AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos
This article is the third of a four part series looking at how the United States' food system may be fueling a global health crisis. Many trust that the Food and Drug Administration can adequately protect them as consumers. A recent report put out by a subcommittee of the FDA itself, however, doubted its ability to serve its mission. Follow parts I-IV through a hypothetical example of how motivated groups could successfully disrupt and undermine the health of the United States and countries abroad.
Parts I
Part II
Part IV (Contains References)
In furthering their destructive goals, a group could begin charging a premium for new, "healthy" products, that don't contain genetically modified material or over-processed food material. Health-conscious consumers would purchase them, only delaying their poor health outcomes and prevent meaningful reform in the system. Once consumers caught on to the effects of some of these chemicals and food additives, these groups could make it increasingly difficult for consumers to identify these additives on packaging.
Some hypothetical examples of food additives they could use would be high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, sucralose, monosodium glutamate, sodium benzoate, and artificial food dyes like tartrazine (yellow 5). They could hide these new and potentially harmful compounds under terms such as "natural flavoring", and "spice extract". Despite the highly mechanized creation of these food products, these groups could make sure that packaging contained words such as "natural" and depicted pictures of idyllic landscapes and happy farmers. They could push against proper labeling as this would put undue fear in the consumer’s eyes and increase their processing costs. The labeling crisis would now make it difficult to lay blame to specific individuals or entire companies, as well as their processing techniques when health outbreaks do occur.
I would put individuals in an incredible predicament: pay lower costs for foods that will exacerbate their health later on in life, or pay up to a 40% premium for choosing healthier foods (Jetter and Cassady, 2005). The effect of these lower costs would increase the prices of other types of goods and services as well as effectively increase the tax burden necessary to respond to the healthcare and environmental dilemmas that will increasingly plague the globe. Fortunately, there will be agencies whose purpose is to regulate my newly-instituted industrial techniques. They will set minimal guidelines that my companies will rush to challenge and delay and then meet the more moderate changes by finding newer chemicals and "cleaner" technologies by which to streamline their processes. Farmers will be forced to sign contracts that allow them to make just enough money to survive, but keep them in enough debt to keep them controlled by the larger industries. This will be achieved by forcing farmers under contract to institute these new and expensive technologies or default on their contractual responsibilities. Smaller companies and farms will merge and be bought out by larger ones. Leaders of those industries would serve as heads to key legislative positions. I will quiet naysayers and promote loyalty and consistency in my regulatory organizations, ultimately promoting groupthink in governmental decisions (Hart, 1997).
Read More:
Part I
Part II
Part IV (Contains References)
Comments