Revised final research paper about the danger of HFCS

         High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has recently received considerable media attention for its negative impacts on consumers’ health. Most investigators and nutritionists believe that the increase in obesity in the United States has paralleled the increasing use of HFCS. Current soft drinks and many other foods are sweetened with this product because it is inexpensive and has useful manufacturing properties. All of these reasons directly benefits the food companies, but are causing body damage and metabolic diseases for the consumers. Even though the corn lobby is trying to prove that HFCS is nearly similar to regular sugar, this is not true. HFCS is high in fructose (55%-72% fructose and 45%-28% glucose) that is bad for our health. Now, this highly processed sweetener that is metabolized differently in the human body than has become a major concern for American health. Therefore, American consumers should have the clear knowledge about the dangers of HFCS that they are consuming everyday in their daily diets.

       First of all, HFCS is very different from regular table sugar. It is a highly processed sweetener that is bad for our health. If you ever tasted cornstarch, you know that it is not sweet. It has a dry and powdery taste. Turning corn into a sweetener involves a long complicated process. It is first processed into glucose using a series of enzymes. The glucose is then converted into a high concentration of fructose using another treatment with enzymes. However, sucrose has a natural chemical bond between fructose (C5H12O6) and glucose(C6H12O6) that requires energy (calories) to break and has to be broken down in the small intestine, so your body has to do a little more work to get fructose. Yet, in HFCS that bond is already broken down for you during manufacturing and ready to go directly to your liver where it is converted to fat. For the bad side of processed sweeteners, Michael Pollan, the author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” which takes a critical look at the food business, writes an article “Enzymztically Altered Corn Glucose” in NYT that “Enzymatically Altered Corn Glucose” is a more accurate description of HFCS (Pollan). He explains: “the name also connotes a highly-processed, novel food ingredient, which has always been the best reason to avoid it: not only because it is necessarily worse for you than sugar, but also because it is a marker for a whole class of processed foods we’d do well to keep out of our diet”(Pollan). Like Pollan, there are lots of scientists and nutritionists who highly recommend that American people do not to consume HFCS. They said that because high fructose corn syrup is a sugar substitutes that is high in fructose. The ratio of HFCS is 55% to 72% fructose and 45% to 28% glucose that make this sweetener different from regular table sugar. The ratio of regular sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Fructose can cause metabolic disorder in our body. Every cell in our body can metabolize glucose, but only the liver can metabolize fructose. Fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion that is important for our body. Also fructose does not stimulate the leptin response (an essential hormone for our body). Moreover, fructose more readily than glucose replenishes liver glycogen that stored carbohydrates in the liver, at this time triglyceride synthesis occurs, which is basically fat synthesis. So the HFCS that is high in fructose is different from regular table sugar. For all the profits and making good business, the corn lobby has spent to politics you saying that all the sugars are “equal” but usually those are “unequal” by its ingredients.   

    Secondly, our body does not process HFCS the same way it processes regular table sugar. Some scientists said that HFCS may contribute to obesity by somehow disrupting normal metabolic function. HFCS prevents the pancreas from releasing insulin. Without insulin, our body could not recognize when we are full. If the body does not know when it is full, we may not stop eating until we have eaten way more calories than we actually need. The article “Nutrition & Metabolism”, by Salwa Rizkalla provides acute studies on humans. Studies were mainly arranged to find the solution for the debate that was fuelled by the hypothesis that the leading cause of obesity is HFCS because it bypasses the food intake regulatory system (insulin and leptin) and favors lipogenesis. It was mainly hypothesized that energy containing drinks, particularly those sweetened with HFCS promotes energy imbalance so it plays an important role in the development of obesity. In an acute-term study, 12 normal weight women consumed meals with 55, 30 or 15% of total calories as carbohydrates, fats and proteins with 30% of Kcal as either glucose sweetened or fructose sweetened beverages.  As expected, insulin secretion and glucose excursion were lower after consuming fructose containing meals than after glucose ones. After this acute-term study, the authors of this study suggested that because insulin and leptin, the main regulatory factors of food intake, were lower after fructose meals; they might increase caloric intake and that ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity. Therefore, those who are on opposite sides should come to agree that the HFCS is clearly related to the obesity epidemic in America.

