Final Post

Some of the most interesting/useful things I've learned about food this quarter would be that food has become more about what is in it and not what it actually is, and people are so consumed with eating healthy we (yes, I am guilty as well) look past what we are actually eating. We pay more attention to what isn't in the food (saturated fat, cholesterol, etc.) than what is in the food (additives and other potentially harmful ingredients. This matters to me because over the course of this quarter my eating habits have started to change after learning the things I have through the readings and class discussions. I'm more conscious about what is added to my food rather than what has been taken out to make it more "healthy."

In terms of research, the most useful thing I have learned this quarter would be to bring in the quotes, analyze them and discuss them in further detail. While I learned this in high school, I tend to forget such rules when I don't write for extended periods of time (such was the case from high school to college.

In the future when I am in my other classes, I will definitely use the research and writing strategies I learned this quarter to write my papers. I will also make more conscious decisions on what I eat, but not focus on the nutrients so much, but make sure I am not putting more additives that could be harmful in my body and try to eat food I like, but in smaller portions. Like the French!

EE2

A Non-Snacker’s Manifesto

     Growing up, I was always taught that three meals a day that incorporated all the essential food groups, along with adequate exercise, was the best way to maintain a healthy weight or help one loose some extra undesired pounds. However, as I got into high school and took ninth grade health, my teacher explained that nowadays, this is not the case. “Nowadays eating habits are moving away from eating three substantial meals a day to eating smaller amounts of food more frequently(snacking)” (Chaplin & Smith). More people are snacking in between meals, or completely altering their eating habits and having five snacks per day rather than three meals and a couple snacks in between. I am more of a three meals per day type of person myself, for a multitude of reasons. The main reasons I do not snack is because most of my snacks are not healthy (chips and cheese dip, Pop Tarts, etc.), and as a broke college student, snacks are not a top priority for spending money. As I was going through the class food logs, there was a number of people who had different snacks incorporated into their days. With snacking becoming a prevalent occurrence in many people’s lives, one has to wonder if snacking really is healthier for you, if it is worse, or if it makes no difference at all.

     When I was a young girl, I remember waking up from naps or coming home from school and my grandmother giving me juice and cookies, a tangerine, or some sort of small snack to hold me over until dinner time. As I got older and progressed into middle school and high school, nap time became frowned upon more and more, and the snack times subsided. I was told snacking would make me fat and it was better for me to have three “square meals” per day, but constantly wondered how my cousins could still snack all they wanted and maintain healthy weights. According to experts at the Institute of Food Technologists 2001 Annual Meeting and Food Expo in New Orleans, weight gain resulting from snacking “depends both on the snacker and his or her chosen snack” (Mann). Some people gain weight faster and easier than others, especially if their idea of a snack is something heavy in calories or more like another meal. Richard D. Mattes, a professor of food and nutrition at Purdue University says, “Snacks are more of an eating event or fourth meal for some.” He goes on to note that, “Part of the problem is that there is not a good definition of what constitutes a snack.... For example, if the first thing you put in your mouth is a granola bar at 10 a.m., is it a snack or a meal?” (Mann) People today also spend more time snacking than years previous. From about 15 minutes a day in 2006 to 30 minutes in 2008 and spending “about 85 minutes a day drinking our snacks,” snacking now includes drinking beverages like coffee or sugary sodas, and is “on its way to becoming a national pastime” (Mann). But is it bad for every person, and will it lead to making people gain weight or other health problems?

     When I entered high school, I began to make new friends who transferred from other districts. A few of those friends had conditions such as diabetes or hypoglycemia, and there was not a single time I saw them without some sort of snack. From a small bag of Cheetos to an apple or a cheese stick, they constantly had food with them and never gained a pound. So why was it that when my other friends or I snacked and would gain weight? Turns out, only about 50 percent of people need to snack, according to an article in the Huffington Post. For those who have conditions that require them to eat periodically through the day, snacking is a logical way to make sure their blood sugar levels don’t go berserk. For those of us who just like to eat in between meals, this is not always the case. 

