Service Learning Refelction #3

For my service learning, I have worked in the ROOTS garden more. My jobs were to weed and replant some plants. My service learning has helped me to better understand the sheer amount of work it takes to grown your own food but the fulfillment one feels from eating food that they played a part in growing. The act of gardening and the sense of accomplishment you feel with it cannot be proven in research, it takes actual work to understand it. Personally, I have grown in that my green thumb has defiantly become better, but also I have a deep respect for people who garden and work with their hands everyday. Even after one shift at the garden I am exhausted, and it was only for like 3 hours. I hope that my civic duty has been fulfilled in that I now know and respect the people who do this. In the future, I hope to help in the garden more, though with my schedule next semester that looks like it will be difficult to do.

Reading and TED talk response

I'm going to start out by saying that Ron Finley's TED talk about growing food in his South Los Angeles is the most entertaining thing we have watched in class all semester. I really liked the way he approached his topic and the dialect he chose seemed perfect. His talk was about the need for more people to grown their own food and how more people should take advantage of the things that are available to them. His thoughts and ideas were inspiring and I actually believed that he cared about the community and the impact he had. I did not feel that way about the other 2 articles we read for class, "Will Organic Food Fail to Feed the World?" by David Biello and "Biotechnology Isn't The Key to Feeding the World" by Frances Moore Lapeé. Both of these articles did not strike me as people who actually went out and actively tried to change their communities. Both were more factual based and information oriented instead of experience based. What I liked about the articles,though, was how they both made it abundantly clear that food production is not the issue, instead it's more of a distribution issue. The issue involves the amount of food for everyone in the world, but there isn't enough food distributed to people who actually need it. They are calling on people to become more aware of the food they eat and how much energy it takes to feed a cow, for example, instead of growing food directly for human consumption. They made it clear to the audience that food distribution is a VITAL part of the food chain. I also really liked and agreed with the statement that when people grow their own food, they will eat it. Having easily accessible food grown from your own personal energy is a much more satisfying experience than going to the store and buying the same thing. It's also a cheaper option and it encourages healthier eating.

3 Way Reading Response

Pollan and Hurst are two men with very different views on the agricultural world. Michael Pollan is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, a book that discusses the different paths people take to obtain their food. In his writing, he criticizes the industrial farming community and challenges them to take a different approach to it. On the other side is Blake Hurst, a farmer for over 30 years that grows corn (the crop that Pollan says is taking over the world). Hurst wrote an article defending the type of farming that he does from Pollan's remarks, and called Pollan out on not welcoming advances in technology. Both men have very different views are both are justifiably correct. So how is it that these two men, both of whom are experts in their respective fields of work/study, cannot agree on a type of farming that is sustainable AND yields profits? Another person in the mix is Eliot Coleman who wrote "Real Food, Real Farming". He argues that organic farming is the way to go, similarly to Pollan. Coleman is ALSO a farmer, like Hurst, and the fact that he has a different view on GMO's (genetically modified organisms) and the way cattle should be raised from a fellow farmer is interesting. His thoughts on what "real" food means is controversial, but claims that they are set from a scientific fact point. Coleman claims to get to know "Nature better" because of the biologically backed techniques he has adapted. What he doesn't seem to consider, however, is that some years a large crop yield just is not likely and that biologically there is nothing that can be done about it. Personally, I agree least with Hurst. While I agree that having GMO's are not hurting anyone and if they mean a bigger crop yield, I do not see why we cannot take advantage of that. I disagree with Hurst that cattle and other livestock could be raised in a way that fattens them but doesn't allow them to live the grazing lives they were supposed to, however. Hurst also claims to have his livestock grain-fed for their own protection, thought that doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. I personally know that weasels kill turkeys (as I have seen it in action), but there are ways to allow the turkeys to be free-range(ish) AND keep them safe. There are fences and devices to put in the ground to drive the weasels away and sprays and so many defensive tools. My first action would not be to simply put all the animals inside a giant tent, but I have not been farming for 30 years.

