Blog Post 19

Before I started Paper 4, I was pretty nervous about the required length. I had never written a paper that had be 8 pages long and I also had never written a paper that had to have around 6 sources. I thought it was going to be very hard to accomplish but after I found a topic that I am passionate about, the ideas came very easily. I didn't think I would enjoy this assignment at all and that it would be very difficult, but after I finished my paper about workers right's in other countries, I realized that it wasn't that bad at all and that I actually enjoyed writing it. Looking back on the assignment now, I had fun writing it. I think that as long as you find something that you are passionate about then it makes writing essays fun. You get to research what you're talking about and since you're interested in the topic it actually makes writing very enjoyable.

Blog Post 18

The blog posts that I found the most useful for helping me develop as a writer were the brain storming posts. Those really allowed me to express what I'm trying to say without having to worry about writing in a certain format or in a grammatically correct manner. For example, this blog post I wrote, "I think I'm going to focus this paper on what resources are renewable/nonrenewable and/or how we treat our land by growing certain products. So many different things are wasted when it comes to farming, especially water and energy. What really comes to mind is something Wendell Berry says, "The way Americans proclaim and pride ourselves on about how much we love our land does not match with the way we actually use our land and our farming resources". This quote is so unbelievably true. Americans as a whole pride ourselves on our love for our land yet we treat it like it means nothing. We throw away resources like there's no tomorrow when in reality there could someday be a "no tomorrow" with the way we're going about farming now. Another thing that is ruining our land from farming is the run-off of fertilizers and is destroying water and creating "dead-zones". In general, the way we are farming is not very sustainable and is destroying the world faster and faster each day. But is there really any way we can go back to the source and start all over? How would we be able to provide for everyone if we tried to do this? How can we get our land to actually be something we are proud of?" (Brainstroming Paper 3). That post really allowed me to sort out exactly what I want to talk about in my paper and really abled me to sort out how I want to outline my paper and how to go about writing. Other posts that really helped me develop as a writer were the reading responses such as, "Where Did Our Clothes Come From?" by Emily Fontaine is a blog post from Emily's fashion blog called Le Quaintrelle which is on BlogSpot.com. Emily talks about how as consumers we need to know where our clothes are coming from and who is making it. She pulled out all of her clothes from her closet and made a pile of clothes that were made in the USA which was only 1/4th of her closest. She then divided that into multiple piles based on being designer clothes, "retail" clothes, "thrifted" clothes, and things bought off Ebay. Doing this really showed Emily that she doesn't always know where your money is going and who it is supporting. A lot of clothes we buy are actually from developing countries who don't have laws against child labor or fair wages. If we continue to buy clothes from them then we're only going to keep supporting how they out-source their jobs for a cheaper price. But if we buy domestically, then we'll support our own country and our own economy" (Blog Post 15). Doing these responses helped me in the same way as the brainstorming. I got to flesh out how I feel about the readings without having to figure out how to say it just yet. By getting out my emotions about the reading after I first read it helped me later on in my writing process when I am trying to figure out what I'm trying to say, because it makes it easier to word it if I know what I'm trying to say.

Class Participation 4/14

As a college student, there any items that I throw away on a daily basis. Such as I use at least a paper plate, plastic silverware, or plastic cups multiple times a day. It's not that I don't have dishes that I can just wash and re-use, it's that I'm too lazy to do use and throwing away paper and plastic is so much easier than having to do dishes. When my trash can gets full, I just take it to the dumpster outside my dorm and never see it again because it's not like I'm going to go to a landfill to see how it's been disposed of. As for invisible waste, I often eat out or on campus but I don't know what was done to make fast food or food in the dining hall. I have no clue what farm or production lines it came from or if the food even came from a farm. The idea of visible waste and invisible waste affects our daily lives because maybe if we had to dispose of our trash ourselves then we would be more careful and aware with how much we're using and throwing away.

Intro, Thesis, Outline

Thesis: If we continue to buy clothes from them then we're only going to keep supporting how they out-source their jobs for a cheaper price. But if we buy domestically, then we'll support our own country and our own economy.

