2-Analyze the graph below and define empty-calorie food.
Your challenge is to use about 50 words (no less than 40, but no more
than 60) to come up with your own definition. Be original and do not
copy-paste. Plagiarism will not be tolerated under no circumstances and
in any form. Upload your Short Opinion as a Word document using the
class Assignment Submission tool by Friday, October 9 no later than 5PM
EST. You may upload your Short Opinion anytime before the due date. 3-Dr. Jaczynski was granted a patent in 2010. Your assignment is to retrieve the following information for the patent: Inventor(s) Name(s), Assignee(s), Patent Number, Filing Date, Issue Date, Patent Title. Upload
your Short Opinion as a Word document using the class Assignment
Submission tool by Friday, October 23 no later than 5PM EST. You may
upload your Short Opinion anytime before the due date.4-Critically
evaluate a diet/nutrition/food advertisement. The advertisement can be
from television, magazine, newspaper, or internet. You may use the
internet to research the product being sold. To clue you in, be sure to
include the following in your paper: Identify what product is being advertised. How the advertisement attempts to influence your food choices? What audience is being targeted? What attributes of the product are emphasized? What mechanism is used to hold your attention? How factual is the information? What is used to lend credibility to advertiser’s alleged claims? What part of the truth remains undisclosed? In your opinion, how effective is the advertisement? Your paper
cannot exceed 200 words and be shorter than 175 words. Be original and
do not copy-paste. Plagiarism will not be tolerated under no
circumstances and in any form. Upload
your Short Opinion as a Word document using the class Assignment
Submission tool by Friday, October 30 no later than 5PM EST. You may
upload your Short Opinion anytime before the due date. 5-Attached Files: Agricultural Biotechnology Presents Health Risks.pdf
(37.175 KB) Alcohol Advertising Does Not Promote Underage Drinking.pdf
(38.223 KB) America’s Food Supply Is Safe.pdf
(47.299 KB) Athletes Are More Vulnerable to Anorexia Than Non-athletes.pdf
(32.793 KB) Athletes Will Never Stop Using Performance Drugs.pdf
(37.939 KB) Eating Disorders Are Not Necessarily Harmful.pdf
(35.255 KB) Genetic Engineering Can Be Ethical.pdf
(67.539 KB) Global Food Supply Is Not Becoming Scarcer.pdf
(40.302 KB) High Population Growth Is Exacerbating World Poverty.pdf
(34.953 KB) Hunger Among Elderly.pdf
(33.863 KB) The Risks of Disordered Eating.pdf
(40.859 KB) You can
prepare one Critical Review of published literature during the semester
for Extra Credit. The purpose of the Critical Review is to give you
experience in reading, evaluating, and incorporating technical
literature into your knowledge base. Although you must prepare a
summary of the material read, emphasis must be placed on your evaluation
of the literature: How the information aligns with what you already know.How the new information impacts your outlook.The significance of the information to your knowledge base. Include
in your Critical Review why you selected the particular article and
identify the article reviewed using a consistent citation format. There is a
set of 11 papers attached to this assignment. These papers are on very
diverse topics, often quite controversial. They are related to current,
hot issues in human nutrition and food. Choose one paper out of the 11
available for your Critical Review. If you choose not to use an
article from the 11 available; then the article must have been written
between 2010-present and approved by Dr. J. Your Critical Review
should be 2 pages of 12-pt double-spaced text with 1″-margins.
Plagiarism will not be tolerated under no circumstances and in any form.
Upload
your Critical Review as a Word document using the class Assignment
Submission tool by Friday, November 20 no later than 5PM EST. You may
upload your Critical Review anytime before the due date. As this
assignment gives you an opportunity to generate Extra Credit, late
submissions will not be accepted. You may upload your Critical Review
anytime before the due date.Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
Agricultural Biotechnology Presents Health Risks
David Ehrenfeld
David Ehrenfeld is a professor of biology at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New
Jersey. He is the author of several books on biology and conservation, including Genes,
Populations, and Species.
Source Database: At Issue: Food Safety
Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
Agricultural biotechnology has undesirable health effects for people and animals. For
example, cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) suffer side
effects ranging from feeding disorders to mastitis, an udder infection that can lead to
abnormal milk. Because these cows need more protein, they are often fed ground-up
animals, which can lead to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or “mad cow
disease.” As a result of rBGH and these feeding methods, humans are at greater risk for
breast and gastro-intestinal cancers and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which is analogous to
BSE. The only beneficiaries of biotechnology are the chemical and seed companies who
sell these products to farmers.
The modern history of agriculture has two faces. The first, a happy face, is turned toward
non-farmers. It speaks brightly of technological miracles, such as the “Green Revolution”
and, more recently, genetic engineering, that have resulted in the increased production of
food for the world’s hungry. The second face is turned toward the few remaining farmers
who have survived these miracles. It is downcast and silent, like a mourner at a funeral.
The real purpose of biotechnology
The Green Revolution is an early instance of the co-opting of human needs by the
techno-economic system. The latest manifestation of corporate agriculture is genetic
engineering. Excluding military spending on fabulously expensive, dysfunctional
weapons systems, there is no more dramatic case of people having their needs
appropriated for the sake of profit at any cost. Like high-input agriculture, genetic
engineering is often justified as a humane technology, one that feeds more people with
better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole
point of genetic engineering is to increase the sales of chemicals and bio-engineered
products to dependent farmers.
Social problems aside, this new agricultural biotechnology is on much shakier scientific
ground than the Green Revolution ever was. Genetic engineering is based on the
premise that we can take a gene from species A, where it does some desirable thing, and
move it into species B, where it will continue to do that same desirable thing. Most
genetic engineers know that this is not always true, but the biotech industry as a whole
acts as if it were.
First, genes are not like tiny machines. The expression of their output can change when
they are put in a new genetic and cellular environment. Second, genes usually have
multiple effects. Undesirable effects that are suppressed in species A may be expressed
when the gene is moved to species B. And third, many of the most important, genetically
regulated traits that agricultural researchers deal with are controlled by multiple genes,
perhaps on different chromosomes, and these are very resistant to manipulation by
transgenic technology.
Because of these scientific limitations, agricultural biotechnology has been largely
confined to applications that are basically simple-minded despite their technical
complexity. Even here we find problems. The production of herbicide-resistant crop
seeds is one example. Green Revolution crops tend to be on the wimpish side when it
comes to competing with weeds–hence the heavy use of herbicides in recent decades.
But many of the weeds are relatives of the crops, so the herbicides that kill the weeds can
kill the crops too, given bad luck with weather and the timing of spraying. Enter the
seed/chemical companies with a clever, profitable, unscrupulous idea. Why not introduce
the gene for resistance to our own brand of herbicide into our own crop seeds, and then
sell the patented seeds and patented herbicide as a package?
Never mind that this encourages farmers to apply recklessly large amounts of weedkiller,
and that many herbicides have been associated with human sickness, including
lymphoma. Nor that the genes for herbicide resistance can move naturally from the crops
to the related weeds via pollen transfer, rendering the herbicide ineffective in a few years.
What matters, as an agricultural biotechnologist once remarked to me, is earning enough
profit to keep the company happy.
A related agricultural biotechnology is the transfer of bacterial or plant genes that
produce a natural insecticide directly into crops such as corn and cotton. An example is
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), which has been widely used as an external dust or spray to
kill harmful beetles and moths. In this traditional use, Bt breaks down into harmless
components in a day or two, and the surviving pests do not get a chance to evolve
resistance to it. But with Bt now produced continuously inside genetically engineered
crops, which are planted over hundreds of thousands of acres, the emergence of genetic
resistance among the pests becomes almost a certainty.
Monsanto, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of agricultural chemicals, has
patented cottonseed containing genes for Bt. Advertised as being effective against
bollworms without the use of additional insecticides, 1,800,000 acres in five southern
states of the USA were planted with this transgenic seed in 1996, at a cost to farmers of
not only the seed itself but an additional $32-per-acre “technology fee” paid to Monsanto.
