MaddieZ’s Weblog

After reading Chapter 8 of Everything’s an Argument, I realized that there is a lot more to a definition than what the dictionary has to say. It is possible to give formal defintions, operational definitions, and efinitions by examples to name a few. In reading about arguments of definition I started thinking about controversial definitions that we have been discussing in class. Two in particular came to my mind; organic and locavore. According to the dictionary definition, organic is defined as something that “arises as a natural growth; developing in a manner analogous to the natural growh of living organisms.” However, the boundaries of “organically grown” have been stretched and manipulated to the point where its losing all of its meaning. According to the government, the definition is considered a set of guidelines pertaining to how food is grown and fertilized. Unfortunately these guidelines are so vague that farmers are increasingly finding more ways to get around these regulations while still getting the name “organically grown”. This has come as a detriment to our society because while more and more people and wanting to help the environment by purchasing organic food, the benefits on the environments are minimal considering what the term organic has come to mean. And even if the food is organically grown in Chile, it is still costly and harmful to the environment to package and send these commodities all around the world. So this brings me to another word that we have thorougly studies in this class, and that is locavore. Ironically, I was online and read an article about how locavore is one the words of the year. Although this definition is less controversial than organic, it still is a powerful word. The locavore movement is one that involves eating food only grown locally. What is defined as locally is rather vague. For most people, if the food is grown within an hour from where they live, it is safe to say that is considered local. This movement, which we are learning about through reading Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, is definitely possible and not only helps the environment, but also the local economy. With money staying local, everyone benefits. Unfortunately this movement is quite unrealistic for many people, especially those in college, like us. Although it sounds like a good idea, it is highly unlikely that anyone in the urban setting would find such a diet possible. However, if everyone would take into consideration these two words, organic ad locavore, perhaps Americ wouldn’t be struggling with such a dangerous obesity epidemic because we would appreciate the food that we ate for more than what it tastes like.

For any audience to seriously consider an argument, there must be sufficient evidence presented that supports the claim. And in most cases, especially controversial ones, people prefer listening to informed professionals who can present hard evidence such as photograph. Although I have always believed this, I have never really gave it much thought or considered it. However, this week, as we have learned about the morals and ethics of food and eating, I have started considering the reliability of the authors and their claims. I think this is probably because I don’t want to believe what I’m reading about. The articles that we have been reading reveal the “behind the scenes” details of the production of commodity crops, corn especially. It is absolutely appalling to see the intricate process of industrial food production. The conditions that the steer live in while being fed enormous amounts of corn are disgusting enough to make me turn vegetarian. It seems more like a slow torture treatment than a way of life. While reading about these conditions, I could somewhat stomach the descriptions, but actually watching it in King Corn was almost unbearable. This is a key example of when hard facts such as the film clippings were enough to drive home the point of poor treatment of the catte that will one day end up on our dinner plates. But, what I have found to be most interesting from this weeks discussions are the implications that go along with the Farm Bill. This so called Farm Bill effects many more people than just the farmers and their crops. By giving subsidies to farmers who produce corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton, they encourage farmers to produce as much crop as possible, whether or not it is needed. With all this excess food, the food system must find a place to put it all, and unfortunately it usually ends up being fed to kids in one form or another. By subsidizing certain crops, the government is directly influencing the American food system. As a result, these crops are available for a lot cheaper and a lot more readily. I believe, along with many other Americans, that this is one of the main reasons for our obesity epidemic. The cheap food, which is almost always the most unhealthy, is all that some people can afford. So what some call the Food Bill or the Farm Kill, must be addressed and altered quickly. It is essential that the agricultural policy and the public-health and environment values are aligned in order to benefit not only Americans, but our environment as well. At a time when maximum output is not only encouraged, but required for survival in this seemingly cut thrut industry, we must construct a bill that stresses quality rather than quantity. With this in mind, perhaps Americans can turn around this trend and if we are lucky, the children of today might actually live longer than their parents.

Claim: Corn is going into everything, which is causing an obesity epidemic in America. Because calories are becoming cheaper, we are consuming more.

Grounds: 3 of every 5 Americans is overweight, 1 out of every 5 is obese, UN reported that in 2000 people suffering from over nutrition (1 billion) outnumbered the people suffering from under nutrition (800 million)

Warrant: If they can spend all this money on over-producing unhealthy foods that are so cheap, then they should be able to produce less food with higher quality and better nutritional value that will improve the health and lifestyles of more Americans.

Backing: Since 1977, Americans daily intake of calories has jumped by more than 10%. Because of the health problems accompanying obesity, today’s generation of kids may be the first generation of Americans whose life expectancy is shorter than their parents. Super-sizing meals and increasing portion size has caused people to eat 30% more, even if they are already full.

Qualifier: Although there are some Americans that cannot afford better food, most Americans can afford to spend more money buying better food and spend more time preparing nutritionally balanced food as opposed to fast foods and quick, unhealthy meals.

Rebuttal: Americans can make choices for themselves about what to put in their body and how to live their own lives. Fast food meals are easy, convenient and cheap.