Monthly Archives: September 2013

Vote for the Dinner Party

In this blog Michael Pollan, a well respected and acclaimed writer (writer of four New York Times bestsellers) shares his views on proposition 37. Proposition 37 would have required genetically altered food to carry a label allowing consumers to better select foods that haven’t been tampered with at the genetic and chemical level. Pollan’s stance is that supply and demand has made it so that corporations that proved food at the industrial level have to engineer their products to be ready faster at the expense of the natural process.

This article was written before proposition 37 was rejected so it was an article that was angled with the hope that the proposition would pass. I have to agree with not only Pollan but anyone and everyone who voted for propsition 37 to pass. We as a human race are of the natural world and it my belief that our food should be of that same realm. Tampering with foods is not natural and i believe as a consumer i have the right to know where my food came from.

Works Cited

Pollan, Michael. “Vote for the Dinner Party.” Michael Pollan., 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.


Major Food Corporatons, The White House is Watching

lets move

In this post (“White House Convening on Food Marketing Towards Children”) Marion Nestle, a well respected columnist who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle discusses her opinion on the practice of large corporations marketing tactics towards children and how it is unethical to take such an approach. Nestle includes an excerpt from a speech that Michelle Obama gave as a part of her “Let’s Move” initiative, a program developed to help fight childhood obesity. In the excerpt provided by Nestle the First Lady admits that a variety of companies have increased awareness and are doing their part to ensure that marketing that targets children is ethical and more importantly doesn’t advertise foods that are detrimental to our youth’s health. Nestle shares Obama’s views and also adds that she believes this “holds the possibility of opening the door to further discussion”.

I have to agree with both Nestle and the First Lady. If we cannot promote and advertise foods that are beneficial to our youth how can we hope to have a healthy future, literally and figuratively. While i can understand that a large corporation makes decisions based on an economic standpoint I believe that marketing to children just to cut a profit is wrong. For our future’s sake we need more people like Nestle spreading the word.

Works Cited