When you were a teenager, or if you are a teenager now, can’t you remember those times when you were told that you couldn’t do something. It didn’t matter who told you that you were not allow to say certain words or do certain things, it was the fact that they were denying you of something that got under your skin. Whether it was your mother, your father, your sister, your brother, a babysitter; whomever it was, the fact that they were telling you not to do something irritated you. Even if the idea to do that something or other had never occurred to you, now the activity was there, picking away at your brain. Why would they tell you not to do something if there wasn’t something exciting about doing it? The consequences were rarely if ever thought of.

As a teenager I’m sure all of these things were rushing through your head, whether you thought about them consciously or not. Teenagers are curious. They want to experience new things, take those risks that most people are too scared to take when they reach adulthood. It is this sense of adventure and curiosity about things that lead them to do that which they are forbidden to do by their elders. The same is true for many of us who love to read.

Books are a wonderful tool to use to gain knowledge. There are books out there on everything you could possibly imagine. While this idea might fascinate me, it can terrify others. The same way mothers prohibit their teenage children from certain activities, there are some advocates out there who believe that some books should be banned from public town libraries, public school libraries, and some even go so far as to think that some books should never be allowed to be read by anyone…ever…. Book banning is one of the most well know, and most debated form of modern-day censorship out there.

Many people find certain books offensive, or worry about their children reading certain books, so they feel the need to take that book away from everyone. Now, as we learned from describing a teenager, what happens when you tell someone they can’t do something? That’s right, many get the urge to rebel. Even if they didn’t want to read it before, or hadn’t even heard of it, a book that has been banned suddenly becomes well known. People become curious as to what could be within the pages of a book that makes it that much of a hot topic, that someone would spend time and energy to try and get rid of it.

There is this old saying that telling a teenager to do something; or not do something in this case, is like trying to nail Jello to a tree. In the end they elude you, and sometimes you are left with an even bigger mess than you were before you had brought it up. Books that used to be banned at one point from schools in certain places are now being taught by teachers in other schools elsewhere. There is even a publishing company out there now called Write Blooding Publishing. Their motto: “We publish books good enough to burn.” Controversial books are becoming more popular than they would have ever been because people are making a ruckus over them.

Now while protecting your teenage son or daughter from doing something stupid is one thing; something that doesn’t affect the greater population, or even your local town, the same kind of resistance against the authority will be met when someone decides to ban a book. Banning your kid from reading the book is one thing, thinking the town should be banned—or even the world, from reading a certain book, is a completely different story.

*      *      *      *

I plan to use this analogy comparing  the outcome of telling a teenager what to do, to the outcome of banning a book– or two, or more– in my final persuasive paper. While I believe that the piece could still use a bit more tweaking, it is a solid start to something I plan to expand upon further in the future. Also, while my peers gave me good grammatical advice for the analogy, they also gave me ideas that I could use in other areas of my final paper.

Both people in my group thought that it would be beneficial and interesting to have not only mention the cons of censorship, but also the pros. They said that another way I could build my argument would be to talk directly to a librarian, or someone who has tried getting a book banned before– or at least has been a part of the process. Having answers to questions such as: Why would someone want to censor something– a book perhaps? or What do people want to accomplish by banning certain things (books/movies/etc.)? or Why do you feel the need to decide what others should and should not read, see, here? Why play the part of over-protective-mother for everyone?  I also thought it would work to incorporate a recent TNH article about Banned Books Week here in Durham. While these are just a few examples of what I could do to further spice up my paper, they are definitely a good place to begin.

For as long as humans could communicate there has been censorship. The word censorship fist came about within the ancient Roman Republic. According to Dictionary.com it was then defined as a position where “either of two officials kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.” These men were given the title of censors. Now, while we still consider censors as those who attempt to control thoughts, actions, and words, they are people who “examine books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.” While the term censorship may not have been used in the same sense back when ancient Rome was at its most prosperous, the idea of what censorship stood for has definitely been around since then.

There is a tale of a Roman man by the name of Aesop, who compiled a book of stories and fables called, Aesop’s Fables. It is said that due to the sarcastic nature of these; “his insulting sarcasms” (wiki.org) that he upset the inhabitants of Delphi who in turn threw him off of a cliff. While censoring by death is considered outrageous and unthinkable to us current-day Americans, killing writers for their thoughts and opinions on certain subjects was not too uncommon a couple centuries ago. In fact, I am currently reading a book by a Nigerian woman for my other English class, where we we are discussing the fact that she doesn’t come right out and speak her mind on Nigerian politics. My professor was saying that her lack of outright political opinion may be strongly influence by the fact that Nigeria has a not-to-recent history of “knocking off” (a.k.a killing) famous writers strongly opposed to the current form of government.

