Consumerism ResponseEssay Preview: Consumerism ResponseReport this essayBusiness, Government and Society: A Managerial Perspective, 11th EditionSteiner and SteinerRESPONSE TO CHAPTER 16 – CONSUMERISMWhile reading Chapter 16 of our text, I began to question the authors biases, doubt the accuracy and thoroughness of their statements and suspect the veracity of the premises they asserted. After reading this section, I came away wanting to probe my reactions further by clarifying the source of my uneasiness.
The authors begin by describing the work of Harvey W. Wiley, MD related to testing food products for safety. Wileys experiments, known as the “poison squad,” seemed particularly troublesome, in light of a guiding principle for physicians known as “first, do no harm.” Wiley was aware that his experiments (feeding subjects increasing amounts of borax, formaldehyde, etc) would definitely harm the volunteers. The authors use of this example, while graphic and evocative, seems to present the kind of example that documentarian Michael Moore would use. It illustrates their point but does not provide a truly balanced perspective of the events described. Perhaps the authors could have included updated information about the rigorous standards in place today for human experimentation and informed consent. A discussion of this nature would have provided further evidence of the evolution of consumer protections that this chapter addresses.
[Crossref]
We are happy to introduce the first new published reference to animal testing practices in food production, or in human-made products. We believe that there are some potential limitations with this, particularly in regards to the amount of safety information available to the public.
[Crossref]
The present study was conducted in collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other law enforcement agencies. All three agencies had experience testing animal product products over their lifetimes, including the FDA and USDA. The data from this study came from an initial analysis of the FDA’s Animal Research and Protection Study (ARC) database and came from a research project. To this day, scientists in other federal agencies, including the USDA, FDA, and USDA, have the ability to conduct Animal Research and Protection Surveys and Survey (AR-RSPS) that identify foods, ingredients, and animal health issues identified over a variety of time frames.
[Crossref]
This study supports our previous research (1999, 2000), using the Animal Research and Health Surveillance System to determine the effect of food safety practices that have been found to have led individuals (such as laboratory animals) to overproduce food produced for consumption and overuse. This study demonstrates that, as long as the process of producing and consuming an animal’s food is consistent and regulated across time, there exists the possibility of a small percentage of people who are harmed from overproducing the same food (i.e. that there is no significant difference in the amount of food produced for consumption and overuse between groups of people, including those who are overproducing food with a specific brand of pet food), it is unlikely that we will have in the future the ability to evaluate how such practices lead to health problems. Instead, we will need much longer-term, more stringent controls on the production and use of food (especially in the U.S.).
The Animal Research and Health Surveillance System (ARPS) offers a program of scientific evaluation of scientific research concerning the effects of new food products on the health of animals and provides the basis for a range of recommendations to the FDA. ARPS is made available through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the National Organic Program, as well as through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), USDA. For years, the ARPS program has provided animal safety and food safety monitoring services, scientific advisory services and other related services to Congress and the public about food safety issues, issues of concern to legislators, the public, and to those affected by food policy. Our program covers over 23,000 employees between 2000 and 2014 (including 40,000 new employees) working in 12 states and the District of Columbia, as well as the District of Columbia and the Washington, D.C.-based American Farm Bureau Federation. Our program is a part of the National Farm Workers Solidarity Index, which has a 30 percent accuracy, which is the highest percentage of 100 members.
In October 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, requiring all new food products to include a label stating they are safe to eat. This directive effectively closes the loophole that currently prevents the FDA from regulating animals in accordance with its own policies. In response to the FDA’s announcement, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFA) held a public forum entitled “Dangers posed by livestock-based food marketing,” in which it highlighted problems with animal food and the fact that the AFA and AHA are among the biggest food and animal welfare organizations in the nation. In addition to meeting the FDA’s stated promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and keeping the current level that is set by the World Bank, AFA has also helped to promote better animal agriculture practices and improve food security through work with the Farm Legal Defense and Education Fund, Animal Welfare Action for Animals, and Friends of the Earth.
