ARTICLE #1: "What is the True Cost of Eating Meat?" - The Guardian
The article, "What is the true cost of eating meat?" was posted on The Guardian.com as a part of a news series explaining current events called "the briefing." This article gives the reader a well-rounded summary of the impacts that industrialized meat production has on the human population, animals, and the environment. The article was very informative for an everyday reader, and had a good amount of cited research to provide backing to the claims of the author. Additionally, The Guardian is a British news website that largely focusses on news in the United Kingdom or current world events from the perspective of British writers. I found that reading an article written by a news corporation in the UK was very enlightening, as it gave me an understanding for how the rest of the world (outside of US Media) feels about industrial food.
The author outlines many of the negative effects of the meat industry while still providing some of the historical benefits that meat has provided mankind. Some of the benefits the author mentioned included the economic value of the meat industry In the world economy as well as the evolutionary human developments that meat has influenced, specifically human brain size. The article reads, "cooked meat may have been partially responsible for the large brains that characterize Homo sapiens and have put humans where we are now" ("What is the true cost of eating meat?", The Guardian). Even though the author technically takes an unbiased position on the meat industry and plays the role of an informer, it is evident that the article is in favor of alternative food options and wants to explain to the reader that the negative effects of meat production are significant. The author cites many examples of impacts that meat production has on the environment, including statistics regarding the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are produced in the process of meat production. The author writes, "According to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture, forestry, and other land use accounts for 24% of greenhouse gases" ("What is the true cost of eating meat?", The Guardian). Included in the negative effects are excessive water consumption, water pollution, over-use of land, and inhumane treatment of livestock. This article clearly aims to educate the public on how harmful meat production can be, especially considering the magnitude at which production occurs.
As a science major who is currently studying many of the negative impacts of meat production in classes such as Ecology, Physical Geography and Organic Chemistry, I was slightly underwhelmed by the content in the "Climate Change" portion of the article. Greenhouse gas emissions are the most significant issue impacting climate change in the meat industry, however, I believe that the author could have done a better job explaining the specific ways that the meat industry releases gas emissions to show why alternative food options are much cleaner for the environment. An example the author could have included is the abundance of methane that cattle produce when eating and breathing, as methane has a serious impact on global warming. The author also did not mention the amount of fossil fuels that are burned during the transportation of meat products from farm to factory and from factory to businesses. When looking at the efficiency of transporting amount of protein, it is much more efficient to ship large quantities of plant-based proteins than it is to ship animal-based protein. You can read more about protein-transfer efficiency in an article titled, "Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions. Potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation," which is a part of the Journal called Food Policy, published in October 2011.
Although the author could have added more information about the impacts of the meat industry on climate change, I believe that this article was extremely informative and accomplished its goal at educating members of the public about the pros and cons of the meat industry. This article relates somewhat to the book, Pandora's Lunchbox, as it touches upon the environmental inefficiencies that result from mass production of meat. While the anecdotes and examples in Pandora's Lunchbox do not mention environmental inefficiencies, they do mention that large food companies accept that their is a trade off between economic efficiency and health risks in mass production of food. In this way, both the article and Pandora's Lunchbox are similar because they feature large food industry understanding the negative impacts of their actions while continuing to produce them because profits are so enticing.
The author outlines many of the negative effects of the meat industry while still providing some of the historical benefits that meat has provided mankind. Some of the benefits the author mentioned included the economic value of the meat industry In the world economy as well as the evolutionary human developments that meat has influenced, specifically human brain size. The article reads, "cooked meat may have been partially responsible for the large brains that characterize Homo sapiens and have put humans where we are now" ("What is the true cost of eating meat?", The Guardian). Even though the author technically takes an unbiased position on the meat industry and plays the role of an informer, it is evident that the article is in favor of alternative food options and wants to explain to the reader that the negative effects of meat production are significant. The author cites many examples of impacts that meat production has on the environment, including statistics regarding the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are produced in the process of meat production. The author writes, "According to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture, forestry, and other land use accounts for 24% of greenhouse gases" ("What is the true cost of eating meat?", The Guardian). Included in the negative effects are excessive water consumption, water pollution, over-use of land, and inhumane treatment of livestock. This article clearly aims to educate the public on how harmful meat production can be, especially considering the magnitude at which production occurs.
