User:FoodEssayDotDocX

''' Meagan Morin '''

''' Marguerite Kathwaroon '''

''' Humanities: Food Fight '''

 7 November 2013  Meagan Morin 

''' Marguerite Kathwaroon '''

''' Humanities: Food Fight '''

 7 November 2013  Meagan Morin 

''' Marguerite Kathwaroon '''

''' Humanities: Food Fight '''

 7 November 2013

''' How Cheap is 'Cheap'? '''

             

             "The . . . agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans." Says Bryan Walsh for TIME Magazine. Can we really argue against this? It is true that in our modern times, the industries, especially those in the food business, have grown faster than ever before, and are practically unstoppable. Because of their growth spurt, us as a society may feel endangered by them; frightened. Such large co-operations have control of nearly everything we eat. Nearly, however, being the key word. The animals and environment, as well as us ourselves, may be getting hurt by these companies who think they can do whatever they want, but in the end, can they, really? Someone, or rather, something as large as Kellog's or Tyson may be out to get us after all, but why? Why would someone make the decision to completely go against any moralities they may have had left? There is but one answer: money. Raking in the big bucks is all the companies really care about it, in the end. Sure, there are benefits to some of the things they do, but whether those things are beneficial to society or not does not influence their decision in making that thing happen. They will continue to keep doing what they are doing as long as we continue doing what we are doing; falling into their traps.



             It is possible to consider that we are obviously not the only species being hunted down. In a more literal sense, animals are hunted down on the daily. Hunted down meaning they are breeded, shoved into cages and force fed chemicals and hormones. They grow big--their organs and bones unable to keep up with their rapid weight gain, and become infected with bacteria that shouldn't even have been present in their area. Not only that, but their 'area' was most likely once a forest or a beautiful landscape that was destroyed in order to house them all. Tress are cut down, grass is mowed right off the ground, and barns and other various buildings are built on the soil. This damages not only the environment (soil erosion, water and air pollution, a drop in oxygen ect.), but as mentioned just before, the animals as well. If the grass has been cut off, what will the cattle eat? That doesn't matter, though, does it? Considering they are fed chemicals, anyway. This is what we call Intensive Farming, or in simpler terms, the industrialization of agriculture. In David Kaplan's article, Food, Intensive Farming is thoroughly explained; the consequences (the damages to the environment and animals), and the benefits (which would be rather obvious: more convenience for us, the consumers, as well as a larger profit for the companies). Because of the industrialization of agriculture, the term farm no longer has the meaning it may have had thirty years ago. When imagining a farm, one may think of a barn, animals kept in large, enclosed fields outside (in small numbers), eating the grass and being fed grains. Now, however, this image has been completely erased, being replaced by huge, gas-guzzling tractors, dirt, smoke, oil, infected or dead animals, and money. The animals are now abused, as well as the farmers (who are not allowed to say much about the company), and can cause health hazards to the people who buy their products (i.e food poisoning, water poisoning, lack of quality in the air ect). This is what Kaplan elaborates on in his article, which can also relate to another article, Big Food, written by David Stuckler and Marion Nestle.



<p class="MsoNormal">             There may be little to no cost for said animals that are being abused, but "[w]hen you consider the harm being done to animals, the land, ranchers, farmers, and our national health, this first and cheap food is much too expensive" (Schlosser 38). In addition, considering that medical bills are much more expensive in the United States as opposed to Canada, there is a much greater threat when it comes to human health. In Canada, if something goes wrong, it can be taken care of easier because it would not have to be paid for. However, medical bills will add up in the United States. Someone who constantly eats at McDonald's or Burger King could develop the obvious side effects of too much fast food: weight gain, cardiac problems ect. If they become dangerously overweight, they are more at risk for health problems, and when making visits to hospitals or doctors, will also be faced with financial problems, as well (Schlosser 38-39).

