Students: If you choose to respond on this topic, please use a word processor to write, edit and finalize your thoughts, then use the "Comment" option to post your reflection. Your response should consist of complete sentences that flow from topic to topic in a logical way...start with a sentence that identifies what question you are responding to, then share your thoughts and use evidence from your life or the video to support your responses. Do NOT re-post the questions in your response.
The instructor will "moderate" your comment and post your reflection when all students have submitted their final responses.
Guiding Question Sets (from Food Inc Participant Guide)
- In the film, Noel Kramers of the California Farm Bureau says that the bureau is against labeling because it “creates unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind.” Do you agree with this reasoning? Why or why not?
- How would information about a food raise or lower your fear of it?
- In the film, author Michael Pollan says, “I think that one of the most important battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown.” How does his position compare with the California Farm Bureau’s position?
- Can you name different consumer products that have warning labels about their use or safety (cigarettes, alcohol, appliances, games, and so on)? What impact, if any, do you think these labels have?
- Health experts recently called for warning labels on energy drinks, pointing out the effects of “caffeine intoxication”—a syndrome that can cause anxiety, insomnia, gastrointestinal upset, tremors, rapid heartbeat, and even death. Would a warning label affect whether or not you buy energy drinks? Why or why not?
- How effective are labels in helping consumers make decisions about their food? What might be more effective?
- What do you think about Oprah being sued for saying she wasn’t sure if she wanted to continue eating hamburgers, as described in the film? What do you think about a law that prevents you from saying something negative about a particular food item?
- In the film, Barbara Kowalcyk appears to be afraid to say how her eating habits have changed as a result of her son’s death, and she does not reveal the source of the meat that killed him. What do you think of that?
- People who have been in the industry are knowledgeable about that industry. What are the pros and cons of them becoming regulators working for the government?
- Who do you think should have the power to decide food policies, laws about food safety, and other food-related matters?
ReplyDeleteHolden K. EDA #2 Pelfrey Part 1
I don’t agree with this reasoning. Labeling doesn’t produce necessary fear, it provides necessary information. People need to know what they are consuming, and they have a right to choose whether or not they will eat the product. If chemicals that are known to cause problems such as birth defects, than people ought to know. Genetically modified foods are relatively new, and people don’t know that long term consequences. Someone who wouldn’t agree with me however that since the consumer is buying the product from the manufacturer than the manufacturer has the final say. With convenience come risk.
I don’t fear food, but information would help me to make better choices. With information, I could make more appropriate, educated decisions on the products that I am buying. The manufacturers have to follow what the consumer demands, and if the consumer doesn't buy gmo food, than its production will come to a halt. The market is shaped around the consumer and there is a large misconception that the consumer is powerless.
The California Farm Bureau sides with the discretion of farm and manufacturing processes, while Pollan argues that people have a right to know. The CFB’s justification is that it will hurt the farmers, and consumers are getting the same food regardless. Pollan thinks that consumers will make different decisions based on the knowledge of food practices.
’
Someone could argue, however, that people are indifferent. Everything has certain adverse effects. Cigarettes and alcohol are widely known to have dangerous, and sometimes deadly consequences. Nevertheless in 2011, alcohol sales were about $19.9 billion in the United States alone. Will people quit their dangerous eating habits if they are informed?
’
No it wouldn’t. Labels on energy drinks wouldn’t make me buy or not buy an energy drink. I would think that it would never happen to me. Most people don’t care about labels on food or beverages and I don’t think it would make a difference. However, some people might react to labeling that said that people died from drinking the beverage. I don’t think that the companies would ever agree to this though.
Keaton D. EDA Period 1, Mrs. Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePART 1
I do not agree with the statement that food labels create unnecessary fear in a consumers mind. If there is something in the food that creates an unnecessary amount of fear in the consumer’s mind, then there should be something that the consumer should be worried about. The people are paying for the product, so they should be able to know what is in it. The consumer should always be well informed.
I want to know what is in all of my food. It would raise my fear a lot to know that the company is using things that i don't want in my food. If the company is using these things, let them use it. I think that is should be up to the consumer if they want to buy it or not. This can not happen if they are not properly labeled.
The California Farm Bureau’s does not want people to see what is in their food because it puts fear in the consumer, and then they will not buy the product. If the company would not put the stuff that they are using in their product in the first place, they they would not need to worry about the consumer not buying their product.
Yes, many things like cigarettes, alcohol, appliances, and games have warning labels on them for a reason. To warn the consumer! If the product wants to have something that can be harmful to buyer, than the person should have the right to know. This goes with food too. If there is something in the food that a person may not want to eat or drink because of that thing, then it should be properly labeled. I think that labeling make a big impact on the way people buy things.
In my opinion, if the product that has these items(caffeine intoxication) in them, and it is properly labeled, then this is the best that the company can do. If the item that they were putting into the product was not necessary, then we would have a problem. Or if the item in the product was leading to injury or death, then we would also have a problem. As long as the companies are telling their buyers when they add these items to their food or drink, then it is the consumers choice to buy or not to buy. I personally would lean to not buying the product.
I think that labels are the most effective way of telling the consumer what is in their product. As long as the company is honest about what they make the product with, then the label is the best solution. If a person is allergic to a certain type of food, then a food label is the best way to show the consumer that the food they can or can’t have is in the product.
Holden K. EDA #2 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that labels are very effective in keeping people from buying a product. However, labels that say organic or non-gmo might get people to choose a product. Usually the only people that look at labels prefer organic food. I think that labels should be on products, and that people should be informed, but I doubt their effectiveness. In a study conducted by CBS.com, it was shown that 33% of subjects looked at the number of calories in a product.. I think that awareness needs to be raise, and that people need to be taught how to read labels. Not enough buyers consider the health consequences of their purchases. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20124686-10391704/nutrition-facts-labels-often-ignored-whats-the-fix/
’
I don’t think that the food companies should be able to sue someone for criticizing their product, People have the freedom to voice their opinion, and I don’t agree with the law that protects the food companies. When someone has evidence that there's foul play in the food industry, it should be made known, not kept a secret. This law is clearly in favor of the big corporation and not in the sick or deceased consumer.
She probably eats the same food that killed her son. Maybe she doesn’t want to admit that she still eats fast food, and it makes her uncomfortable to admit it in a documentary. Since she probably doesn’t have much money, she most likely eats out a lot.
’
When farmers or farm managers become government regulators, they may have a chance to help the food situation. They can raise awareness and force tighter regulations. A con is that they would be stalked by big companies and they might be sued by them for enforcing or proposing laws. They could be taken to court if they oppose a meat or food company.
I think that it should be a mix of government and people. Neither group should be in total control because each has their pros and cons. Sometimes, government officials are bribed or lobbied by the big companies to do what the company wants. This happens often in cases about food, such as the law that bans people to criticize food companies. Businesses such as Monsanto have a big level of influence on the decisions that are made, and the laws are unevenly biased towards them. The average person should have a say in the laws and policies that govern food production.
Keaton D. EDA Period 1, Mrs. Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePART 2
I personally think that the law that prevents you from saying something negative about a
particular food item is bad. A person should have the right to say what they want to eat or what they don’t want to eat. It is freedom of speech. Anyway, if the food companies claim that their is nothing wrong with their product, then what do they have to worry about. Any person should have the right to say what they want to anyone they want.
I think that the company that produced the meat that killed her son told her that if she sneaked out, that they would sue here. They do not want anyone to know that their meat killed someone because of bad meat. If the word gets out, then they will lose money. I think that she wants to, but she is afraid that she will be sued or have to go to court when people stop buying the product that she accused of killing her son.
In this case, I think it is OK if a industry worker moves on to work for the government. If they have knowledge about the subject, then they would be the right person for the job. A con to this would be that the person may be biased to one side. I think this can be fixed by making sure that if a person runs for office that has been previously in the industry, they know that if they are biased to one side, that they can lose their job.
I think that the US government should make a new agency that regulates this problem and enforce new laws. All the people that work for this agency should never have worked in the industry before. The companies should not be the one in control. There should be new laws that guide what they do.
Rachel S. EDA Period 4, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDelete(Part 1)
Noel Kramers from California Farm Bureau had said that he was against labelling because it creates unnecessary fear. I absolutely disagree. The people has the right to know what is in their food. The only thing that people fear is fear itself. How is this unnecessary? If they put some kind of chemical in food, we have a right to know about it! Are you suggesting that even if we’re eating something bad, we shouldn’t be told about it because it “creates unnecessary fear”? How’s this, let me feed you a salad with dressing that’s loaded with Propylene glycol alginate (E405). Do you know what that is? It has many industrial uses including automotive antifreezes and airport runway deicers. Dangerous chemical? Absolutely. Over exaggerating? Nope. This chemical is found in one of the most popular salad dressing, Kraft’s Creamy Italian Dressing. Would people still eat it if they knew that they were being fed with ingredients that were used for industrial purposes? Most likely not. We have a right to know what’s being put in our food, and then WE determine if it’s worth the risk or not. Another example is (surprisingly) most of our fruits and vegetables. Have you ever wondered how your oranges and apples and such look so pretty? It’s because they’re genetically modified to look that way. They insert chemicals into the fruits and vegetables to get rid of those ugly looking spots on them. If you’ve been to a farmers market, you’d know what oranges and apples really look like. Not very appetizing, but it is truly organic. I don’t know if those chemicals are harmful or not, but it’s still a scary thought. Next time, when you’re looking for fruits and vegetables, pick the ugly ones.
’ In the film, Michael Pollan said, “I think that one of the most important
battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and
how it’s grown.” I personally feel that Michael Pollan actually cares about us and that the California Farm Bureau just wants to make money off of people, and doesn’t care if the ingredients they put in our food is damaging our body or not. Sometimes they do put warning labels, but the problem with America’s labelling is that it’s way too small. They print it like at a font of size of 9 and people just ignore it. Personally, I don’t think that the labelling has any effect on people because their common sense is “Oh I’ll be fine. They’re over exaggerating.” If you really want people to stop, traumatize them. It’s awful, I know, but it works. I don’t mean putting pictures of a smokers lung on a cigarette box cause that’s to mild. It has to be more personal. Individual. It hurts me to say this, but the only way to permanently affect someone to draw them out of their bad habit is to take someone they care about the most and use that against them. For example, if you’re a smoker, it’s hard to quit it. But if you take someone they really care about, like their mom or dad, and make them look what a person would look like after smoking their whole life, and show that to them, they’ll be permanently affected. And I mean go ALL OUT. Take that person to the hospital and have them look weak and vulnerable from years of smoking. Then take the smoker and show what their mom or dad or had ‘become’. It hurts to see the person you love suffering, it’s only humane. It’s also a weak point. I feel awful for even thinking about this.
(Part 2)
ReplyDelete-Oprah is a very VERY popular women. Millions of people watch her show and if she gives out a personal opinion of saying that hamburgers are bad for you, people listen to it. She’s an idol to many people, so if she says something, they take it to heart. If she continued it, those restaurant or stores would lose business. They couldn’t have that, so they needed Oprah to stop. This is what our country has become. A place where money and profit is more important than the health of people.
-Barbara Kowalcyk most likely scared that the meat company would come after her and sue her. Companies obviously get mad when they’re given a negative review, because they lose customers. No customers mean no business.
-Well, I know that the power should not to let to the food companies. If they know they are putting a dangerous chemical into our foods to make it taste better, than they would avoid putting the whole truth into the labels. I can only speak for myself, rather than the whole country because everyone’s perspective is different. I’d rather have the people possess the power to decide food policies, food safety, etc.
-Like I said, it depends on how big the label is. For me, I would actually read the warning label and I would think twice before buying that energy drink. A lot of people don’t look at labels and it’s frustrating because how do you target an individual when they are constantly ignoring the clear, black and white, written down dangers. It doesn’t get easier than that.
-Most people don’t read the label (I use to ignore it) because they trust their government and food establishments to provide them with none harmful chemicals in their everyday foods.I honestly don’t know how to make it more effective. Even if you make the labels bigger, most people still won’t read.
Evelyn S. EDA Period 4, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Noel Kramer’s reasoning (from the California Farm Bureau), who says that the bureau is against labeling because it “creates unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind.” I believe that people have the right to know what they are eating. The fear caused by labeling products is actually necessary sometimes because some of these foods are truly harmful to people’s health; people should be concerned.
’ If I truly knew what was in the food that I am consuming, it would probably raise my level of fear because I would be aware of all the “unhealthy” ingredients and processes that they use to produce the food.
Michael Pollan’s position contrasts with the California Farm Bureau’s position because they say that the customers shouldn’t be concerned with the way the food is grown OR what’s contained in it. They try to hide what is in their food and they try to appear to be “farm friendly.” Michael Pollan says, “I think that one of the most important battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown.”
Energy drinks have warning labels sometimes. I don’t think that people really take them seriously towards their health. It doesn’t restrain people from drinking it/ smoking it and so forth...’
It may make you consider the consequences, and may affect whether you buy the product or not, because to some people, at least, an extra shot of energy isn’t worth your life.
