Food Dilemma

After watching Food, Inc., I felt sort of betrayed by my own food industry as well as government. People tend to believe that their government and industries within his or her country were supposed to protect them, but it seemed as if these industries as well as the government were taking advantage of their own people. This was my third time watching this film and after watching it this time, it made me really view my food industry differently than before. I had to admit that the first two times I saw this movie, I did not fully comprehend the severity of the food issue of the manipulation and power of these food companies and the government. But after watching it a third time, I sort of gained more knowledge on how I should eat, what I should eat, and why I should eat differently. I had to admit again that this movie, when watching it for my first time, scared the hell out of me. The reason why this movie terrified me was because if everything in the movie was true, then how could I trust my own government in protecting my health? But more importantly, what was in my food that I just ate? These two questions were still left unanswered after watching the movie.

Several food issues that stood out to me the most after watching Food, Inc. were the issues on the poor, the control over farmers, and the government's relationship within the food industry. In the first food issue, poor families or individuals have the worst results when purchasing food products. In the film, a Hispanic family was interviewed and stated how it was cheaper to purchase fast food products than to purchase healthy food products. For example, buying three cheese hamburgers and a side of french fries could equal to a pound of broccoli. From this, one could assume that the portion of the foods were significantly different, since the fast food products could had fed the family instead of the pound of broccoli. In the second food issue, many food companies were controlling those that produce the food, the farmers. Many of these food companies demanded newer equipements and technologies for producing the products, which costed heavily since these farmers do not necessarily make that much. In addition, many of these food companies do not want their farmers revealing information to others. For example, based on the seed farmers, farmers were not allowed to talk to one another because of the fear of being fired, sued, or hunted down by private investigators from those companies. In order for farmers to attempt to make a living off of what they do, they have to abide by the food companies' rules, or face their consequences. In the last food issue, the government's relationship in the food industry was terrifying. Many former chief executives and presidents of food companies were introduced into government jobs, such as being head of the FDA or Supreme Court justices. How could I trust in my government now if the government and food industry were working together against their own people? It was daunting.

I enjoyed watching Food, Inc., even if this was my third time watching the film. It really portrayed a daunting yet truthful segment into the food industry and their cynical ways. This film was basically an educational film on how we should eat and what we should eat. In addition, this film revealed the curtain of what was in our food and how these food companies were controlling everyone.

According to Mary Maxfield, "Trust yourself. Trust your body. Meet your needs." According to Michael Pollan, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." These two food advocates have their own food formulas that they abide by. Their food formulas could and could not be necessarily followed, but were presented for people to try to follow in order to live healthy lives. My own food formula would be, "Avoid fast food. Consume a reasonable amount. Drink water." The purpose of my first rule "Avoid fast food" was simple, do not eat fast food. Fast food was just an illusion of quality food, since it was just the most processed of foods out there. Fast food was high in calories and since it was cheap, many could consume these products nonstop. The purpose of my second rule "Consume a reasonable amount" was to explain how eating a good amount of food was healthy. Eating too little and eating too much was detrimental to one's health. But consuming a reasonable amount, based on that person's health and weight, could be healthy. It was up to that person to think what was considered a reasonable amount to eat. The purpose of my third rule "Drink water" was interesting and unique. The reason why some individuals were hungry or were craving some sort of food was not because he or she was hungry, but because he or she was thirsty. For example, the next time you are hungry, try drinking a glass of water or two. This way your body does not have to consume healthy and/or unhealthy food products. By drinking water instead of eating, one was able to lose weight. Now this could be for those trying to lose weight or trying to maintain their current weight. This third rule should not be followed by those that are eating too little as they are already.

What We Eat

In "What We Eat", Eric Schlosser's argument was that the fast food industry was dominating smaller food businesses, the consumer's health, and the way society eats and acts. These fast food chains, especially McDonald's, have become powerful enough to the point where nothing seemed to stop them. McDonald's was considered a powerful icon of American economy, where it was the nation's largest purchaser of beef, pork, and potatoes. In addition, McDonald's is the largest owner of retail property and was even more invested in advertising and marketing than any other franchise (Schlosser 668-669). Basically, the fast food industry has had an effect on our lives, whether we liked it or not.

