BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Food labeling is an important form of consumer protection

It is a basic right for us as consumers to know what it is we eat. Today more and more foods that we buy are processed[1], they include many harmful additives, causing conditions such as hyperactivity in children[2], or are advertised as health food, but are in reality loaded with sugar or salt[3]. It is therefore necessary for consumers to be made aware of all their food contains in order to make safe and healthy choices for themselves and their families. [1] Parvez, S., Processed food exports rise 41pc, published 3/26/2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=81403, accessed 9/15/2011 [2] Rosenthal, E., Some Food Additives Raise Hyperactivity, Study Finds, published 9/6/2007,  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/health/research/06hyper.html, accessed 9/15/2011 [3] Smellie, A., That 'healthy' bowl of granola has more sugar than coke... and more fat than fries: Busting the diet food myths, published 5/21/2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1389515/That-healthy-bowl-granola-sugar-coke--fat-fries-Busting-diet-food-myths.html, accessed 9/15/2011
Food labeling helps people make better choices regarding their food

Given that there is a global trend of increasing numbers of overweight and obese people,[1] food that is fattening and therefore contributes to this problem needs to be clearly labeled so people can avoid them. Research shows that having this nutritional information helps people make better choices. Up to 30% of consumers reconsider buying a food item after reading the food label and finding out what’s inside[2]. Another study points out that there were “significant differences in mean nutrient intake of total calories, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, dietary fiber, and sugars” when people could go ahead and use the information about the food they were considering buying.[3] It is therefore clear that making more information about food available, especially in the form of readily available food labels, helps people make choices that will help the fight against obesity. [1] Elseth, M., Obesity numbers rise in 28 states, published 6/29/2010, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/29/obesity-rates-rose-28-states/, accessed 9/15/2011 [2] Arsenault, J. E., Can Nutrition Labeling Affect Obesity?, published in 2010, http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=140, accessed 9/15/2011 [3] diabetesincontrol.com, Nutritional Labeling and Point-of-Purchase Signs Work to Make Better Choices, published 8/10/2010, http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/articles/53-diabetes-news/9680-nutritional-labeling-and-point-of-purchase-signs-work-to-make-better-choices, accessed 9/15/2011
Food labeling encourages food companies to provide food more in tune with consumer values

Innovation is inevitable. That holds true for food industry as much as any other industry – and the food companies want to share their progress with the consumer to benefit from it. With the impact food labeling has on consumer choices, companies turned the issue on its head, producing food that is more in tune with what the people want and using labels to tell us about it. An example is PepsiCo’s “Smart Spot” program that is intended to help consumers identify healthier products – products the company developed as a consequence of consumer pressure for healthier drinks that contain less sugar. What is more, the strategy proved very profitable for the company, with the smart spot products sales increasing 13 percent or three times as fast as the rest of the business.[1] We see that companies were able to adapt to the pressure labeling created with excellent products, in tune with consumer values, and make a profit as well. [1] Warner, M., Under Pressure, Food Producers Shift to Healthier Products, published 12/16/2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/business/16food.html, accessed 9/15/2011
Food labeling does not change consumer behavior

Food labels may include useful dietary information, but they will not significantly impact actual consumption for two reasons. The first is that people don’t really read or use the labels. A study at WSU shows that only 41% of men actually read the labels. The women did better, but still only 59% of them actually read the labels – which does not mean they actually understood or heeded the advice on them.[1] The second reason concerns the connection between actually getting the information and acting on it. Research on posting calories on restaurant menus shows that customers actually ordered slightly more calories compared to before the information was made available.[2] Thus we see that food labels are not enough to nudge customers towards better and healthier food choices. [1] Warman, S., Reading food labels can help battle obesity, published 9/16/2010, http://www.weightworld.co.uk/health-and-diet-news/reading-food-labels-can-help-battle-obesity-1917.html, accessed 9/15/2011 [2] Hartocollis, A., Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds, published 10/6/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyregion/06calories.html, accessed 9/15/2011
Food labeling allows companies to deceive consumers

