Blog #5---Consumer Freedom

          After watching “The Center for Consumer Freedom” video, it brought to light how many large corporations refuse to tell us things that contradict what they try to represent. And being in society where we should be able to make decisions on things with sufficient knowledge, I tend to agree with what they are trying to do. However, I do believe that as much as they want to try, not everyone will be for what they are trying to “sell”. 

         Though I’m not a member of HSUS and don’t know too much about the organization, but I’m guessing that they aren’t too happy that the CCF has made it public knowledge that much of the groups donation money doesn’t go to poor dogs and cats that we see in the Sarah McLachlan commercials. In the same way, the Center for Science in Public Interest has to be embarrassed to it becoming known that they’ve wavered on what they support. By doing this, the CCF is trying to help change both an organizations integrity and intentions. 

         Patel brings up the term “bottleneck corporations.” In many ways these organizations fit this profile. Much like Burger King doesn’t wanna release information about labor practices; PETA and the Center for Science in the public interest don’t release where much of their donations and help go. Can you blame them for not wanting to advertise it? No you can’t, because they are going against a lot of what they are supposed to represent. And that’s not how good organizations are, and that’s what the CCF is trying to do…bring everything to light for the public to see. 

        With that said, as important as being informed is, I feel that even with a good amount of knowledge, these facts might not affect an individuals feeling for these specific corporations. For example, the CCF has targeted PETA for euthanizing animals prematurely. I feel that avid members will still support them in general because of the good that PETA still does in their eyes. Like myself, I've had dogs my entire life and loved them. But that still doesn't cover up the fact that they may have acted against their morals. The picture below in no way represents my opinion towards PETA or saying that what Michael Vick did was "ok" but I did find it as a interesting representative of how people feel that PETA has misrepresented themselves.

 

           To me “consumer freedom” is almost non-existent. Other than deciding if you want to go to Dissmore’s or Wal-Mart, whether it is due to convenience or cost, you will likely be consuming the same thing. Further, even if how a food was produced or picked is something that means a lot to you, you don’t really have a choice to eat something that is of higher quality, or even avoid a food that was produced under poor labor conditions if you are on a budget (like many students are in Pullman) or in a lower class.

          But going back to the main point of the CCF. It is definitely important for us to be given adequate knowledge. These organizations are only hurting themselves by holding back all of this information. Because in the end, when the truth comes out and they are losing support, the only people they have to blame is themselves.