The question that my group decided to discuss for our structured controversy assignment was that be it resolved world leaders should be able to decide what is best for their citizens. This was an interesting question to research, and find perspectives for, because it is so broad. Not only is it broad but this is a question that has been debated for hundreds of years. That’s why it was very interesting for me to discuss this issue with my group and, I learned a lot . But, before we get into that, I just want to outline the two most important perspectives on this issue, which would be, world leaders and the people who are affected by the decisions of world leaders, the citizens. But, what exactly is a world leader? In most cases a world leader would be defined as the leader or representative of a nation or, the heads of government. However, I would like to offer an alternative definition of a world leader, one that I think proves to be more accurate in today’s world and, that is, a world leader is someone who has the power to influence the lives of a very large number of people. So then, who else has the power to make significant changes to the affairs of human beings on a global scale, other than government officials? And the answer is, corporations or people who have a lot of money. We all know the power of money but waht you might be surprised to learn, is that there are several American companies and other companies around the world who have a yearly net profit significantly larger than the GDP of many underdeveloped countries. That is why, I think it’s very important to include these companies in our definition of world leaders because they undoubtedly have the power to influence world affairs and, I can think of many such examples .
The first example is an event that took place in America and Canada during the last decade and it’s something I find quite interesting because I remember seeing the commercials all the time as a kid. What I’m talking about, is something that’s been getting a lot of attention in the media lately, the” Got Milk?” campaign ( I’m sure you remember the commercial’s to) has been outed as a fraud. The news that’s coming out now, which is backed by substantial scientific evidence, is that milk is not nearly as good for you as the commercials led us to believe. In fact, the truth is: the human body has a hard time digesting pasteurized milk. When milk is pasteurized, its protein molecules – the casein – are changed. This strains the pancreas, forcing it to produce its own digestive enzymes to break the molecules down. This helps explain why many people develop milk allergies. Like any enzyme-void food, pasteurized milk puts an enormous strain on the body’s digestive function. Those with milk intolerance, a leaky gut, or poor digestion, pass the casein through the intestinal walls and into the blood stream. This excites many allergies, including autoimmune disorders. The lost enzymes in milk, heated and destroyed through the pasteurization process, were designed to help the body break down nutrients like calcium. Without essential enzymes, calcium cannot be utilized; thus, the calcium passes out the body, unused. .
The milk industry grew out of the need to feed a hungry, growing nation and as a result, became one of the wealthiest industries in America. They then used this money to pay for their ad campaign and, they also used it to lobby the American government. This resulted in them receiving a large amount of support from the US government, in the form of subsidies. The dairy industry spends a significant amount or money on lobbying. By infiltrating schools with their products and “educational materials,” using medical professionals to advocate for them, running manipulative advertising campaigns that play on our fears, and influencing the government’s dietary guidelines, the dairy industry is shaping our food environment and the messages we receive about cow’s milk, which certainly influences our food choices.
So, we know that milk is bad for you, and we know that the milk industry used their wealth to get people to drink more milk but, did they know that milk was bad for people? The answer is unfortunately yes, they did. The activities of the milk industry and their infamous “Got Milk?” campaign were so blatantly fraudulent that it is actually used as a way to figure out if someone is committing fraud. “An easy way to determine if you have a case that meets the criteria for fraud is to think of the milk campaign, Got Milk?”. Which also spawned this acronym for MILK.
M – Material misrepresentation
I – Intent to deceive
L – Loss – a loss or damages occurred as a result of the fraudulent activity
K – Knowledge. The subject had knowledge that their statements or actions
What we see here is that an extremely powerful company, the North American dairy industry, with the help of the American government, was able to use their money and influence to impact the lives of millions of people. They were able to convince much of the North American population that dairy products were good for them and even a necessary part of their diet. When in reality, dairy is neither necessary, more than 75% of the world’s population doesn’t consume dairy, or good for you, a 2014 study conducted in Sweden found that people who eat a lot of dairy products had much higher mortality rates then people who did not. I think this gives us a pretty clear example of why we shouldn’t trust world leaders to decide what’s best for us because they have the power and the willingness to intentionally mislead consumers and citizens, at the expense of the consumer of citizen, in order to remain powerful and profitable.
Sources:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?ind=A04
What I learned while gathering evidence for this assignment, is that the ethical issue of letting world leaders decide what is best for their citizen’s is a very important issue which has very serious consequences for the citizens of the world, especially with regards to food. When discussing this issue with my group members and examining the evidence they collected, I realized that they did not share my definition for world leader. They used the classic and, perhaps more rational definition of a world leader which is, a national representative or leader. This lead to some confusion initially; however, what I did find out is that they both shared my concern for unethical behavior in business and they were in favor of world leaders being able to decide what’s best for their citizen’s in order to regulate the activities of business’s. But, as we saw in my example, governments or world leaders themselves are in no way immune to corruption. In conclusion this assignment left me with an important realization and an important question. The realization was, that systems of power, no matter how they are organized, will always attract the temptations of corruption. The question it left me with, is something extremely important to the issue of feeding 9 billion people and that is, how do we ensure that the world leaders who play an essential role in the challenge of feeding 9 billion people will act ethically and not abuse their power for personal gain?