All posts by Jonathon Henderson

MW 12:45 class

A Moment for Wiser Minds to Prevail

Leave a comment

“Throw a vote out there to the country and let the citizens decide, what is my tolerance for pain to be free? And what is my tolerance for pain to be safe?” Randy Zelin – Criminal Defense Attorney.

 

The words of the Defense Attorney were spoken in an interview on CBSN in mid-February 2016.  The intention of the quote was used to address the difficult choice this generation will face surrounding the Apple vs. FBI controversy.  Although this specific case is truly a re-hashing of the debate between national security and privacy, the current world situation is leading to a more hasty finality then it should.  With the rise in terrorist activity, ultimately resulting in catastrophes such as the Paris attacks of November 13th 2015, the San Bernardino attack of December 2nd 2015, and the Brussels bombing of March 22nd, 2016, a change in governmental policy is imminent. More specifically, a change to how strong public encryption should be and just how safe it is to allow total governmental access to personal and private systems. It is evident from analyzing the critical arguments on both sides of the case that this issue needs more time to be debated and thought out to make the best choice in how we move forward as a nation. My fear is that, one day historians may look back on the outcome as a grievous error.

 

In a quick summary of the Apple vs. FBI situation, Apple has been asked by the FBI to assist in the investigation of an IPhone, which was a phone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.   Apple promptly surrendered all the information they possessed on the phone; however, one of Apple’s promises to their consumers is to completely secure encryption in all of its systems.  This is where the problem originates. For a system to be completely secure, it must not have any access points other than the one intended for its primary user.  Furthermore, the primary access to Apple devices has a 10 attempt allotment for a 4 digit passcode, meaning, that after 10 failed attempts the device will auto erase all information contained within the phone. What all of this security essentially  adds up to is that Apple does not have access to this phone via a backdoor in its system, and that a computer cannot be used to test the approximate 10,000 different combinations that the passcode could be.  As a result of this, Apple has been asked to create a “master key” program that would allow law enforcement to gain access to the phone.

 

In an interview by ABC News, Tim Cook (Apple’s CEO) discussed the reasons Apple is fighting this request to create the software proposed. Tim Cook explained that software such as this will act as a “software equivalent of cancer,” which will break down the encryption written into the IOS system that Apple’s products run on. This software will likely be used more than one time.  Although authorities must be allowed to act on court supported investigations in a timely manner, there exists several issues within the FBI’s master key request.  One of the major issues with a master key program is its ability to be stolen, which raises the question, how secure can protection be to protect a dangerous system like a master key program?

 

In an article released by The Economist entitled, “When Back Doors Backfire,” the writer uses an issue Juniper Networks faced in 2012 when it had an error exported in its secure networking systems. Juniper designed and currently offers secure network systems which allow businesses and government to communicate through the inter web securely.  However, it was discovered that one of their systems had an unintentional weakness. This weakness went unfound for some time and allowed hackers from unknown agencies to listen in on secret conversations.  The reason this example is relevant, and directly connects to the concerns of Tim Cook is that even companies whose primary goal is to provide encrypted programing can make very exploitable mistakes.  Another point that should be addressed is the vast number of entities that would be seeking a master key program or a back door.

 

Late April, CNN aired a debate about the issue of the FBI’s request of Apple which by that time had already been in the national spotlight.  This debate was between John McAfee, an American antivirus designer and businessman, and an Agent of the FBI; Steve Rodgers.  McAfee, who takes the position against this request to Apple, points out his perspective and experience with backdoor or master key encryption.  McAfee attacked the FBI’s request saying that the FBI, who had just recently been hacked by a teenager, cannot be counted on to keep a master key safe from hackers both local and overseas.

