Peer Review Workshop – Dr. Avillez1. Introduction· Does the in.docx

Peer Review Workshop – Dr. Avillez
1. Introduction
· Does the introduction try to explain anything about a theory?
· Yes – This is bad. Move explanations to the body of the essay.
· No.
· Does the introduction waste time on unimportant details about
the philosopher’s life or inflated rhetoric, or any other fluff?
· Yes – This is bad. Remove all fluff. The introduction should
tell me about the paper that is to come, nothing else. One or two
sentences for context building is ok, but keep it short.
· No.
· Does the introduction cite a dictionary definition of a term at
any point?
· Yes – This reflects poor style and is largely unhelpful. Never
cite a dictionary definition of a term. If it’s an important term,
the philosopher probably defined it in their text.
· No.
· Does the introduction help the reader understand why the
thesis (and therefore the paper) is interesting or important?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. The introduction should tell me about the
paper that is to follow and make me care about it.
· Does the introduction work as a guide, or “road map,” to the
paper?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. The introduction should tell the reader how
the paper will unfold.
· Is the introduction brief and concise?
· Yes.
· No. – This is bad. The introduction should do everything it
must do in less than ½ a page, in a paper this short.
2. Thesis Statement
· Can you easily identify and understand the thesis statement?

· Yes.
· No – This is bad. If you cannot find or understand the thesis,
the paper will probably make little sense. Help the author craft
a (better) thesis.
· Does the thesis make an interesting assertion, about which
intelligent people might disagree?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. If the thesis says something obvious, then
the paper will strike the reader as pointless.
· Is the thesis detailed and specific?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. The thesis should provide as much detail as
possible. If it claims that there are problems with an argument,
it should say what those problems are. If it says that an
argument is strong, it should say why.
3. Body
· Does the body of the essay include (1) an exposition (or
explanation) of the theory, arguments, and/or concepts it will
discuss, (2) the author’s own arguments in support of their
thesis, and (ideally) (3) a consideration of objections to the
thesis or its supporting arguments? Note that these elements do
not have to be separated into different sections of the essay, but
should be easily identifiable and flow naturally. If in doubt, do
it in this order.
· Yes.
· No. – This is bad. Roughly ½ of the essay should be spent
explaining the theory the paper will analyze, and the other ½
should be spent analyzing it (this second half may include
considerations of potential objections).
· Does each paragraph focus on one single idea or argument?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. Paragraphs should be focused. If you move
on to a new topic, start a new paragraph. If you notice that you
are left with very short paragraphs, take that as a hint that you
have not said enough about those topics.

· Are any paragraphs longer than ¾ of a page?
· Yes – This is bad. Long paragraphs are taxing on the reader,
and are usually a sign of lack of focus. Find where the topic
shifts in the long paragraphs, and break them up.
· No.
· Are all of the author’s claims supported with arguments or
evidence from the text (i.e. quotes or paraphrases)?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. Identify each unsupported claim, so that the
author can fix them.
· Does the author rely too heavily on quotes? Rule of
Thumb:quotes should (only) be used to support a particular
interpretation of the text. Unless the exact wording of the
passage is important, paraphrase it instead.
· Yes – This is bad. Identify unnecessary quotes (i.e. passages
that could be eliminated or changed to paraphrases without any
loss to the paper).
· No.
· Are all quotes and paraphrases properly cited?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. Identify all passages that should be cited. As
a rule of thumb, you should cite whenever you attribute a
thought to someone, when you use someone else's thoughts in
your own writing, or when you describe something that you
learned from one of your sources.
· Are all quotes from a theory carefully explained in the
author’s own words?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. Identify all quotes that need to be explained.
Never rely on a quote to do your work for you.
· Does every paragraph contribute to the defense of the thesis?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. Paragraphs that do not directly or indirectly
contribute to the explanation or defense of the thesis should
probably be deleted.

4. Conclusion
· Does the conclusion provide a quick overview of the argument
that was just given?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad. Conclusions in analytical/critical papers
should remind the reader how your argument has unfolded.
· Does the conclusion remind the reader why this paper’s
argument is important?
· Yes.
· No. – This is bad.
· Does the conclusion acknowledge any important questions that
were not addressed in the paper?
· Yes. (this is good)
· No.
5. Language
· Are all key terms and concepts explained when they are first
used in the essay?
· Yes.
· No. This is bad. Do not use jargon without explaining what it
means.
· Does the essay include pretentious prose (“alas,” “deem,”
“quest,” “ponder,” “propound,” etc.), which makes it difficult to
read.?
· Yes. This is bad. The essay should consist of simple (but not
informal) language. Clarity of language and thought is key.
Having said that, only use language you know and are
comfortable with. Put that thesaurus down!
· No.
· Is the author’s language precise?
· Yes.
· No. This is bad. Avoid hyperboles and vague metaphors.
· Does the author use profanity and/or colloquialisms (i.e.
informal turns of phrase, such as “gonna,” “gotta,” or “mind-
blowing”)?
· Yes – This is bad. Use clean and formal language. You writing

should be more formal than your everyday speech.
· No.
· Does the author use rhetorical questions at any point?
· Yes. This is bad. Rhetorical questions can weaken your essay
in two ways: 1) by leaving open the possibility that the reader
will answer your question in unforeseen ways, therefore robbing
your argument of credibility; and 2) by fooling you (the writer)
into thinking that you have argued your point sufficiently. If
you are trying to make a point, then turn the question into an
assertion, and defend that assertion.
· No.
6. Bibliography
· Does the essay contain a complete and properly formatted
(MLA style) bibliography, which includes all cited sources as
well as all sources consulted in the process of writing?
· Yes.
· No – This is bad.
The advantages of using Sign Language in conjunction with
cochlear implants
The use of cochlear implants (CIs) in children has become
increasingly controversial since they were originally designed
in 1957. In Canada, candidates for CIs suffer from severe to
profound sensorineural hearing loss (70dB HL or worse) in both
ears (Cochlear Implants, 2018). The majority of deaf children
are born into hearing families and therefore have additional
barriers to overcome in their developmental journeys. Selecting
a communication method is one of the most important and
difficult decisions the parent of a Deaf child must make.
However, professionals and community resources present
opposing information about the advantages and disadvantages of
various therapies and modes of communication. Cochlear
implants are still relatively new technology, and amendments
should be made so that treatment protocols reflect the most
recent research available. Recent research has demonstrated the

various benefits of the use of Sign Language in conjunction
with CIs, yet many support services actively discourage or
prevent its use. It would be highly beneficial for Deaf children
and their families if current policies would begin to encompass
the many benefits of a multi-modal approach to language. Deaf
children should be required to develop some form of signed
communication prior to the insertion of a cochlear implant to
reduce the risk of developmental delays and provide a
constantly available form of communication.
The support systems in place for the hearing families of Deaf
children are partially responsible for the developmental delays
displayed by CI users during childhood. Deaf children born into
hearing families are particularly disadvantaged because they are
born without access to their parents’ native language. The
current support systems that exist in North America for families
of hearing-impaired children do not adequately educate parents
on the communication strategies they should or could employ
(Snoddon, 2008, p. 583). Parents develop high expectations in a
CIs ability to develop “normal” speech and language. As a
result, only some parents prioritise using whichever
communication method will be most beneficial for their child’s
overall development (Hyde & Punch, 2011, p. 542).
Unfortunately, even early implantation of a CI does not
guarantee the development of spoken language skills (Hall,
2017, p. 962). Unless support services set realistic expectations,
parents are likely to assume that whichever therapy method they
utilise will develop complete speech skills that negate the need
for a signed language. Hearing parents of Deaf children rely on
the advice of professionals and community resources to guide
their decisions (McDonald Connor, Hieber, Arts, & Zwolan,
2000, p. 1186). Ironically, “social work programs, like speech-
language pathology and medical training programs, generally do
not provide their students with in-depth information about deaf
people or signed language” and they are likely to make
recommendations based off public policies rather than scientific

research (Snoddon, 2008, p. 592). Ontario’s Infant Hearing and
Communication Development Program (IHP) requires children
to be immersed in oral communication methods following
implantation (p. 592). Research studies in Australia have also
shown that many parents are actively discouraged from using
any form of signed language with their deaf child (Hyde &
Punch, 2011, p. 542). In contrast, Sweden requires children to
learn Sign Language for them to be considered for a CI
(Snoddon, 2008, p. 587). A correlation was demonstrated
between signed language and spoken language abilities in
Swedish children, though most children became less dependent
on their use of Sign Language as language skills developed
(Hyde & Punch, 2011, p. 537). There is no evidence that
learning Sign Language negatively impacts the ability to learn
spoken language, so it is surprising that any intervention
programs would discourage using a language that is fully
accessible to the child. Early intervention is fundamental to
developing language skills, so misinformation by authoritative
figures often leads to uninformed decisions being made which
result in developmental delays.
Deaf children need to be exposed to Sign Language from they
moment they are diagnosed with profound hearing loss to
minimise the risk of language delays. There is a critical period
of language development in all children which usually ends in
early adolescence, and language deprivation during these years
can drastically impact the formation of neural networks
(Easterbrooks & Baker, 2002, p. 55) (Hall, 2017, p. 962).
Without exposure to Sign Language, Deaf children are
completely deprived of language prior to CI implantation. If
deprived from language during this critical period, they may
struggle to develop any formal language skills – whether signed
or spoken (Mayberry, 2006, p. 38). Oral communication
advocates often believe that Sign Language affects the ability to
develop spoken language skills, but there is very little evidence
to substantiate this belief. It is possible that the consequences