As a science major who is currently studying many of the negative impacts of meat production in classes such as Ecology, Physical Geography and Organic Chemistry, I was slightly underwhelmed by the content in the "Climate Change" portion of the article. Greenhouse gas emissions are the most significant issue impacting climate change in the meat industry, however, I believe that the author could have done a better job explaining the specific ways that the meat industry releases gas emissions to show why alternative food options are much cleaner for the environment. An example the author could have included is the abundance of methane that cattle produce when eating and breathing, as methane has a serious impact on global warming. The author also did not mention the amount of fossil fuels that are burned during the transportation of meat products from farm to factory and from factory to businesses. When looking at the efficiency of transporting amount of protein, it is much more efficient to ship large quantities of plant-based proteins than it is to ship animal-based protein. You can read more about protein-transfer efficiency in an article titled, "Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions. Potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation," which is a part of the Journal called Food Policy, published in October 2011.
Although the author could have added more information about the impacts of the meat industry on climate change, I believe that this article was extremely informative and accomplished its goal at educating members of the public about the pros and cons of the meat industry. This article relates somewhat to the book, Pandora's Lunchbox, as it touches upon the environmental inefficiencies that result from mass production of meat. While the anecdotes and examples in Pandora's Lunchbox do not mention environmental inefficiencies, they do mention that large food companies accept that their is a trade off between economic efficiency and health risks in mass production of food. In this way, both the article and Pandora's Lunchbox are similar because they feature large food industry understanding the negative impacts of their actions while continuing to produce them because profits are so enticing.
ARTICLE #2: "Migrant workers prove vital to local farming community" - HollandSentinel.com
In his article, "Migrant workers prove vital to local farming community," author Austin Metz writes about the horrific treatment that migrant workers in Michigan have been recently subjected to, and the ways that migrant life has changed over the years. He cites a Michigan prosecutor, Juanita Bocanegra, from Ottowa county, who grew up a child of migrant workers, and explains that life for migrant workers have only gotten worse over the years. She says that, while she enjoyed her childhood, there were many obstacles in her way, such as living without health insurance. Now, conditions are even worse, with multiple families living in single sleeping units without access to basic laundry, bathroom, or storage facilities. Only recently have Legal Aid corporations in Michigan started to represent Migrant workers in court, with over 330 workers settling for $200,000 in Allegan County after they were not given their promised wages.
I found this article to be very interesting not only because I believe migrant workers should be represented fairly, but because I had no idea just how many migrant workers there were in the State of Michigan. As Metz writes, a 2013 study found that "there were a reported 49,135 migrant and seasonal farmworkers in Michigan employed in field agriculture, nursery/greenhouse work, reforestation and food processing" (Metz, par 23). These workers made up more than half of the total farmworkers and non-farmworking family members on farms. I find it appalling that the workers who contribute so much to a huge sector of Michigan's economic and agricultural production are treated so poorly. These people work tirelessly in extreme conditions, and often do not go home to suitable living accommodations and do not receive fair pay. I think that Metz does a great job at providing this information with a tone that is empathetic and moving, which urges readers to find out more about the issue and make their voices heard. Metz's use of Juanita Bocanegra's experience highlights the poor treatment of migrant workers, and gives the reader a first-person view of what it is like to live as a migrant worker. This article relates to the greed of big business and agricultural companies that is expressed in Food Inc. In Food Inc, we learned that large companies that buy produce from farms have strict quotas on how much food must be produced, and as a result makes life for farmers very stressful. I can see how the stress that is put on local farmers has caused them to cut back on wages and amenities, and this makes me feel that the problem, like with mass-production of unhealthy and addictive foods, lies with big business and not with farm owners. I would be very interested in reading new articles regarding migrant workers to stay updated on the progress that they and their representatives are making in obtaining fair pay and accommodations.
