Burger King has morals?

I was surprised to read this. Burger King will only use cage-free chicken, eggs, and pork by 2017 and has actually already started the process (9% of their eggs are cage-free now as well as 20% of their pork). I'm optimistic that maybe people have taken notice of what the food industry does to animals before we eat them and the quality of the finished product because of the pink slime story. Is organic food next? Or dare I say it... will we become the EU in terms of food standards? One can hope. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47172360/ns/business-us_business/#.T5ifbdma_t8

POL 300: April 17

What individual or collective actions are you willing to take to improve our food system?

I am willing to quit eating foods that I know are bad for me and eating those foods that are proven healthy. I have almost completely cut out McDonald’s (one visit this semester) and have convinced my dad to drink more tea instead of Pepsi (he used to drink four 20-ounce bottles a day). I have significantly cut down the amount of meat, and dairy I eat as well as making sure that I buy the meat that I do eat from local butcher shops who bring in the meat from farms that are within 100 miles from me. In terms of collective action, I wouldn't mind being part of a food co-op that sells fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables as a means of helping the environment but also eating foods that are healthier. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing a shift in government policy that favored farmers who grew foods that have been proven to be better for people and the environment rather than the current system that is in place.

Similarities between bashing of the EPA and the FDA

Below is a link to a story that I think relates to our class. The EPA was passed during the 70s with a great deal of support from the Executive branch and Congress. However, the author highlights the fact that people forget the reasons why certain laws come into effect; that they were meant to protect against a recognized harm at one point. The success of the EPA has made people forget what certain parts of the country looked like prior to the EPA's creation (this wasn't mentioned in the article but I remember reading once that at one point, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire!). The same goes for food safety; deregulation only brings with it poorer quality and shady practices.   

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/21/11325781-in-72-epa-battled-pollution-now-its-politics?lite

POL 300: April 12

Should a company have the power to decide what information to give consumers about their food?

I do not think so. It should be mandated by the government that a company must release all nutrition information as it relates to the product that is being sold by said company. There is no way a company would release any information that they consider to be undesirable to them selling their product. A good case in point would be McDonald’s and the beef industry’s attempt to not make public the practice of putting pink slime in their beef products. The public reacted with swift fury and basically every major supermarket chain and McDonald’s have now stopped including it in beef. Obviously they did not want the public to know about the filler they put in it because they knew of its exceptionally poor quality. Therefore, a company should not be allowed to determine what information they want or do not want to release to the public since it is obvious they will only act in their best interests, not the public’s.

Who do you think should have the power to decide food policies (i.e. laws about food safety)?

Ultimately most responsibility lies with the people; however, I think that leading nutritionists and medical professionals should be the ones in charge of determining food policies. I wonder if there is a way that we can elect or nominate qualified individuals to determine these policies as to prevent people who used to work for special interests, such as the National Cattlemen’s Association, within the government. I think those who have very few affiliations with special interests should be the ones who are making the decisions involving our food. They are more likely to actually act in our interests rather than those who only want to make more money even at the cost of selling their soul.

Pol 300: April 10

-Should companies be able to own the DNA in plant seeds?

Simply put. No. There has to be some sort of boundary that we do not let people or corporations cross. If seeds can be patented, can we patent a dog? If a dog can be patented, can we patent an infant? Do we really want to live in a society that essentially puts a price on something that is often appraised as priceless? To me, that is what we would be doing since the whole point of a patent or to have ownership of something is for profit-making. Besides moral grounds, I think it is dangerous to assume that something that is relatively new (GMOs and the like) and that professionals have been working on is somehow completely safe and will not lead to any adverse effects. What comes to my mind is the story of the Dodo bird and how the introduction of dogs and cats brought about its extinction because of a new, unnatural arrival of another animal species. Will this be fate of other plants that are relatives of genetically-modified plants? The adage, only time will tell, is suitable in this case but I don't think we should even put ourselves into a position where we wait for something bad to happen.

-Consider what it would be like if people could buy and sell DNA on eBay. What are the possible implications of something like this?