"Equality For Animals?" Reading Response

I just want to start off and say that I really enjoyed this piece. I have read several of Singer's other works in the past and I fully agree with him on most of his points. I agree that factory farming is an epidemic that gets swept under the rug. I agree that animals deserve to live their full lives out in a pasture and doing what they want. I agree that there are different ways of eating and that eating meat is only one of them. That being said, I am not a vegetarian. I eat as little meat as I can, but I almost always have some sort of animal product with my meal (usually it's cheese, but still). It's not really an option for me to become vegetarian or vegan, as Singer suggests, but I like to think that I do what I can to make as few lives taken for my sake as possible. Singer styles this piece in a way that helps the reader better understand the basics of his argument that animals should not be used as food. He quotes Benjamin Franklin in the later half of his piece discussing the reasons that people argue against vegetarianism, and this helps to put a famous name to validity his statements. Singer knows that people are appalled of the ways that animal are treated in slaughterhouses but are able to keep it out of their minds most of the time. He says that people should not be ignoring this unethical treatment and should take a stand, though he knows that it will be close to impossible to change the farming industry now. Singer is obviously very passionate about his research and position on animal equality. Titling his piece "Equality For Animals?" with the question mark is meant to draw potential readers into the piece and to learn more about the factory farming industry and vegetarianism/veganism, even though this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Service Learning Reflection #2

For my service learning, I went out to the ROOTS Garden. The first thing I did when on the property was take a tour from the leader, Lydia. The garden is very organic and much bigger than I expected. My job was to pick the cloves of garlic and plant each individual part of the clove so as to start several new cloves. This hands-on experience has helped to learn that even if the food seems bad and should be trhown out, the organic gardeners continue on with it because it can be used as a good fertilizer. The service learning has enhanced my personal growth in that I now know how garlic is grown and the different types of mushrooms. It has helped my civic learning by showing me how the people of Asheville grow their food and where quite a few local organizations get their donations from. In the future, I hope to be a part of a bigger project and help harvesst some food instead of replanting.

'Downsizing Supersize" and "Why Shame Won't Stop Obesity” Reading Response

Our required reading for this response were the pieces "Downsizing Supersize" by James Surowiecki and "Why Shame Won't Stop Obesity" by Dhruv Khullar. In "Downsizing Supersize", Surowiecki discusses the proposal of a ban on soft drinks over 16 oz. I find this proposition very interesting, and potentially a very good idea on how to lower the amount of obesity in the United States. I feel, personally, that there are not enough restrictions surrounding the fast food industry and the amount of control they have over people's lives. Of course, there are ways to get around the ban by buying two drinks, but the average person, as argued by Surowiecki, will not choose to do this. People are driven by a certain mindset that follows the norm, so if the norm is set higher, people will follow that (and if it is set lower, they will follow that, too). I agree with Surowiecki's argument that people will follow what is set as a "standard", and if the fast food industry complies with the proposed bans, America could get a lot thinner a lot faster. The second piece, "Why Shame Won't Stop Obesity", talks about how people need to stop fat-shaming people who are overweight because most of the time these people are not making their food choices just for fun. Khullar argues that people overlook the convenience and low price tag of a meal at McDonald’s over a more healthy option. It's not only about the price, however. Khullar also brings up the lack of actual healthy options in the lower income areas. It is much more likely to see a fast food joint than a fresh apple, and more convenient for the people who live there as well. The people who are making these purchases are doing so purely for the need of food, not the desire for fast food or the lack of interest n eating healthier. Overall, the two pieces talk about why some people are stuck in an obesity tunnel and why we as a country need to change our ways and habits to help the general public make healthier choices.