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Going back to the health of us humans, what is 'the last straw'? The commotion that will finally cause people to understand the risk we are partaking in? It's hard to say when this will happen, but society is not the only group to put the blame on. "In the United States, the ten largest food companies control over half of all food sales . . . ." (Stuckler and Nestle 1), which means that, despite people trying to go against these large businesses, it would be rather hard, considering how 'in-control' they are. It took about fifty years for tobacco to be noticed as a threat to cancer and other health risks, as explained by Stuckler and Nestle, so, again, how long will it take to realize that what the companies are doing is harmful? It all goes back to the money; they will not stop unless there is an alternative which includes profit. Healthy foods have a much lower profit, so basically, "[t]he only ways the industry could preserve profit is either to under-mine public health attempts to tax and regulate or to get people to eat more healthy food while continuing to eat profitable unhealthy foods" (Stuckler and Nestle 2). This, however, would still bring about damages done to the environment, animals and even us, because the companies would still continue to produce their profitable foods, which mostly consist of processed foods, one of the most popular being sweets and sodas.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Soft drinks are one of the biggest sellers when it comes to 'cheap food'. In fact, ". . . . at least [thirty] percent of the calories in the average child's diet derive from sweets, soft drinks, salty snacks and fast food", says Marion Nestle's article Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity. To add, most overweight children have a 1,200 - 2,000 calorie intake daily that comes from solely pop, and spend almost thirty billion dollars yearly on said products (Nestle 1 - 2). This can mainly be because sodas are cheaper than water bottles in most places (for example, a small drink at McDonald's is a dollar and sixty cents whereas a water bottle is two dollars and thirty cents), and because they are portable and have a slight trick to them; one must drink the soda in a limited amount of time, or else it will grow warm and taste foul. Then, it gets thrown out, only for the person to still crave a soda and buy yet another. Not only this, but because of advertising from certain companies (Coca Cola, I'm looking at you), children may think that it's not necessarily healthy, but rather easy to 'get rid of', meaning that having a can of Coke is not such a big problem and can easily be taken care of. In Stephanie Strom's In Ads, Coke Confronts Soda's Link to Obesity, it is mentioned that a certain commercial for Coke was two minutes long, and provided examples of 'fun' exercises to do to get rid of the calories from the consumption of the soda. There was a small catch, however. While some people may see the ad and think they only need to walk their dog for about half an hour to burn off the calories, in truth, it is actually that in addition to all the other activities shown in the commercial. The company tried to make themselves look like they are battling obesity, when, in reality, they are partially to blame when it comes to the cause of it. Obesity just adds on to the damages that are made from cheap foods.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Another damage is the fact that all of this is barely sustainable, if at all. In fact, we use so much energy to create such little amount of food, that there is a 10:1 ratio of it (Webber 77). There is so much wasted energy that some of it is literally thrown into lagoons--this is what happens to all the manure from the animals that are slaughtered. The lagoons get filled with the manure and pollute the surrounding area: its air, water and soil. It takes so much work to make one little product: oils, oiled machines, farmers, transportation (which requires more oil), money, packaging, plastic (more oil!), glue for the packaging...it is a very tedious effort. Some places run by coal are even included in this energy consumption; the smoke that it creates is another factor that heavily damages one of our natural resources: the air we breathe (Webber 78).

<p class="MsoNormal">             The air doesn't affect just us, however. It also affects the animals that are already being abused. Considering how badly they are treated, though, the air is really the last thing to worry about when dealing with them. Is it really worth it, the way they are abused? In the end, Americans end up throwing out fourteen percent of the food they buy, anyway (Walsh 6). This can really make one wonder about the fact that so much food is wasted, yet more is always in demand. Animals have feelings, too, and it is not wrong to eat meat, but they should definitely be treated better. They can even get depressed when dealt with negatively, especially pigs (Schlosser 38). The way we raise animals could create a drastic change in the food system. If raised without chemicals or hormones within open spaces and proper food, farms could become more sustainable, and of course, it is more ethical for the animals (Walsh 5). There would be less pollution to the environment, and less animals would get sick; fewer would die. Humans would also have less of a chance of getting sick or hurt by eating contaminated food; be it because of disease that made its way into the meat or because of the chemicals that were added into it after the animal was killed. There would be no need for the chemicals in the first place, because the animals would've lived a healthy life. There would be no disease either; they would not step in each other's feces, so less bacteria would spread amongst them.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             In short, it is safe to say that the current food system is literally destroying the planet. It is killing of thousands of living beings; plants, animals, and even us. It's becoming an epidemic that cannot be cured until the source of the problem is eliminated. It's becoming a world in which we struggle with survival, with appearance, with health. It is becoming a world in which we are all trapped in. We have become... slaves to our food.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p align="left" class="ResearchPaperTitle">

<p class="WorksCitedPageTitle"> Works Cited

<p class="MsoNormal">             Kaplan, David. "Food." Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Nestle, Marion. “Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity.” The New England Journal of Medicine. June 15, 2006.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Nestle, Marion and Stuckler, David. “Big Food, Food Systems and Global Health.” PLos Medicine. June 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Schlosser, Eric. "Cheap Food Nation." Sierra Club. December 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Webber, Michael. "More Food, Less Energy." Scientific American. January 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Walsh, Bryan. "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food." TIME Magazine. August 20, 2009.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="ResearchPaperTitle">''' How Cheap is 'Cheap'? '''