This reminds me of talks about "designer babies;" a couple can go to the doctor, choose the sex, skin tone, and even the eye color of their future child through genetic manipulation. Again, I'm not sure of the consequences of doing something like this and it seems that we, human beings, are quite arrogant in our approach to science. If people could sell their DNA through an online auction there could be numerous implications. Perhaps we would become an even more superficial society where only women with blonde hair, blue eyes, and large breasts or men that are 6 feet tall and muscle bound, would be all that is in the genetic pool. Of course the opposite could be true, that people could end up deeming such practices as too "fake" or immoral and choose to shun them. However, with the way things are going and seeing what people will do to look good or increase their sex appeal (I can't tell you how many of my friends have fad tattoos that regret it now) as of late, I am slightly pessimistic. In the end, such practices would likely lead to a society that is less unique and boring. No thanks.

POL 300: April 5

-Does it matter to you which food companies produce your food?

Yes. I like to eat foods that are healthy, are not loaded with preservatives and chemicals, and that don't "grow" animals but instead treat them with dignity. Supporting a company that I think is inherently evil, I would be just as guilty of supporting inhumane practices and unhealthy eating habits if I buy some companies' products (Tyson chicken nuggets, drinking overpriced sodas, etc.). Too often people think they don't have a choice when they really do; all they have to do is look and demand it. Unfortunately, the means (i.e. changing the culture) is much easier said than done.

-What do you think of Gary Hirshberg’s (CEO of Stonyfarm) statement that nobody can challenge the fact that a sale of another million dollars to Wal-Mart helps save the world? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Yes and no. Yes because I think that having organic products marketed in such a huge marketplace like Wal-Mart makes more people interested in organic food products. Also, the fact that few to no pesticides and better farming practices (sustainable and environmentally friendly) are being used in order to produce organic foods can be seen to help save the world. On the other hand, Wal-Mart still supports companies that are inhumane to the animals that they raise for meat, as well as companies that market unhealthy foods to kids. It's debatable which one is the lesser of the two evils. Ultimately, I think it's a start in the right direction since more people will be interested in organic foods and, hopefully, will develop better eating habits as a result of being more informed, and caring more about, what they eat.

POL 300: April 3

-When deciding what to eat, how much should we consider the workers who pick, process, and transport it?

A great deal of thought should go into the choices we make at the grocery store for a number of reasons. Eating foreign beef products can have a harmful effect on our environment. For example, thousands upon thousands of acres of rain forest are cleared daily in the Amazon Rainforest to make way for cattle farming just countries like Brazil can cash-in on the world's appetite for beef. These practices contribute to hazardous living conditions for those people who are close to these new ranches, let alone the world ecosystem given that the Amazon has been dubbed the "Lungs of the Earth." If an immigrant worker is being treated in a California vineyard just so I can have cheap grapes, I am just as guilty as the vineyard owner since my purchase only encourages unjust practices. I could only imagine what would happen if people realized their RIGHT to protest such immoral actions. If we want it, they, Congress, food corporations, and the like, will give it to us ONLY if we tell them how pissed off we are and that we want change.

-Whether or not you think illegal immigration is a problem, how is illegal immigration connected to the food we eat?

Illegal immigration is directly related to the food we eat. It is important to note that no person ever leaves their country when things are going great. The immigrants who have come to our country have always been in the same boat, no pun intended, in that they were fleeing oppression, famine, and/or lack of opportunity. The "poor and huddled masses" have done well for us also with Irish and Italian immigrants building our cities, the Chinese building our railroads, and now Hispanics who labor to put food on our table. What has happened now though is that it is politically popular to target easy scapegoats during down economic times ("They took maa' jurb."), illegal immigrants who are cleaning up the crap, sometimes literally, that the average US citizen wouldn't even stomach. On top of that, we live in a society where crime, in this case illegal immigration, goes unpunished and the people we should be punishing are a large part of the problem. If beef companies are actively recruiting people in Mexico, regardless of eligibility to work in the US, they should receive a fine. I'm not talking about some slap on the wrist fine that has no real cajones behind it either, I'm talking about something where it really hurts that they reconsider their practices so that they no longer higher cheap labor. There are many who talk about the evils of illegal immigration but are looking at it far too narrowly. Illegal immigrants are cheap labor, labor effects prices, and when labor prices go up food prices go up (very "Duh" statement). Therefore, the correlation is clear.... and so are the true culprits.