While censorship of things pertaining to certain governments is huge when it comes to peoples’ freedom of speech and opinions, religious groups have also cracked down on many a writer, or groups’ published views or works. The Medieval Inquisitions from the 1180′s to the 1230′s were created [by the Church] as a “response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity” (wiki.org). Anyone that was considered a “threat” to the church; anyone who outwardly voiced different views then those of the church were considered dangerous. The church executed leaders such as Joan of Arc, and Thomas More. In 1534, while the Catholic Church already controlled some universities—most likely teaching its students the beliefs of Christianity—the church also “controlled all publications through its decree in 1543 that no book could be printed or sold without permission of the church” (Beacon for Freedom of Expression). However, history has shown us that even if you take away the legality of printing people’s thoughts and opinions onto paper, societies will find ways around this. Underground groups and presses form hidden from the law. The American historian and at one time president of Yale University, Alfred Whitney Griswold once said, “Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas” (Google Quotes).

While people are no longer burned, or beheaded for their so called “radical” or “inappropriate” thoughts and ideas, books are still burned, and censorship is still very much around. The Austrian psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud once said in 1933—quite sarcastically I might add—, “What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books” (Google Quotes). From pamphlets against religious beliefs, to children’s books about two male penguins raising a chick on their own, to a series about a boy wizard named Harry Potter, groups of people still feel the need to censor what others should and should not read. I say, if you personally do not believe in something written, or you don’t want your kid reading a certain something out there, then don’t let them. However, don’t take that opportunity to experience it away from others. All people should have the freedom to voice their personal opinions and learn about others’.

*      *      *      *

I plan to use this towards the begining part of my persuasive essay paper in order to give people a brief definition of the word Censorship. I may end up using it as part of my introduction, because I feel like one should always start from the begining (unless purposefully using a flashback technique). That way your reader has enough neutral background information to be able to form his/her own opinion. I also think that it helps boost your further persuasion because when the reader knows that the person trying to persuade them–in this case me; the author–is knowledgeable in that area then they are more likely to listen, and keep reading. Knowing the history of your topic of interest shows that you have done research on the subject, and aren’t just making things up.

However, where you get that research is also important as a writer. That is why I plan to try and find a different source(s) for the wikipedia.org site I cited a couple times. If my readers see that my information came from more scholarly sites then they will again be more inclined to listen to my argument. This goes for any other work as well. If I see what look like reliable sources cited by the author of the work I’m reading, then I am much more likely to assume that the information presented to me is true. In turn, I won’t doubt their credibility, and will be more open to their persuasion.

While this 700+ word history on censorship is merely a small part of my whole paper, it will greatly help me look reliable, and will let me tie in the larger parts of censorship; censorship as a whole, to my smaller main argument.

However, in an effort to solve the problem of high priced fresh foods, “a farm in Germany has begun selling fresh, local produce from vending machines.” Now, I know if I went downstairs in my dorm to the first floor vending machine I most certainly would not find in it fresh produce from the UNH greenhouses. No, I would see a selection of some of the mosty unhealthy, unnutritional foods produced today: Candy bars and chips.

Now don’t get me wrong, everyone loves some chocolate now and then. But just think how cool it would be to be able to go down the hall, put a few quarters in the vending machine, and get back fresh locally grown carrots. “Currently the specialty machines (labeled Regiomats) are set up to dispense fresh milk, eggs, butter, cheese, potatoes and sausage,” but who says they couldn’t be tweaked to be able to hold produce too? Some would also say that it’s too complicated to supply all dorms with fresh foods, however, “the company has chosen to place several of these upstart Regiomats alongside popular hiking trails in Switzerland.” I say if they can stock vending machines on hiking trails, why not in dorms or offices too?

I just thought this was a very interesting idea; a trend that I hope to see come to America. While we have some “healthy” vending machines, they are still filled with highly processed foods. There’s definitely nothing fresh about them that’s for sure. “Despite today’s fast-paced world, Peter-und-Paul-Hof may have stumbled upon a great way to deliver fast food that’s still good for [all of us].”

Typically the definition of organic food is food that is not processed, or heavily altered. The USDA National Organic Program (NOP) states:

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.

Now I ask you, if organic foods are not made using these techniques, or fertilizers, etc, then doesn’t that mean non-organic food are? And if that’s the case, how good are fertilizers with sewage sludge or ionizing radiation or added hormones for our health? My guess is, not very. That is why the European Union (EU) has said it will only import hormone-free American beef.  They also have a much stricter meat labeling system compared to that of the U.S.