Article 3: "In Britain, Even Children Are Feeling the Effects of Austerity" - The New York Times
In his article, "In Britain, Even Children are Feeling the Effects of Austerity," author Patrick Kingsley talks about the Conservative "austerity" which involved major budget cuts in response to the 2008 financial crisis. As a result of the cuts, many welfare programs were cut and families were driven into poverty. One of the side-effects of increasing poverty levels was increasing levels of child hunger. Kingsley cites the Morecambe Bay Primary School, in which students eat more of their meals at school than at home. While the Conservative programs have dramatically decreased unemployment levels, working families struggle more now to put food in their childrens' stomachs. Kingsley uses George McCullough's situation as an effective example, showing how McCullough works very hard and still cannot support his children. Kingsley writes, "He stopped socializing and sometimes skipped meals to ensure that his son ate three times a day. But he could no longer afford to give the boy a balanced diet or a new school uniform, or take him to see friends" (Kingsley, 2018). He explains that McCullough used to earn welfare to supplement his extremely low budget, but that after welfare changes in the Austerity program he lost those added benefits and had a harder time feeding his child.
I again found it interesting to read about the economic and societal issues in another nation. Kinglsey gave an effective, informative report on the magnitude of the child-hunger problem in Great Britain, and wrote in a tone that made the reader empathetic of the situation. I felt as if I was well informed of the situation, and felt as if a change needed to be made. However, I would have like to have read more about what is being done (or is being planned) to combat the rising poverty and food-scarcity levels in Britain. Are there other politicians running for the next elections who support programs other than Austerity? Overall, I thought the article had a great message, was easy to read, and motivated others to press for a change. The issue in this article is even more shocking when we consider stories like we read in "Throwaway Culture Has Spread Packaging Waste Worldwide: Here's What to Do About it," by Dave Hall. Also from the United Kingdom, Hall wrote about just how much good food is disposed of, and the climate impacts of mass disposal. Stories like this make me angry, as there must be a better solution for the world and its population when it comes to disposing of extra food and people not having enough.
Article 4: "Millennials are trading primary care doctors for faster, cheaper alternatives" - Sandra Boodman, Chicago Tribune
Writer Sanda Boodman speaks about the "McDonaldization" of the Healthcare Industry in her article, "Millennials are trading primary care doctors for faster, cheaper alternatives." She acknowledges that in recent years, more and more millennials (or those people born between the years of 1981 and 1996) have been utilizing Urgent Care facilities and retail clinics while less have been visiting primary care physicians. She believes that they are turning towards these alternatives due to their fast service, convenient availability, and modernized methods of scheduling appointments. Millennials do not want to wait several days or weeks to be able to see a doctor, and were not pleased with the long waits and enormous bills that resulted from going to the emergency room for after-hours treatment or sudden ailments. Boodman also writes about the drawbacks of Urgent Care facilities, including improper prescribing of medicine, inability to successfully diagnose or treat a patient's ongoing issues, and a lack of a network of local specialists. She, along with others that she cites, argues that it is important to have a primary care doctor as someone who is familiar with your medical history and someone who, when contacted, can give you the best advice on what to do or where to go to get better. She feels that longitudinal care provides the most reliable method of health care, and warns millennials of the potential consequences of seeking fragmented care at new Urgent Care centers.