       Thirdly, many food producers argue that the increase in metabolic diseases may have been due to the increase in any kind of sugar consumption, but not due to the consumption of HFCS alone. The article “Fructose Consumption,” by Kimber L.Stanhope states the facts about the implication of fructose in the human body by providing recent data on sugar consumption that are resulted from a recent study. The study compared the effects of consuming fructose- sweetened beverages at 25% of energy requirement with those of consuming glucose-sweetened beverages over a 10 week period in older, overweight/ obese adults. Even though, both subjects consuming glucose-sweetened beverages and those consuming fructose-sweetened beverages exhibited an increase of body weight, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. There is considerable data suggesting that visceral adipose deposition is more closely associated with metabolic disease, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. There were several other important differences between the effects of fructose and glucose consumption in this study. Twenty-four-hour postprandial triglyceride (TG) profiles were increased by fructose consumption, but tended to decrease after glucose consumption. Fasting plasma concentration of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and other types of cholesterol which considered as bad fats, such as apolipoprotien B (apoB), small-dense LDL (sdLDL), oxidized LDL and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle lipoprotein (RLP)-TG and of RLP cholesterol were also increase in subjects consuming fructose-sweetened beverages, but not in those subjects consuming glucose-sweetened beverages. These changes were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Also, a research report published by a scientific journal “Environmental Health” led by Renee Dufault of United Tribes Technical College in North Dakota, reported that there was mercury found in 45 percent of HFCS sample they tasted. Mercury at any level is considered a neurological toxin that can be harmful to developing fetuses and young children. So, the HFCS is considerably responsible for metabolic diseases in its consumers.

       Finally, corn producers are getting benefits from their productions of HFCS. The ingredient (HFCS) is very popular for food manufacturers for practical reasons. Compared with sucrose, HFCS is cheaper (due to government subsidize on corn),does not mask flavors, has lower freezing point, blends well and moisture better with a variety of products, which is useful in making foods like chewy granola bars, and also helps to maintain foods  a longer shelf life. As a result it is now used in many foods, from crackers to soft drinks, even in spaghetti. If you pay attention and read the labels of your favorite packaged and processed foods, you can see that HFCS is every where. In the documentary film “King Corn”, the film maker Curt Ellis said that HFCS is in thousands and thousands of products. He also said that when you make spaghetti at your home, you probably don’t put sugar on that, but as you can see, there is HFCS already in your spaghetti. According to the article “Fructose Consumption”, the writer said in his article that the advances and growth in both the food processing and food service industries have made the more palatable foods available for their customers, but they are nutrient-deficient and are high in sugar. Actually, profit margins are a primary determinant of why food producers do not add and continue to serve healthier food options to their customers. Finally the Corn Refiners Association has been trying to improve the image of the much detrimental sweetener by promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. The group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to get permission for calling the ingredient “corn sugar.” Dr. Andrew Weil, best selling author and alternative medicine pioneer, said “I don’t like “corn sugar.” I’m in favor of sticking with “high fructose corn syrup.” That is what it is, and I don’t agree that it’s innocuous” (NYT). I also strongly agree with him, because I think, the sound of new name is like; the corn producers are trying to make a policy to trick consumers by giving an ambiguous knowledge about their products.

         In conclusion, by reviewing many research reports, now I can say that the HFCS is one of the major contributors of metabolic diseases in human body. FDA should limit the use of HFCS syrup in food products and government should subsidies for healthy foods, like organic and whole foods to make healthier options available for American consumers.

Consumers should know what they are eating. They should read the food labels very carefully and should avoid HFCS containing foods. They should try to make foods at home at least four or five times a week. Home made food is considered as a healthy and delicious food at one hand, and on the other hand, it also helps you spend your money for a good health. Therefore, be smart when you make decision to get a food choice. 

                                            

                                                     WORKS CITED

Estabrook, Barry. “Politics of the Plate: High-Mercury Corn Syrup.” Gourmet.com. Web. 26 April, 2011.

 Flavin, Dana, MS, MD, PHD. “Metabolic Danger of High-Fructose Corn Syrup.” Life Extension Magazine. 01 December. 2008. Web. 26 April 2011.