Intro: One problem that has taken over our economy is that fact that a lot of clothes we buy are actually from developing countries who don't have laws against child labor or fair wages. If we continue to buy clothes from them then we're only going to keep supporting how they out-source their jobs for a cheaper price. But if we buy domestically, then we'll support our own country and our own economy. Not only is buying products from these countries hurting the developing countries but it is also hurting the US because we are importing more than we are exporting and it is putting us in a tremendous debt.

 

Outline:

Paragraph A: Intro

Paragraph B: Analyzing How Much We Import vs. Export 
 - Article [a]
 - Article [b]

      Paragraph C: Analyzing Our Trade Deficit
      - Article [a]
      - Article [b]

      Paragraph D: Globalization and Industrialization of Developing Countries
      - Article [a]
      - Article [b]

Paragraph E: Analyzing Exploitation of these Countries

      - Article [a] 

- Article [b]




Paragraph F: Analyzing Workers and Company Rights
- Article [a]


- Article [b]




Paragraph G: How Can We Fix This
- Article [a]


-Article [b]

Paragraph H: Conclusion

Class Participation 4/9

http://www.globalissues.org/article/57/corporations-and-workers-rights

Part 1:
1) Rhetorical Devices, Techniques, Fallacies:

Shah uses rhetorical fallacies by not backing up her evidence. She states, "Nike, as mentioned above, as well as many other retail companies, use cheap labor in South East Asia, where they can get away from the tighter enforcement and regulations of USA and Europe." Yet she doesn't quote where she got her resources from. How can we know this is true?

2) Summarize the argument:
This article argues how many big companies such as Nike and Coca-Cola have abused companies and worker’s rights. Shah not only explains what the problem is but also describes how we can move on from this and what the exact problems are of paying fair wages.

Part 2:
Shah lists many examples of scenarios of situations all around the world where companies abuse their worker's rights. She even lists them in bullets and says "Take the following as examples (by no means exhaustive!)". What does that even mean? Why would she give such detailed descriptions of these workers that appeal to our emotions if in reality we shouldn't consider them because she doesn't even source them? How can we know these stories are real and not just appealing to our emotions to take her side of the argument? However, Shah does give links to where she gets her statistics from but how do we know we can trust these links as well? If makes me wonder if she if using trustworthy facts or if she is just using surprising facts to get to out emotions. Such as, "In April 2002, as Alternet.org reports, Levi Strauss & Company, “a brand practically synonymous with the U.S.A., decided to shutter virtually all domestic production and shift its manufacturing overseas.” Earlier, in 1992, the Washington Post had exposed Levi’s exploitation of Chinese prison labor to make jeans and throughout the 90s, various apparel companies had been accused of various forms of exploitation and sweatshop labor in poorer countries. Levis tried to introduce a code of standards, but it seems that Levis too has been feeling the competition pressure and in order to maximize profits and reduce costs, now also feels compelled to join the herd, so to speak, and go for cheaper labor costs."

Blog Post 16: Reading Response

In my opinion, Siegle brings up a very good perspective about the fashion industry that I never thought of. Woman, like myself, purchase cheap clothing to do ourselves a favor by obviously by saving money, however it is supporting the companies that underpay their workers and abuse their rights. I agree with Siegle's argument completely, but as a woman, I don't know how it would go over to suggest for woman to start paying for more expensive items when it'll effect us tremendously, especially people like me: a broke college student. It is a great idea but I don't know how you can get people to buy more domestic items when most people's main goal nowadays is to save money as much money as possible.

Blog Post 15: Reading Summary

"Where Did Our Clothes Come From?" by Emily Fontaine is a blog post from Emily's fashion blog called Le Quaintrelle which is on BlogSpot.com. Emily talks about how as consumers we need to know where our clothes are coming from and who is making it. She pulled out all of her clothes from her closet and made a pile of clothes that were made in the USA which was only 1/4th of her closest. She then divided that into multiple piles based on being designer clothes, "retail" clothes, "thrifted" clothes, and things bought off Ebay. Doing this really showed Emily that she doesn't always know where your money is going and who it is supporting. A lot of clothes we buy are actually from developing countries who don't have laws against child labor or fair wages. If we continue to buy clothes from them then we're only going to keep supporting how they out-source their jobs for a cheaper price. But if we buy domestically, then we'll support our own country and our own economy.

