Change Your World Week Winter 2022 (Archived)

A national problem of concern that needs to be addressed is the usage of additives and chemicals that are not being labeled with warnings on food products in America. To start, according to Health Harvard Publishing, “over the last few decades, the number of chemicals added to foods and other products has skyrocketed” (McCarthy). This is a critical issue in public health today since some artificial preservatives “have negative and potentially life-threatening side effects” (Anand and Sati p.2498). For example, they can interfere with puberty and fertility, cause problems with the immune system and nervous system, interfere with male genital development, low-birth weight babies, problems with the thyroid, disrupt early brain development, increase symptoms of ADHD, and interfere with the blood’s ability to deliver oxygen which then can increase the risk of some cancers (McCarthy). Similarly, research has found that “sugary drinks are a major factor in rising rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes worldwide” (Lazarus). This is a dangerous problem in America since already more than two in three American adults and about a third of kids ages six through nineteen are overweight or obese (Lazarus).

There are individuals with some form of higher power in America that believe when there is such conclusive science linking these food additives to health problems, there is a responsibility to take steps to protect consumers (Fox News). These same individuals also believe that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the public’s health (Fox News). But, on the other hand, the root cause of this issue is industries unwillingness to share their recipes containing genetically modified ingredients and possible health hazards with their consumers. In fact, it may be startling to know that according to Dr. Harold Goldstein, companies “make products that harm the health of people and then use their profits to influence lawmakers not to do anything about it” (Lazarus). Goldstein also has stated that legislators are not supporting bills for these warning labels “‘because big businesses and their money are scaring the heck out of politicians’” (Lazarus). If political leaders are not going to protect their citizens’ health, who will? Don’t you want to know exactly what you are putting into your body?  

The opposing side says that nowhere directly does it say that free or cheap healthcare is a right, and that our only requirement is to “encourage it,” but in no way does healthcare have to be handed to everyone in the population. This line is in the Preamble, which ties in with the fact that the Bill of Rights lists the freedoms that Americans are in fact guaranteed, but that those rights don’t specifically include goods or services (qtd. in ProCon.org). This means that as Americans, in the eyes of the opposing side, are always welcome to pursue resources to obtain those things, yet it is apparent that we must in a sense, compete and work for those rights. We would argue that in the Declaration of Independence, all have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which can be implied that “life” and “happiness” are interlinked with the right to healthcare.  

The other big contender here is that because healthcare is expensive (and because the US is already buried in financial burden), this means that free or cheaper healthcare would increase federal spending and add to our ever-growing national debt. Consequently, if healthcare were free or cheaper in the case of the United States, the highest level of government would have to pay for it, racking up dollars spent on providing medical services left and right. There is proof that this spending is already growing by the decade, as in the mid-1980's, just 21% of this money was provided to health insurance programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and this is only expected to increase to about 30% in the next five or six years (ProCon.org). Though this appears to be a cohesive counterpoint, it is also safe to say that we can look on the brighter side to the issue of more affordable healthcare. To put this into perspective, researchers conducted an experiment at the University of Amhurst in Massachusetts where they oversaw a system in which citizens are given the right to healthcare. They discovered that drug costs could very well be lowered by 1.8 trillion due to the fact that the medication is at least lower in cost itself, and that public health insurance spends much less on healthcare than the private, exclusive firms themselves do (ProCon.org). 

Even though food additives have been around for centuries, (as the people before us used sugar, salts, oils and spices to preserve and flavor meats, fish, and fruits), now, since food is more readily available in grocery stores and in supermarkets for purchase, not only are there our familiar, readily named herbs, plants, and minerals in the contents of what we eat, there are chemicals that many of us cannot pronounce on the labels of a number of common items. The FDA says that they are safe and don’t cause significant harm to the human body (FDA). This assumption, however, may not actually be shown straight away. Perhaps, maybe, these chemicals are toxic, but the effects only show up over a prolonged period of time, and we often attribute these negative changes to other factors, such as genetics, hormone imbalances, or bad luck.   

An educated person might back the FDA because they are the food and drug administration, right? We should be able to trust them, because it feels right to do so. We want to believe that all authority is looking out for our best interest. The FDA does test these foods and ingredients, and they generally do care about people. They’re not going to give the green light on a chemical that’s going to essentially kill off the population by the masses. The typical agreement is that we should leave it up to the hands of the experts, but we do have a right to be skeptical of the real intentions of the people in power and which individuals are actually informed in addition to what motivates them.   