<p class="MsoNormal">             

<p class="MsoNormal">             "The . . . agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans." Says Bryan Walsh for TIME Magazine. Can we really argue against this? It is true that in our modern times, the industries, especially those in the food business, have grown faster than ever before, and are practically unstoppable. Because of their growth spurt, us as a society may feel endangered by them; frightened. Such large co-operations have control of nearly everything we eat. Nearly, however, being the key word. The animals and environment, as well as us ourselves, may be getting hurt by these companies who think they can do whatever they want, but in the end, can they, really? Someone, or rather, something as large as Kellog's or Tyson may be out to get us after all, but why? Why would someone make the decision to completely go against any moralities they may have had left? There is but one answer: money. Raking in the big bucks is all the companies really care about it, in the end. Sure, there are benefits to some of the things they do, but whether those things are beneficial to society or not does not influence their decision in making that thing happen. They will continue to keep doing what they are doing as long as we continue doing what we are doing; falling into their traps.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             It is possible to consider that we are obviously not the only species being hunted down. In a more literal sense, animals are hunted down on the daily. Hunted down meaning they are breeded, shoved into cages and force fed chemicals and hormones. They grow big--their organs and bones unable to keep up with their rapid weight gain, and become infected with bacteria that shouldn't even have been present in their area. Not only that, but their 'area' was most likely once a forest or a beautiful landscape that was destroyed in order to house them all. Tress are cut down, grass is mowed right off the ground, and barns and other various buildings are built on the soil. This damages not only the environment (soil erosion, water and air pollution, a drop in oxygen ect.), but as mentioned just before, the animals as well. If the grass has been cut off, what will the cattle eat? That doesn't matter, though, does it? Considering they are fed chemicals, anyway. This is what we call Intensive Farming, or in simpler terms, the industrialization of agriculture. In David Kaplan's article, Food, Intensive Farming is thoroughly explained; the consequences (the damages to the environment and animals), and the benefits (which would be rather obvious: more convenience for us, the consumers, as well as a larger profit for the companies). Because of the industrialization of agriculture, the term farm no longer has the meaning it may have had thirty years ago. When imagining a farm, one may think of a barn, animals kept in large, enclosed fields outside (in small numbers), eating the grass and being fed grains. Now, however, this image has been completely erased, being replaced by huge, gas-guzzling tractors, dirt, smoke, oil, infected or dead animals, and money. The animals are now abused, as well as the farmers (who are not allowed to say much about the company), and can cause health hazards to the people who buy their products (i.e food poisoning, water poisoning, lack of quality in the air ect). This is what Kaplan elaborates on in his article, which can also relate to another article, Big Food, written by David Stuckler and Marion Nestle.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             There may be little to no cost for said animals that are being abused, but "[w]hen you consider the harm being done to animals, the land, ranchers, farmers, and our national health, this first and cheap food is much too expensive" (Schlosser 38). In addition, considering that medical bills are much more expensive in the United States as opposed to Canada, there is a much greater threat when it comes to human health. In Canada, if something goes wrong, it can be taken care of easier because it would not have to be paid for. However, medical bills will add up in the United States. Someone who constantly eats at McDonald's or Burger King could develop the obvious side effects of too much fast food: weight gain, cardiac problems ect. If they become dangerously overweight, they are more at risk for health problems, and when making visits to hospitals or doctors, will also be faced with financial problems, as well (Schlosser 38-39).

