The food industry continues to be a major contributor to health problems in the United States and around the world. Currently, 13% of the world’s 671 million obese individuals live in the United States. (Kaplan) Some believe that it is the government’s responsibility to go to educate the people and then to further encourage them to make wise decisions on what they choose to eat. Others argue that it is the consumer’s personal responsibility to educate themselves and make a conscious decision about their food. After all, we have the freedom to do so. No one forces people to buy and eat the things that they do. But it would be naive and even outrageous to say that there are no extraneous factors counteracting a person’s will to make healthy …show more content…
Bronner’s raised in 1.15 million dollars to support food labeling. Unfortunately, supporters of the cause are greatly outnumbered by their opponents. Monsanto raised four million dollars in opposition to mandate labeling. In spite of the supporters passionate efforts, GMO labeling most likely would not be the solution that activists and consumers are looking for. “Approximately ⅔ of the foods and beverages we buy and consume would be exempt. Meat and dairy products would be exempt even if they come from animals raised on GMO feed and grain. All alcoholic beverages, food for immediate consumption served in restaurants and other institutions would also be exempt, even if they contain GMO ingredients” (Review Of Proposition). With laws like these, information on GMOs that affect the majority of the people that care about taking these precautions will not be available. The facts that the labeling laws will mandate will be so vague that they will not provide anymore information than companies that label their product with non-GMO or organic. Any label mandated product under Proposition 105 would not have to inform the consumer of what percentage of the product was genetically modified and what ingredients in the food were genetically modified (Review of
In the article “What You Eat Is Your Business”, the author claims, Americans need to be more responsible for their own health and the government should not become involved (Balko). I argue this point; the American people have been tempted into buying foods that are unhealthy, cheap, and convenient, and we cannot be responsible when foods like this are so easy and available to purchase. We are also one of the fattest nations in the world. He conveys in the article that we should have some sort of responsibility for what we put into our own body (Balko), but I feel that with all of the tempting foods being right at our fingertips, we are getting fatter and fatter. When we turn on the television at night, and every fifteen minutes a food commercial comes on. When we go to school, there are vending machines in every building. Nobody offers water anymore with our meals; it costs extra just to get a cup for water with a meal.
“We cannot be free if our food sources are controlled by someone else” (2). Berry argues that the average consumer buys food without question. That we depend on commercial suppliers, we are influenced by advertisements we see on TV and that interfere with our food choices. We buy what other people want us to buy. We have been controlled by the food industry, and regard eating as just something required for our survival.
The act of manufactures labeling of our foods products in terms of the ingredients a particular product contains and the nutritious facts is sometimes taken for granted, we often see the labels on our food products, but ignore them because we’re so used to seeing them in our daily lives. Surprisingly, food product labeling, specifically that pertaining to allergen warnings, were not always available to consumers until a government mandate in 2004 (FALCPA). I think part of the reason for such a lateness in regulation was due to a social stigma regarding allergies, that having them was some sort of natural selection and not an issue that should be taken care of. Another surprising notion I came across was that although there was no government regulation, manufactures of food products took a good amount of initiative in letting their consumers know of potential allergens in their products.
Zinczenko shares his personal story about how fast-food restaurants such as Taco Bell and McDonald’s led to a weight problem during his high-school years. He claims that the ease of accessibility and lack of healthy alternatives make it all too easy to fall into the cycle of unhealthy eating. Zinczenko also contends that the lack of nutrition labels on fast-food products leaves the consumer in the dark about what he or she is actually consuming. At the time Zinczenko wrote his article, fast-food restaurants were not willingly disclosing nutritional values of their products. Today this has changed. Fast-food companies, including McDonald’s, have put the full nutritional information of their products directly on the packaging and wrappers. All other fast-food establishments either post it on the menu board (Panera), offer easy access to pamphlets containing all nutritional information of their menu in store, or have it easily accessible online (Taco Bell, KFC). I am sure that this is a helpful step forward toward educating the public as to what they are consuming, but has this new knowledge to consumers had a dramatic change toward ending obesity? No. People have always known that eating a Big Mac and fries with the giant soft drinks that McDonald’s and other chains offer is not healthy; putting the nutritional labels on these items has done little to nothing to stop people from eating these high-calorie meals. This again leads back to the point that people as consumers need to be more accountable to themselves and stop blaming others for what they willingly choose to put in their
A very valid point brought up by Clause (Say ‘no’), Hemphill, and Banerjee (both G.M.O. and the U.S.), is that consumers already have an easy and effective option to steer clear from GMOs: buying organic products. Through Hemphill’s and Banerjee’s article, we are informed that United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) “presently offers an organic certification for crops and processed food products, which by definition prohibits the use of GMO ingredients” (Page 455-466). This is certainly a label that has the ability to help concerned customers know exactly what they are eating. The co-authors call this solution the “Voluntary Labeling Strategy.” There is, however, one issue with this: not all products that don't contain GMOs qualify as organic. The resolution lies in an upcoming proposal from the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA). It's called “Voluntary Guidelines” and it allows, but doesn't force, GMO-free products to display a label of their own. I believe that this is a much smarter option than labeling every item containing GMOs because it is not binding by law, which would provide consumers with all of the benefits they need to choose the right foods for their preferences, while saving on all of the unnecessary extra costs discussed
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.
