|
food processing techniques do, in fact, differ substantially in their risk to human health. Certainly traditional practices like cooking, slicing, nixtamalization, nutrient fortification etc. are safe and have been done since humans determined how. But as food production and distribution industrialized, the majority of practices have been introduced to prioritize producers' bottom line (extend shelf life, cut manufacturing costs, etc.).
Yes there is robust regulatory infrastructure in place to monitor and evaluate food safety, but the USDA and FDA have their own set of operational problems (problematic resource allocation, understaffing, misaligned priorities, poor coordination, etc.), which hinders effectiveness. Plus, scientific research almost never effectuates immediate changes in food policy. The food and beverage industry devotes such substantial resources to its lobbies and the government tends to be overly sympathetic out of, what appears to be, fear of drastic market effects (which makes some sense, considering there are so many stakeholders involved throughout the food production to food consumption continuum).
A good example of food policy lag is the recent FDA ruling on trans fats/partially hydrogenated oils. Trans fats were introduced into food products because selectively hydrogenating fatty acid chains, creating stereochemical variants of naturally occurring unsaturated fats, delays oxidative degradation (rancidity) thus extending shelf life (sure you're familar). However research has been piling for decades indicating a strong association between trans fats and cardiovascular disease and the fact that these compounds are not metabolized effectively in humans, essentially circulating homelessly in the bloodstream and turning it into a viscous, LDL cholesterol-laden, fluid landfill so toxic that it triggers an inflammatory response in cardiovascular epithelia. We're in 2015 and the FDA has only NOW ordered the removal of trans fats from all food items. And even with that, companies have been given a 3 year grace period to comply with the new regulation. 3 YEARS to remove a compound with a widely accepted mechanism of catalyzing the leading cause of death in the United States.
So the 'lag' creates a valid space for moderate public concern, imo. In this discussion, when people say "processing" I think the main targets of concern are synthetic additives and processes for which there has been some scientific indication of a risk to human health. Not cooking, slicing, etc.
>
>Ooh, but is it processed? Everything is processed. Cooking is
>processing. Slicing is processing. *Cleaning* is processing.
>Anything can be called processing, as long as there's a
>process involved somewhere. The question is whether the
>processing presents any risk. The goal of food processing is
>not to make foods unhealthy. It's often the opposite (consider
>nixtamalization, for example). But the kind of processing
>people generally talk about is usually meant to improve shelf
>life. There is no reason that such processing would tend to
>make foods less healthy, but in some cases, they might (and in
>some cases, they might make them more healthy; it's just as
>likely to go either way). Anyway, we have a whole federal
>agency dedicated to judging these questions. And if you don't
>want to trust them, we have entire fields of science, and the
>communities of scientists who work in those fields, who would
>gladly break the scandalous news if a common food processing
>technique posed any risk.
>
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