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Going back to the health of us humans, what is 'the last straw'? The commotion that will finally cause people to understand the risk we are partaking in? It's hard to say when this will happen, but society is not the only group to put the blame on. "In the United States, the ten largest food companies control over half of all food sales . . . ." (Stuckler and Nestle 1), which means that, despite people trying to go against these large businesses, it would be rather hard, considering how 'in-control' they are. It took about fifty years for tobacco to be noticed as a threat to cancer and other health risks, as explained by Stuckler and Nestle, so, again, how long will it take to realize that what the companies are doing is harmful? It all goes back to the money; they will not stop unless there is an alternative which includes profit. Healthy foods have a much lower profit, so basically, "[t]he only ways the industry could preserve profit is either to under-mine public health attempts to tax and regulate or to get people to eat more healthy food while continuing to eat profitable unhealthy foods" (Stuckler and Nestle 2). This, however, would still bring about damages done to the environment, animals and even us, because the companies would still continue to produce their profitable foods, which mostly consist of processed foods, one of the most popular being sweets and sodas.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Soft drinks are one of the biggest sellers when it comes to 'cheap food'. In fact, ". . . . at least [thirty] percent of the calories in the average child's diet derive from sweets, soft drinks, salty snacks and fast food", says Marion Nestle's article Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity. To add, most overweight children have a 1,200 - 2,000 calorie intake daily that comes from solely pop, and spend almost thirty billion dollars yearly on said products (Nestle 1 - 2). This can mainly be because sodas are cheaper than water bottles in most places (for example, a small drink at McDonald's is a dollar and sixty cents whereas a water bottle is two dollars and thirty cents), and because they are portable and have a slight trick to them; one must drink the soda in a limited amount of time, or else it will grow warm and taste foul. Then, it gets thrown out, only for the person to still crave a soda and buy yet another. Not only this, but because of advertising from certain companies (Coca Cola, I'm looking at you), children may think that it's not necessarily healthy, but rather easy to 'get rid of', meaning that having a can of Coke is not such a big problem and can easily be taken care of. In Stephanie Strom's In Ads, Coke Confronts Soda's Link to Obesity, it is mentioned that a certain commercial for Coke was two minutes long, and provided examples of 'fun' exercises to do to get rid of the calories from the consumption of the soda. There was a small catch, however. While some people may see the ad and think they only need to walk their dog for about half an hour to burn off the calories, in truth, it is actually that in addition to all the other activities shown in the commercial. The company tried to make themselves look like they are battling obesity, when, in reality, they are partially to blame when it comes to the cause of it. Obesity just adds on to the damages that are made from cheap foods.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Another damage is the fact that all of this is barely sustainable, if at all. In fact, we use so much energy to create such little amount of food, that there is a 10:1 ratio of it (Webber 77). There is so much wasted energy that some of it is literally thrown into lagoons--this is what happens to all the manure from the animals that are slaughtered. The lagoons get filled with the manure and pollute the surrounding area: its air, water and soil. It takes so much work to make one little product: oils, oiled machines, farmers, transportation (which requires more oil), money, packaging, plastic (more oil!), glue for the packaging...it is a very tedious effort. Some places run by coal are even included in this energy consumption; the smoke that it creates is another factor that heavily damages one of our natural resources: the air we breathe (Webber 78).

<p class="MsoNormal">             The air doesn't affect just us, however. It also affects the animals that are already being abused. Considering how badly they are treated, though, the air is really the last thing to worry about when dealing with them. Is it really worth it, the way they are abused? In the end, Americans end up throwing out fourteen percent of the food they buy, anyway (Walsh 6). This can really make one wonder about the fact that so much food is wasted, yet more is always in demand. Animals have feelings, too, and it is not wrong to eat meat, but they should definitely be treated better. They can even get depressed when dealt with negatively, especially pigs (Schlosser 38). The way we raise animals could create a drastic change in the food system. If raised without chemicals or hormones within open spaces and proper food, farms could become more sustainable, and of course, it is more ethical for the animals (Walsh 5). There would be less pollution to the environment, and less animals would get sick; fewer would die. Humans would also have less of a chance of getting sick or hurt by eating contaminated food; be it because of disease that made its way into the meat or because of the chemicals that were added into it after the animal was killed. There would be no need for the chemicals in the first place, because the animals would've lived a healthy life. There would be no disease either; they would not step in each other's feces, so less bacteria would spread amongst them.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             In short, it is safe to say that the current food system is literally destroying the planet. It is killing of thousands of living beings; plants, animals, and even us. It's becoming an epidemic that cannot be cured until the source of the problem is eliminated. It's becoming a world in which we struggle with survival, with appearance, with health. It is becoming a world in which we are all trapped in. We have become... slaves to our food.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p align="left" class="ResearchPaperTitle">

<p class="WorksCitedPageTitle"> Works Cited

<p class="MsoNormal">             Kaplan, David. "Food." Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Nestle, Marion. “Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity.” The New England Journal of Medicine. June 15, 2006.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Nestle, Marion and Stuckler, David. “Big Food, Food Systems and Global Health.” PLos Medicine. June 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Schlosser, Eric. "Cheap Food Nation." Sierra Club. December 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Webber, Michael. "More Food, Less Energy." Scientific American. January 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Walsh, Bryan. "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food." TIME Magazine. August 20, 2009.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="ResearchPaperTitle">   ''' How Cheap is 'Cheap'? '''

