The hardest part of any project for me is starting it, but this blog has posed me an extra amount of trouble. I mean, where does one begin to describe something they care about to any other person in a way that is reasonable, intelligible, and effective? And most importantly, how do you do it without sounding totally lame? To make matters worse, the thing I care about-FOOD-can already be an extremely divisive topic. Ever hear a vegetarian argue with an omnivore? The answer is yeah, you have. Vegetarians like to think they are better than meat eaters, and meat eaters often retaliate by thinking vegetarians are, to quote a friend of mine, "stupid hippy scum." So, where do I begin without alienating anyone, without seeming holier-than-thou, or sounding like, well, stupid hippy scum? How about if I start you off at the source: the farms; or should I say the factories?
Factory Farm: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (they will also answer to CAFO).
Simply put, that doesn't sound so bad, does it? Put all the animals in one place, makes slaughtering more centralized and efficient, and they get to eat with all their animal friends. It sounds harmless enough; but, then again, "The Patriot Act" sounds nice too, doesn't it?
How about an alternate, and more complete, definition of "factory farming?" This one here has been provided to me by author Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals:
Factory Farm: a system of industrialized and intensive agriculture in which animals-often housed by the tens or even hundreds of thousands-are genetically engineered, restricted in mobility, and fed unnatural diets.
How does it sound now? Better yet, how does it look?
Food, Inc. is one of the most recent and most informative documentaries about factory farming today. Hell, it is pretty much the reason I became interested in modern agriculture. I figure, if it was what got me started, it might just be a good introduction for all of you as well. So check it out; movies are THE laziest way to get information, it's the least you can do.
Over the course of the next few weeks, I intend to do an in-depth examination of the dangers posed to us all, as American consumers-and as health-conscious humans-surrounding the livestock and produce we HAVE to choose from. Not only for the health of the individual, but for the health of our planet as well (that's right folks, global warming rears it's ugly head again). Until next time, remember, you ARE what you eat.
2 comments:
I find it a little hard to take advice on what to put in my body from a smoker. Beef MIGHT have residual hormones in it and they MIGHT be harmful. Cigarettes DO have cyanide in them, and it IS one of the most poisonous substances known to man.
An interesting exchange here in terms of the claims (via Safran Foer) of animals being genetically engineered and fed unnatural diets vs. suggestions that beef "might" have residual hormones. Can you talk more about that topic of genetic engineering, Francesca? What's going on with that practice? What are the reasons for it? What does the US Department of Agriculture have to say on the practice? And what evidence has been generated thus far that speaks to whether beef does or does not have residual hormones? And even it is does, what evidence has been generated that speaks to whether these hormones are or are not harmful?
I'm also interested in this description of agriculture/farming in terms of "industrialization." Could you say more about that process? What are the implications for food supply? And what are alternatives?
Post a Comment