Download recent-concerns-related-to-food-safety-paper-1

ISSUES IN FOOD SAFETY
Genetically engineered foods
Bovine somatotropin
Food irradiation
Pesticide residues in foods
Drinking water quality
Restaurant food safety
1
Questions that must be answered during
the review period are:
• Has there been an increase in any naturally
occurring toxins in the plant?
• Has an allergen not commonly found in the plant
been introduced?
• Has there been a change in the levels of any
important nutrients?
• Have new substances that raise safety
questions been introduced into the food?
• Are there any negative environmental effects?
• Have accepted, established scientific
procedures been followed?
2
THE CASE AGAINST FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
Human Health Hazards
Most food allergies are due to specific
proteins found in foods. Some people are so
sensitive to certain proteins that eating that
protein could cause sudden death.
Another area of concern is the potential
decreased quality and nutrition of GE foods.
3
Environmental Hazards
Opponents worry that wind, rain, insects, and birds
will carry pollen from GE foods over to fields planted
with traditional or organic crops, thereby “polluting”
those fields.
4
Socioeconomic Hazards
The promised benefits of increased crop yields from GE
crops have not come about. They point to examples of
large crop failures from GE
crops for evidence that the plants don’t function as
advertised. Bt cotton plant.
Seed companies have started producing seeds that are
genetically modified to make
them infertile. This means that the seeds produced by the
plants can’t be saved by
farmers to plant the next year’s crop. This “terminator
technology” forces farmers to
buy new seed every year, which many cannot afford to
do.
5
THE CASE IN FAVOR OF FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
Human Health Benefits- Examples of the benefits food
biotechnology can bring to consumers, they cite:
• Tomatoes with increased levels of the antioxidant
lycopene, thought to reduce the risk of cancer.
• Genetically enhanced soybeans that are lower in
saturated fats.
• Cooking oils that have a more healthful fat content
• Peanuts and rice with improved protein content
6
• Fruits that are genetically engineered to produce
vaccines for diseases.
• Potatoes with a higher starch content, thereby
reducing the amount of oil absorbed during
production of french fries and potato chips.
• Plants with reduced levels of natural toxins.
• Fruits and vegetables fortified with higher levels
of vitamins such as C and E.
7
Environmental Benefits
Benefits include decreased pesticide and herbicide use,
more efficient use of pesticides and fertilizer, and water
and soil conservation.
Another proposed advantage of genetic engineering is
that it would increase the
genetic variation in staple crops by breeding into them
desirable traits from previously
unavailable sources.
8
Socioeconomic Benefits
Proponents claim that advantages of food biotechnology
that will be noticed in the marketplace are foods that have
longer shelf life and better flavor, appearance,
and texture.
Using biotechnology, familiar food products can be
produced more cheaply. For example, before genetic
engineering techniques became available, the enzyme
used to make cheese, rennet,was obtained from the lining
of calves’ stomachs. Using biotechnology, researchers
have identified and removed the specific gene
responsible for rennet production and inserted it in
bacteria, which then produce rennet.
9
Instead of spending between 10 and 12 years breeding
plants in the traditional manner and mixing thousands
of genes that could have unpredictable outcomes,
with genetic engineering modern plant breeders can
select a specific genetic trait fromany plant or animal
and move it into any other plant or animal. This way
genetic engineers can design plants with specific
beneficial traits and without specific undesirable
traits.
10
BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN
• Somatotropin (ST) is a naturally occurring
protein hormone that regulates growth in
humans and other animals.
• Pro-BST scientists claim that studies show
BST does not adversely affect the health
of treated cows, does not change the
composition of milk, and does not pose
any risk to humans.
11
Opponents of BST claim that there has been a major
hijacking of the scientific and regulatory apparatus by
Monsanto.
In Canada, several scientists
claim they were pressured by supervisors to approve
BST even though they had reservations
about its safety.
12
HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES
BST regulates another protein hormone found in milk,
insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I).
BST opponents believe poses serious risks for human
health. They cite studies showing thatB women with
small increases of IGF-I levels in their blood are up to
seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than
women with lower levels.
Proponents of BST claim that higher levels of IGF-I in
milk are not a safety risk since it is a protein and
therefore is digested and rendered harmless just like all
other dietary proteins.
13
ANIMAL HEALTH ISSUES
Proponents claim that hundreds of studies have been
performed, none of them showing an increased
incidence of ill health in BST treated cows.
Other scientists disagree with the findings that BST is
not harmful to cows. A
panel of animal health experts found that cows injected
with BST have a higher rate
of infertility, increased lameness, increased mastitis,
and a shorter life expectancy.
14
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES
About the only fact that pro-BST and anti-BST groups agree on is
that BST use
results in a 10 to 15 percent increase in milk yield when administered
to dairy cows.
As with other food biotechnology products, proponents
claim that the use of BST
will benefit the environment. Reducing the amount of
feed required to produce milk
will reduce the need for fertilizer and other inputs
associated with growing, harvesting,
processing, and storing animal feed. Increases in
productive efficiency also reduce
the production of animal waste.
15
Labeling of milk from BST-treated cows is another
hotly contested issue. Those who think it shouldn’t be
labeled point to FDA claims that there is no difference
in milk fromBST and non-BST treated cows.
16
FOOD IRRADIATION
Proponents of food irradiation claim that the safety of
irradiated foods has been studied by feeding them to
animals and to people.
There is no evidence of adverse health effects in these
well-controlled trials. Irradiating foods does produce a
very small amount of unique radiation products—about
three milligrams per kilogram of food, equivalent to
three drops in a swimming pool
17
THE CASE AGAINST IRRADIATION
Opponents of food irradiation claim it is being pushed on
consumers by
agri-business, food processors, and the nuclear industry.
Health concerns of those opposed to irradiation center
around the unique radiation products formed during the
irradiation process.
Critics claim that irradiation destroys essential minerals
and the vitamins A, B, C, E, and K.
18