Heavy bollworm infestation occurred in spite of the special seed, forcing farmers to spray
expensive insecticides anyway. Those farmers who wanted to use seeds from the
surviving crop to replace the damaged crop found that Monsanto’s licensing agreement,
like most others in the industry, permitted them only one planting.
Troubles with Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed have not been confined to cotton.
In May 1997, Monsanto Canada and its licensee, Limagrain Canada Seeds, recalled
60,000 bags of “Roundup-ready” canola seeds because they mistakenly contained a gene
that had not been tested by the government for human consumption. These seeds,
engineered to resist Monsanto’s most profitable product, the herbicide Roundup, were
enough to plant more than 600,000 acres. Two farmers had already planted the seeds
when Monsanto discovered its mistake.
Dangerous genetic tampering
There is another shaky scientific premise of agricultural biotechnology. This concerns the
transfer of animal or plant genes from the parent species into micro-organisms, so that the
valuable products of these genes can then be produced in large commercial batches. The
assumption here is that these transgenic products, when administered back to the parent
species in large doses, will simply increase whatever desirable effect they normally have.
Again, this is simplistic thinking that totally ignores the great complexity of living
organisms and the consequences of tampering with them.
In the United States, one of the most widely deployed instances of this sort of
biotechnology is the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is
produced by placing slightly modified cow genes into fermentation tanks containing
bacteria, then injected into lactating cows to make them yield more milk. This is done
despite our nationwide milk glut and despite the fact that the use of rBGH will probably
accelerate the demise of the small dairy farm, since only large farms are able to take on
the extra debt for the more expensive feeds, the high-tech feed-management systems, and
the added veterinary care that go along with its use.
The side effects of rBGH on cows are also serious. Recombinant BGH-related problems-as stated on the package insert by its manufacturer, Monsanto–include bloat, diarrhoea,
diseases of the knees and feet, feeding disorders, fevers, reduced blood haemoglobin
levels, cystic ovaries, uterine pathology, reduced pregnancy rates, smaller calves, and
mastitis–an udder infection that can result, according to the insert, in “visibly abnormal
milk”. Treatment of mastitis can lead to the presence of antibiotics in milk, probably
accelerating the spread of antibiotic resistance among bacteria that cause human disease.
Milk from rBGH-treated cows may also contain insulin growth factor, IGF-1, which has
been implicated in human breast and gastro-intestinal cancers.
Another potential problem is an indirect side-effect of the special nutritional requirements
of rBGH-treated cows. Because these cows require more protein, their feed is
supplemented with ground-up animals, a practice that has been associated with bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as “mad cow disease”. The recent British
epidemic of BSE appears to have been associated with an increased incidence of the
disease’s human analogue, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There seems little reason to
increase the risk of this terrible disease for the sake of a biotechnology that we don’t need.
If cows stay off hormones and concentrate on eating grass, all of us will be much better
off.
Meanwhile the biotechnology juggernaut rolls on, converting humanity’s collective
agricultural heritage from an enduring, farmer-controlled lifestyle to an energydependent, corporate “process”. The ultimate co-optation is the patenting of life. The
Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980 paved the way for
corporations to obtain industrial, or “utility”, patents on living organisms, from bacteria
to human cells. These patents operate like the patents on mechanical inventions, granting
the patent-holder a more sweeping and longer-lasting control than had been conferred by
the older forms of plant patents.
Somehow, in the chaos of technological change, we have lost the distinction between a
person and a corporation, inexplicably valuing profit at any cost over basic human needs.
In doing so we have forsaken our farmers, the spiritual descendants of those early
Hebrew and Greek farmers and pastoralists who first gave us our understanding of social
justice, democracy, and the existence of a power greater than our own. No amount of lipservice to the goal of feeding the world’s hungry or to the glory of a new technology, and
no amount of transient increases in the world’s grain production, can hide this terrible
truth.
FURTHER READINGS
Books
•
•
•
•
•
Dennis T. Avery. Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The
Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson
Institute, 1995.
James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. The Food and Drink Police:
America’s Nannies, Busybodies, and Petty Tyrants. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction, 1996.
Kristin Dawkins. Gene Wars: The Politics of Biotechnology. New York: Seven
Stories Press, 1997.
Gail A. Eisnitz. Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and
Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1997.
Michael W. Fox. Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of Plants,
Animals, the Earth–Humans. New York: Lyons Press, 1999.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nicols Fox. Spoiled: The Dangerous Truth About a Food Chain Gone Haywire .
New York: BasicBooks, 1997.
Brewster Kneen. Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology. Gabriola
Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society, 1999.
Sheldon Krimsky. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment: Science,
Policy, and Social Issues. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996.
Marc Lappâe and Britt Bailey. Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the
Corporate Takeover of Your Food. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1998.
Sara L. Latta. Food Poisoning and Foodborne Diseases. Springfield, NJ: Enslow,
1999.
Robin Mather. A Garden of Unearthly Delights: Bioengineering and the Future of
Food . New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Ben Mepham, ed. Food Ethics. London: Routledge, 1996.
Stephen Nottingham. Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food Is
Entering Our Diet. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare
Happen Here? Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1997.
Richard Rhodes. Deadly Feasts: Tracking the Secrets of a Terrifying New Plague.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Rosalind M. Ridley. Fatal Protein: The Story of CJD, BSE, and Other Prion
Diseases. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Elizabeth Scott and Paul Sockett. How to Prevent Food Poisoning: A Practical
Guide to Safe Cooking, Eating, and Food Handling. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1998.
George J. Seperich. Food Science and Safety. Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers,
1998.
Paul B. Thompson. Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective . New York:
Blackie Academic & Professional, 1997.
Kerry S. Walters and Lisa Portmess, eds. Ethical Vegetarianism: From
Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Periodicals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dennis Avery. “Feeding the World with Biotech Crops,” World & I, May 1998.
Available from 3600 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002.
James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. “Regulatory Poison,” Freeman,
February 1998. Available from the Foundation for Economic Education,
Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533.
Joel Bleifuss. “What’s in the Beef?” In These Times, April 15-28, 1996.
Jane E. Brody. “Adding Cumin to the Curry: A Matter of Life and Death,” New
York Times , March 3, 1998.
Kenny Bruno. “Say It Ain’t Soy, Monsanto,” Multinational Monitor,
January/February 1997.
Daniel M. Byrd. “Goodbye Pesticides?” Regulation, Fall 1997. Available from
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001. Available online at
http://www.cato.org.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jennifer Ferrara. “The Great Pesticide Compromise: How Many Deaths for a
Dollar?” Everyone’s Backyard, Fall 1996.
Michael Fumento. “Fear of Fruit,” Wall Street Journal, February 26, 1999.
Bill Grierson. “Food Safety Through the Ages,” Priorities, vol. 9, no. 3, 1997.
Available from 1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10023-5860.
Available online at http://www.acsh.org.
Gayle M.B. Hanson. “Is Something Rotten in the U.S. Meat Market?” Insight,
December 30, 1996. Available from 3600 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC
20002.
Thom Hartmann. “No Place to Escape,” Tikkun, May/June 1999.
Issues and Controversies On File. “Food Safety,” February 23, 1996. Available
from Facts On File News Service, 11 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10001-2006.
Kathy Koch. “Food Safety Battle: Organic vs. Biotech,” CQ Researcher,
September 4, 1998. Available from 1414 22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Gina Kolata with Christopher Drew. “Long Quest for Safer Food Revisits
Radiation Method,” New York Times, December 4, 1997.
JoAnn Lum. “Sweatshops Are Us,” Dollars & Sense, September 19, 1997.
Asoka Mendis and Caroline Van Bers. “Bitter Fruit,” Alternatives Journal, Winter
1999.
Tom Morganthau. “E. Coli Alert,” Newsweek, September 1, 1997.
Multinational Monitor. “Campaigning for Food Safety: An Interview with Ronnie
Cummins,” December 1998.
Kieran Mulvaney. “Mad Cows and the Colonies,” E Magazine, July/August 1996.
