Many meticulously conscious health enthusiasts are consuming inorganic, genetically modified and BPA packed foods due to dishonest labelling and poor regulatory standards and laws in many parts of the world. It is a practical impossibility for food consumers to be organic food experts as their choices are based on product labels, which many of them are used as marketing tools and entail widespread advertisement (Cohrssen & Miller, 2016). Through the consumer right of choice, buyers are duped into believing that they are purchasing organic foods (Cohrssen & Miller, 2016). Both GMO and organic foods have some benefits to consumers but the standards used to ensure that consumers purchase such foods with full knowledge are ineffective and this has made it possible to have unlabelled GMO foods in the shelves.
Continued research on foods that are marketed, packaged, and labeled as organic has shown that this is rarely the case (Cohrssen & Miller, 2016). The packaging is a major problem due to high levels of BPA in the material used that may transform the little organic products available into unhealthy products. The US government’s extremely capitalist policies have resulted in lax product labelling regulatory laws that have made it almost impossible for consumers to enjoy the benefits of organic and non-GMO foods (Roff, 2008). This paper looks at the extent to which incorrect and misleading labelling has denied consumers the benefit of enjoying these safe products due to poor regulatory rules and laws.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Definition of attributes to the problem
Organic Food and Organic Farming
Organic farming is the initial process through which organic foods are produced. A product or organic farming that has passed through organically based production processes including handling and packaging produces organic food (Crinnion, 2010). Whereas the definition of organic farming may vary from country to country, there are general rules that inform the process such as nurturing the cycling of resources, promotion of ecological balance and conservation of biodiversity, and purity of species (Crinnion, 2010).
There are two major categories of farming; crop farming and animal product farming. Organic farming entails specific set rules that govern both major categories whereby, in organic crop farming, the seeds used must have emanated from an organic farming and handling process and no genetic modification has been done on them (Crinnion, 2010). Maintaining purely organic farming is however, difficult due to existence of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides that may be used on or around the organic crops. Post-farming processes of production including transportation, milling, manufacturing, and preservation must be strictly observed to avoid contamination. In animal product farming, the animal used for breeding must not have had any form of prior genetic modification and must also be fed on animal foods with limitation on the kind of medication administered. Among the general rule is the avoidance of any and all antibiotics and growth hormones as well as supplements (Crinnion, 2010).
Non-GMO Foods
Non-GMO is among the basic prerequisites of all organic foods (Smith, 2014). It should however, be understood that being non-GMO does not guarantee that a food product is organic (Smith, 2014). By definition, Non-GMO implies that genetic modification or engineering has not been used in any level of production of the product (Smith, 2014). Statistics show that almost a quarter of organic food consumers do so to avoid using genetically modified foods. The issue of safety of GMO food is the subject of major controversy globally (Roff, 2008). However, in the US, all GMO food products have been banned by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (Roff, 2008).
However, the USDA rules do not involve the testing of products to ensure they do not have any GMO derivatives. Instead, the rules are sort of self-regulation guidelines for consumers (Roff, 2008). Under them, consumers are supposed to ensure that they take all possible measure to prevent any GMO elements in their products and farmers ensure that all their seeds and animals do not have any GMO backgrounds.
Steps should also be taken to avoid cross pollination of plants with genetically modified plants from the neighborhood. The process of storage, transport and processing should also be set to avoid mixture or contamination with GMO derivatives. Instead or testing, USDA places the onus on the producers to show that all these precautions have been taken (Roff, 2008). Their produce is then automatically certified as being GMO derivative free, therefore, legally consumable in the USA.
Bisphenol A (BPA)
BPA is an industrial chemical ingredient of contemporary plastics that has been used for over half a century. It can be found in most polycarbonate plastics, which are used in manufacturing plastic bottles and other plastic packages (Bauer, 2016). BPA is also present in epoxy resins, which are used in lining the insides of tins used in food canning. Contemporary research has however, shown that under certain normal circumstances, derivative of BPA can contaminate foods (Bauer, 2016). It, therefore, follows that even when food has been meticulously derived and processed under organic food rules, it can be infected purely through a BPA based packaging (Wright, 2013).
Leading scholars and industry commentators including doctors all agree that BPA is a serious health threat and should be avoided or regulated in food products (Bauer, 2016). However, the FDA under whose mandate the issue fall believe that the levels of BPA being used currently is safe and within acceptable amounts (FDA, 2016). There are, therefore, no specific laws or rules to government this BPA issue, hence common for foods packaged in BPA based packages to be marked, marketed and consumed as organic or safe products (Wright, 2013).
