Changes in 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.

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.