Food Labeling Policy Analysis

The different parts of the food label make finding a nutritious food choice, managing weight and eating a well-balanced diet simple.

Food matters in a sense that people should inform themselves of what is in their foods. People should not always entrust in the rules and regulations given to farms, factories, and supermarkets or trust that what they’ve purchased is healthy or safe. “If you bother to read the health claims closely (as food marketers make sure consumers seldom do), you will find that there is often less to them that meets the eye” (Pollan 14). Considering the idea that maybe people are to focus on the healthy promising labels; consequently, they’re not reading the fine print. Reading and truly understanding food labels is how food matters. People should research chemicals, ingredients, and products used in the foods they

(2)Right now it is up to 10 years in the making and the proposed labels will also overhaul on the serving sizes. I think by the time the new labels are done being created there will be more people reading the labels and will now need to figure out how to read the new labels. I think instead of changing the labels we should spend more money in trying to educate people on how to read the labels now. The new labels could raise costs of food up to $10 per package.

Its seems obvious that the organization with food in its name, the Food and Drug Administration, should be in charge of our country's food safety and food labels. This agency has the experience and knowledge to devise a labeling standard that incorporates all pertinent information. I have confidence in the FDA.

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

While it is possible that the decisions of many diners may not be influenced by menu-labeling, and while there is financial cost associated with the implementation of nutrition analysis and menu-labeling, I believe the availability of information will empower consumers to make healthier decisions when eating out and I believe that the improvement in health of even a minority is worth the effort.

First off, in order to revise the food label, we need to understand how it is supposed to work. The food label was develop, and is currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration since 1993 (Rosso Grossman, “Food Labels”). The food label is currently has four requirements. The first is the principal display panel. This is in the front of the package and the label is what the food is commonly

The Food Drug and Cosmetic Act contains a labeling law for any positive and negative “material” changes to the nutrition of food. For example, trans fats are labeled because they are related to cardiovascular disease (Murphy). Products containing peanuts and other allergens are required to be labeled due to the potential adverse health effects if eaten by individuals with nut or other allergies. In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration addressed the labeling of GMOs in a policy statement amended to the act. The policy states that foods developed by genetic

Making food choices is a major component in the health and well being of our bodies just a few

Fats, calories, and unhealthy food, these are all things that are in are foods and without labeling to tell us how much in in there we will never know which foods are healthy and unhealthy. So I have come to state facts and details on why food labelling should be a law and should be enforced.

The rising rates of obesity in the 1990s were stimulated by the transformation of the American lifestyle caused by new policies, technological advancements, and changes in activity levels. When President George H. W. Bush signed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) in November 1990, it gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to require nutrition labeling on most foods. The nutritional data this law requires is beneficial for most Americans, but uneducated individuals who do not know how to interpret it are at a disadvantage. Although the FDA mandated nutritional facts to be printed on food labels, it did not require Americans to be educated about basic health issues. This not only allowed them to continue to consume all types of food without knowledge of health implications they can develop, but it also resulted in the absence of nutritional education. The proliferation of nutrition facts across the nation emphasized the importance of eating wholesome foods and developing healthy eating habits.

Supposedly responsible for regulating food consumption and health standards, the USDA and FDA set forth criteria that food processing companies must abide by to successfully keep food safe for consumers. However, I feel as though these government organizations, in combination with greedy corporations, are failing at their jobs, leaving consumers to fend for themselves in food safety. For this exact reason, we, as a society, deserve the right to know what is in our food; our daily nourishment is simply not something meant to be feared or questioned. Food labeling and daily advertising are essential tools that aid in avoiding such horror, providing even slightly more insight to purchasers. Information provided through these tactics should be honest, approved, and reliable, requested by the consumer upon desire for making wise decisions; major corporate businesses, in no way, shape, or form, should be granted permission to decide what types of information should be disclosed, as their secretive nature could possibly interfere with this aspect of food safety greatly. Similar to how everyone deserves to be informed of the nourishment they are providing themselves, I also believe that access to healthy food should be available to everyone, making it a basic right. As long as people are willing to work and process the healthy food we eat, they also should be able to partake. Overall, my opinions and beliefs on the food industry will never be what they once were; they will forever be distorted by the lucrative, profit-seeking motives guiding major food corporations across the

Proponents logic for supporting the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act comes from the scientist and governmental organizations that believe there is no difference between genetic engineering today and what humans have done in the past for hundreds to thousands of years through selective breeding or plans and animals. Additionally, proponents reasoning comes down to genetically engineered foods being no different than natural foods. Proponents feel if there are mandatory labeling laws it will just provide

In the modern era, large corporations are holding feedlots without respect for ethics or safety. They don’t consider the magnitude of the effects of their actions, and are heedless of the safety of the environment, the animals, and the public. In the end, these large corporations get away with it because of the lack of regulations and penalties that deter them from such practices. In essence, these problems have, and will continue, to persist due to the lack of funding for federal regulatory agencies, as well as the lack of public knowledge and outreach upon the issue. It’s important to note that the food industry must adapt to the demands of the market. If the public calls for safe and wholesome food, then it is the responsibility of producers

After presenting the arguments of proponents 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 argument. One argument that proponents make about genetically modified food 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 an understanding of how it will affect 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 in the foods they are eating and supporting.