Cover Letter for Argumentative Research Essay Dear Group, My audience for this essay is general consumers and

people who have the influence to make a change in regards to this issue. I chose this audience because I can directly relate to the consumers and their point of view. In my opinion, the consumer is the person deepest in the dark in relation to this issue and they need to know about the dangers of the chemicals used on the food that they are buying in places such as the their local supermarkets. I believe that my audience has directly shaped my writing as I try to think like them and relate to their viewpoints and counterarguments. I presented the facts to my audience, and I asked questions that would make them think about the information I presented as well as their actions. I tried to make the paper a conversation where the reader/audience would feel involved in the academic conversation no matter what their knowledge level. I have made my argument efficient and concise, which helps the information to easily flow for the reader. In my opinion, the argument and presentation of my feelings seemed the easiest and I believe that this is the best part of my paper. I did feel that I faced some challenges in my wording and getting my point across in certain instances, and I believe that my group can help me with some of these issues.

Sincerely,

Matthew Piercy

Matthew Piercy Ms. Ingram English 1103 28 October 2012 The Use of Chemicals in Industrial Agriculture and Meat Processing Plants The use of chemicals in industrial agriculture has been an issue for many years and the use of these chemicals continues to increase. Toxic chemicals can be used to make crops grow faster or to kill common insects that could potentially kill crops or infect animals with disease. Farmers, government officials, farm animals, and consumers are just a few of the groups who are directly impacted by this issue. Farmers are forced to use these chemicals in order to make a profit, and in some cases they are strong-armed by politicians in government. Consumers, which are everyday people like you and me, must buy these products assuming that the health risks are minor and the foods that they are eating are safe. Although I agree that the use of chemicals in industrial agriculture and meat processing plants poses health concerns, it is important to consider the reasons as to why we have this issue today. This said, an alternative solution must be used to ensure the safety of workers, consumers, and the environment in the future. My purpose is to inform and educate the consumers, as well as inform people who have the influence to make a change in relationship to this issue. Since the beginning of time, food safety has been a major issue. The government has enacted many programs and passed bills such as the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in order to make the foods that consumers buy safer (Trexler). However, some of these bills have not been enforced in some areas and their effect has been diminished. Also, agencies such as the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), CDC (Center for Disease

Control and Prevention), and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) have been established in order to help enforce laws and increase the publics safety in relation to industrial agriculture and meat processing (Trexler). Personally, I believe that more should be done in order to inform consumers of their purchases and to make the foods that consumers buy safer and possibly even healthier. In reality, why would anyone buy an item to eat and feed their family if they knew that it could be harmful? Right now, it seems that us, the consumers, is the one who must do all of the research in order to identify products that could be harmful. In the realm of industrial agriculture, the struggle remains with farmers and government officials. In many cases, government officials are elected based on who they know in regards to the corporate industry in agriculture or the meat processing industry. Corporate companies want politicians in office who agree with their views and will work to get laws passed that will benefit them. Also, kickbacks are arranged for the politicians who successfully complete the tasks and get laws passed that do help the corporate companies. This is part of the reason that the use of chemicals in this areas has not been turned around because government officials and not willing to make the change and hurt themselves. Dishonest politicians are not willing to take money out of their own pocket in order the look out the safety of you, the consumer. In some cases, there are also tax breaks for big companies that use these types of chemicals. At the end of the day, the government makes a profit off of the crops and beef produced in America, and they continue to use these petro-chemicals in order to speed up natural processes and make the most profit. Do you really think that politicians are blind to the fact that these chemicals are harmful and they are the root of many food-borne illness cases in America? Of course not, but corruption, money, and control continue to dominate American politics and the consumer is the one who suffers at the end of the day. In my opinion, this part of the issue will be the hardest to