Robert Pear. “Tougher Labeling for Organic Food,” New York Times, May 9,
1998.
Amy Poe. “Media Zapped,” Extra! March/April 1998.
Ellen Ruppel Shell. “Could Mad-Cow Disease Happen Here?” Atlantic Monthly ,
September 1998.
Amanda Spake. “O Is for Outbreak,” U.S. News & World Report, November 24,
1997.
Donovan Webster. “The Stink About Pork,” George, April 1999. Available from
30 Montgomery St., Jersey City, NJ 07032.
Source Citation: “Agricultural Biotechnology Presents Health Risks” by David
Ehrenfeld. Food Safety . Laura K. Egendorf, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press,
2000. Reprinted from David Ehrenfeld, “A Cruel Agriculture,” Resurgence,
January/February 1998, with permission from both the author and Resurgence, Ford
House, Hartland, Bideford, Devon EX39 6EE. Originally published as, “A Technopox
upon the Land,” in Harper’s Magazine, October 1997, pp. 13-17.
Reproduced in Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale
Group. 2004http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC
(c) 2004 by Thomson Gale.
Thomson Gale is a Thomson Corporation Company.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
Alcohol Advertising Does Not Promote Underage
Drinking
Morris E. Chafetz
About the author: Morris E. Chafetz is the founding director of the National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, president of the Health Education Foundation in
Washington D.C., and the author of The Tyranny of Experts: Blowing the Whistle on the
Cult of Expertise.
Source Database: Current Controversies: Alcoholism
Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
As a psychiatrist, scientist, and former architect of the national effort to prevent alcohol
problems, it was my job to seek out the best science, both biomedical and behavioral.
Today, a heated debate swirls around the issue of restricting alcohol advertising on TV.
Assorted opponents who argue that advertising contributes to alcohol-related problems-especially among young people–are way off base.
Where Is the Evidence?
When I consider the pros and cons of alcohol advertising and its alleged effect on
problem drinking, I find myself asking the crucial question: Where in the name of science
is there proof that alcohol advertising is bad for society? Shouldn’t there be some science
to say it’s so?
In 1996, I was asked to write a review for the New England Journal of Medicine on how
advertising affects alcohol use. I did not find any studies that credibly connect advertising
to increases in alcohol use (or abuse) or to young persons taking up drinking. The
prevalence of reckless misinterpretation and misapplication of science allows advocacy
groups and the media to stretch research findings to suit their preconceived positions.
For example, one study showed that adolescents who drank alcohol could remember
alcohol ads better than adolescents who did not drink. But what does that prove? If
researchers found that green-colored automobiles had more accidents than cars of other
colors, would that prove the color green causes accidents?
Another study, supported by the Center on Alcohol Advertising, purportedly showed that
people who knew about the federal guidelines on moderate drinking drank less than
people who didn’t know. Poppycock! The many variables that affect behavior and define
moderate drinking are scientifically uncontrollable. Anyone with any scientific
knowledge knows the study is nonsense.
The Zealotry of Protecting Youth
But the issue of whether alcohol advertising should be restricted goes beyond what I have
noted. Nowhere is this emotional issue more conspicuous than in the zealotry of
protecting youth. A recent newspaper editorial reflects the hypocrisy at work here. The
editorial advised banning TV alcohol advertising to protect young people. Yet I know of
no newspaper publisher ready to forgo alcohol-ad revenue. Members of the print media
rationalize this hypocrisy by calling television the medium that reaches most minors. The
adage that it’s easy to give advice one needn’t take applies here.
Deaf to advice and blind to facts, anti-alcohol advocacy groups continue their mission to
protect young people from the dissoluteness of the adult world. And they amass statistics
on all kinds of problems to increase their power. During our adolescent years we tested
me world by taking risks, and we made it. So will the present generation of teenagers.
But there endures a sturdy, albeit insecure, band of believers dedicated to the idyllic
dream of the innocent, sheltered child.
The results of a national survey of high-school students belie this perfect-child fantasy. In
the study, researchers with the Addiction Research Foundation in Ontario, Canada, found
that 76 percent of twelfth graders and 69 percent of tenth graders in the United States
drank alcohol in 1996. State surveys have shown even higher rates of consumption by
young people: An analysis of four large surveys of eleventh graders in Ohio showed that
87 percent of the boys and 82 percent of the girls drank alcohol.
A book from England, The Normal and the Abnormal in Adolescent Drinking , provides a
realistic picture of alcohol and adolescence. The authors contend that adolescent drinking
is a normal part of the socialization process, wherein teenagers experiment with and
acquire adult behavior. The high incidence of adolescent drinking buttresses this
argument. But the authors further contend that adolescent abstinence is as deviant as
excessive drinking. I agree with their position. Abstinence and excessive drinking are
unhealthy extremes. Neither behavior should be encouraged, for in the real world
drinking alcohol in moderation is socially acceptable.
The idea of considering teenage abstinence abnormal will shock most Americans. But
evidence that most tenth, eleventh, and twelfth graders in the United States drank some
alcohol last year suggests that abstinence is indeed abnormal in this age group. Thus, the
goal of abstinence for adolescents is unrealistic. It is common worldwide to view both
abstinence and excessive drinking as abnormal. Experts in many countries do not make
abstinence the only acceptable treatment goal for people recovering from alcoholism. The
Puritans held that temptation was to be avoided at all costs, since it would surely lead one
down the road to perdition. Are America’s all-or-nothing principles part of their legacy?
Young People Do Not Mindlessly Obey Advertisements
The U.S. Supreme Court made a telling point when it decided to overturn the Rhode
Island ban on advertising alcoholic-beverage prices: “Keeping users of a product ignorant
[in order] to manipulate their choices just doesn’t work.” The time has come for us to
reexamine our attitudes toward teenage drinking. Teaching adolescents how to drink
sensibly is a good way to begin.
Advocacy groups claim, without evidence, that alcohol advertising encourages young
people to drink. With such an easy target as alcoholic beverages, evidence seems
unnecessary. And the lust to blame something or someone for youthful waywardness is
so intense that parents can be held legally responsible for their children’s wanton acts.
Trying to lend young people a helping hand is, in itself, exemplary. But in their zeal,
child-protection advocates may be contributing to the problems they work so hard to
prevent. The cult of expertise has made parents feel incapable of raising their children.
But as a parent and a psychiatrist, I trust the instincts of parents more than I do the hubris
of child-protection experts.
Advertising has long been an accepted part of our daily lives. And because marketing
tools are ubiquitous, some people attribute an omnipotence of sorts to Madison Avenue.
Money spent on advertising a product is well spent when the advertising is directed to
people inclined to purchase that product. But advertising money is wasted when the aim
is to induce people to behave contrary to their wishes.
In Advertising, Alcohol Consumption, and Abuse, Joseph C. Fisher states: “I have
developed a profound respect for consumers. They are not vulnerable, gullible, or easily
malleable, but rather know their own minds and act accordingly.” Critics claim that
advertising influences young people to use “forbidden” products. They cite young
people’s rote responses as proof that they have been seduced. But such arguments imply
that young people are like animals that respond mindlessly to stimuli.
Advocacy groups claim that alcohol advertising seduces young people to drink before
they “know better,” predisposing them to physiological and psychological addiction in
adulthood and making freedom of choice moot. But the claim that advertising can lead
anyone down the bottle-strewn garden path not only to drink alcohol but to abuse it, is
pure hokum.
And reckless warnings can increase the allure of a product to people with self-destructive
tendencies. According to some studies, putting warning labels on products can have the
opposite effect.
Paternalism Tends to Backfire
Marion Winik’s description of her youth in First Comes Love illustrates how anti-alcohol
efforts can backfire: “The minute someone said I shouldn’t do something or couldn’t have
something, this is not allowed, don’t go there, stay away, every cell in my body rushed
toward it, every synapse in my brain started firing. I had to turn that ‘no’ into a ‘yes’ or die
trying.”
