My finished Collaborative Research Project is a product that I am extremely proud of. My team members and I produced a product whose topic was one that needed further investigation, was thoroughly researched, and created an awareness to the consumer that wasn't there before.  By investigating the topic of ammonia being added to meat filler, we were able to help lift the veil of secrecy as Michael Moss did in his original article for The New York Times.  Through our research, our team was able to learn the history of ammonia, what the federal regulations are for ammonia, view detrimental health risks, and provide alternatives for the problem.  It turns out that there are no definitive answers thus far. There has been no scientific evidence produced yet saying that adding ammonia as a processing agent is detrimental to one's health.

           What I really enjoyed about doing this project was how well my research members and I worked together!  It definitely was a group, or shall I say, collaborative effort. I know this project was one that I could not have done alone or even with one partner.  By working collaboratively, we as a group learned how to help one another when stuck, welcomed each others' thoughts and ideas, and focused as a group to provide the best "polished" product we could.  My team members and I worked on this project many a late night, editing our findings.  I also really enjoyed using the Google Docs feature again. Using this technology was so helpful and enjoyable for me. It made the process of writing a research paper bearable because it allowed us as a group to log on and work side by side to write, rewrite, and edit our work in progress.

        Our finished product is multimodal. Aside from the research paper itself, we added a survey in the form of a chart, and also provided a video clip at the end showcasing the ammonia problem to the consumer.

      I learned so much from doing this research paper. Most of all, I learned how we as consumers are truly unaware how our food is processed, stored, and labeled. Through out research and the movie Food, Inc., I have become more informed as a consumer with my eyes opened, determined to change my food choices for healthier and parlay this new information to those who might be unaware themselves.

          After watching the movie Food Inc., I became part of a four person group to work on our Collaborative Research Project. Our team is Myself, Lisa, Paula, and Taylor. We decided to do an exploratory research paper instead of a documentary.  A couple of us thought about how ammonia is added to beef. After jotting down some more ideas while brainstorming, we left deciding to go home where each of us would think about possible topics.  We also decided to have our topic choice decided upon before our next class. This way we would be somewhat ahead of the game. During the weekend we were in contact with each other and agreed unanimously to further investigate the topic of ammonia being added to ground beef and how it might affect us health wise.

         At our next class, information about ammonia and the addition of it to beef during processing was brought in and exchanged with one another. We were learning so much about ammonia being added to beef. Actually, we need ammonia in our bodies and do have natural levels of it in us.  However, the ammonia becomes a problem when there is either too much added, resulting in unhealthy pH levels, or not enough, resulting in unhealthy E.coli levels. We then discussed how to go about writing our research paper. Taylor already had a beautifully written outline completed (naturally), so it was decided for each of us to further research a subtopic of the paper. We also decided to use Google Docs to write our paper. Google Docs is a wonderful writing technology that was introduced to us this past summer when we took a writing class. It affords the group members the opportunity to write our sections simultaneously and edit each other’s section at the same time as well if necessary.

         After doing our research and writing our respective sections, my partners and I reviewed each other’s writings, noted areas where questions arose, and spoke with one another directly to iron out possible wrinkles. Wanting to present a product to the best of our abilities, we then made the necessary changes so our paper had a better feel to it and flowed nicely when read.

         Finally, we decided to improve our exploratory research paper by incorporating video clips, charts, and links for further investigation.  We feel these additions will make our original paper multimodal, enhancing our end product once completed. Our process seemed to go smoothly. We all had our job assignments to work on independently, and afterward, we came back together and shared our information with the group. All members of our group worked well together, with each of us contributing equally. Decisions were made together, as a collaborative group, making sure we were all in agreement before moving on. I enjoyed our process for the research paper.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History Of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print.