What we have seen with introducing visually impressive food labels is that companies started adopting similar visual elements to promote their products in a dishonest way. Let’s take for instance Dannon’s Activia, which was marketed as health food (with very convincing packaging that went with that strategy). The labels claimed that the product helped improve digestion by hastening it. Yet the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) found this claim to be false. On a similar note, Kellogg’s Rice Krispies featured packaging purporting that the product boosted immunity. Again, the regulator found this untrue.[1] We see that the companies, so in essence telling consumers to trust information on the packaging, can easily misuse labeling. [1] Singer, N., Foods With Benefits, or So They Say, published 5/14/2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/business/15food.html, accessed 9/15/2011
Food labeling introduces unfair prejudice against certain products

Requiring companies to label their products a certain way might unfairly influence the sales of this product. Let us observe this point on the example of GMOs in food. For instance, a study investigated the influence of labeling a cornflakes product with different variations on the theme of containing GMOs. The packaging might say that the product contained "USDA approved genetically modified corn" or "may contain genetically modified corn", basically stating the same thing. Yet the first product was evaluated much more favorably than the second, with a 6% price perception difference.[1] Considering that GMOs are considered safe by the health authorities,[2] it would be unfair to prejudice against these products by specifically targeting them, when they pose no risk to health. [1] Onyango, B. M., et al., U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Food Labeled 'Genetically Modified', published in October 2006, http://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/10210.html, accessed 9/15/2011 [2] WHO, 20 questions on genetically modified foods, published 12/10/2010, http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/, accessed 9/15/2011
Food labeling is an important form of consumer protection

Food labeling rarely helps consumers find out what exactly it is they are eating, because of the convoluted names companies use to describe ingredients. Forcing companies to label food does not mean they will actually make those labels easy to understand and useful. Even when it comes to things as important as common allergens in food, it is very difficult to understand whether it is included or not.[1] [1] Webster Family Wellness Center, Confusing terms make food labels difficult to understand, published 5/7/2011, http://thewellzone.org/2011/05/confusing-terms-make-food-labels-difficult-to-understand/, accessed 9/17/2011
Food labeling helps people make better choices regarding their food

People will only make better choices regarding their food only if people actually read the labels. A survey of Irish consumers found that reading labels is rare. In fact, 61% of men and 40% of women never read the labels on food before they make the purchase.[1] In addition, when labels are actually read, they seem to work only in more affluent parts of the society and so this is only going to have any effect in tackling obesity in one segment of society.[2] [1] Hills, S., Half of all consumers ignore food labels, published 2/24/2009, http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Half-of-all-consumers-ignore-food-labels, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Kersh, R., Obesity & the New Politics of Health Policy, published in February 2009, http://www.srm-ejournal.com/article.asp?AID=7351, accessed 9/17/2011
Food labeling encourages food companies to provide food more in tune with consumer values

For every company that actually makes an effort to create a program of healthy products, there ten that use labels to promote a “functional food” gimmick. More and more products are being labeled with the “health food” and “functional food” labels. One strong example of that is the “contains added vitamins and minerals” label in the U.S., with foods being fortified with vitamins – so seemingly improved for the better. Yet the U.S. population’s vitamin deficiencies are at an all time low. An epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania also notes that these fortifications and the labels that come with them are mostly a tactic used to distract consumers from actual nutritional problems – those of excess.[1] [1] Narayan, A., Figuring Out Food Labels, published 5/2/2010, http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1986269_1986240_1986272,00.html, accessed 9/17/2011
Food labeling does not change consumer behavior