Bringing into consideration the idea that food additives affect child development is an interesting yet seemingly futile subject of debate. About half of the population believes that there is no early risk to these food additives (48%) and the other half (51%) believes that there is, says Pew Research, its authors and research team. Even though there is a majority and a minority, it is observable that these are still very close numbers, making for a heated topic (Funk et al.). A person who disagrees that these chemicals and additives preservatives don’t actually cause harm might say that today, our longevity spans have increased. As a generally accepted rule, people are living longer and dying later. They might ask why we would be concerned in this day and age if knowledge of medicine is improving by the year, when back in the day, it was much more commonplace to die early from diseases running rampant because we did not know about them or how to control them.   

Individuals holding more democratic partisanship are more likely to think GMOS and other food additives are harmful or questionable (environmentally speaking, meaning public health, and the what ifs), while the Republican side wants to let it be, (economically speaking, their view is that we need to keep the business and the economy moving, especially if these foods aren’t labeled as inherently dangerous) and aren’t as wary, believing that truthfully, these ingredients enhance the quality of our food and are not as big of an issue as they are hyped up to be (Funk et al.). And as a lot of us know, when a problem is officially attached with a political connotation, even if it originally wasn’t, it is extremely hard for the cohesive whole of society to break out of that mindset, though not everyone is necessarily disagreeing or agreeing that GMOs, preservatives, or food additives are terrible for the body solely based on political views. It is more of a matter of personal choice and philosophy, even though partisanship can sometimes indirectly affect those opinions in various cases.   

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the USDA (Department of Agriculture) are government funded programs that decide what information is required on food labels. Food safety is a topic that politicians should be advocating for. Legislators have the power to draft bills. They should draft a bill that requires warning labels on food products that contain harmful ingredients. 

The political process to get this bill passed would require majority support. To bring attention to food safety we must convince policy makers, local and state politicians, and political organizations that food safety is a critical issue. The more citizens that are supportive and pushing for food safety, the more politicians will care about the issue as well. We as people have a responsibility to talk to representatives and make this a priority on their political agenda. 

The number one way to reach the masses of people is through social media “Social media has become the main source of news online with over 2.4 billion users” (Martin). Lizzo is a rising pop star and known for spreading body positivity. She uses her social media platforms to promote her vegan diet. Lizzo has over 20 million followers on Tik Tok and 10 million on Instagram. If Lizzo encouraged her fan base to send letters and call their local representatives, that is potentially 20 million people who want a bill drafted. If 20 million people told their peers about food safety, that 20 million could turn into 40 million. The more people we have pushing for food safety labels, the more our politicians will hear us.  

Health care is known to be very expensive and not affordable. Even calling an ambulance and having a ride to the hospital costs hundreds and even close to thousands. But the cause for the need for healthcare needs to be looked at as well. Americans are very accustomed to substantially bigger portion sizes than any other country. The eating habits of individuals matter, as the food they consume, can come back to bite them in the future. Their lifestyle in diet plays an important role in health, and most people generally don't look at the food labels or even know how to read them. There should be policies to reduce the effect harmful food has on the public such as warning labels required for food that has excessive amounts of sugary, fatty, and sodium. In the past California has had its own battles against obesity and childhood obesity. 

California has been actively going against overly sugary beverages. In 2018 a bill was passed "seeking to limit restaurants to serving children water or unflavored milk with their meals." (Keller). California has had ongoing legislation against sugary beverages and foods since 2012. As they are trying to reduce childhood obesity, parents do not like the idea of the state stepping into their parenting so there was some backlash from the bill being passed. Health in California is a problem people focus on more often than not now, they don't eat fast food regularly and if they do, the fast-food chains try to have healthier food options for their customers.

