Zero Draft

As I've mentioned before, I am writing a research paper about growth-hormones in meat. That being said, as an assignment I have to write a zero draft, which is pretty much a free write about my topic, as a blog post.

Here it goes!

It is a common practice among cattle factories to inject their meats with steroids and hormones to increase their functionality. These hormones can be detrimental to the health of consumers. There have been studies that show that consuming meat with growth-hormones and steroids while pregnant with a male can decrease their sperm count. Along with this, my friend had to become a vegetarian because the hormones in meat made her anxiety go crazy - doctors orders. Along with this, the European Union banned hormone injected meat in the 80s because they realized the health risks, whereas the United States just kept injecting their meat with more hormones. Usually, chickens take three months (90 days) to become fully grown, but with extra hormones and steroids, it only takes a month and a half (45 days). The chicken who is given hormones is full of meat, but cannot stand on it's own because it's just genetically modified. Is this how we want our animals being treated? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable if the meat that you ate came from a nice farm where the cows roamed freely until their time, not where they spend their whole lives boxed in a cage. I recently saw a video of cattle being freed from a factory farm and going outside for the first time. They literally were jumping for joy.

The FDA says that the hormones used to boost the functions of cattle are safe and have no bad side affects on consumers, however, there is much evidence to prove otherwise. Countries in the European Union cut out growth-hormones in the 80s and they have proven to be healthier than the United States. There also hasn't been much research on the subject, but when the FDA first approved growth-hormones for meat in the 80s is also the same time where obesity rates began skyrocketing. There has got to be some sort of connection.

Meat was edible for centuries before we started messing with it. It's much healthier naturally and I think that we shouldn't take away from that. America as a whole was much healthier before we started genetically modifying everything, including animals. It's understandable on crops because we wouldn't be able to sustain ourselves organically, however, on animals it's just cruel. There are many farms that still treat their animals with kindness and humanity before slaughtering them for meat. We have to find a solution, which is what I will hopefully do by the last draft of this paper, to this issue. There must be a better way to have enough meat.

Sorry it's so short. I'm pretty sick and the doctor's think it's strep (I'll find out tomorrow), so they told me to rest!

Growth-Hormones in Meat

The attached picture is a question map for my research topic: growth-hormones in meat. This will go on to help me find answers to questions that need to be addressed in my paper. Hopefully this will make the entire process of starting the paper much easier because I know what specific questions I need to look for either in already published articles and papers or in my own research. This topic just keeps getting more and more interesting, and I don't have much knowledge about it right now, but I'm excited to continue learning!

Are hormones good for our health?

For my research paper, I am going to look into how hormone-injected meat affects our health. So far, the main thing I'm seeing while researching is the comparison between Europe and the United States. Europe - or the European Union (EU) - cut hormone-injected meat out of their stores in 1985, and in 1989 they banned imported meat from the U.S. because of the way that we modify it. I'm still exploring all the information, but what I am trying to learn is if it is healthier to have non hormone-injected meat or not. I can do this by examining the health of European citizens and comparing/contrasting it to those of the United States. Obviously there will be other factors involved, but as a whole, I should get some sort of evidence proving whether it is or is not healthier.

Here is my annotated bibliography:

Lusk, Jayson L., Jutta Roosen, and John A. Fox. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States." American Jnl of Agricultural Economics. Oxford Journals, 1 Mar. 2002. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

This article examines people from both he European Union and the United States and how they regard where their food comes from. It shows that people from Europe place a higher value on cattle that have not been fed with GMOs, and people from the US do not care as much. Also, the same goes for cattle that have been fed growth hormones, however, the beef that was not given growth hormones is almost indistinguishable from beef that was given growth hormones.

Renner, Rebecca. "Do Cattle Growth Pose an Environmental Risk?" Hormones. Environmental Science & Technology, 1 May 2002. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

This article addresses the issue that there has not been much research on how growth-hormones affect the environment. The manure from the cattle who are given growth-hormones can effect the local fish in negative ways. The fish are exposed to androgenic hormones which is fatal to them. This article says that little is known about the effects of hormones on the environment and it says that there should be much more research before we continue to use them.

“Synthetic Hormones and Meat Production”. “Synthetic Hormones and Meat Production”. The British Medical Journal 1.5073 (1958): 762–763. Web 19 Feb. 2016.

This article explains how farmers are trying to decrease costs, just as industrialists did, by cutting back on the quality and focusing on the quantity. It shows that cattle are fed with "feeding-stuff" to make them grow faster so that they can be slaughtered and sold with more of a profit. They use hexoestrol to decrease fat and increase bone and protein. This hormone can be harmful to human health, so the only way to ensure that a human will not consume it is if the farmer injects the hormone behind the ear and later makes sure the ear and it's near surroundings are destroyed.