     In a study done to see what different definitions and perceptions people had about snacking based on age, gender, etc., researchers found that a person’s definition of “snack” and “meal” determined if he or she chose healthier snack options and maintained a healthy weight (Chaplin & Smith). Many of my friends who were snacking regularly would have apple slices with peanut butter, a cheese stick or granola bar of some sort, or a bag of chips as a last resort if they forgot to bring foods rich in proteins, which helps slow the release of sugar into the blood, preventing an insulin spike which causes an energy crash, sending one “searching for more food to nibble on” (Unknown). Their definition of a snack was not calorie-heavy products or food they would normally eat as a meal. Rather, they chose to snack on foods that were not only healthy, but rich in proteins or had some sort of nutritional value to carry them on until their next meal.

     When I was younger, my snacks consisted of sugary cookies and juices. Now that I am older and more aware of the repercussions eating such foods has on my body, I tend to eat healthier, especially on the rare occasions when I snack, though my choices are still not the best (small bag of chips, some crackers or something I can grab and go with). The National Diet and Nutrition Survey in the United Kingdom measuring the types and quantities of food consumed by over one thousand adults aged 19-64 between 2000 and 2001. The survey found that younger adults 19-24 years old “were more likely to consume chips, savory snacks and soft drinks and less likely to eat daily portions of fruit and vegetables, wholegrain and high fibre cereals and oil rich fish” (Anderson). However, the average number of times a person would snack during a day is the same for every age group (Chaplin & Smith). These findings are evident in my family, with my grandparents snacking much more often than I do throughout a day, but on healthier foods like apples, carrots, or celery. 

     When I was in middle school health class, there was an entire unit dedicated to healthy eating and exercise. We learned about what food groups we should be getting a lot of and which we should stray away from. The lovely food pyramid made an appearance a few times as well, and we had to memorize what groups were recommended to eat more of than others for the exam. Just a few short years later when I entered high school, the food pyramid changed again and our health class had to memorize that one. So many experts and programs have come out to tell us what is best for our diets, what we should eat as a treat and what should be on our plates for nearly every meal, it is hard to remember what and how we should be feeding our bodies nowadays. Protein is recommended since it helps prevent the feeling of being hungry, but fruits and veggies should not be skimped out on, as they provide “hydration, fiber and nutrients to between-meal nibbles” (Unknown). There are also recommendations for how to eat, such as avoiding sitting down with a bag of chips or eating while working or watching television because you are more likely to forget how much you’ve eaten and keep stuffing your face. 

     When I first heard about snacking periodically throughout the day potentially being more healthy than eating three meals per day and nothing in between them, there were multiple reasons people were telling me it was more beneficial. Reasons such as it keeps one from eating more than they should at their next meal, it keeps one more full longer, or it makes one less stressed and more energized were all spouted off, but I was skeptical and stuck to my three meals. In reality, none of these statements are completely true. Depending on the person and what their definitions of a snack and a meal are will have a lot to do with his or her weight, along with what snack options they choose (Chaplin & Smith). Furthermore, depending on what foods one consumes as his or her snack will determine if snacking really does keep one more full longer, along with where one is snacking. If one is standing at the fridge, for example, he or she is more likely to consume more food than if the alternative of pouring some chips into a small bowl and being done when the bowl was empty were taken (Mann). Finally, in a study conducted to determine if there are any mental health or cognitive performance benefits when it comes to snacking, no such data was found that snacking provided such benefits. Out of 126 participants, those who never snacked or only did so once a week were more likely to be depressed than those who snacked everyday, but when it came to cognitive tests, those who rarely or never snacked scored better than those who snacked everyday (Smith). 

     So is snacking really better for us, or is it worse? The answer is complicated. Depending on the person and what he or she chooses to eat plays an important factor in one’s health concerning snacking, along with if the person has a condition that requires him or her to snack periodically throughout the day. It is not necessarily beneficial for us to snack, unless we choose wisely and eat our proteins, but not forget the fruits and vegetables as well (Mann). Also consider if snacking makes you choose healthier options for your next meal, or if you find yourself eating the same things, and the same amounts. If this is the case, most likely snacking is not for you and is just “an added source of calories” (Unknown). If not snacking seems to make you feel down or depressed for any reasons, you could consider trying it for a while, but do not expect to see drastic differences in your mood, nor your ability to spot objects faster, as that is not likely to occur (Smith). 