The cow from which the beef came can be traced because every package of meat sold in the EU must list where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered. Every cow has a different ID number, butcher Stephane Dausin says. Every piece of meat can be traced from A to Z — from the raiser to the consumer. We have to have complete transparency, or we’d never be able to sell it.

You would never be able to find out where your hamburger was born in the U.S. or what number cattle is was. I think that one of the reasons it is so hard to determine what foods are healthy for you and what foods aren’t is due to the labeling rules and regulations in America. Take the rules– or lack there of, for genetically modified foods (or even foods with genetically modified ingredients).

The FDA said it isn’t planning to require food makers to notify consumers if products contain ingredients from genetically engineered animals or their offspring. Companies would be required to tell consumers about any changes in food composition, such as when pork from genetically engineered pigs contains higher level of the heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

So if an animal product is genetically altered consumers won’t know, however if it contains more protein or such than that of a non-genetically modified animal they’ll let us know that. Watch out for those eggs with extra omega 3′s then. I guess have some kind of label regulation is better than nothing. Take “all natural” foods for example, this is how they are “defined”– and I use that term loosely, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):

The term “natural” applies broadly to foods that are minimally processed and free of synthetic preservatives; artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors and other artificial additives; growth hormones; antibiotics; hydrogenated oils; stabilizers and emulsifiers. Most foods labeled natural are not subject to governmental controls beyond the regulations and health codes that apply to all foods. Exceptions include meat and poultry.

Basically what the FDA is saying, is that natural food could be better for you or it could be like all the other food you can find in a supermarket, wonderfully dyed and processed. While organic refers to the process as well as the outcome of the food, natural refers to just to the food itself. So natural food could be grown using pesticides or sewage sludge fertilizer as mentioned earlier. As you start moving your way towards the “whole foods” section, things can become even more confusing.

While trying to search for a definition for “whole” foods, a large number of links popped up bringing me to the Whole Foods Market webpage, so I thought I’d check it out. After browsing their site for a few minutes it seems clear that they are trying to sell products as fresh, local, organic, and natural as they can find. This one downside to this store however are it’s prices. My mother and her friends refer to the store as “Whole Paycheck” instead of “Whole Foods”. That’s really the problem with locally grown, organic, all natural, whole foods; not only is it hard to tell the differences between the foods (natural v. whole, etc.), they are also EXPENSIVE and not alway readily available.

Wikipedia defines “whole” foods as “those that are unprocessed and unrefined, or processed and refined as little as possible before being consumed.” The site states that ”they typically do not contain added ingredients, such as sugar, salt, or fat.” However, this still means that these types of foods can be genetically tampered with. Or, companies can use the word “whole” as part of their advertising campaign. Take Honey Nut Cheerios for instance. They are made with a “whole grain goodness”, however they still contain a ton of sugar, modified corn starch, and tripotassium phosphate (whatever that is). So just watch out for tricky labels when looking for healthier food options, and if you can just buy local. That way you know you’re safe from big corporations, tricky ads, genetically enhanced or modified foods, and who knows what else….

As a society we are told there are things we can do to help prevent these things. We can switch the light bulbs in our house out for more efficient ones, we can recycle our plastic and paper waste, we can buy a hybred car instead of a gas guzzling SUV, etc…etc…etc…. However, one person who posted a comment under my “Think About It….” blog post mentioned that there has been much “criticism of this focus on small, individual efforts at conservation.” Does the individual’s effort really matter? Do they really accomplish anything? Some say, “these small changes will make little impact compared to the industrial pollution that is pumped out on a regular basis” and that, “We should focus our efforts on the changes that will have a larger impact.”

Against that statement I merely give you a quote to think about. A very famous woman once said, “I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish small tasks as if they were great and noble.” While I am sure Helen Keller was not referring at the time to our current pollution problem, I believe this quote can still very much apply to today’s efforts. While I think it is extremely important to focus on the “big” picture, so to say, and all of the larger industries polluting at ungodly rates every day, the small day to day, hour to hour, and even minute to minute personal situations are just as important (if not more so). Like I mention in my earlier blog concerning the fact that we as an American society throw away 455 paper cups every second, if everyone thinks, “Psh! I’m just one person in a world of just under 6.8 billion people, how does what I do matter?” well then, we’re all screwed. Because then, nobody recycles and nobody cares.

