Vomiting. Migraines. Burning sensations throughout the body. While these symptoms may seem like something straight out of an epidemic horror movie, these are just a few of the many adverse reactions reported each year, raising concerns about the growing levels of toxins in the global environment.
It would be easy to assume these reactions were in response to rising pollution rates, yet experts point to a far more frightening trigger; chemical additives in food.
With labels on packages reading more like a chemistry set, it’s not hard to consider that food might indeed be the cause of rising allergy and food sensitivities. But to what extent do these chemicals penetrate into the average American’s daily life, and at what cost?
One of the biggest controversies over chemical additives comes in the wake of Europe’s ban of hormone-laced meat that is standard in America.
Through a process of injecting the animals raised for slaughter with sex hormones, the American meat industry has increased the size of the animals by 10 percent. This dropped the price of meat per pound considerably when compared with those raised without artificial growth stimulation.
In recent years, this use of hormones has come under fire, as Europe banned the sale of meat containing the hormones, citing possible adverse affects to the consumer.
Industry leaders supporting the use of hormones in meat production cite the growth in the industry’s efficiency and their ability to lower the cost of their products to consumers as triumphs of this genetic development.
They also point out the genetic enhancement of animals for meat is a necessity, as the population of the country continues to grow and the strain on the food supply is stretched further.
According to a recent article published by the Canadian Medical Association, the World Health Organization Program for Control adopted a principle in 1992 that stressed the need to protect consumers from adverse effects from food products.
This principle is now being called into question, as the U.S. continues its sale of growth-hormone meat, despite studies including a Harvard Nurses Health Study that have drawn clear links between the hormones and cancers, most notably breast cancer.
It seems with all the funding and attention raised over the course of the year to prevent and proactively treat cancers in today’s society, any link between food sources and cancer development would lead the U.S. food industry regulators to ban the chemicals in question, yet the products remain on the market.
While theories abound as to why legislation regarding the dangerous additives is has yet to be passed, many point to the financial investments that top leaders in the regulatory programs hold.
In the end, it seems the war on food that is brewing in the U.S. will be one of money; do we invest in our long-term health, or in what the industry is calling the future of the food supply?
