they emigrated from. Sexual harassment has been a problem as well as feelings of discomfort and in a few scenarios the factories have been fined and sued. Probably the most dangerous work is by the late night crews hired for sanitation, these workers are consistently put in hazardous situations such as climbing into a 30 foot high blood tank to clean it, on multiple occasions men have fell unconscious to the overpowering fumes, when this happened workers would often try to rescue their fallen pier and the entire party would die. Schlosser tells the story of many who work for the High Plains meatpacking factory, one in particular is especially heart-sinking, that of Kenny.

Kenny was an Iowa born six foot five hard worker who joined the company at age twenty-four who started doing heavy lifting. Throughout his sixteen years working there he fell victim to many injuries, the first of which he was struck by a falling 90 pound box and crushed onto a conveyer belt needing back surgery. Following this he was called into use harmful materials to clean the workplace which others refused to do because of the obvious safety hazard. Kenny was not issued appropriate safety materials and was in the hospital because his lungs were burned from the chemicals and his body as covered in blisters. Kenny also broke his leg due to a hole in the wall, and after that he had a heart attack that the company doctor denied. While recuperating he was fired from the company.

Gems: "Supervisors have been known to sell 'crank' to their workers or to supply it free in return for certain favor...For obvious reasons, a modern slaughterhouse is not a safe place to be high" (174).

"They're trying to deter you, period, from going to the doctor" (175).

"The fine was $480 for each man's death" (178).

"If the records showed an injury rate at the factory lower than the national average for all manufacturers, the OSHA inspector had to turn around and leave at once...These injury logs were kept and maintained by company officials" (179).

Thoughts and Questions: The atrocities in this chapter were appalling, my thoughts and questions could go on and on about the information that I just read as I think anyone with a soul could. What baffled me however is, how can a company not fix these safety hazards? Even if they're heart is a block of ice, as I'm sure it is, aren't the fines at least a reason to have some safety precautions? Then I realized that these fines are probably not at all the cost it would be if they imposed better working conditions. And since money is what drives the decisions in these (and many other) factories why can't we increase the fines until the decision is either pay or be in serious financial trouble?

Freakonomics Response

In the movie Freakonomics, based on the book by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner they address problems in things that have not been previously analysed. These things were analysed by using certain correlations to prove the given hypothesized causation. They addressed before this the difference between causation and correlation. Correlation is what we are given usually shown in data, causation would be why this data occurred. Now this can be tricky because correlation doesn't always mean causation, in the example the authors used polio. Because it peaked in the summer at the same time for obvious reasons as icecream sales, many scientists of the time theorized that because of this correlation that icecream caused polio. This was their example of how correlation can often mislead what the given causation is. Many of the examples the authors used they didn't specifically say what they thought the given causality was. For the "naming children" part of the movie they had data that opposed the expert on the subject leading the conclusion up to the viewer. The data they had like the identical applications for the job opposed what the sociology professor who studied the significance in names. When they analysed this topic they seemed to show multiple causations and why they might be wrong. The topic they seemed most firm in their belief of what causation connected to correlation was, was how the decision of Roe v. Wade affected the decline of crime in the late 1990's. They thought this correlation WAS causality because they had multiple pieces of evidence supporting the hypothesis and reasons for why the causality occured, it wasn't just what caused what, they were able to answer why has this caused this.
Alot of the correlations they used were innovative because for something like cheating on tests or rigged sumo wrestling there is seemingly no numbers you can look at to show a correlation. What the two authors did was they brainstormed when this cheating would occur, and then from finding those specific incentives they were able to find that suspected correlation that matched with their causation.

Freakonomics does serve as a good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices for multiple reasons. Like the chapter on names and their effects on the childs later part of life they teach us (subtly) you can choose to accept that there isn't enough evidence supporting a conclusion and essentially argue both sides. That there are certain places to look for your given correlation that will support your given causation if you look in the right places. And that you should view the world beyond what is given and appears to be the truth because the fallacy in it hasn't been brought to light.

7b FFN: On the Range

Précis: For Field research Schlosser travels to Colorado Springs, where he met a prominent local rancher, Hank. Though a classic symbol of the American West, Hank was very much against these meatpacking companies which are largely attributed to the poor economic standing so many farmers are in today. This is also caused by such problems as rising land prices, stagnant beef prices, oversupplies of cattle, increased shipments of live cattle from Canada and Mexico, development pressures, inheritance taxes and health scares about beef. A hundred years ago Ranchers were in a similar predicament, faced with these Beef Trust monopolies. Then of coarse good Old T.R. was there to swing his big stick and bust those trusts! The "trustbusters" progressive movement was sought to take power away from these monopolies because they felt to much economic power was a threat to our democracy. Thanks to this, Ranchers were able to sell in a competetive marketplace, a very good thing for them. Unfortunalty for the ranchers however, when Regan (known as the devil by Huey Freeman) took office he turned a blind eye to these antitrust laws and these meat packing corporations (amoung others) grew. With these monopolies on the beef and poultry industry companies were able to lower prices of beef and poultry and create certain countracts that put the ranchers grossly in debt. For some it ends there like Hank, who took his own life like many other ranchers because of the enormous pressure they were under and the debt they gathered.
Gems: "[Chicken McNuggets] turned a bulk agricultural commodity into a manufactored, value-added product. And it encourages a system of production that has turned many chicken farmers into little more than serfs." (139)
"The typical grower had been raising chicken for fifteen years, owned pountry houses, remained in debt, and earned perhaps $12,000 a year." (141)
Thoughts and Questions: Nine times out of ten, the worker will have a certain distaste for their boss. Ranchers definitly have cause for their anger, they are oppressed to the point of near serf status as Schlosser pointed out. Why then, have I never heard of these terrible conditions before reading this book (sort of)? I never here of this on the news or in the paper.

Growing food

Never before have I grown food of my own. Like most Americans I buy processed food and occasionally I eat organic and I assume more healthy food. Gardening as a hobby was never something I found any interest in or frankly even understood, I perceived it as tedious work for a small reward. This probably is attributed to the fact that I live  in a city. So if you choose to do any sort of plant growing in that small apartment it amounts to some droopy looking philodendron plant hanging high in the window looking pretty sad. Nothing too eventful, I would think, until now.
After the first few days of watering my seed filled jar I eventually saw some alfalfa actually growing which I instantly took pride in, those who didn't I would of coarse belittle their farming skills knowing full well I did the exact same thing they did. Even so when someone else would brag about their  blooming alfalfa it's not easy to not feel a little jealous. These two weeks in which we grew this plant has taught me a few things. One being that it is kind of fun to grow your own food, there is a certain pride knowing you're giving life to something and that someone else somewhere isn't. In turn this knowledge has made me rethink on how I think on my own opinions, I was quick to judge my mother's poor looking plants and I couldn't comprehend that anyone could take joy in watering it. But most importantly probably is that if I took pride in my planting skills and I know people who grew better alfalfa than I definitly took pride in their planting skills, so why isn't this happening more often? Why must agriculture be on such a large scale? Why do we have companies oppress so many farmers for this necessity when it's fairly easy and fun to do it on a small scale? If America was to change foodways as such wouldn't people be more knowledgeable, more happy and more healthy? I think so and I think that when I am to be older I would like to grow my own food for just those reasons.

Fast Food Nation ch1 analysis

Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser begins with the story of Carl Karcher a businessman who made his success in the fast food industry. How Carl started as a mere hotdog salesman/bakery deliveryman and became the founder of the 4th largest burger chain in the United States. How he faced fierce competition and battled numerous lawsuits. It's a story that summons a great faith in the American way, that of hard work and a creative mind you too can be a successful entrepreneur. "He [Carl] kept his job at the bakery and hired two young men to work the [hotdog] cart during the hours he was delivering the bread", the concept itself is nice; you do honest work, raise enough money for a small business and hire some workers for someday they might start their own business with the money they made. It would be nice if this was how it worked but if the steps are analyzed thoroughly another perspective shows different light, after all monarchy is a great idea when you ask a king. Firstly, he is getting paid for work he simply isn't doing. I honestly don't know any other way to put it; he gets paid for other's work. The counter argument would be "Well John, Carl started the business he should be entitled to his rightful cut", so what strenuous work did Mr. Karcher do for the business to start it? So far he just had the idea of buying a hotdog cart. That's not an original idea by any means nor is him hiring workers, all of this has been done before. So his extra work for the business that Carl did amounts to about roughly zero. So why then is he making money off these men when the only thing that seperated Carl from the workers is the amount of money he had before hand?

Now for the second important tid-bit; that at one point Carl was in the same scenario as these two workers are in the story, he was as they say making honest pay from honest work. YES HE HAS! I'd say but that still doesn't make the situation any better, what we should be asking is why didn't Carl invest in opening a bakery instead? He has a fair amount of experience with it, he worked as a farm hand and has delivered baked goods, it's more insight than what he had for a hotdog business. This is why. The baked goods already had dominating businesses that the lonely Carl wouldn't have been able to compete with, whereas hotdog selling was only in competition with people who were on the same level as him. That’s a pretty sweet idea, you compete with others at the same level as you, but then of coarse someone will do something better and they will dominate that business. Then those who worked for Carl get better jobs and get more money and life is good, right? WRONG! The workers he used were of no use to Carl in a growing business they had no skills that were necessary for them to climb the latter, so assuming their jobs were safe they would have been given another lowly position just as they had before. This would probably make them want to leave that business just as Carl did to the bakery. But now what new thing can they go to? They can't just start a fast food joint, something they have some experience in, that as we know is dominated by Carl. Nor can they start a bakery, as time goes on these businesses dominate the given field and surely as the sun sets in the west each field will have a group of ruling corporations and there will be no room for an aspiring small business.