January 27, 2014
- Do you read food labels? If so, why? If not, why not? What information do you think should be included on food labels in the United States?
When it comes to food labels I usually do look at the food labels. It always depends on what I'm buying though. If I'm going to buy something form the store that I've had before i don't look at the labels but if it is something I've never tried before i will look at the label. i only look at the label when i want to know how many calories there are in the item i am buying. If I feel that something has too many calories in it i will not buy it or i will look for something more healthy. The reason i do look at labels is to determine if what I'm buying is healthy. I started looking at the labels at the end of my fall semester freshman year. I limited how many calories i would have a day and would use the labels to determine what i could and couldn't eat. I don't think the labels need to be changed just looked at more by people because i usually never see anyone actually look at the label before they buy.
January 29, 2014
- After reading the NY Times article, What information should be included on food labels? Who should decide what is included on food labels? Did reading the article change your mind, or make you think about food labeling in a different way?
After reading the article about meat I found it amazing that beef was contaminated so much. I had no idea that they used ammonia to kill the ecoli bacteria. They said that they didn't have to include the chemical on the label because it was a processing method. I think that they should include the chemicals that they use in processing methods when they ship out food. from the article they said that the meat had a strong ammonia smell and nobody want to smell that when they are cooking their meat. I feel like the government can do a much better job at enforcing what should be on food labels and that the labels should include what chemicals are used in processing methods. This reading changed my mind slightly. it brought to my attention that companies were doing this and not saying they were. Also I found it surprising that a lot of beef fails test because it is contaminated but yet companies still ship it out.
January 31, 2014
- After reading the three articles about the pink slime debate, where do you fall on this issue? Should it be labeled differently? Which argument(s) did you find most compelling? Why? What preconceptions (baggage) did you bring with you to this debate that might be influencing your position?
The fact about pink slime is that they have been putting it in our beef for a few years before anyone even knew. That fact right there i don't think they should get rid of the pink slime. Yeah pink slime is a horrible name to call something. It sounds gross. The name for the pink slime should change and also it should be labeled on the beef that uses this pink slime. Not using this pink slime sends more cows to the slaughter house. Using more of the cow makes it more sustainable for everybody because we are using everything we can from the animal. My personal belief is that if you kill something you should use everything you can from that animal instead of just killing it for that one or two things from the animal. Basically if they change the name of pink slime and started to label the beef that uses this finely textured beef i feel like almost everybody would be happy with the outcome.
February 19, 2014
- What are the most direct causes of the exigence about which you are writing?
- What economic or business conditions may play a role in this exigence?
- What societal attitudes, fears, or values may have initiated it or indirectly supported it?
The most direct causes of exigence is how advertisers are using their ads to get children and adults to want that product. The ads talk about giveaways to children when selling a product. Also another exigence is how the ads effect the children when they are too young to be seeing some ads.
Some economic conditions are that parents are giving their children money (allowance) and they spend that money on what they see in ads. Some business conditions are that they will only sell a product within a certain area due to the shipping cost to other stores.
The societal that was initiated was that when children are given a toy from getting some item they usually play with that toy and leave the parents alone. Some fears are that if children watch ads about smoking they will be more likely to want to try smoking to see if the ad was telling the truth.
March 21, 2014
- What solution to your crisis can you propose? How will your solution address specific elements or causes of the crisis?
- How is your solution particularly practical, logical, manageable, ethical, humane, or economical?
- What else has been tried or proposed? Why is your solution the solution your audience should embrace?
The solution or solutions that I will talk about for my crisis will be the things parents can do to keep children from watching some commercials. Also the ways children can get away from the ads and do other things. These solutions will address the fact that businesses are smarter and will go to great lengths to get your child or children to want their product.
These solutions will help children with being able to know what ads are good and what ones are "dumb". These children will learn the importance of looking into things before they decide on why they want what they want.
People should embrace this solution because this will help with getting children outside or doing something that does not involve a television or video games. People have talked about getting your child to not watch as much television but what they did not realize was that the businesses are not just using television ads but also online ads, video game ads, and even in movies.