When I was growing up, whether I was at home, at a friends or at the beach, my parents taught me that it was my personal responsibility to take care of my own trash. I made it so why wouldn’t I take care of it? For some reason, while this lesson stuck with me I believe it gets lost on many others. There are many reasons why I believe as a society we lack a sense of personal responsibiliity when it concerns pollution; lack of education, lack of childhood guidance, lack of good examples, lack of just owning up to the bad things we do. These can all be hard things to see, and even harder things to change. And it hasn’t just started to become difficult for people to “own up”. Sophocles, an ancient Greek play writer who lived from 496-406 BC once said, “It is a painful thing to look at your own trouble and know that you yourself and no one else has made it.” We made this trash. We chose not to recycle. And now, we are choosing not to do anything about it.

You may be saying, “Hey wait a minute, I recycle. I don’t litter.” That may be so, but do you use a travel mug to get coffee on your way into work everyday? Do you flick your cigarette butts out the car window as opposed to putting them in an ash tray? Do you buy a water filter as opposed to using bottled water? Do you drive to pick your kids up from the bus stop when you could just walk? Do you encourage others around you to recycle too? Hey, I’m guilty of doing (or not doing) some of these things. We all are. Now what we– the American society has to do with this knowledge is use it against pollution. We can change. Yes, some of us might not want to, and it may be inconvenient at times, but that’s life. Sometimes in order to reap the benefits of something, or to save future generations from suffering the consequences of our actions, we have to be slightly inconvenienced. You have to give a little to get a little. Like Clint Eastwood once said, ”Sometimes if you want to see a change for the better, you have to take things into your own hands.”

—

Now you may be asking yourselves, well where did we get so off the European track of how they view food? According to Pollan it was mostly due to the dawning of NUTRITIONISM. Nutritionists don’t look at foods as a whole, but by their nutrient parts. Instead of looking at an egg and seeing an egg, they see instead omega sixes, omega threes, and proteins. Pollan describes this phenomenon very clearly. “Fish, beef, and chicken through the nutritionist’s lens,” he says, “become merely delivery systems for varying quantities of different fats and proteins and whatever other nutrients happen to be on their scope” (p31). The whole notion of eating to enjoy the tastes, and smells, and even preparation of food is being lost from generation to generation. The media (journalists, advertising, etc.), and food industries do a lot to emphasize the values of “fast foods”. “No preparation necessary!” they preach, “Two McChicken sandwiches for only a dollar!” they proclaim. I mean, in the end does it really matter what the affects of animal-fed hormones are for us consumers? Does our health really matter as long as these industries continue to make a profit off of us?

—
Pollan addresses these topics with a very dry, sarcastic, matter-of-fact tone. While this sometimes makes the nutritionists seem like the bad guys, with slightly ridiculous ideas, Pollan hooked me fast by being honest. From the very beginning Pollan said that he was just a journalist and therefore probably knew much less about nutritionism and the food industry than many others more qualified out there. However, he counters this strike against his lack of qualifications by using interviews with well known and well respected nutritionists. He quotes Marion Nestle, a well known American nutritionist, and Gladys Block, an epidemiologist who works for the Women’s Health Initiative. By having each of these individuals discredit their own profession, Pollan is able to build a much stronger case for himself, and his argument.

—
Another way Pollan is good at building his argument is by breaking down each “problem” into simpler, more easy-to-handle parts. Slowly, through this method he proves how each thought or claim is false, eventually making the reader question the whole nutritionist system. He uses health studies, comparisons of other cultures, risk factors, etc, to bring his point to light. Over all, this book was a huge eye-opener for me. While it hasn’t had such a big impact as to make me go vegetarian, I have a whole new respect for the vegetables that come out of my mother’s garden at home, and the local meat we buy from a farm just up the road. And even if I can’t see the difference between fresh and locally produced foods and food bought from a grocery store, I can definitely taste a difference. There’s no better thing out there than the fresh, earthy taste of a green bean picked fresh right off the vine, or a home grown carrot pulled right out of the ground.

This video clip definitely brings to light some major issues occurring now, in the United States, that really aren’t being addressed with the urgency they require. Chris Jordan does a wonderful job of putting some of the hundreds of statistics out there into a format we can visualize and better understand. These problems are “fixable”. It’s like Jordan says, “We have a choice,” a choice to change. If that’s the case, then “How do we change?” Look at it this way: As a society, do we really need to be using 40 million paper cups per day, just for hot beverages? Whatever happened to thermoses or travel mugs? Right now, America– rephrase that –the American PEOPLE (aka. you and me) create over one hundred and forty one million, six hundred thousand (141,600,000+) square feet of trash each year. That’s the equivalent of 82,000 football fields of garbage 30 feet deep. Just think how much we could reduce this number just by cutting back on the 14 billion+ cups we use each year.

