In “The Pleasures of Eating,” by Wendell Berry, I believe his quote, “There is, then, a politics of food that, like any politics, involves our freedom,” signifies the politics in the food industry and how the ignorance of consumers restricts their freedom unknowingly. In the previous paragraph, Berry discussed the, so called, american dream that includes the luxury of “ignorance” to the food that is consumed. He claims that if people truly looked into the food industry, and studied it, they would return to reality. He later makes a point that “we cannot be free if our minds and voices are controlled by someone else”(Berry 99). This statement is made because blind consumers are not free from the hidden truth of our food: such as the process, the chemical additives, and the state of the food we consume.
Once this happens out food industry can become better. In the final analysis to sum everything up the author uses rhetorical appeals to convince the reader that the way that the food and livestock industry is not in the best conditions that one might think
In Blake Hurst’s “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals,” he opposes the accusations made by tofu-eating, recycled-toilet-paper-using, self-starving Michael Pollan and his followers. Throughout “The Omnivore’s Delusion…,” Hurst mentions how methods of farming have evolved to match demands of produce. The author states that “Only ‘Industrial farming’ can possibly meet the demands of an increasing population and increased demand for food as a result of growing incomes” (Hurst 4). This quote essentially means that “Industrial Farming” is the most efficient way to farm for today’s population level. A second point that is made by Hurst is that changes made by today’s farming are necessary.
In recent decade, the United States has seen supermarkets continuously get filled with packages labeled with things like “Low sodium” or “No Trans Fats.” Companies stick these labels on their food to match the current fads of what is good for you and what is not. In his essay Unhappy Meals, Michael Pollan advocates a return to natural and basic foods, and deplores nutritionism. Pollan argues that nutritionism does not actually tell people what is healthy or not, and that the only way to be sure you are eating healthy is to eat natural, fresh food. According to Pollan, the focus of society on the nutrients in food has not helped the obesity epidemic in the Western world. According to Pollan, “The industrial food supply was promptly reformulated
The author of the Locavore’s Dilemma is Christophe Pelletier, who focuses on the difficulties and possibilities of the life of Locavore. His propose is to ask the locavores to think critically about the model of food and farming and heighten people’s cognition of locavores. The second to fourth paragraphs talked about the feasibility of just eating 100-mile food. The author said that people could not leave coffee, beers, and other food and denied the possibility of getting these food for some reasons. He evoked audience’s sense of crisis with the unavailable of some liked product such as coffee and orange juice.
“Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat”, is a famous quote by the well known philosopher Socrates, who believed this is the perspective we should take when we are eating food.Unfortunately, the times have changed and so has the way we eat. We no longer have to go hunting for our food, or grow crops to receive all of our fruits and vegetables. Because we have become a society that has grown into the new world of technology, there would be no need to rely on ourselves for what we need-- we can simply gather our resources from other people. In the book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, written by Michael Pollan, takes us on a journey full of concerns of the “Food Industrial Complex”. Even though the novel speaks mainly of the issues with the food on our plate, these issues are more deeply connected and reflected in former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Military
Many people have been more conscious of what they are eating. They are trying to avoid salty dishes, sodas, butter, and alcohol because it is bad for the health. But, for Dr, Aaron Carroll, director of the Center for Health Policy at Indiana University and author of The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully, said that not all the food you are considering bad are really bad for you and there are fewer pieces of evidence against them. “In fact, maybe we should be eating some of them more often,” Greta Jochem wrote in her article for The Salt. Moreover, he mentioned that the evidence presented about the food you should avoid is weak.
As a chairperson of the United States Department of Agriculture exploratory committee, we would like to present our information. We speak for the foundations of the country when we say, “The government should not be allowed to control what people do or do not buy with food stamps.” We believe the foundations of freedom, the definition of junk food, and the purpose of food stamps all contribute to our reasoning. Ricardo Lopez argues, "Obesity is a national problem…. We don 't want to contribute to that." As a committee we would like to formally disagree with his statement.
His words lack emotional appeal or we know as pathos. He could’ve said something more like, “If you want to help others out then you must help yourself first.” Readers are always persuaded when they are moved. It is the only way. Overall, in the article Don’t Blame the Eater, David Zinczenko attempts to persuade readers that the government should intervene in the fast-food industry, while Radley Balko, author of What You Eat Is Your Business, attempts to convince his readers that people should only be responsible for what they consume every day. Both of these articles contain strengths and weakness.
Just because you spend a lot of money on anti-obesity, you just can't make people live the way you think is best for them. If that person doesn't want to work out or start eating their fruit and vegetables to stay healthy, that should be on them they should take that responsibility, you can't force them to live the life that they don't want. Having that issue in public isn't going to change how people eat and exercise just making them even lazier. If it were private, then people would have started to work out, eating fruits, etc. on their own and not because someone else wants to and that how it should