Revisions for my Journal Summaries

After I submitted my journal summaries, I had to go back through the paper and change a couple of things. One of the biggest changes that I made was the layout of certain paragraphs. I had to change around different sentence structures as well as switch some paragraphs with one another. The main reason why I did this was to give my paper a more easy flowing feeling. The original seemed to be too abrupt when transitioning from topic to topic. Other changes that I made to my paper was, of course, were grammatical and punctuational mistakes. When I type out any paper for the first time, it seems to be almost complete. It is not until I reread it that I truly understand where certain commas and semicolons need to be placed to also help with the flow.

Organic Foods: True or False

After reviewing the scholarly journals written in the Scientific Status Summary, Food Marketing Institute, and Organic Materials Review Institute, one can find interesting facts and information based on organic foods. Consumers have been in an organic food intake mentality since the late 1980’s. An average consumer would likely think that the words on the packaging stating that it has been organically produced is more beneficial to your health, but in reality, they provide no more nutrients that that of traditionally produced foods. Organic foods truly are different than traditionally produced foods due to the specific regulations set by regulating societies and can have some benefits from eating them. Along with those benefits, there are some faults that need to be addressed to make the average consumer more aware of their purchases.

Organic foods have been farmed since the start of the fertilizer. It was not until the 1930’s that farmers began to use fertilizers to enhance their growing capabilities. Farmers were only able to produce one crop a year in their soil, but after the introduction to fertilizers, they were now able to produce two crops per year out of the same soil. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, scientists began doing research on the water pollution that was being established from the run-off of the fertilizers used on crops. There were also two energy crises happening during this time that lead farmers to reduce their usages of fertilizers and other chemicals in their growing processes. As soon as the alertness of the problems that the fertilizers produced were taken into consideration, pesticide regulations were established and consumers began demanding food that was grown with environmentally friendly substitutes.

In 1989, Sixty Minutes did a special on the chemical called Alar. Alar was sprayed onto the crop to help control the growth, to make the harvest easier and to enhance the color of the crop. Sixty Minutes informed their audience that Alar had caused tumors in mice. Overnight, the purchasing of organically produced food soared. This was the start of the organic craze.

What consumers of today do not realize is the fact that organic food has no nutritional benefits compared to conventionally produced food. Consumers believe that organically produced food will help their nutrition intake. According to the Food Marketing Institute, the only benefits from eating organic foods are the reduced and approved usages of pesticides and fertilizers. The pesticides and fertilizers that organic crop growers use have to be approved by both the National Organization Standardization Board (NOSB) and National Organic Program (NOP). In the article written in the Scientific Status Summary called “Organic Foods”, the authors talked about the pros and cons for eating organic foods. They were basing their information on the research done by Borne and Prescott in 2002. They compared the nutritional information from scientific studies that have been performed on organically produced food and conventionally produced food. The studies showed no definitive differences between the two and concluded that there are no actual nutritional benefits in eating an organically produced food when compared with traditionally grown foods.

The organically produced food is beneficial in one primary field. The pesticides and fertilizer that the farmers are required to use are environmentally friendly and contain no additional growth hormones to enhance the crop. The consumers feel better when purchasing the organic food due to the lack of pesticides and fertilizers compared with the conventional foods. A study shows that babies who are brought up on organically grown and processed baby food has “significantly lower” amounts of organophosphorus (OP) pesticides. The objection to this argument is whether the OP pesticide actually harms the infant. When purchasing organic foods, not only does the consumer spend more money compared to traditionally processed food, but also the foods may not last as long while sitting in the cupboard. “In October 2002, USDA’s undersecretary for food safety warned that organic foods’ lack of preservatives make the vulneralble to bacteria and parasites.” Although this has not been scientifically proven, the NOSB and NOP assure that the farmers are regulated on the processes to produce and distribute organic foods.

Organic foods have always been known to the consumer as the “healthier” choice while comparing it to conventionally grown foods. Little to the consumers’ awareness, the organic food has no additional nutritional value. Looking at traditionally grown food, the downfall is mainly the lack of regulations that they have in regards to the usages of pesticides and fertilizers. All pesticides and fertilizers that are used in both organic foods and traditional foods are environmentally friendly, but the organic foods are regulated on exactly what and how much are allowed. According to the multiple scholarly journals that have been written on this subject, the consumer does not benefit nutritionally from one or the other. The only way really to gain a healthier income of the food is to limit and control the intake of a daily diet.

Godin Vs. Shirky

VS.

Listening and watching both the Godin speech and Shirky speech, I noticed a couple of significant differences between the two speakers. Along with those differences, I noticed a couple of similarities. Godin and Shirky were both aiming towards the same goal; try to persuade the audience towards their specific means. What I mean by this is that, for example, Shirky was trying to have his listeners not only understand the powerfulness of the internet, but also understand how it is evolving. He wanted his people to understand how important the amount of information and swiftness of that information gets to certain groups or individuals. Godin had that same type of speech, but was going in a different direction. He wanted people to understand the importance of the internet and other forms of communication, but along with the communicating, he wanted to have people understand the importance of tribes or groups.

Both of the speakers did a good job in communicating their beliefs to their audience. Godin took a more humorous path, while Shirky used more of a scenario and real-life situation path. Godins' speech, to me, was more catchy than Shiky's simply due to the humor. Although Shirky did put in a couple funny comments in his speech, he did however grab his audience by giving specific examples from real life situations. Both were effective methods to have their audiences harnessed in with attention. And both speakers did a good job with presenting their information.