Now I know what many of you are thinking. How on earth is anyone going to be able to get all 307+ million people currently living in the United States to cut back so much on their cup consumption? The answer is to not think about those other 306,999,999 people, just worry about YOURSELF. If everyone thinks, “Well I’m just one person, what can I do?”, then of course nothing will get done. However if everyone thinks, “I guess using my own travel mug isn’t much, but it’s at least something,” then we’ll be getting places. Places that lead to less trash, more personal responsibility, and maybe eventually 307 million people no longer using paper cups for their coffee.

This is merely one of the hundreds, if not millions of ways our society can choose to change. As Chris Jordan pointed out there are so many other ways the people of this country can save; save money, time, resources, the environment. So be that obnoxious customer who asks if they can use their own mug or their own grocery bags, recycle, and most of all, be conservative and concious about what you throw away. While one paper cup may not seem that big of a deal at that moment, just think of the other 454 cups being throw out in that same second. That’s right, every second of every day 455 paper cups are being thrown out in the U.S.

THINK ABOUT IT….

As I sit here in my bed eating cheerio squares– which, for those of you who don’t know are made of cake batter, chocolate chips, mini marshmallows, cheerios, and one full can of sweetened condensed milk –I start to feel like that mother in the commercial, who cannot answer the other woman as to why high fructose corn syrup is so bad for all of us. I mean, it’s made from corn right? Actually, according to the website SweetSurprise.com high fructose corn syrup is in fact made from corn. (Of course then there’s the question of whether this corn is genetically modified or “enhanced”?– but we’ll save that for another day.) Here’s how it’s done:

The corn wet milling industry makes high fructose corn syrup from corn starch using a series of unit processes that include steeping corn to soften the hard kernel; physical separation of the kernel into its separate components—starch, corn hull, protein and oil; breakdown of the starch to glucose; use of enzymes to invert glucose to fructose; removal of impurities; and blending of glucose and fructose to make HFCS-42 and HFCS-55.2

The problem with this procedure is, that by the time HFCS has been created there is little left in the compound reminding us of the corn from whence it originated. When it has finally reached our mouths it is by that point a complex sugar, just as bad, if not worse for us than regular table sugar. Yet as a society we cannot get enough of it. which is why this commercial is irrelevant. While the woman says HFCS is good for you in small amounts, the fact of the matter is that HFCS cannot be found in small amounts. It’s everywhere!

Think back to the commercial for a second. I feel as though it’s safe to assume that some kind of party was going on in the background. Now what is usually found at– say, a 12 year olds party, whether it be birthday, pool, or slumber? That’s right, most likely cake and ice cream, and/or popsicles, and/or brownies and cookies, and/or candy from a pinyata. And what do all of these foods have in common? They all most likely contain High Fructose Corn Syrup! I can see why the woman wasn’t worried about the HFCS from the juice. I mean really, after you’ve fed your kids all that other junk food what’s a few glasses of some sugar compound going to do to them? From yogurts, to crackers, to juice drinks, to bread, high fructose corn syrup has found it’s way into almost everything we Americans consume. In an article by The New York Times, American adults ate 40 pounds of HFCS in the year 2007– 40 pounds! Think of what kind of an example this sets for the children of America. It just goes to show that how too much of a good thing, can sometimes become a very bad thing indeed.

Many people associate the rise in obesity and diabetes over the last 30 years to the creation and production of HFCS. And while there has been no “official” data recorded to prove this theory, many consumers are now switching from HFCS back to sugar. However some professionals don’t think there’s enough of a difference between the two products to matter health-wise.

Dr. Robert H. Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco Children’s Hospital, said: “The argument about which is better for you, sucrose or HFCS, is garbage. Both are equally bad for your health.

Both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are made from glucose and fructose. The level of fructose is about 5 percent higher in the corn sweetener.

Dr. Lustig studies the health effects of fructose, particularly on the liver, where it is metabolized. Part of his research shows that too much fructose — no matter the source — affects the liver in the same way too much alcohol does.

In the end, I agree with the Author of In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, Michael Pollan. He has three simple rules to eating: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Therefore, if you don’t always eat organic, or natural, and you are eating processed foods with HFCS, then the second rule counter balances the first. A little bit of HFCS in your diet won’t kill you, especially if you exercise regularly (hence one of the many reasons why I’m on the crew team– I can eat pretty much anything I want). So join the ban of people cutting back on HFCS and sugar, and try a salad every once in a while. Go GREEN!