of language deprivation are being confused with the impact of
Sign Language on spoken language acquisition (Hall, 2017, p.
961). Although some research does suggest that children
immersed in oral communication programs have higher
consonant-production accuracy scores, the studies that
established such conclusions are either out-dated or so affected
by limitations of sample size and uncontrolled variables that
their results must be taken with a grain of salt (McDonald
Connor, Hieber, Arts, & Zwolan, 2000, p. 1185). Unlike speech,
Sign Language is fully-accessible prior to CI implantation and
allows the opportunity for Deaf children to progress at normal
rates of language development. This is clearly demonstrated by
Deaf children born to Deaf parents who reach language
developmental milestones at the same ages as hearing children
(Snoddon, 2008, p. 585). However, 90% of deaf children are
born into hearing families and are not naturally exposed to this
form of communication. With adequate support from their
hearing families and community services, knowledge of Sign
Language seems to promote rapid language development
following implantation (Hyde & Punch, 2011, p. 545). Although
early implantation may expose children to language within the
critical period, they may struggle to associate auditory stimuli
with words. Some children may be able to transfer their
knowledge of “verbal skills from sign language, learned earlier
on, to spoken language,” but not all of them will be so
successful (Jimenez, Pino, & Herruzo, 2009, p. 113). Tim Lane,
an American Sign Language (ASL) instructor at the University
of Victoria, explained his experience with assistive hearing
devices as having little effect on his ability to comprehend
speech. Roughly translated from ASL, he said that they allowed
him to understand his environment, but that speech was very
hard (personal communication, November 20, 2018). This
suggests that early acquisition of Sign Language can also act as
a safety net for children that struggle to adapt to their CIs.
Oral communication advocates are often concerned that children

will become dependent on visual communication if Sign
Language is developed before speech. However, exposure to
Sign Language develops the same inherent properties of
language as speech and, in fact, facilitates the learning of
spoken English as a second language. The lexical and
grammatical components of Sign Language provide a foundation
for learning a spoken language (Snoddon, 2008, p. 591).
Evidence also suggests that “bilinguals are associated with
better cognitive outcomes when compared with monolinguals”
(Hall, 2017, p. 961). As their communication skills continue to
develop, many children become less reliant on signed
communication. Additionally, they find it easy to swap between
communication modes depending on their environment (Hyde &
Punch, 2011, p. 545). These findings suggest that most children
are only “dependent” on signed communication when they are
speaking with another member of the Deaf community or are
unable to use their CI. Furthermore, delayed development of a
signed language may cause the visual information to be
processed in a less efficient manner (Hall, 2017, p. 962). Sign
Language is frequently used as a remedial therapy once a child
reaches school age, but it is not as practical a rehabilitation
option if it requires active processing in the brain due to
delayed acquisition. New developments in childhood hearing
assessments have resulted in an upward trend of early CI
implantation. Cochlear implants are proven to be more
successful when implanted before the age of 5, but it may not be
possible to diagnose other learning deficits at such an early age
(Hyde & Punch, 2011, p. 547). Some research suggests that
learning two languages is too demanding for children with
specific language impairment and therefore does not support the
early development of Sign Language (Snoddon, 2008, p. 588).
Contrastingly, new research suggests that children with special
needs are likely to benefit the most from the additional support
of signed communication (Bosco, D'Agosta, Traisci, Nicastri, &
Filipo, 2010). In short, it is advantageous to expose children to
whichever form of communication is fully accessible to them

and will be acquired easily.
Language deprivation contributes to the social and emotional
delays frequently exhibited by Deaf children, but exposure to
signed communication in early adolescence facilitates the
development of social skills and emotional resilience. Hall
(2017) argues that some of the negative consequences of
language deprivation include “cognitive delays, mental health
difficulties, lower quality of life, higher trauma and limited
health literacy”. Difficulties communicating with family and
peers result in fewer conversational opportunities (Snoddon,
2008, p. 594). As fewer opportunities present themselves,
children have fewer chances to practice social skills and form
relationships. Learning Sign Language as early as possible is
fundamental for the development of an accessible language that
allows communication prior to the use of a CI. Language
abilities foster a child’s understanding of appropriate social
interactions. Some family members will have great difficulty
developing Sign Language skills themselves, and the problems
that arise from fractured communication with their child may
increase anxiety and lead to emotional deficits (Marschark,
2007, p. 220). As a result, it is important that all family
members actively participate in communicative strategies. As
delays in social skills develop, so do emotional deficits.
Frustration and anxiety conveyed as temper tantrums may be a
direct result of difficulties communicating and understanding
social cues. As children continue to develop, depression may be
attributed to feelings of isolation and struggles with identity.
Deaf children born into hearing families are not naturally
involved in the Deaf community. The use of a CI adds to the
disparity between their hearing and Deaf identity, and so Deaf
children may find it difficult to recognise themselves as part of
either community (Hyde & Punch, 2011, p. 545). Though some
CI users will discover Sign Language independently to form a
relationship with the Deaf community, it becomes significantly
more difficult to learn any language after adolescence. An

established understanding of Sign Language allows a CI user to
readily engage with the Deaf community and develop a social
network that understands the obstacles they face on an everyday
basis. A feeling of identity and support is essential for
developing emotional resilience.
Contrary to what parents may want to believe, children with
cochlear implants are “still deaf” and there will always be
moments where Sign Language is the most viable form of
communication. Cochlear implants are relatively new
technology and are very susceptible to damage – particularly in
the hands of children. One study demonstrated replacement
rates in children as high as 25% (Marschark, 2007, p. 47).
Furthermore, maintenance and repair of a CI may not always be
financially feasible. In the face of a technological malfunction,
a child may be left without access to language for extended
periods of time. There are also children who outright refuse to
wear their implant and are vulnerable to the same language
deprivation. Children impacted by this lack of technology may
have had the opportunity to develop speech skills but are
limited by their abilities to converse back and forth without
sound or signed communication. Lip reading and
communication through written messages is ineffective and
exhausting. A knowledge of some signed communication can
support families, teachers and peers through these difficult
times. It can also be beneficial for activities such a swimming
where a CI cannot be used; “It’s partly safety, and it’s partly to
keep in communication” (Hyde & Punch, 2011, p. 543). It is not
essential that families use Sign Language as their primary
means of communication, but it is beneficial for all family
members to understand the basics to prevent breakdowns in
communication and support difficult conversations.
Advances in technology and research are yet to diminish the
presentation of developmental delays in Deaf children.
Consequently, it is appropriate to consider the inadequacies of

support systems in successfully promoting the development of
language, social and emotional skills. The support systems that
exist in many parts of the world do not adequately educate
parents, and follow policies that are not congruous with current
research and developments in CI technology. As a result, many
children are vulnerable to delays due to language deprivation
during the critical development window of adolescence. Despite
the arguments against the early acquisition of Sign Language,
many parents find it beneficial to use signed communication in
conjunction with other communication strategies. Strict policies
about therapeutic communication methods prevent families from
being able to create a flexible regime that is ideal for their
family logistics and child’s development. Families that were
supported in exploring multiple paths held more favourable
opinions of their support services and their outcomes. That
being said, most families that follow strict treatment protocols
are usually dissuaded from using signed communication. The
idea of this research is not to refute the benefits of cochlear
implants or oral communication, but to show the advantages of
supporting oral communication with Sign Language during early
adolescence. Although it is incredibly difficult for adults to
learn the Sign Language skills necessary to interact with their
Deaf child, changes to policies should make support services
more readily available to families and develop programs that
cater specifically to communicating with children. Regardless
of which mode of communication a family decides to employ, a
Deaf child’s success will ultimately be determined by their
family’s dedication and commitment to their ongoing
development.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
I commented on the rough drafts, so I will not add much here.
You generally did a great job of presenting all of the relevant
issues around sign language and cochlear implants. You made a
good argument, although, as you point out in your self-
assessment, there’s not a substantial movement to not have

children learn sign language as well. It’s not as much of a
controversial topic as it might have been. That being said, you
did bring in more counterargument for this draft, so we do get a
better sense that that there is some form of controversy at least.
You make good use of secondary sources, and the paper is very
well-written in terms of prose writing. The organization is
fairly clear too.
References
Bosco, E., D'Agosta, L., Traisci, G., Nicastri, M., & Filipo, F.
(2010). Use of sign language in paediatric cochlear implant
users: Whys and wherefores. Cochlear Implants International,
11, 249-253. doi:10.1179/146701010X12671177988959
Cochlear Implants. (2018). Retrieved November 27, 2018, from
Canadian Hard of Hearing Association:
https://www.chha.ca/hearing-education/cochlear-
implants/#Candidate
Easterbrooks, S. R., & Baker, S. K. (2002). Language learning
in children who are deaf and hard of hearing: Multiple
pathways. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hall, W. C. (2017). What you don’t know can hurt you: The risk
of language deprivation by impairing Sign Language
development in Deaf children. Maternal and Child Health
Journal, 21(5), 961-965. doi:10.1007/s10995-017-2287-y
Hyde, M., & Punch, R. (2011). The Modes of communication
used by children with cochlear implants and role of sign in their
lives. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(5), 535-549.
doi:10.1353/aad.2011.0006
Jimenez, M. S., Pino, M. J., & Herruzo, J. (2009). A
comparative study of speech development between deaf children
with cochlear implants who have been educated with spoken or
spoken + sign language. International Journal or Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology, 73, 109-114.
doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2008.10.007

Marschark, M. (2007). Raising and educating a Deaf child: A
comprehensive guide to the choices, controversies, and
decisions faced by parents and educators (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=
415689#
Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Learning Sign Language as a second
language. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language &
Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 743-746). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B0-
08-044854-2/05260-3
McDonald Connor, C., Hieber, S., Arts, H. A., & Zwolan, T. A.
(2000). Speech, vocabulary, and the education of children using
cochlear implants: Oral or total communication. Journal of
Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 43, 1185-1204.
Snoddon, K. (2008). American Sign Language and early
intervention. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4),
581-604. Retrieved from muse.jhu.edu/article/241545
Audience Analysis:
This essay is written with an academic audience in mind. One
target audience would be the professionals and community
workers who support families and advise on Deaf therapies. As
mentioned in my essay, there are many professionals who may
provide advice on therapy options for Deaf children who are not
sufficiently equipped to do so. Additionally, it targets the
people who make decisions about the government-funded
support systems that are available to Deaf families. The purpose
of the essay is to encourage the target audience to act on current
research to make changes and amend early intervention
protocols by adjusting the requirements necessary to qualify for
a cochlear implant.
Although they are not part of an academic audience, parents of
Deaf children would benefit from reviewing the information
presented in this essay. The information presented also acts as a

valuable source of information for parents on the benefits of
Sign Language development.
Lastly, researchers are a target audience for this essay. Some of
the “recent” research in this field is from as early as 2002. Put
in to perspective, such research is a quarter of the age of
cochlear implant technology itself. This essay presents some of
the holes that exist in research and areas that should be explored
in further depth.
Self-assessment:
1st draft:
As is abundantly obvious from the lack of introduction and
conclusion, my essay is still a work in progress. I read so much
information in the planning stage of this assignment that I
struggled to decide which research would be most relevant. I
tweaked my thesis a little bit from what I had originally
proposed so that it would be supported more by existing
research in the field. My first paragraph originally contained so
much information that it now represented by two paragraphs.
However, I am worried that these paragraphs are still quite
long.
I have used strictly authoritative sources except for one direct
quote from my ASL lecture. I emailed him to verify whether it
would be OK to include in my assignment and am still waiting
for a response, so it may not be included in my final draft. I
think that the authoritative sources are essential for the essay to
fulfil its purpose.
I enjoyed researching this topic but was inundated with
information that focused on the benefits of early CI
implantation. The benefits of early implantation are widely
reported and agreed upon, whereas the use of Sign Language
and remedial therapies are significantly more controversial. I
chose to focus on this aspect of Deaf language development
because I think it deserves considerable attention and further
research.