Until the government creates mandates for issuing labels on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, there are measures that can be taken by common citizens and supporters of GMO labeling in order to keep Americans safe in the meantime. Since “study after study points to potential health risks” (“Whole Foods Market”), supporters need to raise awareness amongst the rest of society in order to generate a large group that can begin to press the government to create a law to handle the issue. It is in “the state’s interest [to] protect consumers from false or potentially misleading communication or prevent consumers from suffering unwitting harms” (Adler). Moreover, the government must be the one to put an official end to the lack of
Everyone loves fast food, surgery desserts and indulging in sweet and salty snacks covered in chocolate. What people rarely think of is how unhealthy they may be eating and what they’re putting into their bodies. The consequences can be life threating if not taking the right procedures to maintain a healthy lifestyles. As we continue these unhealthy lifestyles they can be taken after by our children and their grandchildren. Children that continue in their parents footsteps or start these habits soon learn the finances as adults such as health costs. Radley Balko criticizes Americans in “What You Eat Is Your Business” for not taking their own responsibility regarding be overweight and how it’s become a public issue. He says the government is not
Obesity has become an epidemic in today’s society. Today around 50% of America is now considered to be over weight. Fast-food consumption has been a major contributor to the debate of the twenty-first century. Chapter thirteen, titled “Is Fast-Food the New Tobacco,” in the They Say I Say book, consists of authors discussing the debate of fast-food’s link to obesity. Authors debate the government’s effects on the fast-food industry, along with whether or not the fast-food industry is to blame for the rise in obesity throughout America. While some people blame the fast food industry for the rise in obesity, others believe it is a matter of personal responsibility to watch what someone eats and make sure they get the proper exercise.
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.
He begins his argument by commenting about kids suing McDonald’s for “making them fat” (Zinczenko 462). Zinczenko ponders the absurdity of this claim considering how food choices are based on personal responsibility. However, he then considers the overwhelming availability ratio of fast food to fresh food while sympathizing he was once obese himself (Zinczenko 462). Zinczenko uses the primary argument that fast food companies are deceiving consumers with misleading advertisement, hidden nutrition facts, and calorie risks. He believes companies are encouraging the public to eat their unhealthy foods by omitting alarming information and levying “good” deals. In consequence, fast food companies are increasing the chances of obesity and diabetes in consumers by stimulating poor eating
Introduction There once was a time when words like "light" and "low-fat" were on food packages that had no nutritional meaning. As a result, shoppers were often led to believe they were buying products that were more helpful than they really were. Nutrition panels on labels are also confusing and hard to read. But the Australia New Zealand Authority (ANZFA) changed all that. In March 2001 the ANZFA defined new standardized terms that appear on food labels such as "low-fat", "reduced" and "lean" to control how food manufacturers could put their facts that are relevant to most of our dietary needs.
If we label articles such as cleaning supplies and nail polish remover that will do harm when ingested then why do we not label foods that can cause serious illness of death? Each day thousands of adults and children are diagnosed with disabling conditions such as heart disease and diabetes and the rates are rapidly increasing. Many of these lifelong impairments are directly related to the diets that we attest to as a society. Foods with GMO’s, hydrogenated oils, artificial sugars (aspartame), high fructose corn syrup, and monosodium glutamate ought to be clearly labeled on the front of its packaging for the consumer to recognize.
With all of the controversy surrounding GMO foods: health versus biodiversity; benefits versus dangers; pros versus cons, a topic that always arises is the subject of labeling. Labeling has been a matter of discussion for years and
We make personal choices about what and where to eat. The government is not going to eliminate the unhealthy food because we think it is the cause of obesity. Ultimately, we must decide to either stay away from unhealthy food or eat them in moderation. Despite all the efforts of education, media and guidance it doesn’t prevent us from grabbing that cheeseburger with fries on the way to work. In his essay “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that society should take full responsi...