There have been a few of these articles lately -- basically pointing out that the fear of food allergies far outweighs the actual risks from them. Author Agreed 100% -- HOWEVER when it's your kid, it doesn't feel overblown at all. She also takes Hugh Sampson and Scott Sicherer (both are allergists at the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mount Sinai, and Dr. Sicherer is Amelia's allergist) to task for not doing good statistical work to get a better sense of what they claim is an increase in the rates of food allergies. I do find it hard to believe that Broussard has blown the lid off of some medical scandal that no one else, including other allergists, hasn't seemed to figure out. The author also alludes to the doctors as having ulterior motives, and big pharma as wanting to make big bucks off finding a cure to food allergies (ya think?) in a way that's pretty sinister.I could also live without Broussard's snarky tone, like this paragraph: The seafood study wasn't just used to legitimize food allergies inside the medical community. It also became a handy political weapon. In 2004, FAI hired a consulting firm to devise a plan to include specific ingredient information on food labels. Tax forms show that those expenses "included mailings to the public to help support the proposed legislation." Food allergy legislation was soon proposed by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., and passed into law. We experience it now as the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, the law that requires cream cheese to bear the label "contains milk."
Considering our current problems with our food supply, I don't think a law mandating more transparent labeling is such a bad thing, do you?
Want to read the whole piece? Check it out for yourself here.
P.S. The illustration above is from Slate's feature, and is by Mark Alan Stamaty. Dude, talk about obvious! Sheesh.
No comments:
Post a Comment