Uncle John's Bathroom Reader The World's Gone Crazy (48 page)

THE TRUTH:
When close observers noticed some Mickey Mouse garbage cans in the photo, the campaign was forced to admit that they’d superimposed a photo of Butler onto a background image of Disneyland’s “New Orleans Square.” Butler’s campaign designer deleted the garbage cans, but that didn’t end the mocking from the press. So they took the same image of Butler and superimposed it over a photo of the real New Orleans. (She lost the election.)

THE IMAGE:
The cover of the March 2005 issue of
Newsweek
magazine featured Martha Stewart emerging from between two curtains. The headline: “Martha’s Last Laugh—After Prison, She’s Thinner, Wealthier & Ready for Prime Time.”
THE TRUTH:
Stewart’s head was digitally added to a thin model’s body. The only acknowledgment that it was fake came in the credits on
page 3
: “Cover: Photo illustration by Michael Elins; head shot by Marc Bryan-Brown.” After the magazine received a great deal of criticism,
Newsweek’s
assistant managing editor, Lynne Staley, said that they didn’t mean to “misrepresent the news” but had no choice because the issue was put together before Stewart was actually released from prison. “Anybody who knows the story and is familiar with Martha’s current situation would know this particular picture was a photo illustration,” she said.

THE IMAGE:
In September 2009, a Ralph Lauren ad featuring 23-year-old supermodel Filippa Hamilton was created for a campaign in Japan. Although it’s no shock that fashion-model shots are manipulated (the skin is smoothed, the waist is drawn inward, the bust is drawn…bustward), Hamilton looked like a freak of nature in the ad.

The bacteria that live in your belly button can’t survive in your armpits The bacteria that live in your armpits can’t survive in your belly button.

THE TRUTH:
Hamilton’s photo was altered so much that her waist was narrower than her head and her arms looked like string beans. (Google it—it really is quite disturbing.) As soon as the ads appeared, women’s groups cited it as perhaps the most outrageous example of the fashion industry creating an unnatural—and unhealthy—image for girls and women to try to achieve. The controversy took another turn when Hamilton appeared on the
Today
show to claim that the company had actually fired her for being “too fat” and for not being able to fit into the sample clothes that she had to wear. Ralph Lauren execs denied it, but they did admit to going too far with Photoshop: “We have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body.”

THE IMAGE:
“Come have fun in Toronto and celebrate our diversity!” That was the message that the city’s summer 2009 “Fun Guide” was supposed to send with its cover photo of a mixed-race family leaning into the camera, arm in arm, all smiling. The mom and two kids appeared to be Hispanic, and the dad was African Canadian.

THE TRUTH:
Earlier that year, the City of Toronto had issued an order that all of its official publications had to reflect the ethnic diversity of the area. But instead of finding a photo of a multicultural family, the designers found a picture of a black man on a stock-photo Web site and then Photoshopped it into a picture of a mother with two kids. The result is obviously a fake—the man is lit differently, his head is too small, and it looks as if someone cut his head out with scissors and pasted it on top of the original photograph. Kevin Sack, Toronto’s director of communications, defended the picture: “The policy doesn’t say ‘no Photoshop,’ the policy says ‘show diversity.’ And that’s of course what we try and do. Nothing wrong with that. You won’t find a more inclusive organization than us.”

FRANKEN-FOOD

Not everything that goes into our food is mentioned on the label. Food manufacturers pay millions to keep their products from being regulated, leading to some strange practices. Franken-food is a science fact…and it’s what’s for dinner
.

T
HE NATIONAL FOODBALL LEAGUE
Food production is a high-stakes game with many players: corporations, farmers, consumer safety groups, scientists, doctors, the government, and, of course, consumers. Each group has its own agenda and its own game plan. We’ve tried to sort through it all to bring you clear, unbiased information, but there doesn’t seem to be a single study result out there that hasn’t been disputed by
somebody
. Hopefully the players who say these food products are perfectly safe are correct—and the ones who say we’re all going to turn into hairy mutants and die gruesome, horrible deaths are wrong. Here’s a look at what’s in your food…and who doesn’t want you to know about it.

FEELING A BIT HORMONAL

Hormones—chemicals naturally produced by the body—have several important duties, including regulating reproductive functions. In humans, the imbalance of even a single hormone can lead to a host of problems, including obesity, depression, and even cancer. Yet injecting growth hormones into cattle (to make them gain weight faster and require less feed) has become standard practice for the U.S. beef and dairy industries: More than 80% of American cattle are injected with them. In addition to synthetic hormones used to increase milk production, six other naturally occurring hormones have been approved for use in beef by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): zeranol, estradiol, melengestrol acetate, trenbolone acetate, progesterone, and testosterone.

But after extensive research and testing, the European Commission (the European Union’s executive body) concluded that “no acceptable daily intake could be established for any of these hormones” and connected them to an increased risk of severe hormonal imbalance as well as various types of cancer. Two of these hormones, estradiol and zeranol, are also linked to poor development in children. It’s now illegal for European farmers to inject their cattle with hormones, but the FDA says they’re safe and doesn’t require hormone-treated foods to carry any labeling.

Hallmark makes cards for 105 different types of family relationships
.

ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES

Chances are, you eat genetically modified, or “GM,” foods every day. Over 105 million acres of GM crops are grown in America—mostly corn, soy, wheat, and canola—common ingredients in nearly every packaged food from corn flakes to soup to fish sticks.

