On March 28, a case was brought to a Los Angeles judge over whether coffee should be required by law to have a label marking the presence of acrylamide. The case asked the defendant, the coffee companies, whether the effects of acrylamide are, in fact, dangerous and carcinogenic. In the end, the coffee companies were not able to prove that the effects of the chemical were insignificant, and therefore all coffee companies in the state of California are legally obligated to mark that their product contains a known carcinogen.
This case introduces an interesting conversation. If a company is aware it has a chemical or ingredient in their product that is known to have negative health effects on humans, should it be allowed to sell it? If so, should it have to package the food item with a label stating what chemical is in the container?
In the instance of cigarettes, Congress passed the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act in 1966. The purpose of this bill was to regulate how cigarette packages could be marketed. In each state, the following statement must appear on all cigarette packages in legible print on each package in order for a sale to be legal: “CAUTION: CIGARETTE SMOKING MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH.” This is reasonable, given how negative health effects have a direct correlation with smoking cigarettes. With this labelling, children and adults may have been dissuaded from purchasing a package of cigarettes and not becoming addicted.
If a product is known to cause diseases or cancer, then the product should have to be labelled. There is no difference in how likely the chemical or ingredient is to cause cancer. A consumer has the right to be able to look at a label of a food item and know if there is a carcinogen in it. If the consumer then, in turn, chooses not to purchase a product, the company in question may lose money.
As opposed to this being viewed as a negative side effect of the labeling, the potential monetary loss that the company could face would promote cleaner eating and more informed purchasing. Some consumers, of course, will see the warnings and still purchase the products. Forced labels are not going to run the major businesses to bankruptcy: Today, the cigarette industry is booming, despite the decreased numbers of smokers. Since 2007, the profits made from selling cigarettes increased by 77 percent.
The idea of profiting from people’s suffering is nothing new, like the cigarette industry and the gun industry. In each of these cases, however, the danger level of both products is made clear to the consumer through government regulation. If the danger is coming from what we ingest, then it is the job of the government, both federal and state, to regulate what can and cannot be in foods, and also label potential threats so consumers can make informed and healthy choices with minimal research.
Joseph Lioto | The Oswegonian