     In the end, it depends on who you are, how you eat, and what you eat when you snack. I sometimes consider crossing over to “team-snackers,” but when I consider all the factors that one should consider when thinking if snacking is right for them, I do not qualify. My snacks tend to be more like small meals and hardly ever have nutritional value, not to mention I am one of those “bottomless pit” eaters who will take a bag of chips with me to the living room and return to the kitchen to throw the bag away. I will stick to my three meals per day and no snacking in between, though on the rare occasions I do snack, I will attempt to lean more toward the healthier options rather than eat a bag of Cheetos or an entire row of Oreos.

Works Cited

Anderson, Annie S. "Snacking Habits in Adults." Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 16.1 (2003): 1-2. Print.

Chaplin, K., & Smith, A. P. (2011). Definitions and perceptions of snacking. Current Topics in Nutraceuticals Research, 9(1), 53-59. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ docview/919438987?accountid=14608

Mann, Denise. N.p.. Web. 23 May 2013. <http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=146181>.

Smith, Andrew P. "Snacking Habit, Mental Health, and Cognitive Performance." Current Topics in Nutraceuticals Research 9.1 (2011): 47-51. ProQuest. Web. 14 May 2013.

Unknown, . N.p.. Web. 23 May 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/healthy-snack-tips-mistakes_n_2948396.html>.

P9

        How do people decide what a healthy diet is, and who should the “restrictions” be directed toward? For centuries, people have been trying to decide what the perfect healthy diet for people is, and every few years or so brings new findings that substances we are eating are not as good for us as we thought they were, or something that is good for us that we either did not know about, or thought was previously bad for us. In the two articles by Dupuis and Pollan, the writers focus a lot on this topic, discussing how food became more about what is in it than what is actually is. Dupuis writes, “By World War I, nutrition professionals had become less interested in promoting the least expensive diet for workers and began to focus instead on the best diet for optimum public health and vitality” (40). This shows how professionals began to change their viewpoints from what is cheap and easy to get a hold of, to what the best options were nutrition wise for large numbers of people. Pollan writes of days when companies would proudly show the place of origin for the product on the brightly colored packages, but “now new terms like ‘fiber’ and ‘cholesterol’ and ‘saturated fat’ rose to large-type prominence” (2). Once people discovered what was really in the foods we were eating, we started to drift away from those diets and stress eating healthier and paying attention to what was in our food. 

        After reading the two articles, I can think of so many examples of it being more about what is in the food rather than what the food is. High cholesterol runs on my dad’s side of the family, so he, my brothers and I all try to watch what we eat. When shopping, I tend to look for foods that are low in cholesterol, or buy products like Cheerios that claim they may help reduce cholesterol (really I just love Cheerios, the low cholesterol thing is just an added bonus). Recently, however, my dad and I have decided that rather than just looking for such foods, we start monitoring what we eat and do so in portion sizes. It got to the point where worrying about what was in the foods made shopping much more of a chore than it needed to be, so we still eat goods good for keeping cholesterol low or lowering it, but less often. This is not the case for many people, however. When shopping, I see so many people look for foods that advertise for low cholesterol, high fiber and protein foods rather than looking for healthy options that also taste good. People would rather buy products that don’t taste good but claim to be low in cholesterol, fat, etc., than eat the foods they like and portion the “bad” ingredients they worry so much about. 

In-class blog post

I decide what to eat based on a few things. First, I look at what looks or sounds good. This is mainly while I am here at DU, because Sodexo food is either hit or miss depending on the day. I then try to think about what I have already eaten for the day, and if I am "balanced" in my choices (i.e, if I think I've had more dairy than I have fruits or vegetables, I try to get more fruits and vegetables for my next meal). Usually, when I'm home, I prefer to cook my own meals because then I am more aware of what I am putting into my body and how much of a certain category (protein, fruit, etc.) I am getting. I also prefer to eat with my friends and family as much as I can, because for some reason I tend to be more conscious of what I am eating when I am around other people. When I have moments of weakness (wanting a brownie or something I don't need) I consult those sitting with me to reinforce the statement "you don't need it."

To Snack, or not to Snack?

My high school health teacher taught me that many people today have one of two views on healthy eating: eat three nutritious meals a day and have your last meal before seven at night, or eat three small-to medium-sized meals a day, and have two or three small, healthy snacks in between. Have you ever wondered if, in fact, snacking really is good for you, or the effects it could potentially have on your body? In a study done to test the effects that snacking can have on the body, the School of Psychology at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom aims to find some answers.  

