In our last class meeting with Dr. Norton, the article we were meant to read for class was, in essence, an FYI for researchers and the general public. In comparison to previous articles, the wording and general jargon of this piece was far less complex and targeted towards a less scientific population. The general gist of the article was that there are trace amounts of mercury in high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in many foods consumed in the United States, and more specifically, in foods that are consumed by the youth of our nation.
Upon further analysis though, it was evident that this article was a drastic over-exaggeration of the actual threat present in these foods. Let us, for example, take a look at the good with the highest amount of mercury, Quaker's Oatmeal to Go. This product contains 350 parts per trillion of mercury. Yes, you read that correctly...parts per TRILLION. The units generally used to measure trace amounts of elements are in parts per million. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration has stated that the maximum limit of mercury allowed for consumption before symptoms of mercury poisoning develop is 1 part per million. That means that in order for you to feel the negative effects of the mercury, you would have to eat 2857 packets of Quaker's Oatmeal to Go in order to meet the limit of maximum mercury consumption.
Granted, Mercury is a real threat and can pose great health risks but this article simply falsely instills fear in the minds of its readers. A prime example is the way this article even became to be a part of our curriculum. An anthropology professor at Emory and a colleague of our professor e-mailed this article to Dr. Norton, worried that this article held water.
After our class discussion, it is apparent that many people feel that if it is possible to eliminate toxins, we must do so. However, when looking at the bigger picture, the economic investment required to eliminate this non-threatening issue becomes unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sameer, your argument is very correct and I completely share your point of view. But to share the article's point of view, the article seems to be more concerned with preventing improper human fetal development via the intake of mercury by pregnant mothers. Yes, 350 parts per trillion is an extremely minute amount, probably even for fetuses, but since researchers have not placed a mercury limit for developing fetuses, this article would like to simply make the public aware of its discoveries. I disagree with their choice, as the general public does not have the same education or critical thinking skills as we do, and they will completely overreact to the article's findings. They need to wait until further research has been performed before publishing any such article.
ReplyDeleteI know from my experience with people like my mother, for example, who is not scientifically educated, that any article as this one will create panic in those who read it and are over-concerned with being healthy. My mother receives emails everyday about various health-realated BS and will tell me while I'm eating my breakfast cereal that she read that milk causes cancer. That's great. I just gobble down an extra bowl of cereal to prove her wrong. I know there are plenty more people besides my mother who do the exact same thing.
Lastly, I would like to comment that we are primitive creatures that live in a very dangerous world. We are lucky to have the many biological defenses that evolution has given us, yet we are still very vulnerable to a plethora of harmful substances, ESPECIALLY anything synthetically made or anything that is unnatural for our body to be exposed to, like... trans fats for example, or artificial sweetners, or fruit sprayed with pesticides, or dairy produts and beef that come from hormone-given cows, or even our unnaturally high intake of oils and sweets (like high fructose corn syrup) that our bodies were not made to handle. We are also vulnerable to many natural things like radiation, mutations, and poisons. My point is, in the realm of things, 350ppt of mercury is not very significant.
This article got some very interesting responses from our scientific perspectives. I personally liked this article a lot not for its scientific content, but its focus. The authors of this article, who we established were not scientists, did a great job of presenting this information from a lobbyist or special interest group perspective. The first time I looked at this article, I flipped through the pages and stopped at the large graph that had 350, 300, 257 etc. total mercury. My first thought was, "Wow, that is a lot of mercury." After analyzing further, I realized those numbers are in ppt (parts per trillion). The average person might not pick up on that fact and worry there is a lot of mercury in food.
ReplyDeleteThe researchers from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy did not have an unbiased opinion. Part of their goal is to protect local farmers as well as to keep food safe. Their website even says they want to keep mercury and other toxins from entering food (http://www.iatp.org/iatp/about.cfm). Thus, this group is not funded to present both sides of this issue. They are trying to eradicate mercury from our food supply. If that means presenting information in a certain light, they will do it as long as it gets the word out. If enough people read this article, write their representatives, and get this problem fixed, this group achieved their goal.
This research shows both the light and dark side of science. It brought up a potential problem and made us want to learn more. But, it could strike fear into those who are not informed. Part of our role as scientists is to help those who are less informed to make proper decisions. But, we cannot use our knowledge for evil and risk harming the masses. This article was unlike any other we have read, but it was a nice change from the dry texts we have read so far.
Guys,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to add that although the controversy in class pertained to the insignificant value of mercury in our foods, I feel as though the article was trying to send us yet another message. Obesity is becoming an emerging problem and one underlying cause of it is the HFCS found in the foods we eat and the beverages we consume. The article mentioned how Americans consume approx. 12 teaspoons of HCFS per day and how children learn to consume soft drinks at such a young age. And based on a 2000 calorie diet, researchers found that students at one college consumed an average of 543 calories a day just by drinking sodas. That's over 25% of your daily calories coming from nothing but junk (HFCS). This is just a thought, but maybe the article is using the whole mercury ordeal as a disguise in order to attack a much bigger and important health issue: cutting down HFCS (or elimination by using an alternative method) to reduce obesity and lead a healthier lifestyle…?