Animal Research Essays (648 words) - Product Certification, Diets

The Cost of Food: Is Quality Worth The Cost Trade Off? There is a tremendous difference between natural and processed foods. The most fundamental differences are the method of growing and processing, the nutrient content of the food, and cost. Currently there is a trend towards healthier diet in the U.S., because of the diseases and health issues that have a direct relationship to the types and amounts of foods consumed. The natural or organic growing process is different, because do not use artificial fertilizers and pesticides to speed up growing times, or pesticides that leave residues that at toxic. Natural foods are simple and basic. Natural foods require no processing and are ready to eat off the vine or out the pan. Processed foods are altered from the beginning with fertilizers, pesticides, and other modifications that leave harmful traces or residues. Natural or organic foods are closer to their natural state and have more vitamins and nutrients and are better for your health. The conflict is that they are usually more expensive and have a shorter shelf life as a result of not having preservatives or additives. The primary goal of processing is to lengthen of the shelf life so that large amount can be sold over longer periods of time. This is more efficient in that it can be mass produced, use mass distribution, and be cost effective. The problem is that processing methods use additives, preservatives, un-natural genetic materials, and radiation and heat treatments that alter or destroy the natural healthy vitamins and minerals. Manufactures patent some of the processing methods that they use, and that means it is essentially a secret or mystery to consumer as to what they did or what was added. Natural foods are generally one or possibly two isles of the store, but the processed foods comprise the remainder of the store. There are not the only differences in the location in the store, the packages or containers, the levels of freshness, and the general appearance of the food itself. The processed foods are packaged for longer shelf life, whereas the natural food usually has a much shorter shelf life, because it is fresh and spoil much quicker due to the fact that it does not contain preservatives and other additives which drastically change the foods (appearances, texture, and nutrient content). Natural foods are simple and basic. Natural foods require no processing and are ready to eat off the vine or out the pan. Natural foods are simple and basic. Natural foods require no processing and are ready to eat off the vine or out the pan. Processed foods have been altered from the beginning with fertilizers, pesticides, and other modifications that leave harmful traces or res idues. . The cost or economics of natural foods in comparison to processed foods are also the determining factors. All the concerns the debate of natural versus processed centers around cost in one way or another. From the field (production) to the shelf (consumption) every aspect is viewed from the perspective of cost. The health issues that are associated with healthy food (food that has the natural nutritional value) to the processed foods (foods that possibly have negative side effects) that drive up health cost indirectly as a result. The corporations are constantly finding ways to cheaply process food and manipulate buyers, regardless of the detrimental effects on the health of Americans. In conclusion there are many influencing factors in this debate. The manner of marketing the products, production cost, the Western lifestyle (quick, easy to prepare, and inexpensive), the conditioning of taste choices, education, social position, and the economic behavior of both consumers and corporations. . References Healthy Eating Politics Alternative Views of Food and Health, Initials. (2008). Healthy eating politics alternative views on food and health. Retrieved from http://healthy-eating-politics.com/processed-foods.html Retrieved 6/2/2011

Definition and Examples of Prolepsis in Rhetoric

Definition and Examples of Prolepsis in Rhetoric (1) In rhetoric, prolepsis is foreseeing and forestalling objections to an argument. Adjective: proleptic. Similar to procatalepsis. Also called anticipation. (2) Similarly, prolepsis is a  figurative device by which a future event is presumed to have already occurred. Etymology:  From the Greek, preconception, anticipation Examples and Observations In the ancient art of rhetoric, prolepsis stood for the anticipation of possible objections to a speech. This anticipation enabled the speaker to provide answers to objections before anyone had the chance to even raise them. In other words, the speaker takes the role/attitude of the listener while preparing or delivering his speech, and he tries to assess in advance what possible objections could be raised.(A. C. Zijderveld, On Clichà ©s: The Supersedure of Meaning by Function in Modernity. Routledge, 1979)In 1963, Nobel Prize-winning economist William Vickrey suggested that [automobile] insurance be included in the purchase of tires. Anticipating the objection that this might lead people to drive on bald tires, Vickrey said drivers should get credit for the remaining tread when they turn in a tire. Andrew Tobias proposed a variation on this scheme in which insurance would be included in the price of gasoline. That would have the added benefit of solving the problem of uninsured mot orists (roughly 28% of California drivers). As Tobias points out, you can drive a car without insurance, but you cant drive it without gasoline.(Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff, Would You Buy Car Insurance by the Mile? Forbes, 2005) [P]rolepsis is a form of looking ahead, of assuming something to be the case before it has been encountered, a foreshadowing in some sense. Novelists do this all the time when they hint at things to come, or when they omit information, almost as if they thought the reader already knew it. The result of such prolepsis [is] that the reader (or hearer) creates, rather than passively receives, the information necessary to complete the scene or circumstances that the writer (or speaker) merely hints at.(Leo van Lier, The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Kluwer, 2004)In the movie The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Luke Skywalker says, Im not afraid, to which Jedi master Yoda responds, You will be. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) contains proleptic scenes of future nuclear devastation envisioned by a woman whose son is the target of a robot sent back in time to kill him.(Ross Murfin and Supryia M. Ray, The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Term s, 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martins, 2003) Procatalepsis is another relative of the hypophora. While the hypophora can ask any sort of question, the procatalepsis deals specifically with objections, and it usually does so without even asking the question, as in this example: Many other experts want to classify Sanskrit as an extinct language, but I do not. By directly addressing objections, procatalepsis lets the writer further his or her argument and satisfy readers at the same time. Strategically, procatalepsis shows your readers that you have anticipated their concern, and have already thought them through. It is, therefore, especially effective in argumentative essays.(Brendan McGuigan, Rhetorical Devices: A Handbook and Activities for Student Writers. Prestwick House, 2007) Pronunciation: pro-LEP-sis