There were 126 members in the first study, and all were asked to measure their snacking habits on “a 5-point scale with the following categories: Never; Less than once a week; once or twice a week; most days; and everyday” (Smith 47). Multiple questionnaires were given to the participants to measure their mental health, with subcategories being stress, depression, emotional distress, and anxiety (Smith 48). Results found that people who never snacked or only did so once a week had a higher mean score (9.07) than those who snacked everyday (7.27), meaning they were more likely to be depressed, stressed, etc. However, those who snacked most days had the lowest mean score of depression, with 6.86. The same pattern is evident for emotional distress, state anxiety, and perceived stress with those who never or rarely snacked having the highest numbers, and those who snacked everyday having the second lowest numbers. 

Participants were also shown a list of 20 words every 2 seconds, and asked to write down as many of the words they could remember, in no particular order. After, they were asked to press a response key whenever they saw a square appear in the box on a computer screen. They were also given statements about the order of letters A and B. They were asked to read the statements and decide if the statement was true or false, pressing the corresponding keys. Finally, the participants were shown 100 three digit numbers on the computer screen per minute, and had to detect repetitions that occurred every eight times per minute and respond as quickly as possible.  The results did not show any advantage to those who snacked more often to those who did not. Results varied with each test, with those in the “never/less than once a week” category having higher numbers than the others for three of the tests, those in the “once or twice a week” in one test, and those in “most days” in the other, and “everyday” never having the highest numbers for any of the tests. 

Another study was conducted, this time among young adults between the ages of 19-21 years, all living at home with their parents. The same questionnaires were given to these young adults, along with the same cognitive tests, and the results again showed “little evidence of significant associations between frequency of snacking, mental health and cognitive performance” (Smith 50). Numbers were scattered and varied from test to test and there was no consistency between the tests done with the adult participants and the young adult participants. 

Overall, it seems that snacking everyday is not better for every person, but can help in certain areas. Every person is different and will respond to snacking everyday differently than others, just as every person’s habits for eating healthy and balanced meals are different depending on the person. What should we take from this, then? If you are a snacker, it’s okay to keep snacking if that is what you prefer. Similarly, if you are a person who has three meals a day and no snacks, that is fine as well. Other factors play into mental illness and cognitive performance other than snacking, so do whatever makes you comfortable and what you are used to.

Works Cited

Smith, Andrew P. "Snacking Habit, Mental Health, and Cognitive Performance." Current Topics in Nutraceuticals Research 9.1 (2011): 47-51. ProQuest. Web. 14 May 2013.

Article for SE5

The link I found is a study about snacking, mental health and cognitive performance.

http://0-search.proquest.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/docview/919439042/fulltextPDF?accountid=14608#

Food Log Observations

I noticed that people will either eat only a couple meals a day that are pretty heavy in calories, or they will eat more often through the day, but have more "snack" foods and smaller portions and more healthier foods in general.

P8

Thursday

Breakfast - 8:30 AM

2 tri-tater patties

1 egg & cheese bagel with ham

1 glass of orange juice

2 scoops of plain yogurt with 2 tablespoons of granola

Lunch - 1:30 PM

1 glass of water

1 medium-sized balsamic grilled chicken breast

1 small piece balsamic grilled chicken breast

1 scoop mashed red potatoes

2 scoops applesauce

Dinner - 5 PM

3 strips of thin steak (medium)

1 scoop of rice pilaf

1 bagel with cream cheese

1 red velvet cupcake with cream cheese frosting

1 glass of water

Extras: 3 water-bottles full of water through the day

Friday

Breakfast - 9:15 AM

1 glass of orange juice

3 scoops of oatmeal with 2 tablespoons of brown sugar

1 egg and ham muffin, no cheese

2 scoops of berry yogurt with 2 tablespoons of granola

Lunch - 1 PM

1 piece of batter-fried pollock (McDonald’s fish patty sized)

2 scoops of applesauce

1 glass of water

Dinner - 6 PM

1 bowl of nachos: handful of nachos, 1 scoop each of beans and meat, one small scoop of sour cream and guacamole, handful of lettuce, medium-sized spoonful of salsa

1 bowl of Reese’s Puffs with skim milk

1 glass of water

1 glass of chocolate milk

Extras: 10 PM - 2 pieces of Domino’s pizza (Chicken and onion)

