DES and it's dangers

The book My Year of Meats by Ruth Ozeki is about the story of an American-Japanese woman that is hired to do a T.V. show for the American meat industry to introduce meat into the Japanese culture. The meat industry is hoping to introduce meat into the Asian culture and with that increase the size of their market. As she learns about the meat industry she starts to realize how many issues there are with it. One of the issues she discusses is the about the growth hormone DES that used to be in meats up through the 70’s.  The growth hormone was known to be harmful since 1938. The FDA and USDA suppressed many results proving the potential risks of DSA. Even after it was clear that DES was extremely harmful the FDA and USDA insisted it was safe and waited for years to finally ban it.

            The carcinogenicity of DES has been clear since 1938 however the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA approved the hormone in 1947. After multiple congressional hearings on DSA the Delaney Law was passed in 1958, which banned the deliberate addition of carcinogens. However, the use of DSA continued on the alleged grounds that it did not leave any amount of detectable residue in the meat. The reality was that there were extremely cancerous levels of DES in much of the meat on the U.S. market. By 1971 twenty other countries banned the use of DES. Even then, the FDA and USDA continued to insist that DSA was not harmful until 1979 when it was finally banned in the U.S.

Questions:

1.     Since the topic is limited to a topic that is related to the book My Year of Meats by Ruth Ozeki I can’t choose a topic that I feel as strongly about as John Trimble suggests. Instead I chose to write about DES, which caused a lot of harm to pregnant women up until it was banned in 1979.

2.     What I chose to narrow the topic down to is why the FDA and the USDA suppressed the results of tests that proved the chemical was harmful. There were tests that proved the chemical was bad as early as 1971, it wasn’t banned until 1979.

3.     http://preventcancer.com/press/editorials/march10_92.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol

4.      

a.     Why did the FDA and the USDA take 8 years to ban the chemical?

b.     Why did the DES have to be added to the meat in the first place?

5.     Thesis: The fact that it took the FDA and the USDA 8 years to ban a chemical known to be extremely harmful is unacceptable and shows that our food industry needs to be watched much more.

#1.       Pre Write Procedure- 

1. Brainstorm

2. Establish argument

3. Find support for my arguments

4. Make an outline

5. Ask some tough questions

5. Begin writing

#3.  I will take all the steps I usually take as well as ask some questions about the weakest part of my essay in order to strengthen it.

#4.

Effective Procedures:

-Brainstorming is always extremely fruitful since it helps you develop your ideas more.

-The questions I asked also helped me come up with stronger arguments

Working Thesis: The fact that it took the FDA and the USDA 8 years to ban a chemical known to be extremely harmful is unacceptable and shows that our food industry needs to be watched much more.              

What's with the quotes?

In the book My Year of Meats by Ruth L. Ozeki she starts every chapter in the book with a poem or quote from Sei Shonagon's The Pillow Book. The Pillow book is a book that is filled with observations and musings that were recorded by Sei Shonagon when she served as court lady to Empress Consort Teishi during the 990’s and early 11^th century. She finished the book in 1002. In it she included lists of all kinds, personal thoughts, interesting events in court, poetry and some opinions on her contemporaries. Even though this is more of a journal then a formal piece of literature her literary and poetic skill make the book enjoyable.

The quotes at the beginning of each chapter are interesting and kind of set the mood for each chapter, either foreshadowing, or at least introducing the concept that Ozeki talks about in the chapter. Even though she organizes the book by months, these almost ancient quotes give it a more timeless feel. This results in chapters that are not only about the people in them but that also have a universal message that the reader can apply to his or her own life. Jane as well as Sei Shonagon were similar in a way that they both recorded what was happening to them at the time. This connects them in another way beyond the meanings of the quotes.

Sorry Fugu

All together I greatly enjoyed the play Sorry Fugu. In the beginning of the play I was skeptical as to if I would like or not because of the word for word recital of the short story. I figured the play would consist of long boring monologues with little to no action in terms of acting. Needless to say I was wrong. I soon found myself laughing at the way the quirky actors managed to bring to bring the tory to life out on stage. The characters were all very unique and entertaining to watch. The dances that they performed were hilarious, and the characters that the actors developed were equally hilarious.

The actual story is about a restaurant owner named Albert D'Angelo. It focuses on his struggle to please one of the city’s most scrutinizing food critics. The play focuses on his struggles to please her and her fiancés’ very picky taste. The food critic gives every restaurant she reviews three tries, and after quickly failing during her first two visits it becomes clear that the fate of his restaurant depends on the third and final visit. The story is an emotional tale about a cooks passion for food and his restaurant.

I believe that if I had read this short story I would have been very bored by it and probably put it down, but through the acting and reciting I enjoyed it and it was over before I knew it. I recommend this play to anyone that likes food and comedy. 

Both Reese and Rayner write a critical review of Foer’s text, Eating Animals.  Now it’s your turn to join the conversation.  What is your review of Eating Animals?  Begin by explaining the controversial conversation about Foer’s credibility and argument that Reese and Rayner establish, and then enter the conversation by arguing whether you agree, disagree, or agree/disagree with Reese’s and Rayner’s reviews.  Develop your argument with support from the text (i.e. Foer’s ethos, pathos, and logos, or lack thereof), quotes from Reese’s and Rayner’s critiques, and your own personal response to the text.

In his book Wating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer discusses the faults in our meet production system. I like that he wants to expose the cruel ways in which we treat and slaughter our livestock. I believe that animals deserve to be treated with dignity, but for me the problem only starts when he tries to implement his own ethics into mine. He tries to convince his audience to be vegetarian or even vegan and I feel like the type of book that he wrote should be factual rather then a plead for vegetarianism.

            Foer was born and raised in the city, he has never lived, worked, or before writing this book even set foot on a farm. Reese and Rayner argue that someone that was born and raised in the city can be over sensitive and over emotional when it comes to raising cattle or other livestock. Simple practices like branding can’t be justified as animal cruelty just because it hurts the calf for a little bit. On the other hand, a whole lifetime of restricted movement and bad food is cruel and I think every animal deserves to be in nature.

            Jay Rayner argues that that some of the information that Foer used is heavely outdated and oes not represent the reality of today. “ The appalling stall and tether pig-rearing system that Safran Foer describes in such detail, for example, has been banned here since 1997 and will be banned across Europe by 2013. Likewise, free-range eggs now account for 40% of the market, a recent increase fuelled by the decision of McDonald's in the UK to use only the free-range variety.” ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/28/eating-animals-jonathan-safran-foer). These are some of Foers’ premium arguments, which are now completely invalid. Some of his other arguments however remain strong as ever.

            Foer believes that the relationship between farm animas and humans can never work, and he suggests that we should just abandon them al together. However I agree with Reese “ … fixing the relationship is both possible and worthwhile. To declare that humanity should opt out of this relationship altogether strikes me as less heinous but every bit as arrogant and unnatural as the factory farm.” We have been eating animals forever, and to change this would be unnatural.

            Eating animals is a good book, and I liked learning the truth about where some of the foods we eat every day comes from. Unfortunately, as a college student its hard to pick and choose what you eat, sometimes you just have to take what you get. Eating animals does not have to be a cruel or unnatural process, and I agree with Foer that it would be better if it weren’t.