MAKING changes to our food is not a new idea. In fact, for generations man has been skilled at altering foods. Careful breeding techniques have resulted in many new varieties of crops, cattle, and sheep. Indeed, a representative of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated that "virtually every food you buy has been altered by traditional breeding."
Breeding is not the only way to alter food. The food industry has developed many procedures to treat and process food, whether to enhance its flavor or color or to standardize and preserve it. People are accustomed to eating food that has been altered in one way or another.
But a growing number of consumers are alarmed at what is now being done to our food. Why? Some fear that modern techniques presently in use are compromising the safety of food. Is this alarm justified? Let us examine three areas of concern.
Since the 1950's, small doses of antibiotics have been added to the feed of poultry, pigs, and cattle in some places. The purpose is to lower the risk of disease, especially where animals are kept together in close quarters. In some lands hormones are also added to animal feed to speed up animal growth. Hormones and antibiotics are said to protect animals against infection and to make intensive farming more profitable, with benefit to the consumer in the form of lower prices.
So far so good. But does meat from animals that are fed these additives carry any risk to the consumer? A report by the Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities concluded that there is a chance that bacteria will survive the antibiotics and be passed on to the consumer. "Some of these bacteria, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter, may be a direct cause of severe human diseases via the food chain," the report found. Furthermore, what if the food chain contains not only bacteria but also residues of antibiotics? Fears have been raised that as a result, germs causing diseases in humans could gradually develop a resistance to antibiotics.
What about hormone-treated meat? A professor in Munich, Germany, Dr. Heinrich Karg, comments: "All experts agree that meat from hormone-treated animals is not harmful to health, provided that the substances are administered in accordance with the guidelines." However, the newspaper Die Woche reports that on the issue of the safety of meat from hormone-fed animals, "for the past 15 years, researchers have been unable to agree upon a common viewpoint." And in France the question of hormones in meat has been answered with a resounding 'No! Hormones should not be used!' Clearly, the controversy is far from resolved.
Irradiated Foods
Since trials started in Sweden in 1916, at least 39 lands have approved the practice of exposing such foodstuffs as potatoes, corn, fruit, and meat to low levels of radiation. Why? Irradiation is said to kill most bacteria, insects, and parasites, thereby reducing the consumer's risk of contracting foodborne disease. It also increases the shelf life of the product.
Of course, experts say that ideally, the food we eat should be clean and fresh. But who takes the time to prepare fresh food regularly? "Ten minutes for breakfast and fifteen minutes for lunch and supper" is, according to Test magazine, the length of time the average person spends for meals. Not surprisingly, then, many consumers prefer food that is ready to eat and has a long shelf life. But are irradiated foods safe?
In 1999 the World Health Organization published a study carried out by an international panel of experts. They concluded that irradiated food "is both safe to consume and nutritionally adequate." Supporters compare the irradiating of food to the sterilizing of medical bandages—also done by irradiation—or to the passing of luggage through an electronic scanner at the airport. Critics, however, insist that irradiation reduces the natural goodness of food and may involve risks that are as yet unknown.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
How safe is your food ?
DO YOU eat three meals a day? If so, by the time you are 70 years old, you will have consumed over 75,000 meals. For a typical European, that will mean eating—among other things—some 10,000 eggs, 5,000 loaves of bread, 100 sacks of potatoes, 6 sides of beef, and 2 sheep. Does all that eating amount to a chore? Far from it! How we relish hearing such expressions as "enjoy your meal" or "guten Appetit" or "bon appétit"! The head of a cooking school went so far as to say: "Food is the essence of life."
Most of the time, we may tend to take it for granted that the food we consume is wholesome and healthful. But if just one of those 75,000 meals were to contain something harmful, we could get seriously ill. Can we be sure that what we eat is safe? These days, more and more people seem to have doubts on that score. In some countries food safety has become a major concern. Why?
Each year, foodborne illness affects about 15 percent of the population of Europe. In the early 1980's, for instance, toxic cooking oil in Spain killed about 1,000 people and made another 20,000 seriously ill. In 1999 the population of Belgium was aghast when it was reported that such items as eggs, poultry, cheese, and butter were possibly contaminated by a poison called dioxin. More recently, Britain's consumers were horrified—and its beef industry was shattered—when cattle became infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease). Then there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which required the slaughter and disposal of millions of cows, sheep, pigs, and goats.
Each year, foodborne illness affects about 15 percent of the population of Europe. In the early 1980's, for instance, toxic cooking oil in Spain killed about 1,000 people and made another 20,000 seriously ill. In 1999 the population of Belgium was aghast when it was reported that such items as eggs, poultry, cheese, and butter were possibly contaminated by a poison called dioxin. More recently, Britain's consumers were horrified—and its beef industry was shattered—when cattle became infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease). Then there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which required the slaughter and disposal of millions of cows, sheep, pigs, and goats.
What Are We Doing to Our Food?
MAKING changes to our food is not a new idea. In fact, for generations man has been skilled at altering foods. Careful breeding techniques have resulted in many new varieties of crops, cattle, and sheep. Indeed, a representative of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated that "virtually every food you buy has been altered by traditional breeding."
Breeding is not the only way to alter food. The food industry has developed many procedures to treat and process food, whether to enhance its flavor or color or to standardize and preserve it. People are accustomed to eating food that has been altered in one way or another.
But a growing number of consumers are alarmed at what is now being done to our food. Why? Some fear that modern techniques presently in use are compromising the safety of food. Is this alarm justified? Let us examine three areas of concern.
But a growing number of consumers are alarmed at what is now being done to our food. Why? Some fear that modern techniques presently in use are compromising the safety of food. Is this alarm justified? Let us examine three areas of concern.
Genetically Modified Foods
Geneticists have for some time been able to transfer a gene from the DNA of one organism into the DNA of another within the same species. Today, however, geneticists can go much further. For example, there are strawberries and tomatoes that have been modified with a gene taken from a fish, making them less sensitive to low temperatures.
Much has been said both for and against genetically modified (GM) food % Proponents say that this type of biotechnology is more predictable and controllable than traditional methods of plant breeding, that it will increase crop yields and reduce human starvation. But are GM foods safe to eat?
A report on the subject was prepared by a team of scientists representing academies in England and the United States as well as Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and other nations of the developing world. Published in July 2000, the report stated: "To date, over 30 million hectares [70 million acres] of transgenic [GM] crops have been grown and no human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of transgenic crops or their products have been identified." In some quarters GM products are held to be as safe as conventional foods.
Elsewhere, though, there is widespread uncertainty. In Austria, Britain, and France, GM foods are viewed with mistrust by some. A Dutch politician said of GM foods: "There are certain types of food we simply don't like." Critics of such food also point to ethical questions and to possible dangers to the environment.
Some scientists feel that these are early days for GM food and that more testing ought to be done on the possible risks to consumers. For instance, the British Medical Association feels that genetic engineering promises great benefits for the population. Yet, it states that some areas of concern—such as the question of allergic reactions to GM foods—mean that "further research is needed."
http://www.google.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)