Heavy Metal Testing for Arsenic,
Heavy Metal Testing for Arsenic,
The phrase "heavy metallic" is an arbitrary and amorphous designation having no scientific meaning. Nevertheless, the use of this term not only remains, but is also quite widespread. Some heavy metals are essential to live. Blood is red in humans, for instance, because that is colour of oxidized iron contained in our blood cells. Certain heavy metals are can be harmful. Some heavy metals are essential at low concentrations but are toxic at higher concentrations. Copper is extremely toxic for humans, however it is necessary for all mollusks, and some arthropods (such as the Horseshoe Crab) because the oxygen-carrying feature in their blood does not contain iron but copper. Oxygenated copper is a beautiful color of blue. Nonetheless, iron-based blood carries about four times as much oxygen as blood that is derived from copper. Some of the more primitive sea creatures, such as sea cucumber have "blood" which is yellow due to the fact that it is made up of Vanadium, which is toxic for humans, even though this pigment does not carry oxygen to the organism. It is crucial to take into consideration the evolution of life's story, its diversity, and its complexities when determining the toxicity of any given substance. Metals of all kinds are "natural" components of the world that we live in, but "natural" doesn't necessarily mean harmless. Ask anyone who has been bitten by a venomous snake, scorpion, fire ant or anything else. The same gorgeous natural stream that is able to provide an idyllic day of fly-fishing for trout is also able provide the agony of black flies in their millions. To see this in person (not recommended) go for a walk through the backwoods of Maine in May. Visit:- https://forbrugerhuset.dk/ Food is certainly a natural item, even given the modifications created by breeding efforts in the production of it. In the present, much of our food comes from our industrialized agricultural system and increasing proportions of it is imported. FDA's task is to examine food imported into from the U.S., yet FDA acknowledges it can't inspect just 2.1 percent of the country's food imports. It's a large task and, in the near future, FDA could have less money to deal with. FDA is currently working on an amendment to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act passed in January of 2011, yet in March 2012 House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) outlined a budget that would cut another $5.3 trillion out of Health and Human Services throughout the next decade . This is in addition to and above the president's budget plan. FDA is a part of Health and Human Services. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK) praised the proposed budget as a sign to show Republican leadership in the reduction of deficits. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that House Republicans would rather have deficit reduction, even at the cost of food security. This is particularly alarming since food safety in the last year has not been ideal. FDA Director Margaret Hamburg has already warned that foodborne illnesses and issues that arise from inspection of imports could increase if FDA is found to be underfunded. Hamburg pointed to the fact that FDA actions currently cost every American consumer about three and a half dollars per year. In addition, FDA has indicated its disbelief about the future of funding by announcing that it will make food companies pay an application fee to fund the necessary supervision. This uncertainty could result from the fact that the proposal that would have used alternative funds was rejected yet another House Republican, Representative Tom Latham (R-IA). Representative Latham's stance was that fees for registration would turn into simply a tax for the consumer. What's the significance of his decisions on the safety of food? He didn't seem to have any comment on that point. In the event that the inevitable increase in foodborne illness and food import failures predicted by the Commissioner of Hamburg becomes reality do we really expect officials Ryan, Lucas, Latham and others to recognize their error and accept their share of the responsibility for the debacle? There is no reason to think that. More likely, the reaction would be to blame FDA for failing to do the job and then use such a purported "failure" to cluck about how the government cannot be trusted to do anything and then reaffirm their belief in the exact "market" that caused the problem. What should the consumer be expected to do with this obvious flaw of their government? The consumer has been absent in the debate about food safety. In the face of partisan intransigence and the resulting government dysfunction the time has come for the consumer to be heard, as it is the consumer who has the power of the purse. To make use of that power, consumers must be provided with unbiased and reliable data of their own choice. If the analytics are not provided by fiscally hamstrung government regulators and cannot not be counted on by the self-serving corporate reports, then these analytics have to be created from scratch. The cost of scientific analysis is high. Effective measurements typically require the use of equipment that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, operated by highly skilled technicians who, just as they should, feel that they should be paid for their skill set which is often a matter of years to attain. Data that is not reliable and is cheap are not useful to anyone. Yet, despite the massive number of food items available for to be purchased in the U.S., there are plenty of people who are interested in the results than there are products to be tested. The public has long enjoyed the opportunity to be part of the ownership of private firms through the purchase of one or more smaller shares of the company through an exchange that is dedicated to the goal. There is no reason to believe that people should not be able to purchase shares in the study of a particular food item. The shares could be priced reasonably, say $5.00. When consumers have purchased a sufficient number of shares to cover the cost of analysis, purchase the product and pay for the expenses associated with consolidating and the product can be purchased, and the analysis completed. Copies of the results would be sent to the person who bought an amount of shares. No governmental dysfunction involved

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.