Schlosser's main concept was that fast food chains, much like McDonald's, has become an issue for the way people live. We could not escape what was inevitable, which was the fact that fast food restaurants were controlling how we ate, acted, and lived. "Fast food and its consequences have become inescapable, regardless of whether you eat it twice a day, try to avoid it, or have never taken a single bite" (Schlosser 668). We could fight back by ignoring fast food all together, or even by encouraging others to look away from fast food. On the other hand, we could stop resisting and join the conformity with society. Either way, the fast food industry would impact us somehow.

In "What We Eat", Eric Schlosser used several methods in explaining his argument on fast food's dominance over society. Schlosser used cause/effect and compare/contrast to prove his point. In relation to the method of cause/effect, Schlosser gave my interesting examples of cause/effect throughout his article. The main cause could be the foundation of McDonald's and its ways. Various effects could be that Americans were becoming more obese, smaller businesses were collapsing, etc. However, McDonald's "...basic thinking behind fast food has become the operating system of today's retail company, wiping out small businesses, obliterating regional differences, and spreading identical stores throughout the country..." (Schlosser 669-670).
McDonald's had become powerful enough to control everything in its path. Not only was this company spreading its ideology to other franchises, McDonald's controlled the workers as well. Besides the low wages for workers, "Farmers and cattle ranchers are losing their independence, essentially becoming hired hands for the agribusiness giants or being forced off the land (Schlosser 672). McDonald's could make millions every week through its sales, but would not even raise their workers' salaries so the head people could make an extra dollar. Is this the new definition of greed?

In addition to cause/effect, the method of compare/contrast was used to enhance the intensity of the issue on fast food. Schlosser compared American McDonald's workers to migrant farm workers (670). This was to show how both classes were roughly making the same amount of money while doing practically the same amount of work. Well, not the "same amount of work", but the stress behind the work was basically the same for both fast food employees and migrant workers.

The benefit of combining these two methods was that it enhance the intensity of the issue. Personally, I felt more interested in reading about this article because of all the information, examples, and analysis Schlosser presented. Combining two methods into one article definitely helped me in understanding the issue of fast food's dominance. Schlosser's writing style was also unique in the sense that it was very educational and impressive. At times, Schlosser would be serious by proposing facts and examples on certain topics he brought up. Then every once in awhile in the article, Schlosser would make his reading interesting by presenting something good. For example, Schlosser stated, "The early Roman Republic was fed by its citizen-farmers; the Roman Empire, by its slaves. A nation's diet can be more revealing than its art or literature" (668). In addition, he stated, "The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross" (669). These statements ever so often were sort of funny and interesting to me. I would not expect him to state these things, but then again, Schlosser was a true nonconformist in revealing the truth in society.

Comparing and Contrasting

The point of comparing and contrasting is to distinguish the similarities and differences of two distinct subjects. When comparing and contrasting the two subjects, one must keep in mind that the two subjects should be relatively similar, but not entirely the same. If the two subjects are completely different, then there is no point in finding similarities in the subjects. For example, a pair of ballet shoes is different from a pair of running shoes. The style and purpose of these shoes are significantly different, but the similarity is that these shoes are made for one's feet.

In "The Meaning of Life" by Roger Cohen, there are several possible comparing/contrasting subjects the author proposes. One comparing/contrasting topic Cohen brings up is the lifestyle of two rhesus monkeys, Canto and Owen. Another possible comparing/contrasting topic is dieting and consuming whatever one desires to eat. Finally, the last possible comparing/contrasting topic that Cohen brings up is happiness and boredom.

In my perspective, there is an even balance for all three possible comparing/contrasting topics. In the first topic on comparing and contrasting Canto and Owen, the similarities are that Canto and Owen are both rhesus monkeys and that both are fed by the scientists. However, a difference is that Canto is on a restricted diet while Owen is not. In addition, Canto's physical features are different from Owen's features, since the two are experiencing different eating habits. 

In the second topic on comparing and contrasting dieting and consuming whatever one's heart desires, the similarity is that the people dieting or consuming anything are at least eating something. The only difference is that dieting causes rapid loss of appetite due to the caloric restriction (Cohen 293). An example Cohen uses to describe this topic is the resveratrol in red wine, where scientists are trying to "...produce a chemical like it in order to offer people the gain (in life expectancy) without the pain (of dieting) (Cohen 293). 