Definition of the problem in entirety
Most consumers are not experts in food products, hence rely on the information given by consumer organizations, popular media and producer based advertising and other marketing stratagems. It is normal for the consumer to assume that with millions of US dollars being spent annually for product regulation, what the producers indicate must be the truth. Further, the advent of independent regulators has also enhanced consumer confidence in labelling of products. With so many producers and manufacturers being called to account for wrong labelling, it is easy for consumers to assume that the current labelling must be accurate (Cohrssen & Miller, 2016).
Therefore, what most consumers do is to scan health related periodicals for organic or healthy products. Further, at the point of purchase, consumers will rely on the labels and markings on the packaging of the processed foods, or on the words of the seller for unprocessed foods. Unfortunately, the information on the product labels or given by the sellers is seldom accurate and many of it is simply wrong based on misinterpretation of applicable rules and laws (Cohrssen & Miller, 2016). Others are based on ineffective and lax rules and laws.
The upshot of the foregoing is that most of the consumers who believe that they are using organic foods, are actually consuming foods with inorganic derivatives. Further, there is all likelihood that many of the foods being sold in the US markets have GMO derivatives as they are never tested and most of these foods are packaged in BPA based materials with impunity as there is neither regulation nor legal supervision over the same. These foods are one of the major causes of serious nutritional based illnesses in the US as contemporary research has shown. Unfortunately, like the issue of secondary tobacco smoking, even very careful consumers are still vulnerable.
P ossible solution for the problem
The solution to the instant problem is the development and legislation of laws to govern the production, labeling, and vending of organic products (Roff, 2008). Albeit this may be an extreme measure, which will raise many ethical and practical issues as it is premised on the fact that it entails a breach of trust in the consumer-producer relationship, it fits the predicament. There is also the breach of obligation to protect on the part of the government to its citizens and a breach of trust on the part of some regulators who have commercialized regulation at the expense of the consumer. The magnitude of the problem is also enhanced by the fact that contaminated foods can have fatal consequences on consumers through nutritionally based ailments such as some cancers.
Over and above being extreme, the solution must also be legal in nature as this is a legal problem. Any form of regulation whether formal or informal must fall under some legal parameters mainly premised on some rules and laws, which govern the conduct of producers, manufacturers, marketers, and vendors (Roff, 2008). Laws on the other hand create bodies, organizations, government arms to superintend the implementation of the aforesaid rules. Further, the laws define at what point an act or an omission amount to an offence and the level of punishment to be meted for the particular offence.
The aforesaid laws will have a transformative effect on the organic food industry. Under auspices of these laws, industry-specific rules should be developed to govern farming, production, labelling and vending of organic foods with extreme punishment including jail sentences being meted upon all those who break these rules. Further, exemplary damages in compensation should also be introduced for all those affected by breaches of the aforesaid rules. The punishment will prevent impunity while the exemplary damages will curb profit making though breaking of the rules (Roff, 2008).
Ethical outcomes emanating from the proposed solution
Most ethical issues are philosophical in nature. The area of philosophy that considers ethics purely on the basis of outcomes is referred to as consequentialism (Fieser, n.d). Under consequentialism, an action or decision is only deemed right if the consequences thereof lead to a better result. This yardstick bases itself on the concept that if not doing something or doing something different creates a better outcome, the initial decision must be abandoned for the new one (Fieser, n,d). The instant topic and the aforesaid solution regard specifics of food quality. This is an ethically sensitive topic since billions of people around the world have insufficient food of any quality. With the US food market also being serviced by international farmers, the change of laws and rules as suggested will, therefore, also affect food production in some countries where food security is critical. This is one of the major consequences of the proposed solution.
Another major negative consequence will be an increase in food prices. Currently, unhealthy fast food is among the cheapest available foods in the market and this has contributed greatly to the poor health among the populace in the lower ranks of the social ladder. Stronger laws will create tighter regulation on organic food production thus increasing the prices. The agricultural industry in the US is continuously struggling financially such that without government subsidization, the industry stands the risk of collapsing (Greene, 2016). The change of laws will definitely negatively impact part of this industry with negative consequences.
However, organic food accounts for only a small cross-section of the United States food market. Changes in this industry will, therefore, only account for a minute change in the overall food industry and an even more miniature one in the international scene. Further, with regard to cost issues, organic food buyers are a specialized group that is more interested in the quality of food than the cost thereof (Greene, 2016). There is also the issue of additional cost of food due to overconsumption in America where the average Body Mass Index is overweight (Greene, 2016).
With the relatively lower consumption and desire for quality by consumers of organic foods, the price change issue is mitigated.