King Corn. Aaron Woolf. Curt, Ellis, Jeffrey K. Millar. 2007. Film

Pollan, Michael. “Enzymatically Altered Corn Glucose”. New York Times. New York Times, 20 September. 2010. Web. 02 May, 2011.

Parker,Tara-Pope. “A new name for high fructose corn syrup.” New York Times. New York Times, 14 September. 2010. Web. 02 May, 2011.

Parker,Tara-Pope. “In worries About Sweeteners, Think of All Sugars.” New York Times. New York Times, 20 September.2010. Web. 02 may, 2011.

Rizkalla, Salwa W. “Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data.” Nutrition & metabolism: 2010, vol. 7, p82-98, print.

Smith, Andrew F. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

Stanhope, Kimber L. Havel, Peter J. “Fructose consumption: recent results and their potential implications.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science: March.2010, vol. 1190 Issue 1, p15-24, Print.

The Danger of High Fructose Corn Syrup

                                    

        High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has recently received considerable media attention for its negative impacts on consumer’s health. Most investigators and nutritionists believe that the increase in obesity in the last 35 years has paralleled the increasing use of HFCS, which first appeared just before 1917. Current soft drinks and many other foods are sweetened with this product because it is inexpensive and has useful manufacturing properties. All of these reasons directly benefits the food companies, but are causing body damage and metabolic diseases for the consumers. Even though corn lobby (corn producers) is trying to prove that the HFCS is nearly similar to the regular sugar, it is not true because HFCS is high in fructose that is bad for our health. Now, this highly processed sweetener that is metabolized differently in the human body has become a major concern for American health. Therefore, American consumers should have the clear knowledge about the dangers of HFCS that they are consuming everyday in their daily diets.

       First of all, HFCS is very different from regular table sugar. It is a highly processed sweetener that is bad for our health. If you ever tasted cornstarch, you know that it is not sweet. It has a dry and powdery taste. Turning it into a sweetener, it involves a long complicated process. It is first processed into glucose using a series of enzymes. The glucose is then converted into a high concentration of fructose using another treatment with enzymes. However, sucrose has a natural chemical bond between F and G that requires energy (calories) to break and has to be broken down in the small intestine, so your body has to do a little more work to get fructose. Yet, in HFCS that bond is already broken down for you during manufacturing and ready to go directly to your liver where it is converted to fat. For the bad side of processed sweeteners, Michael Pollan, the author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” which takes a critical look at the food business, says “Enzymatically Altered Corn Glucose” is a more accurate description of HFCS. He explains: “the name also connotes a highly-processed, novel food ingredient, which has always been the best reason to avoid it: not only because it is necessarily worse for you than sugar, but also because it is a marker for a whole class of processed foods we’d do well to keep out of our diet”(NYT). Like Michael, there are lots of scientists and nutritionists who highly recommend the American people not to consume HFCS. Moreover, the high fructose corn syrup is high in fructose. The ratio of HFCS is 55% to 72% fructose and 45% to 28% glucose that make this sweetener different from regular table sugar. The ratio of regular sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. For all the profits and making good business, the corn lobby has spent to politics you saying that all the sugars are “equal” but usually those are “unequal” by its ingredients.  

    Secondly, our body does not process HFCS the same way it processes regular table sugar. Some scientists said that HFCS may contribute to obesity by somehow disrupting normal metabolic function. HFCS prevents our pancreas from releasing insulin. Without insulin, our body could not recognize when we are full. If the body does not know when it is full, we may not stop eating until we have eaten way more calories than we actually need. The article “Nutrition & Metabolism”, by Rizkalla Salwa W. provides acute studies on humans. Studies were mainly arranged to find the solution for the debate that was fuelled by the hypothesis that the leading cause of obesity is HFCS because it bypasses the food intake regulatory system (insulin and leptin) and favors lipogenesis. It was mainly hypothesized that energy containing drinks, particularly those sweetened with HFCS promotes energy imbalance so it plays an important role in the development of obesity. In an acute-term study, 12 normal weight women consumed meals with 55, 30 or 15% of total calories as carbohydrates, fats and proteins with 30% of Kcal as either glucose sweetened or fructose sweetened beverages.  As expected, insulin secretion and glucose excursion were lower after consuming fructose containing meals than after glucose ones. After this acute-term study, the authors of this study suggested that because insulin and leptin, the main regulatory factors of food intake, were lower after fructose meals; they might increase caloric intake and that ultimately contributes to weight gain and obesity. Therefore, those who are on opposite side should come to agree that the HFCS is clearly related to the obesity epidemic in America.

