I thought of a way to test these things before they're given to the general public. Before any new chemicals are introduced (and surely they will) make a welfare program called "Sickville" or some very attractive name, where people get free food and housing but they're testing all these "safe" foods before given to the general public, and we'll see what happens to them... I knew I could never share such a repulsive thought to blog readers...
But, then, I thought of a better idea. To make it more ethical, and fair all across the board (we wouldn't want to target one racial or socioeconomic group), why don't we just feed a whole country a diet of chemicals that we don't really know what they do and have controversial side effects or cause cancer and call it the United States of America, and let them be the guinea pigs.
In the Watchdog Report from JS Online on BPA:"'The safety of this compound is in major question, and our government is not taking steps to address this,' said Urvashi Rangan, senior analyst for Consumers Union, a watchdog group that regularly tests products. 'Consumers shouldn't have to be the guinea pigs here.'
"Canada has declared BPA a toxin and is moving to ban it from baby bottles, infant formula and other children's products. But U.S. regulators have been conflicted.
"The National Toxicology Program has expressed concern about the chemical for fetuses, newborns and young children. But the FDA has declared it to be safe. That assessment, however, was found to be flawed, and the FDA since has reopened its examination."
Back to my original statement: if its on the shelf, we're going to eat it. I vaguely remember picking up something sugar-free a few months ago, and thinking to myself, "I remember my grandma [who is now deceased] telling me about Nutra-sweet and Equal in the restaurant when we saw the little packets on the table, and her telling me that they've found its bad for you, and you should avoid it and just eat sugar." Then, subconsciously (no real thought pattern), I looked at the sugar free product in front of me (I can't remember what it was) and decided whether I should eat it or not, "if its being sold, and other people eat it, what's the big deal? And, I could save on calories."
Such it is with all other foods. If its out there, its going to be eaten. Although America doesn't think fast food is a healthy choice, if its offered to people, somebody's going to be eating it. Why all the pop machines, tons of cola, all the junk we're selling, and serving in schools? Do we really care about health care or not? Think of how many people don't know what is bad for them? Who's going to be the last in America to know of the harm in our food products? Who's going to be uninformed? Who's out of the loop, doesn't have good connections? Probably the people who need it most! Poor, young, or unborn.
One more thing I've learned: an ingredient label is a warning label, and its probably all the warning you'll get. Why does our cereal say "BHT added to packaging"? Who cares what's added to packaging. That's not an ingredient! Or is it? I think it says that because someone is on top of it and knows its harmful, doesn't want to be eating it, and wants it labeled. I think for some reason the government wants labels on our food so that we can be informed and make our own choices. I had no clue I shouldn't be eating nitrates, though, and who else does? Thus enters consumer responsibility- a joke.
Then, on top of that, you've got laws like the Cheeseburger Bill, that states that food producers have an immunity from causing obesity. MSG, aspartame, aren't really foods, I guess sugar is, but are they going to count in the Cheeseburger Bill? Most positively. At least foods (additives!) don't have an immunity from cancer, yet, I hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment