Answer questions- Business paper Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Answer questions- Business paper - Coursework Example Some studies have also shown a relation between animal cruelty and human violence. Therefore, reduction in animal abuse can also cause some reduction in the violence among humans. There is a difference between the animals that are kept as pets and those that are raised for food. However, the treatment of the animals kept in farms and other places that are raised as food are entitled to a certain treatment. They are living beings and this gives them the rights of fair treatment, proper food and a good living environment. As portrayed by the film, a consumer wanting faster, cheaper food has altered the way chickens are raised. Is this a similar situation to the industry responding to consumer demand for cheaper products by hiring low-wage workers overseas? Why? Why not? I do not believe that the connotations are similar. Low wage workers that are being hired overseas are employed at rates that are lower than those that would be available within the country, however, for those workers, these wages are what are being offered generally within the country that they live in. the rates are not less than the average wage rate in the country hence, they are not been exploited and that the advantage of hiring them at low wages is generated through the technological advancements and the ability to work beyond the limitations of national boundaries. Chickens, being injected with anti-biotic and steroids cause abnormal growth and as seen in films inc, has tremendous effects over their health as their organs cannot keep up with the increase in body mass. This also results in animals dying which is highly unethical. Moreover, the conditions that the chickens are kept in are inhumane and they are being treated as raw material of mass production rather than living beings. The film gives the impression that food is either cheap or healthy. Do you think it is true that food is either one or the other, or is this a false dichotomy? The film shows that the food that is processed in large quantities and to a large number of consumers is using products that are cheaper in order for the end product to be cheaper, hence, more attractive to the purchaser. It is not necessary that the food that is cheap would not be healthy but the fact is that this is the way that the large corporations are making it. Large corporations make the products using cheap raw material and low cost methods for mass production that in turn produces food that is unhealthy. The film projects that the monopoly of large corporations is affecting the healthy food items and by offering cheaper products they are attracting the customers but they are actually putting a veil over the material that is used in the production and the processes that are implemented. In the film, we see that Stonyfield Yogurt is now owned by Groupe Danone, Tom’s of Maine by Colgate, Kashi by Kellogg, and Burt’s Bees by Clorox, which are all large corporation. Why might corporations continue marketing the s mall companies’ products under their original labels, as we saw in the film? How do you think consumers might react to learning that the products are actually made by big corporations? Small Corporations are known for their quality and authenticity. These products are preferred by consumers who are overwhelmed with choices from the large corporation that obstruct the healthy contents of the product through mass production. Burt's bees for example, produced products that started off with a mere room where the owner used real