Reading Response

The reading called “The Story of Stuff: Electronics” really made me think about where my old electronics go. A lot of people think that you can't recycle electronics but in reality you can because you can just use old parts to make new parts. Instead of just throwing away old products, companies should just have people recycle parts that break and put them back together to make new products instead of wasting them. All the chemicals that are put into electronics really worries me about the future for developing countries because that's where a lot of the waste goes and if we don't stop it then those countries will never get better.

Brainstroming for Paper 3

I think I'm going to focus this paper on what resources are renewable/nonrenewable and/or how we treat our land by growing certain products. So many different things are wasted when it comes to farming, especially water and energy. What really comes to mind is something Wendell Berry says, "The way Americans proclaim and pride ourselves on about how much we love our land does not match with the way we actually use our land and our farming resources". This quote is so unbelievably true. Americans as a whole pride ourselves on our love for our land yet we treat it like it means nothing. We throw away resources like there's no tomorrow when in reality there could someday be a "no tomorrow" with the way we're going about farming now. Another thing that is ruining our land from farming is the run-off of fertilizers and is destroying water and creating "dead-zones". In general, the way we are farming is not very sustainable and is destroying the world faster and faster each day. But is there really any way we can go back to the source and start all over? How would we be able to provide for everyone if we tried to do this? How can we get our land to actually be something we are proud of?

The Pleasures of Eating

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/7613264/The_Pleasures_of_Eating

Reading Response

The Pleasures of Eating by Wendell Berry was a very well written article in my opinion. Berry clearly states what the problem is and describes his argument by using examples and very good reasoning. For example Berry states, "One will find this obliviousness represented in virgin purity in the advertisements of the food industry, in which food wears as much makeup as the actors" (2). Using examples like that really opens up the mind of the audience and helps his argument tremendously because it shows how little the reader knows where their food is coming from. Another reason I really like this article is because he doesn't just say what the problem is but he gives you ways to fix it. Most authors just state their argument and say we need to fix the situation but don't actually give any ideas on how to fix it. This boosts Berry's ethos as an author in my opinion because is shows that he really does care about the situation and wants it to be fixed.

The Pleasures of Eating Summary

The Pleasures of Eating by Wendell Berry is an article that describes how we have degraded our standards of what we eat and also describes what we can do to change this problem. Berry states,
"Most urban shoppers would tell you that food is produced on farms. But most of them do not know what farms, or what kinds of farms, or where the farms are, or what knowledge of skills are involved in farming. They apparently have little doubt that farms will continue to produce, but they do not know how or over what obstacles. For them, then, food is pretty much an abstract idea — something they do not know or imagine — until it appears on the grocery shelf or on the table" (1). This quote really made me realize how little I pay attention to what I buy. I rarely ever think about wear the products in grocery stores come from. I just look at the price and go about my way, it's a rather scary thought as to what could be in the foods we purchase without realizing it. Another quote that Berry says is
"One will find this obliviousness represented in virgin purity in the advertisements of the food industry, in which food wears as much makeup as the actors" (2). Which is also a very good point as well. Of course everyone buys food that looks good but in reality it isn't what is on the outside but what's on the inside. We need to know where it came from, if any chemicals or fertilizer was put on it, how it was produced, etc. and not just pick up whatever is easiest on the shelf and Berry does a great job of explaining this. He then gives seven tips on how to fix this problem: 1) Participate in food production. 2) Prepare your own food. 3) Learn the origins of the food you buy and buy the food that is produced closest to your home. 4) Deal directly with a local farmer. 5) Learn as much as you can about the economy and technology of industrial food production. 6) Learn what is involved in the best farming and gardening. 7) Learn as much as you can of the histories of the food species. Berry describes through out his article the politics. ethics, and esthetics of food and ends with "The pleasure of eating should be an extensive pleasure, not that of the mere gourmet" (3).

