Considering the fact that Sheryl I. Fontaine and Susan M. Hunter’s article, Collaborative Writing in Composition Studies, articulates three distinct mindsets for writing— solo, cooperative, and collaborative— I found it useful to create a chart that illustrated the distinctions and bridges between each mindset. This is in part to help me, a woman with a photographic memory, determine which role I am taking on when writing, and to assist me when a role has been assigned. I found the creation of this chart furthering my understanding of Fontaine and Hunter’s key concepts.

Illustration of Collaborative Writing

            To be honest, I did not enjoy reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, for it was extremely dry in the way it presented fact after fact. There came a point in reading this text in where I had to force myself to go back to paragraphs over and over again because the only things my brain was catching were the words corn, nitrogen, and government. Admittedly, The Omnivore’s Dilemma— in my opinion— was a mind-numbing read that could be condensed to half its size. Despite my critical perspective, however, all texts offer something insightful, and so I pushed through to discover the the pressing issues associated with the question "What should we eat?":

            As Americans, we become so obsessed with being health conscious that we lose all ability to make sophisticated choices about nutrition. Certainly, a small percentage pretends to analyze labels and tries to avoid fast food, yet we do not avoid the “American Paradox—that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily” (3). Pollan continues this line of thinking by discussing three aids in making food choices: memory, taste buds, and culture (4), as well as “three principle food chains: the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer” (7). He points out the growing concern for the government’s and technologies’ push to alter the natural process of making food by creating monocultures, adding chemicals, and replacing the sun. All of this, nevertheless, was simply background knowledge serving as the introduction for the beef of Pollan’s argument that corn can either serve as a friend or a foe to farmers. He illustrates this assertion through the testimonies of a farmer in Iowa named George Naylor, who prefers nature over technology, yet who is not blind to pressures other farmers faced when giving into government demands. Certainly, farmers are in need of a “higher yield” (37) in order to earn a high enough profit to support a family and the costs it takes to keep a farm running. So what happened to other crops? Well, with the invention of the tractor, and the overabundance of corn that can be grown over and over again, there grew a lack of necessity for rotating crops and animals at the farm level. Having said this, corn is also a much easier crop to produce in that it only requires “riding tractors and spraying” with the possibility  of “spending the winter in Florida” (40), which is a stark contrast to the typical mindset that views faming as hard labor. Another point Pollan made was the shift from a dependence on the sun to a dependence on fossil fuels. This eventually led to a decrease in diversity on farms as well since things no longer required cultivation but cost. In the later pages of this article, Pollan switches his attention to two influential men in the production of corn- Fritz Haber and Earl “Rusty” Butz. The first mentioned realized the necessity of combining nitrogen and hydrogen atoms to yield life, and it is with this realization that he won a Nobel Prize for the synthesis of ammonia. The second mentioned was a secretary of agriculture who altered the New Deal that was in effect to a more promising deal of direct pay to farmers (52). Despite the potential that was seen at the beginning of this shift, there was a major pitfall in this plan where farmers were stuck with the pay cut.  Finally, The Omnivore’s Dilemma comes full circle with the recurrence of George Naylor’s story in which he presents the Naylor Curve and a prime example of “’Thoreau’s line: Men have become the tools of their tools”’ (56).

            Eric Schlosser’s introduction to his book, Fast Food Nation, is an eye-opening, easy read. I personally appreciated his didactic tone and use of familiar metaphors. In reading the eight-page introduction, I found myself figuratively fumbling the ball, or more literally losing my hold on the knowledge I once considered true in light of new evidence. While the fast food industry makes a ridiculously high profit, provides an immense amount of new jobs, and offers “uniformity” (4) on nearly every corner of the nation, it also has led to the demise of home cooked meals, the extinction of family farms, as well as safe and fair working conditions. Admittedly, the number one fast food chain, McDonalds, has overcome many challenges and should pride itself on its advertising abilities; however, the company should consider the contradiction between claiming that they are “inexpensive and convienent” (8), when in reality they create a reckless receipt and compromising challenges for farmers, workers, and consumers. The following are key excerpt of the Schlosser’s article where the facts were so convincing that I was forced to write “WHAT?!?!” in the margin as I contemplated the fast food industry’s impact on society in comparison to other large-scale issues such as religion, economy, and voice:

• “The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross” (4).
  
  “The United States now has more prison inmates than full-time famers” (8).
  
  “The federal government has the legal authority to recall a defective toaster oven or stuffed animal – but still lacks the power to recall tons of contaminated, potentially lethal meat” (8).
  

If the previously mentioned quotes from Fast Food Nation’s introduction do not spark a need for change, then Schlosser simply proved an unfortunate fact that fast food has become “so commonplace…[it is now] a fact of modern life” (6).