I think it would be more effective if people could actually identify what the ingredients are. Often times when I read nutrition labels, I have no idea what the components of the product are, let alone how healthy (or unhealthy) they are. I think that people should become more educated to avoid being taken advantage of due to their obliviousness to what is in the product, and what it represents.
I think that it was wrong when Oprah was sued for saying she wasn't sure she wanted to eat hamburgers anymore. She was just expressing her opinion. The ways of producing products are disgusting and she was just stating her opinion. I think this law is wrong, I believe it is too hypocritical. We live in a society where you are supposed to be able to express your opinion, and this law is forbidding that freedom of speech.
’ I think Barbara Kowalcyk is afraid of being held “legally responsible,” like in the case of when Oprah stated her opinion. We should not be afraid to express our opinion about what is true. It’s not fair at all.
There is two sides to having government regulators that have been in “the industry.” They may side with the big corporations, and then that would definitely be biased and corrupt. On the other hand, these people know what goes on and can have a real first hand experience in providing what is true or not and what is fair as far as what is in the food and the processes.
I think that in a sense, the people should decide food policies and other food-related matters. We, the people, should vote on what should be required to be posted publicly on labels for products. We the people are the consumers of the product, so I think that we should set the standards.
NicoleR. EDA Period 4 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this reasoning because if the fear it caused was unnecessary why would it be caused in the first place. There would have to be something in the product that would cause genuine fear. It would not cause “unnecessary” fear.
The information they give us about our food is like the information they give us about our health. It helps us to make sure we are safe and taken care of. If they give us information on a product and what it means, we would be able to understand why it might be in that food and we will be able to make a better decision on if we want to eat that food now. It would raise fears because it will make you think, Have I been eating that all of this time and what has it done to my health? It would lower my fear because i understand why the certain thing is in the food and what it does. I would not be left in the dark to think for myself.
This compares to their position because they are trying to say why would we give you information when it will just raise unnecessary fear? The author Michael Pollan thinks we should have a right to know how our food has been taken care of before it got to us.
I know that cigarettes have warning labels on their products but it only makes a difference to a certain extent. People will still use that product because they have adapted to it and have become addicted. They know it is bad for them and they will try to quit but it still may not work. If they put the warning labels on food it will have a far greater effect because people can stop consuming that product and can consume as much healthier one. They also have warning labels on games because it can cause mental or physical dysfunctions. I do not think this has an effect because some people are right minded to stop playing the game when they feel it is necessary or their parents will tell them to stop. If a food was making them fat because they didn't know what was in it, they would not know why they are getting fat. Someone should tell them that this product may lead to sickness or obesity because it has genetically engineered products in it.
A warning would affect whether or whether not i would buy energy drinks because if they can get you sick what is the point. The reason you are buying that energy drink is to get hyped up when you can get that naturally by sleeping enough and that does not cause sickness. I would not destroy myself for a few hours of having energy when you are bound to fall asleep sometime after that from the rush. I would look at the warning label and think, is it worth it?
I do not read labels because i feel if it was that bad then why would they make this product. Now after watching the video i have realised that they are not warning us enough that what is in these products can affect our health badly. To make people make better decisions about their food they would need to put on the front of the product a warning sign in bold letters. This food has been cloned. This food has been genetically engineered to taste better. Or this food has been washed in ammonia.
NicoleR. EDA Period 4 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that Oprah had the right to say that. It wasn't to make everyone stop buying that product. we have the right to freedom of speech and if she want to use that right to share her opinion on hamburgers let her! It was a good think that she said that's because it might have had an affect on people and made them start checking the labeling on food products. I do not like the law that prevents people from talking about a food product badly because people can make their own decisions on whether or not they want to buy a product. Nobody is forcing them not to. If you did not have anything to hide about the product, why make the law in the first place?
I think she is scared of being sued by the company for voicing her opinion. It is not fair for human beings to be afraid of the food they eat and their corporations. If a child dies because a certain food we should be able to know what food caused that to protect ourselves. We should not be protecting the company.
A pro for people have been working in the industry becoming government regulators is that they know a lot about the industry. They know the inside information and they can share the knowledge. The con about this is that they have still been part of the industrial business so how do you know that they aren't bias towards laws trying to be passed that are going against the business? They once worked in the industry so wouldn't they feel like they owed them something. They can have friends or family that work in the industry so they might try to protect them and their jobs.
I think American citizens should have the power to decide the policies and laws about food safety. We are the ones eating it not making it so we should be able to decide what they should tell us and not tell us. If judges say we don't need to know something, how would we be able to decide for ourselves.
Gabi P. EDA Period 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with this reasoning in some ways, but I see where they are coming from in their point of view. If they tell people what is really in their food and how they really treat their animals then no one is going to want to buy their product. Their customers will think “Oh this tastes so good . . now I know why because all of the things that they did to the meat to make it taste good” just because something tastes good that doesn’t mean it’s automatically good for you to eat.
’I think that if the food companies tell us what is actually in our food and if it is processed or genetically modified people won’t want to eat it at all anymore. A lot of people think “Oh it’s an apple it must be healthy.” But, they don’t know if that apple was genetically modified, because the companies won’t tell them, so they always get that same kind of apple because it “tastes good”. Another example would be is false advertising like if Mcdonalds says “Hey! Our food is healthy it comes with apples and is made with “healthy” meat!” When in reality a lot of their food is genetically modified or not even made with real beef or chicken (like the pink slime or controversial beef incident that fast food restaurants are beginning to use in their meats.)
Michael Pollan’s position of what consumers should know is totally different from the California farm Bureau’s position. The California Farm Bureau (CFB) does NOT want their consumers to know what’s in their product, how they treat their animals, workers, and how they grow their products. But Michael Pollan thinks that consumers have a right know what’s in the food that their eating.
’A lot of games or game consoles have warning labels on them like if you play them too long you can get headaches or dizziness so they tell you to take a break every 20 minutes or while you’re playing the game and you go way overboard on playing the game sometime they’ll have a pop up message saying “Hey! You’ve been playing for over ___ minutes, consider taking a break!” It’s mostly Wii or the newer versions of Xbox that have these warning, usually not on Nintendos or other hand games. I think these labels have very little effect if someone is a total game addict they’ll just want to keep playing and playing until their eyes fall out or until it’s the very next morning. These companies that make the games should maybe make a commercial or some kind of advertising telling their customers what will happen if you play a game for too long and the longer term effects so the customers are more aware and careful, but that still doesn’t mean that their customers will stop buying their games just that they won’t play them for 3 or 4 hours straight.
Yes, of course if there was a warning label on a energy drink and there were a bunch of effects if you drink that energy drink, then I probably wouldn’t buy it, but most people don’t read the fine print on the back of the energy drink before or even after they buy it. If the companies are required to put a warning label on their product then they’ll probably try to find a way around it like putting it on the back of the product and putting it in really small font or having one of those hidden pamphlets in the back where it says “Open here for more information” and you have to peel the paper to look at the warning label and ingredients or the product.
Gabi P. EDA Period 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePart 1
I do not agree with this reasoning in some ways, but I see where they are coming from in their point of view. If they tell people what is really in their food and how they really treat their animals then no one is going to want to buy their product. Their customers will think “Oh this tastes so good . . now I know why because all of the things that they did to the meat to make it taste good” just because something tastes good that doesn’t mean it’s automatically good for you to eat.
’I think that if the food companies tell us what is actually in our food and if it is processed or genetically modified people won’t want to eat it at all anymore. A lot of people think “Oh it’s an apple it must be healthy.” But, they don’t know if that apple was genetically modified, because the companies won’t tell them, so they always get that same kind of apple because it “tastes good”. Another example would be is false advertising like if Mcdonalds says “Hey! Our food is healthy it comes with apples and is made with “healthy” meat!” When in reality a lot of their food is genetically modified or not even made with real beef or chicken (like the pink slime or controversial beef incident that fast food restaurants are beginning to use in their meats.)
Michael Pollan’s position of what consumers should know is totally different from the California farm Bureau’s position. The California Farm Bureau (CFB) does NOT want their consumers to know what’s in their product, how they treat their animals, workers, and how they grow their products. But Michael Pollan thinks that consumers have a right know what’s in the food that their eating.
’A lot of games or game consoles have warning labels on them like if you play them too long you can get headaches or dizziness so they tell you to take a break every 20 minutes or while you’re playing the game and you go way overboard on playing the game sometime they’ll have a pop up message saying “Hey! You’ve been playing for over ___ minutes, consider taking a break!” It’s mostly Wii or the newer versions of Xbox that have these warning, usually not on Nintendos or other hand games. I think these labels have very little effect if someone is a total game addict they’ll just want to keep playing and playing until their eyes fall out or until it’s the very next morning. These companies that make the games should maybe make a commercial or some kind of advertising telling their customers what will happen if you play a game for too long and the longer term effects so the customers are more aware and careful, but that still doesn’t mean that their customers will stop buying their games just that they won’t play them for 3 or 4 hours straight.
Yes, of course if there was a warning label on a energy drink and there were a bunch of effects if you drink that energy drink, then I probably wouldn’t buy it, but most people don’t read the fine print on the back of the energy drink before or even after they buy it. If the companies are required to put a warning label on their product then they’ll probably try to find a way around it like putting it on the back of the product and putting it in really small font or having one of those hidden pamphlets in the back where it says “Open here for more information” and you have to peel the paper to look at the warning label and ingredients or the product.
Gabi P. EDA Period 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePart 2’
I think it would have a lot of effect on people if they knew exactly what they were eating, they would be surprised but they would definitely make better choices on what their eating. Food companies should tell people if their food is genetically modified or processed or cloned, even though they think no one would buy their food they should still tell people so then they can change that and more people will buy the healthy non modified and processed food.
I personally think that it is kind of stupid that the food companies are allowed to sue people for criticizing their food. Eventually if they still are allowed to sue for people giving their opinion then I think the food companies will control as much as they possibly can.
Maybe she doesn’t want people to think that before her son died she and her son were eating not so healthy and being kind of reckless on what they were eating and after her son died she’s avoiding eating unhealthy. I think that maybe she didn’t say what the source of meat that killed him because she just wanted to warn people that it can be found anywhere and if the food company heard her saying that their meat killed her son they could try and sue her for criticizing their product and lowering their total income of customers.
A pro for people who are in the industry and know a lot about that industry are able to give their opinion and try and change what that industry is doing to people or their products. A con would be if you totally disagree on how they're treating their workers, animals, or plants and there is nothing you can do to change how their treating them.
I think that maybe people should be able to vote for what kind of laws they want for food safety because they're the ones that are going to eat the food they mine as well be able to decide what they want to know about what’s in their food.
Vanessa O. EDA Period 4 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDelete’ I agree but I also don’t agree. People have a right to know what they are spending their money on and what its made of. If people are allergic to peanuts and the company doesn’t put that peanuts is in the product in the label. Well that person can get a allergic reaction and maybe even die.
I don’t agree with it because if I saw that my food was made with something called like “Chemical X” I wouldnt want to eat it because well I’d be scared that I could get sick.
It would lower my fear because if food was grown in a petri dish like in the video I wouldn’t want to eat it because its not grown naturally and even if companies say well just because it’s grown in a petri dish doesn’t mean its bad for you. But they have to put a lot of chemicals in it just so that the food will grow in the petri dish. If the companies also don’t want to put where the food was grown then that makes a person think that well there are things in it that companies don’t want us to know about.
’
California Farm Bureau position is people shouldn’t know what's in there food because it scares people but i think what really scares people is not knowing because if the companies don't want to label the food.Then it makes people wonder what they are trying to hide. If the chemicals that they are putting it isn't bad then they should just label the food and thats that.
Michael Pollan position is that consumers should fight to know what's in their food because of they dont they wont know what they are spending their money on.
They are very different because one is saying that by labeling food, it will just scare people not to buy the product. The other side says yes we need to know how are food is being grown and what they are putting in it.
Movies have warning labels like cussing in the movies or bad parts in a movie. When I want to see a movie like that my mom questions letting me go because she doesn’t want me exposed to certain things like that. Same with video games, my brother and I wanted the Black Ops 2 game when it came out. When we got it and we were playing my mother said.”That it was too violent because of all the killing.” Even though it has all these labels we still play it and our mother lets us.
For me it wouldn’t because some of the ingredients I don’t know what they are. I see them on the label but because you don’t ever really hear that people die because of drinking energy drinks I don’t really care what’s inside the energy drink. My dad also drinks about 2 energy drinks a day and he knows what’s inside the drinks and my family and I have told him to stop drinking it but he doesn’t. He says that they aren’t that bad for him and he’s not sick so I believe that he doesn’t care because he isn’t sick yet.
Vanessa O. EDA Period 4 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDelete’Sometimes labels can be helpful but other times they have these big long names that nobody even knows what the ingredient is. Also some people are just too lazy to read them and don’t read them and might put some food that has a awful chemical in their mouth but since they didn’t read the label they won’t know.
That law doesn’t seem fair because in America we are suppose to have freedom of speech and if can’t criticize the food the companies make then we are losing our freedom of speech. We should be able to say what we want about foods because if the food isn’t really good or good for us we should be able to tell people don’t buy it cause its not so good. But if companies will sue us then we won’t be able to do anything or say anything.
