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 her book Marion Nestle examines many aspects of the food industry that call for regulation and closer examination. Nestle was a member of the Food Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the 1990’s and therefore helps deem herself as a credible source of information to the audience. (Nestle 2003). Yet, with her wealth of knowledge and experience she narrates from a very candid and logical perspective, but her delivery of this knowled... ... middle of paper ... ...to interpret the material up to the reader, but the use of these appeals help persuade the audience member to think a certain way. These analytical tools prove just how effective and in depth writers go into their material to make their work come across more powerful and influential, and each of these authors did just that. Works Cited Cannon, Geoffrey. The Politics of Food. London: Century, 1987. "Geoffrey Cannon." Random House Australia. http://www.randomhouse.com.au/Author/Cannon,%20Geoffrey (accessed February 4, 2011). Guither, Harold Daniel. The Food Lobbyists. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980 Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003.
“The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food” by Michael Moss addresses many issues with big companies and their thought process. Although Moss neglects to show the things that companies do right or do because the consumer desires it. He doesn’t bring to light the different options that big companies put out that are healthier for the consumer. Moss does a good job of pointing out what he believes to be the short coming of big companies towards their consumers. Are big food companies meeting our needs or creating them for us? Should they have to set limits between meeting our genuine needs and making a profit for themselves? Moss’s point of view of the conscious effort to make food inexpensive and addictive is an accurate portrayal.
In order to right the ship that is America’s food industry, we need to recognize the monopolies in the U.S food industry. These massive food conglomerates must be broken up in order to create competition in the market. This will allow the completion to dictate the market. More companies means more competition, and when companies compete, the consumer wins.
Like no other ordinary documentary, Food, Inc. explores the reality behind one of the most controversial part of the human lifestyle; food. The movie starts with the author, Eric Schlosser showing some of the more than 47,000 food brands in a regular supermarket. It’s here that it is revealed that food production has changed from years ago when food was acquired from privately owned farms growing fresh produce, whereas in the current market, food is processed in industries (Food, Inc., 2008). In fact, it is revealed in the film that the American food industry is
By accepting misguided information about the food that is being purchased from the marketers, consumers are letting the food industry shape buying patterns, even when it is not to their benefit. Pollan supports this claim when he writes, “With all the variety and constant stream of messages from the food industry and media, how can we make up our minds” (86). Pollan’s quote elaborates on how the the constant stream of messages affects what Americans put into their bodies.
Our current system of corporate-dominated, industrial-style farming might not resemble the old-fashioned farms of yore, but the modern method of raising food has been a surprisingly long time in the making. That's one of the astonishing revelations found in Christopher D. Cook's "Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis" (2004, 2006, The New Press), which explores in great detail the often unappealing, yet largely unseen, underbelly of today's food production and processing machine. While some of the material will be familiar to those who've read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or Eric Schlosser's "Fast-Food Nation," Cook's work provides many new insights for anyone who's concerned about how and what we eat,
Similarly, the author holds that the Food and Drug Administration’s complicity in Americans’ waning health goes beyond safety to a broader lack of concern for our consumption patterns, but without compelling evidence that top-down protection measures work—like the recently invalidated New York City soda ban—his call-to-action stalls. The strongest takeaway from Salt Sugar Fat is that CEOs of major food companies don’t eat their products, so why should you? Indeed, of the authors best examples of behavior change come from some of his former product leads, including a former president of Coca-Cola now pitching baby carrots as the next great junk food. But company CEOs alone can’t fix the public-health issues the author isolates as if they were
The federal government has a huge amount of power over America’s food and monitoring food safety. They have many rules and regulations that are required to be followed nationwide. The Delaney Clause of 1958, the regulation of genetically modified organisms and organic agriculture, and the Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act are just a few of the many ways in which the government regulates the country’s food and the citizens that purchase and ultimately consume it.
Filipovic, Jill. “To Save Americans’ Health, Government Must Intervene In Food Industry.” Aljazeera America. n.p November 17, 2013. Web. 27 March 2014.
The fact is that in our country, any government intrusion looks undesirable. We are so used to making free choice and to having access to everything we need and want that we have already forgotten the value and usefulness of the government control. No, that does not mean that the government must control everything and everyone. What I mean here is that the government control should be balanced with the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, plentiful foods do not lead to improved health conditions. We cannot always make a relevant choice. Our hurried lifestyles make us extremely fast, and eating is not an exception. We eat fast, but fast does not always mean useful. I believe, and in this essay I argue that the government must have a say in our diets. Because there are so many obese people, because obesity is an expensive disease, and because very often it is due to poverty that people cannot afford healthy foods, the government must control the amount and the range of foods which we buy and eat. Healthy foods must become affordable. Poor populations must have access to high quality foods. The production of harmful foods should be limited. All these would be impossible if the government does not take active position against our diets.
To begin with, Nestle points out that the social sciences have been employed by a variety of corporations, including those in the food industry, to develop more ingenious ways for instilling and/or appealing to the desires of consumers. But Nestle’s analysis of the food industry is a kind of lens wherein one can view this practice taking place, rather simply. -----------
Tauxe, Robert . "Food Safety and Irradiation: Protecting the Public from Foodborne Infections." Emerging Infectious Diseases 7.3 (2001): 516-521. Print.
Imagine if large businesses in charge of our food, such as McDonald’s or General Mills, were only liable to themselves. What would happen if the government began to eliminate regulations on the food business? With a lack of oversight, the public would undoubtedly suffer. We rely on our government to keep our food safe and to monitor those responsible for making our food. Our government, however, is still very inadequate because these large food corporations have a surprising amount of influence, in the form of money and lobbyists. They use these lobbyists to create laws and policies that are better suited for their demands, rather than the demands of the public. Food businesses have a concerning amount of control, so much so that much wouldn’t
Average consumers enjoy eating what they want when they want. But all of that may come to an end soon; due to the government regulating our food. Some may agree with this decision while others may provide a negative attitude. If regulating our food will please the government let them, it will only upset them in the end. This notion will cause stores to lose money, it will cause children to stop eating at school, and in all out reality, it is not their choice to choose what people eat.
To begin, due to federal regulations, Big Food cannot claim their products prevent or cure any disease in advertisements. Instead, Big Food advertises their products as contributors to increased health and wellness. These claims are legal to advertise as long as they are supported by science or data. This combination of science and marketing redefined the notion of healthy food to change consumers’ and the governmental perceptions of certain products. The results of the increase of “health-promoting foods” is billion of dollars in profit for Big Food and multiple generation of confused consumers. In order to understand how Big Food reaps the benefits of these “health-promoting foods,” one must first understand how they obtain positive judgements about their products health benefits.
The fast food industry in America has many drawbacks at the cost of supplying food to the American population. Since many people are ignorant of the process their food goes through in order to become the edible meal they consume, American companies easily take advantage of them. In class, we discussed a “Food Bill of Rights”. I believe that this is necessary in order to keep the food industry safe for the American public and environment. The main focus of my “Food Bill of Rights” is to ensure the fast food industry has the American population’s best interest in mind when producing their food.