Class Participation 2/26/14

#SustainableFarming
#Crops
#WaterAvailability
#GMOsAreFaux
#Renewable
#LandUse
#Preservation
#Plants
#Fertilization
#Production
#Organic
#NaturalVsUnnatural
#Acreage
#BackToTheSource
#Soil
#CropRotation
#SeasonalFarming
#WhatIsNonrenewable
#ConsumerSatisfaction
#TruthInTheLie
#Conservation
#Economy
#Ethics
#Ethical
#Deadzone
#EcologicalFootprint

Library Visit Reflection

I really enjoyed our class visit to the library because it gave me a chance to find some really great sources and articles. Finding a good source always stresses be out because what if the information isn't reliable or you can't even find out who wrote it and/or where it came from? This library visit also made me realize that I have many topics I can discuss on this next paper and helped me brainstorm these ideas. I'm so glad that I now know how to use the resources that the library gives us so I can better my research.

Class Participation 2/21

1) One topic that can be brought up from "Compromise, Hell" is that if we love our land as much as we say we do, then how can we keep destroying and ruining it the way we are be not being sustainable with the way we use our resources.

2) Claim: The way Americans proclaim and pride ourselves on about how much we love our land does not match with the way we actually use our land and our farming resources.

3) For example, using a confined animal-feeding industry, which is what most companies due to be able to produce food quicker, exploits everything that is involved in that process. The way we are producing food at this time and speed can ruin most of land of our country in years to come, to the point where there won't be any resources left for us to have. One solution to this would be to actually enforce laws to make industries produce the way we should and to not keep animals in confined-feeding areas. This would also go into staying true to what the labels say when companies say that products are "organically" raised or "all-natural"

4) The way Americans proclaim and pride ourselves on about how much we love our land does not match with the way we actually use our land and our farming resources, because using a confined animal-feeding industry, which is what most companies due to be able to produce food quicker, exploits everything that is involved in that process- the animals, people, and the land. Producing food at speed can ruin most of the land of our country in years to come, to the point where there won't be any resources left for us to have.

Blog Post 10

Berry's reading was a little confusing to me. Although he made a lot of good points about how we need to use our resources wisely and what not but he took it all to a new level. He pretty much compared the problem of  how we use our resources to the problem of being invaded by terrorists. Berry states, "The governmental obligation to protect these economic resources, inseparably human and natural, is the same as the obligation to protect us from hunger or from foreign invaders. In result, there is no difference between a domestic threat to the sources of our life and a foreign one." That was the most troubling thing for me with his article. The government doe shave laws against how we use our resources and how foods are produced, the laws just aren't as enforces as they should be. Of course, that is a big problem but I do not think it should be compared to terrorists. In my opinion Berry takes his examples a little to far.

Compromise, Hell!

Berry brings up the discussion about how Americans have lost the motivation to maintain our land because we have increased pollution by using so many fuels. We don't take control of how our food is produced and some don't even care to know how it's produced. He uses rhetorical devices such as red-herrings to get his point across. He states "towns and cities have been gutted by the likes of Wal-Mart, which have had the permitted luxury of destroying locally
owned small businesses by means of volume discounts" but he fails to mention how these discounts greatly help people who don't have much to spend. Berry also uses pathos to appeal to the reader by saying, "The governmental obligation to protect these economic resources, inseparably human and natural, is the same as the obligation to protect us from hunger or from foreign invaders. In result, there is no difference between a domestic threat to the sources of our life and a foreign one." That is a very big exaggeration. There is an enormous difference between foreign invaders and not using resources properly in America. I see that how we use or resources but being compared to foreign invaders is a little dramatic.

     









   

Class Participation 2/7

1. When it comes to hunting I feel as though I am somewhere in the middle. I think hunting is alright and in some cases good for the environment if done so sustainably. But when it gets to the point that people consider it a sport and kill over the limit of some animal that they are supposed to is where I get a problem with it. Killing animals shouldn't be for a sport but to keep civilization going.

2. By using secondary sources I am going to show an argument from the pro-hunting side by Ted Williams and an argument from the (sort of) anti-hunting side by Michael Pollan's story on hunting in omnivores dilemma. Both sides of this argument go into detail about why they feel the way they do and give personal anecdotes to their reasoning.

3. One counter-claim that I could use to strengthen my ethos would be address wheat each author says about a certain topic such as how one person might say that it is un-Christian-like to hunt while the other person might say it's un-Christian-like to not hunt. Looking at both perspectives of a story will boost up my ethos greatly.