“The Pleasures of Eating” and Food Justice Reading Response:

In Wendell Berry's piece on "The Pleasures of Eating", he lists 7 ways to eat more responsibly. For this blog post, I am going to go through all 7 of them individually and express my opinion, because I want to and no one can stop me. 1. In Wendell's first point, he suggests that the reader plant their own food (regardless of the amount of room one has land-wise). I agree that the average consumer needs to be more aware and just in general think more about what the food they are eating has gone through to get to them. For some people, this never crosses their mind. I personally am guilty of not thinking as well, and I even worked on a farm for a long time. I rarely think about where the bananas in my lunch came from as I was sitting in the middle of a giant garden full of produce. I want to be more aware and I really want to grow my own food, but as a college student, I don't have the space AT ALL for even the smallest of gardens. 2. Berry's second point simply says "Prepare your own food". A home cooked meal is so necessary for some to be able to unwind after a long day, and it brings a greater respect to the ingredients used. Home cooked meals are one of my favorite things on planet earth, but again, as a college student (who is also on a meal plan), I haven't had access to a lot of food that was cooked with love in a while. The last home cooked meal I had was from my friend Max, who made me a lasagna for my birthday and I cried. The problem with time and access are also limiting factors for other people, so ideally everyone would be able to prepare their own food, but it just isn't plausible. 3. The third point is about finding the origins of one's foods and buying as local as possible. This is again ideal in a perfect world, but the lack of access to this information and resources to obtain "local" food is putting this idea on the back burner for a lot of people. I personally agree that if it were possible, people should buy from their local farmers. Supporting the local economy is vital to the growth of a community. While not all of my food (when I live at home) is produced local, because I worked on a farm, quite a bit more than what I imagine the average person has is local for me. 4. The fourth point says to deal with a local farmer, gardener, or orchadist whenever possible. This is directly related with the above point in the way that it supports the local economy and the overall community. I think it is so important for people to get to know their local farmers. It not only will benefit a lot of people, it also cuts out the several middle men involved with getting food to your plate. As for me personally doing this, of course I do! Local farmers are great people with a lot of knowledge and usually are more than willing to talk to people about fresh produce. 5. Berry's fifth point is a little different than the previous four, stating "Learn, in self defense, as much as you can of the economy and technology of industrial food production" (Bauer, 69). I agree with Berry that people need to know what is being done to modify their food before they blindly eat it. I say this knowing I am being hypocritical though, because I have never ever educated myself on the food I eat. If someone puts it in front of me and tells me what it is, I'm not going to doubt them. Saying this out loud (or rather seeing it typed), I know I really need to start paying more attention. At the same time, I've been eating blind for this long and I'm overall alright, so it must not be that bad, right? 6. Berry's sixth point is arguably his most important. In short, he says that people need to be involved and learn the best gardening and farming. This is so important to me, because I'm thinking about it through a livestock view. There is a famous saying that says "If slaughterhouses has glass walls, everybody would be a vegetarian". There are so many people who have genuinely no idea how their meat got in front of them. Or maybe they can separate the living breathing FEELING animals from the slab of meat in front of them. Either way, the public should be more willing to learn about the origins of ALL their food, not just the food that's the easiest to swallow (pun intended). While I don't know the specific slaughterhouses my meat comes from. I know the techniques and practices used to turn in from a cow to a prime rib. 7. The seventh and last point in Berry's piece says people should learn of the "life histories" of the food species. I don't agree that this a very important part of eating responsibly. It just doesn't seem like a very crucial part, especially after the one above. I don't think I'll adopt this, though it is interesting every once and a while. It seems VERY tedious for every single thing you eat. Now consider the excerpt from Food Justice. Do Gottlieb and Joshi illuminate anything that Berry takes for granted? In what ways are their arguments similar? In what ways are they different? In contrast to Berry’s piece is Food Justice (Gottlieb and Joshi). Their argument is that the supermarket is still a very necessary and vital part of food relationships. The two articles are arguing the two sides of an argument that has been going on for years. On one hand, the movement to eat local and grow your own food is on the rise and the benefits are obvious. On the other hand, the convenience and ease of a supermarket cannot be compared. Berry seems to not care or completely ignore the people who are unable to grow their own food, or may be hungry NOW, not in the time it takes for a potato to grow. However, eating only from a supermarket supports the disrespect of food and can hurt the economy and the environment with all the shipping involved. Either way, someone is unhappy.