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



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.


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.


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.






good reading


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


Great post


Honesty is very important Worth sharing


thanks for this post.


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


Crystal Chang

I agree that it should be a conversation to question what is in people’s food. It is valid to want to know what one is putting in their body. There are so many ingredients in the food people eat now that are unpronounceable. I agree that it is wrong for people to just assume that scientists are “plucking carcinogens” and putting them into people’s food. Instead, people need to have a proper conversation with these scientists to better understand why they are put in, the benefits and the risks, and what society can do about it. I also agree that is is extremely challenging to try to explain such a complex science to the masses. People will only hear what they want to hear, and may not take well to what the scientists say regardless. As the article states, “You have to make the people feel as though they already know what you want them to know.” To solve this issue, one must bridge the gap between scientists and the average person. Scientists communicate by using and analyzing data off charts, while the average person communicates by explaining what they know based off hearsay. I agree that it can be ridiculous to ask scientists to change harmless ingredients to more familiar ingredients because the public wants them to. If there is no harm, there should be no reason that they need to change these ingredients. The solution is to have a conversation between the professionals and the consumers, and debunk the myths, while correcting what needs to be fixed. Consumers must learn to be more aware that not everything they read is true, while scientists should be more open to educate the public on these complex ingredients. There simply needs to be more education on the topic, and more conversation to reach a healthy compromise.

Reyna Sanchez

I agree to Renault people need to be informed of the things we are eating everyday because our health is important and if we really care about it, we must know what we are putting inside our body. Scientists are making so much money by altering the food and if we are paying for it, we have the to know what we are eating. Although it is possible that people will not understand about additives, they still need to be informed because many times the food is been there for a while and those additives make it look fres but to me, it is better to know about it before I consume it because I like to know more about food safety and if tit is fresh or not. Eating healthy food is very important to improve people's life, therefore I totally agree to Renault's idea about clear communication to society about the things we are eating. As people get sick for eating processed food, the government is making money from medication. Many people do not eat healthy because it is expensive, so I believe that society must avoid any food that has been processed or do not have enough information on how it looks fresh when it has been at the freezer for a while because if they are hiding things there is information that may affect society and certainly nothing good will come after eating that. The reason why those products are listed in confusing words may be a key to wonder what they are and what they are hiding from society. People are consuming artificial food that has been processed to look nice like chicken have earing chemicals that make them grow and look delicious in the eyes of the consumer, but that meat is unhealthy, and will bring consequences to the people. People need to be aware of what they eat to improve their life protecting their health.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


Post a comment

Your Information

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

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan