.jpg)
A woman seeks out healthier options at a local
Farmer's Market. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
Walking into the average supermarket, thousands of food choices are immediately at your fingertips. From the sweetest of treats to the healthiest of greens, everyone feels a sense of empowerment when they control not only what they buy but also what they eat. But, how much power do you really have to make nutritional decisions?
When McDonalds is the largest purchaser of poultry, meat, corn and many other products, it is necessary for those products to maintain a level of consistency. Consequently, certain industries are forced to comply with company standards in order to maintain their most demanding and valuable customers. Large industry purchasing power influences where the animals are raised, what they are fed, and how they are butchered. The food industry has become rigidly controlled by a handful of companies and these monopolies refuse to give up their power. It is their power to influence the industry that strip the consumer of authentic choice. As much as we all love the endearing image of the American farmer working to provide food for the nation, the reality is large factories where workers are made to feel dispensable. Factories where proficiency and speed are valued often at the expense of the worker and the animal. The goal is to be faster, fatter and more tempting. But at what cost?
In spite of the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million Americans are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die each year from food-borne illnesses while nearly one-third of children and adolescents are overweight or obese.
In the wake of the recent salmonella outbreak that killed nine people, the House passed an extensive food safety bill. The legislation would require more government inspections, better oversight of food manufactures and give the FDA more authority to order recalls. The FDA would further be required to develop a better system for tracing food-borne illnesses. Although it has great potential to be beneficial, the larger issue is the extent to which the power of these agencies have been diluted by the infiltration of the food industry.
Monsanto, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a “United States-based multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as ‘Roundup’. Monsanto is also the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed, holding 70%–100% market share for various crops.” From the production of saccharine and aspartame to Agent Orange, Monsanto has a rich and intricate history with the food industry and federal government.
Former US Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. Former US Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor. Monsanto's lawyer was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991 by George H. W. Bush. That same appointee was one of the deciding votes that confirmed George W. Bush as president. That Justice was Clarence Thomas. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, which was purchased by Monsanto. The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the 2000 election were Larry Combest (former Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Missouri Senate candidate John Ashcroft (former Attorney General). Of the 535 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Ashcroft received the greatest amount of financial support from Monsanto, nearly five times the amount of money as the congressman finishing second. Michael Taylor, the former Monsanto VP now advises the FDA Commissioner on food safety.
It is the responsibility of the consumers to become educated about their nutritional options. It is our responsibility to hold our government accountable for that which they do and fail to do. Recently, an extremely informative documentary was released – Food Inc. Every consumer should become aware of the obstacles they face as well as the power they wield. From genetic engineering to cloning and organic food, the film addresses all aspects of the food industry and the agencies created for their regulation. The only way consumers can make a difference and truly control the products they purchase and consume is to be educated and actively engaged. We have the responsibility to demand the accountability we deserve.
For more info:
Food Inc
More on Monsanto
Monsanto ties to government
Ashcroft's ties to Monsanto
Michael Taylor's revolving door
Comments
I saw this movie and it completely changed the way I think about food and how I am choosing to feed my family. It is a must see! If you can find it.
i'm a little confused. while i think you bring up some very interesting points and agree with the need to overall the food safety system in our country, i don't particularly agree with how you try to make your arguments into a "republican" blame game. The politicians you mention have been out of power since 2005. To suggest veneman (by the way, you mispelled her name and she wasn't on monsanto's board - she briefly served on the board of Calgene but it was not owned by Monsanto at the time), ashcroft and thompson are in any positoin of power today is bizarre -- they haven't been in the US government for almost 5 years. Your article would be much more credible if you talk about the present. Also, if you are trying to make a point about monsanto and what influence they may or many not have on legislation, you should truthfully report that they give to both political parties, not just republicans. It doesn't really matter if they give to republicans does it? they arent in power anymore
"All Sides Concerned" I on the other hand think the article does makes an exceptional point—Republicans will always favor legislation that benefits business even if the legislation is detrimental to American citizens. Their sole purpose seems to be to make as much money as possible for their “business owner friends” on the backs of average citizens (they’re siding with the insurance industry over healthcare because that’s where they will get jobs and money when they retire). Additionally, a smart man knows that “the legislation that is implemented today will have a lingering effect tomorrow”—so, though those Republicans are not in office (power) now, we are experiencing the effects of their legislation. By the way, among other errors, you misspelled the following words: “misspelled, position, and aren’t”.
Logic - very narrow view of the world. Broad labels don't work anymore. Both sides of the aisle take money to influence legislation and reforms are needed to prevent the abuses by both political parties. Case in point - the food safety legislation failed on first vote because the ag interests got several democratic lawmakers (and republicans too) to vote against it. Those interests got several changes to the bill from democratic leaders that some would argue weaken the protections. Again, politics is politics and no one party is free from the influence of special interests. Like I said, it was a very thoughtful piece. just pointing out both sides. The world isn't as flat as the author portrays. The problem with Washington is this notion you have to attack people to score political points. Thank goodness Obama is trying to change that tone.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!