2nd draft:
This draft of my essay not finally has an introduction and
conclusion. I made a few slight changes to the body of the
essay, but most of the ideas remain the same. I took in to
consideration your point about making a break in my last
paragraph. Instead of separating it, I have bridged my ideas a
little bit more clearly so that they form a more cohesive
paragraph. I thought that the social and emotional skills were
closely intertwined so didn’t want to separate them
unnecessarily. If you still think that they form separate ideas,
then I will form two paragraphs.
Final draft:
I got the go-ahead from my ASL lecturer to keep a quote from
him in the body of my essay. I thought I may have had to cut it
out at the last minute, but now get to keep that paragraph the
way it is. I had to do a little bit of digging to check how to cite
it originally and found some conflicting information when
searching for how to cite lecture material that wasn’t presented
in written form.
I added a couple of small counter argument comments, but there
is very little current research that actually suggests that learning
Sign Language is damaging to speech/language development.
Instead, I’ve broached the idea that research is not keeping-up
with the developments in CI technology. I also adjusted my
conclusion to give a slight run-down of what was covered in the
body of my essay in more direct terms.
Home-Cooking for Health and Healing
We are much more than we eat, but what we eat has the power
to make us much greater than we are; both figuratively and
literally. We require food to grow, reproduce, repair, and
maintain the essence of life. Humans have a long-standing

relationship with food that dates back to the earliest of
mankind.This relationship allows people to know when their
food is ripe, healthy, and safe to eat. The evolutionary
familiarity with food has led to elaborate systems of
communication up and down the food chain. For instance,
ripeness is signaled by an appealing smell and sight.
Additionally, when a fruit, seed, nut, or grain reaches peak
ripeness it contains its greatest concentration of nutrients
(Pollan, 2009 104-105). Whole foods are defined as food that
contains no additives or artificial substances and have not been
processed or refined. There is an ecological relationship seen
strictly between consumers and whole foods, not between the
chemicals or nutrient contents. For example, our bodies have a
beneficial relationship with corn; however, corn syrup leads to
ill health because the body does not know how to handle these
chemical novelties (Pollan, 2009 104-105). The best thing a
person can do for their body and mind is to eat a diet filled with
whole foods. Indeed, the only way to guarantee a wholesome
diet is by cooking it yourself.
Home-cooking has a number of benefits for both the cook and
the consumer. Cooking gives people control over their food
intake, helps them connect with others, enables them to explore
food cultures, and vastly improves overall health. The western
diet consists of processed foods and meat, added fats and
sugars, and everything except fruits, vegetables, and whole
grains. These food combinations have completely taken over the
western diet. This is shown by the factr that 2/3 of Americans
are overweight or obese, a quarter has metabolic syndrome, and
44 million are diagnosed with pre-diabetes. Additionally, there
has been a 5% annual rise in type two diabetes since 1990. This
is a disease that can be prevented through a change of diet and
exercise (Pollan, 2009 104-105). The westernized culture is the
sickest it’s ever been; afflicted with countless illnesses from
internal diseases to mood disorders. The root of this problem
stems from what we, as a society, are prioritizing in terms of
nutrition. Cooking at home compared to eating out should be

considered as a major solution to both physical and mental
health problems caused by the food that plagues the westernized
culture. This research paper will discuss the psychological and
physical benefits of home cooking through the analysis of
restaurant eating, the research behind the gut and the brain, the
exploration behind cooking as a creative outlet, the
investigation behind the foodborne illness, and lastly common
misconceptions about eating out.
Fast food chains and restaurants are seen as the culprit of the
poor nutrition epidemic of the 21st century. They have single-
handedly changed the western diet and created a mass of
problem and disease. According to the American Journal of
Preventative Medicine, the entire fast food industry has been
the source of policies that enhance large portion size, promote
high sodium, saturated fats, and calories as well as support the
depletion of many important minerals and vitamins (Popkin,
2012). This leads to a number of problems such as how heart
disease is the number one killer in America and Canada.
Harvard Heart Letter says the cardiovascular disease is
estimated to cost America $555 billion dollars per year.
Therefore, not only is the westernized diet killing people, but it
is also wreaking havoc on taxpayers and healthcare expenses
(Harvard Medical School, 2019).
Home cooked meals lead people to eat smaller portions
therefore, fewer calories, less fat, salt, and sugar. This can be
seen in a study done by the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition
and Dietetics where researchers monitored home food
preparation and discovered family meals are positively
associated with increased consumption of numerous nutrients.
The study also revealed people who prepare food in the home
are more inclined to eat smaller portions, consume fewer
calories as well as less fat, sugar, and salt (Jones et al., 2014).
Additional research suggests that people who eat more home-
cooked meals tend to weigh less, have healthier cholesterol and
blood sugar values in comparison to those who eat out
frequently (Harvard Medical School, 2019). It is clear that home

cooking is extremely beneficial for society. If people
implemented this practice into their homes more often the world
would be a happier, fitter, and less expensive place to live.
Recent trends in Neuroscience have discovered how the gut
microbiota is an important player in brain and bodily functions
which in turn, is affected by eating out. Additionally, the gut
microbiome and healthy homeostasis go hand in hand. When the
body is at optimal homeostasis the risk of disease, including
anxiety and mood disorder, is greatly decreased (Foster and
Neufeld, 2013). Homeostasis is regulated by the gut
microbiome, lined with specific bacterium such as lactobacillus,
rhamnoses, and both systems display major effects on the
neuroendocrine system. In other words, there is a close linkage
between gastrointestinal bacteria and the brain. This is seen
through the 500 million neurons found in the gut, which are
connected to the brain. (Foster and Neufeld, 2013). This
information clarifies why people should be mindful about what
they put in their bodies. The microbiome is a dynamic entity
influence by several factors one of which being diet (Foster and
Neufeld, 2013). One study by the Food Research International
discovered how there are many factors that can modulate the
composition of the gut microbiota, and diet is currently
considered the most important one. Therefore, allowing for the
conclusion that what a person puts in their body greatly affects
their mental state. This is why many people who eat a heavily
westernized diet suffer from mood disorders such as depression,
anxiety, brain fog, and fatigue (Danneskiold-Samsøe et al.,
2019). Poor nutrition caused by high fat, sodium, and sugar
intake not only causes detrimental physical effects, but it also
causes psychological damage due to the brain and gut
correlation. Nevertheless, home cooking works to combat the
effects of mood disorders through a variety of factors.
The act of cooking is creative to the extent that it offers as an
outlet for creativity which boosts a person’s mental health and
overall sense of well-being . There are relatively no limits when
it comes to the mixing and construction of ingredients The

Journal of Creative Behavior outlines how cooking can help
people understand what is involved in the development of
creative culinary competence and the various pathways
available for expression (Beghetto et al., 2016). The act of
manipulating whole food ingredients to produce a final
masterpiece, that can be shared between loved ones, is
extremely beneficial for both the creator and the recipient.
Cooking lessens the feelings of depression and anxiety.
Additionally, cooking opens up the opportunity to gain
knowledge surrounding different socio-cultural and historical
aspects of life (Beghetto et al., 2016). Many recipes have been
passed down through generations. People say they feel
connected with their culture when they make certain dishes. For
example, Sarah Massah explains how through the food she is
able to strengthen her relationship with her Indian heritage,
which in turn lessens feelings of disconnection and sadness
(Massah, 2013). Focusing on the act of cooking itself proves
why people should cook at home instead of eating out.
To contrast, restaurants have begun to advertise and display
“mindful meals” or “healthier” options on their menus. For
example, the popular dine-in restaurant: Cactus Club Café
recently added a few menu items under the description “lifestyle
choices." These include entrees such as the Modern Bowl with
grilled tofu, avocado, pineapple salsa, roasted vegetables, and
miso carrot ginger sauce. However, the nutritional breakdown of
this item as seen on the Cactus Club café website under
nutritional information shows 870 calories, 45 grams of fat, 94
grams of carbohydrates, and 2,150 milligrams of sodium. This
meal accounts for double the amount of sodium a person should
eat each day and almost half the recommended daily caloric
intake for an average 19-year old woman. Although this is
merely one restaurant guilty of false health advertising there are
dozens of others just like it. The Journal of Consumer Research
investigated the so-called "health halo's" of fast food
restaurants which is defined as the a person’s inclination to
order sides at healthier fast food establishments. Studies show

that people tend to order sides such as drinks and desserts in
addition to the main dish when ordering from restaurants that
claim to be healthy. Healthy, such as Subway, Chipotle, Chick-
fil-A, Booster Juice and more (Chandon and Wansink, 2007).
Although the Subway menu offers decently healthy options, the
health halo that comes with the restaurant leads people to order
more sides such as sodas and cookies compared to a
McDonald’s order (Chandon and Wansink, 2007). Therefore,
consumers are rationalizing the decision to purchase additional
sides that are often extremely high in fat, salt, and sugar.
Furthermore, some may argue that pho and sushi can be healthy
options when eating out; however, this is false. Sushi poses a
potential risk for illnesses caused by mercury. Excessive
ingestion of mercury leads to damaged neurological sensory-
motor and cardiovascular functioning. The Royal Society tested
the mercury content of 100 sushi samples from 54 restaurants
and 15 supermarkets in multiple states along the east coast and
found the mean mercury concentrations of all samples exceed
the concentration permitted by Japan (Lowenstein et al., 2010).
Comparatively, there are additional vegetable sushi rolls that a
person can order, however, the risk of contamination during
preparation remains as a relevant concern. As for pho, the
Vietnamese soup contains between 6,000 to 12,000 milligrams
of salt per serving. The daily recommended salt intake for male
adults is about 1,500 milligrams. This salt concentration of pho
is present regardless of whether or not a person orders vegetable
or meat. This is because it is found in the broth itself. To
conclude, the claim that restaurants are better than home-
cooking due to the integration of healthy menu items is false.
Restaurants want people to enjoy their foods so that people
continue to come back and purchase their items. The only
rational way to confirm this transaction is to make sure the food
they sell tastes good. The drawback of producing good-tasting-
fast-meals in large amounts is that they are loaded with butter,
salt, and sugar. The foods we eat should consist of fresh
ingredients from scratch rather than processed foods and this

