A Rhetorical Analysis Of Junk Food

David Robson unites chocolate lovers and ecologists alike with his article asking if junk food is better than healthy food for the environment. He researches the carbon footprint for the production of one hundred calories of food. He doesn’t include any macromolecules in his research, his research is aimed purely at measuring the ratio between carbon dioxide production and calories. Regrettably he reminds readers that this is not an excuse for a root canal, but a thought to keep in the back of our minds when we consider a well-balanced diet (Robson, David). The general field of study his article best represents is Ecology. It relates to the information covered in the textbook and this course through metabolism and ecosystems.

Our metabolism, “the totality of an organism’s chemical reactions”, manages energy usage and production of cells. We use energy constantly and our metabolism breaks down food through complex chemical reactions into energy our cells

618.3 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent are produced each year in the United States alone for agriculture (EPA). Agriculture is one source of greenhouse gasses we can’t eliminate, but we could as a species decide to eat greener. Cows are a massive producer of methane, but very few people are willing to give up or downsize their stake intake. With so much greenhouse gas produced the problem is compiled when the amount of clean water used is taken into context. “Globally we use 70% of our water sources for agriculture and irrigation, and only 10% on domestic uses.” On the same note of water conservation 783 million people don’t have access to clean water. The issue as addressed isn’t agriculture, but where we invest most of our resources in production (The Water Project). McDonalds would not have been happy if he mentioned this, but a Big Mac produces 6.8 lbs. in greenhouse gas emissions (Ganeshan,