This natural tendency to “go against the grain” is a reality of teenage life. Risk is part of
growing up. Young people are not robotic anonyms and should not be regarded as such.
They are human individuals and have an ancient, instinctive need to experiment.
Paternalism dampens the spirit, fosters resentment, and perpetuates itself.
Events in the former Soviet Union cast doubt on the assertion that alcohol advertising
causes undesirable behavior: In an attempt to stem serious nationwide alcohol-abuse
problems, the Communist government banned all promotion of alcoholic beverages–after
which intemperance increased and Russia arguably became the world leader in drinking
problems.
And so, beware! If we invoke science to dress prejudice as policy, we do not merely
pervert science: We demean policy and the laws we live by as well.
FURTHER READINGS
Books
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dick B. The Good Book and the Big Book: A.A.’s Roots in the Bible. Paradise
Research Publications, 1997.
Edward Behr. Prohibition: Thirteen Years That Changed America. New York:
Arcade Publishing, 1996.
Charles Bufe. Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? Tucson, AZ: See Sharp
Press, 1998.
Morris E. Chafetz. Drink Moderately and Live Longer: Understanding The Good
of Alcohol. Lanham, MD: Scarborough House, 1995.
Morris E. Chafetz. The Tyranny of Experts: Blowing the Whistle on the Cult of
Expertise. Lanham, MD: Madison, 1996.
Timothy E. Donohue. In the Open: Diary of a Homeless Alcoholic. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Jerry Dorsman. How to Quit Drinking Without AA: A Complete Self-Help Guide.
Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1998.
James Graham. The Secret History of Alcoholism: The Story of Famous
Alcoholics and Their Destructive Behavior. Boston: Element, 1996.
Pete Hamill. A Drinking Life: A Memoir. Boston: Little, Brown, 1995.
David J. Hanson. Alcohol Education: What We Must Do. Westport, CT: Praeger,
1996.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
David J. Hanson. Preventing Alcohol Abuse. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.
Raymond V. Haring. Shattering Myths and Mysteries of Alcohol: Insights and
Answers to Drinking, Smoking, and Drug Use . Healthspan Communications,
1998.
Jonathan Harris. This Drinking Nation. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.
Hazelden Foundation. The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Center City,
MN: Hazelden Information Education, 1996.
Mark Gauvreau Judge. Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk. Center City, MN:
Hazelden Information Education, 1997.
Audrey Kishline. Moderate Drinking: The Moderation Management Guide for
People Who Want to Reduce Their Drinking. New York: Crown, 1994.
Caroline Knapp. Drinking: A Love Story. New York: Dial Press, 1996.
George McGovern. Terry: My Daughter’s Life-and-Death Struggle with
Alcoholism. New York: Plume, 1997.
Hank Nuwer. Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge
Drinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Robert M. O’Neil. Alcohol Advertising on the Air: Beyond the Reach of
Government? Washington, DC: The Media Institute, 1997.
Edmund B. O’eilly. Sobering Tales: Narratives of Alcoholism and Recovery.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1997.
Stanton Peele. The Diseasing of America: How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and
the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Laurence Pringle. Drinking: A Risky Business. New York: William Morrow,
1997.
Ken Ragge. The Real AA: Behind the Myth of 12-Step Recovery. Tucson, AZ: See
Sharp Press, 1998.
Ronald L. Rogers et al. Freeing Someone You Love firm Alcohol and Other
Drugs: A Step-by-Step Plan Starting Today! New York: Perigee, 1992.
Marc Alan Schuckit. Educating Yourself About Alcohol and Drugs: A People’s
Printer. New York: Plenum Press, 1998.
Jacob Sullum. For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny
of Public Health. New York: Free Press, 1998.
Jack Trimpey. Rational Recovery: The New Cure for Substance Abuse Addiction.
New York: Pocket Books, 1996.
George E. Vaillant. The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1995.
Periodicals
•
•
•
Mike Brake. “Needed: A License to Drink,” Newsweek, March 14, 1994.
Jane E. Brody. “Intervening with Someone Who Drinks Too Much,” New York
Times, April 12, 1995.
Neil J. Carr. “Liberating Spirituality: 60 Years of AA,” America, June 17-24,
1995.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Center for Media Education. “ABSOLUTe Web: Tobacco and Alcohol Industries
Launch into Cyberspace,” Infoactive Kids, Winter 1997. Available from
http://www.cme.org.
CQ Researcher. “Alcohol Advertising,” March 14, 1997. Available from 1414
22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037.
CQ Researcher. “Drinking on Campus,” March 20, 1998. Available from 1414
22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Tiffany Danitz. “Will One Less for the Road Impair U.S. Civil Liberties?” Insight
on the News, May 19, 1997. Available from 3600 New York Ave. NE,
Washington, DC 20001.
Andrew Delbanco and Thomas Delbanco. “A.A. at the Crossroads,” New Yorker,
March 20, 1995.
John J. DiIulio Jr. “Broken Bottles: Alcohol, Disorder, and Crime,” Brookings
Review, Spring 1996.
Rodger Doyle. “Deaths Caused by Alcohol,” Scientific American, December
1996.
Susan Gilbert. “Why Some Light Drinkers at 20 May Still Be on Track to
Alcoholism,” New York Times , March 13, 1996.
James K. Glassman. “Next Target: Liquor Companies?” U.S. News & World
Report, July 7, 1997.
Christine Gorman. “Can a Drunk Learn Moderation?” Time, July 10, 1995.
Dianne R. Hales. “A Drink Is What Gets Me Through,” Good Housekeeping,
November 1997.
Constance Holden. “New Clues to Alcoholism Risk,” Science , May 29, 1998.
Issues and Controversies On File. “Alcohol Issues,” February 20, 1998.
Journal of the American Medical Association . “Benefits and Dangers of
Alcohol,” January 6, 1999. Available from PO Box 10945, Chicago, IL 60610.
Audrey Kishline. “A Toast to Moderation,” Psychology Today, January/February
1996.
Charles Krauthammer. “The New Prohibitionism,” Time, October 6, 1997.
Laurie Leiber and Morris E. Chafetz. “Should the Government Restrict
Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages?” Priorities, vol. 9, no. 3, 1997. Available
from 1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10023-5860.
David Leonhardt. “How Big Liquor Takes Aim at Teens,” Business Week, May
19, 1997.
Frank D. McConnell. “The Elephant in the Room,” Commonweal, March 27,
1998.
Per Ola and Emily d’Aulaire. “I Can Quit Whenever I Want,” Reader’s Digest,
June 1997.
Walter Olson. “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a Good Beer: How the ADA Has
Turned Alcoholism into a Right,” Washington Monthly, September 1997.
Brian O’eilly. “In a Dry Era You Can Still Be Trapped by Drinking,” Fortune,
March 6, 1995.
Stanton Peele and Albert Lowenfels. “Should Doctors Recommend Alcohol to
Their Patients?” Priorities, no. 1, 1996. Available from 1995 Broadway, 2nd
Floor, New York, NY 10023-5860.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Joyce Howard Price. “New Battle About Evil Spirits,” Insight on the News,
February 1, 1999. Available from 3600 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC
20001.
Susan Quick. “Five Half-Truths About Alcohol–and the Surprising Whole
Truths,” Glamour, May 1997.
Frank Reismann and David Carroll. “A New View of Addiction: Simple and
Complex,” Social Policy, Winter 1996. Available from 25 W. 43rd St., Room
620, New York, NY 10036.
Joann Ellison Rodgers. “Addiction: A Whole New View,” Psychology Today,
September 1, 1994.
Sally L. Satel. “The Fallacies of No-Fault Addiction,” Public Interest , January
15, 1999.
Dave Shiflett. “Here’s to Your Health,” American Spectator, October 1996.
Nancy Shute. “The Drinking Dilemma,” U.S. News & World Report, September
8, 1997.
Norman Solomon. “The Partnership for a Candor-Free America,” Humanist,
May/June 1997.
Jacob Sullum. “Bottle Battle,” Reason, February 10, 1999.
