Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cons of the meat inspection and pure food act 1906
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cons of the meat inspection and pure food act 1906
The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was an attempt to regulate the meatpacking industry and to assure consumers that the meat they were eating was safe. In brief, this act made compulsory the careful inspection of meat before its consummation, established sanitary standards for slaughterhouses and processing plants, and required continuous U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection of meat processing and packaging. Yet, the most important objectives set by the law are the prevention of adulterated or misbranded livestock and products from being commercialized and sold as food, and the making sure that meat and all its products are processed and prepared in the adequate sanitary and hygienic conditions (Reeves 35). Imported meat and its various products are no exception to these conditions; they must be inspected under equivalent foreign standards.
The original Meat Inspection Act of 1906 gave full authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect and condemn any meat product found out of condition, unhealthy, or unsuitable for human consumption. In contrast to previous laws ordering meat inspections, which were imposed in favor of the European nations to assure them from banning pork trade, this law powerfully considered the American diet and was strongly motivated by its protection. It becomes mandatory to set with accuracy all labels on any type of food, though not all ingredients were provided on the label (Nash 198).
The momentum generated by the passage of the Meat Inspection Act helped secure the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act, which had been stalled in Congress since 1905. With these two pieces of legislation, the federal government took important steps to assure the public that the food they were eating met minimu...
... middle of paper ...
...ds” (Karolides 284). Sinclair gave specific examples of the atrocities in Packingtown. He also supplied statements from well-known citizens who supported his position.
President Roosevelt’s inspectors found that Sinclair’s statements were, if anything, less startling than the reality. karolides mentions that the report revealed that it happened to the inspectors “to discover nothing but filth, disease, intolerable stenches and a worse than bestial disregard of elementary decency.” The president prepared a message to Congress and, karolides continues to illustrate, “within an hour, both packers and packing house senators were tumbling over each other” to pass a law regarding government inspection at the packing houses if the president would withhold his message to Congress, which would confirm Sinclair’s story. This ended the attempts to discredit The Jungle (284).
The novel follows a family of immigrants from Lithuania working in a meatpacking factory, and as the novel progresses, the reader learns of the revolting conditions within the factories. Sinclair’s The Jungle illustrates the concept of Bitzer’s “Rhetorical Situation” and Emerson’s quote quite effectively. For instance, the horrendous safety and health conditions of the packing factories were the exigencies that Upton Sinclair was making clear to the reader. The rhetorical audience that Sinclair aimed to influence with his novel was Congress and the president, as both had to agree in order to establish health and safety bills to better the conditions within factories. Sinclair’s efforts did not go unnoticed as in 1906 both the Meat Inspection Act, and the Pure Food and Drug act were approved by both Congress and President Theodore Roosevelt (Cherny,
The beginning of Meat Inspection Act seemed to be at 1904, after “The Jungle” of Sinclair published. In fact, it started twenty years earlier, the regular law, used to satisfy Europe, the largest meat export market, but in 1865 Congress passed an act to prevent the importation of diseased cattle and pigs. Because of disease, European like Italian, French, and English restricted or banned the importation meat, and they turned to another supplier. Some bills were introduced but they failed to gather sufficient support. May 1884, Bureau of Animal Industry was established, it was doing good job in fighting Europe restrictions, helping the packers, but not helping the domestic consumers. March 1891, the first major meat inspection law was passed; some country removed the prohibitions on importing American pork. It distressed the European packing industry as well. So, they imposed more standards. Government had to do more action; major percent meat slaughtered was inspected. Some of companies exploited the law, but most of them, especially big companies agreed with the committee in 1902. In 1904, Smith, who was a great information aid to Sinclair, published a series of articles in The Lancet...
He hoped his book “The Jungle” would accomplish “significant change” to the day to day lives of immigrants who worked in the slaughterhouses (Foner 544). On the contrary, his book shifted the motif of his muckraking. David Cohen, author of “Sinclair: Muckraker for thinking person,” explains that instead of the American public focusing on the “poor working conditions” they pivoted their attention to “what was in their lunch” ( Cohen pg 4). Society was more intrigued with the details about their food than the safety of the workers. President Theodore Roosevelt read “The Jungle”; He was appalled by what he read. Cohen explains that even the executive leader of the United States had to “dispatch investigators to Chicago and report in detail [the] filthy conditions of the the killing floors” (Cohen, Telegraph Herald). Upon realizing the reality Sinclair was trying to unveil, society perceived the issue alternatively. Christopher Phelps, author of “How Should We Teach ‘The Jungle’ ” states that society viewed the reality differently— from Sinclair— because they associated what they read with what they
“I wished to frighten the country by a picture of what its industrial masters were doing to their victims; entirely by chance I stumbled on another discovery--what they were doing to the meat-supply of the civilized world. In other words, I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident hit it in the stomach” (Bloom). With the publication of a single book, Upton Sinclair found himself as a worldwide phenomenon overnight. He received worldwide response to his novel and invitations to lectures all over the world including one to the White House by President Roosevelt. In late 1904, the editor of the Appeal to Reason, a socialist magazine sent Sinclair to Chicago to tell the story of the poor common workingmen and women unfairly enslaved by the vast monopolistic enterprises. He found that he could go anywhere in the stockyards provided that he “[wore] old clothes… and [carried] a workman’s dinner pail”. Sinclair spent seven weeks in Chicago living among and interviewing the Chicago workers; studying conditions in the packing plants. Along with collecting more information for his novel, Sinclair came upon another discovery--the filth of improper sanitation and the processing of spoiled meat. With the publishing of his novel, Sinclair received international response to its graphic descriptions of the packinghouses. The book is said to have decreased America’s meat consumption for decades and President Roosevelt, himself, reportedly threw his breakfast sausages out his window after reading The Jungle. However, Sinclair classified the novel as a failure and blamed himself for the public’s misunderstanding. Sinclair’s main purpose for writing the book was to improve the working conditions for the Chicago stockyard workers. Sinclair found it...
