« Ugly talk: Meredith Simons on sexist comments in the news | Main | Athletes speaking up: Joe Vardon on “sticking to sports” »

02/16/2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bailey Herndon

Being honest about what is in food is important because it is what you are putting in your body. Many people, like myself, want whats best for their bodies and want to be as healthy and clean as possible. When I think of unhealthy, processed food it makes my stomach hurt. I look at it as being dirty and fake. If companies are going to trim around the bush about the ingredients in their food then they shouldn't be manufacturing it. I look at it as lying to their customers.

Anna

Bailey, I agree with your point that if food companies are not willing to tell their customers what they put in their food, then they should not be able to manufacture food. Eating healthy foods, and living healthy lifestyles are extremely important for each of our health and without knowing what is being put in food it defeats the purpose of healthy eating.

Robb McKenzie

I agree with the skeptics that are questioning some of the additives put into food, because I too don’t know much about what is put into my foods and how they can affect me. However, I can only think logically when it comes to this, because unless your food company is really shady, I don’t think that whatever chemicals are added to food are too harmful to the consumers; that is just a bad business practice. Renault claims that a large part of the public’s mistrust comes from the lack of communication, because scientists “communicate in data charts and tables.” The fix to the problem then seems rather apparent.

Foods scientists would only need to explain what those additives within the food are actually doing in order to regain the trust of both the wary and the skeptics that have doubted them. Therein the problem lies again in that not many scientists are known for their communication skills and they often times are more comfortable talking in “scientist” than they are in more common knowledge terminology. The only thing that will be able to truly “fix” this problem is time, because hopefully in the future, either the common people get smarter or the scientists learn to communicate better.

Zack Martin

Baily Herndon,When it comes to the topic of modified food, most of us will readily agree that it is somewhat disconcerting that companies are modify our food. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of if these modifications are necessary. While some are convinced that it is a dastardly practice that needs to end, others believe that modified foods are what is keeping many people feed and healthy. Personally, I feel that these modifications are necessary to producing enough food to feed livestock and people alike. These altered crops also offer the best solution to feeding the starving world, as many of these revised foods can grow in unique areas not previously possible. These alterations are also done to get many people the nutrients they need, for example cereal companies fortify their cereals with vital nutrients. This nutrient deficiency doesn’t only affect the poor nations though as many in the United States are malnourished. The United States actually has a very unique problem as we have fat people in the United States that are malnourished, so even with these modifications people are still not getting the nutrients they need. To conclude, I feel that many of these modifications are unhealthy, but in the same light there are many that are necessary to feeding the world and ending global hunger.

Kylie K

I agree with Bailey Henderson’s argument that being honest about what is in food is important. I completely understand how Henderson says that companies that are not straight forward with what is in their products are pretty much lying to their customers. The customers have a right to know what they are eating and should be able to decide if they want to consume it. Yes, living a healthy lifestyle is important, but I believe people will still consume the modified products. Not everyone can afford buying products that are not modified, but at least if the label is correct, then they can know what they are consuming.

Zachary Owens

I agree with Bailey Herndon’s idea that food companies need to be honest with what is in the food that they are manufacturing. Herndon’s theory about food companies not telling consumers what exactly is in the food they are manufacturing is useful because it sheds light on the problem that food companies could be lying to their consumers. Not telling exactly what is in the food is essentially the same thing as lying. However, I believe living a healthy lifestyle and eating the right food is still up to the individual. Many people are still going to eat the modified foods, but I insist that the labels should list the correct ingredients, so people will know what they are consuming.

girunit94

Most all of you have added your confidence that companies are in need of labeling their ingredients fully and properly. Robb McKenzie's says sarcastically, "However, I can only think logically when it comes to this, because unless your food company is really shady, I don’t think that whatever chemicals are added to food are too harmful to the consumers; that is just a bad business practice". His point is that these companies are avoiding the question. I must object, because that line of thinking he quotes is not like fools gold, but is quite reasonable. For a consumer to note that a company is/has been shady is a logical reason to be skeptical of said company. The bigger companies must spend more money to ensure their large scale audience is safe. To take a case in point about the legitimacy of definitely avoiding "shady companies", early man might avoid avoid eating foreign objects based on past experiences for a matter of survival; surely, survival goes hand-in-hand with logic.
Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that dishonesty should not be tolerated or accepted with respect to food items. In contrast though, I argue that is room for food scientists for citing there studies; no room on the packaging and no room in our hearts. In other words, the transparency we ask for we don't even want to deal with. Who would want to buy a bag of Cheetos that looked like a college research paper, certainly not Jared and Kyle from down the road. I side with the author of the article in discussion. I would add that these, "dishonest companies", hire scientist who study and understand the chemical makeup of a tomato, and regularly test how the chemicals they use not only benefit, but also may hurt the product and the consumer.

maryjane

informative.

maryjane

informative.

stella

good reading

ndemi

Why do nutritionists and food scientists like giving us contradictory information?You can never tell who is saying the truth..today you here this,tomorrow you hear the opposite

dan karanja

nice article

Victor

Great post

Antonina

Honesty is very important Worth sharing

arthur

thanks for this post.

Denny

The essay arrived earlier than I expected ! I appreciate your afford and professionalism. The essay is very well written, it is perfect as a model answer

Joseph Lai

Being familiar with the issue with full nutritional values not being labeled when people buy it. I have come across many essays and articles in which the writer is offering their views on why not including every single calorie consumed with a product is a leading cause of obesity in the country. Renault believes that it is difficult to get the information of what foods contain certain chemicals word for word if all the names of the ingredients are some advanced, scientific term. This leads to unease of the consumer’s mind with all of that scientific language and that can possibly be why nobody actually knows what they are eating. The scientists who conducted the research, also known as Citation Needed from Ohio State University, know that people fear what they do not understand, so the logical course of action would be to let them feel as though they already know what is in their food. It makes sense because nobody would continue reading something that does not sound clear to them. For example, when a reader does not understand a paragraph he or she just read, the reader will continue reading it until it is understood, or they simply give up and move on. Renault is correct in the idea that simply changing the names of chemicals in food to simpler a more understandable term, such as citric acid and sodium chloride to lemon and salt would benefit the consumer. Those lengthy lists of items and numbers on the back of a food product labeled under Nutrition Facts is there for a reason and it is often overlooked. To be realistic, nobody actually looks at a list of information before opening the candy wrapper on a chocolate bar. It is simply not logical. Food scientists must adapt to these issues and try to at least help consumers from being unknowing of what is actually in their foods. Fast Food companies as well are especially unclear on this idea because their foods are generally packaged and unhealthy. Being part of the leading cause in obesity, specific food labels are necessary for a person to make proper eating choices and to not eat the wrong foods.

Martin Buuri Kaburia

Plausable

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)