 

McAfee stands on the grounds that a back door, or master key program results in an even greater threat to the American people, including their bank accounts and private information.  The primary concern is the very real and present danger of cyber threats from other nations as well as hacker’s within the country.   An important term McAfee used in his argument that may not be known to some is “black hat hackers,” which is a term used to identify certain individuals who use hacking for nefarious reasons. This differs from “white hat hackers,” who are typically paid by a company to hack, or try to hack into their systems for the goal of improving security and test for weaknesses.  There is a third term used in identifying hackers and that is “gray hat hackers,” which are those who hack for curiosity, fame and less than criminal yet intrusive purposes.

 

The contributors to the academic article, “Why Computer Talents become Hackers” would agree to the credibility of McAfee’s fear. This article covers a sociological case study on how it is that young individuals, predominantly young men in their twenties make that change from talented gray hat hackers to black hat.  The academic article draws from case studies in both the US universities and schools in China for the intent of creating theories that best explain what drives or prevents this change.  One of the most predominate factors preventing these hackers from turning to the criminal side of hacking is self-morals; perceived or taught notions of right and wrong.  It is evident by this article how dangerous twenty year olds can be acting alone, or in the interest of an opposing government.

 

So far this blog has outlined the stances against the FBI’s request. However, referring back to the McAfee and Rodgers debate, Steve Rodgers provides some of the key concerns of the FBI which should not be overlooked.  Rodgers debated the FBI’s grounds for requesting the timely support of Apple, and the concern for national security due to the current war on terrorism. Rodgers discusses that the potential information obtained from devices such as the phone will be useful in the protection of the American people and stopping future attacks.  This of course takes into account the other phones currently held by authorities that may lead to more individuals or groups that mean to do the US further harm.  Furthermore, agencies like the FBI should always, with a court order, be able to access any device for investigative purpose.

 

There are no grounds to argue that the FBI doesn’t have the best intentions for the US citizens. The fear of losing privacy rights and governmental abuse should have equal weight in debating what policies should follow the outcome of this case and cases to come.

In the CBSN interview with Randy Zelin, which was quoted at the beginning of this blog, a public concern is discussed in direct relation to the potential for this master key encryption to infringe on the privacy rights of American citizens. The underlying concern within this perspective is the fear of this case setting a precedent for future governmental policies.  This could allow surveillance programs too much power that could lead to more court orders in the future with similar demands.  The article “The insecurity of Innovation” contradicts this fear, by outlining just how involved government oversight has been in securing the internet while striving to not impose upon civil liberties.  This article also displays that with care, governmental policies and public interest can work together to achieve safety.

 

Presently, the FBI has dropped the request for Apples compliance because they have gained access to the phone, after hiring an undisclosed team or individual to hack into the phone. This outcome is both a success for the US citizens, and a threat to Apple consumers.  Because the phone was successfully hacked, that can only mean there is an exportable error in the security of the phone which will likely have the interest of Gray and Black Hat hackers alike.  Thankfully, this outcome provides a needed pause in this battle of privacy and national security, which may allow regulatory bodies, the public and the tech industry to decide the best way to solve this complex issue.

 

 

 

 

References

Hart, C., Jin, D. Y., & Feenberg, A. (2014). The insecurity of innovation: a critical analysis of cybersecurity in the United States. International journal of communication [Online], 2860+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA398630017&v=2.1&u=nysl_ce_syr&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=5b67f8e84df64a2c87b1abf35cc1ac9d

 

Tech giant Apple is resisting a court directive that it help the FBI gain access to the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, the deceased San Bernardino jihadist who, with his wife, killed 14 people in San Bernardino on December 2. (2016, March 14).National Review, 68(4), 6+. Retrieved from   http://bi.galegroup.com/essentials/article/GALE%7CA444400255/18e9194b2f6d6da1f7be4374d2f5338d?u=nysl_ce_syr

 

When back doors backfire; internet security. (2016, Jan 02). The Economist, 418, 10. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1752811600?accountid=14214

 

Xu, Z., Hu, Q., & Zhang, C. (2013). Why computer talents become computer hackers.Association for Computing Machinery.Communications of the ACM, 56(4), 64. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1354443069?accountid=14214

 