can only be assured through the art of home cooking. This
information further proves why home-cooked meals should be
prioritized over any other form of eating.
Although some may say home-cooking has the ability to be
unhealthy depending on the ingredients a person uses, the
contrary can be seen in the cold hard facts. A study done by the
Public Health Nutrition investigated diet quality and the number
of times a person eats out in a week. The results showed
someone who cooked dinner 0-1 times per week consumed
9,627 total kilojoules with 86 grams of fat and 135 grams of
sugar. Someone who cooked dinner 6-7 times per week
displayed an average of 8,500 kilojoules per day, 81 grams of
fat, and 115 grams of sugar (Wolfson et al., 2015). These results
were taken from individuals who had no intentions of weight-
loss. In conclusion, those who ate home-cooked meals displayed
a healthier dietary status compared to those who mostly ate out.
The reason for this being that although a person may use butter,
oil, and salt in their cooking, there is more awareness and
control over consumption and preparation of the food.
Nevertheless, I am not saying that society should completely
ditch restaurant eating, however, similar to most indulgences;
eating out should be approached with moderation. Indeed, this
happens to be a concept we as a society have yet to truly grasp.
Alternatively, there a few examples of home-cooked meals that
possess all of the beneficial qualities discussed above. For
example, a simple stir fry. This includes vegetables such as
broccoli, carrots, peppers, snap peas, and kale. Then, combine
the medley of vegetables into a skillet with dash of vegetable
oil, garlic, ginger, pepper, soy sauce, and hot sauce. Next, add
in the protein desired such as tofu, lean chicken meat, or
shrimp. Combine the vegetables and protein together in the pan
and serve on a bed of brown rice. This meal is simple, fast, and
fulfills Canada’s food guide; which says one’s plate should
consist of ½ a plate of fruits/vegetables, ¼ plate of whole
grains, and ¼ plate of meat or alternatives. Another healthy
meal that can easily be cooked at home is pizza. Use either

whole grain pizza dough or a cauliflower-based crust
(cauliflower, egg, and seasonings blended to a paste then
baked), then add on pizza sauce, garlic, olives, peppers, a dash
of mozzarella cheese, all topped with arugula or kale. Twenty
minutes later and you have a low carb, high protein meal that
will satisfy all cravings. Pizza is generally deemed as an
unhealthy meal; however, I chose to exemplify it to illustrate
how the nutritional value of meals can be controlled when a
person makes the meal themselves. There are also a few simple
hacks to ensure home-cooked meals are as healthy as possible.
The first being to cook with unsaturated oils such as olive,
avocado, and grapeseed, instead of saturated oils which includes
margin and butter. Additionally, steaming is the gentlest and
healthies way to prepare vegetables. Seasonings and herbs are a
major factor when it comes to how food tastes, however, high
sodium seasonings should be used sparingly. Lastly, it is
important to be mindful when buying and cooking ingredients.
Allowing oneself to be fully present during these processes
ensures that the results will be beneficially maximized.
Foodborne illness is a major concern when it comes to eating
out due to the process of ordering food and receiving the meal
on a platter, with no knowledge of how it was prepared. When a
person is not present during the process of buying the
ingredients, preparing the meal, and finally presenting the meal,
then he or she ultimately loses all control and knowledge over
what is going into their body. The dangers of this span from
food born illness to a number of diseases discussed above. Eric
Schlosser’s widely renowned novel Fast Food Nation
investigates the ugly truth behind food born illnesses. He
explains how the nations industrialized and centralized system
of food processing has created outbreaks of food poisoning that
manage to sicken millions of people. He compares foodborne
illness to pre-industrialization where it may have occurred in a
church supper caused by improper storage of food and resulted
in a few people feeling sick. Fast forward to today and we are
looking at newly emerged and extremely dangerous bacterium

such as E. coli and salmonella; which have manifested through
the processes of meat packing, food processing, and improper
food handling (Schlosser, 2001 198). When people cook at
home, they have complete knowledge and control over vegetable
washing, meat cooking, and environmental cleanliness.
Therefore, the chances of contracting foodborne illnesses
becomes less significant and the overall health of society
increases exponentially.
Through the analysis of restaurant eating, the gut and the brain,
foodborne illness, as well as the exploration behind cooking as
a creative outlet, and lastly common misconceptions about
eating out, this research paper has effectively proven the
psychological and physical benefits of home-cooking.
Restaurants have managed to sicken westernized culture with
loads of fat, salt, and sugar. These establishments can be
blamed for the millions of people who are diagnosed with
diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity each year.
Additionally, the relationship between the gut and the brain
proves how eating minimally processed and whole foods can
significantly benefit a person’s mind and body. Foodborne
illnesses are caused by mass production and mishandling of
food; this problem can be yielded by home-cooking, where a
person has ultimate control over what goes into his or her body.
Furthermore, cooking offers a creative outlet which in turn
boosts a person’s psychological well-being. Lastly, there are
many common misconceptions regarding restaurant eating,
however, taking a closer look at menus and ingredients reveals
how the desire for popularity due to good-tasting food
outweighs the integration of health and purity when it comes to
these establishments. To conclude, the British Food
Journal outlines the main themes regarding the significance of
home cooking. They state that home cooking gives families
control over their food intake, helps them connect with others,
enables for exploration with their own and others food cultures,
as well as prompts teens to become more independent (Simmons
and Chapman, 2012). Together, as western civilization, we can

work to redefine the conventional “American” diet. Westernized
culture has the ability to no longer be the laughing stock of the
world, and society has the potential to reap the countless health
benefits of home-based cooking and whole food consumption.
Merely integrating home cooking a few times per week has the
power to turn these vital aspirations into a reality.
Self-Assessment:
This is my final draft of my research paper and I believe it is
well crafted and consicsley written. I found many helpful
journal articles. I also used two books: In Defense of Food by
Michael Pollan and Fast Food Nation which I have read twice
throughout my schooling (truly horrifying novel). I feel that I
thoroughly researched the topic and provided viable evidence
for the points I made. I took all of Dr. Cryderman’s comments
and applied them to this draft. I am very grateful for Dr.
Cryderman’s willingness to help and the time he took to make
comments/read my rough drafts. I struggle with paragraph unity
and flow; however, I spent a lot of time focusing on these
elements and perfecting them as best I could. I feel as though I
used transition words effectively and I set up a path statement
in the first paragraph. I am passionate about this topic and this
assignment was enjoyable during some parts. I believe I have
truly grown as a writer throughout this class. I enjoyed English
135 thanks to Dr. Cryderman and his willingness to help his
students succeed.
Audience Assessment:
This research paper is intended for educated individuals,
specifically those interested in healthy nutrition. It clearly
outlines claims that are backed up by reliable research. A
person who is interested in losing weight or cleaning up their
lifestyle could benefit from reading this paper. As well as diet
specialists or nutritionists who are looking for suggestions to

give to patients. Also, someone with a great risk of diabetes or
cardiovascular disease. Additionally, young couples who are
planning on starting a family may achieve a great benefit from
the information provided. This paper additionally contributes to
the academic conversation regarding health sciences and
nutrition. I use peer-reviewed articles and research to expand on
the concept of home-cooking and overall wellness.
References:
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Hatcher, R. (2016).

Applying Creativity Research to Cooking. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 50(3), 171–177.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.124
Danneskiold-Samsøe, N. B., de Freitas Queiroz Barros, H. D.,
Santos, R., Bicas, J. L., Cazarin, C. B. B., Madsen, L., …
Júnior, M. R. M. (2019). Interplay between food and gut
microbiota in health and disease. Food Research International,
115, 23–31.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.07.043
Foster, J. A., & Neufeld, K.-A. M. (2013). Gut–brain axis: how
the microbiome influences anxiety and depression. Trends in
Neurosciences, 36(5), 305–312.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2013.01.005
Home cooking for better heart health: Preparing your own plant-
based meals-focused on beans, grains, and veggies-is easier
than you think. (cover story). (2019).Harvard Heart Letter,
29(5), 1–7. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=byh&AN=134067181&site=eho
st-live&scope=site
Jones, S. A., Walter, J., Soliah, L., & Phifer, J. T. (2014).
Perceived Motivators to Home Food Preparation: Focus Group
Findings. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,
114(10), 1552–1556.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAND.2014.05.003
Lowenstein, J. H., Burger, J., Jeitner, C. W., Amato, G.,
Kolokotronis, S.-O., & Gochfeld, M. (2010). DNA barcodes
reveal species-specific mercury levels in tuna sushi that pose a
health risk to consumers. Biology Letters, 6(5), 692–695.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0156
Massah, S. (2013). Cooking up a connection to her culture.
Peace Arch News [White Rock, British Columbia], p. 1.
Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/apps/doc/A33
6464042/CPI?u=uvictoria&sid=CPI&xid=d444481b

