In an article from Organic Illusions, Blake Hurst, a third generation farmer and volunteer member of the Missouri Farming Bureau discusses and advocates for improvements in farming.  He states, “It is the position of the critics that you just can’t trust the government on these issues, which may indeed be the case.” The “critics” in his quote are referring to those against conventional, non-organic insecticide, and the issue of regulation of chemical mixtures used to promote the protection of produce in the fields.  Although Hurst is arguing against organic methods of farming, he acknowledges the concern that the government is not properly regulating the food industry over what is acceptable risk.  It’s not just the regulations regarding synthetic insecticide which is questionably oversighted by the government.  Another issue is pointed out in an article by Consumer Reports entitled “You are what they eat”.

In this article, Consumer Reports illustrates the feeding and medication of the meat industry.  The primary focus of this article is to provide readers with the details of the diets of animals raised for eating.  From this article, it is evident that the dieter habits of beef, pork, chicken and fish have been altered greatly and far beyond what is natural. One such point is the feeding of processed chick feathers and secretion categorized as “rendered animal by-products” to cows and fish.  Although this is not a conventional feeding method, and frankly disgusting I understand the idea of supplementation and how cost effective it can be.  There is high risk in combining the meat industries in such a way that may promote the spread of illness in poultry, beef and other animal products.  Consumer Reports continues to identify an interesting contradiction among the FDA and EPA standards.  The FDA allows the use of a drug called Roxarsne (3-Nitro), which is placed in non-organic feed for the purpose of killing microbes. This drug among others contains arsenic in a form less toxic to humans and deemed below the threshold of cancer causing.  Although concerning, what is interesting about this case is that the FDA/USDA have a higher toleration for arsenic levels in chicken meat and livers, than EPA allows in water.  In fact, by EPA standards some of the levels found in chicken liver could cause neurological damage to young children when consumption exceeds 2 ounces of liver a week.  A similar trend to the contradiction between two governmental regulatory bodies was presented by Marion Nestle, a Professor and author on nutrition and food safety.

Nestle outlines the fact that there is a functionality issue existing in the government’s regulatory agencies protecting consumers. In her book “Resisting Food Safety,” Nestle illustrates how primary regulatory agencies such as the FDA, and the USDA are not structured in a way that promotes communication both internally or between agencies.  She states, “35 separate laws administered by 12 agencies housed in six cabinet-level departments.”  Although the intentions of these agencies seems to be in the right place there is concern that the bodies are unequipped or that the lines of jurisdiction of these two agencies is not how it should be.  This situation calls to question that if the regulatory bodies are so badly fragmented, how can they be effectively overseeing the large companies in control of the food industry? And in what other ways can the government be failing U.S. consumers?

In 2008, Robert Kenner, a producer and director released a documentary pointing out more issues within the governmental involvement in the food industry.  In the documentary Food,Inc., he expresses the very real concern over how big food organizations have become, and just how unencumber those companies are introduced to viewers. The intention behind this documentary is to inform consumers as to what the current food production industry is doing, how much control the leading companies have, and how governmental food laws lean toward protecting these companies.   One of the best examples of the U.S. government’s close relationship with the food industry is the “Veggie Libel Laws”.  Within this law there exists a provision that makes it easier for food producers to file lawsuits against public criticisms.  This fact is depicted in the Food, Inc.  via the rehashing of the Taxes Beef Group v. Opera Winfrey 1996 case.  Opera was sued for outwardly expressing she will “not eat another burger” on her populate television show.  Although Opera won the case, from that example, one can gather that the food industry has protection privileges beyond that of other industries.  As a business student I have studied the role of government in a capitalistic market.  Ideally the government should be promoting transparency instead of allowing companies to engage in scare tactics such as lawsuits.  If Opera didn’t have the support from followers or the financing to fight the lawsuit, I am sure a differing outcome could have transpired.

With the government is favoring the food industry with protection laws, fundamentally broken and has contradictions between regulations, who should consumers turn to for change?  John Mackey co-CEO of Whole Foods presents a very intriguing answer to that question.  In his article “Conscious Capitalism” John addresses the anti-corporation movements and the Hollywood “evil” appearance that large companies seem to carry.  John points out that there exists a voluntary exchange between the consumer and the company.  He states, “If consumers are unhappy with the price, the service or the selection at Whole Foods Market, they are free to shop at competitors.” This is the source of the power consumers have to change companies.  When consumers make a choice to not buy from a particular company it can cause a ripple that turns into a tidal wave of change.  It begins with consumer choice, which will start affecting the company’s profits.  From there it then affects investors in the company who will be calling up the CEO who will ask what they are going to do about the issue.  An example of this effect is the green energy movement.  As consumers stop buying from companies who do not strive to reduce waste, or lower greenhouse gas emissions and turns to competitors who do, this can force change in company policies. Now I am sure by that example you are wondering who to turn to as a competitor of these food agencies, and there are a few answers to that question.