To produce a genetically modified plant, the desired DNA is placed in a carrier, often a virus like E. coli, and implanted in the host plant’s cells. Subsequent generations of the plant then carry the genetic mutation. Most GM crops have been modified to withstand larger amounts of pesticides, or to make the plants last longer and resist damage. One example: “fishberries.” A gene from a species of Arctic codfish that creates an antifreeze protein was infused into the genetic code of strawberries in order to make them more frost-tolerant. Proponents of GM argue that interspecies crossbreeding is simply the next step in plant development.

And because they’re technically “living crops” and not additives, GM foods aren’t required to undergo safety testing before being put on the market. So what could possibly go wrong?

• In 1992 Murray Lumpkin, M.D., then director of the FDA’s Division of Anti-infective Drug Products, warned that DNA doesn’t always break down in the stomach. Some of it can be absorbed by gut bacteria, which could then become resistant to antibiotics or mutate in unexpected ways. The University of Georgia’s Dr. Sharad Phatak says, “When you insert a foreign gene, you are changing the whole metabolic process. Will any one gene kick off a whole slew of changes? We don’t know for sure.”

• Combining genes may lead to new allergic reactions. In 1992 an eight-year-old girl with a seafood allergy reportedly died after eating fishberries. And in 1996 production of a GM soybean containing Brazil nut genes was halted after it was found to cause allergic reactions.

The first, and so far only, safety evaluation of a GM crop was commissioned in the early 1990s by Calgene (now owned by Monsanto, one of the world’s largest agricultural biotechnology companies) for their FLAVR SAVR™ tomato. Though the test was never peer-reviewed, Calgene’s report to the FDA concluded that there were no significant toxic effects…even though several test rats died within a few weeks of eating the GM tomatoes. And no studies were done on their intestines, even though 7 out of 20 rats developed stomach lesions. In humans, this could cause life-threatening hemorrhages or worse.

Polls show: Only 7% of married women trust their husbands to do the laundry correctly
.

SEND IN THE THE CLONES

Workers at agricultural supplier J.R. Simplot Company noticed that one of their cows was eating the same amount of food as the other cows but was gaining 8 pounds a day (as opposed to the average 3.5-pound daily weight gain). So Simplot cloned the cow. Now they have
eight
identical cows that all gain 8 pounds a day. That’s a big benefit of animal cloning: It can take the guesswork out of farming, leading to higher yields and higher profits.

But the downside: Animal cloning is a new and unproven technology that may have severe safety implications. Even Ian Wilmut, the lead scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep in 1996, warns against eating cloned animals. He says that defects in clones are common, and even a small imbalance in a clone could lead to hidden food safety problems. And the technology is so new that there have been few studies on the risks of eating cloned food.

Nevertheless, in January 2008, the FDA ruled that the meat and milk from cloned livestock are safe for human consumption, despite pressure from Congress to delay the FDA’s decision until additional safety studies could be conducted. (They never were.) What’s more, the FDA does not require labeling, so consumers have no way of knowing whether these products are on their supermarket shelves.

BEAM ME UP

Food irradiation is a process that uses high-energy gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays (about seven million times more powerful than a medical X-ray) to kill hidden bacteria and insects during food production. So what’s wrong with that? Critics argue that the process allows food handlers to be sloppy with sanitation, knowing that the food is going to be irradiated later. Besides that, irradiation can do some strange things to food.

Meat, fruits, and vegetables that are irradiated can, at the very least, lose some of their vitamin content. And the rays that kill harmful bacteria also kill beneficial bacteria and enzymes. But of even more concern to scientists at the International Institute of Concern for Public Health are the “unique radiolytic byproducts” of irradiation—substances that can cause gene mutations. And while it won’t make your food radioactive, irradiation can form toxic chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde, both suspected of causing cancer and birth defects.

30% of Americans don’t know what year the September 11 attacks took place. (It was 2001.)

Just as with other controversial food-related issues, some scientists say irradiation is perfectly safe. The FDA maintains that irradiation is an “effective way of combating food-borne illness.” Their findings, however, are based on studies done in the 1950s. Consumer safety groups continue to lobby for new tests, but U.S. food regulations currently allow the irradiation of wheat, white potatoes, spices, dry vegetable seasonings, fresh eggs, fresh produce, and meat and poultry. Wholly irradiated foods must be labeled “irradiated” or “treated with radiation” and display the radura symbol (a flower inside a green circle). But no special labeling is required on manufactured products that contain irradiated ingredients, and the FDA is considering a new rule that would allow some irradiated foods to be marketed with no labeling at all.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Americans have the largest, cheapest food supply in the world. And much of the bounty has come from advances in food science, including genetic engineering and cloning. Americans also have one of the lowest rates of food-borne illnesses, thanks in part to irradiation. So should we just relax and chow down? Maybe, or maybe we need more long-term, large-scale testing. And maybe we should know what we’re eating. Award-winning microbiologist Dr. John Fagan advocates the labeling of all newly introduced foods. “Without labeling,” he says, “it will be very difficult for scientists to trace the source of new illness caused by modified foods.” In the meantime, there
is
a large-scale study of the long-term health effects of modified foods—it’s happening right now, and we are the test subjects.