      In Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, the opening sentence is a question millions of people ask every day: "What should we have for dinner?" Apparently the answer is corn and soybeans, which Pollan seems to explain throughout his book, because apparently that's the main ingredient in everyone's food these days. Gone are the days where farms grew vegetables and livestock for food, where farms and farmers were self sufficient enough to not only produce food for themselves, but for a few others as well. Today things have drastically changed on the farm front. Today, our cultural eating habits have gone through a violent change. We constantly change our food pyramid to fit our needs, not the other way around. This change occurs every few years or so when another fad comes along that tells us what we should be eating. We as a people wonder about the French paradox ( eating very rich foods yet are still healthy), when what we should be worried about is the American paradox- "notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthy." Herein lies the dilemma. As omnivores we can pretty much eat anything, but what should we actually be eating for beneficial health? There are so many choices of food to choose from that now we are overwhelmed with the plethora of choices and are filled with anxiety, thus creating the omnivore's dilemma. And the government likes it this way! The biggest offender is the supermarket with its gleaming aisles and multitudes of choices for the omnivore. The "abundance of choices seems to deepen the omnivore's dilemma, giving us all sorts of new problems and things to worry about." This is their way of controlling the people, not the people's way of controlling the food industry.   There are three principle food chains that sustain us today, the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer.  These three chains link us together to the earth and sun.

     In the chapter called The Farm, Pollan explains to us how corn and farming in general have changed things forever. Most of the farms in Iowa produce corn and soybeans. Only 2% of the land produces the original tall grass prairie.It's now corn..row after row after row. Pollan describes planting corn "like covering a page with the same sentence over and over again." Hybrid corn is the only corn to plant. It withstands winds and doesn't fall over, has thick, sturdy stalks, and one can over plant without any worries since each hybrid kernel is exactly the same, taking in the same amounts of water and sunlight. Pollan says "this is the truest form of socialism. The corn grows everywhere."  Due to the corn industry, the farmers and the land has also changed. With all the corn growth, other plants and animals have fallen to the wayside, as well as the people themselves. Farmers can't sustain their lifestyle anymore with only corn being produced. Now the animals can't flourish due to the lack of land, and neither can the people because there's no food to eat. All the corn crops are grown for the government. It's just corn and soybeans, miracle crops that go into just about all foods cross America. Farmland isn't even fertilized with animal's manure anymore. It's fertilized with ammonium nitrate, a leftover product from World War II days. The government had a surplus and needed to do something with it, so they tried it on the crops, and they intensified and flourished.  The creation of synthetic nitrogen changed farming forever. Now farmers were guaranteed prosperous crops to sell for money. But now farmers use extra to have added protection for their crops. But what's happening now is the surplus synthetic fertilizer is washing off the plants, running into the soil and evaporating, producing acid rain, contributing to global warming. The rest finds its way into city's drinking water. That's real unhealthy! In the end it doesn't matter. What's important to the big companies and government is the yield. It's all about how many bushels can be produced. The more the merrier, and the more money in big government's pockets.

      Long gone are farmers farming to help sustain the food chain. Over time that food chain has consistently been restructured, retooled, and redesigned to fit what we want it to fit, not what's healthy. We now have designer food pyramids, not food pyramids designed for a long life and healthy lifestyle. These farms are similar to the ones we saw in the movie Food, Inc.  Farms aren't growing crops and livestock anymore. It's all about the science of food production. As the Tyson chicken farmer said in the Food, Inc. movie..."We produce food not chickens." I believe we don't have "real" farms anymore. I believe we now only have food factories on land that make their way into people's lives, creating the omnivore dilemma with too many choices. If there weren't so many choices, maybe we'd have a country full of healthier citizens. What do I know, I'm still trying to figure out what we're having for dinner tonight

Schlosser, Eric. "Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation: Why the Fries Taste Good (Excerpt)." PBS. 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. <www.pbs.org/pov/foodinc/fastfoodnation_01.php>.

