In other words, reducing waste offers real business opportunities. So, we need to put food waste on the boardroom agenda.
So this is Lewis giving the business side of things and how this can make people money by getting involved in reducing food waste. Throughout the entire article he finds ways to shed different types of light almost like pros and cons of this topic.
There are other reasons too why food waste needs to be addressed. Take climate change. Food waste today is responsible for around 8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions
Lewis also relates the issue he is speaking on to other big issues that are affecting the world and makes connections. This is because these two thing are hurting the world. He is trying to not only pull people in thats interested in food waste but also about climate change and how it is affecting us and our environment.
very year a third of the world’s food is wasted. In terms of weight, it adds up to around 1.3bn tonnes. In the UK alone, we waste over 10m tonnes of food in a year.
Throughout this article Lewis, he makes very valid points and he has been backing them up with evidence he is trying to inform us of how much food we waste In only one part of the world and there is so more places and we waste so much food just because which is terrible.
Imagine a land mass greater than China. Now imagine that land is only used to produce food. Then suppose all the crops and produce from those 2.5 billion acres are not eaten. Imagine all of that – and you have grasped the amount of food the world wastes every year.
Here, Dave Lewis hooks his audience by relating the issue he wants to discuss to a well-known subject. Based on the article commentary above, I can assume that Lewis is aware that his argument comes with a lot of counterarguments. Therefore, using this hook to exaggerate the issue head on is very persuasive.
The case for action becomes even stronger when we consider that 1 in 9 people are malnourished worldwide.
This is very persuasive as it shows that there is no excuse as to why there is so much food going to waste when there are plenty of mouths that need to be fed. In addition, Lewis is very clear in his argument. Specifically, he states "The case for action becomes even stronger". This makes it clear that he wants his audience to take action.
Food waste today is responsible for around 8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions
Lewis includes statistics which are very important when you are looking to persuade an audience. Data makes it clear to the reader/ listener that you aren't just voicing your opinion or sharing your ideas. In fact, it makes the claim more concrete as a whole.
But with this imperative is also an opportunity.
Again, Lewis is trying to find loopholes to grab his audience's attention. He uses the word "opportunity" which usually carries a positive connotation. When talking about food waste, a lot of people ignore the issue because they believe that they'll always be more. Therefore, Lewis is kind of throwing an incentive in there to even out the negatives.
the report shows that almost every time a business made an investment in curbing food waste, there was a positive return on that investment. For every £1 invested in reducing food waste, half the business sites had at least a £14 return.
Lewis is using primary sources (report) to prove that his incentive is beneficial. He also uses statistics and data to present the profit that has been made by businesses that have already invested in food waste issues. This is like a "why not get these same benefits?"
So, we need to put food waste on the boardroom agenda. CEOs rely on hard numbers.
Lewis' audience is the CEOs. I can infer that he is targeting CEOs because they have the most power over the businesses that he wants to get involved.
Our ambition with this report is to change that and make sure food waste gets the focus from business that it deserves.
Yet again Lewis is clearly stating his intentions with this report. This shows a sense of honesty.
In 2013, Tesco took the step of publishing its UK food waste data. The numbers reveal that less than 1 per cent of our food is wasted. This probably makes us one of the most efficient retailers in the world.
By mentioning his past successes, Lewis creates more credibility for himself. In other words, he is making it clear that his proposal is effective.
But in a business that serves around 50m customers a week, that still adds up to around 60,000 tonnes every year – around 30,000 of which are safe to eat.
There is a big but here. To me, this sentence can be taken one of two ways: 1. there really hasn't been much progress made with all of this food still going to waste or 2. that leaves more room for more businesses to get involved and make the efforts more effective. Lewis could've added a sentence that called his audience to action.
The third step is innovation. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach, so what needs to be done will vary.
Lewis shows that he is open to flexibility when it comes to his plan. This can be both good and bad as some may see this as a weakness and try to take advantage.
Even if the moral imperative doesn’t move us, the clear business case for reducing food waste should persuade every CEO.
This is the use of demonstration of irrelevance. Lewis showcases that the lack of morality doesn't meet the criteria of relevance that defines the issue. In other words, he is saying that even if we don't feel the need to take action based on our morals, there are plenty other calls for action.
No matter what business we work in, the key thing is to see the scale of the challenge and take action.
All throughout the article, I noticed that Lewis constantly uses the word "we". This is important because Lewis is making his audience feel included.