Saturday

Brunch - 12:15 PM

3 spoonfuls of tater tots

4 scoops of berry yogurt with 3 tablespoons of granola

1 glass of orange juice

1 glass of chocolate milk

2 pieces of whole wheat toast with butter and grape jelly

Dinner - 6:15 PM

Mellow Mushroom

2 pieces of bruschetta with feta cheese crumbles and basil

2.5 pieces of buffalo chicken with caramelized onions pizza, ranch drizzled on top

4 glasses of water

Extras: 1 AM - 1 large sub from Fat Jacks (The Don: “Double Genoa salami, spiced capicola ham & double provolone cheese, creamy mayo, vinegar & oil, plus spices. Topped with lettuce.”)

The Journey of Cheese: From the Animal to Your Plate

        Coming from a family where our motto is “we did not get fat not knowing how to cook,” I have grown up around many different types of food made with many different kinds of ingredients. One ingredient, however, seems to be prevalent in many of the dishes my family prepares. Cheese plays a major role in the dishes my family makes and consumes through the year. While it is not in every dish made, we make a point to add it to any dish we can and get away with it. Be it nachos, macaroni and cheese, or homemade shepard’s pie, my family uses cheese often, without ever thinking about where it comes from, how it’s made, or how long it has been available to society to make food taste a little better.

According to the International Dairy Food Association (IDFA), “The making of cheese dates back more than 4,000 years,” and while no one knows who the first person to make cheese was, there is an ancient legend that it was accidentally made by an Arabian merchant who put milk in his sheep’s stomach pouch and proceeded to travel across the desert. It is said that after a day in the desert, the milk separated into curd and whey, and the merchant found it to satisfy both his thirst and his hunger (Roeder). The article also discusses how Asian travelers are believed to “have brought the art of cheese making to Europe,” and “was made in many parts of the Roman Empire when it was at its height” (Roeder). The Romans then introduced cheese making to England, and from the decline of the Roman Empire until the discovery of America, “cheese was made and improved by the monks in the monasteries of Europe” (Roeder). 

Cheese making continued to be popular in Europe, and was even included in the Mayflower’s supplies when the Pilgrims headed westward to America in 1620. Once in the new world, cheese making quickly spread, but remained a local farm industry until the nineteenth century, when the first cheese factory was built by Jesse Williams in Oneida County, New York in 1851 (Roeder). As the population in the United States grew, so did the demand for cheese, and thus the demand for more dairy farms in the country, with the center of the industry being focused on the rich lands of Wisconsin. In 1845, a group of Swiss immigrants settled in Green County and began the manufacturing of foreign cheese in America. At the time, many Wisconsin farmers believed their future survival “was tied to cheese and their first factory was a Limburger plan which opened in 1868” (Roeder). 

The industry began to boom in the later part of the 1800s, with a total of 3,923 dairy factories in the United States in 1880, producing 216 million pounds of cheese that year alone, totaling to $17 million, making up almost ninety percent of total cheese production for that year (Roeder). The industry only grew after the 1880s, with the total natural cheese production growing from 418 million pounds in 1920 to 2.2 billion pounds by 1970. Further rising demand through the 1970s and 1980s took total natural cheese production to more than 6 billion pounds around the beginning of the 1990s. However, processed cheese experienced an increase in demand from the consumers, and annual production exceeded 2 billion pounds per year by the beginning of the 1990s (Roeder). Presently, the United States uses more than one-third of all the milk produced in the country each year to make cheese. Roeder also notes that as the appetites for all types of cheese continue to expand, the industry will expand even further as well.

After reading about the history of cheese and getting an appreciation of how long the dairy bi-product has been around, I decided to go a step further and see how some cheeses are made today. I thought it would be a fairly simple process of taking the milk and letting it sit until it turns to cheese, however I found this is not the case. There are many different ways to make different cheeses, and the ingredients for different cheeses are different. 

