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.