...xtures of rotten meat, saw dust, dead rats and possibly even human body parts and urine. Shortly after reading the excerpts, President Theodore Roosevelt assigned a special commission to investigate Chicago’s slaughterhouses. This eventually resulted in new federal food laws that would maintain the sanitation of canned meat. Yet this reaction was all to Sinclair’s dismay. The public forced action towards the sanitation of the industry but ignored the conditions of the meat industry workers, which is what Sinclair had originally written the book for. Nonetheless, his work did promote the national well being of the nation. Because of the publication of The Jungle, processed and fast food industries are now regularly monitored and inspected for sanitation. Moreover, his book helped develop a small bridge between the two different worlds of Americans and immigrants.
The opposition to meat labeling laws claims it is “too much regulation and cost to gyrate through unnecessary protocols just to label the meat”. But obviously the opposition really has no defense and just doesn’t want their product to plummet once the truth is shown to the consumer. Once labels are applied to meat countries with notorious standards and unsanitary practices will be justly shut out of the market.
As my local congressmen and an upstanding citizen of the United States, I feel it necessary to inform you of a problem that currently affects our country. In 2006, a bill known as Kevin's law was proposed to congress. The law was named after a young boy who died after eating a contaminated hamburger. Although it never passed, Kevin's law sought to prevent contaminated meat and poultry products from entering the food supply. In 2011, a similar law known as the FDA food modernization act was introduced to the congress. This piece of legislation was proposed by congresswoman Betty Sutton and later signed into law by President Obama.
This act was the first time that there were regulations on food and drugs, and resulted from the unsanitary methods used in the food industry that were revealed by Upton Sinclair in his book “The Jungle”. The purpose of this act was to prohibit: interstate transportation and sale of contaminated food, the transportation and sale of deceptive medicines, and exaggerated claims of effectiveness for medicines. It also prevented contamination of food and drugs, as well as the mislabeling of foods and drugs (Alchin, 2015).
Since the start of the food industry, selling and profit of agriculture and farming, the customers have rarely seen the other side. Unless the food comes from a small farm owned by someone you know, chances are you won’t know what went into it. The history of how current day regulations came to be is long and unpleasant but nevertheless important.
Many Americans believe their food supply is the safest in the world. This has been questioned recently by extensive outbreaks of illnesses caused by foods. The Centers for Disease Control and prevention estimated that 48 million people came in contact with foodborne diseases each year (Schneider, M.J. 2017, pg 381). Many government agencies including local, state, and federal agencies, are responsible for and regulates food safety. The United States Department of Agriculture and the Food Administration share similar responsibilities for ensuring that foods are safe. The USDA is known to be responsible for the safety of meat and poultry safety while the Food and Drug Administration is known to be responsible for other foods, including fish, seafood, produce, etc. The Federal Food and Drugs Act and the Meat Inspection Act were both passed in 1906. These two laws established a program to supervise and control manufacturing, labeling, sale of food and sale of drugs
except for meat from livestock,poultry and some eggs products. I would probably listen to this law because it knows what it's doing and knows if food are bad or not.
The Food Regulations system is controlled a substantial amount by the government. Whether the government wanted that role or not society forced them into taking control in the early parts of the twentieth century. Americans have a tremendous amount of confidence in the government by trusting them when they determine whether food is safe or whether it isn’t. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are the government agencies that handle the different issues that come up about food regulation in the United States. Whether Americans agree or disagree these four programs were designed
food protection that is mostly managed by FDA faces significant challenges that need to be addressed. The FDA lack mandatory food recall authority. The FDA has mandated authority to seize misbranded and adulterated foods as well as detain food articles that are evidently causing serious health consequences (Neal, Binkley & Henroid, 2012). However, it lacks direct authority to order detection or recall foods because such action must be carried out through courts. The lack of direct mandate to order recall lead to delayed protection of the public health from adulterated and misbranded foods the process (Institute of Medicine (U.S.), Wallace, & Oria, 2010). Similarly, when producers issue a recall suspected to be contaminated, the FDA and USDA
The responsibilities and obligations of a state government to its’ citizens are extensive. One of the main tasks of the state government is to make certain that all citizens can obtain the basic necessities for survival. As such, the state government must verify that food, nutrition, is sold at an affordable rate even to the poor working class. Should a problem arise in the food industry or commerce system, the state must assess and rectify the problem as it would prevent the citizens from purchasing the nutrition they require. In France, during the nineteenth century, the pricing system of the meat industry was discovered to be fundamentally flawed. In order to remedy this weakness, the very assessment of meat needed to be restructured.
For many years, there have been concerns on the foods that are being put into our bodies. Although we are more aware of the foods we have now, they didn’t just brush these problems off in the 1800s. “Wiley devoted his career to raising public awareness of problems with adulterated food; developing standards