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.
While conducting my research, I found it pretty alarming that allergy labeling on products wasn’t mandated by the government until ten years ago. If allergens were not required to be clearly labeled on the products we consume, people with nut or gluten allergies for example, would have extreme difficulty in purchasing food products. Studies show that around 30,000 people require emergency room care in the United States due to allergy related incidents and around 150 deaths occur as a result of allergic reactions to food, in addition, approximately 2% of adults in the US and 5% of children have food allergies. Judging by these allergy demographics, it’s safe to assume that if allergen labeling was not mandated for consumer products, we’d see a tremendous amount of hospital treatment and deaths in the US and all over the world.
Although there ha...
... middle of paper ...
...n potential death. What the FDA should do is support funding for more advertising, encouraging all citizens to be more aware with the potentially hazardous products they consume. I’m sure if people without food allergies were more aware of the potential harm their daily snack could cause to someone else, they would start to use a lot more caution.
Works Cited
"Beta." H.R.3147. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
"Food." Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-282, Title II). N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Marotta, Giuseppe, Mariarosaria Simeone, and Concetta Nazzaro. "Product Reformulation In The Food System To Improve Food Safety. Evaluation Of Policy Interventions." Appetite 74.(2014): 107-115. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
"S. 1653: Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2013." GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Adverts often mask foods that are unhealthy by emphasising its positive nutritional features – such as dietary fibre and protein. While at the same time ignoring its negative features – including the high amounts of saturated fat and sugar contents. In some cases, even products that mention any alleged health benefits are usually are outweighed by the health risks associated with consuming the product, that they just fail to
Just like the kid that buys a sugary cereal just because it has Spongebob Squarepants on it, or like the person that goes to Disneyland to have fun but at end of that day, they can buy a churro. Parents also need to take a action in this too, just because you kid gives you a temper tantrum doesn’t mean that you need to buy them the candy they want in order for them to stop crying, and parents should also be informed of the things that their kids are consuming at their schools. Food companies should market or promote the TINY WORDS on the back of their product that informs all of the substances they used to make the product, to the consumer. Just like they would promote their food products to get consumers. Think about these following questions: What will you do to be informed of the chemicals used on the products you and your family consumes? Is it worth buying just because it has your favorite characters, movie, or games on
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...
Though every major scientific regulatory oversight body in the world has concluded that GMO foods are harmless, the public remains deeply suspicious, fearing that such food may cause cancer or allergies. Caitlin Shetterly, one of the worried public, wrote an article in Elle magazine, claiming that genetically modified foods could cause allergic reactions, and that consumers face unknown and unacceptable risks from new, yet-to-be-identified allergens that our government’s monitoring program, compromised by industry, is not designed to pick up. The evidence Shetterly provided was the subsidence of her symptoms of eosinophilic disorder after she stripped all corn from her diet, which convinced her the cause-and-effect between eating genetically modified corn and the allergic reactions. She tried to prove her arguments by interviewing a ran...
Food, a necessity for all and something very delicious, but also deadly for some people. Not everyone can live free of food allergies. Food allergies occur in 1 out of every 13 children. This indicates over fifteen million people in the world suffer from food allergies. The food epidemic poses a threat to many citizens that live with food allergies because of incorrect labeling, distribution and safety in the preparation of food. My research highlights two key items: (1) definition of food allergies and how they affect the daily lives of those living with them and (2) the importance of food allergy knowledge and how educating people about food allergies will hopefully jumpstart the progress to find a cure.
Senauer, Benjamin. “Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods: The Showdown Begins.” Choices. 2013. Web. 2 May. 2014.
Food allergy is a prevalent health condition wherein the body mistakenly identifies certain foods as harmful. According to the Food Allergy Research and Education or FARE, approximately 15 million Americans have food allergies and the numbers are continuously rising. Steering clear of foods that can trigger allergic reaction can be tough, thus it is important to educate yourself on what causes the allergy and how to avoid them. Following are several tips that can help avoid mild to life-threatening allergic reactions:
Jacqueline Pongracic, wrote “ I’ve been treating patients in the field of allergy immunology for fifteen years and in recent years I’ve really seen the rates of food allergy skyrocketed(Sheehann). Estimates show that twelve million Americans have serious food allergies as evidenced by abnormal blood immunoglobulin levels. In 1996, Brazilian nut genes were placed into soybeans in order to provide additional protein called methionine. However, some individuals are so allergic to the nut, they can actually go into anaphylactic shock. Following several incidences the product was removed from the market before any actual fatalities occurred(Lacey). A study released in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, food allergies among children increased approximately fifty percent between 1997 and 2011("Facts and Statistics - Food Allergy Research & Education"). However, FDA officials who are entrusted to protect the health of the general public have gone against the advice of their own scientist to test for allergies and have declared genetically modified foods are essentially equivalent to regular foods. Many research studies have positively confirmed this kind of overall risk for genetically modified foods. Two research studies showed that farm workers who were exposed to genetically modified Bt corn sprays exhibited extensive allergic reactions. Another study that lasted over a decade showed that genetically modified peas caused allergic lung damage in mice, the
...ly look at the false claims made by food industries expand on their already set regulations, making it harder for companies to get around them. However, if the FDA believes that their regulations are as specific as they can get, then there should be at least somebody to educate consumers about food labels and add more detail to nutritional value charts. Because without changing the way how information is provided and educating people, they will not be able to change their diets to improve nations overall health.
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.
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
Products with non, or minimal nutritional value, should have warning labels. These labels could potentially contribute to increase the awareness of a healthy nutrition, reduce the consumption of high-calorie and sugar products, and reduce obesity.
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.
The short answer is that allergens are everywhere. Foods that are not commonly associated with an allergen often contain it as an additive; in fact, gluten is the second most common additive in packaged foods (Walsh 152), which makes it particularly difficult to avoid. Also, severe allergic reactions can be triggered just by touching or smelling an allergen, which makes walking into any place containing food dangerous (Turner para. 3). But cross contamination is perhaps the biggest reason food allergies are so dangerous. Cross contamination is the process by which bacteria or other particles of a substance are unintentionally transferred to another substance, with potentially harmful effects. Because even a tiny bit of an allergen can induce an allergic reaction in very sensitive people, cross contamination is a prominent risk for people with food allergies. For example, a person with an allergy to shellfish can be harmed if a chef prepares an otherwise fish-free meal on the same surface that a shrimp dish was prepared on. For these reasons, the entire population—not only those close to individuals with food allergies--needs to be aware of the dangers allergens pose as well as how those allergens can be avoided, particularly people who work in food-related
Whenever we buy a product, we’re relying on both the company being honest with us about its contents as well as government regulations that do not always have the best interest of the consumer in mind. The first element to be included in my Food Bill of Rights is honesty. There are too many cases where American food has caused people to become sick and even caused fatalities because consumers do not know what they are eating. If you really look into the standards of what can be labeled as particular foods, the knowledge is really shocking. Consider the current policy of the United States Department of Agriculture; only 40% of beef is required for a company to label their products as such (Taco Bell’s Beef Problem). Further research shows the standards for meat in schools is lower than the standards for meat in fast food. Even with these outrageously low standards, there are still places to eat that don’t meet the requirements to label their products. Only a few years ago, Taco Bell was sued because they claimed their beef was 88% beef. However, when their meat was inspected it didn’t even make the required 40% minimum standard set by th...