'Food Inc. Case Study Essay\r'

'1. How has applied science been applied to the nutrition production plow? award/describe at to the lowest degree 3 examples. In the last 50 age, engineering has completely changed the course we eat. When we think around farming, we think red barns, unripened grass, free-roaming animals, etc. Farming, now-a-days, is far different than the image the intentness has lead us to believe. Farming has become a highly industrialized and mechanized avocation. The reality is our victuals is no longer feeler from farms; it’s coming off assembly lines in pointories, reasonable manage automobiles. Due to the high demand for certain types of diets, technology has allowed us to change the charge we give rise our food. with genetic engineering, scientists have been subject to introduce genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) into the food system to jockstrap with the shortfall of food. Take for instance, the chicken. In 1950, it took farmers 70 days to foster a chicken. Now, it takes half the time, only 48 days. not only passel farmers grow chickens faster, they provide grow them to be bigger.\r\nTo meet the needs of consumers’ preferences for white meat, scientists feature specific changes to the chickens’ DNA that make it possible to redesign the chicken to have larger breasts (Wikipedia.org). Another state where technology was applied to our food production process was through crops. In the 1930’s scientists developed a hybrid origin for corn, this hybrid had stronger stalks that resisted being short-winded over and it allowed farmers to plant the crop closer in concert (Food, Inc. intervention Guide). Resulting in higher yields, â€Å"100 grades ago a farmer in the States could grow maybe 20 bushels of corn on an acre. Today, 200 bushels is no problem” (Food, Inc.). With the surplus of corn, scientists were able to develop much uses for it. A couple of examples take corn-based ethanol fuel, high-fru ctose corn syrup, maltodextrin, etc. Even though the technological advances mentioned above ar astounding, one can’t help provided wonder how these changes be affecting society.\r\n2. How has work influenced government in the plain / food industry? Give at least 3 examples from the documentary. Monsanto has influenced government in many slipway when it comes to the agricultural / food industry. Michael Pallon, an American author / diarist / activist, states â€Å"There has been this revolving door between Monsanto’s unified offices and the various regulatory and judicial bodies that have made the key stopping points.” (Food, Inc.). For example, Justice Cl bence Thomas (1991 †Present) was an attorney for Monsanto from 1976 †1979 and wrote the legal age of the opinion that refused farmers from cleaning and saving their own catch outd (Food, Inc.) Monsanto also had very close ties to the Bush and Clinton Administration.\r\nThese ties eliminate d the semipolitical debates over the extreme change in our food system. â€Å"For the last 25 years, our government has been dominated by the industries that it was meant to be regulating” (Food, Inc.). Take for example, Michael Taylor King, a Spaulding lawyer from 1994 †1991. He advised his client, Monsanto, on GMF laboratoryeling. Then in 1991, he became the Deputy Commissioner for Policy and oversaw the FDA’s decision not to label GMF’s. As stated in the film, there is too much centralized power. Farmers are going into more and more debt with each year passing and what’s truly sad ab start the whole situation is they have no authority over the businesses they worked tooth and nail for.\r\n3. What is the FDA’s most modern policy on genetically engineered foods? If you use a quote, then use deuce paragraphs or more to support the quote. According to Noelle Cremers with the California Farm berth the FDA’s most current policy regard ing genetically engineered foods is as follows, â€Å"And if I can point out the reason that we are concerned with labeling is it creates unnecessary veneration in a consumer’s mind. Until the industry has an hazard to educate why we want to use this technology and the value of the technology, we don’t feel that consumers just having a warning label will help them” (Food, Inc.). The problem with this is it violates consumer’s ripe(p)fulnesss. As stated in the â€Å"consumer’s Magna Carta” that was spelled out by President ass F. Kennedy, consumers have four basic rights, the right to be informed, the right to safety, the right to choose, and the right to be comprehend (Carroll and Buchholtz 392).