4. Hunting is both good and bad and if not handled properly can be very harmful to the environment.

5. One reason that hunting is good is because if a species is over populated it could make the food chain get out of whack. For instance if there are too many foxes in an area and not enough rabbits to sustain the foxes then the rabbits will either die out or the foxes will from not getting enough food. Then whatever the rabbits like to eat will increase rapidly because nothing will be able to stop them from reproducing if nothing it eating them. One reason hunting is bad is when it is taken to an extreme and people just hunt for the fun of it. There is a law that says you can only kill a certain number of the animal and if everyone doesn't follow that law then the species could be wiped out completely.

6. Hunting is necessary to keep the environment in check but if taken to an extreme can also have a negative impact on society.






http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20071013120158/http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0203.html

Intro, Thesis, Outline

Thesis: The first, a side of an active hunter and the second, a side of a animal rights activist. I believe myself to be somewhere in the middle of both of these extremes.

 

Intro: Hunting has been a controversial topic since the beginning of time. Hunting used to be a necessity to staying alive and still is. However, people have taken hunting to an extreme level and consider it to be a "sport." To analyze this argument I am going to look at two different sides. The first, a side of an active hunter and the second, a side of a animal rights activist. I believe myself to be somewhere in the middle of both of these extremes.

 

 

 

Outline:

 

Paragraph A: Intro

 

 

Paragraph B: Analyzing Sustainability

 

1.      Article [a]

 

 

3.      Article [b]

 

      Paragraph C: Analyzing Morality

1.      Article [a]

 

 

3.      Article [b]

 

      Paragraph D: Analyzing Animal Rights

1.      Article [a]

 

 

3.      Article [b]

 

 

Paragraph E: Analyzing hunting as a "sport"

 

1.      Article [a]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article [b]

Paragraph F: Conclusion

The Impact of Food Inc

My senior year of high school in my Contemporary Issues class, we watched the movie Food Inc. directed by Robert Kenner. This movie was made in 2008 is basically about how much the food industry has changed since the 1950's. Food Inc. goes into detail about food products themselves, the animals that produce the food, and the assembly line of how the food is processed and distributed, and then explains how the safety and health of all of these things are over looked by the companies and by the government. Theses companies and the government just want to provide food at the lowest cost possible and do not pay attention to these bad consequences. Watching this documentary actually made me sick to my stomach. It made me realize how naïve I am when it comes to buying food and how much I don't pay attention to what I am actually consuming. The part of the movie that I remember the most and will unfortunately never be able to forget is that a woman named Barbara Kowalcyk had a 2 and a half year old son who ate a hamburger and died 12 days later because it was infected with E. coli. When I was a kid, and even to this day, I always loved to eat raw cookie dough and my mother would always tell me that I would get sick if I did that, and I never believed her. But after I heard the story about Barbara Kowacyk's son, I never ate it again. Granted he was 2 and a half and I'm 18 and probably have a much stronger immune system then he does, that still doesn't make it safe. Anybody can get sick from the food we eat and I never really noticed how important this way until I saw this documentary. This documentary also showed how these animals are raised. I remember seeing chickens that were too fat from being injected with drugs that they couldn't even move. They just sat their wholes lives until they were slaughtered shortly after. I also remember seeing pigs being dragged by machines to be slaughtered. That is no natural, healthy, normal way to die and it is certainly not right.

In-Class Blog Post 2/3

Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic ethanol and other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and are a Threat to America’s National Security
By: Alice Friedemann

