Glen and Pollan

Glen.

Before You Read.

I honestly do not know anything about farm animals other than that they can really smell bad after time. Part of me somewhat wishes that I could have a little of that in me, but overall I am happy with what I have now.

Summary.

In Glen's article, "Constructing Consumables and Consent: A critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse", she talks about how animals are treated in brought up in factory farms. The food that we see in the stores, we aren't 100% sure where it exactly came from. She also talks about discourse and how that idea is used to give factory farms a bad reputation and how it discourages customers from supporting them.

Synthesis.

I think that this article can be related to McCloud's article because I was able to see the idea of having a "mask". I say this because it seems like what you see may not be what it really is and it is/can be just a cover up. A second person I can relate this to is Baron. I say this because technology is used to make everything more efficient. This can be related to how animals are treated/killed for food. (Makes it easier).

Response	Quotation
I found this quote interesting because I didn't understand it at first but then after reading the entire article it started to make more sense.	“People historically have used other animals as resources” (144).
This is just an opinion and it made me stop and think when I read this first. I personally do not have a problem with the factory farming industry.	“The factory farming industry, I argue, is a particularly compelling manifestation of the Nature as Commodity discourse” (146).
I believe that this is just saying that there are so many types of influences in our world and they try to make us think something specific about a topic whether it is good or bad.	“In sum, Nature as Commodity and Nature as Virtual Reality are particular discursive manifestations (or metaphors) of an overarching technological metadiscourse that influences how we think about the nature and, by extension, other animals” (147).
I found this interesting because strategies are used so much having to do with everything. Again, whether they are good or bad, they will always be used.	“Certainly, this is not a new discursive strategy, nor is it unique to the military or the government” (147).
This is another opinion. I found this interesting because depending on what you personally think, this can be good or bad.	“Dunayer points to numerous examples of factory-farming language that, I argue, constitute doublespeak, and each accomplishes the same objective: using sterile language to hide violence” (147).

Q 1.

The factory farm discourse is the way people are made to see the industry itself. It is seen as that the way the animals are treated are terrible and the living conditions are not suitable. I think that it is wrong to mislead people into thinking that. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean you have to bend the truth to make others think and feel the same way as you.

Thoughts.

I found this somewhat interesting. I learned some new things about factory farms that I didn't know before. I still really can not relate this to my own life because once again, I don't know anything about farms. This was an eye opener for me though. I still support slaughtering of animals ONLY if they are doing it not just to kill and for people to eat.

Pollan.

Summary.

In Pollan's article, "Farmer in Chief", he talks about things that are wrong with food systems and what needs to be changed about them. He also basically says that the American diet won't be easy to change from where it is at now. He also talks about how food systems make money and how places do not focus on providing customers with healthy and good quality food.

Synthesis.

I think that this can be related to Glen's article because both touch base on something having to do with misleading people/customers. -Not telling them the truth. A second person this can be related to is Bryson because evolving or trying to change this because it will not work so there is really no point in trying.

Response	Quotation
This hit me because it is a letter to the coming president saying that he needs to deal with food problems in the country.	“Dear Mr. President-Elect, It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign; food” (6).
This is saying how food needs to be more political. People become less aware of what really goes on if they aren't informed.	“While the surfeit of cheap calories that the US food system has produced since the late 1970's may have taken food prices off the political agenda, this has come at a steep cost to public health” (179).
Not only will food impact our country, but foreign countries too.	“The impact of the American food system on the rest of the world will have implications for your foreign and trade policies as well” (179).
This is just saying that today, maximizing the production of food has increased a lot and this can be good or bad depending on how you look at it.	“Today most government farm and food programs are designed to prop up the old system of maximizing production from a handful of subsidized commodity crops grown in monocultures” (?).
This is an opinion. (Most of this article is). This is talking about the difference between local farming and non-local farming and what each can do.	“In the end, shifting the American diet from a foundation of imported fossil fuel to local sunshine will require changes in our daily lives, which by now are deeply implicated in the economy and culture of fast, cheap, and easy food” (190).

Thoughts.

Overall, this was an interesting article. Again, I just don't know too much about farming and whatnot so with that in mind this wasn't one of my favorite articles. However, I do think that Pollen knows a lot of things about the industry and food and is very involved. I'd say I agree and disagree with most of his thoughts and views. It is mutual.