Products/Waste

"The practice of designing products and the processes for making those products in environmentally responsible ways is known as Design for the Environment. Its goals of protecting environmental systems from harm, protecting human health and safety, and the sustainability of natural resources apply over the full product and process life cycle. Its practice focuses on reducing on reducing the use of hazardous substances, minimizing consumption of energy and resources, reducing waste, and expanding thelife cycle of products through recycling and reuse." (Robertson. 2014) Although this quote sits at the beginning of chapter fourteen, DFE is probably one of the most important proposals for reform that I have ever come across. And that is saying something since I attempted to do recycle mania quite a few times. The proposal brings to life products that we use, it personalizes their use so that we think of the object as telling us important truths about ourselves. This means we are more likely to find solutions to pollution spread by waste products. We eat from reusable bowls and cups. We live scantily with what we have with constant care for our items. We buy based on need. We produce naturally rather than rely on artificiality. This action plans requires what Robertson calls for, that is,"Zero Waste requires changes to policies and laws..."(Robertson, 2014). To speak the obvious... But the quote surrounds itself with amazing insights into why products should be geared to creating Zero Waste, namely that they provide incentives for reusing and recycling that go along with institutional economic incentives. Likewise, this appeal to safe urchases, reusable goods, and incentives to recycle reinforce," the waste  known as the 3Rs..." (Robertson, 2014) -- that is, to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Food

"The Food Bill codifies the rules of the entire food economy" (Food inc, 2008) This idea from Food Inc about corn production is an astounding observation that I didn't know. The fact that mass production contributes to monocropping oriented production and Food Factories which also has created a codified set of legal obligations in order to keep up with mass production is not only scary but it has attendant effects in the way we consume our goods and the way workers in laboratories and in factories are treated. It strengthens one of the main claims of the film -- that due to the Green Revolution and the allusion of convenience, what we eat today isn't the same foods we were eating 50 to 70 years ago, which came from farms that seasonally produced crop. This raises questions concerning the health of the corn we eat, especially with the laboratory ingredients in most foods like High Fructose Corn Syrup, the cereals we buy, the burgers we eat, and many of the foods that we continue to enjoy at a mere convenience. In other words, our consumption helps contribute to market oriented food production that provides for only those who can pay in exorbitant fees for unhealthy foods. Robertson discusses a similar topic when she says,"Industrialized agriculture uses a method  of planting called monoculture, designed to boost efficiency, in which fields are planted with single types of crops. (Robertson, 2014)" This factory style production, whether in the fields of in actual food factories where they raise chickens or cows or pigs (etc.), contributes to obesity and a lack of energy as well as increased rates of disease, depression, and many other issues which destroy the equilibrium of mind and body, ethics and economy, and society and nature.

However interesting Food Inc is and the ideas and examples shown to us throughout the film, there is one interesting use of language that is glaring in the words "veil" and "factory" as repeated in the film by Michael Pollen. That is, that he wants to open of the veil, which is an allusion to W. E. B. Du Bois' Souls of Black Folk, which, in turn, was written from a socialist perspective. Likewise, the metaphor of a "Factory" was popularized by labor movements influenced by the great philosopher Karl Marx during the Industrial Revolution -- Anarchists, Fascists, Communists, Socialists, and any other extreme social engineering movements have used this metaphor ever since. These two word uses must give the viewer pause, if only to find bias in the movies tone and rhetoric. This bias, however, is not unwarranted. The documentary continues to defends its argument admirably and seeks to convince people to eat healthier. I must say, I am convinced that Tyson is a factory head attempting to enslave my taste buds. Just kidding. To be honest, I don't think our food system as represented in Food Inc. follows the three E's of sustainability, and that is the sad part since, well, Equity is important for any social or financial contract, economic benefit is extremely important for anyone and any country who wishes to expand markets and decrease inflationary negation of currency value, and the environment is an important center for human well-being, a place that must be protected. To conclude, most of the video's ideas was already well known to me, but the use of language caught my interest and made me think deeper about what I was being told from a philosophical and political standpoint as well as from a concerned viewers standpoint.


http://dgeneralist.blogspot.com/2013/11/4-perfect-reason-to-make-you-have-your.html