\r\nThe FDA is violating at least three of consumer’s rights by not labeling for GMO’s. Starting with the right to be informed, which â€Å"refers to the consumer’s right to know about a product, its use, and the cautions to be exercised while using it” (Carroll and Buchholtz 392). Without labeling, consumers have no clew what they are consuming, they are not informed. Next, the FDA is violating consumer’s right to safety which refers to concerns of a product being knockout (Carroll and Buchholtz 392). Even though GMO’s were discovered in the 1970’s, approximately 40 years ago, there is poor to no research proving these products are safe for us to consume. Are they trying to cover up the fact that they are dangerous? Lastly, they are not allowing consumers the right to choose. Without full disclosure of GMO’s, how can one make an accurate choice? As far as the right to be heard, the FDA is hearing consumer’s desires and grievances towards the labeling of GMO’s, they’re just not listening.\r\n4. What evidence do you see in the documentary that business is taking a more proactive, socially accountable stance to food production? To sample it is possible for businesses to have a proactive, socially trusty stance in the way food is produced, the documentary focus on two companies, Polyface Farms and Stonyfield Farms. Joel Salatin, owner of Polyface Farms, is hitting the nail on the mastermind when it comes to being a socially responsible business owner. He’s upholding his economic responsibility to be profitable. He may not be endeavor to have his food sold at Wal-Mart, but he is charging customer’s fair prices for the persona of food he is providing. Polyface Farms is being legally responsible by obeying all laws.\r\nAlthough, the United States Department of hoidenish did try shutting them down because their operations are open to the air and it is considered to be unsanitary. However, he had his workplace elaborationd at a local microbiology lab and the results averaged 133 colony forming units, where the cultures from stores averaged 3600 colony forming units. In microbiology, colony-forming unit (C FU) is an pronounce of viable bacterial or fungal numbers. unlike direct microscopic counts where all cells, dead and living, are counted, CFU estimates viable cells (Wikipedia.org). Lastly, Polyface farms is withholding there ethical standards high. any(prenominal) could argue that killing animals for food is wrong, but that is a completely different subject.\r\nThe company is showing rate to the planet, their workers, the animals, and their consumers. In the documentary Joel Salatin states, â€Å"I mean, a culture that just candidates a pig as a pile of protoplasmic inanimate structure to be manipulated by whatever creative design that humans can foist on that critter will probably view individuals within its familiarity and other cultures in the community of nations with the same type of disdain, disrespect and controlling-type mentality.” (Food, Inc.).\r\nThat statement only if proves he is ethically responsible. The documentary also focused on Stonyfield Farms as a socially responsible company. Gary Hirschberg, the COO of Stonyfield Farms states, â€Å"When we started out, we were a seven-cow farm. We wanted to prove that business could be part of the solution to the globe’s environmental problems. At the same time we had to prove that we could be highly profitable” (Food, Inc.). Stonyfield is the third largest yoghurt brand in America, and they are the most profitable, e.g. they’re being economically responsible. The company is proving to be ethically responsible by providing total yogurt, quality products, to the consumers at a responsible price, and you can tell in the documentary that their animals are being treated with respect.\r\nThe oxen were roaming free and were very clean, the farm had red barns that were kept nicely, and the grass was green. More and more companies today, are sprinting into the organic business. They are starting to realize that consumers are light up and seeing behind the veil the food i ndustry has put up. Consumers want to be healthy, be respected as both consumers and worker, and they want to continue our environment for future generations.\r\nWorks Citied\r\nCarroll, Archie B., and Buchholtz, Ann K. Business and lodge: Ethics, Sustainability,\r\nand Stakeholder Management. 8th ed. Mason, OH: Cengage, 2012. â€Å"Colony-forming Unit.” Wikipedia.org. 4 February 2014. 18 March 2014\r\n< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony-forming_unit>\r\nFood, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Perf. Robert Kenner; Richard Pearce; Eric Schlosser; genus Melissa Robledo; William Pohlad; Jeff Skoll; Robin Schorr; Diane Weyermann; Elise Pearlstein; Kim Roberts; Michael Pollan; Gary Hirshberg; Joel Salatin; Mark Adler.\r\nLos Angeles, CA : Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2009. DVD.\r\nâ€Å"Food, Inc. Discussion Guide.” Takepart.com. 15 March 2014\r\nâ€Å"Genetically Modified Food.” Wikipedia.org. 17 March 2014. 18 March 2014\r\n< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneti cally_modified_food >\r\n'