       In Eric Scholsser's Fast Food Nation: Why the Fries Taste Good excerpt, we initially visit J.R. Simplot at his potato plant in Aberdeen, Idaho. And although the plant is square and unassuming, the inside activity, and J.R. himself, are not. A million pounds of potatoes are processed here daily. They are washed, sorted, peeled, sliced, blanched, blow dried, fried, and flash frozen. At sixteen, J.R. Simplot took the initial steps to becoming one of the richest men in the United States. He became a potato farmer after quitting school at fifteen, leaving home, where he became a potato sorter for a while. After winning a flip of the coin argument with his landlord over an electric potato sorter they shared, his business took off. Eventually, J.R. Simplot "invested heavily in frozen food technology", and wanted to think of a frozen food that would be appealing and profitable to homemakers...enter the frozen fry. With his chemists, Simplot  "wanted to create an inexpensive frozen fry that tasted just as good as a fresh one." He did, and what came next was extremely profitable. With the shake of their hands, Ray Kroc of McDonald's and J.R. Simplot made a deal to produce the best tasting frozen fries in the fast food business.  By using frozen as opposed to fresh, Kroc was able to "ensure uniformity and maintain the quality/consistency of the fries."  Today, Simplot is still the sole producer of McDonald's french fries.

      Simplot was not just successful in the potato business. He is also one of the nation's largest landowners. His company has acquired over 85,000 of irrigated farmland, and he personally owns more than twice that amount of ranchland. Between the acreage and other land holdings, Simplot controls land that's bigger than the state of Delaware. That's a lot of land indeed!!

This excerpt is in contrast to Steven Schneider's Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of Slow Food Movement article. Schneider tries to keep  the food relationship intertwined within the land's geography, helping us return to a slow paced way of life, savoring life and food itself. Simplot and his food processing businesses on the other hand, contributes and promotes to mass food production, the fast paced life, and the fast food nation as a whole. What irony.

Adams, Mike. "Ammonia Injected Into Hamburger Meat For Fast Food and Schools." The Holistic Option. 5 Jan. 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. <http://www.theholisticoption.com>.

      In the article Ammonia Injected Into Hamburger Meat For Fast Food and Schools, Mike Adams talks about what beef production plants do with the extra cow parts that they usually put in pet food. They scrape up the meat and inject it with ammonia to help kill e. coli and then it's sold off to fast food restaurants and schools around the nation. So basically, they're putting Windex in our hamburger meat. Lovely. The ammonia injected beef comes from a company called Beef Products, Inc. Astonishingly enough, "federal school lunch programs use about 5.5 million pounds of this beef from this company in 2008." There's another problem other than the beef being injected with the ammonia. The ammonia doesn't kill all the bacteria, therefore e. coli rates are increasing. Apparently this is ok with the USDA.  They feel this procedure of ammonia injection is a ok and promotes the process, making the beef "safe enough" to eat. They were surprised that the e.coli rates were so high. This was because they thought the company's  ammonia injectioning was beyond safe.  They wewnt so far as to let federal agents call the ammonia a processing agent so it wouldn't be included on labels. The sad part is that this procedure has been going on for years without us even knowing about it as we merrily take our children to Mc Donald's for Happy Meals, thinking we're giving them a treat, when in actuality we're poisoning them. It makes you wonder what else is in our food. Lastly, Adams tells how we might as well open a can of dog food, spray ammonia on it and eat up. It's basically the same things as what Beef Products, Inc. sells us. I don't think I can look at a burger the same way ever again. I might go vegan after this assignment.

Berry, W. (1990). The Pleasures of Eating. In What are People for? North Point Press

        In The Pleasures of Eating, Wendell Berry describes eating as an agricultural act.  He talks about how eating is the end product of the food chain so to speak.  If eating is the end, the beginning must start with planting seeds and the birth of animals.  But most people don't regard eating in this manner and as such, have become passive consumers, victims per se. The food industry also has a way of wiring our minds to buy what we're told to buy through glorious marketing campaigns. We never seem to ask the questions how fresh is the food?, how sanitary is it?, is it chemical free?, and also, is the product really cost effective? Berry asks these questions to not only open our eyes, but to inform us and help us see how food industrialists have "persuaded millions of consumers to prefer food that is already prepared."