In the final topic on comparing and contrasting happiness and boredom, the similarity is that a person can experience both feelings and have some kind of effect from both, whether it is being happy or miserable. The difference between the happiness and boredom is the feelings, as mentioned earlier. Throughout the essay, Cohen brings up the topic of boredom when he states, "...boredom definitely shortens life spans" (291), and when he later states, "I suspect those dissenting scientists I didn't bore you with are right" (293). From these two quotations, Cohen stresses the idea that boredom negatively affects one's life, while happiness does not. Towards the end of the essay, Cohen states, "Laughter extends life" (293). According to Cohen, experiencing happiness can positively affect one's life, while boredom does the opposite.

The argument of this essay is that happiness extends one's life span, while boredom reduces the number of years one has left on this world. After reading this article, I agree with Cohen's argument on happiness versus boredom. If we do not or cannot experience happiness in our lifetime, then what is the point of living? In order for individuals to be truly content, they must experience happiness. That's just common sense. On the other hand, we must also experience boredom to actually realize the difference between happiness and boredom.

Lying is a Hobby

In "The Ways we Lie" by Stephanie Ericsson, she explained how lying as had an effect on society throughout the years. After reading her article, I would have to agree with her idea of lying and the various ways one could present a lie. The reason why I agree with her was because Ericsson gave ten different ways a person could lie that stayed within the boundaries of the definition she gave. Ericsson's definition of a lie was that it was either a false statement or action especially made with the intent to deceive or that it was anything that gave or was meant to give a false impression (Ericsson 121). The ten ways to lie stayed within the boundaries of lying because these ways gave false impressions or deceived people no matter what. However, I do not think there was any other type of lying, since her ways of lying pretty much covered everything.

Ericsson's purpose of writing this essay was to inform society of the actions everyone constantly does, which was lying. Similar to breathing, lying was something a person does out of habit. Ericsson wanted her readers to acknowledge the fact that everyone has a tendency to lie, whether it was a white lie or delusion. The reason why this article was able to be published was most likely because this article revealed the truth about society. Another possibility of why this article got published could be that this article opened the minds of many in that everything he/she did could be a lie. What was scary about reading this article could be that people could be lying without him/her noticing it. This was how lying has become an imprinted code in people's systems. It was in people's nature to lie and society would not stop.

Overall, I really enjoyed and liked reading Ericsson's article. i liked how she introduced the article with an anecdote that seemed to be something everyone would do when someone has a rough day. Later on in the article, I also liked how Ericsson gave the negative outcomes of telling the truth if she were to tell the truth about why she lied to the IRS, her co-worker, etc. In addition, I was satisfied with the fact that she included the proper definition of lying from Webster's definition of a lie. As a side note, my view of lying has changed because I did not realize that a lie consisted of anything that gave or was meant to give a false impression (Ericsson 121). I assumed lying was just giving a false statement to someone, but lying could also mean that a person could deceive the truth in general. 

Another aspect from Ericsson's article that I enjoyed was the out-and-out lies she described. I thought it was funny in how people could lie to a person's face where the lie was completely ridiculous and false. On the other hand, I did not believe stereotypes and cliches was a lie. Stereotypes was just a way people could identify others as, based on prior knowledge on those types of individuals or experience with them. In the end, I was content with Ericsson's article because it gave me a new perspective on what lying was and how we always lie. 

Robert Connor's Essay

Robert Connor's essay "How in the World Do You Get a Skunk Out of a Bottle?" was about the narrator helping a distressed skunk that had its head stuck in a jar. This essay started out with a question to the audience because Connor wanted to make the readers ask themselves first or after reading the essay on what they would have done if they were in his position. On the other hand, having this type of question as a title could also be a way to inform the readers that Connor had no idea of what he was doing and was sort of asking the audience for help.

Most individuals would never encounter a situation of pulling a skunk out of a bottle, let alone any animal for that case. But the reason why Connor developed this process analysis essay was most likely because of the idea that people should do the right thing. By this, I mean that if a person has an opportunity to do good, whether for another person, for the world, etc., then he/she should take that opportunity seriously. Connor did the right thing in saving that poor animal's life by risking his own life in the process of retrieving the jar from its head. Now I am not saying one should risk his/her own life for a small good deed. I am rather saying that if given the opportunity to be good, people should do good for others, the world, and even themselves.

