News articles and internet blogs are saying that Americans are trying becoming more health conscious, but America ranks thirty-three in the healthies country. Bonnie Liebman, Sarah Federman, and Greg Crister are influential writer on the topic on food. They show the readers the freedom that food manufacturers have on labeling, and how it affects the consumers that fall for it. Bonnie Liebman, the author of “Claims Crazy: Which Can You Believe?” is a Director of Nutrition in CSPI. She has an M.S on nutritional sciences from Cornell University. Liebman provides links between health issues with food labeling. Her work talks about the different types of food labeling, and how the FDA fails to regulate on the structure/function claims that food …show more content…
Her work first bloomed when she had a debate of the word “natural” with one of her professors. Since then, her conclusion of the word natural is indefinable. Her essay was about the difficulty of defining the word “natural”. She mentions the widespread abuse of the word “natural”, and the word becoming more of a marketing strategy than an adjective that convey meaningful information. Federman shows the many brands that have the label natural, but some of them don’t even show the process of why the product is “natural”. She continues her claim by showing facts of “natural” water that have contaminants that are beyond safe federal limits, and bottles having high bacteria counts. Federman finishes the essay by questioning the elusiveness of the word natural and why the product would cost more. Finally, Greg Crister, the author of the essay “Let Them Eat Fat” is an authority in the subject of food politics. He regularly writes for USA Today, and Los Angeles Times food related issues like …show more content…
An example is Bonnie Liebman and Sarah Federman’s essays, they talk about the manufacturer’s unrestricted power to claim what they want on their product as long as it meets the FDA’s guidelines. One example that Liebman shows is that “’Not evaluated is right. ‘The FDA doesn’t even look at the evidence behind structure/function claims,’ says Silverglade” (465). Another example that she shows is one of The “A” List examples, and one of the examples say that “Diets low in sodium may reduce the risk of high blood pressure” (467). These two examples shows that food manufacturers have unrestricted power on labeling what they want as long as it doesn’t make a disease claim or the health claims have words like may that suggest that it’s now completely accurate. An example on Sarah Federman’s essay is “The report alerted consumers to the fact that their beloved Quaker 100% Natural Cereal contained 24 percent sugar, not to mention the nine grams of fat which … is the same as a small Mc-Donald’s hamburger” (471-72). Here, Federman shows that the word natural is unregulated, and the consumers can’t help but think that it’s a far superior brand than the other
Regulating what the government should control and what they should not was one of the main arguments our founding fathers had to deal with when creating our nation, and to this day this regulation is one of the biggest issues in society. Yet, I doubt our founding fathers thought about the idea that the food industry could one day somewhat control our government, which is what we are now facing. Marion Nestles’ arguments in the book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health deal with how large food companies and government intertwine with one another. She uses many logical appeals and credible sources to make the audience understand the problem with this intermingling. In The Politics of Food author Geoffrey Cannon further discusses this fault but with more emotional appeals, by use of personal narratives. Together these writers make it dramatically understandable why this combination of the food industry and politics is such a lethal ordeal. However, in The Food Lobbyists, Harold D. Guither makes a different viewpoint on the food industry/government argument. In his text Guither speaks from a median unbiased standpoint, which allows the reader to determine his or her own opinions of the food industries impact on government, and vise versa.
In the documentary, Food Inc., we get an inside look at the secrets and horrors of the food industry. The director, Robert Kenner, argues that most Americans have no idea where their food comes from or what happens to it before they put it in their bodies. To him, this is a major issue and a great danger to society as a whole. One of the conclusions of this documentary is that we should not blindly trust the food companies, and we should ultimately be more concerned with what we are eating and feeding to our children. Through his investigations, he hopes to lift the veil from the hidden world of food.
In the article I read today called No food is healthy. Not even kale. The author Michael Ruhlman, indulges his thoughts about the food industry in the US and what is considered “healthy” and “unhealthy”. The language he uses is very modern and simple, as if you were actually having a conversation with him in person. The language he used was informal, I enjoyed this because I could really grasp his feelings about common misconceptions about “healthy” foods. Ruhlman’s rhetoric in the piece was to persuade readers to know more about the foods they were purchasing then just throwing it in the basket. In the article he mentions that he asked the lady if she knew what was replaced in her fat-free milk and she had no clue. He says “The woman apparently
Meriam-Webster Dictionary defines food as “material taken into an organism and used for growth, repair, and vital processes as a source of energy” (Mish). Food is simple, yet humans have made it very complex. In the United States of America, food has become more of a hobby than a nutritional need. Every family gathering, holiday, and birthday celebration contains food of some sort. Types of food are customary at different times, like birthday cake at a birthday party, or stuffing at Thanksgiving. There is an entire holiday dedicated to dressing up and giving children candy (Halloween). One of the popular holiday foods is meat. An average of 10 million land animals (not including fish or other water dwelling organisms) are brutally slaughtered
With the ever-growing population of animal lovers on earth, a more viable, humane solution for food consumption needs to be made, but why make a solution when there has already been one? Meat consumption has been proven time and time again to be unnecessary, but that doesn’t stop the average person from eating a double cheese burger with bacon. Unfortunately, many people are apathetic to what happens to animals in farm factories and continue to support them by buying their products, however, consumers should consider switching to a vegetarian diet because it’s more humane to animals, less farm factories being built can save the planet from deforestation, and with a proper balanced vegetarian diet anyone can maintain a healthy life without the
In Lee Ann Fisher Baron’s “Junk Science,” she claims that the “food industry with the help of federal regulators” sometimes use “[a science that] bypasses [the] system of peer review. Presented directly to the public by…‘experts’ or ‘activists,’ often with little or no supporting evidence, this ‘junk science’ undermines the ability…[for] everyday consumers to make rational decisions” (921). Yet Americans still have a lot of faith in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to a 2013 Pew Research study, 65% of Americans are “very favorable” or “mostly favorable” of the FDA. When it comes to what people put in their bodies, the FDA has a moral obligation to be truthful and transparent. The bottom line of the FDA’s myriad of responsibilities is to help protect the health of Americans. Deciding what to eat is a critical part of living healthily, and consumers must be able to trust that this massive government agency is informing them properly of the contents of food. While the FDA does an excellent job in many areas, it has flaws in other areas. One of its flaws is allowing the food industry to print food labels that are deceptive, unclear, or simply not true (known as misbranding). This is quite the hot topic because a Google search for “Should I trust food labels” returns well over 20 million results, many of which are blog posts from online writers begging their readers not to trust food labels. HowStuffWorks, a division of Discovery Communications, published an online article whose author claims that “[the food industry] will put what they want on labels. They know the game….” While the food industry is partially at blame for misbranding, the FDA is allowing it to happen. If a mother tells her children that it is oka...
