A primary source is a piece of work created by an individual such as a professor or scientist who gives a firsthand account of what occurred during an experiment or study. This includes articles such as government documents, journals, any form of original research etc. A secondary source takes the information collected in a primary source and presents that data in a new format, often proposing a new statement or argument. Although both sources have the same basic underlying theme often time’s information gets misinterpreted or taken out of context. As a result the new opinion often becomes a biased one and the truth is altered. The main issue with this is that each and every person takes to mean the information they read differently and as a result they could be mislead.
The article “Wasted Food, Wasted Energy: The Embedded Energy in Food Waste in the United State” written by co-authors Amanda Cuellar and Michael Webber is an example of a primary source. The study conducted by these two individuals calculates how much energy the United States put into producing food and how much of this energy was wasted in the year 2007. Information was first collected from numerous sources to determine the amount of energy the US requires to produce all of its food. “The energy estimate for food production scaled to 2007 energy values is 8080 +/- 760 trillion BTU.” (Cuellar, Amanda D & Webber, Michael E). This stat includes things such as agriculture, transportation, storage, preparation, etc. Although this data may not seem significant at first glance it is extremely important when you take into account the amount of food that was thrown away in the same year. The second half of the study concludes that in 2007 the US lost roughly 2030 trillion BTU (British Thermal Units) worth of energy that was put into producing food that was eventually thrown away (Cuellar, Amanda D & Webber, Michael E).
The secondary source is a an article taken from National Geographic titled “365 Trillion Gallons of Water Thrown Away With Our Food Every Year” and was written by Tasha Eichenseher. She chooses to narrow down the topic in the primary source, wasting energy, and focuses directly on the amount of the water the world has lost due to wasted food. The article contains several claims made during the World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden including the estimate that approximately “365 trillion gallons water used around the world is lost to wasted food” (Eichenseher, Tasha). The data collected by Michael Webber does not directly support her study but there is a relationship between the two. “The energy required for food production, transportation, processing, sales, storage, and preparation was between 8,000 and 9,000 BTUs in 2007, or about 2 percent of American annual energy consumption.” (Eichenseher, Tasha). This information is the one fact used in the secondary source that links it to its primary source. The information in her article is organized in the same manner that any other secondary source would be presented, short and straight forward. It is designed so that any reader can scan over the webpage and gain a basic understanding of the topic. This is important because if the article is too long people will not be willing to read it but at the same time if too much information is missing data the results will not be convincing.
One difference between these two documents is how they go about presenting their information. The study conducted by Amanda Cuellar and Michael Webber is presented in a much more thorough manner to the point that it is difficult at times to follow what they are saying without reading over the entire article. The terminology used in the primary source can be confusing at time. The tem BTU which stands for British Thermal Unit is used to describe the amount of energy that goes into producing food. Some readers could find it difficult to follow all the math that is used in the primary source but a step by step walk through of the equations used during their study so that any reader can understand how that answer was reached. An example of this is “Etot = ΣiEi (1) Equation 1 states that the energy consumed to produce food is equal to the sum of the energy required for each production step (Ei), i, shown in Figure S1 and listed in Table 1” (Cuellar, Amanda D & Webber, Michael E).
Several charts were included in the primary source to organize findings in a clear decisive manner allowing the reader to better understand the evidence that has been collected. Amanda and Michael also collected data from numerous other sources to support their theory. They make references to all of these sources throughout the article so the reader knows their information is credible and accurate. Both a table and equation have been provided in this case. The secondary source fails to use any charts or and although some of the sources are named no actual reference list was provided, which makes some of her stats seem less trustworthy. This allows the primary source to make much stronger claims because they have the data to back each statement up. This is a statement made by Amanda and Michael “A decrease in food waste must be accompanied with a retooling of the food supply chain to ensure that the energy consumed during food production does in fact decrease with a decrease in food waste. A study of the economics, feasibility, and policies necessary to achieve energy savings by decreasing food waste would be valuable but is beyond the scope of this work” (Cuellar, Amanda D & Webber, Michael E). It is valid because they have provided more than enough conclusive evidence to support their theory.
In conclusion both sources share the same main idea that in age where everyone is so focused on being extremely environmentally friendly, we continue to be extremely wasteful when it comes to food, while at the same time wasting precious resources too. Although both the primary and secondary source do express the same argument but they also differ in many ways. A secondary article is designed to be a shortened version of its primary source so it will naturally contain less information and thus attract more readers. Unfortunately many people do not read the primary source of articles and never gain a full understanding of the topic at hand.
Eichenseher, Tasha." 65 Trillion Gallons of Water Thrown Away With Our Food Every Year."NATGEO New Watch. (09 September 2010). Web 22 September 2010. http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/09/water-footprint-food-waste.html.
