TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR MARGARET O'MARA
1. Did the Pure Food and Drug act, and more importantly consumer awareness, change the industry's motives during the early 1900’s? Have they realized the importance of their responsibility of providing wholesome products today? Why?
You could say that consumer awareness inspired the Pure Food and Drug Act which, in turn, changed the behavior of American industry.
The rapid growth of industry and cities in the United States - along with new technologies to process and distribute - transformed the way people consumed food and medicines. Little to no regulation existed, and those who produced goods often made bold claims about them that had little to do with fact.
However, another thing that resulted from all this rapid industrial, urban, and technological change was the growth of national newspapers and magazines, which became home to a new kind of journalism: investigative reporting. This new breed of reporters became known as ‘muckrakers’ because of their push to find out what these huge new industrialists and companies and governments were actually doing. These were reporters with a mission and a strong point of view: that corporate capitalists and political leaders were often corrupt, greedy, and not telling the truth.
Upton Sinclair was one of these reporters, and his book, The Jungle, became a runaway bestseller, exposing the horrifying conditions of the meatpacking industry and generating public outrage. Reform-minded politicians like President Theodore Roosevelt saw this as an opportunity to clean up and regulate broader industrial practices, and the Pure Food and Drug Act — and the FDA and other regulatory agencies — were born.
2. How did politics play a key role in Roosevelt's position on the topic?
Roosevelt was a Republican, but not all in his party were supporters of reform like this. Many Republican politicians - particularly those who had controlled Congress and the White House for much of the late nineteenth century - were against the idea of the federal government regulating business. A lot of Democrats disagreed with that approach as well. But the massive industrialization of the post-Civil War era created new pressures and moral imperatives that didn’t exist in the United States of the Founding Fathers. Roosevelt was no revolutionary, but he had been trying to convince American big business that they needed to regulate and clean up their acts. The Pure Food and Drug Act was such a compelling way to do this — making food and medicines safe for families, ensuring individual health. Who could argue with that? While other forms of regulation were potentially quite controversial, this type of regulation enjoyed broad political support. It was a good way to set precedent for future regulation and reform.
3. How did the two factors of the quest for consumer rights and the enforcement corporate responsibilities drive the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act? How is this theme seen in the modern industry?
The rhetoric of individual safety and the push to “reform” big and seemingly corrupt organizations went hand-in-hand during political debates of this era. We see some parallels today in suspicion many Americans have for big organizations — big government, big business — as entities that possibly constrain individual liberties and choices. Americans have always been suspicious of bigness, ever since the days of Thomas Jefferson. What’s interesting is that in 1906, a “big government” response seemed like the only way to address the problem of “big business.” Today, “big government” is seen as more of a problem than a solution, a popular conception that we perhaps owe to another Republican (but one different from TR in many ways): Ronald Reagan.
(Interview by Grace Wang, March 31 2014)
1. Did the Pure Food and Drug act, and more importantly consumer awareness, change the industry's motives during the early 1900’s? Have they realized the importance of their responsibility of providing wholesome products today? Why?
You could say that consumer awareness inspired the Pure Food and Drug Act which, in turn, changed the behavior of American industry.
The rapid growth of industry and cities in the United States - along with new technologies to process and distribute - transformed the way people consumed food and medicines. Little to no regulation existed, and those who produced goods often made bold claims about them that had little to do with fact.
However, another thing that resulted from all this rapid industrial, urban, and technological change was the growth of national newspapers and magazines, which became home to a new kind of journalism: investigative reporting. This new breed of reporters became known as ‘muckrakers’ because of their push to find out what these huge new industrialists and companies and governments were actually doing. These were reporters with a mission and a strong point of view: that corporate capitalists and political leaders were often corrupt, greedy, and not telling the truth.
Upton Sinclair was one of these reporters, and his book, The Jungle, became a runaway bestseller, exposing the horrifying conditions of the meatpacking industry and generating public outrage. Reform-minded politicians like President Theodore Roosevelt saw this as an opportunity to clean up and regulate broader industrial practices, and the Pure Food and Drug Act — and the FDA and other regulatory agencies — were born.
2. How did politics play a key role in Roosevelt's position on the topic?
Roosevelt was a Republican, but not all in his party were supporters of reform like this. Many Republican politicians - particularly those who had controlled Congress and the White House for much of the late nineteenth century - were against the idea of the federal government regulating business. A lot of Democrats disagreed with that approach as well. But the massive industrialization of the post-Civil War era created new pressures and moral imperatives that didn’t exist in the United States of the Founding Fathers. Roosevelt was no revolutionary, but he had been trying to convince American big business that they needed to regulate and clean up their acts. The Pure Food and Drug Act was such a compelling way to do this — making food and medicines safe for families, ensuring individual health. Who could argue with that? While other forms of regulation were potentially quite controversial, this type of regulation enjoyed broad political support. It was a good way to set precedent for future regulation and reform.
3. How did the two factors of the quest for consumer rights and the enforcement corporate responsibilities drive the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act? How is this theme seen in the modern industry?
The rhetoric of individual safety and the push to “reform” big and seemingly corrupt organizations went hand-in-hand during political debates of this era. We see some parallels today in suspicion many Americans have for big organizations — big government, big business — as entities that possibly constrain individual liberties and choices. Americans have always been suspicious of bigness, ever since the days of Thomas Jefferson. What’s interesting is that in 1906, a “big government” response seemed like the only way to address the problem of “big business.” Today, “big government” is seen as more of a problem than a solution, a popular conception that we perhaps owe to another Republican (but one different from TR in many ways): Ronald Reagan.
(Interview by Grace Wang, March 31 2014)