Revise essay 2 and complete essay 3 Literature & Language Essay

Part One: “Don't Blame the Eater” & “Against Meat”: Revised, Synthesis Essay 1. Introduction
To eat or not to eat? This is a question every conscientious eat should ask if and when having a choice to eat responsibly. Today, more and more people are aligning along a “veggie” meal and against eating animals. The growing awareness of healthy eating habits has, moreover, put under sharp scrutiny food choices people make, particularly if fast, or junk, food is an option. Indeed, food is no longer a for-granted matter people just accept and go on. Instead, what people eat – and choose to eat – is what, in fact, sets responsible individuals from irresponsible ones. This combination of food choice and growing awareness about food habits and producers informs many current discussions on so called “good life.” That is, as more and more people question what food is eaten and how meals are prepared, a more general question is in fact underlying such emerging discussing about good life. In 21st century, good life is, or should be, no longer about fancy objects and possessions. Instead, critical appreciation of everything, including food, is – should be – something more educated and (supposedly) more informed citizens pursue in order, initially, to give a pause to matters long accepted for granted and, ultimately, to pursue a good life as virtuously and faithfully as possible. The matter of choice is, for current purposes, central to current synthesis essay. In an attempt to synthesize meanings and shared philosophies, so to speak, in chosen articles, current essay engages assigned articles in a
Lance 2
critical “conversation.” Two articles are, for current essay purposes, are analyzed and
synthesized: “Don't Blame the Eater” (Zinczenko) and “Against Meat” (Foer). Informed by a
wider discussion on food and life choices, “Don't Blame the Eater” and “Against Meat” are
examined and synthesized. To do so, a succinct presentation of each article's central argument is
provided, a critique (if and when possible) is performed of each article's main argument, and,
finally, a synthesis is developed by engaging each article in a wider conversation (life choices, in
current case). This essay aims, accordingly, to present, critique and synthesize “Don't Blame the
Eater” and “Against Meat” articles in order to engage each into a wider conversation on choices
started in food and extended into life as a whole.
2. “Don't Blame the Eater” and “Against Meat”: Presentation
In “Don't Blame the Eater,” Zinczenko invokes childhood experiences to make a case for more choices, or alternatives, in eating. Growing up poor, Zinczenko had a few choices to eat beyond staple fast/junk food options such as McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Pizza Hut (Zinczenko 649). Years later, and having a life break as a college graduate and U.S. military serviceperson, Zinczenko has come to understand increasing risk involved in eating fast food. Giving a series of examples on risks fast food poses to eaters particularly children (e.g. much more calories a diet) Zinczenko moves on to a more balanced argument against fast/junk food. That is, instead of simply dismissing fast food as unacceptable, Zinczenko raises an important question about alternatives or choice:
Shouldn’t we know better than to eat two meals a day in fast-food restaurants? That’s one argument. But where, exactly, are consumers—particularly teenagers—supposed to find alternatives? Drive down any thoroughfare in America, and I guarantee you’ll see
Lance 3
one of our country’s more than 13,000 McDonald’s restaurants. Now, drive back up the block and try to find someplace to buy a grapefruit. (648)
Moreover, Zinczenko moves on to question current labeling practices fast food companies adopt to warn eaters against any possible health effects. Then again, Zinczenko complains current labels are not informative enough to eaters. Ultimately, Zinczenko vindicates eaters of fast food, in fact showing sympathy having been one during childhood, and lays blame on fast food company.
In “Against Meat,” Foer shares a particularly compelling personal story on meat eating and, more generally, choices he has to made between full subscription to vegetarianism and “slight” violations eating animals. Tracing an evolutionary process from an unconscious consumer of animal meat to a more conscious consumer weighing options, Foer engages readers in an immersive narrative about early personal experiences eating meals at grandma's, college years of philosophy (and validating a future, more philosophical life by opting, intermittently, out of animal meat), and experiences as a married man and father weighing food options for a whole family, not a single man. The inspiration Foer's grandmother has on him is particularly evident. Indeed, Foer's grandmother is mentioned very frequently in “Against Meat” so much so one could say Foer's grandmother shapes his whole argument – whole perspective in life – on food and choices. To Foer, chicken with carrots, his grandmother's only meal, is much more beyond a meal:
...It wasn’t until I became a parent that I understood my grandmother’s cooking. The greatest chef who ever lived wasn’t preparing food, but humans...Over pumpernickel ends and Coke, she would tell me about her escape from Europe, the foods she had to
Lance 4
eat and those she wouldn’t. It was the story of her life — “Listen to me,” she would plead — and I knew a vital lesson was being transmitted, even if I didn’t know, as a child, what that lesson was. I know, now, what it was [emphasis added]. (Foer)
Years later, more appreciative of damage animal eating – and raising – causes to environment, Foer develops a deeper – and more empathetic – understanding of animal vs. vegetarian arguments as a parent. Specifically, Foer, experiencing highs and lows in his meat eating philosophy, grows more appreciative of different choices his family members, particularly his children, might make. In essence, Foer admits own responsibility in violating a strict anti-meat philosophy, one shared by his partner, yet makes clear enough importance of personal choice. The article's closure offers a particularly strong and persuasive statement, made by Foer's grandmother, on matters of choice: “If nothing matters, there’s nothing to save.” 3. “Don't Blame the Eater” and “Against Meat”: Synthesized
The central argument Zinczenko and Foer make is, as noted, on choices. The matter of choice is not, in fact, confined to food yet extends to choices in life as well. Specifically, Zinczenko and Foer reflect on what making a choice about food by raising deeper and personal questions about underlying rationales making options possible or not. For instance, Zinczenko, in presenting on risks of fast food, “leans back” and assumes a wider perspective by asking about alternatives, as in above extended quote, eaters might have (or not) in order to avoid confirmed risks. This extends Zinczenko's argument from one focused on food choices per se into an argument perhaps about underlying political, economic and social factors informing choices/alternatives eater might have in any given context. This justifies perhaps Zinczenko's shift of blame to fast food companies and away from eaters:
Lance 5
Complicating the lack of alternatives is the lack of information about what, exactly,
we’re consuming. There are no calorie information charts on fast-food packaging, the
way there are on grocery items. Advertisements don’t carry warning labels the way
tobacco ads do. Prepared foods aren’t covered under Food and Drug Administration
labeling laws. Some fast-food purveyors will provide calorie information on request,
but even that can be hard to understand [emphasis added]. (Zinczenko 648-649)
Similarly, Foer advances from a more personal narrative focused on his own personal choices between animal meat vs. vegetarianism into a deeper reflection on choices in life and, for that matter, different choices different individuals might make, including his own children. The character of Foer's grandmother also offers more depth to Foer's argument and, as noted above, offers a particularly insightful statement in article's closure. Further, Foer, advancing ingeniously in his article from a narrow personal to a wider public perspective, identifies major milestones in his life – childhood, college years, graduation, marriage, and parenting – only to make his argument more compelling. Thus, Zinczenko and Foer can be said to share a general argument on choices on food and beyond by sharing personal experiences and advancing from a micro to a macro perspective such as to engage readers in narratives speaking to a public state of affairs beyond any personal prejudices or misconceptions.
Then again, Zinczenko and Foer depart in several points in “Don't Blame the Eater” and “Against Meat.” For one, Zinczenko and Foer, whilst sharing personal experiences, advance arguments in different ways. Specifically, whereas Zinczenko chooses not to blame eaters and lays (all) blame on fast food companies, Foer is consistently emphasizing personal choice, including his own admission of frequently viol...