CONSUME YOUR FOOD CAREFULLY
The growing usage of chemicals and pollutants has reduced the quality of most natural, nutritious products
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi, MP & Union Cabinet Minister, also an eminent animal rights activist and environmentalist, answers Millennium Post readers’ queries related to animal welfare issues Many studies say that we should not eat fish that are found in the top half of the ocean as they are all polluted with human waste, chemicals and plastic. However, is it safe to eat deep fish found at the bottom of the ocean?
Deep-water marine fish living on the continental slopes at depths from 2,000 feet to one mile have liver cancers, tumours and other health problems that may be linked to human-caused contamination from pesticides, industrial and municipal waste, chemicals and plastics. Fish have been found with a blend of male and female sex organs which is a result of swallowing human-made chemicals. The findings appear to reflect general ocean conditions and have been published in the Marine Environmental Research, by scientists from Oregon State University; the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science in the US; and other agencies. It was supported by the European Union. OSU researchers said, “In areas ranging from pristine, high mountain lakes of the United States to ocean waters of the coasts of France and Spain, we’ve now found evidence of possible human-caused pollution that’s bad enough to have pathological impacts on fish,” said Michael Kent, a professor of microbiology in the OSU College of Science and an international expert on fish disease.” deep in the ocean one might have thought that the level of contamination and its biological impact would be less,” Kent said. “That may not be the case. The pathological changes we’re seeing are clearly the type associated with exposure to toxins and carcinogens.”
What does the term natural food mean? I find it on almost all packaging from cakes to ice-cream, bread to meat, medicine tablets to biscuits—what does it indicate?
I don’t know either. As of now, it is just a clever marketing gimmick which has discovered that humans hate the word chemical and are drawn to things that come directly from nature. But, after decades of debate, there remains no generally accepted definition of a “natural” food product. Regulatory agencies have refused to settle the issue. An oatmeal product seems more “natural than processed wheat” but it uses as many chemicals and pesticides as any other product in the market. Some people mistake natural for vegetarian but many products have extracts of meat and still call themselves natural. An ice-cream promotes itself as natural but uses flavour extracts. Even the sugar substitute which is clearly chemical claimed it was made from natural ingredients till it was taken to court. What is needed is a series of lawsuits against food items that use the term so that, in time, food advertising and packaging will become more truthful. The government also needs to formulate a definition of the meaning for the term natural.