Like Oprah who criticized the meat, shouldn’t the companies take it as like a option and from that decide how to make their meat better so people will want to eat it?!
I don’t see why she doesn’t say what source of meat killed her son because what if the company are still making the meat and other people are getting sick of it. Or worse what if someone died also because of it but she didn’t say and it could have been prevented. I also think it would be helpful for people that inspect the meat and where its processed at because if they go and check the meat and see that its bad they won’t let the company send it out to stores.
Then again maybe Barbara isn’t saying what meat source killed her son because if she says they might sue her for making people not eat their meat.
You see how is the product is made really badly or if its made well. If you work for the government you should have a say in which plants where they make a product should stay open or not.
The people who inspect the companies where the food is processed because they see how dirty or bad the companies are making the product. The government should also have a say and if they think a company is not making their product somewhere where its healthy they should be able to shut it down.
Bryn T-B, EDA period 6, Mrs. Carr, part 1
ReplyDeleteOur system of food safety has recently been scrutinized by the creators of the documentary Food, Inc. This has led to many debates over the labeling of food and drink products, the laws that make it illegal to speak out against certain processing companies, and the identity and former occupations of government industry regulators.
The California Farm Bureau believes that labeling food products “creates unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind.” I believe that there is some truth to this reasoning, and that labels would cause some consumers to panic about something that may or may not really affect them. However, I ultimately take the stance that consumers have a right to know what is in their food and how it was made, and to allow them to make an educated decision on whether or not to buy the food based on that knowledge.
Additionally, what type of knowledge I had received about a particular food would alter my level of fear of that food. If I had learned that the food had health benefits, then naturally I would be less afraid of it than I would be of a food I learned was carrying, say, salmonella.
Author Michael Pollan stated, “I think that one of the most important battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown.” This idea is in almost direct contradiction with the California Farm Bureau’s stance; the CFB believes that food labeling is a bad idea and would cause unnecessary panic among consumers uninformed about the supposed benefits of their technology and methods. I believe the impact of warning labels on products are altered based on the the type of product with the label on it, the person reading the label, and how they are using the product. A mother or father giving a toy to their infant, upon seeing that it was labeled “Choking Hazard,” might make certain that they were always watching the child when the infant was playing with the toy (or might not let the child play with the toy at all). A toy with the same label, given to an older child or young teenager, would most likely not invite the same precautions to be taken as by the parents of the young child. However, labels on products like cigarettes or alcohol may not be quite as effective. One may assume that someone who is determined to set leaves on fire and inhale the resulting fumes may not be moved from their decision by a simple sticker; chances are that the only people who take the warnings into consideration are those who do not actually smoke.
Bryn T-B, EDA period 6, Mrs. Carr, part 2
ReplyDeleteRecently, labels cautioning consumers of the dangers of caffeine have been added to energy drinks. At present, a warning label on energy drinks would not affect whether or not I buy energy drinks, because I do not buy them, nor have I ever. I have heard all about their dangerous effects to growing children; additionally, I do not see the need to drink what is essentially pure caffeine. Assuming I was the sort of person who would buy an energy drink, a warning label might make me think twice about ingesting the product. However, I cannot honestly say that a simple label would make the hypothetical me entirely stop buying energy drinks. A label holds you accountable to no one but yourself; the incentive to not repeat the behavior warned against by the label is not as strong as an intervention by someone who is actually in your company. I think that labels are only effective in helping some consumers make decisions about their food, and that others simply misunderstand or take the label out of context. I support the labeling of food products wholeheartedly, however, I also believe that, for the message to really be spread to consumers about the possible dangers of some foods, the most popular entertainment medium today must be utilized: television. Most people today have access to television somehow, so this would be and extremely effective way to get a vast swath of the population to hear about the dangers of some foods.
Bryn T-B, EDA period 6, Mrs. Carr, part 3
ReplyDeleteIn some areas, it is now illegal to say or publish anything negative about certain foods or food companies. I am irrevocably reminded by these laws of the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by president John Adams for the duration of his presidency. The Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writings” against the government of the United States or the president thereof. To break this law was punishable by imprisonment. While there may be some merit to using an act like this to prevent an uprising of panic, it clearly goes against the ideals behind the First Amendment of the Constitution; it prohibits the voicing of reasonable and important concerns along with silencing those who would only create confusion. Additionally, while one as wealthy as Oprah (who spoke out about the real story behind hamburgers on her show and was subsequently sued by the meat packing companies) can afford to pay such extensive legal bills and continue to speak out, lawsuits are an altogether too effective way to silence the common person from raising a protest; overall, I am horrified and disgusted by these laws. Additionally, I am saddened by the fact that the mother of a dead child cannot even reveal the circumstances surrounding her child’s death, and I am horrified to contemplate how many others may be in the same situation, unable to speak out. It is terrifying, also, to think how many others may die simply because of ignorance and the fact that those who know the truth cannot reveal it.
The main advantage to employing people who have worked for a certain industry as government regulators for that industry is that they know of and understand the inner workings of that company. It is for good reason that you do not bring in a basketball player to coach swimming; their knowledge of their area of expertise, however extensive, may not translate into their new field. Additionally, their ready knowledge saves time for a government that cannot spare months or years for a rookie to learn the nuances of a brand-new field of study. There are, however, many disadvantages to this school of thought. Using regulators who have worked for the companies they are supposed to be policing opens many opportunities for the regulators to have to investigate friends who may still work in that business. This conflict may cause a slackening or bending of the rules from all but the most dedicated and impartial of regulators. They may also be jaded to processes used by their or competing companies that they now learn are illegal, and thus they may not enforce all laws and regulations. Ultimately, it is clear that a reform of our food safety system is necessary. I believe that the government should still decide about food policies and other food-related issues, but that the voting population should also have a major say in these food safety laws and policies. The government has the advantage of having many experienced and knowledgeable individuals, and the people, in general, have a higher degree of interest in looking out for themselves and their families. Combining these two points of view will create an even better system of food safety laws and policies than the one we have today.
Riley K. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeletePart 1
I agree that some ingredients may lead to fear in the consumers minds, but not unnecessary fear. The consumer has a right to know what they are purchasing, and what they are putting into their and their families bodies.If I had knowledge that there was a certain chemical or ingredient that I did not want to eat in a food that I would consider buying, I would be glad I knew, and not purchase said food. But if I find out that there was a chemical or ingredient that could be harmful in the food I had been eating for a while, of course I would be a little scared. I had been eating something potentially harmful, and even if it did not necessarily affect me I would still be worried, and wondering why that ingredient was not on the label before.Michael Pollan’s position is that the consumers have a right to know what they are buying, the CAFB is that the consumer does not want to know. And in my opinion both are correct. As the consumer, we should know exactly what we are purchasing. But some people, even if the label states what is in the food and not all ingredients are healthy, will buy the food anyways.
One example of a consumer product with a warning label would be medication, whether prescription or over the counter (Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Aspirin, cough syrup, etc.). The warning label impacts whether the consumer wants to take the risks that come with the medication. For someone who already drinks energy drinks regularly, a warning label probably won’t have much of an effect. They are used to some of the symptoms they get from the energy drink, and the warning label would mean nothing to them. But a warning label can be effective for someone who does not by energy drinks often. The consumer has the right to know the possible side effects they can get from the product they bought, and if the companies are scared that they won’t be able to continue the product because consumers are not buying it, then there should not be harmful ingredients in said product in the first place. It depends on the consumer as to whether or not labels are effective, because not all consumers read the label. The best way to get them to start reading the label is to let them know that they should know what they are putting into their bodies.
The law stating that you can’t say anything negative about the meat packaging company in Colorado is basically mutilating the first amendment. Because Oprah got sued, they went against the freedom of speech and press. If a law in a state goes against a law for the country, or if one law contradicts another, then it should be addressed. There’s a reason why the laws for the country are for the entire country, not just for most states in that country. In my opinion, it’s wrong to take away a basic right or instill fear so that people can’t use the freedom of speech and press to speak their minds just for your companies profit.
Riley K. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeletePart 2
People who have been in the industry know what is in the food, and can hopefully judge what is safe to eat and what is not. But, people who have been in the industry know what the cheapest, most efficient way to make food is, whether the food comes out safe or not. Consumers already have a lot of power in the food industry, whether they know it or not. If they want a company to show a warning label or list all ingredients and the company does not do it, they can easily boycott the product and get others to boycott too. Without the consumer’s money, companies would not have business, and no business equals bankrupt. If the consumers make it clear that they refuse to buy a product that does not have a proper warning label or ingredient list, then the company will have to comply at some point to be able to make money.
If all information about the food I buy was readily available, I would definitely consider what I buy more. If I think something would be harmful to me or whoever eats it, I would not buy that product. Why put yourself at risk for a temporary (not even guaranteed) pleasure of a good tasting food, where there could be another good tasting, possibly better tasting food that is healthier or does not put you at risk?
Haley Lowe, EDA Period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeletePart 1
In the film, Noel Kramers of the California Farm Bureau says that the bureau is
against labeling because it “creates unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind.” I do not agree with this reasoning, because even though the consumer may be scared, it does not give them the right to hide what we are eating to, “make us feel better.” We have the right to know, because we are the ones who are consuming it, and it affects our body. Another reason that we have the right to know is because we are paying money for what we are consuming so we should know what we are getting for our money, and if it may harm us. So they should not have the right about what we are allowed to know. Also, information about a food may raise my fear of it because it would affect our health, causing us to not to want to eat it, and then the company would lose money. So the companies do not want their consumers to be afraid, so that they will keep buying the food.
In the film, author Michael Pollan says, “I think that one of the most important
battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown.” His position may compare with the California farm bureaus position because he is not getting a choice to what goes on. Also he sees that the consumers aren't getting the information that they should have access to because we are the ones taking the product and using it. So we should know the risks of taking or eating it and some factors if we do eat it. We also just have a right to know. As he said that we have to “fight” to know what’s in our food and how it’s grown, we should not need to fight. It should be in the label with everything else because if they want to hide what they are putting in the food, why would they put it in there in the first place?
Wii, Monster, Red Bull, Call of Duty, are all things that have warning labels about their use or safety, like cigarettes, alcohol, appliances, games and more. An impact that these labels may have, is that someone may second guess if they want this product, that could cause harm to themselves, or someone around them. Unless they are addicted to it, like smoking, they might think before they buy. Health experts also recently called for warning labels on energy drinks, pointing out the effects of “caffeine intoxication”—a syndrome that can cause anxiety,
insomnia, gastrointestinal upset, tremors, rapid heartbeat, and even death. Warning labels would affect whether or not i would buy or drink it, because to me, would it really be worth it? I would want my body to have good things in it and not make my life shortened or unhealthy for a quick burst of energy.
Labels, to some people are just there, but to the consumers that pay attention to them, it may help someone lean away from it or towards it. If it has a health risk, people would not want to risk their lives by eating something, when they could go off and pick something else to consume. I think that a way for it to be more effective would be for them to make a larger, “CAUTION” sign on it, so that the consumers know what they are about to consume, without needing to search the whole label for it. And even if they were to search the label, they might not even have it on there, because they would be afraid of scaring us, the consumers.
I think that when Oprah got sued for saying she wasn't sure if she wanted to continue eating hamburgers, that it breaks the constitution, because people have a freedom of speech, and without that, we might as well be 1984. We should be able to voice our opinion, because if we are not able to do that then who would know. These companies should not be able to sue people, just because they will lose profit. I think that having a law that prevents our freedom of speech is like telling us that we can’’t tell someone we don’t like a certain food, it takes away the freedom in life and voicing your opinion.
Haley Lowe, EDA Period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeletePart 2
In the film, Barbara Kowalcyk appears to be afraid to say how her eating habits have changed as a result of her son’s death, and she does not reveal the source of the meat that killed him. I think that it is horrible that If she were to have revealed what killed her son, it would be like putting a red arrow on her forehead to the companies. Also to not be able to say what had killed him, and how the companies know that then people would have stopped going to that particular place because they would not want to die, so they want to prevent that. Also, she would be sued because people would then not want to go there and they would lose profit.
People who have been in the industry are knowledgeable about that industry. Some pros and cons would be that they would become the regulators working for the government, and some pros would be is that they would know what they are eating, and have the inside scoop. A con would be that if they wanted to say something about how it is unhealthy and is a risk to eat than they would be sued and fired.
I think that the people who should have power to decide food policies and laws about food safety, and other food-related matters are a group of unbiased and biased people who would look for things for the benefit of people who would be consuming it. Also, some people who are not afraid of what people will think about their opinions, and thinking as if the world was its child, so that it would want the best for everyone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBailey L. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteTopic 8
One of the topic questions asked in our own opinion if labels would create unnecessary fear. In my opinion, I disagree with this reason because maybe someone is allergic to some type of chemical used to grow the fruit or maybe they can’t eat gluten. Then they will need to see what the ingredients are in it. So without the label I think it would create more fear not knowing what’s in your food than actually knowing. I think if we have more ingredients, then we would have the actual truth about the food. So yes maybe they would be more against eating that food but they wouldn't be eating something that “scares” them. I think we should have a longer nutrition label, a longer ingredients list. We want to know how our food is made. I am truly against not having these things on our food. Why? Because I don’t want to be eating something that I can’t even pronounce the name of. Food and other things that surround our lives every day, I think food we should worry about first. We will actually read the labels.
