TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR KENDRA SMITH-HOWARD
1. How did the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 cause a general change in the cultural mindset of American consumers in the early 20th century? Are there problems similar to those of consumer rights in the early 1900's that are still prevalent today?
Rather than act as a CAUSE that changed a cultural mindset, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was itself an EFFECT of a changing cultural mindset of American consumers. Many consumers organizations and Pure Foods reformers began work at the state level to improve the purity of foods and drugs as early as the 1880s and 1890s. They pushed for similar kinds of legislation, through the auspices of the General Federation of Women's Clubs and national Consumer's League. As the quality of the food supply deteriorated and consumers became more reliant on manufactured food products in the late nineteenth centuries, consumers organized and pressed state and federal legislators to act. So 1906 wasn't the first time such concerns surfaced - and many consumers LED rather than REACTED to the reforms in the law - Lorraine Swainston Goodwin describes this quite effectively in her book.
One key idea in 1900 was truth in labeling laws about accuracy of weights and contents. The present-day movement to label GMO foods is in some ways similar.
2) What is an argument that supports the industry's desire to sustain factories and continue the distribution of dangerous products?
It's unclear here whether you're getting at the period in the early twentieth century or present-day. I can't really think of any good reason to permit industry to distribute dangerous products.
But I will say, and today, the definition of "dangerous" has been where such debates hinge. Too loose a definition of "dangerous" and one risks exposing populations to very real harms --such as permitting the sale of harmful chemicals that do not poison acutely, but that over time, chronically, might endanger health. Too strict a definition of "dangerous" and wholesome foods that are harmful in excess might be unjustly prevented from sale. For instance, bacon-topped donuts aren't dangerous to the public health in small doses, but obesity and heart disease are certainly among the nation's leading killers. So there's always a balance in defining what is "dangerous" and what is simply inadvisable and what role to afford individuals and the state in making that decision.
3) From a political standpoint, we understand that President Roosevelt played a large role in the legal resolutions of the food adulteration conflicts of his time. Was Roosevelt's position on the topic of food adulteration subjective in any way, or did he maintain a firm opinion on the matter throughout his involvement in the political side of the conflict?
I'm not sure I see the distinction between "subjective" and "firm opinion." I have lots of firm opinions that are based in subjective interpretations of evidence.
Roosevelt's opinion was swayed by his understanding of the public opinion, by the Neill-Reynolds report, and by concerns about the export market for American foods.
(Interview by Abby Orler, March 26 2014)
1. How did the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 cause a general change in the cultural mindset of American consumers in the early 20th century? Are there problems similar to those of consumer rights in the early 1900's that are still prevalent today?
Rather than act as a CAUSE that changed a cultural mindset, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was itself an EFFECT of a changing cultural mindset of American consumers. Many consumers organizations and Pure Foods reformers began work at the state level to improve the purity of foods and drugs as early as the 1880s and 1890s. They pushed for similar kinds of legislation, through the auspices of the General Federation of Women's Clubs and national Consumer's League. As the quality of the food supply deteriorated and consumers became more reliant on manufactured food products in the late nineteenth centuries, consumers organized and pressed state and federal legislators to act. So 1906 wasn't the first time such concerns surfaced - and many consumers LED rather than REACTED to the reforms in the law - Lorraine Swainston Goodwin describes this quite effectively in her book.
One key idea in 1900 was truth in labeling laws about accuracy of weights and contents. The present-day movement to label GMO foods is in some ways similar.
2) What is an argument that supports the industry's desire to sustain factories and continue the distribution of dangerous products?
It's unclear here whether you're getting at the period in the early twentieth century or present-day. I can't really think of any good reason to permit industry to distribute dangerous products.
But I will say, and today, the definition of "dangerous" has been where such debates hinge. Too loose a definition of "dangerous" and one risks exposing populations to very real harms --such as permitting the sale of harmful chemicals that do not poison acutely, but that over time, chronically, might endanger health. Too strict a definition of "dangerous" and wholesome foods that are harmful in excess might be unjustly prevented from sale. For instance, bacon-topped donuts aren't dangerous to the public health in small doses, but obesity and heart disease are certainly among the nation's leading killers. So there's always a balance in defining what is "dangerous" and what is simply inadvisable and what role to afford individuals and the state in making that decision.
3) From a political standpoint, we understand that President Roosevelt played a large role in the legal resolutions of the food adulteration conflicts of his time. Was Roosevelt's position on the topic of food adulteration subjective in any way, or did he maintain a firm opinion on the matter throughout his involvement in the political side of the conflict?
I'm not sure I see the distinction between "subjective" and "firm opinion." I have lots of firm opinions that are based in subjective interpretations of evidence.
Roosevelt's opinion was swayed by his understanding of the public opinion, by the Neill-Reynolds report, and by concerns about the export market for American foods.
(Interview by Abby Orler, March 26 2014)