Food can be bought and wasted because of the ample amounts bought. Although, one may not give to the poor people of the world, food can be gone to compost, or can be used to make new food. Many belittle the fact that food waste is harmful to society. The first article, “U.S. throws away half of all food produce” By Suzanne Goldenberg explains how Fresh produce is often wasted in fields,warehouses,supermarkets,restaurants,and refrigerators.
Hypothesis: To determine whether to use organic or inorganic food and textiles based on their quality, price, effect on yourself and the environment. When our parents were younger, there was no choice when it came to buying organic food and textiles as food was produced with pesticides to increase the quantity and availability of agriculture. Nowadays, we do have a choice as more supermarkets, clothing stores and greengrocers stock organic food and textiles. Some people feel very strongly about what they eat and put in their bodies as well as how farming methods affect our environment and therefore buy organic products. Others do not feel that this is relevant and are not influenced by this research and continue to buy inorganic products,
Thompson (1997) suggests that if food animals would not be worse off than they are now, then applying GM to increase productivity or quality is acceptable. But the genetic engineering proposed by McMahan is only used to avoid the moral duty of not killing animals. Therefore, by Thompson’s principle, we may be indifferent to the practice in terms of morality. With respect to feasibility, we should notice that it is a quite radical form of genetic modification, which requires major biotechnological breakthrough and may have unpredictable consequences. By the precautionary principle, it is
Both sides offer sound argument, however by analysing research and genetically modified food history, one can ascertain that genetically modified foods are proffering more solutions to issues in our world rather than creating them. Before one dives into the battle of good versus evil, one must first fully understand the concept of genetically modified foods. Genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) foods have been modified in order to develop favourable characteristics. Genes are transferred from various organisms to fruit and vegetable plants and are responsible for generating favourable characteristics, such as resistance to pests and insecticides (Milano and Carol, 2007: 8-11). Many people are pro GM foods due to their positive effects such as larger yields and decreased pesticide use, but not everyone is convinced.
The world of a rodeo animal is said to be bad, but really is not all bad. Yes, I understand that it is not all good. There are some bad apples in every tree. Some people would say that we made them mean and mad to get a good show, but really we don’t. Like “bunking horses are just horse that love to buck, they come from racetrack, feed lots, ranches, and just about everything equine.” So, how do we “breed” them to buck if they do it because they loved to do it we just take what they love to do and put it to use?
In the past, when everything we ate was as natural as possible, not being affected by unknown chemicals, strange diseases weren’t as common as they are now. Diseases because of food processes shouldn’t be happening. We are altering all of the process of foods and by that getting sick easier. More money is being spent by trying to sell bigger animals and at the end we end up paying for medical treatments that could be avoided. Let’s start making conscience and promote the welfare of animal as part of food
And that is just in the US. Imagine what it is like in countries like China where they require animal testing. But there are also many positive arguments to animal testing. Some argue that people shouldn’t protest about animal testing when we eat more animals that we test. They ask why they don’t protest butcherers or farms where they produce meat for us to consume.
Animal rights and livestock farming Many of us, nowadays, eat and enjoy eating meat but many would agree that this is actually not an ethical action. Michael Pollan, in his persuasive style article “An Animal's Place" published in The New Work Times Magazine, on November 10, 2002 intends to persuade his audience that humans should respect animals and as long as they are treated well in farms and give them a more peaceful life and death it will be fine to eat them. According to Pollan, in today's huge industrial farms, cruel and unbearable things happen that are against animals rights. There is a high possibility that in the future these actions will stop as already some protest for animal rights have begun, because animals have feelings and farms take advantage of them thinking that they are mere machines, making them suffer. The solution to this conflict according to the author who supports friendly farms that respect and give a fun and secure life for animals.
Lifeboat Ethics critique Khalil Abouhassan 60035 Life boat ethics is an essay published in 1974 in Psychology Today which is a metaphor for food distribution. Hardin has wrote much more books , articles , and journeys beside lifeboat ethics such as Promethean Ethics , Living Within Limits , and Exploring new ethics for survival, the author claims that the food distribution in the world is a moral issue considering both the wealthy and the poor people all around the world. He uses life boat ethics to question policies such as food banks and immigration. Garrett Hardin was an ecologist who were much warned about the human overpopulation and its results .Hardin received a B.S. in zoology from the University of Chicago in 1936 and a PhD in
Another thing he did was the Pure Food and Drug Act and this act was to restrict foods so that businesses had to tell the truth about what was in their food with a ingredients label (which still exist today). This act would be another act tied in with economic reform, because this act reformed businesses to where they have to be more honest about their food with telling the customers exactly what is in them. But this act along with the Meat Inspection Act would also be social welfare, because it is trying to make food more sanitary for the people to eat and make people more healthy. Furthermore Roosevelt was named a Trust Buster for breaking up a lot of trusts. The first trust he broke up was the Northern Cooperation which was a railroad.
Thus the greater expense of natural foods. To regular consumers, this may seem as added precautions to make sure the food is natural; however, by reading these guidelines, it is obvious that Codex is trying to trivialize organic standards so the organization can extract profits instead of protecting the health of consumers. There are some who believe that Codex regulations are justified because they really are trying to protect consumer health by thoroughly checking to make sure the food is organic. Yet there are still others who think that Codex is merely part of a larger issue, and that it’s really the multinational corporations like Big Pharma that are taking over the food industry. Throughout her blog, Luther does use a lot reasoning in her article to prove her point.
It is important for writers or anyone who makes a claim to provide reliable supporting details because it will make their claim effective and trustworthy. There are times where writers make try to make claim and it ends up lacking credibility which is what happened to an author named Michael Pollan when he tried to make a claim during an interview. Michael Pollan believes that it is best to take the organic route when it comes to food instead of eating food that is processed and he expresses this while in his interview on NPR’s Science Friday with Ira Flatow. In the interview he uses effective claims that have support, which include where he explains how Americans need to spend more time and money on food. Although he makes another claim that is not well supported where he explains how people should eat based on their past traditions.
Joseph Pace’s article “Let’s Go Veggie” is a great example of an author using bias information to persuade the reader to become a vegetarian. Pace’s overall argument is that not eating meat will improve a person’s health, animal treatment, and the environment Pace demonstrates all his claims in a cause and effect form backed by many studies. A chain of events has been created and he believes the source of that chain is eating meat. Pace also uses his personal experience of visiting the modernized farms to gain sympathy from the
The media text I want to analyze in my full report is Food, Inc. (2009). Food, Inc. is a documentary film meant to showcase the faults in the American food industry and persuade viewers (consumers) to change the way they eat and to buy products from companies “that treat workers, animals and the environment with respect”. The film utilizes interviews from various kind of people such as farmers and food safety advocates to persuade viewers to make a change with their relationship with food. However, some of the claims that the interviewees make are questionable. Three specific tactics (fallacies) used in the text that I found to be questionable were, hasty conclusion, freeloading term and popularity.
This utilizes our fear of the unknown, resulting in us to trust their distortions of the truth. This portrayal of GMO’s has resulted in 52% of Americans to believe GMOs are unsafe and 13% to be unsure (abc News). In contrast to Miss Jo’s belief, the aspiration of GMO’s is to enhance our life, not impair it. This may be through creating medicines for diseases, increasing crop yield, producing food with higher nutritional value and much