Do People have the right to know what is in their food?

Shannon Hanley
Mr. Bursch
Honors Biology Period 4
20 November 2012

                                 Do people have the right to know what is in their food?

Beginning in 1996 viral, bacteria, and other genes have been inserted into the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola plants artificially(organicconsumers.org). Many people do not know what they are really eating, or what the ingredients in their food are. Countless Americans do not know that most foods that are bad for them are really genetically engineered foods. However the government does not have to mention all the ingredients or whether it is Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). “ 92% of Americans want the FDA to label GMO’s foods” and other ingredients (justlabelit.org). People should have the right to know what is in their food because people can be allergic to ingredients inside the foods, and people can get certain diseases.

People could be allergic to ingredients inside the genetically modified foods. It is proven that GM crops cause allergic reactions, but there is currently no way to test new crops (organicconsumers.org). This could be very dangerous to consumers. “In the last twenty years, there has been an epidemic increase in allergies, asthma, autoimmune disorders, ADHD, and autism” (hubpages.com). “Today it is estimated that 20% of American children have allergies, and that there has been a 400% increase in food allergies” (hubpages.com). Studies have shown that there are higher rates of allergies because of GMO’s.

There is a possibility that people can get certain diseases from eating genetically modified foods. Between 1995 and 2005 47,976 men and 23,276 women died from eating GMO foods (naturalnews.com). “GMO grains possess two substances that distort your body’s ability to process the amino acids proline and glutamine” (infowars.com). One common disease caused by GMOs is celiac disease. Gluten intolerance, commonly referred to as celiac disease, inhibits the body’s ability to break down fat in the digestive system (infowars.com). Another serious disease caused by GMOs is cancer.

Although many people may think that they should know what is in their food,we are told to trust our government to make the right decisions. We are told that the studies suggesting that GMOs may be linked to health problems may not be valid or accurate. Even the campaigns to add warning labels to products containing GMOs are criticized by those who say that such labels will frighten consumers unnecessarily. But until more is known about these genetically modified foods, we should alert consumers to the risks. We trust our government to guarantee that nothing dangerous is put on the market, and we must make sure that the lure of a profit does not cause corporations to place money before human life.

The progress of genetically modified foods is frightening when the various health issues are considered. “The land used from cultivating GMOs has increased from 4.2 million acres to 395 million acres” (infowars.com). Clearly GMOs are becoming more common, so it is very important that testing continue until we are sure we know everything about the risks of eating genetically modified foods.

Why the animals we eat should have a right to a quality way of life

Food poisoning has been a relatively small problem in the early years, but in the past fifty years it has become a big issue. This is because the food we eat now has more of this bacteria, than food fifty years ago. The way we grow animals now is much more unsanitary and in return we get these sicknesses that animals didn’t usually have.    Animals should have a right to quality of life because diseases develop if you have a bad quality of life. For instance, the quality of feed the animals has changed. We used to feed animals grass and hay, the things those animals digestive tracks are built for. Now its high starch corn feed. Cows are not designed to eat corn at all, there digestive track was build around processing grass. Grass is carbohydrates and a little bit of protein as well as fibre, and lignin, and silica. Corn is all starchy carbohydrates and the cows stomach does not agree with it.  Also, The quality of living has changed. The cows of fifty years ago were all free range cows, which means they were very large plots of land an very few cows so crowding and manure control was very small and easy. The cows ate grass and dropped manure which gave grass nutrients to regrow. Now the same number of cows on the large plots would be forced in an area a fourth of the size. Also, these small plots get filled with more manure because there is no grass to absorb the nutrient. In return the cows walk around in their own manure creating diseased meat. So, when the consumer, us, eat this meat we end up with the disease that cow had. Some disagree that the old ways don’t produce enough to feed our growing population. However, would you as the consumer want meat that has bacteria and other bad germs that could potentially kill you. If we got rid of the plots the major companies use now and replaced them with grassy planes were about the same amount of cows roamed free, there would be less bacteria in our food and in return less sick people. In the end it’s common sense to give the animals we eat better food and living areas. Animals are living things. How would we feel if we were forced to eat food that made us sick and lived in our own feces. 