With warning labels on cigarettes or alcohol. Who really reads them? No one even looks at them! Everyone already knows. For example, kids learn that cigarettes are bad for you but what do they do? They still smoke. Same with alcoholics. So I really do think that these labels have no effect whatsoever. Spend the extra money on the food labels! Also, with warning labels on energy drinks, how would it help? No one looks at warning labels and ingredient lists so why bother making them. Everyone pretty much knows there’s a risk for everything, but they still do it anyway.
Maybe if some people don’t even look at the food labels then make a more effective way to do this, make nutrition commercials, get it out there other than in school and actually on the food itself. Put all of this information somewhere where as us humans would actually see it and notice it. With Oprah even trying to help us consumers she got sued! I think what Oprah did was her own opinion. She has a right to say whatever she wants and she is actually helping us. She is getting it out there about what is and isn't healthy. I don’t think we need a law on what happened. It is our free opinion!
Maybe Oprah did make a few mistakes like when she didn't share what kind of meat it was, I think she was making every human being more frightened to actually eat a hamburger. They don’t know what it is so they just stop. In my own opinion I think it’s better to share your opinion then nothing at all, it may make a bigger impact than not saying anything at all.
Some other people that could help us with our food “investigations” should be the industry workers! They know what they do to the animals inside. We would actually know what is in their product, if we knew we wouldn't actually eat it.
I think we as being all equal should decide for ourselves. We can make our own decisions. I don’t think we need a new law to tell us what we should or shouldn't eat.
Cliff D. Mrs Carr Per.1 Part 1
ReplyDeleteIn the film, Noel Kramers from the California Farm Bureau, says the bureau is against labeling because it “creates unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind.” I think this reasoning is totally ridiculous. Food labels need to give away all the information about the food, and it is the consumer’s job to judge whether the food is good or bad. Information is necessary for consumers, and it is their call whether or not they should buy it, not the company’s. I also think ‘fearing’ a food or ingredient is kind of silly. You shouldn’t be afraid of a food. It is important to have knowledge and know it is unhealthy so you can avoid buying it.
In another part of the film, Michael Pollan says, “I think that one of the most important battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown.” I completely agree with Michael Pollan. It is the consumer’s right to know what is in their food. When Noel Kramers says it “creates unnecessary fear” she is overstepping her Bureau’s boundaries. Maybe in some instances it is necessary for the consumer to feel fear. My point is; it is the consumer’s job to decide what or what not to buy, and the companies cannot be given the power to decide what product information they want to include and what information they want to leave out. That is one reason why products need to have ingredient and warning labels.
There are many products that have warning labels on them, for instance cigarettes. The labels themselves do not have much influence anymore. It was the whole movement to raise awareness in schools and in the media that lowered the sales of cigarettes. But food is a whole different entity. There are so many different types and choices, labels are necessary to compare the products.
Energy drinks are a good example of debate over warning labels. I don’t drink energy drinks because I already know they are unhealthy. It is the whole campaign against the product that brings awareness, not just the label. I do think the label is necessary, because it puts the information out there for everyone to see, but ultimately it is the consumer’s responsibility to pay attention to what they are consuming and labeling should help them make more informed decisions. I think bringing the media in would be effective in deterring consumers from buying unhealthy products such as energy drinks. If there was a huge movement about food information (like here at Foothill) then there would be much more progress.
Cliff D. Mrs Carr Per. 1 Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe part in the film that shocked me the most was the part where the Texas meat company sued Oprah for saying negative comments about their products. Seriously, the food companies need to back off on this one. Free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, so suing over someone’s opinion is off-limits. People naturally have opinions! And they can lawfully voice them! Because Oprah is a celebrity, she really needs to think about what she says because there will be people who get upset, but it is her right.
Also the part in the film where Barbara Kowalcyk declines to reveal the source of meat that killed her son was outrageous. That was complete BS! The whole world deserves to know the name of the company who poses as a health risk to every person who buys meat from them. And if/when she finally gets the guts to release the name, that company has no right to sue her. The facts need to be released and the company needs to pay for their mistake.
Here are some of the pros and cons of people who have been in the food industry working as regulators for the government. Pro: They may have good information regarding policies. Con: They may be biased toward their former employers. Overall, the food inspecting government agencies should have the power to pass food laws, which are reviewed by normal citizens of the US. Congress has already proven itself incapable of passing good laws, so someone else in the government needs to take responsibility. The agency should run the law by us consumers to make sure it is popular. That way the system will work much better than it does now.
Cristian R. EDA Period 1,EDA teacher Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with the Bureau because the consumer should have the right to know whether he/she is eating meat that came from a real animal or meat that came from a cloned animal. The information about the food could raise your fear because if you saw that the label said it was a cloned animal you might not want to buy it because you’ll think it’s not healthy and that it has a chemicals that should not be in meat, you’re also not eating a real animal. It can lower your fear because you will know everything about the meat and what it has in it and if it’s a real animal or not. in the film Michael Pollan’s position compares with the California Farm Bureau, because Pollan can say whatever he would like to say on that subject and the people who work for the California Farm Bureau can’t because they could get fired from their job.
Products should have warning labels about their use and the safety. Some products such as beer and medicine and cigarettes have warning labels on them but they don’t have a very big impact because people still smoke even though it say that you can get lung cancer and have other problems. Also people still overdose on medicine and they still drink and drive. Warning labels on an energy drink would affect my decision on whether I buy an energy drink because if saw that it could give you so many problems I would most likely not buy the product. Food labels are very effective most people look at them to see the calories and the fats and all that other stuff the food contains.
I think it was outrageous that Oprah got sued just because she made a comment about a food. People should have the right to make a comment on a particular food item and from where it’s coming from. Another thing that is outrageous is how Barbara Kowalcyk was afraid of saying how her eating habits changed. She probably did not want to say anything because she knew they would sue her, and also knows that if she reveals the source of meat that killed her son the producers will sue her. People that have worked with the industry and that are now regulators for the government have both pros and cons to that. One pro is that if someone tries to sue the industry they might ask the regulator to help them and the regulator might do it just to get money. A con could be that if he does not help the industry out in a situation where they might get sued, later on the industry might try and sue him. The people should have the power to decide on food policies and laws they should be able to vote on the laws.
Drew Garbe Mrs. Carr Period 1
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not agree that knowing what's in your food creates an unnecessary fear, the consumer needs to know what is in their food even if it scares them. What is in the food can change what a person thinks about the food they may not want to even eat it anymore.
If I got information about my food that I didn’t know it would raise my fear because it would disturb me and make me not eat to eat it anymore.
’
Michael Pollan position is different because he is fighting to show the consumer what is in their food. Whereas the California Farm Bureau want to hide it and make sure the consumer does not learn about it.
’
I can think of many labels on product, like movies, and tools. These labels have an impact that are helpful, because they tell the consumer how to use it properly or the dangers and risks of using the product, but they can be easily ignored if the consumer does not care about them or see them.
The warning label may help me not drink the energy drink, especially if it is put in a spot that is easy to see and read. If I saw what the risks of drinking an energy drink were I would not drink it.
Labels can be effective to show consumers the risks, but if the consumer does not care, they will be ignored. One way to make label more effective is by putting the labels in easy place to see so then the consumer can find it easier and it would be harder to ignore.
I think that it was unnecessary that Oprah was sued for saying she wasn’t sure if she wanted to eat hamburgers anymore because it was her own opinion and everyone has the right to freedom of speech. I think that a law that prevents you for saying something negative about food is unconstitutional because that is against what the 1st amendment says.
I think that Barbara Kowalcyk never mentioned the type of meat that killed her son because she did not want to get sued by the company that made the contaminated meat.
’
The cons of working for the government as a regulator are that right now the food companies have control and are hard to regulate, and the pros you are trying to keep the consumer safe from contaminated food.
I think the people the FDA, and the USDA should have the power to decide food policies and control food safety and laws because the people deserve the right to vote for their food because they are the ones that are eating it, and the FDA, and USDA because they are responsible for inspections and sanitation.
Alex Beamer P1 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteElizabeth M.
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Mrs.Carr
I disagree with Noel Kramers of the California Farm Bureau who says that the bureau is against labeling because it “creates unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind” because there would be no unnecessary fear if their was nothing wrong with their food. We would only have fear of the food if there was something in the food the food to fear.
I believe that information about a food will both rise and lower fear. If we know what is in our food we would feel safer knowing what we are consuming. If the food companies have nothing to hide than they would label everything and let us decide if it something to be fearful of or not.
There are so many things that have warning labels on them that we ignore every single day. Things as simple as a toothbrush to big things like alcohol and drugs. Everybody knows what will happen to them if they use drugs but most ignore it and do it anyways.
Personally the warning labels on energy drinks don't affect my choice on whether or not I buy an energy drink. However it is still comforting to know that the labels are still there. The warning labels will affect how much I drink but I will still buy the energy drinks.
Labels are not very effective at keeping us informed about the products because most people will ignore them anyways. Companies should try harder to let us know what we are buying.
I believe that the fact we cannot say anything negative about a company and their products is complete blasphemy and it goes against our rights as Americans. It goes against our First Amendment which says ‘... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...’ that is our freedom of speech and just because a company has more money than the average everyday people they get to take it away from us. I also greatly respect Oprah for speaking her mind and not backing down when she was sued by food companies.
I think its horrible that Barbara can’t even reveal the monsters that created the product that killed her son. Also she never received an apology or anything for her poor son.
People who have been in the industry and that are knowledgeable about that industry that now are regulators working for the government could be a pro because they might not be as power hungry and vile as the rest of the workers. However they also might be worse.
Alex Beamer P1 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the CFB’s statement against labeling. The consumer should have the right to see what all is in what they are eating or drinking. If manufacturers are worried that consumers would be frightened of what is in their product, then educate about what is in the soda by advertising it.
I hate going to fast food restaurants because I know what they put in the food. I always get a burger and a soda, but I know that what they put into the burgers is mostly not natural in the slightest. Author Michael Pollan states that consumers should fight to know what is in their food and how it was grown. The CFB wants to disguise certain ingredients because they fear it will make their consumers back off.
I believe labels on alcohol and cigarettes do help make the consumer aware (even if most people ignore them). What about movies? Everyone knows what the movie rating scale is. G is ok for everyone, and so is PG (mostly). Then you get up to PG-13, which warns viewers that there will be some inappropriate things in the movie, and R is a clear warning that you have to be 17 or older to see this movie without your parents. Some theaters even ban minors from seeing R movies (even with their parents) after 6 PM. So I believe that these labels have an impact on which movies parents allow their kids to see. The same goes for cigarettes, alcohol, games, etc.
As for energy drinks, I’m already hyper enough that I don’t need them regularly. However, if in dire need, I will buy a energy drink. If the label pointed out the effects, such as insomnia, or gastrointestinal upset, I might pause and think, “How much do I really need this Monster/RedBull?” If the answer is, “I can make it home without passing out” then I probably won’t buy it. However, if the answer was “I’m going to pass out in five minutes” then yes, I will buy the energy drink.
Labels appear to not be that effective, considering that over ⅓ of America is obese. So obviously, people aren’t taking into consideration what kind of junk is in the food. Something that could help would be putting the label on the front of the box, as well as the back. That way, people are forced into seeing what is in the food. It will take up space for the cover of the product, but it would be effective.
I think that Oprah being sued for saying she wasn’t sure if she wanted to eat hamburgers is a violation of the first amendment (freedom of speech and religion). If she doesn’t want to eat hamburgers, that’s great for her! And if she just happens to be a very influential figure that can inspire millions to boycott hamburgers, even better!
’ I hate to say that Barbara Kowalcyk is wrong in refusing to say what source of meat killed her son. She can’t make a claim without evidence to support it. I’m sorry that her son died, but you need something to back you up.
People working in the food industry that become regulators for the government can be a good thing and a bad thing. Let’s start with the pros. They know a lot about food and can play a very key role in major decisions for companies. Cons, they know all the dirty little secrets of the food industry and can use those to get around laws.
I believe that the consumers should be the ones deciding the laws concerning food policies and food safety. We have the right to vote for the leader of our country, why are we not able to decide or food laws?
Sydney H. EDA Period 1, Mrs. Pelfrey
ReplyDelete’ I don’t. There is no “unnecessary fear”; it’s opinions that may affect the consumers decision to purchase their product though- and that what they’re scared of.
If they have a shadow of a doubt that the labels might concern people, there is obviously a problem. The people have every right to know what they are eating.
I think fear is the wrong word. But the information would definitely change my opinion of the brand and I would most likely switch to a healthier, more organic option.. unfortunately, not everyone is willing to do that.
His position is quite different from the CFB. He is against hiding the labels of a food, and rightfully so. If you don't tell people how their foods are grown, whether they are inorganic, contains gmos, are grown with rbst.. you name it. If you don't tell them, you are technically lying. The California Farm Bureau is afraid of people not wanting to purchase their products if they know what's in them, so they thinks its better overall for them not to know at all.
