Food Ethics Essay

The moral philosophy surrounding intellectual nourishment hasnt al federal agencys been a major ratifier in geniuss decision on what to eat. In the beginning, we would have to physic all in ally black merchandise or gather our meals in order to survive. The choice of what was for breakfast, lunch or dinner solely relied on what was accessible to us. The ethical questions would only fargon as a result of a modernized fare system, where new(prenominal) options for aliment became accessible and convenient. In the essay Consider the Lobster by David boost Wallace, the author describes lobsters in forward- savoring England in the 1800s as having an undreamed abundance (238). These crustaceous creatures were all all everywhere the shores of parvenue England. Wallace writes about the capital of Massachusetts seashore as, being littered with lobsters after hard storms (238). Yet, Lobster were considered modest-class and as Wallace states, eaten only by the poor and instituti onalized (237). It was considered unethical to even diet the poor lobster more than once a week (238). This was modernized New England, which eventually changed at the turn of the century, just as Lobster shifted from being low class to chewable fuel. As the world became more industrialized, food became centralized.The shift from small businesses to Brobdingnagian companies started to occur. The lobster industry changed as rise up during these time as Wallace describes, Maines earliest lobster industry was based around a dozen such seaside canneries in the 1840s, from which lobster was shipped as far forth as California (238). Just like the lobster industry in New England, m whatever companies in the United States started to fulfill the demands for outputs to gain a profit. morals became secondary to making money. Corporations would go so much that they would drive the toll down, increasing its affordability and making it more accessible and widely sufferd.Eventually, size of itable companies would operate so effective and affordable, that small businesses like farms and mom and pop shops plant it increasingly difficult to compete. Many small companies and farms had to either adjust their products to street clavuser grocerys or work as a subsidiary to these corporations. Along with peck drudgery of products, was a new manufacturing process. Foods started to become streamlined in such a way that they would grow in the harshest of milieus. These new forms of industrialization acquire to the creation of processed foods.The companies found ways to maximize win man making the costs as affordable as possible for the consumer. The supermarkets offered everything one could think of, packaged and ready to eat. Although the prices for roughly foods were at an all-time low, hunger and malnutrition still existed. There were also issues arising regarding consumer trust in food safety, and the effect on the human body. As a result of these cost efficient products, peck in the United States started to become increasingly heavy, precedeing to an corpulency epidemic and a major health crisis.The ethical issues involving economical demeanour of consumers and agricultural ethics are at question. Is it unethical for corporations to mass produce unhealthy foods, knowing the adverse side set up on the environment and growing rates of obesity in the United States? The trend seemed to lead to, the more affordable the food, the more we consume. Is this a personal problem or are the companies to blame for offering these products to us? We must first look into the aspirations of a business and if ethics play any spark in the obligations to supply our population with affordable food.The very basic objective to any business is to create a profit. This is what allows companies to continue function and thrive. The lift out way for this to happen is to make something that is sellable and where there is room for profit. In the food industry lemon yellow is not only a commodity its a common ingredient in almost every product on our shelves. According to Michael Pollan, in his book, The Omnivores Dilemma, It is also use to raven most of the animals that become meats in our supermarkets. To say that corn is widely used would be an understatement.It seemed that we couldnt produce enough of this plant. Not only is our climate great for growing it, we also were able to store it very effectively. The peg in corn production can be traced back to the 19 seventies. Since those said(prenominal) years, Americans average daily recess of calories has jumped by more than 10 percent (Pollan 102). The reason for this increased thermal intake leaves many to question whether people are eating more because its less expensive or people are eating the same amounts but the food contains more calories.Either way, the companies that were producing these items didnt seem to be bothered by the problem affecting three of every five Americans being overweight (Pollan 102). The truth is that the companies are driven by profits. The Americans who consume these foods create the profits. Additionally, a lot of these companies are traded on the public market and have a responsibility to their shareholders, who subsequently are the same ones acquire these foods. So the companies were being driven to make profits for the people invested. cardinal of the biggest soda companies in the world, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, have followed these trends as well. As Pollen says, By 1984, Coca-Cola and Pepsi had switched over entirely from refined sugar to high-fructose corn syrup. Why? Because HFCS was a few cents cheaper than sugar (thanks in part to tariffs on imported sugarcane secured by corn refiners) and consumers didnt seem to notice the substitution (104). Its as if these corn companies were monopolizing the industry, trying to turn-over as much product as possible.The increased production would eventually lead to increa sed portion sizes. Instead of lowering the prices of products, companies started charging a small upcharge for additional food and soda. This practice of continually turning over product has become so dangerous that now, in 2000 the number of people suffering from overnutrition-a billion- had surpassed the number suffering from malnutrition-800 million (Pollan 102). There is clearly something mazed with this system. These companies are catering to our consumer appetites and enabling us to act accordingly.You would think that the prices of the food being low would solve our food problems globally, but the answer is unluckily no. These companies are in places where there is both a market for high sales and where they can grow these crops. Most of the areas that are go about malnutrition are in remote areas of the world. These areas wouldnt make the companies money and therefor there isnt an incentive for them. On the other hand, America is of fertilise one of the largest consumer countries in the world. Our desire for food is unsurpassed by most counties.There is no question that Americans have a sweet tooth. It is part of the human makeup to consume high energy foods and is linked to earthy survival. According to Pollan, Add fat or sugar to anything and its tone ending to taste better on the tongue of an animal that natural selection has wired to seek out energy-dense foods (107). Pollan also suggests that, natural selection predispose us to the taste of sugar and fat (its texture as well as taste) because sugars and fats offer the most energy (which is what a calorie is) per snack (106). Its only natural for humans to consume these ingredients, because after all we are predisposed to do them. This of course doesnt mean that we are completely free of blame for our overindulging. We are all individuals and are amenable in formulating our own decisions. The companies which provide us with these calorie-packed foods and beverages also list their nutrit ionary information on the packages. If we were to eat any packaged foods, we would be amenable for understanding the health risks involved.The real problem is whether we have the mental power to control our physical urges. There is extensive research that suggests, people presented with large portions will eat up to 30 percent more (Pollan 106). At one time in our history, this might have served us. Now, there is no question that our bodies are becoming poisoned from this. Knowing all of this information, companies continue doing their best to offer these calorie-packed foods. This is evident in just about every ecological niche store and fast food restaurant.The ethics concerning public safety and effects on the human body are clear. Companies are only interested over their ability to raise a profit. Their aim to create profits from the overconsumption of high energy foods has been effective in making Americans unhealthy, while inveterate to turn over profits. While the compan ies are certainly a large part of the problem, the consumers are also to blame. They have enabled this overproduction by keep to consume the same products making them sick.Additionally, people seem to be ignoring their recommended caloric intakes and are choosing to eat more and more. Companies can only be blest for producing products with limited nutritional value. They are ethically absolved of their responsibilities if they inform their consumers properly. Their goal is to make profits, not worry whether their consumers are eating the recommended serving size or not. The best way to take control of this issue would to be to consume less and choose healthier options as individuals. The more certified we become as individuals, the healthier we will become as a society.