<p class="MsoNormal">             

<p class="MsoNormal">             "The . . . agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans." Says Bryan Walsh for TIME Magazine. Can we really argue against this? It is true that in our modern times, the industries, especially those in the food business, have grown faster than ever before, and are practically unstoppable. Because of their growth spurt, us as a society may feel endangered by them; frightened. Such large co-operations have control of nearly everything we eat. Nearly, however, being the key word. The animals and environment, as well as us ourselves, may be getting hurt by these companies who think they can do whatever they want, but in the end, can they, really? Someone, or rather, something as large as Kellog's or Tyson may be out to get us after all, but why? Why would someone make the decision to completely go against any moralities they may have had left? There is but one answer: money. Raking in the big bucks is all the companies really care about it, in the end. Sure, there are benefits to some of the things they do, but whether those things are beneficial to society or not does not influence their decision in making that thing happen. They will continue to keep doing what they are doing as long as we continue doing what we are doing; falling into their traps.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             It is possible to consider that we are obviously not the only species being hunted down. In a more literal sense, animals are hunted down on the daily. Hunted down meaning they are breeded, shoved into cages and force fed chemicals and hormones. They grow big--their organs and bones unable to keep up with their rapid weight gain, and become infected with bacteria that shouldn't even have been present in their area. Not only that, but their 'area' was most likely once a forest or a beautiful landscape that was destroyed in order to house them all. Tress are cut down, grass is mowed right off the ground, and barns and other various buildings are built on the soil. This damages not only the environment (soil erosion, water and air pollution, a drop in oxygen ect.), but as mentioned just before, the animals as well. If the grass has been cut off, what will the cattle eat? That doesn't matter, though, does it? Considering they are fed chemicals, anyway. This is what we call Intensive Farming, or in simpler terms, the industrialization of agriculture. In David Kaplan's article, Food, Intensive Farming is thoroughly explained; the consequences (the damages to the environment and animals), and the benefits (which would be rather obvious: more convenience for us, the consumers, as well as a larger profit for the companies). Because of the industrialization of agriculture, the term farm no longer has the meaning it may have had thirty years ago. When imagining a farm, one may think of a barn, animals kept in large, enclosed fields outside (in small numbers), eating the grass and being fed grains. Now, however, this image has been completely erased, being replaced by huge, gas-guzzling tractors, dirt, smoke, oil, infected or dead animals, and money. The animals are now abused, as well as the farmers (who are not allowed to say much about the company), and can cause health hazards to the people who buy their products (i.e food poisoning, water poisoning, lack of quality in the air ect). This is what Kaplan elaborates on in his article, which can also relate to another article, Big Food, written by David Stuckler and Marion Nestle.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             There may be little to no cost for said animals that are being abused, but "[w]hen you consider the harm being done to animals, the land, ranchers, farmers, and our national health, this first and cheap food is much too expensive" (Schlosser 38). In addition, considering that medical bills are much more expensive in the United States as opposed to Canada, there is a much greater threat when it comes to human health. In Canada, if something goes wrong, it can be taken care of easier because it would not have to be paid for. However, medical bills will add up in the United States. Someone who constantly eats at McDonald's or Burger King could develop the obvious side effects of too much fast food: weight gain, cardiac problems ect. If they become dangerously overweight, they are more at risk for health problems, and when making visits to hospitals or doctors, will also be faced with financial problems, as well (Schlosser 38-39).