Schlosser, E., (2001). Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the
All-American Meal. Boston, MA: Mariner Books/Houghton
Mifflin
Simmons, D., & Chapman, G. E. (2012). The significance of
home cooking within families. British Food Journal, 114(8),
1184–1195. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211252110
Pollan, M. (2009).In Defense of Food. New York, New York:
The Penguin Group.
Popkin, B. M. (2012). The Public Health Implications of Fast-
Food Menu Labeling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
43(5), 569–570.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.08.006
Wolfson, J. A., & Bleich, S. N. (2015). Is cooking at home
associated with better diet quality or weight-loss intention?
Public Health Nutrition, 18(08), 1397–1406.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980014001943
Self Assessment: The essay is slightly above the word count,
but I believe many of those are just from the in-text citations as
those can build up over time. I have tried to reorganize the
essay so that it flows better, and I have added more concrete
topic sentences so that it is clear what each paragraph is about.
Because I have so many separate topics I decided not to do a
path sentence, but I did give each topic a quick two word
summary in the conclusion, which is mostly about what people
should take away from the essay. I have included a lot of
research here because I feel that as much as people are willing
to believe others, they are much more likely to take research
into account, and will take more from the essay if the
understand the general research and history surrounding the
topic. I have included page numbers for all the book citations

except for The ethics of captivity, as I accessed that book
through the sample provided by google books, and it does not
have page numbers. However if you do an in-book search for
the keywords Tab and Presley you can find the relevant
sections. In-writing citations are not only useful for the reader;
I also found them useful in ensuring that I did not mix up two
different sources of similar topics. This essay has many parts,
which led to organization being my main struggle, For example,
I have one paragraph solely dedicated to what other people have
done in the past, and I reflect on it briefly, either disagreeing or
agreeing with them, this is the paragraph 7 with the topic
sentence: Researchers and conservationists alike are divided on
the issue of keeping cetaceans in captivity.
statement of audience: This essay is written for people of any
age (though probably over the age of 11), and at any level of
knowledge about whales and ocean life. It is meant to get
people who have not had a chance to research this topic, but are
interested in it, to get a solid background on why captivity
should not be legal, and attempts to get them to think about
treatment of animals overall. For example this could be
highschool students taking law classes or biology classes.
Cetaceans in Captivity: The Balance Between Education,
Awareness, Conservation, and Animal Health
On November 18, 1961, Wanda, the first orca to be brought into
captivity was captured. Just two days later she was dead
(Messenger, 2014, para. 2, 12). However, she was not the first
cetacean to be kept in captivity as cetaceans have been in places
such as menageries since the thirteenth century (Couquiaud,
2005, p.283). Captivity is defined as keeping animals in an

enclosed area, often out of their natural environment, or in a
faux environment. Through thorough examination of the
outcomes of cetacean captivity, the way people have
rationalized captivity, and the difference between quality of life
for cetaceans in the wild and cetaceans in aquariums or parks,
we can begin to prove that captivity negatively impacts the lives
of both singular cetaceans and their species. Change is both
necessary and possible in the case of cetacean captivity,
cetaceans can be protected from the stresses captivity creates
through proper laws and regulations. There have been more than
156 orcas taken from the wild since Wanda, and 129 of those
orcas are deceased (“Whale and Dolphin Conservation”, 2018).
According to whales.org, there were 67 orcas in captivity as of
September of 2018. In short, I argue that cetaceans should not
be kept in captivity as the health and behavioral issues that
captive conditions create are not suitable and are torturous to
the animals both mentally and physically; there are other ways
to get people invested in the conservation of cetaceans such as
whale watching, documentaries, and education stemming from
photography and research.
Whales are mobile creatures, they spend their lives travelling in
the ocean, a giant pool of water which takes up 70% of the
Earth’s surface (NOAA, 2018). In contrast, pools in marine
parks and aquariums have around a 100 gallon area of water for
the 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons that the ocean has
(NOAA, 2018). In addition, oceans hold the majority of plant
and animal diversity on earth, as well as extraordinary
topography, stimulation for cetaceans that cannot be replicated
in a tank. Whales in captivity are not given the proper space in
which to live, and what space they are given does not provide
them with proper stimulation. Minimum standards of care for
the keeping of marine mammals have been set by several
countries, and the European Association for Aquatic Mammals
(EAAM), the International Marine Animal Trainers Association
(IMATA), and the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and

Aquariums (AMMPA), all attempt to keep the parks and
aquariums in their jurisdiction up to the standards they require
(“Aquatic Mammals Journal”, 2019). The Animal Welfare
Regulations, USDA, has regulations for temperature, space, and
many other physical regulations for the care of cetaceans. For
example, the average sized dolphin needs a tank that is at least
10.36m horizontally and 1.3m deep. For the average orca, the
tank must be at least 14.63m, with a depth of 3.66m.
Measurements are determined by the size of the cetacean. There
are different dimensions required for group I cetaceans and
group II cetaceans. Group I consist of larger cetaceans such as
belugas, orcas, and narwhals, while group II consists of
cetaceans such as the common dolphin and the pygmy dolphin
(USDA, 2017, pp. 197-201). The only regulation that
acknowledged the mental needs of cetaceans is that they must
be kept with at least one other marine mammal of their species
or a similar species, and that they cannot share an environment
with non-compatible animals (USDA, 2017, p. 213). One
exception is Lolita, an orca who is now over 50 years old and
who has been without the company of another orca since 1980
(Herrera, 2017, para. 5). Other than this the regulations are
similar to what you may see for regulations about protecting a
historical artwork- with no thought for the subject’s mental
state. This has led to problems with cases such as Tilikum’s,
who, for part of his life, was locked into a steel box with other
orcas at night so that people could not set them free. The orcas
began to resist going into the box at night, and the trainers such
as Eric Walters, a former sealand trainer, remember it
unpleasantly, “That’s where food deprivation would come in.
We would hold back food, and they would know if they went in
the module they would get their food. So if they’re hungry
enough they’re going in there.” “When you let them out you’d
see rakes, and sometimes you’d see blood,” (“Blackfish”, 2013).
Without the proper area and stimulation orcas began to injure
one another, an act which is not surprising as it is known that
orcas have different languages and cultures in each of their

pods; these parks do not take this into account (“Blackfish”,
2013). The aggression was also aggravated by the withholding
of food, being unable to rectify this, the orcas mostly turned
their anger toward Tilikum (“Blackfish”, 2013).
Lori Marino a neuroscientist who previously worked with
dolphins in captivity before making it her life mission to stop
captivity said this about orcas: “Well, what could happen as a
result of them being thrown in with other whales that they
haven’t grown up with, that are not part of their culture, is
there’s hyper aggression...a lot of violence, a lot of killing in
captivity that you don’t ever see in the wild,” (“Blackfish”,
2013). Whales are mentally disadvantaged in captivity as their
complex social behaviours make it difficult to assimilate with
whales from a pod they were not born with, this leads to
behavioural problems between the whales. Despite the Animal
Welfare Regulations just because animals are of the same or
similar species does not make them compatible. Through her
research Marino has found that orcas have a part of their brain
that is not present in humans, or known to be present in any
animals that are not cetaceans (Marino, 2007). Due to its
location it is most likely that it is involved in emotion, and it is
believed that orca’s have highly complex social behaviours. For
example, Kasatka, an orca housed at SeaWorld San Diego had a
baby, Takara, while she was in captivity, twelve years later it
was decided by the directors of the park that Takara should be
moved to a different location. After Takara was moved Kasatka
began to use long-range vocals in an attempt to reconnect with
her daughter, vocals which had not been heard by people before
(Colvin, 2017). Places like SeaWorld often like to reiterate that
the orcas are kept with ‘their family’ and that they are perfectly
happy in a place where they have constant food supply and
veterinary care, they fail to account for the mental needs of
cetaceans, the proper space, stimulation, and company
(“Seaworld Saddened to Announce Death of Orca”, 2019;
“Caring for Katina”, 2018). Wanda, the first orca in captivity,

desperately swam around the tank she was kept in, hitting
herself on the sides several times, and eventually swam into a
flume way before she died, these were not the actions of a
content cetacean (Messenger, 2014, para. 12). While we cannot
conclude that she was knowingly making a suicide attempt we
can safely assume that this was the act of an animal desperate
for escape, and extremely stressed.
Cetaceans’ physical health is also negatively affected by
captivity, and their lives are shortened; even with the
breakthroughs that captive research have been part of it is not
worth the impact captivity takes on the lives of the subjects.
Lori Marino, the neurologist who was interviewed in the
documentary Blackfish, began to argue against the captivity of
cetaceans after two dolphins, Tab and Presley, that she had
previously worked with died at an age that is half the normal
lifespan for the species. Tab died of gastroenteritis, and Presley
from fungal encephalitis (Gruen, 2014[footnoteRef:0]). Most
dolphins in captivity die at a similar age to Tab and Presley,
either at half the normal lifespan for their species or below it
(Gruen, 2014). Tab and Presley had been part of an experiment
to see if dolphins could recognize themselves in mirrors. Spots
were drawn on the dolphins where they would not be able to
usually see and a mirror was placed in front of them, after
looking at their reflections the dolphins turned so they would be
able to see the marks on their bodies. This was a breakthrough
for understanding the intelligence of dolphins, and brought a
cascade of experts and others to question whether dolphins are
too smart to live in captivity (Grimm, 2011). While we can
accept the importance of the discovery Tab and Presley were
part of we cannot say that the discovery was worth more than
the shortening of the lives of the dolphins, or the many other
cetaceans who have been kept in captivity for research. [0:
Book was accessed through Google Books and thus page
numbers are not available.]