I can't think of any at the moment, but i think that proves something. People obviously don't care enough to remember the label, especially on things like appliances and video games.
Well, since death is on that list, I think that staying away from energy drinks is probably a good idea, and that’s what I would do, although i do know people who don't even think twice about the warning labels.. they drink around 2 per day!
I think they’re effective, but it might be more effective to make a strong statement on the food, for example listing the entire calorie count (including the servings) as well as increasing the size of the nutrition labels and to include whether its grown “abnormally”
I think that is the most ridiculous law ever. It is in violation of the constitution! FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Ever heard of it?
..I can’t even put into words how angry that makes me. She has the right to state what she pleases. That law should not be in use. That is a violation of our personal rights to freedom of speech.
Its not good for the public, or the people against the industry, but its great for the industry to have a loophole. If they didn't have an advantage in the courthouse, I doubt they would be as powerful as they are today.
The people have the right to, as well as the FDA and other health organizations. NOT the meat companies. How is that fair to the public when the meat companies try and do everything against them? Oh wait, it’s not.
Sydney H. EDA Period 1 Mrs. Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-labeling.aspx
Biased in Monsanto's Favor, Provides accurate but biased-ly worded in Monsanto's favor.
http://www.change.org/petitions/change-food-libel-laws-to-allow-us-to-know-the-truth-about-our-food
Good info, again, slightly biased.
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/
Strictly information on prop 37
http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-giant-meatpackers-and-economic-squeezes/the-big-four-meatpackers-1
No bias, information on meat companies
Andres C. EDA #3 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Noel Kramers’ reasoning, Kramers is just supporting the thoughts of his company, running against labeling is just what the California Farm Bureau wants him to say. Creating ‘unnecessary fear’ is important, better to have fear than to be an oblivious and ignorant person who may be eating flame retardant. Noel Kramers may not be speaking what he truly believes, he may just be stating the opinion expressed by the California Farm Bureau.
’
I do agree with Noel Kramers’ reasoning, labeling all products would create unnecessary work for the food producers, causing more time to be put into the job, this would cause less food to be produced. Unnecessary fear in the consumer's mind would just cause commotion and protest against food companies.
Information about a food product would raise my fear of it, if I had already eaten it my body would have already digested it, knowing the unwanted food ingredient was already through my body would just frighten me more. If I had eaten it more than once, the information might raise my fear of becoming seriously ill because of the food product.
Micheal Pollan’s position differs from California Farm Bureau’s because Pollan’s opinion is that consumers have to fight to know how their food is grown and what’s in their food. The California Farm Bureau’s opinion is that it creates ‘unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind.’ Micheal Pollan says that knowing what is in your food may be one of the most important things to know while eating food, while the California Farm Bureau says that it doesn’t matter if know what;s in your food or not.
Labels may have some impact on the way products are used or consumed. One example of this attitude is when people buy a new board game, the first thing to do is read the caution sign in case there is problem the game may have. When it comes down to smoking or drinking alcohol labels won't do much because they do not worry about the problems it may cause in the future.
A warning label on the energy drink would convince me to stop drinking because caffeine intoxication seems very dangerous for a human body. If it has a possibility to cause anxiety, tremors, a rapid heartbeat, and even death, there seems no point to drink it. It seems idiotic to drink something that may cause death for just a few seconds of flavor, and a few minutes of energy.
A warning label on an energy drink would not persuade me to stop drinking it because if I had been drinking it for along time and nothing has happened to me yet, I would continue to drink it whether the warning label was there or not. If they put warning labels on cigarettes, would the consumer suddenly stop? No, they would not stop, so why would I stop drinking energy drinks.
’
Label might sometimes be helpful in decisions made by the consumers such as if buying an apple that was organically grown, compared to chemically grown, then obviously the consumer would pick the apple that has been organically grown. One thing that might be more useful is having a picture as to how the product was mad or raised, such as beef, a picture showing where the cow was grown might be persuasive in the consumers decision to buy food.
’
Andres C. EDA#3 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDeleteOprah being sued for expressing an opinion about hamburger meat is completely asinine, opinions are opinions, people who love hamburger can continue to eat hamburgers, and those who are disgusted about the food ingredients or the way the animal was brought up, can stop eating it. A law preventing the expressing of an opinion is utterly fatuous, how can people have the freedom of speech, but cannot express their thoughts about an extremely harmful meat product? Oprah can easily pay the money of being sued, but what about everyday civilians? A law that prevents expressing opinions is fatuous and asinine.
Barbara Kowalcyk is afraid to say what killed her son in the fear of being sued by food companies, a law has been passed saying that you cannot say anything negative about a food item. The companies have probably threatened to sue Barbara if she says anything about changing her diet due to this awful event that happened to her son. I think this is just completely ridiculous that she is not able to express her thoughts in fear of being sued by food companies.
’
There are many pros and cons about having regulators work for the government. One example of a pro would be that they more about the food industry and what they do to the animals while raising them. A con might be that since they worked for that food company, they might benefit the company’s side while in court or some kind or argument between the government and the company.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should have control over what food policies to go by, and they should be in charge of checking up on food processing companies to check if they are doing anything inhumane to the animals or the workers. The government should also have a say in what rules food companies have to go by, and what policies they have to go by, and if they break any of the rules, the government should have the authority to shut them down.
Calvin T. EDA Period 5 Pelfry
ReplyDeleteI agree with this reasoning because consumers might not truly understand what the labels mean and the real reason for having the ingredient or process in which the food is made, causes unnecessary fear. I disagree with this reasoning because some people believe that it is their right to know everything about the product that they are purchasing.
Information about a food would raise my fear about it because I would wonder why these weird ingredients are in my food. Information about a food would lower my fear about it because I would know everything that is in my food that i'm eating and I would know that the companies aren’t hiding anything from me.
His position directly conflicts with the position of the California Farm Bureau’s because he want the consumer to know everything about the food, how it is made and what ingredients are in it, but the California Farm Bureau wants to hide certain things from the consumer.
Products that are flammable have warning labels on them, small toys are that may be a choking hazard are labeled, and cigarettes packages in europe have labels saying that smoking kills. These labels do not have that big of an impact on me in relativity. By this I mean if something says that it is flammable I won’t just start lighting matches or flicking a lighter around it.
Yes, a warning label on energy drinks with all of the effects listed above labeled in a clear and easy to read way would definitely make me think twice about deciding to buy energy drinks. No, a warning label pointing out the effects of caffeine intoxication would not affect whether I buy energy drinks or not because I do not know much about caffeine intoxication and what it is.
The labels are very ineffective; marketers put the things that they want you to see in big, bold, and shiny letters drawing your attention to it, when really the stuff that might turn you away is in tiny letters hidden somewhere. Something that could make these labels more effective would be if everything about the food was written in noticeable, easy to read writing.
I think that Oprah getting sued is absolutely ridiculous. She didn’t even say anything bad. It was just her opinion saying the she wouldn’t eat hamburgers for a little while. She didn’t go and say nobody should ever eat hamburgers again. If she said that I think it would have been reasonable for the companies to sue her.
I think that she should be able to say whatever she wants without getting in trouble with the companies. But, I think it is good that she doesn’t so that she doesn’t get into any trouble with the meat industry. She also should be able to say what company killed her child as long as she doesn’t say anything else about the company.
The pros are that the people have been through the industry and have a lot of knowledge about it, hopefully so that they try and make things safer. The cons are that these people are not trying to make the food safer, they are trying to make more money and let the companies do whatever they want.
I think that the government should have the power to decide the policies and laws on these food related matters. The FDA is the branch of the government that should be doing this. I think that the FDA should split into separate branches because when they are combined like they are now more time and money is put into the drug part then the food part.
Helena F. EDA Period 5 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteI agree with this reasoning that states that warning labels only scare people because in my opinion, if a consumer feels misinformed about what they are eating, then they can easily find another product that either gives more information or is perhaps clearly healthier than their original choice. But they don’t so why mess with success? Yes,it’s wrong for a company to keep secrets from its customers, but, honestly, if the consumer DID know what was in their food, maybe it would scare them away and many companies can’t afford to lose customers in this economy.
I guess how information about a food would lower or raise my fear of it would depend on what new information I received. Honestly, what is in my food is more important than how the animals that it comes from are treated. So, if I was informed that I was in danger because the meat that I eat contains harmful chemicals, then I would be more concerned than if I heard that the cows, pigs, and chickens in slaughter houses were being treated poorly.
’
’ The California Farm Bureau feels differently than Michael Pollen. They feel that even though cloning meat is a new technology and perhaps consumers should know about it, this information could also scare them away. The California Farm Bureau is scared of losing money and/or being blamed if the public does not support their new ideas for meat products so they are fighting to not include the fact that meat has been cloned on the label. This could be extremely frustrating to the public.
’
Helena F. EDA Period 5 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDeleteIn recreational vehicles, the warning label states that it is unsafe to use the autopilot even though it is an feature that comes with the vehicle when you buy it. I think that a warning label like this one would definitely frighten people and since its such a vague warning, people would just do what the label says rather than test the limits of the warning and risk their lives.
As a rule, I don’t buy energy drinks anyway because of health-threatening effects such as caffeine intoxication. It really scares me that something people eat or drink can seriously harm their body and I think it’s unnecessary to drink energy drinks since our bodies are capable of staying awake and being productive on their own.
In my opinion, warning labels are not effective at all in helping consumers make healthy decisions. If companies were really concerned about their products negatively affecting their customers, than they would halt production, make changes and offer a healthier/safer product so that warning labels are not necessary in the first place.
I feel like Oprah was just trying to sate her opinion on fast food when she was sued. I also feel like the food industries seriously overreacted by suing her just for speaking her mind. However, I can also see why they would be nervous if Oprah spoke badly about their products. Lots of people listen to her and would probably not eat fast food cheeseburgers anymore as well if they heard she didn’t like them and again, many companies can’t afford to lose customers in this economy.
’
Firstly, I’m sure any mother would be heartbroken if her child had died and there may be many
ways that she would cope with such a loss. However, the fact that Barbara is keeping secrets about her son’s death leads me to believe that although she misses her son, perhaps she is using his death as an excuse to “get away with” her poor eating habits.
Somebody who has inside knowledge about a large industry is very valuable because they could be persuaded into dispersing top secret information about that industry that could reveal secret inconsistencies with health laws or food safety. That being said, it could be very hard to get this person to spill information. In conclusion, the pros of having someone work for the government that has previously worked for a large industry are that this person is a key witness for any future lawsuits that may arise. Also, since this person no longer is under any oath to keep secrets about their last job, they can say whatever they want to help the public receive the information they deserve about that company/product.
’
The government is definitely who should be in charge deciding the laws centered around food safety related matters because they have the most power and they will ultimately be the ones who make the rules for the nation.
Cesar Camacho Pd5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteLabeling does not as much put fear in someones head as it does knowledge. If someone knows that something isn’t good for them, it is there choice to continue buying the item. If the company chooses not to label it someone could get hurt and/or die.Knowing everything some information about my food would help lower my fear about it because I would be able to tell whether or not it was healthy very easily. It would also help me choose which brands were best for me.Michael Pollan’s position is moving towards giving us intelligence about where our food is coming from, how it’s made, and whether or not it’s dangerous for us. The California Farm Bureau’s position wants us to know nothing about our food and whether or not it is safe for consumption. Michael is favoring that we get to know what’s in our food while The California Farm Bureau is against and will try to do anything to stop it.
Sometimes labels don’t have any effect on whether someone decides to buy something or not. Other times they don’t even get any attention whatsoever. Other times a label can reach one person who will keep on spreading the defect. If a energy drink that I liked suddenly came up with a warning label that said I could get “caffeine intoxication” I would probably not get it any more. It wouldn’t be the label’s fault that said energy drink would lose a sale, it would be the energy drink itself for having such a big flaw in it. If someone were to die from it the company should be punished.Labels may be effective in some ways but pointless in other ways. It depends where it’s placed on the package, how big it is, what color it is and how well is catches attention.
I don’t think Oprah should’ve been sued for saying what she thought. What happened to freedom of speech? This law and many others limit people in many ways, slowly taking away their freedom.I think Barbara Kowalcyk didn’t say how her eating habits changed because maybe she was afraid that they would sew her too. A couple pros is that they know what they need to watch out for. They also know how to work there way around things.I think the government should have the power to decide food policies and such. After all, isn’t their main goal to protect and manage us?
Kailey, S. EDA Period 2, Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with the opinion that labeling is avoided because it creates unnecessary fear-- to a certain extent. I feel that some ingredients that may not be harmful but may appear sketchy and cause consumers to become skeptical, and in the case I believe it is okay to leave that ingredient off, so as not to have an unnecessary dip in sales. Of course, that is if and only if the ingredient is actually safe. On the other hand, if these ingredients are actually harmful, or potentially harmful, I feel that it is the consumer’s right to know what they are putting into their bodies. Then, if they know of the ingredient and still choose to eat it, that it is their responsibility from then on, but that they should at least have that option. It is wrong for a company to be able to have the power to not only give someone a disease, or even kill them with their food, but to hide that from their customers, and, in extreme cases, murder them.