Warning labels on foods and drinks are helpful to people because they do not know what goes into their foods and drinks. Differing countries such as Peru, Chile, Uraguay, and Israel have adopted labeling laws and regulations. The regulations now "require octagonal, black, and white nutrient warning labels on all processed food and drinks that exceed the threshold for salt, sugar, and saturated fat; and for any products containing trans fats." ("Nutrition Warning Labels"). These labels now implemented in these countries are a wonderful way to show consumers that the product has an excessive amount of sugars, salts, and fats as it could change their minds to look for a healthier option without the black and white label. Adding labels for Americans could significantly reduce the risk of obesity and other preventable illnesses caused by obesity. As unhealthy eating habits affect public health, government intervention comes in to help though it is also an individual responsibility for your own lifestyle and diet. 154 countries around the world have several ways to promote healthier food choices. According to a study, some of the ways these countries' governments help promote healthy eating are nutrition and diet counseling, dietary guidelines and labels, media campaigns, and nutrition and health claims. For nutrition and diet, counseling is the highest used measure to prevent obesity and illnesses. (Giner, C, and J. Brooks. 7).

This picture shows the labels that Uruguay, Chile, and Israel have adopted in their labeling laws & regulations. These labels help customers realize the food they're about to buy has an excessive amount of either sugar, fats, saturated fats, trans fats, or sodium.

One way to take action is to know who your local representative is and contact them. If one person contacts a local representative, it won't be as influential compared to 20-30 people calling and pushing for something to be done. The power is in numbers. The more people we have that care about food safety and their health, the more likely something will get done. This link can be used to find out who your local representative is, reach out and express your concerns:

Find Your Representative | house.gov 

Below you can find links to petitions to sign that are related to this topic:

Anand, S. P., and N. Sati. “Artificial Preservatives and Their Harmful Effects: Looking Toward Nature For Safer Alternatives.” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, 2013, https://ijpsr.com/bft-article/artificial-preservatives-and-their-harmful-effects-looking-toward-nature-for-safer-alternatives/. Accessed 11 March 2022.  

Constitution of the United States. 1787. The Preamble, US National Archives and Records Administration, https://healthcare.procon.org/. Accessed 11 March 2022. 

Declaration of Independence of the United States. US National Archives and Records Administration, https://healthcare.procon.org/. Accessed 11 March 2022. 

Food and Drug Administration. “Overview of Food Ingredients, Additives, and Colors.” FDA, https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/overview-food-ingredients-additives-colors. Accessed 11 March 2022. 

Fox News. “California Bill Would Require Warning Labels on Sugary Drinks.” Fox News Network, 2015, https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7118-1. Accessed 11 March 2022. 

Funk, Cary, et al. “Public Perspectives on Food Risks.” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/11/19/public-perspectives-on-food-risks/. Accessed 11 March 2022. 

Giner, C. and J. Brooks (2019), "Policies for encouraging healthier food choices", OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/11a42b51-en. Accessed March 11 2022.  

Keller, Megan. “California Bill Seeks to Restrict Restaurants Serving Kids Sugary Drinks.” TheHill, 20 Aug. 2018, https://thehill.com/homenews/news/402559-ca-bill-seeks-to-restrict-sugary-drinks-for-kids-in-restaurants. Accessed 11 March 2022.  

Lazarus, David. “Column: Why is the food industry dead set against warning labels?” Los Angeles Times, 2016, https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20160119-column.html. Accessed 11 March 2022.  

Martin, Nicole. “How Social Media Has Changed How We Consume News.” Forbes, November 18th, 2018. Web 13 March. 2022 

McCarthy, Claire. “Common Food Additives and Chemicals Harmful to Children.” Harvard Health Publishing, 2021, https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/common-food-additives-and-chemicals-harmful-to-children-2018072414326. Accessed 11 March 2022.  

“Nutrient Warning Labels.” Obesity Evidence Hub, 17 Sept. 2020, https://www.obesityevidencehub.org.au/collections/prevention/nutrient-warning-labels. Accessed 11 March 2022.  

ProCon.org. “Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?” ProCon/Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. https://healthcare.procon.org/. Accessed 11 March 2022. 

Reyes, Marcela et al. “Development of the Chilean Front-of-Package Food Warning Label.” BMC Public Health, 2019, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-bill-would-require-warning-labels-on-sugary-drinks. Accessed 11 March 2022.  

“Vaccination Mandate Survey September 2021 Background - Fopl.ca.” Https://Www.healthycaribbean.org/Statement-from-Candi-in-Support-of-Octagonal-Front-of-Package-Warning-Labels/, https://fopl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Vaccine-Mandate-Survey-Report.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2022.