With regard to the ethical issue effect on the overall American agricultural industry, the mitigating factor is that organic farming is a matter of choice (Greene, 2016). The only mandatory provision on the law regards GMO derivative, but if the farmer willingly opts to pursue organic farming, there is an obligation to follow it through. It, therefore, follows that only trustworthy organic farmers will label and market their products as organic and the culture of mediocrity in the organic food farming will by extension be curbed. The upshot of the foregoing is that despite the consequential ethical issues involved, the proposed solution is still viable.
Statistical peer reviewed data
Brandt, M. (2012). Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds . Retrieved from <https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html/>
Overview of the Article
This is a research that calls out the fallacy of organic food as commercialized by the contemporary American vendors. The author is a practicing healthcare officer and a researcher at the prestigious Stanford. After being badgered with questions on the benefits of organic foods, Brant endeavors to conduct a research both on the organic foods industry and the organic foods themselves (Brandt, 2012). The research was conducted in two levels. The first was a general but comprehensive literature review on the organic food industry involving many publications (Brandt, 2012). The second was a systematic review of organic food and its benefits.
Statistical data
The statistical data derived from the aforesaid studies is in two dimensions emanating from the two versions of the study. The general research showed the magnitude of the US organic food industry growing exponentially with a major increase from the average annual sales of US$ 2.4 billion in 1997 and US$ 24.4 billion in 2011, a tenfold difference in slightly over a decade. This difference emanated from increase in volumes of sale as well as increase in prices of organic labelled foods (Brandt, 2012).
The systematic study found and perused 17 specialized clinical studies on populations consuming organic and conventional foods and 223 studies on the nutritional levels of organic foods as compared to conventional foods. The 240 studies aforesaid were picked from thousands of similar studies and this clearly show the level of interest that organic foods have elicited. The results however, showed that the nutritional difference between organic foods of different natures was negligible. This was similar in organic plant products and organic animal products. Further, the risk of adverse chemical contamination on the products derived from pesticides on plants and drugs on animals was 30% (Brandt, 2012).
Evidence Evaluation
Validity and Reliability
The research conducted passes all the requirements for validity and by extension reliability. First it was based on a valid need derived from the practice of Dr. Bravata. There was therefore, no ulterior motives relating to the grounds for the research. The research was also conducted in one of the premier medical training institutions in the US and perhaps the world to wit the Stanford Medical School. Finally, the diversity in the study was created through the sifting of thousands of publications regarding the subjects then carefully perusing hundreds of specific publication. The findings of this research were the subject of another research by the Hoover Institute, which agreed with and supported the findings thereof. They are also in agreement with the findings of a publication by the Mayo Clinic on the same subject matter (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2014). These factors confirm both the validity and reliability of the instant study.
Bias related to the chosen topic
The chosen topic in this study regards an indication that something is wrong with the way the organic food industry is being conducted and begs for review. The instant study being reviewed is also premised on the same notion. The initial study was inquisitive in nature after a practicing healthcare officer could not come up with the nutritional benefits of organic foods. This is peculiar as these benefits were being marketed as absolute by organic food vendors and producers. The bias of the research is on the negative which matches that of the instant article.
Strengths and weaknesses
The main strength of the research is premised on its diversity. Had the research been clinical in nature, it would only have contained the opinion and findings of the research team. The instant research however, combines and compares different findings and opinions thus increasing accuracy. The main weakness however, lies in the fact that the research was theoretical in nature, being based only on publications. The researcher, therefore, lacked a practical perspective of the situation on the ground. Further, there was a limit of scope to finished products without researching on the entire process.
Greene, C. (2016). USDAERS - organic agriculture: Organic market overview. Retrieved from <http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx/>
Overview of the Article
The researcher and author of this publication Catherine Greene, is a senior agricultural economist at the Rural Economics Division of the US federal government. Research is her specific area of operation (Greene, 2016). As indicated hereinabove, agriculture in the US is heavily subsidized by the federal government hence requires well detailed reports regarding the agricultural sector nationwide. The instant research is premised on a methodical and in-depth analysis of these reports as held by the federal government. The research regards the scope of organic farming in the US as compared with the demand thereof. The aim of the research was to enable better sector-specific funding for organic farming by the federal government (Greene, 2016).
Statistical data
The statistical data in the research entails the penetration of organic food in the US market. It showed that there were over 20,000 specialized organic food stores across the US and 75% of conventional stores sold organic food (Greene, 2016). The total volume of organic food sales in the US was 4% of the total food sales as at 2005, 93 percent was through stores and 7% through direct sales by the farmers. The distribution of sale of products was as shown below (Greene, 2016).
