Business Law During the Consumer Movement of Essay

Business Law

During the consumer movement of the 1960s and 1970s, Congress enacted a substantial amount of legislation to protect "the good of the people." There is only one problem with consumer protection laws -- they are slow to react and even harder to enforce. As a result of this situation, corporations are allowed to profit at the expense of consumers' health. The resistance comes in a number of stages. The first is denial of the problem, wherein the corporations argue that there is not enough evidence to link their products with the negative outcomes that are being reported. Then there is the lobbying that causes politicians to defer action until a later date, or ignore the call to action altogether. Too often, when statutes are enacted, corporations fight them to the end, resulting in flawed legislation that either has loopholes, require interpretation from the judicial branch or is difficult to enforce. As a result, consumer protections are subsumed to corporate interests.

There are many examples of this over the past few decades. A recent example would be Republican efforts to water down the role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, something that will allow financial corporations -- already responsible for a horrible recession and lingering economic malaise -- to further abuse consumers (Puzzanghera, 2011). Other examples include the seemingly neverending battle against cigarette companies, who continue to deny links between their toxic products and cancer (Proctor, 2012). Sugar consumption is linked to cancer, diabetes and heart disease, yet there are no controls on the use of sugars in processed foods. Little to nothing has been done to address the obesity epidemic in the U.S. Even addictive substances can be added to food with impunity, as the legislative branch remains years if not decades behind the level of scientific knowledge about these issues. Evidence-based policy is shown the door in favor of pleasing corporate donors, a reality that is nothing short of corruption. Facts Relevant to the Legal Issue

Hellmich (2009) reports that studies have shown that the obesity epidemic will cost America $344 billion in medical expenses by 2018. The costs of carrying extra weight are measured in cancer rates and in the increased risk of diabetes and heart disease.Given how important health care costs -- and the control thereof -- are to the national budget, this should be a critical political issue. Yet the laws do not address this issue at all, leaving all Americans to pay both directly and indirectly for corporations to profit from robbing us of our health.

The reality is that our food is contributing to this obesity epidemic. There are other factors such as a sedentary lifestyle, and it is noted that many food additives have not been studied for their impact on our health (Goldberg & Zimmerman, 2011), but many are suspected to contribute negatively to our health and to obesity in particular. High fructose corn syrup, something that only became common in food in the early 1980s, is one of the cited culprits (Bray, Nielsen & Popkin, 2004).

That much food makes it to market without significant testing is alarming. The FDA is charged with regulating our food supply, but it rarely acts as a watchdog, or best acts like one with few teeth. An example of this would be the recent recall of hydrolyzed vegetable protein. This additive, manufactured by a Las Vegas company, grew in popularity to the point where it was used in thousands of different food products. Yet it was subject to a recall because of salmonella risks (MSNBC, 2012). Products like this should not make it to market, but FDA approval is a rubber stamp, on the assumption that if any problems emerge they will be dealt with at a later date. There are no long-term longitudinal studies done on food additives, so we may consume them for decades before finding out that they are toxic, or causing….....