In the comment sections below, find the category for which each of your topics belong. Click the reply button and post your argument(s) there. For this part of the assignment, you will follow the format we discussed in class (and what you have been given in handouts). Be sure to include your sources (cited in APA) either as footnotes or with each scientific/factual claim. Remember, you need to complete 3 arguments.
Your arguments need to be posted by October 24, 2013.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Arsenicals in Chicken
A study by John Hopkins University has shown that there is a significant amount of arsenic used when farm raising chicken. Arsenic is used to promote growth, treat disease, and improve meat pigmentation in chicken. However, arsenic is a known toxin and carcinogen. When farmers feed arsenicals to their chickens, it will stay in their muscles, which means that we will consume an unsafe amount of arsenic. This means that we have an increased chance of cancer, diarrhea, vomiting, hair loss, and convulsions, and heart disease.
Since arsenic poses a serious threat to human health, steps must be taken to resolve this issue. The FDA can to change their regulation, much like Europe has already done. On a more personal level, we can choose to avoid meat which has been raised by a company known for feeding arsenicals. Education can also help prevent health consequences. If we educate our friends and family on the harms of arsenic and its presence in chicken, companies and the FDA can take note and alter business practices/regulations.
Since arsenic poses a serious threat to human health, steps must be taken to resolve this issue. The FDA can to change their regulation, much like Europe has already done. On a more personal level, we can choose to avoid meat which has been raised by a company known for feeding arsenicals. Education can also help prevent health consequences. If we educate our friends and family on the harms of arsenic and its presence in chicken, companies and the FDA can take note and alter business practices/regulations.
What's Really in Our Sports Drinks? (Brominated Vegetable Oil)
Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO), created by bonding vegetable oil to the element bromine, is a food additive put in sports drinks and sodas to keep the citrus flavoring from separating from the rest of the drink. It's present in drinks such as Powerade, Mountain Dew, Fanta, and has recently been eliminated from Gatorade. Although the added ingredient has been banned in over 100 places such as Europe and Japan, it still remains a legal and commonly consumed food item in the United States today.
So what's the problem with Brominated vegetable oil? First, BVO contains bromine, which is an element commonly used in flame retardant materials which are known to cause problems in brain development, fertility and possibly even cancer. When drinking BVO, over a period of time, the substance can build up in the body and cause toxic effects, leading to issues such as memory loss, loss of coordination, and skin conditions like sores and halogen acne.
Now what is the next course of action? Well, recently the FDA changed BVO's safety status from "generally considered safe" to "questionable." Hopefully, this change will lead to more studies being performed on the harmful effects of the substance, and maybe eventually lead to a ban altogether. Until then, however, I recommend looking at the ingredient list of the juices and sodas you drink, or better yet, avoid drinking extremely processed liquids altogether.
For more information, go to one or more of these websites:
Now what is the next course of action? Well, recently the FDA changed BVO's safety status from "generally considered safe" to "questionable." Hopefully, this change will lead to more studies being performed on the harmful effects of the substance, and maybe eventually lead to a ban altogether. Until then, however, I recommend looking at the ingredient list of the juices and sodas you drink, or better yet, avoid drinking extremely processed liquids altogether.
 |
| An illustration depicting the dangers of drinks containing BVO |
For more information, go to one or more of these websites:
rBST/rBGH
Two growth hormones, rBGH and rBST, are routinely given to U.S. dairy cows to increase milk production. However, controversy, both about the health of the animals and about the health of human consumers of their milk, has followed their use ever since their introduction in the 1980s. The European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Israel have all disallowed use of the hormone, but as of 1993 it has been officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States.
Animal health concerns are certainly valid, as several analyses show that the hormones decrease fertility by 40%, increase the risk of mastitis, and increase the risk of lameness by 55%. Due to these problems, rBST treated cows are usually also administered more antibiotics, which can possibly leech into the milk and also increase the likelihood of development of super strains. Thus, it is conclusive that the drug causes animal health problems and decreases animal welfare.
Also concerning are possible human health impacts from the chemicals. Chemical analyses of the non rBST milk and rBST milk have shown that milk from hormone-treated cows has slightly elevated levels of BST. These hormones have however been shown to have no real effect on humans, and additionally if milk contains antibiotics as mentioned in the previous paragraph, it cannot be legally sold. What is concerning is IGF-1, which can also be increased in quantity by use of rBST/rBGH. This chemical has probable relationships to some tumors, as confirmed by the American Cancer Society, though how much is absorbed into the body through consumption of food is unclear.
I feel that rBGH (whose use has been decreased significantly already by consumer pressures -- one of the few times this has ever happened) should be bannned as it is in the European Union, not only because of the possible human health risks which are as of yet uninvestigated by our terrible excuse for a food safety administration, but also because of the typically unconsidered animal welfare concerns. If we must use (and abuse) animals for our own purposes, we should at least ensure that they are cared for properly, and rBST/rBGH is certainly not proper care, and so we should say no to possible cancer and no to definite cruelty for a slight increase in profit.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/161/6/677.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBGH
http://awionline.org/content-types-orchid-legacy/awi-quarterly/rbgh-reconsidered
Animal health concerns are certainly valid, as several analyses show that the hormones decrease fertility by 40%, increase the risk of mastitis, and increase the risk of lameness by 55%. Due to these problems, rBST treated cows are usually also administered more antibiotics, which can possibly leech into the milk and also increase the likelihood of development of super strains. Thus, it is conclusive that the drug causes animal health problems and decreases animal welfare.
 |
| A gangrenous udder for you to look at. |
Also concerning are possible human health impacts from the chemicals. Chemical analyses of the non rBST milk and rBST milk have shown that milk from hormone-treated cows has slightly elevated levels of BST. These hormones have however been shown to have no real effect on humans, and additionally if milk contains antibiotics as mentioned in the previous paragraph, it cannot be legally sold. What is concerning is IGF-1, which can also be increased in quantity by use of rBST/rBGH. This chemical has probable relationships to some tumors, as confirmed by the American Cancer Society, though how much is absorbed into the body through consumption of food is unclear.
