When I watched the video about the Center for Consumer Freedom(CCF) my initial reaction was being dazed and confused. To me it was evident that the video seemed to present itself as an advocate for us the individual and the consumer's rights. However, after a few seconds it started talking about the fight against taxes on candy bars and how organizations such as People for the Ethnical Treatment of Animals(PETA), Center for Science in the Public Interest and other organizations were going to far in telling us how to run our lives. In other words, the Center for Consumer Freedom aimed to present a honest debate mainly about food and beverages but is it really in favor for the consumer?
In reality, the Center for Consumer Freedom is a non-profit American lobby group. As seen in the video, this group mainly focused on how to inform us, defend our consumer choice, and promote common sense. However, this group failed to tell us their own reality. It is a coalition of restaurants and food companies and other individuals that was founded by Richard Berman an executive director of Berman and Company. This coalition campaigned against PETA, The Disease Control, and other agencies that have informed Americans about what is in our food and to be conscious on how animals are treated or any other social problem related to this topic.
An example of the Center for Consumer Freedom from their website an article titled "Health Food, or Slick Marketing?" explored the reality of organic food.The text argued about how the process of organic food was just more expensive and in fact there was no clear evidence stating better health benefits of this type of product than purchasing other natural products. Justin Wilson from the CCF in his interview with Johns Stossel from Fox News in the segment called " Is Organic Food Worth the Price?" believed organic food was "eco-fads rooted in elitism."http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1245915096001/is-organic-food-worth-the-price/
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4552-health-foods-or-slick-marketing
Then this corespondent further affirmed that the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) only labeled Organic products as a marketing tool. For author Raj Patel of Stuffed and Starved(2007), he pointed out that instead of having a higher cost of food that differentiated healthy food for the poor make it more affordable and accessible to everyone. Organic foods could be a fad; however, there are differences in its process with lesser chemicals or none at all. Moreover, these products are getting to more preferred nowadays and as an result, it is transforming the food industry and how the food production system has been industrialized is being further questioned. For farmers producing organic items, they might progress in markets that have been bullied by corporations like Wal-mart or Tyson. To me, this article established the perspective of the CCF on organic foods in order to discourage buying these products by also placing an emphasis on class in order to demonstrate the higher cost of these items. Thus, Justin Wilson further included in his interview about buying locally. He believed that this placed a carbon footprint as well as buying product from other people elsewhere but to him, people only bought these products in order for them to" feel better." To me, I found that this comment about locally grown food failed to conceive a better argument since in reality locally grown food is more beneficial. As Patel noted, local products are often more cheaper than the supermarket, better for the local economy, and they are less processed making them healthier(307-308). In other words, locally grown products are more beneficial to the local economy hence corporations like Wal-mart are not benefiting from it unless they join into buying these type of products by changing the way it has done business due to consumption of consumers and the idea of supply and demand.
In reexamining both the article and video, the Center for Consumer Freedom capitalized on their power of persuasion by misinforming the consumer. In order to keep the consumer, they must delegitimize other organization and agencies, yet they toyed with the idea of consumer freedom and choice. For Patel, “Choice is the word we’re left with to describe our plucking one box rather than another off the shelves, and it’s the word we’re taught to use"(254). This meant the word "choice" was conditioned to us in which the consumer believed that they had a choice. However for Wal-mart locations in poorer areas, customers did not have a choice of an alternative on item since there was no other stores near by. To me, this suggested the present power relationship of corporations with its consumers where corporations are on top and the consumer is at the bottom. Thus, Patel also argued the fact that the consumer relied not on choice but rather on instincts in which corporations and other forces tried to condition and control. For instance, CCF creating their perspective they aimed to alter the person's instinct to engage in other possiblities to change their mind in consumption of healthier foods and buying locally. Furthermore, the video and the article do not care about the dignity of the individual-the consumer, the farmer, and the American public. In fact, corporations' interests have always been to gain more profit rather than looking at the bigger picture of a change of diet that is desperately needed and treating farmers fairly instead of exploiting them and their workers.
As Patel noted in both in his book and radio discussion, the people need to get angry for change to occur. In reality, rather than consumer freedom, we need food sovereignty, which is a" vision that aims to redress the abuse of the powerless by the powerful, wherever in the food system that abuse may happen"(303). In other forms, this addressed the issue of how peoople are being treated by the powerful or corporations in which a consumer was made to think they are the ones that are stupid for purchasing better quality food. In contrast, the reality is the food industry-corporations- are the ones who set the price. For me, I believe in order to change this cycle of manipulation by corporations, there is need for reclaiming control not only at an individual level but at a collective level. For CCF, this group aimed to be your friend as a strategy to further control the consumer in order to further neglect how they process food, or exploit farmers and workers. Similarly, they played with issues of class status for their own benefit to further manipulate us into believing that they are right.
In essence, consumers play a critical role in changing the food industry. With this being said, consumer freedom is an idea or tool to manipulate individuals to be led to believe that they have freedom of choice. In contrast, food sovereignty is one of the ways to get our dignity back by demanding rights and snapping the wielded power of the bottleneck corporations and their influences over our own government and our lives. As Patel stated with his analogy of the "Emperor with No Clothes", instead of everyone denying the facts address them and make changes by educating ourselves and tranforming the way we think about food and product consumption.
Work Cited:
Patel, Raj. Stuffed and Starved. London: Portabello Books, 2007.
"Center for Consumer Freedom." Wikipedia 2011. 30 Oct 2011
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom>.
Great analysis. Your line, "capitalized on their power of persuasion by misinforming the consumer" is a testament to your mastery of the material.
ReplyDeletej