Sunday, December 2, 2012

Dirty Hands.. In Our Food?



When thinking about the concept of dirty hands, the first thing that came to my mind was the hidden costs and tactics of the food industry in the US today, and the role our government has in condoning its behaviors.

It is argued that politicians take the burden of dirtying their hands because they have to act dishonest for us. There are difficult situations and scenarios in which dirty hands are often deemed necessary – we need to do bad in order to do some good. In politics, dirty hands can be justified. However, in business practices, the moral concept of dirty hands does not exist. Businesses are advised to be socially responsible, but at the end of the day, the bottom line profit and dividends to shareholders is what everyone cares about. People applaud CEOs that can cut costs to increase profits. So then, what happens in situations where politics and business collide, as it does in our food industry?

Here is the trailer to a documentary called Food, Inc that examines the industrialized food system in the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0

Our food industry is controlled by a few megacorporations where their ultimate goal is to make food faster, fatter, bigger, and cheaper. This would be acceptable if it did not have any consequences to the quality and safety of the food we are consuming, but the fact-of-the-matter is, it does. For example, in the past five years there have been e. coli breakouts in prepackaged cookie dough, spinach, and hazelnuts. E. coli is a bacterium found in the lower intestine of warm-blooded animals. Last time I checked none of those items have to do with the lower intestines of warm-blooded animals.

Then I asked: What is our government doing about this? Aren’t there any regulatory objects in place to protect consumers and citizens? I first wondered if this was a problem of dirty hands. Sure, we have a few e.coli outbreaks, but in the end the entire nation has cheap food available to them for purchase. In the end, small overlooks in the system benefit the state as a whole because there is less starvation and hunger in the US. There is some good with the bad and that’s just politics and life.

However, after a closer look, this may not be the whole story. According to Food, Inc, the chief of staff at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was the former chief lobbyist to the beef industry in Washington. The head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was the former vice president of the National Food Processors Association. The regulatory agencies put in place to protect us are being controlled by the very companies that they are supposed to be scrutinizing. Instead of the government having power to protect its people, corporations are placing people into the government to protect themselves. These politicians aren’t acting for the people but for the company.
Other people in high places of government are also linked with the food industry. Donald Rumsfeld, former defense secretary, was chairman and CEO of Searle pharmaceuticals. Monsanto, an agricultural biotechnology company heavily involved in the industrialized food industry, bought his company after it had trouble finding a buyer. At the time Rumsfeld’s stock and options in Searle were valued at $12 million. Rumsfeld also intervened when Monsanto tried to get its product aspartame approved by the FDA. More on Rumsfeld’s relationship with Monsanto here. as

Politicians like Rumsfeld personally gain more by helping companies – not the people. So this isn’t a dirty hands issue like I had originally thought. However, if there was a move to break these large corporations that are controlling the entire US food industry, dirty hands may come to play. If the government placed more regulations and kept the corporations in check, costs of producing food may go up. This would directly impact consumers like you and me with higher food costs. Specific people may lose their high positions of power, wealth, and influence. If the government took a step further and promoted small local farmers and farmers markets through subsidies, people that work at these large multinational corporations may be left without jobs. There is some bad that comes with changing the current system, but is it worth it to have increased health and safety for workers as well as consumers in today’s food industry. Is it worth it to know where your food comes from?

What do you think about how the food industry works in the US? Do you think dirty hands politics is necessarily to move away from large multinational corporations and smaller local farms?

3 comments:

  1. Ellen,

    I really enjoyed reading about your take on the corruption in the US food industry; it was a great incorporation of Michael Walzer's Dirty Hands essay. I believe the whole concept of lobbyists in any industry creates corruption that is neither justified nor follows the format of dirty hands, because of the simple fact that often lobbyists and lawmakers only enact legislation not for the good of the people but to better themselves.

    A few years ago during the Toyota recall over I believe faulty brakes, many news outlets released articles on the nature of car companies lobbying. The following is one of the many, http://autos.aol.com/article/car-companies-lobbying/ . In this article they basically compare lobbyists and government to a twisted game that does not compare to the dirty hands problem at all. Research has even proven that it takes more lobbyists to enact legislation than it takes to counteract legislation, and thus slowing down our government.

    To answer your question about whether the food industry will need dirty hands to improve, I would say yes. Organic and natural foods have become a lot more difficult to produce when compared to the artificial foods that many Americans consume on a regular basis. This production disparity leads to a much higher price disparity and thus very few can even afford this seemingly expensive food. If the government were to enact legislation to prevent multinational corporations from producing as much food by creating health restrictions, not only would the jobless rate shoot through the roof but the initial increase in prices before market adjustments would cause many to go starving. These consequences as a means to better the food industry is dirty hands politics, however I don't think any changes will be happening any time soon!

    Overall this was an insightful and interesting post!

    Malini

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ellen,
    If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that the dirty hands lie in the food industry’s keeping food cheap, but through means that are unhealthy and potentially dangerous when it comes to the sanitary aspect of the food that is being distributed. I think that when it comes to government regulations such as the FDA, it is definitely safe to say an organization that regulates food products is necessary and desirable for the safety of consumers. However attractive it is to believe in the idea of a government by the people, for the people, which works exclusively in favor of its constituents, this is obviously not always the case. The government and its institutions like the FDA can be flawed in their intentions because as these bureaucrats are not elected, they have no incentive to make organizations like the FDA do their job efficiently and well. Because of this, maybe it would be better to let the competitive free market take over this job, and let the incentive of competition and profit drive these companies to more thoroughly check our food for safety.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very interesting!

    In high school, I took an Environmental Biology course and we actually discussed this topic in great detail. The aspect I found most interesting from your article is whether or not producing cheap, yet unhealthy food is a matter of dirty hands or not. You mentioned that the small overlooks in the system benefit the state as a whole because there is less starvation and hunger, yet producers are going to dirty their hands through the occasional e.coli outbreaks. I find it hard to derive whether it is a dirty hands scenario or not because it is hard to measure. Assuming saving life through committing a morally wrong action constitutes dirty hands, one may say this modern corrupt food process is responsible for dirtying its hands to save the lives of the hungry, who are at risk of death by starvation, but through this process lives may be lost through e.coli infections. It really begs the question if saving lives through killing other lives is acceptable. Nevertheless, this is surely an interesting question to analyze and I enjoyed reading your opinion regarding it.

    Ben


    ReplyDelete