We know that the way the world produces food has changed over that last 50 years. Some argue that the "globalization" of food production has created food shortages, the disappearance of the family farm, and lead to widespread food borne illnesses. What do you think? Have the benefits outweighed the costs? Refer to at least one of the following articles in your response:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/nichols
http://www.farmaid.org/site/c.qlI5IhNVJsE/b.2723723/k.33DB/Globalization_and_Consumer_Choice.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no4/kaferste.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that the cost outweigh the benifits. yeah its horrible that there are all these illnesses spread by the food countries export. But do you realize that by us spreading these, it makes us more able to fight the diseases when they arise because we've seen them before and know how to treat them from outbreaks in the past. I mean if it wasn't for explorers bringing the flu to america, we wouldn't know how to treat it and neither would any other country that has it constantly going around. There would be no disease control and prevention. We kinda need that to survive because disease are inevitable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cyndi. but diseases don't just come from explorers but imports/exports to
ReplyDeleteIn today's world, there are superpower countries, then there are LDC's. It is a shame that the superpowers contold the LDC's, but thats how it is, and whether it is good or bad, it remians that way. We can't change this. The government controls it, and us, as the consumers need to buy food, so we go to the store and buy it. By having control over something we need, the government can control where our money goes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you all.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to add that most of the food are made biochemical, for better taste, bad health. :(