This article presented information about an industry I was already familiar with. I have used urgent care several times, and I have had mixed experiences with it. Everything that Boodman wrote made sense to me, and I felt that she did a great job explaining why the industry is so enticing while maintaining her stance that Urgent Care is not a better option than having a primary care physician. This article related to George Ritzer's book, The McDonaldization of Society, in which Ritzer wrote about how various industries are adopting methods of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control to adopt the "McDonald's" system of maximizing profits and minimizing costs. Boodman explained how Urgent Care centers were making the medical process more efficient, seeing more patients in less time than primary care physicians and offering a variety of quick, technological methods for scheduling appointments. She mentioned that Urgent Care facilities are much cheaper than visits to a doctor's office or the emergency room, offering patients cheap service in a reasonable amount of time. While she didn't explicitly talk about predictability or control in her article, Boodman mentioned that many younger patients preferred the convenience of an Urgent Care center as opposed to waiting forty-five minutes past their scheduled appointment time to see their primary care physician, which is what they expected at a doctor's office. This faster turn-over of patients is also good for business, and allows Urgent Care centers to make profits by seeing many patients a day. I think that Boodman did a great job of outlining the McDonaldization of healthcare, and successfully conveyed to the reader that this change in the industry will not benefit us in the long run.
Article 5: "Denmark Wants Food Labels to Include Environmental Impact" - Casey Quackenbush on TIME.com
In the article, "Denmark Wants Food Labels to Include Environmental Impact," author Casey Quackenbush discusses a new proposal in Denmark to label foods in the supermarket based on their contribution to negative climate change processes. This proposal aims to educate consumers about the products they purchase and the affects that mass producing those products has on the environment. Quackenbush cites the Danish Minister for the Environment, Lars Christian Lilleholt, about the demand that consumers currently have for this kind of information. He says, "My impression is that there is a demand for knowledge about how individual consumers can contribute to improving global climate" (Quackenbush par 6). Quackenbush also reported that this proposal came directly after a UN report about climate change, which stated that we have about twelve years to make significant changes in greenhouse gas emissions on a global level if we are to avoid disastrous effects for our world population. Denmark officials hope that initiating these methods of labeling will help to increase awareness of the climate change issue and aid in efforts to decrease the emissions that result from mass production of products with a large carbon footprint.
While this article was fairly short, it did provoke a lot of thought in me and motivated me to evaluate this proposal further. I do believe that this is an important step in the right direction for decreasing the harmful impacts that food production has on climate change. One of the largest problems that our world population has when it comes to climate change is a lack of awareness of the impacts that everyday activities and products have on our environment. Food labels could potentially serve as a great way to educate consumers about the carbon footprints of their favorite products. Why? Because food is a basic necessity. We can share article after article with our friends, families, peers, and fellow community members, however, none of these people will ever feel that they have to read them. With food labels, every consumer would be forced to see important information about climate change whenever they would go to the supermarket or open their fridge. It would serve as a constant reminder that our planet is in trouble, and would hopefully influence consumers to purchase products that are not as environmentally harmful.
While I overall think that this proposal would bolster our efforts to increase outreach about climate change and begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I do have a few reservations about this proposal. First off, I am worried that many consumers may not care about the labels. Although they may see the labels at the supermarket and in their refrigerators at home, I fear that some may disregard the important information the labels contain due to brand loyalty or lack of concern. I am also worried that many consumers might be afraid to purchase certain products - even healthy products with a small carbon footprint - because of misconceptions about food labels. This reminds me of a similar issue involving labels for Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO's, which have been mandated in the state of Vermont. These labels can turn off customers from buying products that are completely safe and efficient for the environment. Additionally, I am also worried that this policy could face serious opposition from major corporations, such as Coca-Cola and Frito Lay. This reminds me of a reading we did in class titled, "In Sweeping War on Obesity, Chile Slays Tony the Tiger" by Andrew Jacobs that was published in The New York Times. In this article, Jacobs describes how the Chilean government established many labeling rules for food products that mandated that iconic cartoon characters be removed from packages. Companies such as Pepsi-Co and Kellogg's went to court about this policy, and made it increasingly had for the Chilean government to establish these rules. While this case is slightly different than labeling food based on its carbon footprint, it just goes to show how far corporations will go to protect their products and their profits. I think that this will be the largest obstacle in adding climate change food labels in Denmark and around the world, but believe that Denmark is making a strong effort to begin fighting for our planet's well-being.
