John Carino

Writing 205

Amy Barone

Food Politics

2/21/15

 

Everybody knows that cows eat grass, but it is less known that the cows whose meat most grocery stores sell were raised eating corn. This seems like it would not be much of an issue if it weren’t for the reason that this diet increases the likeliness of their meat being dangerous to eat and spreading dangers such as ecoli. Food plays a vital role in our daily lives. Without it we cannot survive, so shouldn’t it be a priority to make sure that what we eat is safe? Food in America has become industrialized to able to meet the mass needs of consumers across the country. However, as a result of this industrialization emphasis has begun to lean more towards the “industry” than “food” in the food industry. Companies have begun cutting corners to maximize production and profits. As a result of this the quality of the food being produced has changed drastically and many other problems have been caused. While promoting public awareness about issues in the industrial food system is important, beyond just spreading awareness there needs to be a more significant movement to instigate change in the industrial food system and improvements in government regulation of this industry. These changes would include more transparency of food production to consumers and fewer “shortcuts” being taken to save money, for example feeding animals what nature intended for them. These operations would result in a safer public well-being for Americans from issues such as food borne illnesses and diseases.

 

One reason that there has not been significant change in the problems caused by the food industry is because of the government’s lack of involvement in making sure these industries are not taking shortcuts. In “You are what they eat” the writer shares “our investigation raises concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be.” (26) Understandably the government is not capable of regulating all food manufacturers at all times because “the FDA can’t blanket the country with inspectors, so it delegates much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70 percent of feed-company and renderer inspections.” (27) As a result of delegating regulation, the government has lost significant control over the industry. And states are often less likely to take a stand against these industries because of the importance of profits these companies makes and the control these powerful companies may have over the more local governments. These companies have simple goals, “to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible.” (26) The problem with this goal and finding loopholes is it compromises the quality and safety of the products they are producing, which therefore puts consumers as risk. These “regulatory loop-holes could allow mad cow infection, if present, to make its way into cattle feed; drugs used in chickens could raise human exposure to arsenic or antibiotic-resistant bacteria; farmed fish could harbor PCBs and dioxins.” (26) The federal government needs to take a stand and instigate more firm regulation, even if it compromises the profits of these companies. The more powerful these companies become the less ability the government will have to make sure the food consumers buy is safe. Consumers have very little power in fighting these food industries, they cannot simply stop buying food. That is why it is important that the government plays a big role in standing up to the companies and making sure they stop hurting their consumers.

Not only is the food consumers buy not always safe, these companies also deceive consumers into thinking what they are buying is often healthier and more nutritious than it actually is. Blake Hurst in “Organic Illusions” shares how two contrasting studies present contradicting results to how nutritious “organic food” really is. Hurst writes “a recent study by a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” (2) The food industry heavily relies on misleading consumers, as a result of this they are able to sell many products at escalated prices. Many companies that sell “organic” foods are owned by the larger conventional brands that they pretend to be competing with. This is another form of deception and sly misleading that needs to be stopped. Hurst argues “the organic farming narrative depends upon the belief that conventional farming sacrifices the present for the future, that the chemicals and fertilizers applied by conventional farmers poison the soil, and that this careless use of the unnatural will infect the things we eat and the productivity of our farms and ranches.” (3) However, this argument for the organic food industry is compromised by the studies that find no differences in nutritional value of foods after over half a century of hybrid seeds and 2 decades of genetically modified seeds. This does not necessarily mean there is no difference at all between conventional foods and organic, “the Stanford study found that organic foods were considerably less likely than conventional foods to have pesticide residues, although organic foods were higher in E.coli.” (3) It seems one bad quality has been traded for another, yet the food industry has been able to turn our higher profits from organic foods by misleading consumers with lies. Hurst shares “even if a naturally produced pesticide is less toxins than its synthetic counterpart, it may be applied at much higher rates than the comparable manmade chemical.” (7) One way to combat this and other deceptions by the food industry is to make sure industries are not able to hide or mislead consumers. This can be achieved by regulating complete transparencies to the food industry about how the food was produced and what products have been added to the product and the process. By advocating for more clear and detailed labels consumers can be significantly more informed on their decision making when purchasing food. This will also require government intervention but also consumers to take a stand.

 

Consumers blindly accept the lies fed to them by the food industry. Marion Nestle writes “they accept at face value the endlessly intoned mantra of industry and government: the United States has the safest food supply in the world. Whether this assertion is true is a matter of some debate.” (27) The food industry has become more and more powerful and continues to fight and beat the government in every attempt to regulate their processes. Nestle presents that “food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal. They lobby Congress and federal agencies, challenge regulations in court, and encourage local obstruction of safety enforcement.” (27-28) It seems difficult that there is any way to overcome such a powerful industry, but it has been done in the past. Look at the decline of the tobacco industry as a precedent. With the joint forces of consumers and the government problems because acknowledged and actions were taken to protect consumers.

In conclusion by creating a more transparent food industry and instigating stricter regulation, the food industry could return to an industry with a primary purpose to serve the needs and safety of consumers, not just to churn our profits and mass produce products. One small step at a time of making the right decisions in making food safe will have a significant impact on creating a safer America. It will take time effort from much of the population, but it is not an impossible goal.

Works cited:

“You Are What They Eat.” Consumer Reports, January 2005.

Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions.” The American, October 1, 2012.

Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.