| Bryan Alfaro
Writing 001
The Food Industry’s Influence on Politics
Throughout history the food industry has become more and more important because of the rise of population in the nation. Throughout the years, the food industry has created many new laws that protect the rights of companies and the farmers. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, he discusses the different ways the food industry has changed its ways, how it grew, how it and sold its products. Many political figures today in our government have also had some history or some association with the different food companies. Some examples are Clarence Thomas who was a former Monsanto lawyer but was appointed to the Supreme Court, or the former Vice President of Monsanto Linda Fisher who was turned into the Deputy Administration EPA. With these changes one can see that the food industry and the laws that have formed will have also been changed since the times they were first incorporated. Politics are important and connected to the food industry economically because people who have worked in the food industry and are involved in politics can make it easier to avoid regulations. They then can use different chemicals without fearing regulation and therefore increasing their overall profit.
Companies all have to go through regulation so that they can be able to sell the products they are creating. Usually it has been government officials that should be regulating these sorts of things. In the article, “How GMO Administrative Regulations Affect The Private Balance Between Seller and Buyer”, it states, “according to articles 35.1.a and b. CISG, conformity of the goods exists if they are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily can be used, or fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract.” In a way this means that companies can imply that the goods are fit for their purpose and as long as the seller has been notified of such things then it satisfies the article. Another example said in the article is, “CISG does not refer to public inspections but to private inspection of the buyer, which does not follow the same strict rules of public inspections” meaning that inspections are not as strict as many people would hope for so many things may pass, not necessarily needed an expert inspector as well which therefore makes it much easier on companies to have the goods that they are selling to pass even if there are some sorts of faulty things with them. One can see that the consequences can lead to potential diseases occurring throughout the nation which can easily have been prevented if inspections were done with people that were adequate for the job.
Many laws have changed over the years concerning the way food companies can and cannot label the items that they sell. An example can be found in the article written by Bonnie Liebman, Claims Crazy: Which can you believe? one can see how the FDA allows companies to sell items in a much easier way with less restrictions with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, “In 1994, under strong industry pressure, Congress passed the…It just makes sure that the supplement doesn’t make a disease claim-on that’s approved only for drugs” (Leibman 589). One can see that because of this act companies can easily put a claim and just stamp on the label that the FDA has not evaluated these statements and then companies can easily put these labels and sell them to the people. One can see how Congress has been influenced by these companies in the past which have made the regulation process nonexistent for companies and how they are free to do whatever they want. The only problem with this act is that it gets people to believe in false statements which have not been evaluated by any sort of means. Liebman then tells us how people react to these statements, “Studies have shown that consumers cannot distinguish between disease claims and structure/function clams” (Liebman 591). Disease claims are those that state that a certain product will reduce the risk of a disease of some sort while a structure/function claim is one that states that it helps with precisely what it says, structure claims the only difference is that these claims do not need to be regulated and may be lies at times. With this evidence it shows how easily companies can manipulate consumers into believing that they are buying things that will end up helping them.
Food industries have changed in recent years from “natural growth” to a more scientific growth of crops and livestock. An example of this is the use of GM (genetically modified) seeds companies use to make corn grow faster and in a bigger quantity. Recently companies have gone to a more “organic” way of selling produce. The reason being is because people have become more interested in being healthier for their families. Companies have then seen this as a way in which they can gain more profit. In the article, The Poor Get Diabetes, the Rich Get Local and Organic, the author Mark Winne tells us that in many communities people in lower economic stature do not offer the same opportunity of buying these so called organic foods that the rich are able to buy. The reason the poor cannot buy the organic food is because it costs too much because of all many times the locations that sell organic food are mainly in high income class family locations. The social matter is that many people do not have the same access to the organic food that do not contain any GMOs or other chemicals that may have been used in the process of growing the produce.
In the film Food Inc. one can see the different perspectives between the people who farm, and actual company’s workers. Each side has a different idea of farming. An example is the local farmer in which he says that he does not believe in the idea of using chemicals to grow his crops and livestock. The reason he says this is because bigger companies use corn as a feeding tool for cows because there is an abundant amount and it is much cheaper than having cows eat grass. The problem is that cows do not have the stomach made to digest corn in which many end up dying or having other serious health issues. The local farmer does not have his cows or other livestock eating such things, his philosophy is that people should eat in a more natural way rather than adding chemicals into their bodies. One can connect the idea of cows being given corn as a way in which the government has not seen to regulate such things and shows how food companies can do whatever they please. An example that clearly shows is that of the Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto case. This case shows us how corporations have “unlimited” power in dictated what farmers that work for them must do. In the case Monsanto sued Schmeiser for having used GM seeds that Monsato have copyrighted. The incident that had occurred was that wind had blown from one farmer’s soil to the other and then Schmeiser ended up with the seeds on his property. Schmeiser did fight back but ended up having to drop from the case because of the lack of funds for his defense. In other words Monsanto won because it had more money than Schmeiser. One can state that in a way the law had helped in Monsanto’s favor because it was as if whoever had the most money won, not the person who was actually innocent.
In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan speaks about the ways that the food industry has changed and how now they use chemicals in the process now. These chemicals are used to enhance the growth of both the crops and livestock one example is growth hormones given to cows. Michael Pollan states that corn has become a very important part of the food industry because it can virtually be seen in about everything we buy in the supermarket. Examples include soda, juices, and even in a more in depth look the growing of cows and over 90% of all products in a grocery store can be found to have corn or corn based material. The way that these products are made are by using many different chemicals for the elements that corn contains making it easily changed into different products and how regulations have been a minimum in the last few years. With corn being such an important part of the industry then it is very difficult to create laws that will change restrictions or regulations. Going back to the film, Food Inc. there is a specific scene in which we can see that many politicians have in some way been associated with these different companies. Many of these people as said at the beginning of the essay have had some connection to the food industry in high ranking position. People who have worked with Monsanto in very high positions are now working for the government and why would they want to change things that would make it more difficult for the company they once worked for. Many can say that this information happens to be coincidental and does not have much importance in the end because regulations are still being conducted in the United States, though this may be true the reality is that for the past years the percent of regulations that have been conducted have drop drastically.
The food industry is one that is very complex with the amount of laws that have come up from it due to the rise in the number of companies and the amount in which they produce and sell their goods. The food industry has not only stretched from selling its goods but also into politics with the many people that have worked with food companies before in the past holding government positions. One can also see that due to this food companies have a much easier way of selling goods to its buyers because laws have become more lenient for companies which have made it easier for them to sell their goods with less inspections. |