The point and purpose of Connor's essay was to explain how an unlikely and awkward situation could turn into something great. Towards the end of the essay, Connor stated, "I hear it splash as I run on up the hill into a sunny morning whose colors are joy, joy, joy" (3). After saving the skunk's life and throwing the jar into a swamp, Connor probably felt satisfied with the fact that he saved an animal's life. Going back to the big picture of this, anyone could do something great in their lives, whether it is helping a neighbor out or giving spare change away to those in need. The world is full of good and bad, where sometimes the bad is more frequent than the good nowadays. But every once in awhile, someone does good in the world and the balance between good/bad is now equal. Be the one to make a difference in doing good.

Effects of Advertisement

The image above is from an anti-smoking advertisement by Chilean Corporation Against Cancer (CONAC). In the image, a child is seen crying while a cloud of smoke surrounds the head of the child. This cloud of smoke not only encompasses the child's head, but seems to resemble a plastic bag covering the head. In addition, the child inhales the smoke through his nose and mouth.

The purpose of this advertisement is to inform society about the dangers of smoking. Although smoking can negatively affect the individual that is smoking cigarettes, it can also affect those around that individual through second-hand smoke. The way the advertisement portrays the child being suffocated in a sort of smokey-plastic-bag is terrifying for most people. The media reveals ideas and concepts in ways that could possibly terrify society because of either the fact that the images are very explicit or that the situation could be real. 

Nothing can horrify people than something that can actually be turned into reality. For example, if a person watches an advertisement where cartoon characters promote the products of McDonald's, that person might just ignore the entire message because of the fact that the advertisement is shown through cartoons. However, if a person watches an advertisement that depicts an individual being beaten due to certain clothes he/she is wearing, that person might focus on the idea of not buying specific clothing brands because of the fear of being beaten. Through the media, this fear that people have, whether it is the fear of dying, the fear of losing, etc., is influencing people to act differently from what they normally do. 

Back to the anti-smoking advertisement with the child, the company that sponsors this advertisement, CONAC, wants to reveal the truth about tobacco in cigarettes. This truth is that tobacco causes cancer, which is something mostly everyone knows about. However, this company will do anything in its power to reduce the amount of people smoking cigarettes, such as promoting a horrifying advertisement of a child being suffocated by a cloud of smoke. 

Depression

Depression, much like a parasite, is something that spreads throughout one's life that could soon be fatal in the end. In terms of depression, some individuals that do experience this feeling are attending college, which should actually be the best experience in their lives. 

Alissa Steiner who was once a college student at the University of California at Davis wrote "Depression in College Students". Her essay focused in on the aspects of depression and how it could lead to suicidal thoughts if continued. According to Steiner's thesis, "Depression and suicide are major issues not only here in Davis, but also at college campuses nationwide." Steiner was able to support her thesis from a study by the American College Health Association in 2005 that "...showed that 15 percent of college students around the country have been professionally diagnosed with depression..." (Depression in College Students, 163). In addition, Steiner used the testimonials from doctors and teachers, such as Diana Hill, who was a UC Davis member of the Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS, and Phillip Clay, the chancellor for Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 

In my opinion, Steiner's response to the issue of depression in college students was excellent. Steiner was able to present her thesis with reliable and credible sources. Adding on to her sources, Steiner used testimonials from doctors and teachers to have a better understanding of how others feel about the topic. But before Steiner went into detail on the issue, she explained what the definition of depression was and how it was caused, which I thought was very informational on her part. 

Towards the end of her essay, Steiner proposed counseling for those going through depression to reduce the level of depression and stress for an individual. This part was my favorite because Steiner tried to encourage those depressed or stressed to attempt to receive help from others. In addition, I enjoyed her ending section of "Looking out for Each Other", where she explained what students should do if they have friends going through difficult times as well as explaining her own experience with someone that had depression. If I were to write an essay on this issue of depression in college students, I would not do anything differently from what Steiner wrote. Her essay was an excellent essay and I would not know what else to talk about, since Steiner wrote everything that was necessary to know and realize about.