       Thirdly, many food producers argue that the increase in metabolic diseases may have been due to the increase in any kind of sugar consumption, but not due to the consumption of HFCS alone. The article “Fructose Consumption,” by Kimber L.Stanhope states the facts about the implication of fructose in the human body by providing recent data on sugar consumption that are resulted from a recent study. The study compared the effects of consuming fructose- sweetened beverages at 25% of energy requirement with those of consuming glucose-sweetened beverages over a 10 week period in older, overweight/ obese adults. Even though, both subjects consuming glucose-sweetened beverages and those consuming fructose-sweetened beverages exhibited an increase of body weight, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. There is considerable data suggesting that visceral adipose deposition is more closely associated with metabolic disease, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. There were several other important differences between the effects of fructose and glucose consumption in this study. Twenty-four-hour postprandial triglyceride (TG) profiles were increased by fructose consumption, but tended to decrease after glucose consumption. Fasting plasma concentration of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and other types of cholesterol which considered as bad fats, such as apolipoprotien B (apoB), small-dense LDL (sdLDL), oxidized LDL and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle lipoprotein (RLP)-TG and of RLP cholesterol were also increase in subjects consuming fructose-sweetened beverages, but not in those subjects consuming glucose-sweetened beverages. These changes were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Also, a research report published by a scientific journal “Environmental Health” led by Renee Dufault of United Tribes Technical College in North Dakota, reported that there was mercury found in 45 percent of HFCS sample they tasted. Mercury at any level is considered a neurological toxin that can be harmful to developing fetuses and young children. So, the HFCS is considerably responsible for metabolic diseases in its consumers.

      
    Finally, of course, corn producers are getting benefits from their productions of HFCS. The ingredient (HFCS) is very popular for food manufacturers for practical reasons. Compared with sucrose, HFCS is cheaper (due to government subsidize on corn),does not mask flavors, has lower freezing point, blends well and moisture better with a variety of products, which is useful in making foods like chewy granola bars, and also helps to maintain foods  a longer shelf life. As a result it is now used in many foods, from crackers to soft drinks, even in spaghetti. If you pay attention and read the labels of your favorite packaged and processed foods, you can see that HFCS is every where. In the documentary film “King Corn”, the film maker Curt Ellis said that HFCS is in thousands and thousands of products. He also said that when you make spaghetti at your home, you probably don’t put sugar on that, but as you can see, there is HFCS already in your spaghetti. According to the article “Fructose Consumption”, the writer said in his article that the advances and growth in both the food processing and food service industries have made the more palatable foods available for their customers, but they are nutrient-deficient and are high in sugar. Actually, profit margins are a primary determinant of why food producers do not add and continue to serve healthier food options to their customers. Finally the Corn Refiners Association has been trying to improve the image of the much detrimental sweetener by promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. The group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to get permission for calling the ingredient “corn sugar.” Dr. Andrew Weil, best selling author and alternative medicine pioneer, said “I don’t like “corn sugar.” I’m in favor of sticking with “high fructose corn syrup.” That is what it is, and I don’t agree that it’s innocuous” (NYT). I also strongly agree with him, because I think, the sound of new name is like; the corn producers are trying to make a policy to trick consumers by giving an ambiguous knowledge about their products.

         In conclusion, by reviewing many research reports, now I can say that the HFCS is one of the major contributors of metabolic diseases in human body. FDA should limit the use of HFCS syrup in food products and government should subsidies for healthy foods, like organic and whole foods to make healthier options available for American consumers.

