Every day, customers at grocery stores are paying high prices for specially labeled food products. Food companies advertise to consumers by using phrases like “free of pesticides, GMOs, growth hormones, gluten, and fat”, or “grown organically, naturally, or locally” to make a greater profit. Sometimes the companies hides the usage of certain food enhancers, so they can produce more for a cheaper price. The general public is not only misled by the absence of warning labels, but also by the expensively labeled food products, causing misguided customers buying and consuming products they are trying to avoid.
Products have financial investments attached to their labels that will determine their price; if the product has a good investment, then the price of the product will be more expensive, and vice versa for cheaper priced foods (Kaufman 4). Food labels, especially, have a high price associated with them. For example, the price of a one-pound bag of regular popcorn kernels is five dollars, while a one-pound bag of specially labeled popcorn kernels will be ten dollars; twice the amount of the regular bag. The high prices of specially labeled food products attract supermarkets and grocery stores nationwide.
…show more content…
Supermarkets and grocery stores realized the profits to be made by selling specially labeled foods due to the rising demand.
Many big food producing businesses joined in on the rage as well, creating an eruption of overly labeled foods. It equally caused new labels to be printed, even though they were unnecessary, to raise profits. The factors that keep the prices is high and stable include transportation, small crop sizes, price of the processing, and payment to the farmer. A specific type of processing and transportation might be required to be used to reduce the risk of contamination. Raising large and healthy quantities of plants and animals without the aid of chemicals or growth hormones can be daunting task for
farmers. Pesticides end up in almost every crop a farmer plants, even the pesticide-free ones. Pesticides can still be in the pesticide-free market from unfavorable circumstances, like contamination. The wind might blow pesticides that were sprayed on the field across the road onto the pesticide-free crop. Not wanting to punish the pesticide-free farmer for the cross-contamination, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) decided to have “….organic regulations allow residues of prohibited pesticides—up to 5 percent of the…tolerance level—if those residues are present due to unavoidable or inadvertent contact.” Even if the general public knew about the pesticides in their pesticide-free foods, many might not know if they should by concerned about pesticides in their foods. Pesticides are used to kill insects, plants, or rodents that threaten healthy crops. Knowing that, it should be common sense that they are toxic; pesticides contain hazardous materials to kill their tiny targets. But, the tiny targets aren't the only ones that have to consume pesticides. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) states that “Pesticides are potentially toxic to humans and can have both acute and chronic health effects…” Acute symptoms are classified as having symptoms that affect the lungs, digestion, eyes, and brain. While acute symptoms may be minor and occasionally invisible, chronic symptoms can cause life threatening illnesses such as cancer and reproductive problems (CDC). With this mind, one would hope that pesticide usage on our food products would be labeled for our health and safety.
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.
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.
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...
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,
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.
However, because of its demographic it was losing a high customer base because of its prices. The text book Chapter 10 emphasized the importance of pricing and creating profit. The investor Marcus Lemonis showed the owners how to evaluate demand and the price sensitivity of their products. He introduce product that could be brought in with lower price points that would compete with their competitor and still crate the high-end prestige the company wish to create. Taking advantage of the income statues of the company’s customer with in their demographic. One major problem the company had was the price point of a bag of dog food was around $100 per bag that was a high price for the consumers within the area. By bring in a brand that had high quality and prestige at a price point of $20 allowed for a greater customer
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”).
More and More people are becoming concerned about what they eat, especially if they consume food products that are manufactured in food industries. However, it is hard to know what exactly you are consuming if food industries provide false nutrition content and mislead consumers by placing false advertisements on the packaging. When a company produces a product that contains misleading label, consumers are not receiving complete information about the food they are eating which could lead to health issues including allergies and problems with diabetes.
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.
We live in a fast track society, and the goal of the typical consumer is simple: get the best product for the least amount of money in the shortest amount of time. When at the supermarket, it is easy to quickly scan boxes and cans for signs that assure us of a quality product. Among these familiar signs are the stamps of approval from the American Heart Association and the Smart Choices program. In many cases, however, these assurances of quality and nutrition are not what they seem to be. The use of deceptive health marketing by corporations on food products is unethical. Many of the names consumers trust to guide them in a better lifestyle are actually paid large sums of money by corporations for the privilege of putting a logo on their product.
Fast food chains use value pricing. This type of pricing is how much the customer thinks an item on the menu is worth. Basically what this means is customers see price as a primary indicator of a product’s value. Value pricing happens when a company increases a product’s benefits while either maintaining or decreasing the price. A great example of value pricing in McDonald’s is the ability to “super-size” drinks and fries. The value of the drink or fries is increased because a customer can get substantially more of the item for a fraction more of the
Consumer’s believe they have the right to know what they are putting into their body’s and that the label on the product will inform them of that information. When they find out the truth about food label misconceptions it breaks their trust for those manufactures. view of
There are now ways of technology that help make a more productive crop. This makes the prices increase. For instance, there are now “round-up ready” seed. This seed has extra technology put into it. This reduces the price of some chemicals, but not much.
When people think of natural disasters, they think of tornadoes, hurricanes, floods or even earthquakes; but there is one that we tend to forget the food industry. You may be questioning what do the food industry have to do with natural disasters, but just think about the word processed food and obesity and how they changed the outlook on American society. After watching the short video series " How the food industry is deceiving you" which broadcasted on ABC and was narrated by Peter Jennings, I found myself in awe and pure disbelief just from hearing how today's government and food industry changed the lifestyle of America. It all began when the government started subsidizing farmers to save them from financial ruin, this which continued