This article is about why using certain fuels are not a sustainable way to go about agriculture and it is hurting America. Friedemann goes about her argument by diving the article into seven parts and titles them in a sarcastic manner. The first part is called "The Dirt On Dirt" and explains why biomass fuels have predictable reasons for failure. Basically, the more work left to nature, the higher the energy yield, but the longer the time required. The second part is called, "The Poop on Ethanol: Energy Returned on Energy Invested" and explains how much oil is used for all of the food we consume. The third part is called "Biofuel is a Grim Reaper" and talks about how bad of a place using all of these fuels puts America into by a dramatic increase in soil loss, deforestation, global warming, pollution, and other factors. The fourth part is called "Biodiesel: Can We Eat Enough French Fries?" and talks about how biofuels have yet to be proven efficient and this strategy may not be a great way to go about in a world of declining energy. The fifth part is called "If We Can't Drink and Drive Then Burn Baby Burn. Energy Crop Consumption" and talks about how pollution consumption is hard to control but if we don't it could have bad effects on the environment. The sixth part is called "The Problems With Cellulosic Ethanol Could Drive You To Drink" and talks about all the problems with transportation, storage, harvesting, erosion, nutrition, etc. have no known solution and scientists have been trying to solve for over thirty years now. The seventh part is called "Where Do We Go From Here?" and talks about politics, jobs, and how we can reform our non-sustainable agricultural ways. Friedemann then ends by listing her references.

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1

The Oil We Eat

The first part of this article that really struck me was when Manning stated "It is no accident that no matter where agriculture sprouted on the globe, it always happened near rivers. You might assumer, as many have, that this is because the plants needed the water or nutrients. Mostly this is not true. They needed the power of flooding, which scoured landscapes and stripped out competitors. Nor is it an accident" (3). All throughout elementary, middle, and even high school I was told that plants would grow near water merely because they needed water. Never was I told about the flooding situation, this rattled me. The next part that really took me by surprise was when manning stated, "Ever since we ran out of arable land, food is oil. Every single calorie we eat is backed by at least a calorie of oil, more like ten" (6). That is just so bad and it worries me for our future. If that is just the United States then what would happen if the rest of the world ate like we did. This reading has made me think about my senior year of high school where in science we took an "ecological footprint" quiz online to see the amount of area and land we use to sustain our consumption patterns. The results are pretty scary.

Unit 2: Respond To A Reading

In this past weeks readings the one that I thought was the most helpful was from The Craft of Research: Chapter 4 From Questions to a Problem. I have been feeling a little skeptical towards writing a research paper for a college class. But one quote that I found the most helpful was on page 64 "They want you to formulate a question that you think is worth answering, so that down the road, you'll know how to find a problem that others think is worth solving. Until you can do that, you risk the worst response a researcher can get: not I don't agree, but I don't care." I found this to be really interesting because it is so true. Someone can give the best argument in the world backed up with evidence and support but if they can't convince the audience to care, then what is the point? One example that really showed me how to do this was on page 56 "the hole in the ozone layer is growing. So what? A bigger hole exposes us to more ultraviolet light. So what? Too much ultraviolet light can cause skin cancer." This really showed me how to expand what I am trying to say and to be more specific with my details because that is what sells the audience and will convince them that they should care about what you are researching.

Distinguishing my argument from Pollan's

A. How many perspectives do you engage? I think I engage two perspectives. I agree with Pollan about how we need to be more organic and how companies try to trick us to think that they are organic but I also agree with the fact that times have changed and it might to be possible for us to achieve Pollan's definition of organic.

B. What other perspectives might you include? Besides my perspective and Pollan's perspective, I include the perspective of reality and possibility.

C. How do you distinguish your views from the other views you summarize? I distinguish my views from the other views because I describe what they're saying and then I specifically say my views in return.

D. Do you use clear voice-signaling phrases? At first I use phrases that make sense to me but I always make sure I have somebody else read my paper as well to make sure I didn't just write a bunch of nonsense down that only I would understand.

E. What options are available to you for clarifying who is saying what? The easiest way to clarify who is saying what is to give credit to who you are quoting so you don't get mixed up between whose opinion is who's but that often gets boring after awhile. You can embed their name in your own sentence or by using voice-identifying devices.

F. Which of these options is best suited for this particular text? I think for this text it would be best to use voice-identifying devices because there are many difference sentence structures that you can use so your paper doesn't get boring. For example, you can use "My view, however", "On the contrary", "Someone argues", and so on.

Peer Response

My past experience with peer response was that at first, I didn't like doing it very much. I often took the critique personally and would look badly at my own writing. But this past semester I have come to enjoy having peer responses because my classmates are able to see and notice things in my paper that I over look. It's always good to get someone else's opinion because something may make sense to you, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to everyone else. This Friday, I hope to actually get a lot of feedback from my partner because I feel as though my paper isn't very strong yet and feel as though it needs a lot of work still.

