In the world we live in today, processed food and genetically modified organisms have earned a commonplace in our everyday life. Some people don 't care and others worry about it constantly. Then there are the in-betweeners who don’t care enough to eat a 100% organic but also do not want to be tricked into purchasing something that is marketed as healthy when it really isn 't. For example, take Simply Orange juice or Tropicana, Products that marketed as “pure”, “natural” and “simple” are actually far from it. Gwen Phelps, The plaintiff of a California lawsuit against Coca-Cola, Claimed that simply oranges’ juices are “engineered from multiple batches of oranges and orange products eight months to a year old with algorithms and flavor packs, …show more content…
While the mathematical algorithm is not a secret, it also isn 't really talked about.Orange juices produced using the black book algorithm need to be put to rest because it is unethical, impractical, unsustainable.
“More than a dozen similar cases were filed against Coca-Cola in federal courts around the country in 2012,” (phelps 1)juices like Simply Orange are unethical because of the way they are misbranded. However, this is not the first time Coca Cola, owner of Simply Orange, has been taken to court. Coca-Cola was banned in the UK from using the word "nutritious" to describe its Vitaminwater brand after complaints it was misleading given that the drink contains 23g of sugar. said Morton(1). In recent years, California has seen countless copycat lawsuits against Coca-cola for their false branding. A California judge, Judge Fernando J. Gaitan denied Coca-Cola 's arguments
…show more content…
Duane Stanford (2013), a reporter for Bloomberg wrote “Don’t let the name fool you. Coca-Cola’s Simply Orange juice is anything but pick, squeeze, and pour.” The process is far more complicated that the average person would even care to think about. It all starts with oranges which, surprisingly, are still picked by hand. However, each orange tree is tracked via satellite and is grown to Coca- Cola 's exact specifications using an algorithm called Black Book. Everything that comes after that is what might concern the informed individual. The next step is simple, oranges are squeezed then stored. americannutritionassociation.org explains,”The technology of choice at the moment is aseptic storage, which involves stripping the juice of oxygen, a process known as “deaeration,” so it doesn’t oxidize in the million gallon tanks in which it can be kept for upwards of a year.” While in the tanks, the juice is cooled down to just above freezing and agitated constantly. During this storage process, which can take up to a year, the juice loses most of its taste and nutrients.The Black Book algorithm tells producers how to replicate batches of juice from taste to consistency. The impracticality comes into play when it was revealed that Companies like Coca- Cola and Pepsi go as far as to recreate the taste for the orange to pump back into the juice. “Juice companies therefore hire flavor and
In recent years, it is not even necessary to turn on the news to hear about the bad reputation farming has been getting in recent years. With the media focusing on things like drugs in animals and Pink Slime, or Lean Finely Textured Beef, it is a wonder that people are eating “non-organic” foods. However, many pro-farming organizations have been trying to fight back against these slanders. Still, the battle is not without heavy competition, and a good portion of it comes from Chipotle, a fast food Mexican restaurant that claims to only use completely organic ingredients in their food. Chipotle is constantly introducing advertisements claiming to have the natural ingredients, while slandering the names of farmers everywhere.
A trip to any supermarket in Canada will reveal nothing out of ordinary, just the usual of array of fresh and packaged goods displayed in an inviting manner to attract customers. Everything appear familiar and reassuring, right? Think again. A closer microscopic inspection discloses something novel, a fundamental revolution in food technology. The technology is genetic engineering (GE), also known as biotechnology. Blue prints (DNA) of agricultural crops are altered and “spliced” with foreign genes to produce transgenic crops. Foods harvested from these agricultural plants are called, genetically modified (GM). Presently, Canada has no consumer notification; GM foods are being slipped to Canada’s foods without any labels or adequate risk assessments. This essay argues that GM foods should be rigorously and independently tested for safety; and, consumers be given the right to choose or reject GM foods through mandatory labels. What is the need for impartial examination of safety of transgenic foods? And why label them? GM foods are not “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, genetic engineering of agricultural crops is not a mere extension of traditional plant breeding, and finally, there are human health implications associated with it.
A non-GMO label doesn’t necessarily mean “healthy”. White sugar, flour, and processed ingredients if not genetically modified are considered non GMO. Recently Cheerios made their ingredients GMO free. This label made Cheerios seems as a “healthy conscience choice” when in fact they are not healthy at all. The truth is that this breakfast cereal is highly processed and is best to be avoided despite the “healthy halo” of being approved by the National Heart Association and GMO free. The truth appears on the nutrition label and the ingredients (Wartman). “If you can’t pronounce it, don’t buy it” The voluntary labeling places a burden on the consumer. The average Americans are forced to navigate confusing and cluttered food landscape” (Wartman). A mandatory labeling law is vital to give clear and concise information to citizens.
