Unintended Consequences of Pursuing Cheap Food
This paper examines the unintended consequences of consumer and corporate pursuit of cheap food. Drawing on Raj Patel's analysis, it argues that food corporations manipulate the illusion of consumer choice, distort nutritional science for profit, and engineer food systems that prioritize efficiency over health and safety. The paper also discusses how cheap food production contributes to animal cruelty, environmental harm including excessive water and energy use and global warming, and systemic vulnerabilities in the food supply. A central irony highlighted is that the food system's background contamination levels rival any deliberate act of agroterrorism, underscoring the severity of the public health risks already embedded in everyday food production and distribution.
- The Illusion of Consumer Choice in the Food System: Corporate food marketing narrows real consumer options
- How Corporations Shape Nutritional Science: Industry-sponsored science distorts nutritional truth for profit
- Hidden Costs: Health, Environment, and Animal Welfare: Cheap food harms animals, environment, and public health
- Food Safety and the Agroterrorism Paradox: Everyday food contamination rivals deliberate agroterrorism threats
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It uses a concrete historical example — the British Medical Research Council flour experiment — to ground its critique of corporate influence over nutritional science in specific, verifiable evidence rather than abstract claims.
- The paper builds its argument in escalating layers, moving from individual health effects to systemic issues like environmental harm and food security, which gives the essay a logical sense of consequence and scope.
- The agroterrorism irony in the final section is rhetorically sharp, using a widely recognized policy concern to expose how normalized contamination in the existing food system is already more dangerous than any hypothetical threat.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a single authoritative secondary source — Raj Patel's work — as a conceptual anchor. Multiple direct quotations are integrated with page citations, and each quotation is followed by the student's own analytical commentary rather than being left to speak for itself. This models how to use source material as evidence rather than as a substitute for argument.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the mainstream assumption that cheap food is rational and beneficial, then immediately complicates it with two counter-claims: that cheap food is unhealthy, and that it may not truly be cheap. The body develops these claims sequentially — first through the illusion of consumer choice and corporate manipulation of science, then through broader harms to animal welfare and the environment. The paper closes with the agroterrorism paradox, which functions as a culminating irony that reframes the entire preceding argument.
The Illusion of Consumer Choice in the Food System
We have become accustomed to pursuing cheap food. On the surface, it is a rational choice — the cheaper the food we buy, the better, or so the assumption goes. Coupled with this understandable human desire is the ubiquitous corporate advertising of cheap food and business attempts to convince consumers that cheap food offers a much greater variety of choices than would otherwise be possible. Most consumers fall for these marketing strategies. But there are at least two unintended consequences of pursuing cheap food. Cheap food — more precisely, what we buy as "cheap food" — is unhealthy, and this is something we are often choosing consciously. Moreover, cheap food may not be as "cheap" as we assume. There is evidence suggesting that the pursuit of cheap food can lead to food crises and hunger.
In our culture, we are fascinated by the word "choice." We always want to have as many options as possible, and manufacturers, including food corporations, skillfully exploit this cultural pattern for their own benefit. Using elaborate packaging and appealing product names, food producers introduce around 15,000–20,000 new food products to the market every year. We have lost track of the effects of this, assuming that such variety offers us genuine choices. In reality, as Patel argues, "we don't really choose our food — our food chooses us. . . . Most of what we consider our choices at the consumer end of the food system have been narrowed and shaped before we even begin to think consciously about them" (Patel 253, 255). As Patel further explains, the choices are made for us by food corporations whose ultimate purpose is maximizing profit.
How Corporations Shape Nutritional Science
Even nutritional science is subordinated to this profit motive. It is generally understood among independent scientists that brown flour is more nutritious and healthy than white flour. In an experiment sponsored by Britain's Medical Research Council, however, two groups of children were fed a rich diet for a set period of time — one group receiving brown flour only and the other white flour only. Both groups of children grew equally well because their overall diet consisted of a variety of vitamin-rich foods. Rather than reporting the nuances of this outcome, scientists used the experiment to report that the height and weight of both groups grew equally, effectively giving producers carte blanche to produce white flour and market it as equally nutritious as brown flour. As Patel explains, "when industrial food companies engage in scientific debate, they do so in an attempt to change our tastes, even reversing what was previously considered good science" (260).
This manipulation of nutritional science by corporate interests represents a systemic problem rather than an isolated incident. When the bodies charged with producing objective scientific guidance are funded or influenced by the very industries that stand to profit from particular findings, consumers are left without the reliable information they need to make genuinely informed choices about what they eat.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.