Response to Post 1 and Post 2
In this article, the author highlights the negative impacts of meat-rich diets on our environment and explains how eating certain foods leads to the global warming. I was especially moved by the idea of the author to draw insights from studies conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Company. For a long period, the company had been conducting studies to determine if the consumption of meat affects the environment or also if it causes global warming. The author was successful in shedding light on the issue when he referred to a study conducted in 2009 that asserted that cattle ranching could be linked to deforestation in the Amazon rain forest or even other natural areas.
Moreover, the article highlighted the increasing demand for meat consumption in the US. The consumption of meat had tripled in the last four decades, and this should not be taken lightly according to EWG. The feeding process for cattle releases excessive amounts of nitrous oxide and greenhouse gas which causes more harm than carbon dioxide. As a result, methane gas is released to the environment and causes global warming. It is amazing how the post compares the amount of CO2 released by a kilo of meat for the equal amount emitted by an average car.
I do not like rebuttal claims in the post. The author illustrates that the consumption of meat does not affect the environment if controlled to release fewer amounts of methane gas. Generally, the post provides opinions on both sides of the argument, but the negative impacts outweigh the positive side. The post cannot be categorized as a scientific study since it contains numerous thoughts and lacks substantial data to back the evidence. In the future, the author should consider incorporating factual information backed up by data.
POST 2
The post presents the pros and cons of drinking alcohol with numerous thoughts and opinions. The author of the post relates the advantages of alcohol with a moderate term. I think that the post fails to clear the air and presents a coherent scientific argument. The post consists of inconsistencies and unexplained information that makes it exceedingly difficult to take a stand.
The risks and benefits of alcohol consumption are coined to the moderation of drinkers. There are certain levels explained by the US defining what a drink is. The post was successful in defining what a drink is and it that is a good thing. Studies contradict each other, and it remains unclear if alcohol causes more advantages or disadvantages to the population. Despite the struggles, the post illustrates that moderate drinking, as defined by the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans is beneficial for human consumption.
The use of the term ‘could’ indicates that the author is uncertain of some of the arguments presented. For example, “possible benefits could be a reduced (25-40%) risk of developing cardiovascular disease.” On the other hand, the post asserts, “More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, stroke, ischemic, sudden cardiac death, peripheral vascular disease, and death from all cardiovascular causes” (Chan ,2016).It is clear that overconsumption leads to chronic diseases that cause death. The end of the end illustrates that alcohol has no benefits when comparing women risks in developing breast cancer. The post could have been scientific if it included more data and research by various bodies and institution.
References
Chan, H. T. (2006). Alcohol and Heart Disease | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Retrieved from http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-and-heart-disease/