       Berry goes on to say that there's a disconnection between consumers and their food, and the food industry likes it that way.  They don't want us knowledgeable or asking  pertinent questions regarding food safety. It's because knowledge is power, and if everyone was more knowledgeable, then they would have the power to make changes regarding how food is produced and consumed. The food industry likes to keep us in the dark about their real fears. Oh not fears about the "quality and health, but volume and price."  You know what they say, bigger is better, and what could be better than a bigger profit. The food industry feels the same way.  Berry says we can change things by "restoring one's consciousness of what is involved in eating by reclaiming responsibility for one's own part in the food economy." We should start growing our own food again as in days gone by, when we knew the soil was rich and healthy, and the food was not penetrated with toxins and pesticides.  He ends with how the eating experience should be a pleasurable one. Just knowing your garden is safe and healthy will give freedom of worry to the eater

Schneider, Stephen. (2008) Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of the Slow Food Movement. College English 70.4, 384-401.

In Stephen Schneider's article, Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of the Slow Food Movement, Schneider explains what the Slow Food Movement is and how he believes in founder Carlo Petrini's original findings. Petrini tries to make producers and consumers more aware of a slower, back to basics type of lifestyle, where gastronomy relies on foods being grown and consumed locally.  He's trying to preserve cultures from the effects of industrialization and globalization. Petrini says there "is a set of strong principles that guarantee the quality of food and food production." These principles are food that's good, clean, and fair. Good food is food that is produced for maximum flavor and taste while creating links to specific geographic regions.  Clean food is food that's sustainable and works toward environmental preservation. Lastly, fair food is food production that's fair all around, where all involved from farmers to consumers are treated fairly. Being fair is being socially conscious. Schneider also says that Slow Food fights for the naturalness of things such as food on the table, watching it being prepared, and enjoying good, clean, fair food as a way to reject industrial agriculture. This is one way for people to take control back against big companies, and a way to fight the machine of globalization. He says that we have the control to "slow things down", whether it be food production or our fast paced lives. Slow Food was ahead of its time thirty years ago during the 1970's.

Kenner, R. (Producer, Director) and Scholsser, E. (Producer). (2008). Food, Inc. [DVD]. Magnolia Home Entertainment.

Food Inc. is a Robert Kenner film in documentary style.  The film was made to lift the veil of secrecy and open America's eyes so we can have a better understanding about where our food comes from. Gone are the days of traditional farming, where animals are free to graze on grass and rest in comfortable surroundings.  Big government and major food companies now control the food industry. They control everything, the farmers, how the product is grown, how it's prepared, sold, and even how readily available it will be to the consumer. In fact, there are only a handful of companies to choose from. One might think they have many different companies to choose from, but in actuality, the big companies have bought up the little companies but leave their names on products so you think you have choices. Regarding the meat industry, big companies such as Tyson (the biggest chicken supplier) and Smithfield (the biggest pork) have altered forever the way meat is produced. The conditions the animals live in are deplorable and the way employees are treated tugs at one's heart.Tyson chicken farmers say, "We produce food, not chickens," and Smithfield is a company where the employees get treated like the animals themselves. Regarding the beef industry, grass fed cows are taught to eat corn because it helps them grow faster. Also, meat fillers are being doused with ammonia to kill bacteria, but e coli still prevails. The Organic industry isn't left alone either. Many of these new wave farmers get in bed with the enemy. The question is, are they helping the world trying to help it go "organic," or are they throwing their morals to the wayside by getting in bed with Wal Mart and other big food chains to make a profit? In the long run, it's our responsibility to take back control of our food.  Bus is it too late? Have we made too many deals with the devil? It remains to be seen? 