K. Z. (2016, March 28). The FBI Drops Its Case Against Apple After Finding a Way Into That iPhone. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2016/03/fbi-drops-case-apple-finding-way-iphone/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqLTFv7v7c  Published on Feb 25, 2016  Description: He (Tim Cook) addressed the high-tech giant’s public battle with the FBI over Syed Farook’s iPhone                     Retrieved 4/25/2016.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqI0jbKGaT8  Published on Mar 1, 2016  Description: John McAfee squares off against former FBI officer Steve Rogers about the iPhone backdoor demanded by the FBI. Steel cage match.                                                                                               Retrieved 4/25/2016.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4kYfedXt58  Published on Feb 17, 2016  Description:  Apple has declined to help the FBI investigation into the San Bernardino, California, shooters, saying it jeopardizes all Apple users’ privacy. The fight from Apple may go as high as the Supreme Court. CBSN contributor Randy Zelin breaks down the next steps for the Apple-FBI feud.                                                       Retrieved 4/25/2016.

 

http://www.juniper.net/us/en/                                                           Description: Juniper networks home page.                                                          Retrieved 4/25/2016.

 

WRT 205/Spring 2016 Grading Rubric: Unit III NYTs Magazine

Professor, before you ask yourself… the answer is yes, I did talk in differing prospective (I.e Third person) out of fun and embracement of critiquing my work.  I learned a lot form this class and look forward to the finale reflation.  I find myself picking on talk radio hosts now, because a lot of them don’t back up statements they make.. I’m sure I’ll be doing them same for every blog I read moving forward.

[1] The title of the blog is captivating to the audience in the way that “a moment,” signifies that the reading will be brief. When you see “Literature Review,” or “Research” in the title, that may be less attractive to the reader due to it’s length. I mention the “wiser minds,” because the articles discusses Apple and the FBI; a global company and a powerful government agency. The title could maybe include “Apple,” but everyone has their own opinion. I would like the reader to at least read the first couple of paragraphs before deciding they are uninterested in the blog.

[2] The reader is invited to the paper first through a quote. The reader begins to get a feel for the tone of the piece as they continue reading to re-visit the tragic terrorist events that recently affected our nation. The exigency of the piece is evident as I point out how cell phones can help us uncover information which could prevent future terrorist attacks. The phones of the terrorists were Apple Iphones, which I then discuss the privacy policy of Apple and the rights of an American citizen.

[3] The “idea” proposed is one that is very serious to our society and nation today. Although some Americans may feel that it is their right to keep their information private and secure on their technological devices, it is also their right to keep other fellow Americans safe. Readers would typically assume that their Iphone is safe, secure and unable to be accessed by others. I illustrate throughout the blow how accessing the device is not harmful, but rather helpful in a time of need.

[4] I wanted the ideas of the blog to connect together, which is why I included quotes, references and the position of the CEO of Apple. I also explained the role of McAfee and his stance on the issue. The opinions of these influential people are relevant as they have proven success and created anti-hacking programs. I researched the issues prior to writing this paper, which provided me with knowledge on how Apple, McAfee and the FBI function, However I wanted to back up any agreement or disagreement I had.  All this while knowing and accounting for a belief that both sides plays a fundamentally different role in maintaining the safety and security of our nation.

[5] A writer must have the ability through sources (books, articles, magazines, etc.) to prove or disprove a claim. If the writer illustrates ambiguity in his/her writing, the point is unclear and the reader is lost. The reader will not take anything away from the piece. The piece was organized sequentially in order of important people, events that occurred, and the reactions of the Apple company and the FBI.

[6The primary premise of the piece states, “It is evident from analyzing the critical arguments on both sides of the case that this issue needs more time to be debated and thought out to make the best choice in how we move forward as a nation.” This is a reasonable statement for readers as it is not too bold as to turn readers away, yet interesting enough to persuade them to continue reading on the topic. This statement also signifies that this issue has not been resolved entirely, but it is one that the US is diligently working on. When it comes to safety and security, all citizens are interested and they want to know that FBI and government agencies are working everyday to keep them safe.