Elizabeth M. Whelan. “Perils of Prohibition: Why We Should Lower the Drinking
Age to 18,” Newsweek, May 29, 1995.
Source Citation: “Alcohol Advertising Does Not Promote Underage Drinking” by
Morris E. Chafetz. Alcoholism . James D. Torr, Ed. Current Controversies Series.
Greenhaven Press, 2000. Reprinted from Morris E. Chafetz, “Should the Government
Restrict Advertising of Alcoholic wBeverages?–No,” Priorities, vol. 9, no. 3, 1997, by
permission of Priorities, a publication of the American Council on Science and Health,
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor New York, NY 10023-5860.
Reproduced in Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale
Group. 2004http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC
(c) 2004 by Thomson Gale.
Thomson Gale is a Thomson Corporation Company.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
America’s Food Supply Is Safe
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is a trade association, marketing
organization, and advocate for America’s cattle farmers and ranchers. Its members work
to ensure the safety and quality of American beef.
Source Database: At Issue: Food Safety
Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
The food supply in America, especially its beef supply, is safe. When food-borne
illnesses occur, the cause is more likely the improper handling or preparation of food ,
instead of the use of chemicals and pesticides by farmers and ranchers. The efforts of the
federal government and the beef industry help ensure that America’s food does not pose
health risks.
Americans have the safest food supply in the world. No other country can match the
effective food safety record of the United States–no other country monitors
domestically-produced and imported foods as closely.
No responsible scientist in the food system would deny there are substances in the food
supply that could be nasty if consumed in excess amounts, but bodies aren’t piling up
because of lethal substances in food. Diet-related health conditions are related to our
overall habits, not to specific food chemicals, present in minuscule amounts.–Dr. Joyce
Nettleton, Institute of Food Technologists, 1996.
From my 22 years in researching and studying food and food safety, I have total
confidence in the safety of the U.S. food supply. Can foods be safer? Yes. And the food
industry and government are working diligently on new technologies and programs to
improve the safety and quality of foods.–Dr. H. Russell Cross, professor of animal
science at Texas A&M University and former administrator of the U.S. Agriculture
Department’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Dallas Morning News
, May 27, 1994.
Our society has come to fear technology and reject anything scientifically or chemically
related. Despite all the evidence of our physical well-being beyond the dreams of all
previous generations, we seem to have become a nation of easily frightened people.
Americans have been described as “the healthiest hypochondriacs in the world.”–Dr.
James Marsden, vice president, Scientific and Technical Affairs, American Meat
Institute, “A Scientist’s Perspective on Food Safety,” Nation’s Restaurant News, Aug. 27,
1990.
The U.S. beef supply is safe
•
•
•
There are no “hidden ingredients” in fresh cuts of beef.
Fresh cuts of beef are not treated with additives or preservatives.
Used judiciously, animal-health products and other compounds currently used in
cattle production and feeding do not cause residue problems.
A major reason overseas customers purchase U.S. beef is confidence in its safety…. U.S.
government monitoring and inspection programs are recognized around the world, as is
the cattle industry’s Beef Quality Assurance Program which helps prevent hazardous
residue.–Dr. Gary Smith, meat scientist, Colorado State University, 1995.
As shown by government residue testing and monitoring, American cattlemen continue to
produce beef without hazardous residues.–Dr. Gary Cowman, National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association (NCBA) director of Beef Quality Assurance, 1996.
The progress we’ve made in the last decade shows that meat and poultry products are
safe from chemical contaminants. Our testing data give convincing evidence, and the new
preventive approach holds great promise for the future. We are confident that chemical
residues in meat and poultry pose little risk to consumers.–Dr. Catherine E. Adams,
FSIS, USDA, 1990.
Risk assessors rank the health risks from chemical residues in food products as
negligible because residues are generally so small that they are unlikely to threaten even
the most susceptible and most exposed individuals with a significant risk of cancer or
other diseases.–USDA, 1995.
Consumers have more confidence in the safety of beef than any other meat. Even though
beef attracts media scrutiny because more of it is consumed on a daily basis than other
meats, consumers consistently give beef high marks for safety.
Chemicals and pesticides are not harmful
A small segment of the industry’s producers and purveyors has built niche markets for a
product that carries the USDA natural label. While this product may be the result of cattle
that have not been treated with antibiotics or implanted with hormones, in reality, all
fresh beef qualifies for the natural label. By law, natural products must contain no food
additives and be minimally processed. Test results from Colorado State University in
1995 conclude beef raised from cattle raised without the use of growth promotants or
other technological tools was not significantly different from traditionally produced beef.
Fresh Beef Is Very Low in Illness-Causing Bacteria. Salmonella organisms are found less
often on beef than other meats. According to USDA, based on sampling at processing
plants, fresh beef is very low in incidence of Salmonella on the meat; 35.2 percent of
chicken broiler samples contained Salmonella; 12 percent of pork samples contained
Salmonella organisms; and only 1.8 percent of beef samples contained Salmonella.
Foodborne illness is caused primarily by improper storage, handling and preparation of
foods.
Consumers can be assured that FSIS is testing the U.S. meat and poultry supply for drug
and chemical contaminants. Any problems are dealt with quickly. Where consumers can
be most effective is in controlling conditions in their own kitchens that might allow
growth of bacteria that can lead to illness.–Dr. Richard Carnevale, FSIS, 1991.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that a quarter of the estimated 8 million
cases of food-borne illness each year could have been prevented by safe food practices.-Dr. Robert Gravani, Food Technology magazine, February 1992.
Chemical residues in food are not a problem. The government system of approval for
animal drugs and pesticides builds in sweeping safety margins. As an example, maximum
levels of pesticide residue allowed in or on food are 100-1,000 times lower than could
pose a threat over a lifetime. The Agriculture Council of America says a 150 lb. adult
would have to eat 3,000 heads of lettuce each day for the rest of his/her life to ingest an
amount of pesticide found to cause problems in laboratory mice.
Possible chemical contamination of our food supply is not a serious threat. Regulation of
food additives, pesticides and animal drugs helps assure ample protection of the public.
There is no evidence that pesticides in our foods constitute a significant health hazard.-Dr. Michael W. Pariza, director, Food Research Institute, chairman, Department of Food
Microbiology and Toxicology, University of Wisconsin, December 1991.
Naturally occurring compounds in food pose a far greater risk than synthetic ones–and
that risk is negligible .
Ordinary table spices, including mustard and peppers, contain a variety of naturally
occurring carcinogens which pose substantially higher risks than do any pesticide
residues or food additives. If we want to reduce the risk of death by cancer, we have to
look first at the naturally occurring carcinogens found in foods. Cancer is an important
public health concern, but if we attack it by chasing after specific ingredients such as
Alar or Red Dye 3, we’re not going to make much of a difference. That is because food
additives, as well as animal-health products, have been thoroughly tested before being
implemented.–Dr. Robert Scheuplein, director, Toxicological Sciences, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 1991.
All animal drugs and pesticides used on crops fed to livestock go through rigorous testing
before approval by the FDA or EPA.
The FDA either sets zero tolerance for drug residues or it sets tolerances based on
extensive research and testing. It’s important to keep in mind that we build a 1,000-fold
or 2,000-fold safety factor (for allergic reactions) into our tolerances (for animal drug
residues). This helps to avoid ill effects even when a residue occurs that slightly exceeds
the legal limit. The same (principle) holds true for the potential risk of cancer from
residues of carcinogenic drugs (in animal tests). We aren’t aware of any cases of cancer
than can be linked to drug residues in food.–Dr. Gerald Guest, FDA, 1989.
Violative residues in livestock and poultry continue to decline each year. They were
lower in 1993 than 1992. Drug residues in beef continued to decline; of 5,439 samples of
beef tested last year, eight had illegal levels of drugs and all eight violations occurred in
cull dairy cows. There were no pesticide residue violations in the 5,439 beef samples.-Dr. Richard Carnevale, FSIS.
