While more people are becoming more inclined to inquire about the food and drug industries, the power that these organizations have over the American people are still overlooked. This is due to the strong ties that these companies have to the US government. These connections are exposed through many mediums of communication, specifically in the documentary Food Inc., and in the piece “Resisting Food Safety” by: Marian Nestle. This impact is pivotal to be aware of, as it directly impacts the nations present state, and future. While the cost effective and efficient nature of using technological and scientific mutations in the food industry is undeniable, the compromise of individual safety through the production of GMO’s and emitted pollution via pesticides is too impactful to ignore.  This aspect of the nation’s food industry is enabled by large corporations, often more powerful than the government, that therefore directly influence the health of our people and planet.

One of the most important concepts when dissecting the intricacies of the food industry is the government’s role in the process. Ever since the prominence of recording food-borne illnesses decades ago, the food industry has been the main obstacle in passing food and drug safety legislature. This is primarily rooted from the fear that these regulations would cause negative PR for the company, ultimately resulting in a drop of sales for the organization. This work is mainly done by lobbyist, individuals who’ll provide economic contributions in order to “save face” for their industry. The process of lobbying is chronicled the article “You Are What They Eat.” When a cow is ill or not fit to be processed, they are considered a downer cow. While these cows are believed to be taken away from the American dinner table, they are just set on a different course. Downer cows are incorporated in feed for other cows and chickens. As a result, these animals still impact the American people, making their execution insignificant. To help promote the safety of the American people, activists pushed to place strict regulations on the inclusion of downer cows in animal feed. These said regulations would have a positive impact in ensuring a higher level of protection for the consumer, however they would slow the production process, and would prove to be more expensive for corporations to carry out the same practices. The money that these organizations would lose is believed to be a main factor in the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) altering of the proposed ban. Under the newer circumstances, the FDA called for “public comment,” essentially meaning the “ban would be stricter but, like any proposal in the public-comment stage, might not result in final regulations.” This lack of assurance form the FDA that action would be swiftly taken caused a delay, ultimately leaving a void that a solution was meant to fill.

American health is the primary concern of the food industry’s inclusion in government practices. The lack of regulations on food and drug corporations effects future generations. American director and producer Robert Kenner commented in his film Food Inc. that “one in three children born after 2000 will contract diabetes.” This statistic is alarming in that our food sources are directly impacting individuals from a very young age. Another devastating instance in his film that highlights the industry’s influence on young people is seen through Barbara Kowalcyk’s story. Kowalcyk tragically lost her son to e coli after he had eaten a hamburger from a “Jack in the Box” chain restaurant. It is remarkably terrible that a perfectly healthy toddler can lose his or her life in days after simply eating at a fast food restaurant. The idea that the food we consume can be lethal. It almost sounds irrational due to the common shared notion that government organizations such as the FDA are established to protect its people. This often leads people to not look towards the food industry when they are sick, even though their illness may be directly linked to it. This attitude is highlighted in Nestle’s journal “Resisting Food Safety.” Nestle recounts an instance in which she attended a family party decades ago. Many guests had contracted food poisoning from the evening. Nestle states that they “did not report our illnesses to health authorities…we did not try to trace the source of the outbreak.” She additionally goes on to note that she assumed that these minor sicknesses were “a normal part of daily living.” These perspectives are ones held by many in the nation. It is often difficult to have the awareness to trace back a food-borne illness to a specific company as food poisoning is so common. However, this explained commonality is what is most alarming. While one instance may highlight a minor case of food poisoning, another situation may include an outbreak of listeria or e coli.

On the opposition of individuals like Nestle and Kenner are authors like Blake Hurst. Hurst explains his support of the food industries use of GMO’s by preaching about the practices’ influence on production and generation of income. He states, “Millions of hands would be needed to produce food on America’s farms without modern technology.” This thesis does have some truth to it. While the use of pesticides in the raising of livestock has received some heat recently, it can be acknowledged that these strategies do save time and money. The reason for this heat is the proven “48 million Americans a year (that) become sick from food-borne illnesses.” This statistic, provided by Sabrina Tavernise in her article “U.S. Makes Final an Array of Rules on Food Safety,” encompasses the massive amount of US citizens that the compromise of food regulations effects. While she does stand on the other side of this issue than Hurst she does include the heightened cost that stricter legislature would contribute. It is noted, “The new duties would be difficult without significantly increased financing.” While these changes may prove to warrant the nation to empty it’s pockets a little, the positive influence regulations would have on personal health would be immense.