Food, Inc.: The Veil

We watched Food Inc. which examines farming in the United States (U.S.) concluding that agribusiness’s produce food that is unhealthy, in a way that is environmentally harmful and abusive of both animals and employees. A question that strikes most interesting to viewers is if companies should be able to have the power to decide what information to release to consumers on foods they produce. Here, these paragraphs will examine both sides of the situation, and create a conclusion on the topic.

To start off with, the pros of companies being able to decide what information about their products to give consumers. Companies can earn more money by disclosing unhealthy or repellant elements added. They may not want to subside to all the health reforms and since they are not obliged to, they will not. Also, customers can not assume responsibility to that company if they are dissatisfied with the product. They can hold the consumer accountable since the company did not go out of their way to make the buyer pay for the item. Companies also have battled that they have right to the fifth amendment and should be considered a “person”. They then have the right to seal any information away without question.

Now on to the cons of this situation, if companies can choose to list information about their items or not, they can hide unheathly additives without anyone knowing. Buyers may have certain restrictions in their diet and those ingredients could be chosen not to be on the label. Another example is if a diabetic can not see the exact amounts of sodium, carbohydrate, and calories that may increase their risk of high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, uncontrolled blood glucose, and weight gain. To counter the fifth amendment right, many spectators could not visualize a company having the same rights as people since they are not a person. If so, then people should then have the right to get warrants to interagate certain proceedures that company preforms. Much like police who can get warrants to inspect homes and question persons of intrest. Nutrition is essential and with these current laws, we are no where near close to the honesty in ingredients of this industy we should have.

To make my decision more clear, companies should not have the right to declare whether or not to give consumers a complete label because the cons of this topic greatly outweigh the pros. Companies should put the customer before their income therefore creating a better “fan” base. Everyday consumers respect companies that do not hide vital factors added without labeling them. Customers should not have to worry whether a company is secretly hiding ingredients inside the food. Citizens should have the ability to reveal their opinion on the product, just like the first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” which they violate(freedomforum.org). Soon enough, these companies may push to have more food nutrition violation rights, but there may be no option to stop them.

In conclusion, companies should be required to reveal additives with no excuses. People should have the power to know details on any item a company produces. Modern day life is dependent on information, which is currently based on false advertisement. As consumers, we must have the right to know what is in these items we buy and to go even further we should have the ability to aquire the background information on any product as well. We are supposed to be able to debate freely without the government getting involved, much less suing the speachmaker.

Leah Poapst Food Inc.Essay

Leah Poapst
Period 4

Food Inc. Essay

Should access to healthy food be a right for everyone? The answer is yes. Healthy food is crucial for every individual person. The key of being healthy is eating properly and having a balanced diet. We need food because it gives us energy, healthy food should be our basic food requirement. Junk food, on the other hand, has a lot of diseases attached to it, such as heart and liver diseases, and diabetes. Therefore, to be on the safer side and to live a longer life, people need to eat better.

Access to adequate food is important for the right to adequate food. Accessed food must be adequate in terms of quality and quantity, and has been defined in terms of intake of nutrients, calories and proteins. Hunger and malnutrition are the consequences of lacking access to food. People in poverty are unable to buy healthy food, due to its high prices, therefore they buy cheap fast food. This has caused an increase in obesity because fast food is much more cheaper and accessible than healthy and nutritious food. By reducing the costs of healthy food or donating it to poor people, their will be less limits and an easier access of eating healthier and can also prevent starvation.

The opposite of starvation is food addiction, one reason why food shouldn’t be so accessible to everyone. Out of the worlds population, 300 million, 300,000 people die of obesity in a year, that includes deaths of other diseases caused by obesity. In addition, people have divided foods into good and bad, we begin to think that if a little of something is good for us, then a lot of it must be great, but that is a false argument. Too much of anything is bad, amounts are what matter.

In conclusion, government should ensure access to healthy food, but people also have a responsibility to eat well instead of junk food. The right to food is necessary for a dignified life and is vital for the realization of many other rights, such as the right to health. Food is important not just for physiological survival, but also for the full development of one’s physical and mental capabilities.