Bacteria and other micro-organisms in food are a more serious health issue than
chemical residues. Although consumers express concern about chemical contamination,
most experts believe microbial contamination poses a greater hazard to human health
than pesticide or animal drug residues.–People, the Public Health & Consumer
Protection, USDA FSIS, 1990.
BSE poses no threat to U.S. consumers. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE),
inappropriately dubbed by some as Mad Cow Disease, is a degenerative neurological
disease in cattle. It was first identified in England in 1986. An outbreak of the disease in
England in 1995 caused world-wide concern when speculation arose that BSE might be
linked to a rare brain condition in humans known as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD).
•
•
•
•
USDA has tested thousands of cattle brains and never found BSE in the United
States.
Since 1989, the U.S. has banned imports of live ruminant animals and ruminant
products from the United Kingdom and other countries where BSE has been
identified.
There is no scientific evidence that BSE in cattle and CJD in humans are linked.
CJD occurs at a consistent rate of one case per million people per year among
vegetarians and meat eaters alike, in countries where BSE has been found and has
not been found.
… The evidence against British beef is purely circumstantial. And, since no cases of BSE
have been identified in the U.S., there currently seems to be no reason in this country to
worry about CJD from eating beef .–Susan Male Smith, M.A., R.D., cited in
Environmental Nutrition , 1996.
BSE is not found in the muscle tissue of cattle eaten as beef. Scientific evidence indicates
beef and milk do not present a risk to people as there is no evidence the agent that causes
BSE is present in muscle and milk .–International Food Information Council, September
1996.
Government and market inspections
Federal inspection systems ensure consumer safety. More than 2 million analyses of meat
and poultry samples are performed each year. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
Service obtains samples of tissue from harvested animals and analyzes those samples.
Findings are sent to FDA field offices for follow-up. Regulatory action is taken against
those responsible for any residues above legal limits.
Health experts agree food-safety problems stem mainly from improper storage and
handling by those who prepare food rather than from residues in food.
There is no food product more closely scrutinized by the government before it is
purchased by consumers than meat. USDA devotes eight times the resources to
inspecting the nation’s meat and poultry as the Food and Drug Administration devotes to
the rest of the food supply. The federal government spends more than $1 million each day
employing USDA’s 7,000 meat and poultry inspectors who are in every packing plant,
every minute it operates, every day it operates. By comparison, FDA-inspected food
plants may see their inspector once every several years.–J. Patrick Boyle, president and
CEO, American Meat Institute, January 1992.
Cattlemen go the extra mile with Beef Quality Assurance. To ensure continued safety and
to maintain consumer confidence, the beef industry initiated a Beef Quality Assurance
(BQA) program in 1987 that focuses on product safety. The Beef Quality Assurance
program encourages cattlemen in every state to follow production practices and qualitycontrol measures that exceed government requirements as related to pharmaceutical use.
Besides cow/calf producers, a 1994 USDA survey showed almost 87 percent of the
nation’s feedlots had quality-assurance training for employees.
The program does not add cost to the final product. In fact, since the program began, it
has saved the beef industry in excess of $20 million, helping the industry stabilize
product cost to consumers.
Beef Quality Assurance is a way for cattlemen to prevent any possible hazardous residues
and to demonstrate to consumers that the industry is committed to producing a safe and
wholesome product.
The program promotes use of production practices and quality control for animalpharmaceutical use that provide safety measures which exceed government requirements.
The BQA program also teaches cattlemen and feedlot operators about cattle handling,
feed purchasing, record keeping, testing and other procedures.
It is simply a way for cattlemen to prevent any possible hazardous residues and to
demonstrate that cattlemen remain committed to producing a safe, nutritious, healthful
product for consumers with no added ingredients or preservatives.
$1 billion a year–$4 per consumer–is spent on beef-safety programs by the packing
industry to ensure that beef products are completely safe .
Government tests show there are no hazardous residue levels of any chemical compound
in beef. In fact, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tests repeatedly demonstrate that
beef, of all fresh food commodities, has one of the safest records for lack of chemical
contamination.–Dr. Gary Cowman, Director of Beef Quality Assurance, National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association, September 1994.
New HACCP regulations aimed at improved safety. In 1996 USDA adopted the Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) regulation which requires all meat and
poultry processing plants to develop and implement HACCP programs. In a nutshell,
HACCP is a systematic, comprehensive science-based approach to assure the production
of safe food . The new regulation requires all processing plants to conduct regular
microbial testing of raw meat to verify that process control for fecal contamination–the
source of pathogens–is working.
For more than 10 years, the National Academy of Sciences, university researchers and
beef producers and packers have urged that inspections be made more science-based,
focusing on control of invisible bacteria and not just visually identified problems. With
the new HACCP-based regulations, we can further improve beef safety. Beef already has
a good microbiological profile. Now, with the further use of new technologies and
modern procedures, we can do even more to remove any contaminants and destroy
pathogenic bacteria. Meanwhile, of course, proper cooking and handling remain
important too .–Dr. Gary Weber, NCBA director of animal health and meat inspection,
The Beef Brief, August 1996.
Beef processors must meet zero-tolerance standards. Even though, poultry is allowed a
defined number of defects before inspection action is taken, beef conforms to a zerotolerance standard for fecal and ingesta contamination which required carcass trimming
in the past. Aggressive industry efforts have resulted in new technology–such as high
temperature vacuuming–which enables compliance with zero-tolerance standards while
helping to eliminate carcass waste.
Beef cattle producers and companies have invested millions of dollars to develop HACCP
plans and new technologies, such as the high temperature steam vacuum system, to
ensure beef and beef products continue to be safe and wholesome. The implementation of
HACCP in every plant will add an additional measure of safety to our products.–John
Lacey, former NCBA president, 1996.
Understanding beef safety
Q. How does the safety of beef compare to that of other fresh meats ?
A. Beef is one of the safest foods available to consumers. USDA and FDA tests indicate
that, among all fresh commodities, beef has the lowest probability of contamination by
either chemicals or microbes.
Q. Are there any pesticide or antibiotic residues in beef?
A. Substantial testing has shown that the violative residue rate (antibiotic, chemical and
pesticide) is virtually zero in beef.
Q. Cattlemen appear to have some limits on their ability to prevent possible residues in
beef. What about factors over which they do not have direct control? For example, using
feeds they didn’t grow which might contain potentially hazardous levels of pesticides?
A. First, there is no evidence that pesticides on crops are causing health problems as a
result of beef use. Second, the industry’s safety assurance program calls for testing of
feed ingredients to assure that there are no violative levels of pesticides. Another factor
is, no matter what kind of environmental contaminant or toxin (such as a natural or a
manmade pesticide) might be in feed or water, animals generally eliminate the noxious
substance by naturally biodegrading it.
Q. What is the responsibility of federal regulators and inspectors in helping assure safe
products?
A. Federal regulators screen and approve new products and technologies, such as feed
additives. It is possible that an isolated food grower, as well as a processor and marketer,
will not adequately guard against chemical or microbial contamination, so both legal
requirements and voluntary safety-assurance programs are advisable.
Q. Some activists claim “factory farming” and other techniques are poisoning the food
supply. Is that true?
A. No. The food supply is the safest it has ever been in this country. Health experts in
this country agree that safety problems associated with food are primarily due to
improper storage and handling by food preparers and consumers, not because of residues
found in the food.
Q. Are “naturally” or “organically” grown foods safer?
A. There is no evidence that “organically” raised beef is safer than “conventionally”
raised beef. Results of 1992 and 1994 studies at Colorado State University revealed no
violative residues in beef. There are 16,000 times more residues from “naturally”
occurring pesticides in foods than residues from synthetic compounds. But in both cases,
the food is safe.
FURTHER READINGS
Books
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dennis T. Avery. Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The
Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson
Institute, 1995.
James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. The Food and Drink Police:
America’s Nannies, Busybodies, and Petty Tyrants. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction, 1996.
Kristin Dawkins. Gene Wars: The Politics of Biotechnology. New York: Seven
Stories Press, 1997.