We’ve already rolled the partnership out to over 1,100 stores and it will be in all stores by the end of the year. This last year we have estimated we have donated over 5,000 tonnes of edible food.
Although Lewis is still making his argument, he maintains an ambitious attitude to make sure that his audience stays attentive.
Plastic packaging is used in the food supply chain because it supports the safe distribution of food over long distances and minimises food waste by keeping food fresh for longer.
This is how we are able to keep food frozen and it not go bad but after a while it does become freer burnt. Its proven fact that fresh food in plastic packaging makes food last longer and stay fresh which also would help prevent the wasting of food.
Many people bemoan the large amount of packaging that supermarkets use, particularly for fruit and vegetables, most of which have their own natural protection. Nonetheless, a major reason that supermarkets use so much packaging is to protect food and prevent waste—particularly with fresh food. Removing plastic entirely from our food supply may not be the best solution when it comes to protecting the environment and conserving valuable resources.
This was exactly what I was saying in one of my comments. Manoj is giving us facts on this situations and trying to sheds light on the fact that all plastic in the food industry is bad because it is more needed for things like fresh food. I like How she gives different views and not just in one certain place or state but globally
There has been a surge in awareness of the damage that plastic pollution does to our planet in recent years. It has spurred a number of campaigns to remove single-use plastics from our daily lives. This extends to food packaging, with a Waitrose supermarket in the city of Oxford recently launching a package-free trial.
Looking from how this very first paragraph starts off the Manoj was trying to inform us of how bad plastic has been infecting our world and trying to get us to understand the that not all plastic is bad we need to learn how to properly dispose of our plastic waste and she is speaking to everyone that uses plastic that is her audience.
For example, the use of just 1.5g of plastic film for wrapping a cucumber can extend its shelf life from three days to 14 days and selling grapes in plastic bags or trays has reduced in-store wastage of grapes by 20%.
The authors use an example in order to showcase the effectiveness of plastic film when it comes to shelf life. In addition, data is used to show direct results. 3 days-14 days is a huge shift especially when it comes to fresh foods. This gives people more time to consume instead of the food going bad and going to waste.
A 2016 review of studies on food waste found that 88m tonnes of food is wasted every year in the EU—that's 173kg per person and equals about 20% of food produced. Minimising this wastage is crucial for environmental protection, as well as food security.
The authors use data to present the huge size of the issue. This puts emphasis on the effort that will be needed to resolve the issue. In other words, this is a call for action.
Many people bemoan the large amount of packaging that supermarkets use, particularly for fruit and vegetables, most of which have their own natural protection. Nonetheless, a major reason that supermarkets use so much packaging is to protect food and prevent waste—particularly with fresh food. Removing plastic entirely from our food supply may not be the best solution when it comes to protecting the environment and conserving valuable resources.
Here the authors use strategic concession as a way to weaken the opposing arguments. In other words, the authors acknowledged some of the merits of a different view while rejecting other parts of it. In addition, the authors introduce background of their argument. Specifically, they mention how some plastic is used to protect the valuable resources we consume.
There has been a surge in awareness of the damage that plastic pollution does to our planet in recent years. It has spurred a number of campaigns to remove single-use plastics from our daily lives. This extends to food packaging, with a Waitrose supermarket in the city of Oxford recently launching a package-free trial.
From the jump, Manoj Dora and Eleni Iacovidou mention the counterargument to the claim they plan to pursue. This is a good strategy as they are tackling their "competition" head on. This will leave more room to persuade the audience into taking efforts in their favor. In addition, starting off in this manner is an effective way to hook their intended audience.
Even if we want to be a bit cynical and argue that postsecondary education has become nothing more than a necessary, but burden-some, step to gaining employment, both reading and writing are still just as important.
Not only is reading and writing required for jobs, but I also think it's a skill that should be accessible to everyone simply because you use reading and writing every day. I think it's a skill as important as knowing how to cook for yourself.
When one reads, the same thing is happening. Although someone else has already put the words and ideas together, the reader interacts with those and creates meaning by bringing her perspective, personal experi-ences, and background to what literary scholar Louise Rosenblatt has called the transaction between the text and reader.
Yes, reading is just as creative, because even though we're reading the same words, we readers can be imagine different worlds based on the same words in our head.
It is a bad idea to continue priv-ileging writing at the expense of reading.
I can agree with this because when I was homeschooled, we never learned anything about annotations. All we did in English was learn about grammar and write papers. I think there should be a balance between both writing and reading in classes.