The answer to this question for many people would be “free-range” or “raised without hormones”; however, a “natural” label on meat does not mean anything even remotely close to that. The Food Safety and Inspection Service defines natural as “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed”. Therefore, the natural label on your food has absolutely nothing to do with how it was raised, only how it was processed post mortem. A package of meat labeled “natural” could lead back to an animal given growth hormones, antibiotics and raised in feedlot. How is that natural in the slightest?
Nearly two-thirds of consumers in the U.S. are mislead by that label and understandably so. Do you think that the USDA should ban the use of this label as Consumer Reports suggests? Or should the Food and Safety Inspection service be permitted to expand their jurisdiction to the full lifespan of the animal so that the labels will be more accurate and less misleading to the average consumer?
I think that the term natural is an important one and should be allowed on meat. However, I believe that it should only be permitted to be used if it has a stronger meaning than how an animal was processed after it was already killed. I think that labels make it difficult for consumers to shop and for them to understand what they are buying. Without regulation, companies can put whatever labels they want on their products without informing consumers what they really mean. I think if companies did not mislead consumers, they would make wiser decisions when purchasing food. However, since big companies usually do not care about the consumers well-being and only care about making money, companies will probably continue to do what will make them the most money. So, in the mean time, consumers should do their own research and find out what is truly in their food.
ReplyDeleteHey Taylor! It is interesting that you bring up this topic because it is similar to the topic I want to write about. I agree when you say that it is not as it is labeled. For instance, it is all based on perspective when it should be about knowledge instead of interpretation. We should be fully aware about the foods we put into our systems. However, don't studies indicate that people are living longer? I mean, isn't that weird because we eat so many bad foods and hurt our bodies yet we still remain healthy? I don't really understand this concept and food has a very complicated role in our modern society because everyone does just as Elizabeth said, to produce food in a quick, efficient, cheap way.
ReplyDeleteHey Susana! It's cool that you are doing such a similar topic and you should totally check out the webpage I have linked in the post to use as a source. In terms of us living longer, I think it has more to do with healthcare than anything. There were so many illnesses in the past that wiped out huge numbers of people such as the bubonic plague, polio and the Spanish influenza but we have all but eradicated many threatening transmittable illnesses. Also in terms of what goes into our foods nowadays, I think that in the next few generations we will really be able to see the long term impacts of processed and fast foods. The oldest generation now is more or less composed of baby boomers which were born during the time when processed foods were just taking off. Anyway, thanks for your comment and good luck on your paper!
DeleteThat's a good point you've made. With every standard and rule that people make there are probably numerous ways to get around them and that's essentially what has happens with labeling standards.
ReplyDeleteExactly! People will always find loopholes in the system and in the world of food labeling, there are A LOT of loopholes. You can put almost any label on a food product and it doesn't even have to be certified often times. It just goes to show how the food industry is taking advantage of consumers if you ask me.
Delete