Besides research, the fuel for the captive movement is the
supposed attempt at conservation of the animals in captivity.
Parks and aquariums parade the idea that breeding and
educational programs will better the lives of the species in the
long run, and ensure that they do not become endangered and
extinct. However, cetaceans routinely die at a much earlier age
in captivity, and the mortality rates for births in captivity are
abysmal; cetaceans currently in captivity can be moved to whale
sanctuaries or, if they are able, released, in hopes that their
lives are improved. For 30 orca calves who were either
miscarried or stillborn, 34 orcas have been successfully born in
captivity (“Whale and Dolphin Conservation”, 2018). With an
almost 50% mortality rate, the argument of conservation
through breeding is questionable at best. Even if orcas survive
to adulthood bacterial infections are common causes of death
for orcas in captivity. "pneumonia is a fairly common cause of
death because they are living in a constant state of low-level
stress," Naomi Rose, a marine mammal scientist, shared
(Staedter, 2017, para. 4), the high levels of bacterial infections
have also been said to be caused by the conditions captivity
creates (para. 3). Seaworld has released that "pneumonia has
been identified as the most common cause of mortality and
illness in whales and dolphins, both in the wild and in
zoological facilities," (para.15). This has no known truth to it as
it is difficult to determine cause of death in wild orcas, who are
rarely available for autopsies (para. 16) .Whale sanctuary
projects hope to decrease the stress for whales that are currently
in captivity while also providing necessary care, as whales who
are born in captivity, or have spent a long time in captivity,
struggle in the wild. Keiko, an orca released in 2002, had been
in captivity for 23 years. After he was captured at the age of
three he was dependent on humans, and needed to be slowly
taken from human contact before his release. In the wild he
failed to join other wild orcas, as each pod has its own culture
and language, and died one year later from pneumonia (Herrera,
2017). Keiko has been used as a cautionary tale for people who

argue for the release of orcas from captivity. Whale sanctuaries
provide an alternative where whales are given much more space,
company, and natural stimulation, and are also able to obtain
food and veterinary care when they need it (“Whale and Dolphin
Conservation”, 2018). Whale sanctuaries would give currently
captive whales a place to live out their lives in a more natural
environment, whether that would mean being released after
retraining for the wild for those that can, or being cared for for
the rest of their lives. This would not only be for animals in
aquariums and marine parks but also for animals captive for
other reasons such as dolphins involved in a therapy called
Dolphin Assisted Therapy (DAT). Where dolphins offer
‘therapy’ through stimulation and comfort for children with
disabilities. DAT was created in the 1970’s, and the creator
denounced the practice in 2003, stating that she no longer
believed in the process (Marino, 2013, para. 19). Dolphin-
Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed
Conclusions by Lori Marino & Scott O. Lilienfeld, concluded
that there was no evidence DAT is effective, and yet dolphins
continue to be used for these purposes (Marino and Lilienfeld,
2015).
History is full of animals being ill-treated by humans, and the
question of animals worth has been a known topic of discussion
since the first philosophers; however, the fight for animal rights
has not been very long, and is still ongoing today. Long before
even the 20th century dolphins were taken for display, in the
1400’s they were at the palace Dijon’s ponds (Couquiaud, 2005,
p.283). As early as 1861 the Boston Aquarial and zoological
Gardens obtained three belugas, one bottlenose dolphin, and one
gray shark (Kisling, 2001, p. 155). Only four years later the
animals died in a fire (p.155). Orcas escaped being spectacles
(although they had been in captivity before this) until 1970 at
Kamogawa Sea World in China which soon led to other
aquariums obtaining marine mammals due to the success
Kamogawa Sea World found (p.315). Although aquariums and
zoos have a long and strenuous history most animal rights acts,

laws, and other protections have not existed for very long.
Animal rights have been debated philosophically and
theologically since such fields arose; however, it was soon
decided that animals were beneath people and should be treated
as ‘lower beings’ (Wise, 2016, para. 5). Decades later in 1800 a
bill was defeated in Britain that would have prohibited bear and
bull baiting, in 1809 a bill to prohibit cruelty to all domestic
animals was also defeated (para. 8). It was not until 1822 that a
bill was passed that made it illegal to put undue suffering and
cruelty on animals such as cows, sheep, and horses (para. 8). In
the USA, The Animal Welfare Act was originally passed in
1966 and has been updated every few years since then (para. 8).
The most recent update being in 2008. Canada recently passed
Bill S-203 Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act
(An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the
captivity of whales and dolphins), the bill was widely supported
throughout the house and was only verbally opposed by Robert
Sopuck, the conservative member of parliament for Dauphin-
Swan River-Neepawa. Sopuck argued that if Bill S-203 is
passed it will lead to more bills like this, “pretty soon who
knows what will be banned?” he questions, and later readily
admits that this is a slippery slope, a widely known logical
fallacy. This is a question that animal activists and those that
agree with captivity both ask, and it does not have a simple
answer; however, it is clear that whales are not suited to
domesticity. Sopuck continues his statement, reflecting on times
he has seen whales in the wild and declaring that “we admire
[whales] because we are taught about the beauty of nature and
wildlife in facilities that are responsible and effective.” (“Bill
S-203 Session”, 2019) This has been shown not to be the case
with documentaries such as Blackfish riling the public to the
orca’s cause. The 20th and 21st centuries have greatly impacted
animal rights and the public's views on animals themselves;
hopefully this is not where it ends.
Researchers and conservationists alike are divided on the issue

of keeping cetaceans in captivity. Orca : how we came to know
and love the ocean's greatest predator by Jason M. Colby, is a
book dedicated to the story that having orcas in places like
Seaworld and SeaLand have changed the public’s perceptions of
orcas to love rather than the fear many felt before Ted Griffin
swam with an orca in 1965 (Colby, 2018). Nearly 50 years after
Griffin’s swim, BlackFish was released, a documentary that
includes interviews with orca experts, neurologist Lori Marino
who specializes in whales, and countless accounts of animal
trainers who worked with orcas in places like SeaWorld and
SeaLand. Their stories share the blatant mismanagement and
cruelty that goes on behind the glass tanks. Orca’s injuring each
other and themselves, little stimulation for the whales beyond
their shows and training sessions, lies about the whales lifespan
and dorsal fins (all dorsal fins in captive whales are bent when
64% of wild orcas have ‘floppy’ fins, most whales have less
than 1% of their population with bent dorsal fins, (Alves et al.,
2017 )), and an inherent knowledge that if anything happened it
was the trainor’s fault- that it had nothing to do with how the
animals were treated (“Blackfish”, 2013). The Vancouver
Aquarium, is usually on the forefront of education and
conservation research. The Aquarium published a book in 2006
called People, Fish and Whales: The Vancouver Aquarium
Story, written by Dr. Murray A. Newman CM OBC with Dr.
John Nightingale, Dr. Newman was president of the Vancouver
Aquarium for thirty-seven years, and Dr. John Nightingale
recently stepped down after taking the job from Dr. Newman
(Newman and Nightingale, 2006, p. 13; Branham, 2018, para.
1). In the book there is a section about the Aquarium’s past with
whales, and recalls how orcas were “one of the most feared
creatures in the ocean” prior to 1964, and that healed bullet
wounds were often found while studying orcas (Newman and
Nightingale, 2006, pp. 52-53). This was how they rationalized
trying to catch an orca, killing one orca with a cannon after they
got a line around the orca, citing that they “became so
concerned with their own safety they killed [the orca,]”(p. 53).

Eventually the Aquarium succeeded in capturing an orca who
was named Moby Doll, and was injured while being captured,
with a harpoon behind his head (pp. 53-54). Many researchers
went to make observations on the orca, and some have since
become orca experts (p. 54). However, like so many other
captive whales, Moby died of a fungus infection located in his
lungs, only 87 days after his capture (p. 54). The Aquarium kept
orcas until 2001, when they moved their last orca, Bjossa, to
another park after her mate died of a lung illness at twenty-one
(p. 55). They explain their reasoning behind not continuing the
program to not be about the orcas, they bring up David Bain’s
study that wild orcas and captive orcas live to approximately
the same age. However, it should be noted that they specifically
said “in better aquariums like Vancouver,” leading to the
assumption that orcas in other aquariums do not live as long as
their wild counterparts, it should also be noted that there have
been cases of orcas living over fifty years of age, but that the
age they live to says nothing about their overall quality of life
(p. 60). The book explains how the success the showing of orcas
found may have been the reason they could no longer show
them. The public no longer feared the orcas and were instead
looking to protect them (p. 62). One key quote from the book is
“Critics may say animals are better off if left in the wild to
begin with, but most aquarists would answer that exhibiting a
few whales is justified if it contributes to the betterment of all
whales, as it did in BC. When people spend their lives serving
the greater good, we call them heroes and consider their lives
well lived. Why not the same with animals?” (p. 63). The
difference between the case of animals and people is that when
people “spend their lives serving the greater good,” it is their
choice to do so, not the choice of beings who do not even have a
concrete way to communicate with them. Furthermore, the
public’s view of orcas and whales has already been changed,
through research we know that these are not vicious animals,
there is no longer any excuse to keep them in captivity.

Those who have been part of keeping cetaceans in captivity,
such as whale trainers and divers, agree that it is time to end
captivity, and disagree with many of the actions they were told
to do while in the employ of marine parks. The parks have a
“culture of ‘you get back on the horse and you dive back in the
water. And if you’re hurt, well, then we’ve got other people that
will replace you.’ And ‘You came a long way. Are you sure you
want that?’”- John Jett-former SeaWorld Trainer (“Blackfish”,
2013). The trainers also expressed the lack of experience and
education needed to get the job, and that the dangers were
downplayed “I believe it’s 70 plus, maybe even more, just killer
whale trainer accidents. Maybe 30 of them happened prior to me
being at SeaWorld and I knew about none of them.”-Samantha
Berg-former SeaWorld trainer. Kim Ashdown shared “I always
thought that you needed, like, a master’s degree in marine
biology to be a trainer. Come to find out, it really is more about
your personality and how good you can swim.”(“Blackfish”,
2013). The amount of information divers who captured the
whales to be brought to SeaWorld was similar. John Crowe, a
diver, recalled that “It was a really exciting thing to do and so
everybody wanted to do it, capture orcas.”, but Crowe’s
excitement did not last long, he saw first hand the horror that
capturing whales truly is, “I lost it I mean I started crying. Just
like kidnapping a little kid from their mother.” When the hunt
for orca’s was over three were dead, and the divers were told to
fill them with rocks and sink them with anchors attached to
their tails (“Blackfish, 2013). Orca’s do not forget these
appalling exploits, and it has been shown that orca’s remember
what whale hunts are, and the actions that they encompass. In
one case the orcas tried to hide their young by splitting up,
encouraging the boats to follow the older whales who surface
regularly. Sadly this well thought out plan is easily shattered by
helicopters that the hunt had over the water, who could see the
young orcas as they came up to breach (“Blackfish, 2013).
Cetaceans are not physically nor mentally made for captivity

and it is a morally groundless action to place them there.
Cetaceans that are in captivity are not given enough space, are
kept with other whales with different behaviours then their own,
live shorter lives, and have a much higher mortality rate for
births. Researchers and conservationists are divided on the
impacts of captivity on cetaceans but many people who have
worked with the cetaceans in the past are beginning to speak out
about the blatant mismanagement surrounding the issue. We
have greatly improved our treatment of animals in the last few
centuries but there is still improvement in our future.
Regulations and laws such as Bill S-203 are steps to stopping
captivity, but industries work around these for the profit they
expect. For example SeaWorld was told to stop capturing
whales in Washington and so they simply went to Iceland
(“Blackfish”, 2013). Laws and regulations about capturing
cetaceans need to be stricter, and heavily regulated in order for
them to be successful. Cetaceans that are already in captivity
also need a chance to live better lives, and it is hoped that they
find themselves happy in whale sanctuaries, or, for those who
have not been captive for long, back where they belong. Ending
the captivity of cetaceans does not mean people will stop caring
about their struggles, and it certainly does not mean that
animals will go extinct without breeding programs (recall the
close to 50% mortality rate). Ending captivity means an end to
the mental and physical ailments that plague captive cetaceans
at an alarming rate, and means that the next generation of
cetaceans can live without fearing whaling boats coming to take
their young.
References
Abrahams, B., Hazen. E. L., Aikens, E.O., Savoca, M.S.,

Goldbogen, J.A., Bograd, S.J.,
Jacox, M.G., Irvine, L.M., Palacios, D.M., & Mate, B.R. (2019).
Memory and resource tracking drive blue whale migrations.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 116(12), 5582-5587.
Alves, F., Towers, J.R., Baird, R.W., Bearzi, G., Bonizzoni, S.,
Ferreira, R., Halicka, Z.,
Alessandrini, A., Kopelman, A.H., Yzoard, C., Rasmussen,
M.H., Bertulli, C.G., Jourdain, E., Gullan, A., Rocha, D.,
Hupman, K., Mrusczok, M. T., Samarra, F.I.P., Magalhaes, S.,
Weir, C.R., Ford, J.K.B., & Dinis, A. (2017). The incidence of
bent dorsal fins in free-ranging cetaceans. Journal of Anatomy,
232(2), 419-575. doi:https://doi-
org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1111/joa.12729
(2019). Aquatic Mammals Journal. Retrieved from
https://www.ammpa.org/scientific-research/aquatic-mammals-
journal
“Bill S-203 Session.” (2019, February 1). Bill S-203 Ending the
Captivity of Whales and
Dolphins Act- An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other
Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins).
openparliament.ca. Retrieved from
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/S-203/
“Bill S-203”. (2018, October 23). Senate of Canada, Bill S-203,
An Act to amend the
Criminal Code and Other Acts (ending the captivity of whales
and dolphins). Senate of Canada. Bill S-203. Retrieved from
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/sen/YB421
-203-3.pdf
Bramham, D. (2018, May 4). Longtime Vancouver Aquarium
director John Nightingale to

step down. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/longtime-
vancouver-aquarium-director-john-nightingale-to-step-down
Callaway, E. (2016). Clash over killer-whale captivity: lifespan
of animals kept in parks is at the centre of dispute. Nature,
531(7595), 426+.
Colby, J. (2018). Orca:how we came to know and love the
ocean’s greatest predator. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Colvin, C. Takara: Stifled Energy. The Whale Sanctuary
Project. Retrieved from
https://whalesanctuaryproject.org/whales/stifled-energy/
Couquiaud, L. (2005). Foreword and Introduction. Aquatic
Mammals, 31(3), 283-287.
Cowperthwaite, G., Oteyza, M. V., Despres, E., Ingalls, J.,
Towey, C., Beal, J. et al. (2013). Blackfish. Magnolia Pictures.
Fate of Orcas in Captivity. Whale and Dolphin Conservation.
Retrieved from
https://us.whales.org/orca-captivity/
Glabicky, N., DuBrava, A., & Noonan, M. (2010). Social-sexual
behavior seasonality in
captive beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Polar Biology,
33(8), 1145-1147.
Grimm, D. (2011). Are Dolphins Too Smart for Captivity?.
Science, 332(6029), 526-529.
Gruen, L. (2014). The ethics of captivity. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Herrera, C. (2017, November 20). Lolita may never go free.
And that could be what’s best for
her, scientists say. Miami Herald. Retrieved from
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article185517463.
html
Hauser, D.D.W., Logsdon, M.G., Holmes, E.E., VanBlaricom,
G.R., & Osborne, R. W.
(2007). Summer distribution patterns of southern resident killer
whales Orcinus orca: core areas and spatial segregation of
social groups. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 351, 301-310.
(2019, January 28). SeaWorld Saddened to Announce Death of
Orca. SeaWorld Parks and
Entertainment, Inc. Retrieved from
https://seaworld.com/orlando/blog/seaworld-saddened-to-
announce-death-of-orca/
Karenina, K., Giljov, A., Baranov, V., Osipova, L., Krasnova,
V., & Malashichev, Y. (2010).
Visual laterality of calf-mother interactions in wild whales.
PLoS ONE, 5(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013787
Kisling, V. N. (Ed.). (2001). Zoo and Aquarium History:
Ancient Animal Collections to
Zoological Gardens. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Luksenberg, J.A. (2013). Attitudes towards marine mammal
conservation issues before the
introduction of whale-watching: a case study in Aruba (southern
Caribbean). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, 24(1), 135-146. doi: https://doi-
org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1002/aqc.2348
Lusseau, D. (2003). The emergent properties of a dolphin social

network. The Royal Society
Publishing, 270(2), doi:https://doi-
org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0057
(2018, March 31). Caring for Katina. SeaWorld Parks and
Entertainment, Inc. Retrieved from
https://seaworld.com/orlando/blog/caring-for-katina/
Marino, L., Connor, R. C., Fordyce, R. E., Herman, L. M., Hof,
P. R., Lefebvre, L.,
Whitehead, H., et al. (2007). Cetaceans Have Complex Brains
for Complex Cognition. PLoS Biology,5(5).
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050139
Marino, L. (2011). Dolphin Research: Arguing Against
Captivity. Science, 333(6041), 405.
Marino, L. (2013, June 18). Dolphins are not healers. Aeon.
Retrieved from
https://aeon.co/essays/dolphin-therapy-doesn-t-work-for-the-
child-or-the-animal
Marino, L., & Lilienfeld, S. (2015). Dolphin Assisted Therapy:
More Flawed Data and More
Flawed Conclusions. Anthrozoös, 20(3), 239-249, DOI:
10.2752/089279307X224782
Messenger, S. (2014, April 5). Remembering Wanda, The First
Killer Whale Taken Into
Captivity. The dodo. Retrieved from
https://www.thedodo.com/remembering-wanda-the-first-ki-
498461409.html
Newman, A., & Nightingale, J. (2006). People, Fish and
Whales: The Vancouver Aquarium Story. Madeira Park, BC:
Harbour Publishing Co. Ltd.

NOAA. (2018). How much water is in the ocean? National
Ocean Service. Retrieved from
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanwater.html
Our Focus. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection
Service. Retrieved from
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/awa/c
t_awa_program_information
(2012). POLL REVEALS AMERICANS OPPOSE KEEPING
ORCAS IN CAPTIVITY FOR
PUBLIC DISPLAY ANIMAL WELFARE GROUPS CONDUCT
FIRST-EVER OPINION POLL ON THE PRACTICE WHALE
AND DOLPHIN CONSERVATION SOCIETY, ANIMAL
WELFARE INSTITUTE. Humane Society of the United States.
Retrieved from http://www-lexisnexis-
com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/?shr=t&csi=8
058&sr=HEADLINE(%22POLL+REVEALS+AMERICANS+OP
POSE+KEEPING+ORCAS+IN+CAPTIVITY+FOR+PUBLIC+DI
SPLAY+ANIMAL+WELFARE+GROUPS+CONDUCT+FIRST-
EVER+OPINION+POLL+ON+THE+PRACTICE+WHALE+DOL
PHIN+CONSERVATION+SOCIETY+ANIMAL+WELFARE+IN
STITUTE%22)+and+date+is+2012
Poole, K.G., Gunn, A., Patterson, B.R., & Dumond Mathieu.
(2010). Sea ice and migration of
the Dolphin and Union caribou herd in the Canadian Arctic: an
uncertain future. Arctic, 63(4), 414+.
Raja, T. (2014). SeaWorld Says It Has to Keep Orcas in
Captivity to Save Them. Mother
Jones. Retrieved from
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/seaworld-
killer-whale-orca-science-blackfish/

Staedter, T. (2017, July 27). Orca Calf Dies at SeaWorld: Why
Killer Whales Get Sick in Captivity. Live Science. Retrieved
from https://www.livescience.com/59965 -why-killer -wha les-
die-in-captivity.html
Tosh, C.A., Nico De Bruyn, P.J., & Bester, M.N. (2008).
Preliminary analysis of the social
structure of killer whales, Orcinus orca, at subantarctic Marion
Island. Marine Mammal Science, 24(4). doi: https://doi-
org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00233.x
USDA Animal Care: Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare
Regulations. United States
Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/AC_Blu
eBook_AWA_FINAL_2017_508comp.pdf
U.S. Dolphin Regulations. World Animal Protection. Retrieved
from
https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/our-work/animals-
wild/marine-animals-captivity/us-dolphin-regulations
WDC. (2017). Creating Sanctuaries For Whales and Dolphins.
Whale and Dolphin
Conservation. Retrieved
from https://us.whales.org/our-4-goals/end-captivity/creating-
sanctuaries-for-whales-and-dolphins/
Wise, S.M. (2016, August 18). Animal Rights. Encyclopedia
Britannica. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/animal-rights