Gail A. Eisnitz. Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and
Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1997.
Michael W. Fox. Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of Plants,
Animals, the Earth–Humans. New York: Lyons Press, 1999.
Nicols Fox. Spoiled: The Dangerous Truth About a Food Chain Gone Haywire .
New York: BasicBooks, 1997.
Brewster Kneen. Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology. Gabriola
Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society, 1999.
Sheldon Krimsky. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment: Science,
Policy, and Social Issues. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996.
Marc Lappâe and Britt Bailey. Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the
Corporate Takeover of Your Food. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1998.
Sara L. Latta. Food Poisoning and Foodborne Diseases. Springfield, NJ: Enslow,
1999.
Robin Mather. A Garden of Unearthly Delights: Bioengineering and the Future of
Food . New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Ben Mepham, ed. Food Ethics. London: Routledge, 1996.
Stephen Nottingham. Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food Is
Entering Our Diet. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare
Happen Here? Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1997.
Richard Rhodes. Deadly Feasts: Tracking the Secrets of a Terrifying New Plague.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Rosalind M. Ridley. Fatal Protein: The Story of CJD, BSE, and Other Prion
Diseases. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Elizabeth Scott and Paul Sockett. How to Prevent Food Poisoning: A Practical
Guide to Safe Cooking, Eating, and Food Handling. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1998.
George J. Seperich. Food Science and Safety. Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers,
1998.
Paul B. Thompson. Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective . New York:
Blackie Academic & Professional, 1997.
•
Kerry S. Walters and Lisa Portmess, eds. Ethical Vegetarianism: From
Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Periodicals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dennis Avery. “Feeding the World with Biotech Crops,” World & I, May 1998.
Available from 3600 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002.
James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. “Regulatory Poison,” Freeman,
February 1998. Available from the Foundation for Economic Education,
Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533.
Joel Bleifuss. “What’s in the Beef?” In These Times, April 15-28, 1996.
Jane E. Brody. “Adding Cumin to the Curry: A Matter of Life and Death,” New
York Times , March 3, 1998.
Kenny Bruno. “Say It Ain’t Soy, Monsanto,” Multinational Monitor,
January/February 1997.
Daniel M. Byrd. “Goodbye Pesticides?” Regulation, Fall 1997. Available from
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001. Available online at
http://www.cato.org.
Jennifer Ferrara. “The Great Pesticide Compromise: How Many Deaths for a
Dollar?” Everyone’s Backyard, Fall 1996.
Michael Fumento. “Fear of Fruit,” Wall Street Journal, February 26, 1999.
Bill Grierson. “Food Safety Through the Ages,” Priorities, vol. 9, no. 3, 1997.
Available from 1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10023-5860.
Available online at http://www.acsh.org.
Gayle M.B. Hanson. “Is Something Rotten in the U.S. Meat Market?” Insight,
December 30, 1996. Available from 3600 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC
20002.
Thom Hartmann. “No Place to Escape,” Tikkun, May/June 1999.
Issues and Controversies On File. “Food Safety,” February 23, 1996. Available
from Facts On File News Service, 11 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10001-2006.
Kathy Koch. “Food Safety Battle: Organic vs. Biotech,” CQ Researcher,
September 4, 1998. Available from 1414 22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Gina Kolata with Christopher Drew. “Long Quest for Safer Food Revisits
Radiation Method,” New York Times, December 4, 1997.
JoAnn Lum. “Sweatshops Are Us,” Dollars & Sense, September 19, 1997.
Asoka Mendis and Caroline Van Bers. “Bitter Fruit,” Alternatives Journal, Winter
1999.
Tom Morganthau. “E. Coli Alert,” Newsweek, September 1, 1997.
Multinational Monitor. “Campaigning for Food Safety: An Interview with Ronnie
Cummins,” December 1998.
Kieran Mulvaney. “Mad Cows and the Colonies,” E Magazine, July/August 1996.
Robert Pear. “Tougher Labeling for Organic Food,” New York Times, May 9,
1998.
Amy Poe. “Media Zapped,” Extra! March/April 1998.
Ellen Ruppel Shell. “Could Mad-Cow Disease Happen Here?” Atlantic Monthly ,
September 1998.
•
•
Amanda Spake. “O Is for Outbreak,” U.S. News & World Report, November 24,
1997.
Donovan Webster. “The Stink About Pork,” George, April 1999. Available from
30 Montgomery St., Jersey City, NJ 07032.
Source Citation: “America’s Food Supply Is Safe” by National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association. Food Safety. Laura K. Egendorf, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press,
2000. Reprinted from National Cattlemen’s Beef Association pamphlet, Cattle and Beef
Handbook, October 1997, available at http://www.beef.org/librref/beefhand/food1.html.
Reproduced in Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale
Group. 2004http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC
(c) 2004 by Thomson Gale.
Thomson Gale is a Thomson Corporation Company.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
Athletes Are More Vulnerable to Anorexia than NonAthletes
Liz Applegate
Liz Applegate is a contributor to Runner’s World magazine.
Source Database: At Issue: Anorexia
Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
Athletes are believed to be more vulnerable to anorexia and other eating disorders than
nonathletes. In particular, anorexia tends to strike most often among athletes competing
in sports, such as gymnastics, running, and wrestling, that require lean body types.
Researchers believe that because of the highly competitive nature of sports, equally
competitive participants become obsessed with maximizing their performance. The
character traits found in many anorexics, such as perfectionism and obsessive behavior,
are usually traits that can be observed in highly competitive athletes. Experts think that
competitive sports can trigger an eating disorder in an athlete with an obsessive and
competitive personality.
Three female college students entered my office one afternoon desperate for advice that
might help their roommate. “All Elise does is run,” one of them told me. “She hardly eats
anything, and she still thinks she needs to lose weight!” “We’re just so worried about
her,” another said. “Elise is so skinny, but she denies anything is wrong. We want to
confront her about it, but we don’t know how.” The third asked, “Do you think running
started this whole thing?”
As you might guess, their description of Elise fit the classic profile of a person with the
eating disorder anorexia nervosa. If left untreated, Elise’s drive for thinness could land
her in serious trouble, such as irreversible bone disease or even death. And these young
women were right to be concerned that Elise’s excessive running might be at the root of
her eating and weight troubles. In fact, several studies have shown that compared with
nonathletes, athletic men and women–especially those in sports in which body weight
and shape are an issue, such as running, wrestling and gymnastics–have a greater
incidence of abnormal eating behaviors and the full-blown clinical eating disorders
anorexia and bulimia.
So, for good reason, many runners question their own eating and exercise patterns. Many
of us use running as a weight-control tool. And why not? Running burns calories, and it’s
good for you to boot. But sometimes we may find ourselves “running off” occasional
indulgences–that is, using exercise to “make up” for our not-so-healthy eating habits.
When this “eat-and-run” behavior becomes a compulsion, it may signal the onset of an
eating disorder.
The quest for thinness
Though they occur mostly in young women, anorexia and bulimia can strike anyone.
Anorexia consists of a cluster of behaviors and symptoms, including self-induced
starvation, an intense fear of becoming fat, body weight that’s 15 percent or more below
the normal range for one’s height, and, in women, amenorrhea (the loss of a regular
menstrual cycle).
Despite their frail appearance, anorexics view themselves as fat. Their distorted body
image drives them to lose more and more weight, primarily through severe caloriecutting and excessive exercise, which gives them a feeling of control. Usually
perfectionists and highly motivated people, anorexics are typically college educated,
single and from middle-to upper-class families. But they have low self-esteem, believed
to stem from an upbringing by overly protective or controlling parents.
Bulimia affects many more individuals than anorexia. By some reports, anywhere from
15 to 62 percent of all female college athletes suffer from this eating disorder. And, like
anorexia, bulimia strikes most often among athletes in sports in which a lean physique is
crucial to performance.
