My response to prompt 7 is based off of my original post in this class. I began talking about how what Americans normally consume in their daily diet is actually unhealthier than they think. I went on to discuss how not only is our diet detrimental to our health, it affects the lives of animals throughout the country. I believe that for this discussion, the consumer model is very beneficial to my analysis.
Most of what Americans consume today is what the government tells them is they should. The food pyramid we grew up learning breaks down what the USDA recommends we consume. However, there is a great amount of research detailing that not only is this sort of diet not the healthiest for us, it could also lead to some of America's greatest health problems today. We all consume what the USDA recommends or “approves”, without stopping to question what this approval means. I believe one of the main issues with the population today is that we only value food as fuel; we don't stop to think about where this food comes from or the process it undergoes on the way to our tables.
I agree with Sagoff in that it is very hard to change individual behavior. From personal experience, it is very difficult for people to realize that what they are consuming is bad both for themselves and the environment. Why should the people listen to the ideas of a college kid or the papers of a few Ph.Ds? People only know what they've been told or experience, and a government agency has a lot more publicity than myself or a few independent studies. Although some choose to educate themselves from different sources, you cannot expect that from everyone. People are too busy living their lives to stop and think about where their food comes from. If this education was more readily available, you might see a lot more dissent from what the government recommends.
In this case, it also becomes very difficult to change the capitalist system, as Sagoff recommends. Lobbyist groups and government scientists have made it all but impossible to change the government standard. As the population continues to increase, demand for food is going to increase proportionately. I believe the government has implemented its standards not for the benefit of the individual, but in order to sustain growth of the population and profit from the food they consume. If the masses were to switch to free-range livestock like I suggested, there would not be enough food to sustain either the current population size or the amount of money the government is making. This is why I believe a different approach is needed. By educating the population on an independent basis, knowledge is disseminated and some, but not all of the population will change their habits. This might lead to a more balanced situation, where health and animal rights improve and the government still has enough money to support the system.
I agree that out consumer society drives how everything is produced in this country. Factory farms are the product of our increasing demand for meat. All of the fast food restaurants, meat companies and even store brands typically get their supplies from factory farms to meet the high demand. Even if we import goods from other countries our demand is so high that doing things the old fashioned way just isn't possible anymore. I believe that the government and businesses care mostly about money and making the most money they can for the cheapest production methods. Consumers have this veil placed over their eyes in which they believe that they are making a good decision with a certain purchase. They aren't aware of how they get their food, they just want a lot of it for a low cost. I think you're right that the general public isn't educated enough about the food industry and I think education is a good first step into making some changes in our society.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point bringing up the food pyramid. I never thought to consider linking our diets to what the government has set us as "healthy" amount for us to consume in a day.There is more to people's unwillingness to change other than following what they've been told. I think that a big part has to do with habit. After a while you get used to a routine of have X amount of meat in your diet. You get used to cooking it the way you like and people don't really like change, especially when it comes to their diet. I actually believe that if we ate free-ranged meats, we would actually be able to sustain the population. I mean after all, our country has an abundance of meat, leading to health concerns such as obseity (clearly a sign we have way too much food, especially the bad kind). One of the ways to fix this problem is to first encourage people to eat less, then suggst farm-fresh meats so the change is not too drastic nor too expensive.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with the idea of individual education as opposed to wide sweeping service programs. People tend to learn better in smaller settings and education becomes more personal. Maybe when people get their drivers licenses or something everyone should have to do like 5 hours of environmental awareness class. Not like a weird hippie drivers ed.but more of a "this license gives you responsibility but you have one to our world too"
ReplyDeleteBut as you said about organic and free range meats, even just providing a tax decrease on organic products might do more for influencing consumer spending than all the lobbyists in the country.