Code of Ethics

Code of Ethics

1. To be objective when reporting and present stories that are well researched and take time to understand the multiple layers and opinions that effect a story.

2. To report on issues that I believe are of interest and more importantly issues that effect my readers, to further their understanding of issues surrounding their lives. When choosing what information I present, think about journalism as a key in democracy.

3. To be mindful and delicate when reporting to minimize harm to both readers and people involved in the story.

4. To not skew the truth to appeal to my own interests or the interests of others.

A Low-Carb(on) Beer Diet?!

This past Thursday, The Washington Post online responded to a reader’s question:

Q I'm hosting a dinner party next week, and I'll be serving both beer and wine alongside the meal. Which has the lower carbon footprint?

I was initially surprised to find this article in The Washington Post but soon realized that drinking does not begin-and-end in college and if there is a trend to cater diets to low-carbon alternatives, why not change drinking styles too?

The article outlines a number of suggestions for a sustainable and earth-friendly party (using research largely from U.K.-based Food Climate Research Network). Some highlights are:

• There is no significance difference in the GHG emissions from beer, wine and spirits
• Bottles vs. Cans: choose glass for beer brewed locally and aluminum for beer drafted further away
• Organic barley draft significantly produces less GHG’s in its production and assembly
• Strong beers and standard ales do not require as much, if any, refrigeration, which contributes to 1/3 of the beer industries GHG emissions
• When choosing a wine, the bigger the bottle the better. Choose larger bottles or “lighweight” bottles that require less glass… boxes are even more eco-friendly—this means Franzia is good for the environment as long as you recycle the box when you are done slapping the bag!
• Wine bottles are heavy and more carbon intensive to distribute, so drink local wine over local beer

As consumers, it seems we have certain choices when purchasing beer and wine to limit our carbon footprint. On a local level, the Arbor Brewing Company brews 13 beers and sells their products at a number of locations in Ann Arbor. To get locally produced 6-packs, cases, growlers and kegs you can call 734-480-BREW.

In addition to consumer choices that reduce GHG emissions, being a college-student at the University of Michigan offers a unique opportunity to save money and clean up the environment. Under the Michigan Beverage Container Act implemented in 1978, Michigan has the highest bottle return rate at 10 cents a bottle. In effect, Michigan has the highest recycling rate.

So not only are we in Michigan, we are furthermore college students in Michigan. College students consume roughly four billion cans of beer a year… scary? If it is being put in a landfill, then it certainly is. If it can return $400,000,000 to college students annually, it just makes sense to capitalize on this waste and start returning your cans and bottles to pay for your next party. When you get wasted, don’t waste the waste!

The discussion of drinking and its carbon-footprint speaks to a growing social awareness of our daily lives and how we impact the environment through little decisions such as Busch Light versus Natural Ice (Natural Ice w. higher alcohol content would hopefully use less cans and save money). The very fact that The Washington Post reader asked about sustainable drinking shows people are not only listening to but also actively seeking information on how to be a more mindful consumer. Similarly, when I went to check out The Omnivore’s Dilemma at the Undergraduate Library, 5 of the 6 copies were checked out. Later that day, I saw a nurse at UHS reading one of the copies and discussing it with another nurse.

I wonder if the reader who inquired about the drinks to serve at her party took other factors into consideration, such as serving meat. An article on PlanetGreen.com showed that a full vegetarian diet could reduce your carbon emissions 1 ton annually, reducing your carbon footprint from 2.5 to 1.5 tons a year. This means no meat, poultry, or fish but you can eat eggs and dairy products (a.k.a. a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet). However, this reduction makes the choice between wine and beer seem a little trivial.

However, the article went on to explain that .7 tons of GHG emission (how much you save being a weekday vegetarian) is equal to about one flight from Boston, Massachusetts to Wichita, Kansas… So, a year of being a vegetarian saves a little bit more GHG emissions than a flight in the same time zone?