        I am a people person. One of the things I really enjoy is learning about people and their stories. Maybe that's why I'm so drawn to reading biographies and autobiographies of famous and not so famous people. In real life, I tend to ask people a lot of questions. I'm curious by nature I guess. I just like to know the story behind the person. Sometimes I worry if I'm prying too much, you know into areas people don't really want to talk about. So for me, I really enjoyed this oral history interview process. When I interviewed, I tried to keep it conversation-like, relaxed and easy. I feel that I accomplished this goal while interviewing my grandfather over the course of two interviews and other conversations. One of the most, if not the most rewarding aspect of conducting the interviews with my grandfather, was just getting to know him better.  As I've stated before, I wasn't that close to my paternal grandparents growing up, or even too much during my adult life.  Doing this oral history project with my grandfather gave me the opportunity to not only get to know him better, but the chance to peer into the window of his political career. I never really knew what went on behind the scenes and how he got to where he was.  Doing this interview also afforded me the chance to learn things about him I never knew. Like for instance, I never knew he never finished high school. This was the first time I heard this. I also learned after quitting school, he rode the trains with his friends, traveling all the way to Montana with the bums and finding work along the way. He wanted to see what was out there. I found this fascinating!

        Another thing I found rewarding during this interview was learning how popular and respected he was and still is in the community. I realized just how much of his life was not his own while living this political life. I got a greater appreciation not only for him, but for all the people who choose to go into public office.  I used to think it was all dances and dinners, but realized early in the interview just how hard one needs to work in order to become a successful candidate. The last reward I saw was how proud my grandfather was while reflecting on his political career. He seemed to enjoy talking about his accomplishments and giving pointers to those who might seek office one day. I enjoyed watching him smile and have a twinkle in his eye as he spoke so fondly of his political career. It warmed my heart and made me wish I had asked him all these questions long ago.

      Some of the struggles I had with interviewing was initially wondering whose story did I want to tell. I originally was going to interview my brother and tell his story of being in the first Gulf War "Operation Desert Shield, then Storm. It was my brother who turned me onto my grandfather and his political career. It was the perfect story from the perfect person. I then struggled a bit with what questions to ask. Being older, I wasn't sure if Pop would have a flowing conversation. At times during the interview, I also worried about dead air. Sometimes Pop would just give a quick, short answer, leaving me to scramble to think on my feet to move forward. He would be finished answering and just look at me. I had to move quick after snapping out of my thinking mode while listening. Sometimes Pop would get off topic a bit or repeat things we already spoke about.  I also struggled with how was I going to take this taped interview and get it on my weebly. Would this be hard to do? Will it even work on my weebly? How do I learn to edit? Oh wow, so many questions. The interview was the easy part! In the end, my worries were put to rest. Everything worked out.

     So how did I overcome my struggles/obstacles? I just trusted Sabatino's advice that it will all work out somehow. Just keep writing and interviewing, everything will fall into place as it should. And so far, so good. When I struggled with questions, I tried to have a back up question ready after my first dead air episode. I also tried to think on my feet and ask Pop and easy question so I could gather my thoughts. As far as struggling with who to interview and if their story was interesting enough to do in the first place, I asked myself if I would want to know about this person's experience. When I realized the answer was yes because there was so much rich history there, I relaxed and embraced the project fully. Regarding my obstacles with editing and putting my interview up on the weebly, I turned to my boyfriend for advice since he is a technological genius! I must admit he has helped me a great deal. He isn't doing everything for me, instead, he's teaching me and watching me do the work. I've learned how to use his video camera, learned how to upload the video in small increments to the file isn't too large, and I watch the timer on the tapes and know where I want to stop. Actually, the editing process is very long, but it's very interesting.

    All in all I've really enjoyed this interview process for the Oral History project. It would have been easier to write a Creative Non-Fiction piece, but I went out of my comfort zone and tried to do things differently this time. It was challenging at times, but I made it work. This project will not end with my submission. This project has turned out to be the gift that will keep on giving. To have my 92 year old grandfather on tape reliving an important part of his life is such an invaluable treasure for me and my family! By taping this oral history, we will forever have his words and thoughts on tape reflecting on a political career that afforded him so many opportunities. I truly felt like the granddaughter who sat at her grandfather's knee while intently listening to his words of wisdom. I learned so much about the career, but more importantly, about the man I never knew. I am grateful for this ex