User:Has97060820/sandbox

Article Evaluations

Sociology of Food

For the most part the information in the article was relevant to the topic of the sociology of food. However, I feel that the focus on eating disorders on the contemporary United States was relevant but seemed to be the focus of the article. While the author went into great depth about the sociology of food as it relates to Americans in the 20th and 21st centuries it seems to ignore other cultures and societies. I also feel that the article could have provided more information on the sociology of food production, and food production systems as it relates to the buying and selling of food and food products. I think that the article could have been improved with more relevant citations, as well as more background information of the discipline of sociologists as it relates to the theories mentioned in the article.

I do not think the author's tone was neutral. The author seemed to focus solely on the sociology of food in the West. Furthermore, the author spent the majority of the 'Dieting' section arguing against mainstream diets, and dietary practices. Lastly, the author put explicit blame on the Western media for individuals developing eating disorders without any evidence to support their argument.

The links provided by the author do not seem to support the claims made regarding eating disorders and diets in the United States, they were also not scholarly primary sources. The author does not provide any direct citations when making any claims in the reading.

On the 'Talk Page' Wiki users commented on the lack of citations in the article as well as spelling and grammar errors in the article. According to the Talk page, the "article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology". Furthermore, it has received a Stub-CLass on the quality scale. Unlike the article our class discussions and readings included the food production systems, and selling in our study of the sociology of food.

Genetically Modified Food in Hawaii

I think the author of the article included information that is relevant to the topic and helpful for readers comprehension of the topic. Some of the information regarding legislation or scientific findings could be updated if new information is available or even exists.

The article has a neutral and provides the reader with the arguments of both sides without appearing to side with any particular viewpoint.

The article provides a good amount of citations, especially when stating facts or referencing statistics. The sources used seemed to be impartial and reliable references, the links provided also work.

The article is part of three Wiki Projects, the agriculture, Hawaii and Environment projects and the article was given a start-class rating. The talk page for the article was moved to a general talk page for articles regarding genetically modified food in the United States.

Citations

 Snelder, D., Masipiqueña, M., & de Snoo, G. (2008). Risk assessment of pesticide usage by smallholder farmers in the Cagayan Valley (Philippines). Crop protection, 27(3), 747–762. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2007.10.011

  Reimer, A., & Prokopy, L. (n.d.). Environmental attitudes and drift reduction behavior among commercial pesticide applicators in a U.S. agricultural landscape. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 361–369. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.009

  Harrison, J. (2006). “Accidents” and invisibilities: Scaled discourse and the naturalization of regulatory neglect in California’s pesticide drift conflict. Political Geography, 25(5), 506–529. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.003

  Harrison, J. (n.d.). Lessons learned from pesticide drift: a call to bring production agriculture, farm labor, and social justice back into agrifood research and activism. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(2), 163–167. doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9121-5

Pesticide Drift

Draft Contribution

Hook

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation estimates that between 37-68% of pesticide illness among U.S. agricultural workers come as a result of pesticide drift.

Types:

Bystander exposure describes the event when individuals unintentionally come in contact with airborne pesticides. Bystanders include workers working at an area separate to the pesticide application are, individuals living in the surrounding areas of an application area, or individuals passing by fields as they are being treated with a pesticide.

Spray drift is the result of pesticides being blown into a waterbody from application in a nearby area, pesticides whose contents pose a health risk to the organisms in nearby waterways. (NOAA)

Public Concern:

Farm workers and communities surrounding large farms are at a high risk of coming in contact with pesticides. The San Joaquin valley in California has seen numerous cases of illnesses resulting from exposure to pesticides through pesticide drift. Organizations such as United Farm Workers Union have fought to implement legislation that would reduce and hold farmers accountable for pesticide drift. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation estimates that between 37-68% of pesticide illness among U.S. agricultural workers come as a result of pesticide drift.

Insecticides sprayed on crop fields can also have detrimental effects on non-human life forms that are important to the surrounding ecosystems like bees and other insects.

From 1998 to 2006 Environmental Health Perspectives found nearly 3,000 cases of pesticide drift, nearly half were workers on the fields treated with pesticides and 14% of cases were children under the age of 15.

In 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency published a guidance to “manufacturers, formulators, and registrants of pesticide products" (EPA 2001) that that stated the EPA’s stance against pesticide drift as well as suggested product labeling practices.

Regulations:

In 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency published a guidance to “manufacturers, formulators, and registrants of pesticide products" (EPA 2001) ^[15] that stated the EPA’s stance against pesticide drift as well as suggested product labeling practices.