Technological advances offer food and beverage manufacturers more ways to modify food than ever before: hormones to control growth, disease, and production; radiation to rid yield of pests and microbes; and genetic alteration to yield larger yields and more favorable characteristics.
But while food scientists continue to innovate in production, functionality, and formulation, it is consumers' perceptions that matter most. Let government and commerce turn over the merits of the latest technology. It is still consumers who finally win the argument.
Publix
Hormones
Take hormones, for example. For years, producers have primarily used substances such as bovine growth hormone and bovine and pork somatropin to growth milk supply, provide leaner meat, forestall animal disease, and thereby growth supplies and profits. From a condition standpoint, producers can achieve lower fat content, which can lessen consumers' cardiovascular risks.
However, there is concern that residual hormone content can be found in trace amounts in meats, milks and cheeses, and some studies indicate that may lead to increased risk of breast, ovarian and prostate cancers. Armed with that kind of information, consumers start to perceive that that the risk of added hormones is not worth the benefits, a sentiment that cannot be reversed even if evidence of risk were refuted.
As a result, more and more companies, together with such customary names as Kroger Foods, Stonyfield Farms, Publix, Hp Hood, Organic Valley and Safeway Dairy Group, have shifted to hormone-free dairy production, more as a response to buyer concerns than any new findings that these hormones are harmful.
Irradiation
Another modification technology, irradiation, preserves food by exposing it to radiation and killing micro-organisms and other pathogens. At lower doses, it may also delay the ripening of fruits and the maturity of vegetables. Irradiation is used in low, medium or high dosage levels depending on the intended purpose and is set by the Codex Alimentus guidelines.
As with many other food modification methods, the Fda regulates irradiation and honestly mandates it for determined foods, though critics say this may just be a way to hide poor quality in determined fresh foods. The most common applications are grains, fruits, vegetables and meats such as beef, lamb and pork. The Fda requires any irradiated food to carry a Radura symbol, which resembles a flower enclosed within a circle. Unfortunately, most consumers are not customary with it, and frequently the stamp is difficult to find.
In contrast, some European countries have laws against irradiating food, which leaves American consumers to wonder what Europeans are aware of that the Americans are not, especially when they have few alternates because such a large percentage of food is irradiated.
Genetic Engineering
Currently about 70 percent of the food sold in the Us contains genetically altered ingredients. Geneticists have developed increasingly sophisticated technologies to change a plant's or animal's genetic data to heighten desirable traits, such as taste, texture, and nutritional composition. Altering an organism's genetics can also bring lower yield costs, increased crop yields, less need for pesticides, with miniature or no crop damage. In the Us, the most ordinarily genetically modified food crops are corn, soybeans and canola.
However, critics complain that genetically engineered foods can harm other organisms and humans. And the genetic modifications do not necessarily eliminate the toxins, allergens, or other harmful compounds that their not-altered counterparts carry. In fact, there is some evidence that some genetically modified foods may honestly growth allergic reactions.
Additionally, concrete evidence of lower nutrient values in items has also been noted. Currently, there are no studies that collate the long-term effects of genetically engineered food consumption on humans. However, studies on the effects of modified corn pollen on the monarch butterfly have shown negative effects on growth, feeding habits and mortality. These findings honestly indicate inherent risk to plants, animals and other organisms exposed to genetically engineered organisms. Although it is unlikely that humans will have the same reaction as insects, this study does indicate the need for the chase of studies on human subjects.
This area of biotechnology is still emerging and thus far, an increased risk or benefit to humans from genetically modified foods has not been by all means; of course quantified. It is this lack of essential evidence on the effects of food modifications that makes me wonder either these foods should have undergone more rigorous testing before they were introduced into our food supply. finally though, it will likely be the fine buyer voice that puts a damper on supplementary food modification technologies until all the ramifications are fully known.
Modified Foods - advantage Or Hazard?
No comments:
Post a Comment