Personally, information about a certain food product or food in general could definitely sway my fear about it, to an extent. For instance, Food Inc. exposed pretty much all food except for all natural fresh-grown farm food as harmful. This obviously raises my fear a little bit, but I can’t fear every food product I eat for the rest of my life. Also, Food Inc. didn’t really say any direct harm a certain food can cause you, it was more like; this boy died because he ate a hamburger, some meat can have e coli, or this food can make you obese, and I don’t want to sound insensitive, but that doesn’t really worry me all too much. However, my fear would raise considerably If something such as eating pork is directly linked to having cancer. So I feel that more specific information about a food would greater change my fear level about it.
I think that Michael Pollan and Noel Kramers have almost completely opposite views. To me it seems that Kramers has the company and business aspect, the income rate, as his top priority. Pollan, on the other hand, has the consumers, and their rights, knowledge, and safety as his primary concern. I personally believe that Pollan has a more valid argument, because he is sticking up for people, and their lives and rights, which I feel are more valuable than the dollars Kramers are fighting for. On the other, hand, if people did stop eating food because of its ingredients, it could cause a dip in the company's income, and cause people to get laid off or even cause the company to shut down, and may cost lives, or change them drastically and that also is a valid argument.
I can think of many, many items that have warning labels. Tree nuts or products with them have warning labels, alcohol has warning labels, energy drinks and cigarettes do as well. And that is just food, practically every household appliance has a warning label on it; heat styling products as just one example.And the fact that these warning labels are everywhere, I think, is the reason that they are so overlooked and disregarded. I think most of the time these warnings are very obvious, (warning:contents are hot, on coffee) so people don’t really care about them and don’t take the time to look at them. Either that or they just think that everything has a warning, and that it is just something companies have to do, and that it is probably something stupid. They think they are immune to what the warning tells them can happen, or have already accepted the fact that it could happen, and have chosen to use the product despite that. I, myself can confirm this, as I never look at warning labels, assuming they are stupid, or read them and laugh because I think that it will never harm me. Honestly, in my opinion it comes down to people either a) don’t care to look or b) already know and have accepted it.
A warning label would definitely affect my decision to buy something, to a certain extent. If I already knew that a curling iron could burn eyes (I have actually seen this warning label), then it would not affect my purchase, because I am not going to try to be curling my eyes, and do not see it as a threat in any way. Additionally, if a warning label advertised something I already knew was harmful and was putting into my body, it would not affect my purchase. The only time a warning label would be useful, would be if it was something that I wasn’t aware was in the product, or something harmful the product could do. As far as energy drinks, it would probably influence me not to buy them, since I am not particularly fond of them anyway. But to the general public, I think it just depends on who you are. For instance, there are some people who energy drinks mean a lot to, and even if they found out they were harmful, they would probably still drink them (kind of like a smoker knows he is harming his body, but does it anyways.) Some people might already know it was in the drink, and be indifferent. Some people highly value their health and their life,and a warning would probably affect their decision to buy it. So essentially, it all comes down to who’s buying it, and their morals.
ReplyDeleteTo the average person, I don’t think nutrition labels are very effective in their day to day lives. Because honestly, when people are at the store grocery shopping for their week, who has time to stop and check all of the nutrition facts and ingredients? No one does, really, and I feel like the only time those labels are put into effect is when the person is already or has already eaten the product, and by then it is too late. I guess it would prevent them from buying the product again, but I feel like there is probably a more effective way to get the point across. First of all, labels are usually smallish and located on the back, and appear very dull and boring. The entire front of the product is usually decorated and intriguing, persuading you to buy the product. As humans it is our instinct to judge a book by its cover typically, so to speak. I think a way to make labels more useful is to put them on the front, and make them more enticing and appealing, like the front of the product normally is. This way, people could have a quick and more enjoyable access to the information they need to know, and help them make better purchases.
I will start by admitting I am not too familiar with the case, but I think that it was totally uncalled for and inappropriate. First of all, what about freedom of speech? Yes, Oprah is a powerful person, and may influence some other people’s decisions, but she was simply stating a thought she had. Its not as if she demanded people to never eat meat again, or even persuaded them, she was simply stating a personal decision, that may or may not have influenced people. I think that making it illegal for people to speak their mind in such cases (talking “bad” about a product) is a violation of the First amendment, Freedom of speech and is not acceptable. Everyone has opinions in this world, and we have every right to speak them , especially about something as insignificant as whether we like a food product.
I think Barbara’s failure to expose her new dietary habits and the company who killed her son is linked to how Oprah got sued for expressing her opinion, and the laws companies are enforcing about freedom to speak about their products. Barbara is obviously afraid or hesitant to reveal the source because she is afraid of getting sued for expressing negative things about their products. I think this is utterly terrible. Barbara should be able to expose a product that caused death! This way she could potentially get their food off the market, or at least persuade them to make it more safe to eat, potentially saving other people’s lives! Her fear to share the truth because of possibly getting sued is something that should never happen. Its not as if she would even be expressing a negative opinion, it is a straight fact! And a world where we can’t share share facts with our fellow people to potentially save their lives is not a good one. The same feelings go for Barbara’s new diet. I think it is safe to assume she no longer eats that product, or maybe even hamburgers, or meat at all, practically anyone who watched the film can gather that. Yet Barbara can’t share straight obvious facts, for the sole reason of fear of being punished, and that is something that needs to be changed.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely both pros and cons to former industry workers becoming regulators for the government. One pro, obviously, is that they know the way the industry works and if it is unjust or unlawful, they can expose that and shut it down. They can also pinpoint specific flaws in their system and try to initiate laws against them to make factories or industries more efficient and safe.Some cons are that they might know people in that industry and want to cover for them because they are friends, and help them escape the law. Or, more generally, they might empathize with people in that practice, having been in their shoes, and see a worthy reason for them to get away with unlawful actions, and abuse their position by trying to save the companies.
I dont think each individual company should have the power to decide what information it gives its consumers, because they may have biased motives and reasons to not inform them, and can potentially harm them. I think there should be certain laws such as all genetically modified foods should be clearly labeled so. I think it should be a government initiated law, and that the people should have a say, and be heard by voting, to see what they general public wants.
ReplyDeleteTess M. EDA period 3 Pelfrey Part 1
I do not agree with this reasoning because I think that people need to know what they are putting in their bodies. If it is something that would be creating fear then they should not be eating it in the first place. Some may say that ignorance is bliss and that they don’t believe the food they are eating is doing any harm to their bodies. I think that if a person is paying for food, they deserve to know every single thing that has put into their food.
I think that it depends on the food. If there are no harmful ingredients in my food then it obviously won’t scare me, but if there is a harmful ingredient such as ammonia, then I would definitely be fearful and would not want to eat that product anymore. Others might say that you cannot be afraid of something if you know nothing about it, but I disagree with this.
Michael Pollan clearly believe that people should know what is in their food while the California Farm Bureau thinks that people should be ignorant of such things. They both make a good point, but I have to agree with Michael Pollan because I think people have a right to know what is in the food that they are eating.
’
There are many products that have warnings on them. Cigarettes have cancer warnings on them, but the people that smoke either do not pay attention to these warnings or do not care. Cleaning products have a warning label telling users to call poison control if any is swallowed.
Even toothpaste has a warning label on it saying that if too much is consumed at one time to call poison control. I think that it is a person’s personal decision whether or not they are going to pay attention to these labels.
’
I have never had an energy drink and I do not plan on it. I have always known that they are bad for you so I have decided not to drink them. I know that if I saw a warning label like that on a product that I used I would not use or consume it anymore. I do not think that it is alright to risk your health over something as frivolous as a beverage.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteI think that labels are fairly effective in helping consumers make decisions about their foods. For the consumers that pay attention and read them they can be very helpful because these people most likely care about what they are putting into their bodies. For the consumers who don’t pay attention to labels they obviously aren’t going to help at all because those consumers don’t care in the first place. I think a more effective way of educating people about their food would be to maybe have advertisements on the television that provide a little more information about common food products. Also, documentaries such as Food Inc. really help to notify the public.
’
I think it is ridiculous that she got sued for speaking her mind. The first amendment says that she has the right to freedom of speech. I don’t think that their should be a law that prohibits people from saying bad things about a food item. I think that we should have the right to say what we think and speak our minds. I think that this law is an infringement on the first amendment.
I think that the reason she did this is because she does not want to get in trouble with the company that produced the meat that killed her son. I think that this is horrible and that she has the right to say what she wants, especially since this company is responsible for the death of her child. Her speaking out about it would prevent it from happening again to another child so I think she should be able to.
The pros of them working for the government are that they might be able to make stricter regulations that prevent these companies from producing harmful products. They might also be able to educate people about what it is that these companies do. Unfortunately, these people probably still have loyalties to the companies that used to employ them rather than the american people.
I think that the consumers should have the right to decide these things. The consumers are the ones whose money is going towards these products. We live under a democracy so I think that we should have the right to vote on these matters.
Ben O. EDA Period 2 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with this reasoning because i think that we deserve a right to know what we are eating. on the other hand, if it is completely harmless, and they are actually conserving resources by feeding us cloned cows, and people get kind of freaked out when they hear that they are eating a cloned animal, it is somewhat unnecessary. With that said, i still think that we deserve to know if we are eating meat grown in a lab or not.
I think that if i knew i was eating a cloned animal, i would be grateful that they told me, but i would still be pretty weirded out by it. For example, when i eat yogurt and i am informed that there is live bacteria on it, i feel kind of queasy, but atleast i know. I think that if a company decides to use some kind of cloned meat, then we should know before we eat it.
I definitely agree with him much more than i do with the California Farm Bureau. If we are paying for it, we deserve the right to assume that are food is what it says it is. But i don’t think we actually have that right to assume with everything that’s going on behind our backs at the “farms” (factories). I mean, Kevin Kowalcyk and his parents had no expectation that their son might have gotten e-coli from that burger and died, and they shouldn’t have had to. We deserve to expect our food to be what it is portrayed to be, but we can’t.
These labels on cigarettes, alcohol, boardgames, etc. actually would make me more comfortable using the products, it assures me that the company producing them doesn’t have any issue letting me know the bad things that could happen in result of their product. I think
that overall, these labels have more of a positive impact than a negative one.
Yes, these things would just lower my desire to buy them, considering i don’t buy them anyway due to the headaches they give me. But these labels just make them seem, really kind of dangerous to even drink one. It would definitely make me think twice about buying one.
Usually, if i really want something the bad things i hear about it aren’t going to stop me. For example, if i wanted to go to McDonald’s, someone telling me that it’s greasy and fattening, and clogs your veins and all that, wouldn’t stop me from going and eating it. but on the other hand, if someone were to SHOW me the effects of it, and what’s REALLY inside of it (fillers, pink slime etc.) Then that would be a whole nother story.
I think that it is really shady and not right. If we can say anything we want about the President of the United States, and be fine, but we can’t criticize (or even say we don’t want to eat) food from these major food companies without being sued, then something is definitely wrong here.
That’s really scary. If something so moving, like her son dying, wasn’t enough to get her to speak up, then she must have a really good reason not to. Which is scary. The thing is, if she says anything about the big company, and her word is publicized, the company has all the big time lawyers to back them up, and she has nothing. So really she was in between a rock and a hard place.
One pro is that they know what’s going on so they know what to look out for. One con is that they know what really goes on, and it might be kind of sickening. Another con may be that they can’t say anything about it because of their legal dedication to that industry. So there are definitely ups and downs.
I think we all as a community should have a say in it. The saying really is true though, we vote with our dollars. Think about it, if a big chunk of people started buying grass fed beef, the price would probably start dropping, and if the price started dropping, and people knew the benefits from it, more and more people would start buying it, until it became the main thing that everyone was buying. And then the big chain companies would want to win their customers back, and switch over to grass fed. That would be awesome if that happened.
Keaton D. EDA Period 2, Mrs. Pelfrey PART 1
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the statement that food labels create unnecessary fear in a consumers mind. If there is something in the food that creates an unnecessary amount of fear in the consumer’s mind, then there should be something that the consumer should be worried about. The people are paying for the product, so they should be able to know what is in it. The consumer should always be well informed.
I want to know what is in all of my food. It would raise my fear a lot to know that the company is using things that i don't want in my food. If the company is using these things, let them use it. I think that is should be up to the consumer if they want to buy it or not. This can not happen if they are not properly labeled.
The California Farm Bureau’s does not want people to see what is in their food because it puts fear in the consumer, and then they will not buy the product. If the company would not put the stuff that they are using in their product in the first place, they they would not need to worry about the consumer not buying their product.
Yes, many things like cigarettes, alcohol, appliances, and games have warning labels on them for a reason. To warn the consumer! If the product wants to have something that can be harmful to buyer, than the person should have the right to know. This goes with food too. If there is something in the food that a person may not want to eat or drink because of that thing, then it should be properly labeled. I think that labeling make a big impact on the way people buy things.
In my opinion, if the product that has these items(caffeine intoxication) in them, and it is properly labeled, then this is the best that the company can do. If the item that they were putting into the product was not necessary, then we would have a problem. Or if the item in the product was leading to injury or death, then we would also have a problem. As long as the companies are telling their buyers when they add these items to their food or drink, then it is the consumers choice to buy or not to buy. I personally would lean to not buying the product.
