Summary

Overall I have learned that you need to be wary when trusting big companies. A lot of big companies pay researchers to make their product look healthier and make a competitive product look bad. I also found out that certain labels are not always correct and truthful. When you buy an organic product, there could be a possibility that you are actually just paying too much for a conventional product. When you buy a product make sure it is a very reputable brand so you do not end up paying too much for a false label.

What are the government regulations for food labels?

The economic principle I am exploring is, what are government regulations for labels on food products?

My research question to help me study the economic principle is what are government regulations for food labels?

The article "When 'Organic' Food Isn't" published in National Review demonstrates this economic principle by showing us labels on food cant always be trusted.

First, the Washington post had to articles where they exposed the "dubiousness" of the organic label. Basically the researchers wanted to see if these organic farms pass the standards of organic foods, and if they do not, people are being overcharged and mislead. I think when people are willing to pay sometimes even double the price of a produce to make sure it isn't sprayed in pesticides or other harmful chemicals, farmers and producers need to keep their word and keep up with the standards.


Second, the Post wanted to do another study on the organic grains in the US, since nearly all the corn and soybean in the US are genetically engineered seeds.  The investigation on grain showed that two shipments large enough to "constitute a meaningful proportion of the US supply were fraudulent. Knowing that this is something that can happen is is very disappointing and can also be very dangerous. I know from personal experience that the chemicals they spray on oranges is very harmful to my body. I will break out in hives for days and when I eat an organic orange I am perfectly fine. So not only are they taking more of our money but also putting our health at risk. 


Third, not only does a companies produce have to be treated and handed a certain way, but also their livestock. For example Organic Valley, which is one of the largest producers of organic dairy in the US mentioned the feed they buy for their cows, when there is a domestic shortage, is sometimes imported from Turkey and Romania. This should be of concern to consumers because studies have shown that the grain from those countries are "fake organic". I think when people say they have organic produce and charge more for their produce they should do everything they can do make sure they have 100% organic products.  

What does "Sugar-Free" really mean?

Sugar Free Stamp Stock

The economic principle I am exploring is, what does the "Sugar-Free" label really mean?

My research question to help me study the economic principle is "what replaces sugar in "Sugar-Free" products"?

The article "Sugar Free" Does Not Equal Healthy published in 100 Days of Real Food demonstrates this economic principle by showing us "Sugar-Free" labels do not actually mean there is no sugar. It means real sugar was replaced, we are consuming chemicals and chemical names are hidden with brand names.

First, when a company says a product is "Sugar-Free", it actually means real sugar was replaced with chemicals. When you take real sugar out artificial sweeteners are put in place of it. Artificial sweeteners were invented in a food lab by scientists and some haven't even been around for more than 10 years. Hearing this personally makes "sugar" not as bad. I think I would rather consume real sugar that has been around for many many years in small portions than an artificial sweetener made in a lab where no one knows the long term affects of. 

Second, replacing sugar with an artificial sweetener actually means you're replacing sugar with chemicals. The Sugar Association says these artificial sweeteners are "chemically manufactured molecules that do not exist in nature". When I hear that artificial sweeteners are chemicals it kind of grosses me out and makes me want to just use natural real sugar instead. 

Third, companies hide the chemical names of sugars with brand names to make it sound less scary.  For example, NaturaSweet Equal is actually called Aspartame, Splenda is actually called Sucralose, Necta Sweet is called Saccharin and Sweet One is actually called Acesulfame K.  I think when companies do this its smart on their part. The actual name of the sugar sounds scary and definitely like a chemical so using a brand name makes it more appealing to the consumer. 

In my next blog post I will research the question what are government regulations for labels on food products?

What does "Fat Free" really mean?

Source: Barlow Medical Group

The economic principle I am exploring is, what does the "Fat Free" label really mean"

My research question to help me study the economic principle is "what replaces fat in a "fat free" product"?

The article Low-Fat Diet: Why Fat-Free Isn't Trouble-Free published in WebMD demonstrates this economic principle by showing us "fat free" isn't always the best option to go to for a diet. It either means it was loaded up on sugar, doesn't actually mean there is no fat in it and forces you to eat more.

First, when companies take out the fats in a food it looses a lot of flavor. The article shows us that when something is "fat-free" is is also "taste-free".  According to this article, when companies do this they need to replace the fat with something else in order to bring the taste back, which usually tends to be sugar.  I think this if someone who was going on a diet chooses a "fat-free" product in hopes of losing weight they would have the opposite affects due to the excess amount of sugar in product now.

Second, the label "fat-free" can be deceiving. Just because it says free doesn't mean there is no fat in it."Fat-Free" means the food must have less than .5 grams of fat per serving, "Low-Fat" foods must have 3 grams or less of fat per serving, "Reduced-Fat" means the food must have 25% less fat than the original version, and "Light" foods must have 50% less fats or 1/3 the calories. So using "Fat-Free" foods thinking there is no fat in them just means there is less fats and more sugar.

Third, when you take out the fat of a product it becomes less substantial so you eat more to feel satisfied. When you eat more of a fat reduced product you are consuming a lot more sugar and being counter productive.  I think the best way to avoid so much sugar and eating a diet with less fats is to stick with foods that have healthy fats, for example avocados, eggs and nuts.

In my next blog post I will research the question is what does sugar free really mean?

is it effective for industries to influence consumers to avoid other food industries?

Source: CreditCards

The economic principle I'm exploring is whether or not it is effective

My research question to help me study the economic principle is "is it effective for industries to influence consumers to avoid other food industries?"

The article published in NPR, titled "50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat" demonstrates this economic principle by showing how the sugar industry paid scientists to point blame on fat, had coronary heart disease falsely linked with fats, and how sugar consumption skyrocketed. 

First, in the 1960's the sugar industry funded research that showed how bad fats were for the body and downplayed the effects of sugars on the body. I think this is unethical because the sugar industry gave consumers and the public false and fabricated information to help "improve" their lifestyle choices, when in reality the industry just needed put themselves into a better light.

Second, there were concerns about sugars link to heart diseases. However, group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to deny or contradict these concerns.  The group suggested there were major problems with every study that linked heart disease and sugar, so they concluded a study saying the best way to address coronary heart disease was to leave fats out of your diet. I think it is morally wrong to falsely link something to a disease in the hopes of convincing consumers to buy their product.

Third, with new studies out about how fats link to heart disease and saying sugars are not the culprit like people may think, the consumption of fats decreased.  With the consumption of fat decreasing, people need to replace this part of their diet, which happened to be sugar. A study directly shows that after this study, Americas per capita sugar consumption would go up by a third.

In my next blog I will research the question: What does "Fat Free" really mean?

do certain institutions of the food industry influence consumers to avoid other food industries

Source: Angel Broking

The economic principle I'm exploring is Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices.

The overall question I will research to hep explore the economic principle is "do certain institutions of the food industry influence consumers to avoid other food industries?"

3-4 sub questions that will help me answer my overall research question are: 

-is this actually an effective way of influencing consumers?

-How do they convince consumers

-What does fat free and sugar free really mean

Links to 3-4 reliable resources that can help answer the research question:

Tufts Links to an external site. 

NCBI

The GuardianLinks to an external site. 

Nutrition Research

For my next blog I will be going into depth how effective it actually is for industries to influence consumers