The most obvious ingredient in cheese is milk, but what kind of milk that is used depends on the type of cheese that is being made. The different kinds of milk that are most commonly used come from cows, goats, sheep, water buffalos, or a mixture of the four. Coagulant type also depends on the type of cheese desired. For example, acid cheeses will use an acid source like acetic acid, while rennet cheeses (most hard cheeses) use calf rennet or a rennet produced through microbial bioprocessing. Sometimes calcium chloride is added to improve the coagulation properties of milk. Flavorings can also be added depending on the cheese, with common ingredients including herbs, spices, hot and sweet peppers, horseradish, and port wine (Unknown). There are twelve processes it takes to go from milk to packaged and shipped cheese. They are to standardize the milk, which is done to optimize the protein to fat ratio to make a good quality cheese. After that, the milk has to be pasteurized or heated, depending on the cheese desired. This reduces the number of spoilage organisms and improves the environment for starter cultures to grow. In some cases, raw milk cheeses are not pasteurized or heated, so they must age for at least 60 days (Unknown). 

Once the milk is pasteurized or heated, it is cooled, then inoculated with starter and non-starter bacteria for 30 minutes so it can ripen. This allows the bacteria to grow and begin fermentation, which develops the flavor of cheese. The rennet is then added, which helps form the curd, and the milk sits undisturbed for about 30 minutes. The curd then ferments until it reaches pH 6.4, at which point it is cut with cheese knives and heated to 100 degrees. This helps to separate the whey from the curd. The whey is then drained from the vat, the curd forms a mat, and the mats are cut into sections and goes through the process of “cheddaring,” which helps expel more whey and allows fermentation to occur until pH of 5.1 to 5.5 is reached. Some cheeses are then salted, then formed into blocks and stored to age until they are ready to be packaged to be sent to consumers all over the world (Unknown).

When starting my research I was nervous I would learn something that would steer me away from how cheese is produced, yet I sit here eating string cheese completely unfazed by my newfound knowledge. I learned how tedious of a process it is to produce most cheeses, and that cheese has been a part of society for thousands of years, growing exponentially from the 1970s to 1990s, and still growing today as the demand grows. I don’t think my research will effect my relationship with cheese, though I may have more of an appreciation of how long it takes to make it and the many different methods there are to make specific cheeses. Maybe the next time I get the chance to eat Brie, I won’t eat it so fast, but savor it and think of the journey it took to get to my plate.

Works Cited

Roeder, Jeannette. N.p.. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.idfa.org/news--views/media-kits/cheese/history-of-cheese/>.

Unknown, . N.p.. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.milkfacts.info/Milk Processing/Cheese Production.htm>.

P7

In Christopher Cook’s “Foul Trouble,” the production of chicken meat is traced by accounting what the employees have seen and experienced. The different jobs needed to transport the chickens from their pen to the supermarket in a timely manner so they can be bought are discussed, which have the titles like deboner, offal room attendant, evisc, or workers who are in charge of taking all the innards out of the body, catchers, and hangers. Every worker, no matter what their job title, has a dangerous job when it comes to the way chickens are processed and prepped to go to the supermarket. Cook writes about how sometimes when getting rid of the tendons, taking the bones out, and making sure the chicken meat looks good enough to send off, they often times get cut by themselves or other workers who have lost control of their utensil from the slimy skin (Cook, 79). Because the entire process of catching the chickens and getting them consumer ready must be done quickly, many of the workers suffer from long-term issues like the inability to use their hands.

In “Tomatoland,” Barry Eastbrook goes into more detail about the health effects employees and workers have when exposed to carcinogens and terrible living conditions. He discusses how, in some cases, the workers are slaves to tomato fields, held against their will and are forced to work or they will be beaten. The introduction also discusses how little nutritional value the tomatoes have because of commercial farming. He notes that a fresh tomato today has 30 percent less vitamin C and Thiamin, 19 percent less Niacin, and 62 percent less calcium than 50 years ago in the 60s, however it does have fourteen times as much sodium as it did in the 60s (Eastbrook, X). This article relates to Cook’s in that they both discuss the conditions under which the employees have to work so the consumers can have their chicken, or their tomatoes when it’s not tomato season.

Similar to both the other pieces, “An Animal’s Place,” by Michael Pollan discusses the ethics of eating animals, and the condition of the ways in which our meat is raised in the United States. He talks about how pigs are taken away from their mothers so much earlier than in the wild, the state in which cows and hens live and ultimately asks that if we know that animals can feel pain, why are we treating them the way we are?

All three of these pieces seemed to come to a general conclusion about the food industry in the United States. Animals are not being treated like they should, and workers in such places are exposed to so many health risks it’s insane. Reading all of these brought back memories of Food, Inc., and I probably won’t be eating chicken for a few days.