I think that labels are the most effective way of telling the consumer what is in their product. As long as the company is honest about what they make the product with, then the label is the best solution. If a person is allergic to a certain type of food, then a food label is the best way to show the consumer that the food they can or can’t have is in the product.
Keaton D. EDA Period. 2 Pelfrey PART 2
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the law that prevents you from saying something negative about a
particular food item is bad. A person should have the right to say what they want to eat or what they don’t want to eat. It is freedom of speech. Anyway, if the food companies claim that their is nothing wrong with their product, then what do they have to worry about. Any person should have the right to say what they want to anyone they want.
I think that the company that produced the meat that killed her son told her that if she sneaked out, that they would sue here. They do not want anyone to know that their meat killed someone because of bad meat. If the word gets out, then they will lose money. I think that she wants to, but she is afraid that she will be sued or have to go to court when people stop buying the product that she accused of killing her son.
In this case, I think it is OK if a industry worker moves on to work for the government. If they have knowledge about the subject, then they would be the right person for the job. A con to this would be that the person may be biased to one side. I think this can be fixed by making sure that if a person runs for office that has been previously in the industry, they know that if they are biased to one side, that they can lose their job.
I think that the US government should make a new agency that regulates this problem and enforce new laws. All the people that work for this agency should never have worked in the industry before. The companies should not be the one in control. There should be new laws that guide what they do.
Dalila G EDA Period 4
ReplyDeleteDeepening Questions
I do not agree, because if the consumer is not worried about what they’re eating then how would they know what’s safe and what’s not. Knowing what’s in your food is very important, you never know what you actually could be eating.
If you know the ingredients in the product then you would feel much more safer with eating it and not having to worry if it would kill you. Knowing the information can help a lot, it’s important for the consumers.
The California Farm Bureau’s would feel as if they aren’t being appreciated enough for producing food from their farms to the consumers in the market. On the other hand, if they were in the consumers position then they would want to be eating healthy grown food, not the high fructose syrup and corn made food.
When buying a product of food or any type you always look at the ingredients or the safety warnings. For example, a cigarette company warns you about how they can affect your health and how many diseases you can get smoking them, yet people still do. The consumers seem to not care about what they are eating or doing since they still use products that can be deadly for them. So why do they do it, well because sometimes certain things help your stress go down even if it’s doing something that can affect you badly in any way.
Putting warning labels on certain drinks won’t affect it much, because whether its bad or not people will still drink it, because its either cheap or they like it. The labels might scare the consumers a bit, but they most likely would just keep buying it.
Labels can help show the consumers how much sugar, fat etc is in the product. It would give them an idea of what they are going to take in. They should show all the ingredients that are used to make the product, then it could take some of the relief off the persons houlder, and they can know what’s good and what’s bad.
A law saying that you can’t give your opinion about a certain type of food is taking away the freedom from a consumer, of not being able to speak your mind. We shouldn’t have our rights taken away from us, and when Oprah was sued it shouldn’t have ever happened because it was her opinion.
A: I see why he says that it puts fear into people's mind but i think that some fear is good because we do not know that this food is one hundred percent safe to eat and i think that people should have a right to fear that until we know that there is nothing wrong with the food. I don’t want to have a huge food source that is completely contaminated with bad things so all in all i think that people should have a right to fear this food or at least not trust it one hundred percent.
ReplyDeleteI think that is would help know what they are eating and if the companies don’t lie about it then i think people are less inclined to be afraid. Personally I think that if I knew what was in the food I was eating I would feel a lot more comfortable. Though it could raise fear in some people because after seeing or hearing something like that people could become afraid which there is nothing wrong with. I also think that if the makers of the product here something like that they should fix the product and prove that it’s safe if they want people to continue to buy it.
’
He thinks that it is one of the most important battles to fight and i would agree with him because I believe that we have the right to know what is in our food so that we can make informed choices. The companies however may not ever want there to be a debate over this because it could cost them time and money and potentially put them out of business which is probably the worst case scenario
I think that they really don’t have an affect on people because not matter what the warning label says people still by them anyway and I also think that this goes back the others question does labeling put fear into people. If there are people who will buy cigarettes even though they have a warning label people will still buy food with warning labels
I don’t think that this would affect me a lot I would still buy them just maybe not as much or as often. The other thing is that this may not affect everyone and so I wouldn’t stop buying them unless I got some of these symptoms. I would personally feel better making the choice to drink them knowing that they are bad rather than drinking them not knowing that they can be harmful to health.
I personally think that if there was food facts in things like McDonalds people would be less likely to eat out there or at any fast food restaurant for that matter. I really don’t think that there is really any better way than to let people know and educate them on how bad for your health that is can be.
I think that she is being sued because so many people watch her show all the time and if she says that she doesn’t like the food and that she thinks it’s ban hundreds of people will hear and see that and they might agree with her and stop eating it. The companies are suing her because they don’t want people to think that there food is bad and not get as good business along with that I also think that it has a lot to do with money too because first of all they are suing her which gets them money. They would also lose money if people don’t buy their food.
Sam Horigan EDA #4
ReplyDeleteA: I see why he says that it puts fear into people's mind but i think that some fear is good because we do not know that this food is one hundred percent safe to eat and i think that people should have a right to fear that until we know that there is nothing wrong with the food. I don’t want to have a huge food source that is completely contaminated with bad things so all in all i think that people should have a right to fear this food or at least not trust it one hundred percent.
I think that is would help know what they are eating and if the companies don’t lie about it then i think people are less inclined to be afraid. Personally I think that if I knew what was in the food I was eating I would feel a lot more comfortable. Though it could raise fear in some people because after seeing or hearing something like that people could become afraid which there is nothing wrong with. I also think that if the makers of the product here something like that they should fix the product and prove that it’s safe if they want people to continue to buy it.
’
He thinks that it is one of the most important battles to fight and i would agree with him because I believe that we have the right to know what is in our food so that we can make informed choices. The companies however may not ever want there to be a debate over this because it could cost them time and money and potentially put them out of business which is probably the worst case scenario
I think that they really don’t have an affect on people because not matter what the warning label says people still by them anyway and I also think that this goes back the others question does labeling put fear into people. If there are people who will buy cigarettes even though they have a warning label people will still buy food with warning labels
I don’t think that this would affect me a lot I would still buy them just maybe not as much or as often. The other thing is that this may not affect everyone and so I wouldn’t stop buying them unless I got some of these symptoms. I would personally feel better making the choice to drink them knowing that they are bad rather than drinking them not knowing that they can be harmful to health.
I personally think that if there was food facts in things like McDonalds people would be less likely to eat out there or at any fast food restaurant for that matter. I really don’t think that there is really any better way than to let people know and educate them on how bad for your health that is can be.
I think that she is being sued because so many people watch her show all the time and if she says that she doesn’t like the food and that she thinks it’s ban hundreds of people will hear and see that and they might agree with her and stop eating it. The companies are suing her because they don’t want people to think that there food is bad and not get as good business along with that I also think that it has a lot to do with money too because first of all they are suing her which gets them money. They would also lose money if people don’t buy their food.
Kat H, EDA Period 4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteIn the film, Noel Kramers of the California Farm Bureau says that the bureau is
against labeling because it “creates unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind.”
I do not agree with this idea because I think that all people deserve to see what they are consuming if they would like, if they are afraid then they should not look to find out in the first place. Also, creating unnecessary fear should not be happening because there should not be anything to be afraid of. What you're eating should not create fear, ever.
����
Thinking back to the opener of the video, I think:
It depends, I would like to know what is in the food I eat, and all of it. I do not want to be lied to about what I consume I want the whole truth. In some foods, what is actually in it, may cause fear to some people which is not a good thing, but at least we are being told the truth. Also, not knowing what is in your food causes fear.
����
In the film, author Michael Pollan says, “I think that one of the most important
battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and
how it’s grown.” This compares to The California Farm Bureau’s position because,
The California Farm Bureau’s position probably wants you not to know what is in the food they produce depending on what they put in the food they make, and how they make it. Everyone should have the right to know what they are eating even if it is made by someone else.
����
Labels like cigarettes, alcohol, energy drinks etc. have warning statements on them, I think that
most people do not read labels, lets face it. But at least it is there for some of the people to see. To the people who do look at labels it is important to see the cautions and warnings on the product you are using.
����
Warning labels on energy drinks stating consequences if used improperly may cause people to become interested in the product because of fear. If people plan on using the drink improperly then see the consequences they become turned off from the product. Or even just in general.
����
Food labels are not very effective,
a lot of people do not read labels on food products. People do not usually bother because they do not realize that some food has harmful things in it, so they do not even bother reading the labels. Something that might be more effective is having a bright colored tab on the product stating something important or eye catching to keep the consumer reading.
����
Oprah was sued for publicizing her opinion about hamburgers on TV and was sued.
I think it is absurd for suing someone for their own opinion whether it is in your own house or on national TV, it is absolutely ridiculous. We as people are all entitled to our own opinion and the right to voice our opinions. If you don't like it don't listen. I think that the law that prevent us from being able to say something about a particular food item is so obnoxious. if I say that I do not like hostess snowballs what are you going to do to me? Arrest me? Thats ridiculous.
Ashley A. EDA Period 4 Palfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteIn the film, Noel Kramers of the California Farm Bureau says that the bureau is
against labeling because it “creates unnecessary fear in the consumer’s mind.”
Do you agree with this reasoning? Why or why not?
I, personally, feel slightly undecided on this statement. I understand why consumers may be worried about the quality of their food, however, I don’t believe that means companies have to hide that information from them. Consumers pay their hard-earned money to buy that food, and they should have the right to know what they’re paying for. If a consumer is truly worried about the genetic manipulation of their food, then they can use that labeling to know what to buy. On the other hand, companies wouldn’t want to lose business from these customers. They wouldn’t want to lose money from customers who may not understand the pros and cons of modified food.
’ Thinking back to the Opener, how would information about a food raise or
lower your fear of it?
Information about food can help lower or raise fear, depending on the person. People who prefer all-natural, organic food may worry more about genetic labeling. There may also be people with disorders or illnesses who have to watch what they eat. On the other hand, people who are unopposed to the idea of genetic changes made in food may not worry at all. They may feel comforted by knowing what’s in their food.
’
In the film, author Michael Pollan says, “I think that one of the most important
battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and
how it’s grown.” How does his position compare with the California Farm
Bureau’s position?
He is against the Farm Bureau, because the Bureau believes in concealing information from the consumer in order to prevent “unnecessary fear in the consumer’s minds” Pollan believes that consumers deserve to know the content of their food, and I agree with Pollan, because consumers spend their hard earned money on their products.
Can you name different consumer products that have warning labels about
their use or safety (cigarettes, alcohol, appliances, games, and so on)? What
impact, if any, do you think these labels have?
’
In Health, we learned about the damage from cigarettes. We discussed how companies were required by law to have printed warnings on the package. Graphic pictures of the effects of tobacco are printed on the packages. When asked about the new packaging, however, smokers could care less. They would do things like buy a case to store their cigarettes in after throwing away the package. Smokers still smoked despite their knowledge on the damaging effects. I think that the labeling puts fear into people’s mind, but I’m not sure if knowledge of the labeling will cause people to stop buying certain items. When it comes to genetically modified food, I predict that people will not like the modifications, but I think that they will continue to buy these foods because of the lower price and the availability.
Health experts recently called for warning labels on energy drinks, pointing
out the effects of “caffeine intoxication”—a syndrome that can cause anxiety,
insomnia, gastrointestinal upset, tremors, rapid heartbeat, and even death.
Would a warning label affect whether or not you buy energy drinks? Why or
why not?
Personally, I don’t drink energy drinks, but this warning doesn’t exactly make me want to start. I don’t want the life-ruining side effects for a few hours of energy. Soda is already unhealthy enough, and adding more caffeine can only make it go worse. Soda has a lot of artificial ingredients and coloring, which is bad for your health. I don’t want to drink soda or energy drinks and have the risk of obesity or diabetes looming over me.
Ashley Amaladhas Period 4 EDA Pelfrey Topic 8 PART 2
ReplyDelete’ How effective are labels in helping consumers make decisions about their
food? What might be more effective?
I have never noticed “yes-this-food-was-grown-from-a-petri-dish” type of labels, so I can not fully answer this question. I’m not sure how effective labels are in informing a customer, because I was not aware that such labels exist. Looking back at the cigarette package example, I’m guessing that consumers, especially low income families, will continue to buy unhealthy foods because of the cheaper prices. Major companies will probably still continue to alter our food because of the cheaper cost and the faster process. I think that informational advertisements on the TV and radio may help this issue a little bit. I’m not sure if we can convince the consumer’s minds to make any drastic decisions, so I think that it’s up to the government to fix our food industry. If the FDA was a bit more strict in their inspections, then our food would be different.
’
What do you think about Oprah being sued for saying she wasn’t sure if she
wanted to continue eating hamburgers, as described in the film? What do you
think about a law that prevents you from saying something negative about a
particular food item?
I think her freedom of speech was violated. This is America. Our first amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This means that the Government has no right or power to control speech. This is why Oprah’s case is so important, because it is not right for Monsanto to sue her for her criticism.