While this article was fairly short, it did provoke a lot of thought in me and motivated me to evaluate this proposal further. I do believe that this is an important step in the right direction for decreasing the harmful impacts that food production has on climate change. One of the largest problems that our world population has when it comes to climate change is a lack of awareness of the impacts that everyday activities and products have on our environment. Food labels could potentially serve as a great way to educate consumers about the carbon footprints of their favorite products. Why? Because food is a basic necessity. We can share article after article with our friends, families, peers, and fellow community members, however, none of these people will ever feel that they have to read them. With food labels, every consumer would be forced to see important information about climate change whenever they would go to the supermarket or open their fridge. It would serve as a constant reminder that our planet is in trouble, and would hopefully influence consumers to purchase products that are not as environmentally harmful.
While I overall think that this proposal would bolster our efforts to increase outreach about climate change and begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I do have a few reservations about this proposal. First off, I am worried that many consumers may not care about the labels. Although they may see the labels at the supermarket and in their refrigerators at home, I fear that some may disregard the important information the labels contain due to brand loyalty or lack of concern. I am also worried that many consumers might be afraid to purchase certain products - even healthy products with a small carbon footprint - because of misconceptions about food labels. This reminds me of a similar issue involving labels for Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO's, which have been mandated in the state of Vermont. These labels can turn off customers from buying products that are completely safe and efficient for the environment. Additionally, I am also worried that this policy could face serious opposition from major corporations, such as Coca-Cola and Frito Lay. This reminds me of a reading we did in class titled, "In Sweeping War on Obesity, Chile Slays Tony the Tiger" by Andrew Jacobs that was published in The New York Times. In this article, Jacobs describes how the Chilean government established many labeling rules for food products that mandated that iconic cartoon characters be removed from packages. Companies such as Pepsi-Co and Kellogg's went to court about this policy, and made it increasingly had for the Chilean government to establish these rules. While this case is slightly different than labeling food based on its carbon footprint, it just goes to show how far corporations will go to protect their products and their profits. I think that this will be the largest obstacle in adding climate change food labels in Denmark and around the world, but believe that Denmark is making a strong effort to begin fighting for our planet's well-being.
Article 6: "Could Insects be the Wonder Food of the Future?" - Emily Anthes, BBC News
In her article, "Could Insects be the Wonder Food of the Future?" author Emily Anthes outlines the current movement to establish insect production and consumption into our society as a way to satisfy the protein demand for our growing population. Anthes first reminds us that our population is estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050, and that current livestock production is not a reasonable way to produce protein for that many people due to the many environmental harms involved with the production of livestock. These environmental harms include excessive land and water use, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, all of which Anthes writes could be lessened by a switch to large-scale production of insect protein. She says that insects contain a great amount of protein and micronutrients (like iron and zinc), take up much less space than livestock, emit lower levels of greenhouse gases than livestock, and have a much larger food-conversion rate than livestock (that is, the same amount of feed yields 12 times more insect protein than beef protein). Anthes believes, like many others, that large-scale insect production could reduce many of the negative impacts that current livestock production ahs on the climate, and that insect protein could represent a viable solution to supporting a large population.