There are two things we need to respond with in this case. One regarding the current state of labels and the other the strategy of fighting obesity. It is a fact that the current label designs leave something to be desired. If currently only a certain (but not at all negligible) percentage go ahead and actually read the labels that does not mean that labels are inherently ineffective. It might just as well, if not more likely, mean that the current design of labels is simply not attractive and useful enough for people to pay attention to. Therefore efforts are being made to revamp the food label to improve its effectiveness.[1] As to the second, food labels are but a weapon in our arsenal against fighting obesity. It might be that on their own they will not defeat the epidemic, but they certainly play a key part of the overall strategy.[2] [1] Associated Press, New food nutrition labels from FDA coming, published 9/3/2011, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/03/national/main20101420.shtml, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Benassi, M., The launch of a dynamic process, published in May 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/consumervoice/cvsp_52006_en.pdf, accessed 9/17/2011
Food labeling allows companies to deceive consumers

These examples do not really demonstrate that food labels do not work or are deceptive but rather that consumers should be educated better about how to actually read and recognize them – something the consumers themselves want, a fact known now for decades.[1] On the other hand, stricter regulations on packaging advertising are being called for as well, attacking the problem from another perspective.[2] We contend that better educated consumers on the one and better regulations on the other will uproot this problem at hand. In addition, this just goes to show that food labels are anything but ineffective – they just need to be known and regulated better. [1] Hackleman, E. C., Food label information: what consumers say they want and what they need, published in 1981, http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=5840, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Neuman W., U.S. Seeks New Limits on Food Ads for Children, published 4/28/2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/business/29label.html?_r=1, accessed 9/17/2011
Food labeling introduces unfair prejudice against certain products

Although we agree that it is the role of government to ensure a fair marketplace, we do not agree that the case described should be included in this definition. What we see is simply consumers reacting in accordance to their values – and currently the public opinion is quite opposed to the introduction of GMOs into their diets (71% in EU).[1] So it is only natural that products that include them are valued less. It also goes to show that these products should be labeled, so that consumers can make informed decisions in accordance to what they believe – something much more important in this case than a company’s profits. [1] Bonny, S., Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe, published 4/15/2008, http://ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol6/issue1/full/4/index.html, accessed 9/17/2011
Bring Africa out of poverty

The African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person[1]. In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013[2]. This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores[3]. [1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources [2] Dzuwa,J.  ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’  Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201306120531.html [3] Ibid
Natural resources create employment

The extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita[1]. This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.  [1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013  http://www.shell.com.ng/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html
Resource abundance has led to poor governance

Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa[1].  The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria[2]. Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success. [1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-10-24/moves-tackle-africas-resource-curse-reach-turning-point [2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010 http://eiti.org/files/EITI%20Impact%20in%20Africa.pdf
Environmental Damage

Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873[1]. That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage[2]. In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences[3]. [1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html [2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 http://www.osisa.org/book/export/html/5134 [3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201307051192.html
Foreign companies gain most of the profits

Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent.  The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law[1]. There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs[2]. Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal. [1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18254/1/FDINRCECONDEV.pdf [2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012 http://www.africaportal.org/blogs/community-practice/botswana-or-zimbabwe-exploiting-africa%E2%80%99s-resources-responsibly
Resources are a source of conflict

Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’[1]. There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.   [1] Kenny,C.  ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/06/what_resource_curse#sthash.oZVe6bJW.mQFB5WaO.dpbs
Source of trade

The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity[1]. The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose[2]. This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending.[3]  This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income. [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’  pg.110  http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf [2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220388.2011.649258 [3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012, http://www.academia.edu/2351950/The_Zambian_Economy_and_the_IMF
Bring Africa out of poverty

Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates[1]. Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas[2]. This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists. [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’  pg.110  http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Maximizing%20the%20Benefits%20from%20-%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20in%20Africa.pdf [2] Ibid
Natural resources create employment

Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa.  Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs. The presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors[1]. Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses[2]. [1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/East-Africa-should-not-neglect-agriculture/-/434750/1715492/-/csn969/-/index.html [2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013 http://allafrica.com/stories/201302130929.html