All issues related to and relevant to food safety are reflective of a three way power struggle between the industry, the government, and consumers. This matters because the industry is more powerful than the government in certain areas. Consumers should be concerned because they are increasingly at the mercy of the economic-interest of major food corporations. After reading the texts, there were several issues prevalent throughout all of the texts. The topic of government regulation over the food industry was touched upon briefly in almost every reading.

Each text observed and commented on the over the actions and lack of actions on behalf of organizations such as the FDA and the USDA. The Consumer Reports article You are What They Eat article inquiries into the lack of government monitoring of the food fed to the animals we eventually eat and the adverse effects thereafter.  It also provides the current narrative between industry and concerned officials. Highlighted in the article is the inclusion of waste and antibiotics in the feed of farm animals such as cows and chickens. The article states that the appropriate organizations do have oversight and final approval over feed ingredients. Yet even officials in the food industry are aware of the potential for the feed to still become contaminated in several parts of the process. The question Consumer Reports raises is whether the rules surrounding food supply are strong enough, and whether or not government enforcement is expansive enough. “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be and FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality” (Consumer Reports, 27) Another of the text’s observations was that certain health labels and claims on food are unverified, I wish to add that this is another power of the food industry over consumers. Consumers are disadvantage by not knowing where there food comes from or how it is prepared and must trust labeling.

As a readers and food consumers, we naturally wonder why the government would be so negligent in this area. The investigations conducted in the film Food Inc. does the work of providing some answers. The directors and producers perform investigative work into every aspect of food production in an attempt to pull back the veil over food industry practices. Eric Schlosser, the author and co-producer, explains that “For years during the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist to the beef industry in Washington; the head of the F.D.A. was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association. These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies that they’re supposed to be scrutinizing”. (Food Inc.) This is possible because only a handful of companies control the food system. This is a significant trend because it illuminates how the amassing economic power of food corporations is being transformed into political power further tipping the balance of influence away from the government.

Marion Nestle in her article Resisting Food Safety argues that food safety rules and regulations are outdated.  Pulling from her experience as the senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services, she attempts to provide and authoritative insight into the inner workings of regulatory agencies.  She provides the facts and statistical details as to why the actions of regulatory agencies are so limited. She insists that there is more protection for producers than public, and explains why it is difficult to connect foodborne illness to production. “If anything the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable…The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was…minuscule by any standard of federal expenditure”. (Nestle, 59) The arguments made by Nestle about the daunting tasks provided to food regulation organizations stood out to me. Extending the text’s observation that regulatory government agencies are more concerned about vying for resources and jurisdiction than public safety, I wish to add that the dilution of their responsibilities contributes to the dilution of their power. It is this environment that influences the behavior noted by Nestle.

One of the risks associated with lax government regulation is obviously foodborne illness. This issue is framed by power as well. As the current system is constructed all the texts seem to point to the fact that consumers, the industry and the government are all disadvantaged in their attempts to prevent foodborne illness, which is cause for concern. Food Inc. employs a strong emotional rhetoric when addressing the issue. The inclusion of Barb Kowalcky’s story regarding her son Kevin emphasizes the dangers of foodborne illness in a way that effectively hits home. On screen Ms. Kowalcky explains how her son developed hemolytic-uremic syndrome in reaction to contaminated hamburger meat. The most alarming part of the story for me is the legislation that followed. Kevin’s Law, passed after his 2001 death, gives the USDA the power to close down plants with contaminated meat. What was alarming to me was that the government didn’t already reserve this power and that it took death and years of lobbying for them to assume this power. Ms. Kowalcky explains ““It took us almost two or three years and hiring a private attorney to actually find out that we matched a meat recall”. The Kowalcky family was powerless to prevent their son from eating the tainted meat. The industry lacked significant power to identify and contain the contaminated food, and the until Kevin’s law the government lacked the power to shut down production of contaminated meat.

The Consumer Reports article is characterized by explaining the source and risk of two major foodborne illness. It cites how infectious prions in beef feed can lead to mad cow disease in humans and antibiotics in chicken feed can expose people to arsenic. Yet, even though the sources of the diseases are known preventative efforts are still hampered. “The FDA is aware of a handful of incidents worldwide in which salmonella infections in humans were linked to animal feed… connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult” (Consumer Reports, 28). Extending the text’s observation about the difficulty linking feed ingredients to foodborne illness, I wish to add that the dangerous aspect of this issue is that the industry again reigns superior and influence. If it is difficult to link the ingredients known to have potential for harm to actual outbreaks, it is easier to defend their inclusion.

Nestle’s article being more factual and educational in nature highlights the general difficulties of identifying the source of foodborne illness and why it poses such a threat. She notes “most episodes of food poisoning are not very serious… it is difficult to collect accurate information about the number of cases and their severity”. (Nestle, 37) She is also able to tangibly clarify what I have observed as prioritizing of economic interests over public safety.  Nestle provides data showing foodborne illness presents a multi-million dollar cost to the industry in the form of recalls and loss of reputation. I similarly hold one of the text’s position that consumers do share some of the responsibility in issues of food safety.  This was a perspective touched on in all articles in fact. Food Inc., tries through rhetorical exercise to emphasize the power consumers have by selective spending when it comes to food. Consumer Reports urges people to utilize their local means of political influence to affect change by signing petitions and such. Yet, as Nestle observes the blame and responsibility is shared equally between producers, consumers, and regulatory agencies. Although, revisiting these issues of food through the framework of power, it becomes clear that power is concentrated in the industry. Therefore, so should the responsibility and accountability for food safety.