Consumers should know what they are eating. They should read the food labels very carefully and should avoid HFCS containing foods. They should try to make foods at home at least four or five times a week. Home made food is considered as a healthy and delicious food at one hand, and on the other hand, it also helps you spend your money for a good health. Therefore, be smart when you make decision to get a food choice. 

                                                                 WORKS CITED

Estabrook, Barry. “Politics of the Plate: High-Mercury Corn Syrup.” Gourmet.com. Web. 26   April, 2011. <http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/01/politics-of-the-plate-mercury-incorn-syrup>.

 Flavin, Dana, MS, MD, PHD. “Metabolic Danger of High-Fructose Corn Syrup.” Life Extension Magazine. 01 December. 2008. Web. 26 April 2011. <http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/dec2008_Metabolic-Dangers-of-High-Fructose.Corn-Syrup>.

Parker,Tara-Pope. “A new name for high fructose corn syrup.” New York Times. New York Times, 14 September. 2010. Web. 02 May, 2011. <http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/a-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup>.

Parker,Tara-Pope. “In worries About Sweeteners, Think of All Sugars.” New York Times. New York Times, 20 September.2010. Web. 02 may, 2011. <http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/in-worries-about-sweeteners-think-of

Rizkalla, Salwa W. “Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data.” Nutrition & metabolism: 2010, vol. 7, p82-98, print. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=15&hid=104&sid=7b317d7f-ebc5-4229-ba45-85>.

Smith, Andrew F. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

Stanhope, Kimber L. Havel, Peter J. “Fructose consumption: recent results and their potential implications.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science: March.2010, vol. 1190 Issue 1, p15-24, Print. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=15&hid=104&sid=7b317d7f-ebc5-4229-ba45-85>

Tahmina's ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

                                             ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

                                                         Tahmina Haque

Topic: In my final research paper, I will look for the effects of high fructose corn syrup to the human body and also how this consumption benefits America’s entire food industries that related to the America’s economic conditions. More over, I will write about the diseases that result from the excess consumption of high fructose corn syrup. 

Sources:

 Flavin, Dana, MS, MD, PHD. “Metabolic Danger of High-Fructose Corn Syrup.” Life Extension Magazine. 01 December. 2008. Web. 26 April 2011. <http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/dec2008_Metabolic-Dangers-of-High-Fructose.Corn-Syrup>.

                   The author of this little article mainly talks about the metabolic danger of HFCS. He actually tried to say that the calories alone are not the key problem with HFCS, but metabolism of excess amounts of fructose is the major concern.

Mela, D. Food, Diet and Obesity. Cambridge, GBR: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2005. Print.

                      This small part of this book is mainly about the differences between table sugar and HFCS. This chapter also talks about the consequences of these two types of sugar that people consume.

Parker,Tara-Pope. “A new name for high fructose corn syrup.” New York Times. New York Times, 14 September. 2010. Web. 02 May, 2011. <http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/a-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup>.

                    This article of NYT is about the name of HFCS that food producers have to label in their food products. This article is mainly about why food producers wanted to rename HFCS and how policy makers are going to politics their consumers by providing an ambiguous name of HFCS that they want to put in their food labeling.

Rizkalla, Salwa W. “Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data.” Nutrition & metabolism: 2010, vol. 7, p82-98, print. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=15&hid=104&sid=7b317d7f-ebc5-4229-ba45-85>.

                    

                    This article reviews evidence in the context of current research linking dietary fructose to health risk makers. It also talks about how fructose intake has recently received considerable media attention, most of which has been negative.

Smith, Andrew F. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

                       The chapter of this book which I choose to use in my paper is mainly about the primary knowledge about the corn syrup and how scientists produced HFCS from the regular corn syrup that they became very different by their ingredients from each other.

Williams, Oral, Bessler, David A. “Cointegration: Implication for the market efficiencies of the high fructose corn syrup and refined sugar markets.” Applied Economics: 1997, vol.29 Issue 2, 8p. Print. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=15&hid=104&sid=7b317d7f-ebc5-4229-ba45-85>.

                      This article presents information on the dynamic relationship between the prices of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup using co integration econometrics. It mainly gives information about U.S sugar policy that insulated the domestic sugar industry through a combination of subsidies to producers and various trade restrictions.

