Sunday, October 31, 2010
Hw #11
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Hw #12
Evidence: What goes on in the feedlots
Evidence: Animals and workers are mistreated
Evidence: What is put into our food
Evidence: Over production
Supporting Claim 2: Companies do not care about the consumer; it is all about the business. Business = money.
Evidence: Organic now government owned word
Evidence: No interest in if food is healthy but in selling it
Evidence: Whole foods
Not done.. evidence is almost done
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Hw # 7d
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
hw # 10
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Hw # 7c
Friday, October 15, 2010
Hw # 9 - Freakonomics
A tool the protagonists in "Freakonomics" used were conducting experiments to find evidence to determine the truth. An example of this was when they conducted one in a school by giving high school students money as an incentive to get their grades up. But in the end the reality was many didn't, only 5-7% had a change in their grades. Another tool was asking questions by surveying people, when they talked about the baby names they had several moments in film where they showed people being asked questions and what they thought about names. Giving them more evidence for the truth. Last tool I saw they used was evaluating the research, in the one about sumo wrestlers and how it seemed tobe the purest of sports they still had cheating. So they evaluated the numbers the sumo wrestlers would have in many matches to see a common occurence. And it seemed that those who were already assured to next round would let a companion who just needed one more win would let them.
I agree that Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the hidden – in – plain – sight” weirdness of dominant social practices because they show evidence and real – life situations that let people know the “truth” of things. Like how names don’t change who you are or become, but where you grow up and your economic class does. Their example was a girl named Temptress who didn’t act the way she did because of her name but because of where she grew up. In a poor neighborhood and single mom household. Another example was the two kids named winner and loser, and loser ended being the actual winner graduating college and having the good life, while winner was a convict and in jail. Showing that your name won’t determine whether you’ll become a screw up or successful in life. I understood that it could affect you in life as in more/less job opportunity but can’t affect your life in a huge way.
These are things most may not know even though it seems obvious especially for those out there who hire baby name specialists just so their child won’t be a failure. This reminded me of my current math class and how sometimes the truth is not as obvious as we think, and an example was if there are more colored people jail, doesn't that make a colored person more likely to be a criminal? Well we learned using logic that this wasn't true it didn't actually make them any more likely to be a criminal than any other person. But cops still stop colored people more than any Caucasians. Weird. We could possibly conduct an experiment we think answer would be obvious to see if it actually is, like determine whether it is true those who eat meat are the ones more obese than those who don't? Maybe the answer won't be as obvious as we think.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Hw # 7b
Chapter 6:
Précis: Comparing 1820 to modern day America, drinking half a pint of whiskey every day was normal then. And today eating huge portions is also seen as normal due to the serving size some genius invented in order to sell more, leading to the rise in obesity. Another reason is that the cost is these foods are cheap because of the cost per calories. And corn is the cheapest energy on the market so of course we end up eating a lot of it in our diet. Especially with the huge portions being served to us in processed foods.
Gems: "It turns out the price of a calorie of sugar or fat plummeted since the 1970s. One reason that obesity and diabetes become more prevalent the further down the socioeconomic scale you look is that the industrial food chain has made energy - dense foods the cheapest foods in the market, which measured in terms cost per calories." - pg. 107
"While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the market will continue to be the unhealthiest." - pg. 108
"Researchers have found that people (and animals) presented with large portions will eat up to 30 percent more than they would otherwise." - pg. 106
Questions/Thoughts:
Why is the President, the very own government letting us eat these cheap calories when it is unhealthy for us?
I believe that not allowing fast food restaurants to super size foods would help decrease obesity, because it is what led to the increase of obesity.
Chapter 7:
Précis: Family day at McDonalds I inspect the number of corn we intake in a single meal even include our transportation and the amount would fill and overflow the back trunk of my car of kernels. But the question is whether or not so much corn intake is really as bad as we think. The idea of McDonalds also has huge impact on why we eat it; to me it brought memories of my childhood and the smell brought comfort. But these cheap calories seem to have a consequence because in long run it can cost more to one becoming obese or get heart disease later on in life.
Gems: " The myriad streams of commodity corn, after being variously processed and turned into meat, converge in all sorts of different meals I might eaten, at KFC, or Pizza Hut or Apple bee's, or prepared myself from ingredients bought at supermarket. Industrial meals are all around us, after all; they make up the food chain from which most of us eat most of the time. " - Pg. 109
"I loved everything about fast food: the individual crunchy all wrapped up like presents; the familiar meaty perfume of the French fries filling the car; and the pleasingly sequenced bite into a burger - the soft, sweet roll, the crunchy pickle, the savory moistness of the meat." - pg. 111
" No I could not taste the feed corn or the petroleum or the antibiotics or the hormones - or the feedlot manure. Yet awhile " A Full Serving of Nutrition Facts" did not enumerate these facts, they too have gone into the making of this hamburger, are part of its natural history." - pg. 114- 115
Questions/Thoughts: The numbers given of how much corn we intake is huge compared of what one thought of before.
These cheap calories have a cause and effect I believe, they may be cheaper for those in low economic class but these people can later pay a higher price of becoming obese or having heart disease later on.
Chapter 8:
Précis: Visiting a Polyface farm and doing manual work the visual picture of the happy farmer and the leisure work disappears in my mind. After spending a day with Salatin I learn how he believes he is not a chicken farmer or cattle rancher but a grass farmer! To him and his farm the most important part is the grass because there everything else connects, the animals, their food and in the end the animals we eat. He believes they are better than the organic farms to him organic is just something else government owns. While unlike his farm it is just for him and his community, none of it can be exported. Soon I’ll find out whether this is true or not...
Gems: " Grass," so understood, is the foundation of the intricate food chain Salatin has assembled at Polyface, where a half dozen different animal species are raised together in an intensive rotational dance on the theme of symbiosis. Salatin is the choreographer and the grasses are verdurous stage; the dance has made Polyface one of the most productive and influential alternative farms in America." - pg. 126
" A great many animals, too, are drawn to grass, which partly accounts for our own deep attraction to it: We come here to eat the animals that ate the grass that we (lacking rumuns) can't eat ourselves. " All Flesh is Grass." - pg. 127
" We never called ourselves organic - we call ourselves 'beyond organic.' Why dumb down to a lesser level than we are?" - pg. 132
"A ten- thousand - bird shed that stinks to high heaven or a new paddock of fresh green grass every day? Now which chicken shall we call 'organic'? I'm afraid you'll have to ask the government, because now they own the word." - pg. 132
Questions/Thoughts: The author says he will investigate whether this farmer was telling the truth that this farm is better than organic farm. Wonder if it is? And if it is why then is organic seen so highly?