In Ede, a large conference set up by the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Wageningen University and Research center gathered entomologists (bug scientists), entrepreneurs, nutritionists, chefs, psychologists, and government officials from the around the world to discuss the possibilities of expanding the consumption of insect protein and the challenges that they would face. Anthes, reporting on the conference, writes, "Over the next three days, they will lay out their vision for the future. It is ambitious and optimistic; an insect aisle at the supermarket and fast-food restaurants that serve bug burgers. Packages of ‘beautiful, clean’ shrink-wrapped mealworms on display at the meat counter, alongside the skirt steak and chicken wings. And a world in which forests are thick, land is fertile, the climate is stable, water is clean, waste is minimal, food prices are low, and hunger and malnutrition are rare." A company called Agriprotein has already begun leading the way, with a large scale production factory that opened in 2014 and others just like it around the world. Two of the challenges that Anthes identified in establishing insect protein as an accepted protein source include a fear factor and safety concerns. She wrote that people are skeptical of eating bugs because they are animals, and on top of that are animals that seem foreign to many consumers. People also associate insects with dirt, decay, and disease, which does not help make insect protein more appealing. People are also concerned with the safety of insect protein, as many insects are carriers of diseases, contain different levels of cadmium and lead (harmful metals), and contain tropomyosin, a protein that many people have allergies to. Anthes, like others, is hopeful that with careful marketing and government regulation, eating insect protein on a large scale will be a reality in a sustainable future.
This article reminded me of one of the first readings we completed this semester, "Let's Eat," a chapter from Rachel Herz That's Disgusting: Unraveling the Mysteries of Repulsion. In this chapter, Herz similarly writes about the environmental benefits of eating insects as well as the factors that keep consumers from trying insects. She explains that when she was teaching at Brown University, a student brought in a snack of grilled crickets for the class to try. To Herz's surprise, some students tried and actually enjoyed the crickets. She writes, "The consensus was that it was 'not so bad' - that the texture was the surprising part, crunchy than squishy.." (Herz 20). She also writes about the reasons that other students did not try the crickets. She writes, "The few who didn't venture said that they didn't want to try it because it 'just looked too gross' or that the tought of eating insects was too repulsive" (Herz 20). While she too thought eating the crickets sounded disgusting, she realized that with the population rising and climate worsening, she might have to get used to it.
In Ede, a large conference set up by the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Wageningen University and Research center gathered entomologists (bug scientists), entrepreneurs, nutritionists, chefs, psychologists, and government officials from the around the world to discuss the possibilities of expanding the consumption of insect protein and the challenges that they would face. Anthes, reporting on the conference, writes, "Over the next three days, they will lay out their vision for the future. It is ambitious and optimistic; an insect aisle at the supermarket and fast-food restaurants that serve bug burgers. Packages of ‘beautiful, clean’ shrink-wrapped mealworms on display at the meat counter, alongside the skirt steak and chicken wings. And a world in which forests are thick, land is fertile, the climate is stable, water is clean, waste is minimal, food prices are low, and hunger and malnutrition are rare." A company called Agriprotein has already begun leading the way, with a large scale production factory that opened in 2014 and others just like it around the world. Two of the challenges that Anthes identified in establishing insect protein as an accepted protein source include a fear factor and safety concerns. She wrote that people are skeptical of eating bugs because they are animals, and on top of that are animals that seem foreign to many consumers. People also associate insects with dirt, decay, and disease, which does not help make insect protein more appealing. People are also concerned with the safety of insect protein, as many insects are carriers of diseases, contain different levels of cadmium and lead (harmful metals), and contain tropomyosin, a protein that many people have allergies to. Anthes, like others, is hopeful that with careful marketing and government regulation, eating insect protein on a large scale will be a reality in a sustainable future.
This article reminded me of one of the first readings we completed this semester, "Let's Eat," a chapter from Rachel Herz That's Disgusting: Unraveling the Mysteries of Repulsion. In this chapter, Herz similarly writes about the environmental benefits of eating insects as well as the factors that keep consumers from trying insects. She explains that when she was teaching at Brown University, a student brought in a snack of grilled crickets for the class to try. To Herz's surprise, some students tried and actually enjoyed the crickets. She writes, "The consensus was that it was 'not so bad' - that the texture was the surprising part, crunchy than squishy.." (Herz 20). She also writes about the reasons that other students did not try the crickets. She writes, "The few who didn't venture said that they didn't want to try it because it 'just looked too gross' or that the tought of eating insects was too repulsive" (Herz 20). While she too thought eating the crickets sounded disgusting, she realized that with the population rising and climate worsening, she might have to get used to it.