In the film, Barbara Kowalcyk appears to be afraid to say how her eating habits have changed as a result of her son’s death, and she does not reveal the source of the meat that killed him. What do you think of that?
I think that she shouldn’t have to hide her voice. She is rightfully fearful of Monsanto and their immense power. With ex-Monsanto employees in our FDA, Monsanto can win anything if they really tried. I believe that this is a violation of the first amendment as well as it was in Oprah’s case.
People who have been in the industry are knowledgeable about that industry. What are the pros and cons of them becoming regulators working for the government?
Some pros would be that they would have an extensive knowledge of what happens to our food. They would probably know what is safe and unsafe for people to consume. The cons, however, are too
significant to ignore. Som cons would be that these employees can win court cases in favor of companies like Monsanto, because they have close connections who they can influence.
Who do you think should have the power to decide food policies, laws about food safety, and other food-related matters?
I think that the government has a significant role, because we elected them. They are there to make laws and protect our country, because we appointed them to. So, yes, I believe that the government has the right to create laws about food safety, however, I’m worried that they are not taking adequate action because of the ties to those food companies. Also, food is a largely profitable business, which is something the government may not want to interfere with.
Chloey S. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteTopic #8: The Veil
(PART 1)
I agree with the California Farm Bureau when they say labeling causes unnecessary fear in the mind of the consumer. In a sense, some of the ingredients may cause unneeded fear by the uneducated public, but as long as the ingredients can not cause harm to the consumer I do not see a reason they should be included. I do, however, think that the information should be accessible to the public for people who are interested. I also do not agree with the California Farm Bureau’s statement because there should be no reason the industries need to have any ingredients that will “scare” their customers. If there are ingredients that can scare a customer away, are there no alternatives? Is there really no other, less harmful, substance they can use? All in all, companies should have nothing they want and/or need to hide from the public. Also, having the companies decide what to tell the customers and what not to tell the customers gives them way too much power, in my opinion.
I think that, depending on the information about my food given, my fear level would change. For example, if there were unknown or chemical ingredients used, I may be curious as to why they were included and exactly how harmful they are. I may not be terrified to eat/drink the product, but if there is a similar product that did not include those same ingredients I probably would chose that one.
Michael Pollan’s position may be coming from the view of the consumer rather than the California Farm Bureau, which is from the point of view of an industry. This makes his statement biased because they are just one sided opinions; he doesn’t see it from the industrial point of view.
An example of a warning label that may not have any effect on the consumer would be cigarettes. Children learn that cigarettes are bad for you, but does that ultimately stop them from smoking? No, it does not. I’m not saying that smokers do not look at the side effects, but I don’t think the times they do have much of an affect; mostly because it doesn’t stop them from continuing to open and light up the pack. An example where a warning label may have an effect on the consumer is when they are purchasing medicine. If the product they are looking at (cough medicine, decongestant pills, etc.) has many side effects including headache, nauseousness, and so on, they may want to pick one that has less possible poor outcomes.
I think that if an energy drink had a surplus of extreme side effects on the label, I would look for a different drink that causes less harm. If I was really interested and still wanted to drink it, I might even look up some of the side effects and see the rates at which they occur from consuming that particular energy drink.
Having food labels on products are making consumers, who want to make healthier choices, more aware of what they are putting into their bodies and giving them a choice of what they are consuming. I think that to make labels more effective, people need to be educated first. If the consumers don’t know the risk of having too much sodium or too many calories, what is the point of giving them the knowledge when it’s just going to go down the toilet?
Chloey S. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteTopic #8: The Veil
(PART 2)
I think that it is ridiculous that Oprah got sued by the meat company because it seemed as if she was just kidding about never wanting to eat another hamburger again. It isn’t like she went out there and said, “Do not ever eat a hamburger made by that company ever again!” or anything along those lines; she was simply stating a personal preference towards that company. On the other hand, I can see how the meat company got upset at Oprah for saying something negative about that particular food item. Oprah does have an affect on consumers, being famous and all. People will do anything to win the affection of famous people. Also, people tend to think that famous people are always right and that their opinions are the correct one. Therefore, I do ultimately understand why she was being sued.
I think Kevin’s mother does not include the name of the meat her son ate because it could be a form of putting down that company, an act that is illegal. If she were to say which company it was, then people could potentially stop eating that companies product, in fear that it is no longer acceptable to consume. That would cause her great trouble because the food company could then sue her for telling people not to eat that product, causing her to lose money she may not have.
The fair side of people who have become regulators for the government, that once worked in that industry is that they have experience so they know the ins and outs of that certain company. Also, they can put themselves in the shoes of the client much more easily than someone who has never been in the industry business. The downfall of having people become regulators that once worked in the industry is that if they know people that are accused, fined, etc., there may be leaniece and unfairness occurring to save current friendships. If there is not leniency, then current friendships can be broken, which is not something many people would like to do.
I think that the farmers and industries should have a say in the decision making process, more than they already do. Although the government should also regulate the rules, I really do believe it should be more the people who actually produce the food who decide certain rules. As for the food safety laws in, for example, fast food, I think some form of agricultural government should decide a lot of the laws for that.
Emily M. EDA Period 1 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteIf you are afraid to put something out there because it will create fear then you obviously need to change the way you do things. You are willing to risk the lives of millions of people just so you don’t get a bad reputation or a bad rating that’s pretty messed up you should be proud of your company and proud of the products you are selling people. Me as a consumer would be very scared to eat a product if they really told me what was in a food, but at least if you tell a consumer everything thats in their food its their decision to eat it and you can't be held liable for telling the truth. Michael Pollan is on the right track, nobody can do it but consumers they are the ones eating the product so they need to start caring. If they don’t care nobody will, thats the way it works in the food industry.
Products with warning labels: Energy drinks, knives, lighters, TV’s, chairs, and there are many more but to be honest I don’t believe many consumers read warning labels, they don't think anything of it. I know I don’t and probably would never read them if it weren’t for this video. I don’t drink a lot of energy drinks, but when I do I never look at the label and so no I don’t think it would've if I hadn't seen this video. Warning labels can be effective but I think maybe instead of a tiny warning label on the back in a corner they should have one on the front right in the center where everyone can see it and read it in big bold letters.
You can’t sue Oprah its Oprah, I mean you can sue her but she’s rich taking a little money from her isn’t going to really do anything, but thats not the same for everyone else because not everybody is rich and so it’s ridiculous to have a law against saying something negative about food, when food is something we eat its a product its not our lives. Why don’t we have a law about saying negative stuff about people they are the ones that can be hurt and kill themselves because of hurtful things people say. Food can’t kill itself, its already died, that may sound a little harsh but we need to protect people before we start a law where you can’t say you won't eat chicken because it's disgusting. When its an animal thats a different story because animals are living but food is a product not a person, theres a difference.
The mom in the video has a right to speak her mind, the food that we eat everyday killed her son. Its supposed to be safe, food isn’t supposed to be harmful, its supposed to provide our body with nutrition, protein, and all the right vitamins to keep us moving and live healthy lives.
“The government is always right” when working as a regulator for the government you pretty much do what the government tells you to do. The food industry works with them to get things passed and to bend the rules so they can do what they want with our food which isn't fair. The pro for working as a regulator is you know what's happening you get an inside source even if you can't do anything about it. I believe 100% that it should be the peoples choice of what's in their food, we are the ones eating it, not the government because they have lots of money and get special food everyday with personal chefs and stuff, so they should not have a say in what the laws and policies are for OUR food.
Haley G, EDA, Period 4, Mrs.Carr
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree. Why should someone have to be afraid of what is in there food? I think everything should have a label. People NEED to know what they are eating, and it isn’t fair for them if you remove labels. I know a lot of people don’t read labels, but a little amount of people actually do read labels, it wouldn’t be fair to take the label away from them.
It raises my fear, because I knew about what I was eating, but I never thought about it that much, or went into this much detail about it. I think it’s good that we’re learning this, though. I think that everyone deserves to know this information about the food industry. No one should have to put
People need to know what they are eating. California Farm Bureau doesn’t want to show people because, they don’t want to scare people. People should never be scared of what they are eating. Company’s need to think about what they are putting in the food before selling it. If they are nervous that the ingredients are going to scare people away, why put it in the first place?
I don’t think cigarette labels have any impact. People aren’t reading the labels or they just don’t care. Cigarettes are really bad for you, and cigarette labels tell you side effects and you learn about the side effects in school, but people still do them. They should make these labels more noticeable so people kinda have to read them.
Yes. If i saw all these side effects on an energy drink, it would definitely scare me. If I knew I was in risk for these effects just from drinking an energy drink, I wouldn’t drink it. People need to read about ingredients and health problems before picking up something and drinking it.
’I don’t think that labels are very effective. A lot of people don’t read labels. A lot of labels have ingredients that people can’t even pronounce, and if you can’t pronounce something people usually just skip over it and brush it off. I think they should make sure people know that if you can’t pronounce it, it’s probably not safe to eat. They should make all ingredients natural and understandable, so people always know what is in there food.
I think Oprah being sued is silly, because it’s not her fault for not wanting to eat a hamburger after what she saw. I didn’t want to continue eating hamburgers either after what I saw. I know Oprah is very popular, and just because she is popular doesn’t mean she can’t share her opinion. It’s just an opinion. Not everyone has to agree. I think the law that prevents you from saying negative comments about food is pointless, if people have something to say about food to the public, they should say it, because every single person deserves to know what they are eating.
I do agree with him on that because the way they process the food is so spine tingling that it will bring down the food system. The way they have they have the food made and process with all those chemicals that it might frighten them like the fire retardant in the Gatorade bottles. But fear is what we may need as a wakeup call so we start asking the company’s so they can change their ways so companies can have no choice than to show us those disgusting chemicals.
ReplyDeleteIt will raise fear a lot their wouldn’t be someone I imaged that is not scared that their food has chemicals to put fire out and things used in nail polish. But if that we will start questioning everything and the food company may collapse and with that we have to start again at zero. Which might be a good thing that we have to start a zero so we start with a good sense were food is coming from. But then again we as Americans live and thrive off of food.
He wants people to know what is in their food no matter how harsh it he wants people to know what is in there food and doesn’t care the cost he just wants people to know were there food is coming from. As for the California farm bureau they know what is in our and it is so harsh that they say no when it comes to that. But Michael wants people to know what is in there food to pull the curtain off the food companies. While the Bureau says it is safe, we as consumers might think that but then again how many food products have been recalled because of the food companies and how many have died because it is dirty in our food.
In video games they have warning label about how the game can give you seizures. They have some impact on the buyer but some people don’t care. They put the warning label their because it has probably happen before. This is to warn the consumer that it may happen so they should be aware of the consequences that might happen.
’ It might have people think twice before they buy but then again the cigarettes have warning labels and people still use them even knowing the risk. So this might be just a waste of time. For the consumer they only care to get some energy not knowing the risk. For example back to the cigarettes many people only care to feed their addiction than to read the labels about the harm that it may cause them.
Labeling is not that effective about helping consumers because we basically just see the price tag and also we got use to not caring about what's in our food we just wanted to consume. It might be better if the labels were bigger because the consumer would just not see it in the back in small font. Labeling is not very effective for consumers about making their decisions because one it isn't labeled right and it's usually never there when the consumer needs it on the shelf. For example in McDonald's you can't find the food labeling except if you ask the manager or if you try to find it in the store it's basically playing hide and go seek so you cannot find it.
I believe that Oprah being sued is an injustice. I believe that we all should have a right to say what we want in this country we started out with, that but now we aren't able to say what we want because we are afraid about the laws of the laws. We cannot talk about food companies now, because people are afraid to get sued for example Oprah got sued for that. The law now prevents you from saying something negative about some foods. It was because they know that you cannot handle the truth. Just because the food is so horribly made that you cannot handle it. They will probably get shutdown and sued by the FDA because consumer would wanted to get it shutdown don't want the money and not about caring about the consumer anymore.
ReplyDeleteThe meat company is probably treating her so she keeps her mouth shut. She does not reveal about the source of meat that killed her son because she's afraid about getting sued, because with just want slip of the tongue might bring the company down the bankruptcy which may lead to a company not having anymore jobs. People might get scared. They will stop buying the product so it might collapse the company. That's why they have to shut her mouth because they don't want to talk.
Some cons about the industry people who work in the government is that you’d they basically control the power in the government so they can hide whatever they want without the public knowing about it. But also a pro is that if something does happen to the company they are aware of that. They can probably stop it before it reaches to a higher peak killing people. Another con is that higher positions in the government would also imply that they are probably protected by laws and by the government. So if something does happen that power will usually get them out of it. So they blamed it on other people like workers and also whoever distributed the food. It basically just comes down to whoever has more power has the advantage in this game if process foods.
’
I believe as American citizens we should have the power to decide our food policies and laws and also food safety on food matters cause we are consuming. It is more important to us because we don't want to see another person die for something we could have prevented. This might take time for us to have it changed but by that time we should have probably the power to make food laws also what they lack is numbers so if we stop buying from the company's they will start to listen so we can actually start proposing ideas about how to label our food. What is it our food and having the consumer know what our food is.