I feel that rBGH (whose use has been decreased significantly already by consumer pressures -- one of the few times this has ever happened) should be bannned as it is in the European Union, not only because of the possible human health risks which are as of yet uninvestigated by our terrible excuse for a food safety administration, but also because of the typically unconsidered animal welfare concerns. If we must use (and abuse) animals for our own purposes, we should at least ensure that they are cared for properly, and rBST/rBGH is certainly not proper care, and so we should say no to possible cancer and no to definite cruelty for a slight increase in profit.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/161/6/677.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBGH
http://awionline.org/content-types-orchid-legacy/awi-quarterly/rbgh-reconsidered
rBGH and rBST hormones
Growth hormones called rBGH and rBST are given to cows in
order to increase the amount of milk they produce. Studies show that one out of
every six dairy cows in the United States is injected with these hormones over
and over again. Most of the antibiotics used in the United States are for
animals to keep them healthy. However, there are some concerns arising about
the safety of these hormones. Some of the negative effects to this hormone are
that connections have been found linking the milk produced from cows injected
with these hormones and cancers being found such as breast, colorectal, and
prostate. Although these hormones are not banned in the United States, it is in
other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Israel, EU, and Canada. There
are many people in the United States who are against farmers using these
hormones in their cows in fear of some of the negative effects they have as
stated above. Some milk companies have started to label their milk as having no
added hormones to ensure the customers that no rBGH or rBST are present in
their milk/dairy products. Places such as Starbucks, Wal-Mart, Kroger, etc.
have stopped using and/or milk products that contain these hormones. In the
future, I personally hope that these hormones are banned in the United States
from being injected into cows. I think for right now, more studies and
experiments need to be conducted to find how harmful these hormones truly are
to consumers buying milk with the hormones included. For more information check out this link.
“rBGH.” Grace
Communications Foundations. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Oct. 2013.
Farmed-Raised Salmon
I have chosen to discuss farm-raised salmon and its "wonderful" qualities. Wild salmon has a famous pinkish-orange color to it, which they obtain through their diet. When salmon are raised on farms, they do not always get the same diet to recieve their pinkish-orange color, so the farmers feed the salmon canthaxanthin to give them there natural color.
So what is wrong with that? The farmers are just trying to give the people what they want. Well, the problem is that canthaxanthin is that it is known to cause problems within the retina resulting in possible vision damage. It has been banned in both Austialia and New Zealand. I do not ulndertand why the United States would allow canthaxanthin in foods, when it can cause eyesight damage and cancer. It is already suggested not to eat a great amount of fish too regulary, so we should not increase the risk.
Now, it is highly recommended to eat wild salmon more than farm-raised salmon because of safety. I do feel like food should be colored with chemicals just because that is the color it should be. If you want your meat to look like it is suppose to, then feed your fish the correct diet to give it its pinkish-orange. Do not skip corners and cheat. Also, the U.S. needs to ban more things that are currently allowed to be put in the food we eat.
http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/
So what is wrong with that? The farmers are just trying to give the people what they want. Well, the problem is that canthaxanthin is that it is known to cause problems within the retina resulting in possible vision damage. It has been banned in both Austialia and New Zealand. I do not ulndertand why the United States would allow canthaxanthin in foods, when it can cause eyesight damage and cancer. It is already suggested not to eat a great amount of fish too regulary, so we should not increase the risk.
Now, it is highly recommended to eat wild salmon more than farm-raised salmon because of safety. I do feel like food should be colored with chemicals just because that is the color it should be. If you want your meat to look like it is suppose to, then feed your fish the correct diet to give it its pinkish-orange. Do not skip corners and cheat. Also, the U.S. needs to ban more things that are currently allowed to be put in the food we eat.
http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/
Potassium Bromate and Its Effects
Potassium
Bromate is an ingredient added to breads to help the dough hold together and
rise higher. After the goods are baked, Potassium Bromate, or KBrO3, is a white, powdery substance. It is consumed almost daily by Americans
across the nation with most likely no idea that their bread may contain a serious
health risking additive. After many extensive studies, very similar conclusions have been made
about Potassium Bromate and its effect on the human body. Bromate was first found to cause tumors in rats during a
study in 1982. During these trials on rats and mice, it was confirmed that the
use of KBrO3 causes
tumors of the kidney, thyroid, and in other organs. (http://www.cspinet.org/new/bromate.html). These effects aren’t found only in rats or mice, but also
impact human life. KBrO3 induces
mutations, alters gene expression, leading to cancer (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/12/204). Even with the International Agency for Research on Cancer stating that
potassium bromate is possibly cancerous to humans, it has not been banned in the
United States. Bakery’s goal is to bake the potassium bromate out of the goods,
but this is not necessarily always happening. Therefore, with tests done and
data gathered showing the potential for negative results, the FDA should make
regulations to ensure the Potassium Bromate is in no danger to the people.
Another
great source to look at for more information is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567851/. It includes all of the side effects on KBrO3.
Amanda Dotson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)