*PSA* rant

The issue around GMO/non-GMO food can be discussed for hours on end. Frequent questions include 'what does GMO mean?' 'how is GMOs bad?' 'how can we improve GMOs?' and 'is it possible to sustain completely non-GMO living?' These questions create all sorts of controversy surrounding ethics and probability. Personally, I think that GMOs is much more sustainable, but on average it's proven to be worse for the body and it can lead to issues such as global climate change (production) and serious health issues (consumption). Non-GMO food is hard to come by now-a-days, and when you do find it, it's not cheap. How did the world get to a point where it's difficult to eat healthy food? Why is a salad so much more expensive than a burger? Why do companies sell food that is so bad for you that it causes other health issues which are expensive to treat, and then people continue eating unhealthy food? I understand that it's important to have a sustainable source of food and GMOs can help with that issue, but my problem begins when we start genetically modifying animals. It's is disgusting that we can now grow a chicken in 40 days instead of 3 months. Our children are growing at a terrifying rate because the meat that we feed them is full of fake hormones. Puberty begins at a much earlier age than it did before we begin to incorporate GMO's into our diet, and that's because these hormones are speeding up the growth process. This is the first generation that is not expected to outlive their parents. Humans have been increasing their lifespan since they the very beginning of time, and I refuse to believe that we're done growing now. GMO's need to be seriously regulated and there needs to be a limit on what these huge corporations are allowed to do.

Cultural Expansion

As an assignment, my entire English class created a survey about different aspects of food. The question (and results) that stood out the most to me was "What cultural food (example: Italian, Chinese) do you prefer to eat?" Out of the 21 people who took the survey, 30% preferred Mexican, 30% preferred Chinese, and the last 40% preferred various other cuisines (American, Italian, Southern, Greek, and Polish). These results tell me that I, and others in my class, need to expand our food cultures, and begin trying new things. Whenever I am introduced to a new type of food, I always try it. Many people are afraid of trying new things, especially food, which prohibits them from expanding their cultural comfort zone. 

The most common cultural foods that we find in America, but specifically in college towns, are Mexican and Chinese, because they are what most Americans are comfortable with. These cultures, however, Americanize their food so that they will sell more. Authentic food is important so that people can truly understand other cultures. There is still a lot of racism and prejudice in America, and a way that we can improve this state is by sharing other cultures through food.

Food is the way into a culture, and I think that everybody needs to begin to learn about cultures other than their own. College is the time to do that, and it could be the place if only our dinning halls offered some sort of 'culture night.' For example, every Wednesday night, the dinning halls would serve a meal that is specific to a culture. One night, we could have sushi, another we could have authentic curry. This would enable college students to try food outside of their comfort zone, and it would give us a way to learn more about other cultures. 

A topic to study further

I think that a food topic that interests me and that I want to research more is the process of producing and selling organic foods. I have always been pro-organic, but after reading multiple articles about the matter and talking to fellow classmates, I'm starting to see more options. I'm very interested in learning more about the pros and cons, and figuring out how exactly I feel about the information given to me. I'd like to expand my knowledge on the subject because I think that finding a solution that suits the best interest of the country/world is important because the way that organic foods are dealt with today is not healthy, and completely changing the process would not be sustainable. There must be a solution that is a compromise between each opposite side, and I want to learn more so that I can make a judgment about the situation, and hopefully find a solution that can be used to help the problem.

Organic Foods

After reading three different texts in Food, I realized that each article represented a different stance on the production of organic foods. The first, "Beyond Organic," supported the sale of true organic foods, which they called 'Authentic' food. The second, "Organic Foods: Do Eco-Friendly Attitudes Predict Eco-Friendly Behaviors," just observed how organic food affected people and their attitudes, without taking much of a stance on the sale of it. The third and last, "Attention Whole Foods Shoppers," was strongly against selling organic foods. It gave examples of how organic farmers in rural parts of Africa were starving because their product was not being produced by "precision farming," which is where everything about the agricultural process is electronic. 

These different posts made be question organic food. I have always believed that organic was the best way to go. It's friendly toward the environment and it tastes better, however, is it sustainable? The third article states that "if Europe tried to feed itself organically, it would need an additional 28 million hectares of cropland, equal to all of the remaining forest cover in France, Germany, Britain, and Denmark combined." That doesn't sound very eco-friendly, does it? Is there a way to produce organic, healthy food without destroying the environment? I think it could be possible, but it would take a lot of effort and money, two things which the world does not have a lot of. 

The second article uses studies to prove that people who eat organic food are more eco-friendly and healthy people in general. This is important too. Generally, people who consume local food also recycle and carpool more. If we want to save the environment we live in, then it seems as if eating organic is the way to go. But the third article disagrees with that, so is there a middle ground?

The first article says that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has corrupted the name 'organic,' and the only way to ensure truly healthy food is if you purchase what they now call 'authentic' food. This label identifies "fresh foods produced by local growers who want to focus on what they are doing, instead of what they aren't doing." It claims that, by eating food that is manufactured through chemicals and GMO's, we are poisoning ourselves, and eating organically is the primary way to stop it. 

This draws the question: is there a right way to do things? Should we leave people to decide for themselves what type of food they eat? What amenities are we willing to sacrifice to save the environment, and vice versa? There isn't a right or wrong answer, but these three articles get people to begin thinking about what they are doing to be environmentally friendly and healthy.