As I sit down to write this response to the first week of classes, thoughts of vegetables, grains and leather fringe dance through my head. I figure most of this class will be talking about tree-hugging hippies, liberals and free spirits fighting for the rights of animals and plants everywhere. I do realize that these ideas have manifested through the media’s contribution to my “green” thinking. But as I sat through these first few classes, I realize there is much more to food than the average American realizes. My mind is awakened by the idea that the United States consumes much more than is humanly needed at that it has become the social norm to over-eat, but we don’t technically see it as that. There is also the idea of instant gratification and constant busyness that Americans are obsessed with. We find that because processed foods seem to be the easiest and fastest that is our first choice at meal times. This idea does not necessarily mean that it’s the healthiest or best. Americans overlook the way they obtain foods because of the instant gratification, but that doesn’t mean it works economically either. There is more to the process of how we obtain foods, and of what kinds seem best to us. As I look over the syllabus of the class, a few key features pop out as being most interesting to me. I’m excited to learn about the costs of getting healthy foods, and why this contradiction of valuable things does not make sense. I’m also interested in understanding what brought us to this place where processed, quick foods are most important to consumers.
According to the food blog Food Politics.com entry on January 10th entitled, “Antibiotics in Farm Animals: FDA issues a weak rule,” there is a broad discourse on how some congress members are now writing stricter legislation against January 4th’s FDA rule on how much, and how antibiotics in animals such as chickens, pigs and cows can be used. The FDA just made the rules stricter. I’m going to completely agree with the entry that has been written against what seems to be an unjust function of the FDA. An interesting fact that is mentioned in the blog entry is this, “If bacteria are resistant to cephalosporins [antibiotics found in animals], doctors have fewer options for treatment and these are less effective or more harmful.” This statement is quite scary. For most people, especially the elderly who are used to processed foods because of their convenience and history with the production of them are going be less able to help themselves cure or treat their ailments. If we do not help out by supporting legislation that restricts this use of antibiotics, we will also be affected. Antibiotics helps animals grow faster and costs less many for farmers to feed their animals. One of the sincerely awful thoughts of this whole antibiotic movement is that the FDA is well aware of the consumers who are against the use of antibiotics in their meats and poultry. In the blog it states, “In November , the FDA turned down consumer petitions calling for a ban on the non-therapeutic use of a broader range of antibiotics in farm animals.” If it is used for more than just therapeutic for the animals, then it is too much. A Congresswoman from New York has established an Act that will intervene in the FDA for a stricter take on the use of antibiotics and animals. I will be thoroughly interested to see where the FDA finds itself in just a few short months.