Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Personal response 1
Personal response
Newspaper article 1
Ethical food = good food?
From: The Economist print edition
The earth is fragile – I understand the delicate balance in which both the survival of mankind and the preservation of our planet could co-exist. However, this article shed light upon a topic we often neglected, or perhaps showed ignorance to, that is the food we eat.
Before I start getting into the details of this article, it would be better if we identified where the author was coming from. Mainly, he urged us to play a greater role in protecting our planet, for it seems that the government are not doing a good enough job. This was a critical viewpoint to be made, in which he adversely quoted from Marion Nestle, showing the stark contrast in his viewpoint. He makes a step to criticize the error in our thinking that organic food may be environmentally friendly, but not necessarily ethical.
I had always thought that organic food had no downside, since it was directly obtained from our environment, which minimizes the straining effect on our planet’s resources.
Farming, as a whole, is inherently bad for the environment since much space must be cleared, which may result in deforestation. Unlike the 1960s, organic farming today relies on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertiliser, which is less intensive. In this case, Fairtrade, which applies the organic farming method, aims to raise poor farmers' incomes. However, the direct opposite is achieved. First of all, organic food is sold at a higher price, hence prices of agricultural commodities are low because of overproduction. This way, a very minimal sum is given back to the farmer while a large part of it is given to the retailer, hence defeating its intended purpose. Organic farming may be environmentally friendly, but not ethical in a sense that we do no justice to the farmers. The concept of world trade brings about the author’s claim that a change is absolutely necessary, that we are taking advantage of the farmers. Hence, we should “vote through shopping”, in a sense that what we choose to buy is influential.
The topic of these underpaid farmers might seem distant to my context here in Singapore, however if we look at it in the big picture, it can very well affect the future, a future in which I, my fellow students, my generation would eventually come to terms with one day. It is evident that I myself can never truly understand the grueling process in free trade, nor can I fully establish what grounds make these farmers face. However, I can understand what the article conveys, that we have every bit a role, whether big or small, to play in our environment. The article certainly developed a sense or pity for the farmers, moreover, on ourselves, that did we ever spare a thought for the people responsible of our produce, what we thrive on every day?
I do not think that the author is being overly-critical, but merely taking a stand in what he believes in, which inspired me to write this response. What’s your take?
Newspaper article 1
Ethical food = good food?
From: The Economist print edition
The earth is fragile – I understand the delicate balance in which both the survival of mankind and the preservation of our planet could co-exist. However, this article shed light upon a topic we often neglected, or perhaps showed ignorance to, that is the food we eat.
Before I start getting into the details of this article, it would be better if we identified where the author was coming from. Mainly, he urged us to play a greater role in protecting our planet, for it seems that the government are not doing a good enough job. This was a critical viewpoint to be made, in which he adversely quoted from Marion Nestle, showing the stark contrast in his viewpoint. He makes a step to criticize the error in our thinking that organic food may be environmentally friendly, but not necessarily ethical.
I had always thought that organic food had no downside, since it was directly obtained from our environment, which minimizes the straining effect on our planet’s resources.
Farming, as a whole, is inherently bad for the environment since much space must be cleared, which may result in deforestation. Unlike the 1960s, organic farming today relies on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertiliser, which is less intensive. In this case, Fairtrade, which applies the organic farming method, aims to raise poor farmers' incomes. However, the direct opposite is achieved. First of all, organic food is sold at a higher price, hence prices of agricultural commodities are low because of overproduction. This way, a very minimal sum is given back to the farmer while a large part of it is given to the retailer, hence defeating its intended purpose. Organic farming may be environmentally friendly, but not ethical in a sense that we do no justice to the farmers. The concept of world trade brings about the author’s claim that a change is absolutely necessary, that we are taking advantage of the farmers. Hence, we should “vote through shopping”, in a sense that what we choose to buy is influential.
The topic of these underpaid farmers might seem distant to my context here in Singapore, however if we look at it in the big picture, it can very well affect the future, a future in which I, my fellow students, my generation would eventually come to terms with one day. It is evident that I myself can never truly understand the grueling process in free trade, nor can I fully establish what grounds make these farmers face. However, I can understand what the article conveys, that we have every bit a role, whether big or small, to play in our environment. The article certainly developed a sense or pity for the farmers, moreover, on ourselves, that did we ever spare a thought for the people responsible of our produce, what we thrive on every day?
I do not think that the author is being overly-critical, but merely taking a stand in what he believes in, which inspired me to write this response. What’s your take?
# posted by Kris @ 8:09 AM 