Zamon, J.E., Guy, T.J., Balcomb, K., & Ellifrit, D. (2007).
Winter Observations of Southern
Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) near the Columbia River
Plume during the 2005 Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) Spawning Migration. Northwestern Naturalist,
88(3), 193-198.
Self-Assessment: During my research for this paper, I found a
large amount of popular press articles about lab-grown meat,
but not very many academic articles specifically about it. This
is mostly because the technology is pretty new and not very
many studies have been done on it yet. I also would’ve liked to
have more information on what benefits lab-grown meat itself
has, rather than what it doesn’t do that the livestock industry
does. However, even though I reported on a lot of information
about the livestock industry from other sources, I always
connected it back to lab-grown meat and my argument. My
paper felt more like it was on how bad the livestock industry is,
rather than about my topic. Even after editing, I still don’t
really like my introduction. It doesn’t feel like I have an
effective hook and it feels like my introduction needs to be
longer to fully “set the scene”, but then my introduction would
be nearly 400-500 words which definitely is too long. I couldn’t
really find a way to separate my paragraphs into smaller
paragraphs to help with “wall of text” syndrome. I tried
splitting my paragraphs at different points, but it just made each
individual paragraph feel incomplete. I ended scrapping a few
of my original sources because they either just repeated facts I
already had in another source, or I just didn’t end up using the
information as a subtopic. My in-text citation felt a little bit
iffy when I was citing governmental sources because there isn’t
an author listed for those. I ended up using the title where the

author’s name would be, because that’s what an apa writing site
said was recommended. I am also still not sure if an in-text
citation of just a date “(2019)” should always be at the end of a
sentence or right after I say the source “…report by the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, production
of feed… (2009).” or “Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (2009)… 80% of available land for
agriculture.”. My paper also seems to suffer from repetition,
because it has 34 instances of “lab-grown meat” and 21 of
“livestock industry”, but I couldn’t really find a way to get
around that without distorting meaning or making it confusing
for readers. I also had trouble with paraphrasing from the more
heavily scientific sources, because the terms they use are very
specific, so it took me some more time to write that. I think I
used dashes and commas right, but it could be confusing
sometimes which to use because they are somewhat
interchangeable. I had more information to discuss, but my
paper started to feel bloated and unfocused when I tried writing
it in. My thesis statement and path statement were both in the
same sentence, so I just underlined both.
Audience: Audiences interested in this paper may include:
people in meat and agriculture industries, environmentalists,
vegetarians, vegans, animal welfare advocates, scientists in the
field of lab-grown foods, scientists in the field of alternatives to
meat products, people who are concerned about dangerous
substances in meat, people who either advocate for or against
genetically modified foods, climate scientists, people involved
in the decision making process for what to use land for
(probably government-based), people in government who decide
on policies about food and agriculture, organizations like the
FDA who are involved in health regulations based on food and
drugs, the CDC, and governmental employees involved in
unemployment issues.

The Technological Wonder of Lab-Grown Meat: A
Solution
to Harms Perpetrated by the Livestock Industry?
There have been many arguments and controversies over the
future of the meat industry because of concerns about the
numerous harms it causes, with alternatives such as insect-based
protein and lab-grown meat – the subject of this paper –
proposed by researchers in the field. Lab-grown meat, or
cultured meat, is meat produced by harvesting the surplus tissue
created by encouraging the growth of a small sample of muscle
cells from the target animal, such as a cow or pig. As a
combined major biology/psychology student currently in my
second year of university, I was initially exposed to the subject
through casual perusal of popular press articles, but through the
research involved in the writing of this paper became more
invested in the topic due to discovering the alarming reality of
how the meat industry negatively impacts our society. The harm
caused by the livestock industry has been extensively
documented by scholarly articles from such sources as the
journals Livestock Science and Global Environmental Change.
Counterarguments to the benefits of lab-grown meat compared

to farm-grown meat can mostly be found from popular press
articles rather than academic sources. These arguments either
object to the fundamental nature of lab-grown meat, that it
cannot be considered an equal to farm-grown meat because it
did not come from an animal, or object to the environmental
benefits – such as an article by the Discovery Institute, which
argues that cultured meat is just as bad for the environment as
traditional meat. However, based on the scientific evidence
rather than what the popular opinion might be, the potential
benefits of lab-grown meat to the environment, global economy,
and moral health of society mean that I believe that it is both
immoral and illogical to not endeavor to implement lab-grown
meat as an alternative to the current livestock industry.
Agriculture, of which the livestock industry is fundamentally
connected to, is a major contributor to the global warming
effect which currently threatens human society. Nearly 18
percent of global greenhouse gases generated is linked to the
livestock industry, including both direct greenhouse gas
production such as methane as well as indirect effects caused by
energy and transportation requirements (Mogensen et al., 2015).
Methane as a greenhouse gas is roughly 21 times more potent
than CO2 (Stavi & Lal, 2012), and ruminant animals farmed in
the livestock industry such as cows and sheep are the second
largest contributors to global methane production, alongside the

fossil fuel industry (Bousquet et al., 2006). Because cultured
meat would separate the animal from the meat, thus eliminating
the digestive process that produces methane, methane emissions
from cultured meat facilities would be basically negligible. A
greenhouse gas that is indirectly created by the livestock
industry is N2O, which is approximately 310 times more potent
as a warming factor than CO2 (Stavi & Lal, 2012). N2O, or
nitrous oxide, which is produced by various industrial
procedures such as the production of nitric acid, a key
ingredient in creating the fertilizers used to increase the yield of
crops (“Emissions of Greenhouse Gases,” 2011). The major
source of N2O in the US is from agriculture, of which 87% of
the total amount comes from the use of fertilizers (“Emissions
of Greenhouse Gases,” 2011). The most well-known gas
involved in the greenhouse effect is CO2, which is primarily
produced by the burning of fossil fuels for power and
transportation as well as industrial processes including
agriculture, as stated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency in 2016. While livestock do not produce a
notable amount of CO2 directly, the energy requirements
associated with feeding the animals, processing meat, and
transporting necessary materials does incur a significant
atmospheric cost of about nine percent of global CO2 emissions
as explained in a report by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (2009). Lab-grown meat

could potentially be produced on-site, which would eliminate
much of the CO2 emissions from the long-distance
transportation of farm-grown meat. As cultured meat is grown
into ready-to-eat forms – currently in a ground beef style – it
would not require energy to be expended in order to process it
into edible form, unlike cows for example which need to be
butchered before consumption. Sources such as an article by
Evolution News, “Oh No: It Turns Out Lab-Grown Meat Causes
Global Warming Too” (2019) argues that the implementation of
lab-grown meat over live animal harvesting would not
necessarily be a positive improvement on the current
environmental status quo. However, the proposed environmental
impact of lab-grown meat in the article that would supposedly
be the same as current livestock practices is due to the
greenhouse gas production of the energy sources that lab-grown
meat would use. This argument neglects the fact that a change
in energy generation, such as fossil fuel to solar, would largely
negate this effect. Wesley Smith’s (2019) article also fails to
consider the indirect greenhouse effect of transportation and
processing as previously discussed. If these revisions are
considered, livestock would produce vastly larger amounts of
greenhouse gases – particularly methane – than lab-grown meat,
as supported by Stavi & Lal’s 2012 research. Another indirect
effect of the livestock industry on the environment that is often
overlooked is in how it changes the ability of the land it uses to

sequester greenhouse gases.
Issues caused by the livestock industry that the implementation
of lab-grown meat has the potential to solve are how it affects
the environment and humanity’s potential for growth through its
clearing of land for pasture and agriculture, and its use of
massive amounts of valuable resources such as water and food.
While some academic sources suggest growing animal feed on
cropland rather than pasture land to reduce land usage of the
livestock industry (Roos et al., 2017), lab-grown meat has the
potential to reduce land usage even further. In a report by the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
production of feed for livestock uses up almost 80% of
available land for agriculture (2009). From an article by Matt
Simon of Wired, “according to David Welch, director of science
and technology at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit that
promotes lab-grown meat,” cultured meat would use 90% less
land than current practices (2019). If lab-grown meat replaced
livestock entirely then all this land would be available for food
production for humans, mitigating at least a portion of the
widespread starvation occurring around the globe. The newly
available land could also be used for other developments such
as housing, industry, and power. Water, along with food and
oxygen, is required for humans to survive. Just as lab-grown
meat would increase the amount of food available for human

consumption, lab-grown meat also requires only 2% of the water
livestock expends (Simon, 2019).One argument made against
lab-grown meat is in terms of its cost vs. the cost of farmed
meat. Currently, one pound of lab-grown beef costs about 2400
dollars (Nelson, 2018). At this price, it is obviously unfeasible
as a product marketed to the general public. However, an article
by the Genetic Literacy Project states that two different
companies involved in the production of cultured meats,
Memphis Meats and Future Meat Technologies, hope to reduce
costs to around $5 per pound by 2020 or 2021 (Nelson, 2018).At
this level of cost, lab-grown meat will be about as expensive as
a burger made of “normal” meat, making the product a valid
possibility from a business standpoint. It is debatable whether it
will be easy to mass produce lab-grown meat and even if it is
possible, it would likely take quite a long time to reach
equivalent levels of production. The US exported ~$7.3 billion
worth of beef in 2017 (“Top U.S. Agricultural Exports,” 2018),
and the meat and poultry industry contributes to roughly $1
trillion of the country’s total economic output (Dunham, 2016).
If it is assumed that other countries have a similar percentage of
their total economic output devoted to meat, this means that a
shift from livestock to lab-grown could result in significant
global economic damage to the country involved. A shift to
cultured meat could also result in mass unemployment due to
the 5.4 million jobs currently provided by the meat industry

(Dunham, 2016). Even if an equivalent number of jobs was
opened in the new lab-grown meat industry, the skills required
for the new field are unrelated to the skills utilized by workers
in the livestock industry. This means that workers who
originally worked in the livestock industry would be unable to
find new jobs in the lab-grown meat industry. These economic
issues indicate that the change from live to lab-grown would
either have to be implemented extremely gradually to allow the
population to be educated or re-educated in the appropriate
fields. If these millions of jobs were suddenly lost it would be
unfair to the workers currently employed by the industry and
would result in a massive increase in civil unrest and
unemployment rates.
Aside from concrete environmental and economic benefits, lab-
grown meat stands to provide the benefit of a healthier and
more ethical society. About 3 million cattle were slaughtered in
2018, and about 2.8 million were slaughtered in 2017 (“Number
of cattle slaughtered,” 2018). If past and future years have
similar numbers, then that means that 3 million cattle could be
spared from death per year if livestock were replaced by lab-
grown products. A national poll by The Vegetarian Resource
Group found that roughly 7% of the US population are full-time
vegetarians, with about half of this number vegan as well (“How
many adults in the U.S,” 2016). These ~3.7 million vegan and

Peer Review Workshop – Dr. Avillez1. Introduction· Does the in.docx

Peer Review Workshop – Dr. Avillez1. Introduction· Does the in.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Peer Review Workshop – Dr. Avillez1. Introduction· Does the in.docx

Similar to Peer Review Workshop – Dr. Avillez1. Introduction· Does the in.docx (20)

More from karlhennesey

More from karlhennesey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Peer Review Workshop – Dr. Avillez1. Introduction· Does the in.docx