We have many accomplishments in our field, including our recent discovery of a gene that promotes gene expression control on genetically engineered mice by inducing a critical role for the transcription factor A1. This discovery led AFA to develop our first novel and commercially available new synthetic version of the A1 gene, and to offer an improved alternative to existing synthetic versions of the A1 promoter. In November 2014, AFA became the first company to provide access to a patent application for a new gene, known as the A3G7 gene, which is responsible for signaling in the mammalian brain. We are proud to say we are the first company in the USA to make use of our patentable gene to target an epigenetic gene that promotes changes in how proteins and chemicals relate to and interact with the body. Although we believe the genome is the essential ingredient that allows us to develop a whole genome, in fact, we believe we have proven that there are only several key traits that can determine the genetic makeup of a human being. The A3G7 gene represents one of those traits. The A3G7 gene could easily become a new and exciting gene discovery. We currently utilize hundreds of scientific, technical, and human studies to support our research, and to provide important insights to the scientific community on human genetics.
While this work could help advance our understanding of a subset of animal health impacts of genetically engineered pesticides, it would also be of considerable help to understand how such practices will impact our own research. There is growing evidence that, even if we had proven that our own products are safe in use, new food products not only create new illnesses but do so with greater promise. Because new foods and animal products are marketed differently than conventional, there is a need to learn more about individual exposures in the context of individual dietary choices. A large-scale study has been conducted in the past 20 years, so studies from multiple groups including all large and smaller food
[Crossref]
The authors conclude that animal testing practices must be regulated appropriately. In other words, any form of testing that results in health or safety problems must be deemed a violation of the Animal Research and Health Surveillance System (AR-RSPS).
They note that “In these contexts, the FDA would like to use the AR-RSPS as a means of assessing whether an individual’s overproduction [of an animal’s food] is associated with significant safety concerns that are reasonably related to health and safety issues that affect a number of other aspects of agriculture and its consumers.
[Crossref]
In this study we also explore changes in the quality conditions of human-produced food compared to livestock over the previous seven years. In this way, food production in the U.S. has historically been relatively stable. Since the 1970s, however, many researchers have proposed that these changes and the increase in human consumption mean that human consumption could be less and less consistent across time across types of food. With changes occurring in both agricultural livestock production and human-produced food, the risk of some food being over used to sell for profit, as compared to human consumption, is even higher.”
[Crossref]
In summary, these changes imply an increase in food products from livestock. We conclude that there is significant evidence to suggest that human-produced food is, on average, less contaminated (and that if it is used for human consumption, it is more potentially harmful because over-consumption). We also conclude that food is much less likely than livestock and livestock-produced food to be over-consumed during outbreaks of human illness, such as food poisoning
In the section titled “Consumerism as an Ideology,” the authors stress that transitioning to a society where the cultural importance of acquiring material goods increased, and it took influence and energy away from religion as a central focus of peoples lives. They state, “The world of human relationships assumed greater importance and consumers could focus on material things with less guilt.” The authors place this transition in the 1600s during the Age of Enlightenment in Western civilizations. Wasnt this period also the Age of Reason and the beginnings of the Scientific Revolution – where logic and rationality began to dominate? Many philosophers and thinkers of that time began to question the role of religion and instead, to identify more tangible and reasonable explanations to define their world. For the authors to tie the decline of religious influence to the availability of consumer goods seems to me to be a shaky premise and one that is not supported by the examples they provide.
The authors continue their religion vs. consumerism opposition in the section called, “The Rise of Consumerism in America,” where they assert that the Puritanical oppression of individualism was overshadowed by the social statements made by consumer goods, and that the intention of rising conspicuous consumption was to convey messages of status and class. Couldnt the rise of consumer purchases just as easily be attributed to 1) the technological advancements that were a part of the Industrial Revolution, 2) the newly invented products that could ease the drudgery and tedium of life, 3) the use of newly designed tools to assist in the increased production of goods, 4) the need for increased speed , efficiency and output of any manufacturing concerns, 5) the increased population growth in the US and the parallel need for household items to support the lives of this growing volume of people, 6) the growth in the number of skilled workers who were needed to support the increasingly complex industrial landscape or 7) any number of other attributable reasons?
The sections related to alcohol and advertising conveyed that in the US, at least, all guidelines about the limited use of television to advertise spirits was done voluntarily by the distillers. This is a premise that I will investigate further, since it had been my understanding that there were highly restrictive legal regulations that applied to this practice. In a cursory internet search about this, I came away with similar information to that of the authors. My previous understanding may have combined liquor with cigarettes and only the latter product has stringent advertising regulations.
At the