It seems counterintuitive that certified humane labels aren’t as humane as the word suggests given the fact that this certification still allows for feedlot style confinement. It’s preposterous that food labels, especially in regard to animals, need their own interpretation. Words imply things, but still may not necessitate the highest quality standards, such as the example of the word humane as it pertains to raising animals. A food label may mean nothing at the end of the day. Take the American Sheep Industry Association for example, there’s no way of knowing that sheep farmers abide to this associations standard because there is no auditing required. The consumer needs to be more vigilant than ever in its approach to buying animal products, and should ideally opt for animal-based products backed by independent auditing systems as opposed to typical industry standards due to stricter guidelines.

It seems counterintuitive to pay top dollar to supplement for nutrients rather than obtain them in the form of everyday, whole foods. The supplement market is unregulated, and lures consumers in on their misleading advertising. The sentiment of an individual not being able to out supplement a poor diet will forever remain true, no matter how advanced the latest and greatest pill is. It is ironic in an era of abundance of food that a large number of people are turning toward non-food sources in the forms of vitamins in capsules to fill their daily nutritional needs. Why is it that consumers are willingly spending top dollar for supplements when they could be obtaining those same nutrients for a fortune less at the grocery store? It is essential for nutrition education to be dispersed in the context of whole foods rather than supplements to the benefit of consumers, so they can save their money and develop connection to the food on their plate.

It seems counterintuitive that a loan may be given out strictly due to an individual’s social media following. There’s not much ground to stand on when it comes to judging a loan applicant based on who follows them on social media. Humans are much more complex than the number of followers may suggest or any algorithmic means to determine popularity. Financial credibility is not a basis on social media followers because each individual uses social media for different purposes. An individual may have a profile, but may only periodically browse on a platform, thus not engaging with individual people. Also, an individual may have an account for strictly entertainment purposes, not caring who follows them. This way of assessing loan credibility must come to an end for there are an incredulous number of false conclusions one comes to by judging a mere profile and ‘friends’.

References

Butler, Kiera. “Do Multivitamins Really Work?” Mother Jones, 12 Mar. 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/econundrums-do-vitamin-supplements-work/. 

Eichelberger, Erika. “Your Deadbeat Facebook Friends Could Cost You a Loan.” Mother Jones, 18 Sept. 2013, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/lenders-vet-borrowers-social-media-facebook/. 

Harvey, Michelle Venetucci. “Parsing the New ‘humane’ Food Labels.” Grist, 7 Apr. 2021, grist.org/culture/food-2011-01-21-parsing-the-new-humane-food-labels/.