change, as it will take many people in the government to speak out because of the enormity of this issue. If one person were to speak out, they would be swept under the rug like nothing ever happened. As consumers, we are tricked into thinking that everything is all right by the people and the actions of those around us. Lets be real, does anyone really go to the grocery store and worry about what they are buying as long as they get it at a good price or a reasonable deal? In reality, consumers believe that they are in control of what they buy and their health when it is truly in someone elses hands (Stuart). Nature, as well as the chemicals used on and in the foods we eat produces a great amount of unknown in these products (Stuart). In many instances, the only regulation on some types of crops is the loosely based laws that outline standards certain crops must meet in order for them to be traded or sold. An example of this issue would be the 2006 E coli bacteria outbreak that stemmed from a farm in California. This was a huge problem because over seventy percent of the United States leafy greens are produced in California (Stuart). After much research, food safety experts came to the conclusion that pigs and cows in close proximity of the farm contaminated the greens without anyone on the farm knowing. This led to one of the largest outbreaks of E coli contamination in recent history. This example of contamination helps to illustrate the importance of regulation and proper observance over the food that consumers will eventually purpose. Although there were no fatalities, this situation resulted in a large outbreak of sickness and turmoil while it was going on. In this case, the crops were contaminated without anyone knowing and consumers went ill all over the country. In some cases such as this the victim survives, but in many cases the victim dies and tragedy is inevitable. Are we willing to take this type of risk with our lives due to our (consumers) lack of information? Another example of control and its illusion deals with the contamination of Taco

Bell lettuce. Many Americans eat Taco Bell regularly, and most Americans eat at fast food restaurants such as this several times per week and hundreds or times per year. This said, there are many risks such as this in regards to growing crops naturally, but why do we want to increase that risk with the use of petro-chemicals as well? These types of food have been nicknamed engineered foods for a reason. The use of these chemicals in industrial agriculture has increased simply because of the way that this business is viewed. Simply put, industrial agriculture is viewed as input, output, and yield (Union of Concerned Scientists). This said, if farmers can produce more output while investing less in their input by using chemicals, the farmers could increase their profit margin. The use of chemicals on agriculture products and certain types of antibiotics on animals allows farmers to produce more for what they are spending on their input (PAN). The marketing ads/schemes used by the media only focus on delicious food at reasonable prices, thus hiding the underlying effect of the chemicals used in the food that consumers buy at the grocery store or their local fast food restaurants. The use of these chemicals not only poses health risks to the consumers, but also the employees and the families of the farmers. Many of the workers on large farms and ranches come from overseas to work, and they are just content to have a job. The farmers are equally as content because they can get cheap labor that helps to minimize their expenses. The workers do not care about their individual health, and in some cases the farmers do not care either. Exposure over time is what is the most harmful to the workers. The constant exposure allows the chemicals to get inside of their bodies an breed disease. However, this problem may be difficult to eliminate because the farmers have to do these types of things in order to keep their head above water and provide for their families.

Big companies who suppress farmers and exercise complete control over them do not help this problem. For example, Perdue will not allow their chicken farmers to talk with the media or allow them to take the media into their chicken houses. This raises question about what is going on and what types of chemicals are used on the chickens. Also, what kinds of conditions are the chickens being raised in? The farmers are under contract and are threatened with serious fines and penalties from Perdue if they do not follow their strict instructions. It is imperative that research is done in order to find a safer alternative that will allow farmers to make similar profits while sparing their health as well as the health of the consumers. In my opinion, the use of chemicals in industrial agriculture and in meat processing plants causes more problems than our generation will be able to recuperate from in the future. Unless action is taken now, this issue will continue to get even more serious and evolve into something that is out of control. Right now, consumers and scientists are at the brink of the time period when something can be done. Years from now, it will be too late and there will be no stopping this agricultural dilemma. One popular solution to this issue would be the use of BT, instead of toxic food chemicals. BT is naturally occurring in soil, and helps to kill pesticides on crops that consumers purchase (British Columbia). This said, research must be done and alternative solutions must be derived in order to decrease the dangers of chemicals to farmers and consumers. Because of the widespread nature of this problem, a one hundred percent safe crop and meat processing solution could never be achieved. However, the lack of effort to make headway on this issue is alarming and with the technology that is present today there is no reason as to why this issue cannot be partially resolved.

Works Cited "Industrial Agriculture: Features and Policy." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., 17 May 2007. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. "Industrial Agriculture." PAN North America. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. http://www.panna.org/issues/food-agriculture/industrial-agriculture. "Ministry of Environment." British Columbia: The Best Place on Earth. B.C. Government, n.d. Web. 28 Oct 2012. Stuart, Diana. "The Illusion Of Control: Industrialized Agriculture, Nature, And Food Safety." Agriculture & Human Values 25.2 (2008): 177-181. Environment Complete. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. Trexler, Nathan M. "Market" Regulation: Confronting Industrial Agriculture's Food Safety Failures." Widener Law Review 17.1 (2011): 311-345. Academic Search Complete. Web. 13 Sept. 2012.