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Going back to the health of us humans, what is 'the last straw'? The commotion that will finally cause people to understand the risk we are partaking in? It's hard to say when this will happen, but society is not the only group to put the blame on. "In the United States, the ten largest food companies control over half of all food sales . . . ." (Stuckler and Nestle 1), which means that, despite people trying to go against these large businesses, it would be rather hard, considering how 'in-control' they are. It took about fifty years for tobacco to be noticed as a threat to cancer and other health risks, as explained by Stuckler and Nestle, so, again, how long will it take to realize that what the companies are doing is harmful? It all goes back to the money; they will not stop unless there is an alternative which includes profit. Healthy foods have a much lower profit, so basically, "[t]he only ways the industry could preserve profit is either to under-mine public health attempts to tax and regulate or to get people to eat more healthy food while continuing to eat profitable unhealthy foods" (Stuckler and Nestle 2). This, however, would still bring about damages done to the environment, animals and even us, because the companies would still continue to produce their profitable foods, which mostly consist of processed foods, one of the most popular being sweets and sodas.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Soft drinks are one of the biggest sellers when it comes to 'cheap food'. In fact, ". . . . at least [thirty] percent of the calories in the average child's diet derive from sweets, soft drinks, salty snacks and fast food", says Marion Nestle's article Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity. To add, most overweight children have a 1,200 - 2,000 calorie intake daily that comes from solely pop, and spend almost thirty billion dollars yearly on said products (Nestle 1 - 2). This can mainly be because sodas are cheaper than water bottles in most places (for example, a small drink at McDonald's is a dollar and sixty cents whereas a water bottle is two dollars and thirty cents), and because they are portable and have a slight trick to them; one must drink the soda in a limited amount of time, or else it will grow warm and taste foul. Then, it gets thrown out, only for the person to still crave a soda and buy yet another. Not only this, but because of advertising from certain companies (Coca Cola, I'm looking at you), children may think that it's not necessarily healthy, but rather easy to 'get rid of', meaning that having a can of Coke is not such a big problem and can easily be taken care of. In Stephanie Strom's In Ads, Coke Confronts Soda's Link to Obesity, it is mentioned that a certain commercial for Coke was two minutes long, and provided examples of 'fun' exercises to do to get rid of the calories from the consumption of the soda. There was a small catch, however. While some people may see the ad and think they only need to walk their dog for about half an hour to burn off the calories, in truth, it is actually that in addition to all the other activities shown in the commercial. The company tried to make themselves look like they are battling obesity, when, in reality, they are partially to blame when it comes to the cause of it. Obesity just adds on to the damages that are made from cheap foods.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Another damage is the fact that all of this is barely sustainable, if at all. In fact, we use so much energy to create such little amount of food, that there is a 10:1 ratio of it (Webber 77). There is so much wasted energy that some of it is literally thrown into lagoons--this is what happens to all the manure from the animals that are slaughtered. The lagoons get filled with the manure and pollute the surrounding area: its air, water and soil. It takes so much work to make one little product: oils, oiled machines, farmers, transportation (which requires more oil), money, packaging, plastic (more oil!), glue for the packaging...it is a very tedious effort. Some places run by coal are even included in this energy consumption; the smoke that it creates is another factor that heavily damages one of our natural resources: the air we breathe (Webber 78).

<p class="MsoNormal">             The air doesn't affect just us, however. It also affects the animals that are already being abused. Considering how badly they are treated, though, the air is really the last thing to worry about when dealing with them. Is it really worth it, the way they are abused? In the end, Americans end up throwing out fourteen percent of the food they buy, anyway (Walsh 6). This can really make one wonder about the fact that so much food is wasted, yet more is always in demand. Animals have feelings, too, and it is not wrong to eat meat, but they should definitely be treated better. They can even get depressed when dealt with negatively, especially pigs (Schlosser 38). The way we raise animals could create a drastic change in the food system. If raised without chemicals or hormones within open spaces and proper food, farms could become more sustainable, and of course, it is more ethical for the animals (Walsh 5). There would be less pollution to the environment, and less animals would get sick; fewer would die. Humans would also have less of a chance of getting sick or hurt by eating contaminated food; be it because of disease that made its way into the meat or because of the chemicals that were added into it after the animal was killed. There would be no need for the chemicals in the first place, because the animals would've lived a healthy life. There would be no disease either; they would not step in each other's feces, so less bacteria would spread amongst them.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             In short, it is safe to say that the current food system is literally destroying the planet. It is killing of thousands of living beings; plants, animals, and even us. It's becoming an epidemic that cannot be cured until the source of the problem is eliminated. It's becoming a world in which we struggle with survival, with appearance, with health. It is becoming a world in which we are all trapped in. We have become... slaves to our food.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p align="left" class="ResearchPaperTitle">

<p class="WorksCitedPageTitle"> Works Cited

<p class="MsoNormal">             Kaplan, David. "Food." Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Nestle, Marion. “Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity.” The New England Journal of Medicine. June 15, 2006.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Nestle, Marion and Stuckler, David. “Big Food, Food Systems and Global Health.” PLos Medicine. June 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Schlosser, Eric. "Cheap Food Nation." Sierra Club. December 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Webber, Michael. "More Food, Less Energy." Scientific American. January 2012.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">             Walsh, Bryan. "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food." TIME Magazine. August 20, 2009.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">