[7] I lacked a key secondary source, which could have been used to include the issue of abuse of power among governmental agency’s. I purposely left out this as a major topic because I dint feel I could make that statement and back it up properly.  This could have been used to complicated the case more, however, the writer did a good job pairing 3 primary sources with secondary (peer review) sources that supported or contradicted arguments presented.

[8] The CNN debate is an example of a Primary source as John McAfee discussing hackers and cyber attacks. The writer pared this primary source with a secondary source covering the report on hackers and social behavior. This pairing was effective at complicating the issue due to the labeling of hackers, and how even “gray hat” hackers still search information that many would not want taken.

[9 The writer did well persuading the audience that the case discussed is not over, despite the FBI dropping the case. (if I do say so myself) The writer’s use of experts opinions and arguments while backing any agreements or disagreements. The writer didn’t stray from the researcher that was done, I.e making statements not backed up by sources. The writer took great care by pointing out that the FBI does need to be able to operate and investigate these crimes. Furthermore the writer used both sides to the argument, pointing out the status of the current war on terrorism, this shows the balance of arguments presented. The writer also did well to reach out to the current American culture and the need for privacy protection (the writer could have clearly stated just how much personal information can be found on personal phones however).

[10] The visual would be the quotes featured throughout the piece. Although I have not placed an image directly in the piece to reflect the topic, I feel the reader can create their own image with the quotes and the tone of the blog. Furthermore, I felt that an image is not selected properly could cause some readers to pass other the topic, as they judge the purpose of the project before reading it {if my math is correct (no image = mystery = Intrigue)}. The reader is aware that the topic controversial as I mention the privacy of citizens. This can create some discomfort within a reader, but also helps them to understand that this is not a situation we can take lightly from a global perspective.

[11] The original 800 word draft was edited and used as a body in the project. This was based on the guidance given by my peers. I then  was able to create an enticing intro to the project.

[12] The writer used hyperlinks with the debates referenced, this is appropriate due to the fact that it displays a security or confidence in the writer’s translation of the primary sources used.

[13] As the writer, I worked to keep the sentences simple, and to the point. I did my best to write clearly and accurately, and to stay away from the stream of consciousness point of view. The use of a variety of sources mixed with my support of the topic allowed the piece to flow and keep the reader interested in the topic.

MW 12:45 class, Uncategorized

The American Food Industry, Giving Capitalism a bad name since the 1980s

Leave a comment

What do the movies Alien, Jurassic Park, and Robocop have in common? Other than being examples of science fiction masterpieces in my childhood eyes, they all portray evil organizations acting without regulations or concern for public safety.

Unfortunately this is not just a fictional theme but a current issue in the United States and around the world. In the events leading up to the present day, main companies supplying most of the nation’s food demand have growingly become more powerful, and more careless toward the wellbeing of consumers. What is at stake here in the United States is the increasing loss of national health as these large companies unsafely increase yields, and cut costs which we then pay for, in too many cases with our lives.  All’s not lost however, there is still hope for the consumer, surprisingly, it is the consumer.   

One of the ways that these companies have recklessly increased their bottom line (profits) has been the introduction of cut cost through altering the dietary habits of the animals we eat. Before the American food industry was tainted with the focus of costs and increasing yields. Even before we relinquished farming too large corporations, cows only consumed grass. Shocking to believe I know. However, in this current age, corn, a much cheaper alternative to free grazing is now the number one source of the feed for the beef, chicken, pork industry and it is now being introduced to fish. Now cutting cost is not a bad thing, and the US government has made through its legislation, corn so cheaply available that is stands to reason that it could be a equitably great alternative. The problem is this cutting has caused consequences, and it has only gotten worse.

