Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

College consumerism and the downside to cheaper food products

College students, as new consumers, ought to push for transparency in the food industry

Illustration of food drawn on Tuesday, Aug. 30th, 2016.

Illustration of food drawn on Tuesday, Aug. 30th, 2016.


Left to fend for themselves, college students inherit many new adult responsibilities, such as shopping for food products. With so many other activities and academics, students often choose the cheapest products in order to save a dime or two, but by doing so, they discount the possible health and ethical implications of their purchase. 

According to Institute of Food Technologies, only one-third of consumers believe that the food industry is transparent in representing the methods they use for production. This doesn’t mean that improvements have not been made, however. In fact, since 2012 the number of consumers who claim to “trust” food companies has increased by 15 percent.

College students are often unconcerned with the quality of their food and the implications of choosing the cheapest meat, poultry and produce products. Rather, they do their best to save money, which helps contribute to ethical dilemmas surrounding these businesses.

Food companies have failed to accurately represent their products in the past, which has left consumers with little to no information as to what they are putting into their body. For example, in 1990 companies such as Frito-Lay resisted the FDA’s proposal to create the Nutrition Facts label, claiming it “would overwhelm and easily succeed the capacity of the average consumer to understand it.” This proved to be false as most of us can understand the nutritional facts we see on the products we consume.

Recently, the International Food Information Council, which is funded by some of the largest multinational food companies in the world opposed the new proposal to add an “added sugars” label because it could compromise consumers’ decisions to purchase their products.

"Well, the things that are better for our health are going to be products that are unprocessed, so you really don't need the food industry at that point," said Dr. Carol Johnston, ASU Nutrition Program director. "Whenever you eat something out of a box or a jar or a bag, chances are that there are additives for various purposes. Some of those additives we need but the other preservatives and other additives are added fats and sugars. I really think the best way to approach that is to try to eat fresh foods as often as possible and prepare food at home from scratch." 

It is clear that these companies are driven solely by self interest and not by the health of the general public, which should be enough information to entice new consumers to research these food companies and their products, but it just doesn’t do the trick.

If the greediness of the companies isn’t enough, the treatment of animals by the food industry should grab the attention of the youth. According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), during the mass production of poultry products in slaughterhouses, the chickens’ throats are cut open by machines, and then they are placed in boiling water to remove their feathers. Typically, the chickens are conscious for this entire process. These chickens are given a variety of antibiotics, which remain in their system and are ingested by humans or remain in the chickens’ feces, which are used for fertilizer for other food products. The cattle industry has similarly harsh conditions, with cows receiving inadequate veterinary care and being fed a “highly unnatural diet.” 

via GIPHY

Unfortunately, the products from these large food companies tend to be less expensive, which appeals to college students. The ethical and health implications of buying cheaper products from these large food companies should override the price, however.

It is up to these new consumers to put in the work and be willing to pay more for products in order to receive more transparency from the industry. Something as simple as buying cage free chicken or grass fed beef would help the cause as well as improve one’s health. Excluding the higher price, it is a win-win situation to seek healthier and more moral alternatives to the cheap food products we are so used to consuming. 


Reach the columnist at ghirneis@asu.edu or follow @ghirneise2 on Twitter.

Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.

Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.

Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.


Continue supporting student journalism and donate to The State Press today.

Subscribe to Pressing Matters



×

Notice

This website uses cookies to make your experience better and easier. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.