10 topics for the final paper

1. School vending mechines.
2.Why companies are allowed to add high fructose corn syrap to most foods if it is vary harmful for people's health.
3. Subsidies organic food company.
4. How dairy products are produce.
5. what is the differences between nutritional ingredients and real food.
6. How meat companies are continuing slavery.
7. what FDA actually does for people's health.
8.caning proces.
9. Food company workers regulation.
10.Food flavoring.

Tahmina's personal responce for food stamps

The article "New York asks to bar use of Food Stamps to buy sodas" by Anemona Hartocollis is about the argument that if food stamps should be used to buy soda and other sugary drinks or it should not be used. Mr Hacker said in this article that " the world would be better, I think, if people limited their perchase of sugared beverages". I agrre with him, because too much sugary drinks is not good for health. I Also agree with Tom Laskawy who said that food stamps should be reserved for whole, nutritious foods such as meats, gran, dairy, and fresh fruits and vegetables rether than the sugary drinks, because no one should have right to use public money for unhealthy foods that causes illness for consumers.















'

Tahmina's personal responce about supersize me and food inc chapter 2

The documentary movie “Supersize me” by Morgan Spurlock open my eyes to see what inside the fast food especially the McDonalds foods in America. The name of this movie already told you what are making you super in size. There is no doubt. If you want to ask a question about why are Americans so fat? The supersize menu of McDonalds can give you an absolute right answer.

    When I was in my country, I heard a lot about American food safety and believed that American government strictly care about its people’s right and health especially children’s health. I left so much back to my country but was happy to think about that this country would give me and my daughters an opportunity to have a bright future and at least healthy food to eat and live healthy lives. As I go deeper and deeper to know about the American food industry, it always made me so scared and upset. If you could not get healthy food, you never can get bright future because health is wealth. The truth of American food industry threw me up in the dark and made me so wrong- very wrong.

      By reading Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation and watching supersize me, now I could tell you how McDonalds, one of the biggest food companies in the United States are encouraging children to buy their infected foods to destroy their future health by providing play ground in the stores, adding plastic toys in the meal and producing cartoon characters in their commercials.

 The most upsetting thing is that school lunch that most parents and students believed healthy are not different from the food of McDonalds. Now I am really concern about my daughters health because I could help them stop eating food from McDonalds but how could I stop them eating school lunch. Like my daughters most children believe that what they learn from school is very true and what they eat from school must be healthy. There can not be anything wrong in school. Poor children!

 American government should stop going war to save the world from its imaginary enemy before having a war to save American people from its infected foods.

Tahmina self review

Writer’s Name: Tahmina Haque

Paper Title: The quality of Heritage Diet vs. Present Diet

Date: 03/18/11

Editor’s Name: Tahmina Haque

Peer Review Worksheet

1.      What can you identify Introduction: How does the first paragraph introduce both the paper’s topic and the writer’s approach or general conclusion? Is the first sentence attention-getting and relevant to the topic?

 -  I think the introduction is ok. It is clearly related to the topic that writer wants to compare   and it unambiguously gives a view point about the whole essay

 - Yes, its first sentence is attention getting and relevant to the topic. 

1.   As a thesis statement? (Re-write it below) Suggest, if possible, a way to improve the introduction or thesis statement.

- Thesis: “the quality of ingredients for this recipe, like rice, vegetables, lentils and spices has changed over the time because food is now grown and processed commercially by using chemicals that helps make the food less healthy than before”.

- Suggestion: “by using chemicals from soil to food, the ingredients for this recipe like rice, vegetable and lentils has become less healthy than before”.

3.                  Structure: Can you identify the organization of the paper from the main idea of each paragraph? What are the main concepts explored in the paper? Does each paragraph make a relevant point that is distinct from what has already been covered? What are the main conclusions?

- Each paragraph has its thesis statement that is very easy to identify because it is the first sentence of every paragraph. Also the organization of the paper can be identified from the main idea of each paragraph.

- Of course thesis sentence is related to its concept. The main point of this paper is about the quality of food and how this quality became bad over the time.

- Each paragraph explored is clearly related to its thesis. All the paragraph of this essay has a relevant point that already has been covered.  

