Due: 12/02
Go Fix It!
Whitney Novotny
Industrial farming has created environmental, economic, and political sustainability issues. The
reason that industrial farming has become such a rampant part of society is because consumers
have been able to enjoy reduced food prices and turn a blind eye to the harmful effects of
industrial farming. As the population has moved away from the farm people have stopped being
connected to their food and that has allowed many unhealthy and unsanitary practices to arrive in
the farming industry. A prime example of the horrors of industrial farming can be seen in the
beef industry.
The Problem
Beef has historically been raised on a natural diet of grasses from their environment. This
allowed for a nice cycle where cows spread grass seed through digestion and then the grass was
converted into a high-quality protein through rumination in the cows stomachs. This system of
mutual benefit is missing from the current industrialized farming methods where the main source
of food is corn. In order to quicken the weight gain of cows and mature them quicker, modern
cows are fed a cheap diet of corn and protein supplements. A few generations ago a cow would
take 4-5 years to gain enough weight for slaughter, now this process takes only 14-16 months
(1). Corn feed is often also substituted with protein supplements. The protein in the corn feed
often is made up of “blood products” which are a notable exception to the law that bans feeding
ruminant protein to ruminants. This means that the blood from the slaughter house can be
recycled back and fed to the cows.
Besides the problem with the cows diet, there also exists a problem with the food libel laws in
place that are meant protect agribusiness from criticism. While the number of food libel laws has
increased, the health concerns related to food has seen an increase. Each year 48 million people
in the US get sick from food borne illness and 3,000 die (2). Food libel laws are meant to protect
the industry from false claims but have begun to allow the industry to hide what is really going
on in all these farms. To prove a false claim the defendant or the prosecution needs to be able to
prove the claim was false using scientific face. As Cain points out “science is capable of
delivering merely a version of the ‘truth’ which has its roots in the premises, methodologies and
values of the system within which it is articulated” (2). Thus companies can often take down
dissenting individuals with “scientific fact” if they can find an expert to agree with them. Some
might say that feeding antibiotics to cows has harmful effects on humans but a beef company
could fund a study that concludes the exact opposite. These laws prevent people from spreading
information about the farming practices.
The Solution
Information is perhaps the most effective way to move the US from industrialized farming to
more sustainable farming practices. Umberger’s study found that people were willing to pay
more for grass fed beef once they understood the human and cow health issues related with grain
Due: 12/02
Go Fix It!
Whitney Novotny
fed verse grass fed cows (3). This is demonstrative of the power that information has to help
move people towards a more sustainable food diet.
My solution is to increase the information of food is to introduce barcodes on meat packaging
that can link the consumer to information about what farm the meat came from and the
conditions of the animals. These barcodes would contain basic information about the farm, the
feed the animal has been fed, and other factors. These barcodes would help inform the consumer
about the farm in an easy and convenient way. This would also put pressure on farms to more
towards more sustainable farming methods because the market would hopefully move towards
making the meat industry more sustainable. Today meat producers are not transparent about
their practices. Forcing the market to be transparent would hopefully motivate the consumer to
buy sustainably and the producer to be more sustainable.
Bibliography
1. Pollan, Michael. Power Steer. michaelpollen.om. [Online] 31 2002, March.
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/.
2. Food, Inglorious Food: Food Safety, Food Libel, and Free Speech. Cain, Rita Marie. 2, s.l. : American
Business Law Journal, Summer 2012, Vol. 49.
3. Role of credence and health information in determining US consumers' willingness-to-pay for grassfinished beef. Umberger, Wendy J., Boxall, Peter C. and Lacy, R. Curt. s.l. : The Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2009, Vol. 53.
Annotations
1.
Full citation.
a. Food, Inglorious Food: Food Safety, Food Libel, and Free Speech. Cain, Rita
Marie. 2, s.l. : American Business Law Journal, Summer 2012, Vol. 49.
2. Where does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his
credentials?
a. Author: Rita Marie Cain
b. Credentials: Professor of Business Law, Bloch School of Management, University
of Missouri-Kansas.
c. Other Works: Her research and writing is focused on regulation of marketing,
most recently she has focused on marketing by local and organic farms.
3. What is the main topic or argument of the text?
a. The article looks at the negative impact the introduction of food libel laws have
on food safety. The argument is that 2011 Federal food safety law needs to be
strengthened in order to have an effective impact.
Due: 12/02
4.
Go Fix It!
Whitney Novotny
Describe at least three ways that the main topic or argument is fleshed out.
a. The articles exams the 12 civil food libel laws to determine what constitutes a
violation of the law and how the laws reach across states despite being only state
not federal laws.
b. The article exams the 2011 federal food safety law particularly the whistleblower
protection and how this might interact with current food libel laws.
c. The article looks at the effects that food libel laws and other laws that limit the
criticism of industry can have on the health and lives of people and whether the
laws are a violation of free speech.