Intro, Thesis, Outline.

Thesis: All of these things go into the ethos, logos, and pathos of Whole Foods products. This also then goes into analyzing our own expectations of the food and prices and then realizing what is actually possible in today's world.

 

Intro:

Organic foods have been a hot topic for quite some time now, but how can we know if a company is really telling us the truth about their practices? Looking at the article “Big Organic” by Michael Pollan, my eyes were truly opened to the controversial topic. Pollan illuminates his view on the matter by giving examples of different “organic” products, going back through the history of how the products came to be, and by showing how companies give their products a story to appeal to the consumer. All of these things go into the ethos, logos, and pathos of Whole Foods products. This also then goes into analyzing our own expectations of the food and prices and then realizing what is actually possible in today's world.

 

 

Outline:

 

Paragraph A: Intro

 

 

Paragraph B: Analyzing Ethos

 

1.      Article [a]

 

 

3.      Article [b]

 

      Paragraph C: Analyzing Logos

1.      Article [a]

 

 

3.      Article [b]

 

      Paragraph D: Analyzing Pathos

1.      Article [a]

 

 

3.      Article [b]

 

 

Paragraph E: Analyzing expectations/prices

 

1.      Article [a]

 

 

3.      Article [b]

 

Paragraph F: Analyzing Reality

 

1.      Article [a]

 

 

3.      Article [b]

 

Paragraph G: Conclusion

Pollan Review

After reading Pollan's article, I have honestly taken into consideration what I buy at the grocery store because how can we really know what is truly organic and what is not? The part that really got to me is when Pollan expressed his thoughts on organic TV dinners, "perhaps by sitting down to enjoy one of the microwaveable organic TV dinners (four words I never expected to see conjoined) stacked in the frozen food case. How's that for having it both ways?". For companies to put that on their frozen food products obviously makes it sound better and it completely goes over the customer's head. I might just be super oblivious but I had never noticed how contradictive that is for a product to be labeled an "organic TV dinner" if anything a TV dinner is the opposite. Companies really do try to mislead you into buying their products. Another example is when he talks about the different types of "organic" milk. The first milk label said that the milk is ultrapasteurized which extends shelf life of the product, the second milk label said that the milk had gone through normal pasteurization methods making it more organic than the last one, and the third milk label said it was not pasteurized at all and was 100% organic. How will we ever really know which one is the most organic and which companies are selling the real deal? I agree with what Pollan has argued throughout his article.

Pollan Summary

Big Organic is an article that basically describes the ongoing wonder of what is truly organic when it comes to the products we buy at the store. Pollan first starts off by comparing labels of products from Whole Foods and describes shopping there as a literal experience. He states that his eggs were from "cage free vegetarian hens" and that his organic broiler even had a name "Rosie". Then he states that he found milks competing with each other about which one is more organic. The first milk label said that the milk is ultrapasteurized which extends shelf life of the product, the second milk label said that the milk had gone through normal pasteurization methods making it more organic than the last one, and the third milk label said it was not pasteurized at all and was 100% organic. This makes Pollan wonder what is actually organic.

The next part of the article is about how even if a company promotes a clean and healthy environment, does not mean that they actually help they environment. Pollan gives the example of a patch of grass covered in garbage. Pollan then describes that it is impossible for an industry such as whole foods to maintain the simple and agricultural foundation on which it was built while industrializing to mass produce their organic products. This issue is supplemented by the high demand for fresh, healthy, food at low prices. He realizes that what is on the label may not be true, but it's purpose is to give him the inspiration to imagine where he wants his food to come from, which makes him more willing to purchase that product.

"Greenwashing" Advertisements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTNzuXZyI28

I would rate this commercial about a 2 or 3. Yes, Audi is trying to make a difference in the world by being more "green" however they don't tell you anything they are doing to become more green. The instances in the commercial don't even deal with cars, it deals with water bottles, waste, paper/plastic, and light bulbs. I think the commercial is very good and funny and gets the message across but it doesn't say what the company is actually doing to improve themselves and the environment by being more green.

English Composition II

Here is where my blog starts for my English Composition II class!