4.                  Clarity/Style: Did you find distracting grammar, punctuation, spelling, or word usage problems? Identify any patterns or themes you detect. Is the tone of the essay formal? If you find awkward sentences, try to explain why they don’t make sense to you.

- This paper has some grammar and clarity issue.

- There are some repetitions. Some sentences are really long.

-Need to pay attention to the verb form and word form.

5.                  Resources: Does the author clearly identify his/her sources? Is proper in-text and reference format used?

- Sources are very clear and that can be identified very easily.

- Writer paid attention to use qualitative sources and she put the work cited at the end of this essay that is really important.

6.        What is/are the paper’s greatest strength(s)? Explain.

- The strength of this paper is to its good organization. It also provided all the information that is collected from the reliable sources.

Five sources

The five links that I decided to use in my revised essay.
1.http://www.healthywyze.org/index.php/fertilizer-dangers.html
 this link will help me to know and write about the senthetic fertilizer and their effects on foods and human body.
2.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/
this link is about the dioxine used on vegetables and how they effect in human body.
3.http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/pesticides.htm
this site is about the pasticide on fruit and vegetables and their bad effects.
4.Book: Fast Food Nation- Eric Schlosser
this book will help me write about the secret of American food Industry and how they captured American people's diet.
5.Article: Unhappy Meals-Michael Pollan-New York Times
this artical will help me write about what we should eat and what we should not

Food Inc reading response

                                                           Food Inc

       In Food Inc, film maker Robert Kenner tried to display our nation’s food industry. He actually tried to expose the highly mechanized food processing system that has been hidden from consumers with the help of our government’s regularity agencies USDA and FDA. The nation’s food supply is now mainly controlled by some corporations that are making profit ahead of customer’s health, the American farmers, the safety of workers and the environment. Even though we have bigger-breasted chickens, perfect pork chop and insecticide resistant soybean seeds, we have E. coli- the harmful bacteria that cause illness and death.

 In this documentary film, we saw how cows, pigs and chickens are growing very faster in the factory by getting high caloric chemical based foods and antibiotics. Chickens we saw grown in a factory could not walk and its organs barely worked but never seen daylight. Caretaker pushed the food in a fantastic way directly to the cow’s stomach, so it does not matter if a cow wanted to eat food or not. Farmers sometimes do not want to do that but they are being under control by the food corporation. The owner of the chicken farm (the lady) said that they are (farmers) treated by companies like slaves. Farmers didn’t even open their mouth to anyone. The author and co-producer Eric Schlosser went through a supermarket and said that most of the colorful variety foods stuffs come from five corporations like Tyson, Farmland or Smithfield that now control 80 percent of the food market in the USA.

       The industry does not want you to know the truth about what you eat by getting their foods. Barbara Kowalcyk lost her 2- year-old little son Kevin because the boy ate food (hamburger). Kevin was infected by E. coli bacteria and died 16 days after he ate two E. coli bacteria infected hamburgers. Yet, if Barbara knew about the food she gave her son, she might not lose her son forever. Barbara now is an activist and she carried a picture of Kevin with her when she lobbies on Capital Hill.

        Producer Robert Kenner introduced us to a low income family buying burger from a fast food drive-way that makes real economic sense to me. It is cheaper to buy double burger with soda instead of buying the non-subsidized head of broccoli or an apple. Yet there is that hidden childhood obesity and incident of diabetes for adult. The real fact is that low-income persons like the introduced family who know the fact about the effect of fast food, but they have no choice.

     We know the organic foods are good for us, but are those affordable for everybody in the USA? Joel Salatin, a farmer who tries to help people by producing organic foods in his own farm. The good thing is that, he is an independent farmer. The government never subsidizes for his farm to sell the food in cheaper prize but the government always subsidized a lot for all the food processing companies to make their foods cheaper. The most interesting thing is that, the government tried to close Joel’s farm because they think he made the environment polluted by processing chicken in an open house.

         In conclusion, even though the film Food Inc scared me about the processed food, it gave me an excellent opportunity to know the hidden information about the food. This film made me think about what I should eat and what I should not eat. What I learn from this film is that we need to think about our health before make food choice.

     

hi!

here we go!