The food served in restaurants or fast food places, a great number of times, is fairly unfit for people. The portions they serve are too large and the food is filled with empty calories. It is surprising that a law has not been made that entitles restaurants to have a listing next to their menu of the correct portion sizes and the total of calories put into it. This ensures awareness to those who consumes their food and to choose the healthiest item for them to eat. That way they don’t feel so guilty for what they put in their mouths if the information was given to them.
We live in a fast track society, and the goal of the typical consumer is simple: get the best product for the least amount of money in the shortest amount of time. When at the supermarket, it is easy to quickly scan boxes and cans for signs that assure us of a quality product. Among these familiar signs are the stamps of approval from the American Heart Association and the Smart Choices program. In many cases, however, these assurances of quality and nutrition are not what they seem to be. The use of deceptive health marketing by corporations on food products is unethical. Many of the names consumers trust to guide them in a better lifestyle are actually paid large sums of money by corporations for the privilege of putting a logo on their product.
Food is the essential vitality of life and the essence of survival. It nourishes one’s physical body to enable pursuit of passion. However, in overwhelming aspects of American society, food is viewed as an enemy. It is seen as the root cause of obesity which carries heavy condemnations of ugliness and weakness. Countless people have become obsessed with food as a means of exerting strength, displaying will-power, and achieving alleged beauty. The way society views nutrition has become misconstrued and disordered, resulting in unhealthy relationships with food, and thus emotional and physical harm. The most effective way to change society’s relationship with food is to target the presentation, practices, content, and intentions of nutrition
In America itself only about two percent of kids eat a healthy diet. The topic I
My sister is 14 and weighs more than I do. She is on the Varsity soccer team at her high school and gets plenty of exercise, but still struggles with her weight. She doesn’t understand why my clothes don’t fit her quite the same way, or why she looks different in the crop-top shirts that all of her “bean pole” friends wear during the summer. She went through puberty much before all of her friends did and immediately started gaining weight in 8th grade. She eats whatever she wants, whenever she wants and doesn’t consider the amount of calories she consumes in a day. My parents struggle with teaching her what is the right portion for a meal and showing her what is healthier for her to eat. Like most 14 year olds, she wants to eat pizza and sweets
More and More people are becoming concerned about what they eat, especially if they consume food products that are manufactured in food industries. However, it is hard to know what exactly you are consuming if food industries provide false nutrition content and mislead consumers by placing false advertisements on the packaging. When a company produces a product that contains misleading label, consumers are not receiving complete information about the food they are eating which could lead to health issues including allergies and problems with diabetes.
An investment into a healthier America is long overdue, because we are continuing to allow the government to do more harm than good to our health. There is an issue in our nation that is attacking the population’s health and rights. The American diet as a whole is continuing to worsen as time progresses, and no government action is being done to stop it. Genetic engineering now modifies our once natural foods and subsidies are not where they should be. To first get a grip on this unacceptable problem at my school, I would like to propose a change in menus, a change in what the vending machines have available, and more advocates visiting the school.
Many cat owners go to a store and grab either the first, or the cheapest, cat food there. Dry food is usually the most convenient and least expensive food, so over half of cat owners choose that to feed their cats. However, dry food often has high amounts of carbohydrates, and though there is much scrutiny over what felines should be fed given their natural diet, it is commonly agreed that cats should be fed foods with a high amount of protein and a somewhat low amount of carbohydrates (Forrester and Kirk). Most dry foods, including Purina, Meow Mix, and Taste of the Wild, contain far more carbohydrates than would be consumed by a cat in the wild (Pierson). Because cats are not meant to have so many carbohydrates in their diet, the high amount
Millionaire food companies compel and attract customers through advertisements. Wonderful presentations and happy actors on TV are strategically used to state the normality to eat a tempting 2000 calories packed burger. The Advertisements is the secret weapon of the monopoly of these companies. “The processed-food industry should be seen as a public health menace” views by Kelly Brownell, from a Yale University professor of psychology and public health (Moss 3). Today, tobacco advertisements upset the parents of children, but poor diet advertisements are primarily ignored. (Moss