Bulimics indulge in frequent episodes of binge eating, during which they often feel a
sense of helplessness and a lack of self-control. Afterward, their feelings of extreme guilt
and self-disgust prompt purging of the unwanted calories (usually by vomiting or the use
of laxatives and diuretics) to prevent weight gain. Some may use excessive exercise such
as running or stair-climbing for hours as a means of purging. But because bulimics are
usually normal in body weight and appearance, family and friends may be unaware of
their battle with food.
Anorexia and bulimia don’t develop overnight; many athletes may be suffering from
what’s called a subclinical eating disorder, a possible precursor to a clinical problem.
According to leading researchers, athletes may take up abnormal eating behaviors such as
skipping meals, 24-hour fasts, calorie restriction and occasional purging (maybe once a
week instead of the two or more times per week seen in bulimia) as a means to lose
weight. They may also be obsessed with their weight and very fearful of becoming fat.
The number of athletes with a subclinical eating disorder is unknown, but the problem is
believed to be rampant in such sports as gymnastics, crew, wrestling, volleyball and
running.
Runners at risk?
With all this glum news about exercise and eating disorders, it’s only fair to ask if
running–or any exercise, for that matter–may trigger these abnormal habits. Some
researchers theorize that commitment to an exercise program such as training for a
marathon could lead to eating disorders for some personality types or may aggravate an
existing problem. For example, psychological traits such as high achievement orientation
and perfectionism are common both in people with eating disorders and in athletes.
Such traits are usually essential for successful competition.
What this may mean is that, given the right conditions, some people with certain
personality types may be predisposed to develop eating disorders. Dr. Jorunn SundgotBorgen of the Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education in Oslo studies the
factors that may trigger or exacerbate eating disorders in female athletes. In one study,
she evaluated middle- and long-distance runners who were identified as “at risk” for
eating disorders based on their scores on a specially designed questionnaire.
Dr. Sundgot-Borgen found that anorexia, bulimia and a subclinical eating disorder called
anorexia athletica were likely to take hold when an athlete began dieting or experienced
frequent weight fluctuations. Also, those athletes who started dieting at a younger age
were more likely to develop a serious eating problem. A traumatic event such as an injury
also appeared to set off eating disorders, perhaps because of forced inactivity, which in
turn may have led to unwanted weight gain.
Another potential trigger noted by Dr. Sundgot-Borgen was an abrupt increase in training
volume that coincided with a sudden loss of weight, most likely due to the extra exertion.
In any case, athletes weren’t eating enough, and this lack of calories may have created a
psychological and biological “climate” that prompted an eating disorder to develop.
Other researchers have noted that eating disorders in athletes may be connected to our
genetic makeup. In fact, substance-abuse problems and clinical depression, both
inheritable conditions, are common in bulimics and anorexics.
Triple trouble
Eating disorders bring with them a myriad of health problems. Low calorie intake or
sporadic eating, for example, results in poor performance and endurance. When we cheat
the body of food, our low intake of protein and key vitamins and minerals can weaken the
immune system and lead to chronic illnesses and fatigue. Also, skimpy nutrition makes
injuries more likely and slows recovery.
But more threatening to an athlete’s long-term health is a condition known as the female
athlete triad: an eating disorder in combination with amenorrhea and osteoporosis (the
debilitating bone disease seen most often in elderly women). Researchers and health
professionals have identified this serious complex of problems in many female athletes of
all ability levels and ages.
While it’s not clear which comes first, eating disorders and menstrual irregularities are
connected. Many women athletes–including an estimated 25 to 40 percent of female
endurance athletes–experience amenorrhea or missed periods. But among women with
diagnosed eating disorders and even those with subclinical problems, amenorrhea is
much more common. Though some women athletes may welcome this condition as “less
hassle,” the consequences are severe.
Depressed levels of the female hormone estrogen accompany amenorrhea, and with this
deficiency comes bone-mineral loss, or premature osteoporosis. In fact, even in young
women, calcium loss from the bones can cause stress fractures and even fractures of the
vertebrae similar to those seen in 80-year-olds.
Treatment of the female athlete triad requires the help of physicians, dietitians and
mental-health professionals. In extreme situations, especially in women with prolonged
cases, hospitalization may be needed. And, as with other serious diseases, prevention is
key. This requires vigilance on the part of parents, coaches and friends watching for signs
of abnormal eating and exercise behaviors.
Like Elise’s roommates, if you see a friend or loved one seemingly wasting away before
your eyes, don’t be afraid to get involved. Ask him or her to seek professional guidance
and treatment and offer your help in finding that guidance. And if your friends and family
are sounding the alarm by constantly saying you look gaunt and unhealthy, consider the
possibility that they may be right. Talk to a counselor. Eating disorders are no trivial
matter; they can be deadly.
FURTHER READINGS
Books
•
•
•
•
•
•
Suzanne Abraham and Derek Llewellyn-Jones. Eating Disorders: The Facts.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Frances M. Berg. Afraid to Eat: Children and Teens in Weight Crisis. Ed. Kendra
Rosencrans. Hettinger, ND: Healthy Weight Publishing Network, 1997.
Carolyn Costin. Your Dieting Daughter: Is She Dying for Attention? New York:
Brunner/Mazel, 1997.
Lindsey Hall and Monika Ostroff. Anorexia Nervosa: A Guide to Recovery.
Carlsbad, CA: Gurze Books, December 1998.
Marya Hornbacher. Wasted: A Memoir of Anorexia and Bulimia. New York:
HarperFlamingo, January 1999.
Myra H. Immell, ed. Eating Disorders. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999.
•
•
•
Bryan Lask and Rachel Bryant-Waugh, eds. Anorexia Nervosa and Related
Eating Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology
Press, September 1999.
Steven Levenkron. Treating and Overcoming Anorexia Nervosa. New York:
Warner Books, 1997.
Judy Sargent. The Long Road Back: A Survivor’s Guide to Anorexia. Georgetown,
MA: North Star, 1999.
Periodicals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Donald Demarco. “Anorexia and the Misinformation Explosion,” Culture Wars,
September 1997.
Nancy K. Dess. “Killer Workout: The Dark Side of Diet and Exercise,”
Psychology Today, May/June 2000.
Denise Grady. “Efforts to Fight Eating Disorders May Backfire,” New York
Times, May 7, 1997.
Katherine A. Halmi. “A 24-Year-Old Woman with Anorexia Nervosa,” JAMA,
June 24, 1998.
Patricia Hittner. “Dying to Be Thin,” Better Homes and Gardens, August 1997.
Caroline Knapp. “Body Language: Are People with Eating Disorders Desperate
for Control or Just Too Sensitive for Their Own Good?” New York Times Book
Review , January 4, 1998.
Carol Krucoff. “Is Your Child Dying to Win?” Washington Post, March 3, 1998.
Available from 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071.
Linda Davis Kyle. “Super Heroes and Super Models,” Professional Counselor,
December 1999.
Marty McCormack. “The Fight with Food,” Focus on the Family, April 2000.
Mark Munro. “Loving an Anorexic,” Mademoiselle, October 1997.
Susan Okie. “Anorexia May Depend in Part on Genes,” Washington Post, January
27, 1998.
Leslie Vreeland. “Dying to Be Thin–After 30,” Good Housekeeping, March 1998.
Pippa Wysong. “Anorexia Nervosa Patients Can Expect to Live a Normal Life
Again,” Medical Post, July 20, 1999.
Source Citation: “Athletes Are More Vulnerable to Anorexia than Non-Athletes” by Liz
Applegate. Anorexia. Daniel A. Leone, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2001.
Reprinted from Liz Applegate, “Running into Trouble,” Runner’s World , April 1, 1998.
Reprinted with permission from the author.
Reproduced in Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale
Group. 2004http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC
(c) 2004 by Thomson Gale.
Thomson Gale is a Thomson Corporation Company.
Percent contribution to
adult female RDAS
Cola
soft drink,
Skim milk,
1 cup
1 cup Cola
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
0% 10% 20% 30%40%
Calories
Protein
Vitamin A H
Vitamin C
Thiamin (B1)
Riboflavin (B2)
Niacin (B3) H
Calcium
Iron
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.