The company has accomplished this mainly through the development of new formulas of Coca-Cola in order to satisfy the diverse needs of consumers. For example, introducing products such as Coca-Cola Diet, Coca-Cola Zero, and Coca-Cola Cherry has allowed the brand to appeal to new audiences. Coca-Cola Diet has helped the Coca-Cola Company reach out to a middle-aged audience that enjoy the taste of the original beverage, but have specific health concerns. In addition, Coca-Cola Zero was formulated as an option for many young adults and teens that do not desire to consume the amount of calories normally associated with Coca-Cola. The brand has also developed the popular flavor of Coca-Cola Cherry, which is targeted for people seeking a bit of extra flavor added to Coca-Cola. Although this company has developed formulas for beverages that are completely different from the original taste of Coca-Cola, these are among the most
Next, companies that refuse the use of genetic modifications on their foods must begin to label foods that do not contain GMOs so that consumers can be sure of their safety, even if others that contain GMOs do not label. Due to this labeling, there will be an exposure to which foods are natural because the foods that are the most appealing will have “the ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ seal [in order] to help shoppers recognize which products meet rigorous GMO avoidance practices” (“Whole Foods Market”).
Food is an essential part of everyday life without it one could not survive. Every day we make choices on what we put in to our bodies. There are countless varieties of food to choose from to meet the diverse tastes of the increasing population. Almost all food requires a label explaining the ingredients and the nutritional value allowing consumers to make informed decisions on what they are consuming. However, many may not be considering where that food is coming from or how it has been produced. Unfortunately, there is more to food than meets the eye. Since 1992, “ the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled, based on woefully limited data, that genetically modified foods were ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GM counterparts” (Why to Support Labeling). GM food advocates have promised to create more nutritious food that will be able to grow in harsh climate conditions and eventually put an end to world hunger in anticipation of the growing population. There is very little evidence to support these claims and study after study has proven just the opposite. GM crops are not only unsafe to consume, but their growing practices are harmful to the environment, and multinational corporations are putting farmers out of business.
The question “Is this product genetically modified?” has gained increasing popularity among the health concerned and those who worry about where their food comes from over the past couple of years. A decade or two ago, this question had no meaning and has no significance in society. However, thanks to the development of technology and a larger understanding of the underlying properties of foods, down to the molecular scale, humans have created a new field of engineering to combat worries that have plagued the food industry to centuries upon centuries. And as always, the advent of a new a product or procedure that changes the way we think and create will always usher along with it self opinions from every strata of society. The genetic modification of food in the United States of America has become a pertinent topic of debate, just recently gaining its popularity in the past couple of years. To modify or not to modify? There are both pros and cons to whether or not change the DNA sequences of foods in order to better them in some way or another. However, like every other major, groundbreaking change in this country comes regulation in hopes to appease everyone in the country and give each participant a fair chance in the race, in particular, the race for the production and distribution of foods. Such regulation in the United States has been done in order to protect and support people that have not devoted their time and money to the biological nuance and also to give every consumer in the country products that are labeled, identifying what they are putting into their systems on a daily basis. As time and society progress, how we view tasks that have been usually kept hidden and now placed onto a pedestal for everyone to se...
America believe they eat and purchase food based on value and the health benefits associated with it. Advertising does an outstanding job portraying foods as sustainable and natural in order to target health-conscious families. Though, with the recent emergence of genetically modified organisms over the past decade, the accuracy and honesty of labeling and advertising in the food industry has become extremely vague. As a group, we decided to exemplify this problem by creating a spoof ad that highlights and exposes
The futures rose up to a max of 7.5% at the price of $1.1575 a pound before they fell back again. The article states that it hit this high before “retreating to settle just 1.5% higher at $1.0925.” These gains were a turnaround from the day before when orange juice futures slipped to their lowest level in 10 years.
There once was a Big Orange Thing, it was the only thing. The Big Orange Thing lived it’s life in solitude for there was nothing else, absolutely nothing. One day the Big Orange Thing had enough, it didn't want to be alone anymore so it created things. It created a giant yellow thing that radiated a brilliant yellow glow, smaller more abstract versions of said yellow things were created as well.
Was orange juice always just here? What is the difference between the different types? Why does everyone like it cold? Is it a sustainable product the way Tropicana is running their processing plant? Are there ethical issues with orange juice production?I began to wonder one day as I was looking in the store, in the orange juice aisle. This paper is a journey into orange juice through the popular Orange juice company, Tropicana .I chose this company because this was a juice that I had grown up with .I hope to be able to answer there questions for myself and you ,the reader.
During the 1990s, PepsiCo launched new products and engineered a global re-branding campaign in an effort to grow sales volume; reinvigorate their stagnant brand; and to close the increasingly large sales and market share gap between itself and its primary competitor, Coca-Cola. In 1993, Pepsi jump-started its marketing efforts by adding two brands to its portfolio: Crystal Pepsi and Pepsi Max. Crystal Pepsi, which was initially offered in the United States, failed to earn the company more than 2 percent volume share. Pepsi Max, which was launched in the United Kingdom, proved more successful, but because one of its primary ingredients was an artificial sweetener not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration, it wasn't brought to market in the United States.
Learning from experience Coca-Cola has had some fierce competition over the years but nothing in the form of an entire health market shift like now. As well as mounting political persecution of its products like they are facing today. They must rely on past experiences to get through but likely will need to start studying the new trends to stay relevant.
Back in 2014, TINA.org approached consumers to participate in Coca-Cola’s preparatory settlement over deceptive labelling and advertising of its Glacéau Vitaminwater beverages. Glacéau vitaminwater beverages make unjustified health claims, such as it could promote healthy joints, lessen the risk of eye disease as well as to support immune functions. (http://www.businessinsider.sg/coca-cola-glacau-vitaminwater-misleading-advertising-lawsuit-2014-10/?r=US&IR=T#.VoZjCjZn9g1)