Food Labeling And Consumer Associations With Health, Safety, And Environment

Zinczencko complains that unlike many other hazardous items, fast food does not come with warnings on how terrible the food is for one’s health and its future effects. He emphasizes that even if the customers were able to obtain the nutritional facts, they are not palpable, but rather obscure. He points out that the fast-food companies make the nutrition labels vague and misleading; they calculate the calories for every separate part of the meal, and they make it so the consumer must pay attention to serving size as well. He observes that the fast-food industry can get away with confusing labels because there are not any Food and Drug Administration labeling requisites (Word Smart, p. 220) covering fast food. Zinczenko complains that there is not any sort of nutritional labeling on the menus at fast-food restaurants. Now, nine years later, there are some changes, but his point is still valid. McDonald’s menu now states the calories of each meal, but as Zinczenko points out, it is very difficult to

Consumers could spend as much as $10 more per product if proposed label changes go through. The FDA is proposing new food labels by changing its look, and what information is places on the label. Improving food labels would not improve the public’s health because it is (1)costly, (2)will take lots of time and, (3)it is unnecessary. I believe that the new labels won’t help public health because people are not educated enough to know how to read them. More money should be spent on educating people on the labels rather than changing them. If the new labels are made the people who knew how to read them before will now have to learn how to read the new labels. With the new labels means more money spent on things that is unneeded.

However, through a study conducted by CHOICE, 55 egg products labelled as free range only 35 had listed stocking

Many consumers are often not aware that a large number of companies do not label everything they put

Approximately eighty percent of food eaten in the United States contains GMOs, but not many people know what they are actually consuming from their food sources (Prah). Genetically modified organism, also known as genetically modified organisms engineered in a lab by scientists that alter the genes of plants and animals. By fixating DNA from other organisms into America’s food sources, they create substances that are detrimental to the health of human beings. In addition to this, these genetically modified organisms are completely foreign to the plants and animals they undergo; their genes can become damaged from inserting the genes of the organisms. This unnatural process can interfere with a metabolic pathway in the plant or animal. In addition, studies have shown that on average forty-four percent of people had the “Round-up Ready” herbicide, glyphosate, which is used on genetically modified crops, found in their bodies (Stonebrook). Both, the genetically modified organisms and the chemicals used on them, cause several problems to occur in humans and other organisms which consume GMOs. These include tumors, damaged immune systems, allergies, and infertility; this is dangerous to the health of humans and to their regular body processes. Americans have the right to know what is going into their bodies and how these man-made GMOs are affecting them. By the government

In Zinczenco’s view “I'd say the industry is vulnerable. Fast-food companies are marketing to children a product with proven health hazards and no warning labels. They would do well to protect themselves, and their customers, by providing the nutrition information people need to make informed choices about their products” (Zinczenco, 2002.) In making this comment, Zinczenco urges fast food

The dangers of the food industry need to be revealed to the public so that people can live healthier lifestyles. For this to be done, the food companies need to start labeling what is in their food. There are numerous harmful chemicals and hormones found in the food we consume, and there needs to be more awareness of what society is recklessly ingesting. A two-year study on the effects of genetic mutation on mice was published on September 19th, 2011 in Food and Chemical Toxicology. In the experiment, the mice consumed corn that was sprayed with Roundup, the food company, Monsanto’s brand of weed killer, or drank water with levels of Roundup that are similar to what is found in U.S. tap water. The shocking results revealed that the mice

There are varied arguments that favor or are against compulsory labeling of genetically engineered food products. Those who argue for the labeling of such products argue that consumers have a right to know what is contained in their food, particularly food products for which there have been health and environmental concerns (Caswell 26). Compulsory labeling will permit consumers to identify and avoid those food products that may cause them problems. On the contrary, those who argue against mandatory labeling point out that

After presenting the arguments of supporters and opponents of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. This paper will now analyze each issue to determine the strengths and weakness of each side’s arguments. One argument that proponents make about genetically modified foods is that they are no different than natural foods. An argument that opponents make is that genetically modified organisms have not been tested enough because they are fairly new and some scientist truly don’t have a understanding of how it will effect humans bodies differently than natural foods. Proponents argue that genetically engineered foods have no needs for labeling; it would lead to consumer confusion. Opponents argue that consumers have the right to know what is

Marion Nestle had decided to take a deeper look into the cereals that “claim” to have a good high source of protein. One brand she had looked into was Cheerios Protein versus regular Cheerios. The protein content was not that much of a difference, the protein claiming Cheerios had 7 grams of protein per 55 grams of a serving whereas the regular Cheerios have 3 grams of protein per 28 grams in a serving. The difference is not much. People who are not in the food industry or are worried about their protein intake do not see how this is not much a difference because they see the higher amount of protein versus the smaller amount so they go for the cereal with the larger number. This is just a way for the cereal brand to have a different and maybe

“Hormone-free”, “organic”, “grass-fed”, and “natural” are labels that animal and plant producers use to inform consumers of what they are eating. These claims are misleading and usually increase the prices of those products. By increasing the price and sticking a label that reads “natural” makes consumers think that this product is better for them. Animal Welfare Approved gives an example of an egg carton boasting the statement that its eggs are “natural.” This statement can legally come from an industrial farm where the hens do not forage the way a chicken does “naturally.” According to the USDA, farms have to get organic certifications and accreditations in order to sell, label, and represent their products as organic. It is difficult to

Organic. Cage Free. Free Range. Grass Fed. Non-GMO. These descriptors are used in grocery stores across the United States of America and are a major component of guiding consumers through their purchasing decisions. However, since these labels usually appear without any description, how do consumers know what do these labels really mean? Furthermore, how do food producers and their governing organizations decide when a label can be applied? The meat, egg, and produce industry are all affected by this nomenclature system. Therefore, the everyday consumer comes in contact with these labels every time they make a food purchase and often rely on them to help them make the healthier and more ethical food choice. But are these labels really denoting ethical sourcing, improved health benefits, and how strictly is the labeling regulated?

Importantly, there is a current controversy concerning whether genetically modified foods should be labeled as such or if it is an unnecessary extra expense. Indeed, some individuals believe that if a product is genetically modified then it is potentially dangerous to a consumer’s health causing birth defects, increased risk of cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s disease (Greenpeace, n.d.). Therefore, based upon this predisposition they believe that a label should be placed on every product that is genetically modified, since it is the consumers right to know if a product has been exposed to harmful chemicals and pesticides. Contrariwise, others believe that labeling genetically modified foods is not needed, since there is presently no viable

This is the daily life of factory farmed hens. Many people are unaware of where their perfectly packaged poultry comes from. Even if it claims it is 'Natural', 'Farm Fresh' or 'Vegetarian-fed', the hens are still exposed to horrendous conditions. All those labels have no relevance to the welfare of the hens. And even if your packet claims to be 'Free-range' or 'Cage-free', the hens' beaks are still cut, and starvation-based forced molting is not prohibited.

Throughout the years, there has been an incredible amount of speculation as to what ingredients are being put into the food we consume. The same food manufactured by major food corporations that can only be approved by the FDA. There are many techniques that these food corporations can use in order to gain consumer loyalty, but the main focus is the way their advertising works. Along with these advertisements, comes a target market as well. The food industry is constantly in speculation because there are always new foods that corporations want approved to sell. Some of these businesses are part of the fast food industry and others are international food companies that sell their products around the world. As adults and parents, we need to