My intention in breaking down these numbers is, of course, not to discredit being a vegetarian or to keep people confined to Boston, but rather to illustrate the different kinds of action that can be taken to prevent global change. And it is not always the largest contributors to global change that are the most important to tackle. The road to environmental change lies in a complicated web of how people consume, what they consume, how much people consume, and if they are willing and able to change their lifestyle choices. When viewed this way, it seems that knowledge and spread of information is the key to affecting how we treat our earth.

Introduction to Food For Thought

Over the summer I went to see Food Inc., a national documentary exploiting the food industry’s contribution to various health, government, environmental and ultimately ethical issues. Food Inc. employs personal narratives alongside shocking statistics and facts to expose the discrepancy between the food we consume and the truth behind its production. While many of the statistics and stories were new to me, the documentary’s b-roll was in true PETA tradition. The documentary floods viewers with images of slaughter, filthy conditions, exploited workers from impoverished areas, all contrasted to images of open plains and independent ranchers. The food industry’s character is painted vividly and made all the more grotesque by its access to technological innovation, embodiment of mass production and backing by corrupt legislation. It was no wonder that upon leaving the theater, I felt I was walking out of the dark and seeing the light for the first time… or was it the first time?

Six years ago, my sophomore year in high school, an animal rights activist in my T.V. Production course showed me a documentary called Delicacy of Despair by an organization called Gourmet Cruelty. The video discussed foie gras, or duck liver, that is made from a duck who has been specially fattened through forced feeding. After viewing the final scene of the documentary, where a group of ducks are rescued, I asked the student how he did not get in trouble for participating in stealing the ducks, even though his face was shown multiple times. He told me that the factory they rescued, or stole, ducks from did not want to admit it was their farm due to the dire conditions shown on the film. This introduction to the mass production of meat was an introduction into what has become an interest in not only food but also issues of environment, labor rights, poverty and legislation. Among the oldest concerns of life lies food, so it is no wonder food has become a source of political debate and societal concern. If we are what we eat, what have we become?

Food Inc. is among many examples citing the increased interest people have in answering this question. Eric Schlosser, who co-produced Food Inc., is also writer who has contributed to Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker. In 2001 he released his book, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, a look into the fast-food industry, through topics such as marketing, obesity, farming and slaughterhouses. The book has since been placed on the New York Times Best-Sellers List and turned into major motion film. Food Inc. also features Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma which has been named one of the ten best books of the year by both the New York Times and the Washington Post. Pollan and Schlosser, both investigative journalists, understood and capitalized among this growing interest in the source of our food and it’s various consequences. Similarly, Michelle Obama recently started a vegetable garden on the White House’s south lawn to promote buying sustainable and local produce. Marie Claire featured an article called, “The Girl’s Guide to Eating Green” in their last issue. The New Republic’s cover story, “Aquacalypse Now: The End of Fish” discusses the decline of fish populations.

If the median is a message in itself, the increase of literature, film, news coverage, and celebrity statements concerning food attests to the importance of examining what we eat from a critical lens. My interest in food has led me through many stages, from being a vegetarian to eating tripe… I have been a pesca-tarian, poultry-tarian, back to vegetarian, stopped eating only pork, eaten bacon only when in Georgia, only eaten meat my Dad will cook, and so forth. And, this was before the green, organic movement. I have since supported and protested Whole Foods. I have shopped at produce stations but cursed them for their expensive prices. I have gone from eating eggs, to only eating free-range eggs, to eating only vegetarian-fed, free-range eggs, to not caring because I am in college and don’t have money or time to think that much about eggs…The more I learn it seems that my preference is no longer about just being "picky”, but about politics.

Throughout the course of the semester I hope to examine the various topical issues associated with our food system through research, interviews, and ultimately experience. My first experience comes from PETA’s website where I pledged to be a vegetarian for at least 30 days. I will try to be as honest as possible and also provide recipes, resources and advice that I receive during this time.

**Note to readers: I will create links to various videos and articles when I learn how to. Thank you for your patience!