The research also showed the national distribution of the demand for organic foods in the US as shown herein above. The research clearly shows that the organic foods industry is robust an enjoying rapid growth and penetration across the entire nation (Greene, 2016).
Evaluate evidence
Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of the publication is above average. The data used for the research is derived from the federal government. The process for which the data is used, to wit agricultural funding is subject to congressional oversight. Due diligence has, therefore, been undertaken to ensure accuracy. Further, the researcher as aforesaid is well-educated and experienced in the area of research in general and of agricultural research in particular. Further, the projections made in the research in 2005 have been realized a decade later. These, therefore, confirms the above average level of reliability and validity of the research and report. However, the reliability and validity of the research is not absolute as there is only one source of data, to wit the federal government.
Bias related to the topic
Both the problem outlined in this article and the proposed solution herein is government based and the research conducted herein was also done by an arm of the government. Whereas the intentions of the published research may not tally with that of the instant article, there is a joint bias premised on the fact that the government is central to the published article as well as the problem and solution in this article.
Strengths and weaknesses
Whereas all efforts may have been done to ensure the accuracy of the data by the government, the many levels of information transmission may affect its accuracy. There is also the possibility of fudging of data to enhance federal funding. These are the main weaknesses of the research. Among the strengths is that there is more personal motive for the researcher who is only doing her job. This creates an assurance that the data has not been fudged during processing. Further, it carries the impulse of being a government based research with its neutral connotation.
Limitations of current research and areas for future research
As with many US industries, most of the current research is being undertaken by or sponsored by commercial industry players. Commercially based industry is mainly targeted and will show the results anticipated by the sponsors. As shown above, most academic research is based on literature review, which can be influenced by commercial industry players as they contribute greatly to the overall volume of the research. To avert this, there is need for more funding to enable in depth direct research by independent bodies such as medical institutions. This research can be funded by corporate organizations that have no interests in organic foods as part of corporate social responsibility. It can also be funded by the government.
The second limitation is the lack of long term research on the effects of organic food consumption. Nutrition is a wide area of study and results cannot be limited to the testing of chemical contents in foods. There is need to test the long term effects of the absolute use of organic products and compare it with the use of orthodox foods. However, such long term research is quite expensive which raises the issue of funding. With the funding solutions suggested above, this can also be achieved.
The organic food industry is a segment of the food industry, which is among the biggest industries in the US and the world at large. Even a small segment of this industry is worth billions of dollars in annual sales and this has created an incentive for big business in the extremely capitalist US market. Today, an orange costs twice as much as another orange simply because the other one is marked ‘organic food’. This scenario creates great room for abuse, but it is important for the consumer who is willing to pay more for organic foods to get value for their money. Furthermore, most organic foods are processed and sold in stores.
When consumers make purchases, the same is based on the labels placed in the packaging. It is fundamental for what is written in these labels to match the condition and history of the products so marked. This has unfortunately not been the case as many consumers end up paying higher for organic foods only to carry home mislabeled orthodox foods. This predicament is the grounds for the recommendation made herein for tougher and more comprehensive laws regarding organic product labelling. The principle of caveat emptor cannot apply on food products when the taxpayers are spending millions of dollars on food regulation. Producers, manufacturers and vendors must be held to account for what they tell consumers about the products they sell.
References
Bauer, B. (2016). Nutrition and healthy eating. What is BPA, and what are the concerns about BPA ? Retrieved from <http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/bpa/faq-20058331/>
Brandt, M. (2012). Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds . Retrieved from <https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html/>
Cohrssen, J. J. & Miller, H. (2016). The USDA'S meaningless organic label: the courts could end this deceptive marketing program. Regulation, (1), 24.
Crinnion, W. J. (2010). Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer. Alternative Medicine Review, 15 (1), 4-12.
Fieser, J. (n.d). Ethics. Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from, <http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/>
Food and Drug Administartion. (2016). Bisphenol A (BPA): Use in food contact application. Retrieved from <http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm064437.htm/>
Greene, C. (2016). USDAERS - organic agriculture: Organic market overview. Retrieved from <http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx/>
Mayo Clinic Staff (2014). Nutrition and healthy eating organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? Mayoclinic. Retrieved from <http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880/>
Miller, H. I. (2015). The dirty truth about “organic.” Retrieved from <http://www.hoover.org/research/dirty-truth-about-organic/>
Roff, R. J. (2008). No alternative? The politics and history of non-GMO certification. Agriculture and Human Values, 26 (4), 351–363. doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9166-5
Smith, M. D. (2014). Non-GMO vs. organic. Better Nutrition, 76 (3), 70-72
Wright, B. (2013). BPA and you, your family and your patient’s health. Podiatry Review, 70 (6), 12-13