5. What three quotes capture the critical import of the text?
a. “In the 60 Minutes case, one commentator described the parties’ eight competing
experts as “all over the map” on the safety question.40 And how many defendants
could mount a defense as CBS could? Or as Oprah Winfrey could? Potentially, a
food libel plaintiff could “actually win a case even though the defamatory
statement is true simply because the defendant is not evidentially or financially
able to prove its truth.”
b. “Far from being fixed or universal, science is a highly contingent social
construction whereby a plethora of nonscientific factors influence the
methodologies and assumptions adopted by scientists.” As a result, science is
“capable of delivering merely a version of the ‘truth’ which has its roots in the
premises, methodologies and values of the system within which it is articulated.””
c. “the new federal food safety law specifically states that nothing in it shall alter the
respective authorities of the Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS or limit the
authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Federal Meat Inspection Act,
the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act.
Accordingly, fruits, nuts, dairy, seafood, and vegetables are within the scope of
the new federal food safety law but not meat, poultry, or eggs. All these foods fall
within the state “perishable” food libel laws discussed above.”
6. Explain how the argument and evidence in the text supports your research focus.
a. I think that if people were more informed about where their food came from they
would be more likely to each environmentally friendly choices and well as
socially conscious choices. Food libel laws are a big obstacle to knowing where
food comes from because people who try to be honest about it can be sued.
7. List at least two details or references from the text that you have used in your
presentation and wiki post
a. The spread of food borne illness in the United States and how the issue of food
health is not adequately addressed because of food libel laws.
b. How scientific fact can be bias and is not in fact as clear cut as many might
believe.
Due: 12/02
1.
Go Fix It!
Whitney Novotny
Full citation.
a. Role of credence and health information in determining US consumers' willingness-topay for grass-finished beef. Umberger, Wendy J., Boxall, Peter C. and Lacy, R. Curt. s.l. :
The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2009, Vol. 53.
2.
Where does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his
credentials?
a. Author: Wendy J. Umberger
b. Credentials: Director of the Global Food studies Program at the University of
Adelaide. Received her PhD from University of Nebraska-Lincoln in Agricultural
Economics. Research focused on understanding the drivers of consumer and
producer behavior and the implications of changing behavior for global food
systems.
c. Other Works: “Determining Retailer and Wholesaler Demand and Market
Potential for Regionally-Grown Beef in South Australia”, “Examination of
Consumers Perceptions of Various Wine Product and Health Related Labelling
Policies”. Many of her works are focused on the effect of consumer perception on
food markets.
3. What is the main topic or argument of the text?
a. The article analyzes the willingness of the American market to pay for premium
grass fed compared to grain fed beef.
4. Describe at least three ways that the main topic or argument is fleshed out.
a. To determine the viability of grass fed-beef the study looked at three different
aspects of taste and quality to determine if there was a preference for grass fed
beef. The study consisted of a blind taste-test, a visual evaluation with no taste
information, and a taste test with complete visual information.
b. The study then did an economic analysis where they analyzed through a bidding
system how much people are willing to pay for premium beef.
c. The study also looked at how marketing of grass fed beef effects the buyers
decision to chose the more expensive grass fed beef over grain fed beef.
5. What three quotes capture the critical import of the text?
a. “Information related to beef production processes increased the probability
consumers would be willing to pay a premium for grass-fed beef. However, it
appears that health-related messages are more important drivers of willingness-topay, on average, than the absence of antibiotics and supplemental hormones and
traceability.”
b. “Considering the mean ratings of 11 different attributes, humane treatment of
animals, traceability and no growth hormones were the most important attributes.
On an average, 54.6 per cent, 48.3 per cent and 40.0 per cent of consumers
indicated a belief that the nutritional value, eating quality and food safety,
respectively, of grass-finished beef was higher than conventional beef.”
Due: 12/02
Go Fix It!
Whitney Novotny
c. “The growth of an economically viable grass market in the US will likely depend
on the palatability (e.g. tenderness) and quality of grass beef being similar to grain
beef, as well as having consistently available and affordable supplies of grassfinished beef.”
6. Explain how the argument and evidence in the text supports your research focus.
a. This study showed that people prefer to choose grass fed beef over grain fed beef
when they were properly informed, if the quality and taste were comparable, and
if the price could be justified. This is important because it demonstrates that
people are willing to pay more for health reasons.
7. List at least two details or references from the text that you have used in your
presentation and wiki post
a. The fact that consumers were more willing to buy grass fed beef when they
understood the concerns with grain fed beef.
b. The difficulty in introducing grain fed beef to the American diet due to the leaner
quality of grain fed beef. Grain fed beef creates the marbling quality the
Americans appreciate.