Allen Trenkle, a Ruminant Nutrition Expert explains in a documentary by Robert Kenner, Food Inc., “Cows evolved on consuming grass, and there is some research the indicates a high corn diet results in E. Coli that is Acid-Resistant.” Allen continues “These would be the more hurtful E. Coli.” Allen makes a good point in the last quote when he discusses the, “more hurtful E.Coli.” The fact is, by changing diets to more a cost focused means and not based on nutrition, has unleashed and continue to unleash dangerous strains of E. Coli.

Corn is not the only cause of dietary issues forced on consumers by the food industry, and not nearly as disturbing as the findings of Consumer Reports.  In an article by Consumer Reports entitled, “You are what they eat,” the author 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.  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 chicken feathers and feces categorized as “rendered animal by-products” to cows, and even fish. Furthermore, Robert Lawrence, M.D., Chairman of a National Academy of Sciences Committee was quoted in the article saying “I was shocked to learn that every years in the U.S. 11 Billion pounds of animal fat is recycled into animal feed”. Combining the meat industries in this way has promoted the spread of illness in poultry, to beef and other animals within the industry.

How have these companies been able to make these changes? Where is the government oversight to prevent these kinds of careless business decisions? One of the big sources leading to the relinquishing of control to these companies starts in our nation’s government. “For years during the Bush administration the Chief of staff at the USDA was the former Chief Lobbyist to the beef industry in Washington…” said Eric Schlosser in the documentary Food Inc. This documentary was directed by Robert Kenner, with the intent to unveil the actions of our current food industry and how they have, and continue to alter what we consume. Eric Schlosser also points out that, “The head of the FDA was the former executive VP of the National Food Processors Association.”  

What was the outcome of the instances like these two?  Marion Nestle, a Professor and author on nutrition and food safety points out just how incapable the regulatory agencies like the USDA and FDA have become.  In her book, Resisting Food Safety Nestle states how “35 separate laws administered by 12 agencies housed in six cabinet-level departments.” Nestle continues, “At best a structure as fragmented as this one would require extraordinary efforts to achieve communication.” This issue of communication is outlined in great detail by Nestle as she explains the dizzying lines of jurisdiction between the USDA and FDA.

 

An example of just how poorly agencies are able to communicate let alone agree on standards comes from Consumer Reports.  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 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.  

Historically the organic movement has been seen as the one fighting for improved government regulations. However, this issue is felt by more than just those opposed to the use of synthetic elements in food production. Blake Hurst, a third generation farmer, volunteer member of the Missouri Farming Bureau discusses and advocates for improvements in farming.  He states, in his article Organic Illusions, “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 vetting what is allowed to be sprayed on our food.

If the regulatory bodies are so badly fragmented, have the wrong people in charge, and overall cannot be trusted, who do consumers turn to for change? Who has the power to stop these companies from perverting the food industry more?    

John Mackey co-CEO of Whole Foods presents a very intriguing answer to that question.  In his article “Conscious Capitalism,” John addresses the anti-corporate 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 not to  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.

In Food Inc., Tony Airoso, the Chief Dairy Purchaser for Walmart states, “It is a pretty easy decision to try to support things like organic. It’s all based on what the customer wants.”  This idea doesn’t just apply to organic foods, but to consumer conscious conventional foods as well. Although this is the best answer to the current problems within the food industry,  the companies question know this. Eric Schlosser states in Food inc., “There is a deliberate veil. This curtain that’s dropped between us and where our food is coming from.”  

In order to change the food industry for the better, we must have more informers and supporters, more farmers willing to speak up, and more people like Robert Kenner and Eric Schlosser bringing these issues to light. The more people know about what they are eating, or what the true cost is to what we are buying, the more we will see change.  Furthermore, we need alternative producers, local farmers and garden growers, supported by local purchasers. The cost to enter the food market is very low. Sure you can’t produce on the levels that established companies can, but you can do your part in undercutting the profits of these reckless companies. There is hope for the American consumer, and it is the American consumer.

 

Uncategorized

Unit 1 assignment Draft

Leave a comment

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.