POSITION PAPERS 7
Fish farming refers to the raising of fish within enclosed regions.The fish are meant for commercial purposes, which includes sellingthem to consumers. The great lakes are one of the regions where fishfarming has been practiced. Since fish require a lot of water,farmers have opted for great lakes regions to expand their farmingendeavors. Farmers construct fish harvesting and rearing ponds in thegreat lakes. The ponds capture, store and reproduce fish in largequantities.
Supporting ‘For’ Arguments
Great lakes are suitable for farming a variety of fish – 20% of fresh water comes from the lakes (Payette, 2014). Fresh water supports the massive production of fish. Hence, farmers need water from the great lakes to support their farming. It also makes it possible to rear a variety of fish, especially rare fish species.
Meet market needs – with an increasing global population, it is supposed that the demand for food products like fish will also increase. Fish farming in great lake regions plays a significant purpose in the supply of the globe’s demand for fish and different seafoods, like tunas, crabs, salmons among others. Currently, aquaculture provides a large percent of seafood consumed (Payette, 2014).
Offer more employment opportunity – aquaculture in the great lakes is a form of employment for jobless individuals (FAO, 2002). It creates jobs in regions where joblessness is widespread, specifically in coastal regions. Fish farming is also a business venture, which promotes self-employment. People do not have to depend solely on white-collar jobs rather can employ themselves via large-scale fish farming.
Improve economic growth – most fish farmers are engaged in large scale exporting of fish and different seafoods. Exports, commercial and industrial fish farming endeavors contribute in foreign exchange earnings (FAO, 2002). In addition, by creating employment for persons living within lake regions, it encourages lake regions development.
Supporting ‘Against’ Arguments
Destruction of coastal habitats – fish farming devastates coastal habitats through the disposal of waste, illnesses, pests as well as antibiotics from their ponds to lake water (McCutcheon, 2014). As a result, the wild population in the seas is polluted risking the survival of wild sea animals. Fish farm waste saturates great lake waters with nutrients, resulting in the formation of dead zones, which stifle marine life.
May contaminate drinking water –the fish are held in confinement structures, which permit water and waste to flow from the lakes where the fishponds are constructed (Philp, 2012). This enhances the possibility of wastewater contaminating with drinking water is high. It is difficult to ensure that drinking water is clean. Some nutrients are hard to eliminate once mixed with clean water.
Possibility of food poisoning – it may be assumed that with fish farming, better varieties of seafood will be produced. However, because of careless physical scrutiny of fish imports, they may have chemical residue from the treatment ponds (McCutcheon, 2014). The residues include carcinogens such as fungicide, which when consumed result in food poisoning.
Conclusion and Personal Opinion
I think fish farming needs to be estimated using the rationalmonitoring system. The rational is important in determining whichpractices result in negative environmental impacts to great lakes. Itensures that administrations and farmers are able to determine agreedupon minimal or maximum restrictions on fish farming. The monitoringsystem is founded on quantitative forecasts of environmentalaftermaths of the alterations occurring in great lakes due to fishfarming along the regions. The rational will ensure that fish farmingis not prohibited, yet at the same time stern measures are taken inensuring that the environment is not depleted.
Red dye #40 refers to food coloring widely utilized in America. Manyfood products comprise of a mixture of dyes. The American food anddrug administrators have allowed its utilization in cereal-bakedfoods, candy, cosmetics, medicine and gelatin powder. It is anadditive obtained from petroleum. The appearance is a deep redpowder, manufactured as a sodium salt.
Supporting ‘For’ Arguments
Approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – the administration has authorized the utilization of red dye in food products (Moncrief, 2013). FDA conducts regulatory studies on food additives prior to their authentication for use. This demonstrates that despite many studies to show that the food substance is unhealthy, it may as well be less risky.
Adds color to food – color is necessary when selecting what foods to eat. For instance, when buying a strawberry candy, it is obvious that the sweet should be red. Red dye is artificial and gives color to food products (Moncrief, 2013).
Naturally excreted – most of the red dye consumed in foods is naturally excreted (Deshpande, 2002). This means that the additive is not wholly absorbed in the body.
Supporting ‘Against’ Arguments
Trigger behavior challenges in children – research demonstrates that the dye when consumed by children causes them to become psychoactive (Curran, 2010). The psychoactive impacts appear to majorly have a negative effect on children that are already hyperactive. It also affects children lack have a low concentration span. After consuming food products containing the dye, the children have been reported to throw tantrum, depict unexpected major depressive characteristics. In some extreme instances, children have shown suicidal signs.
High possibility of causing cancer – individuals that consume foods with dye are at risk of suffering from cancer. Notably, most if not all of the food products in America have the red dye. This posses a national threat to the health of civilians. Research and examinations carried out on lab animals’ demonstrated cancer causing signs on the animals after they had eaten foods with the dye (CSPI, 2010). When an individual consumes the dye, they may experience some allergic reactions, which seem to fade away with time. This creates the impression that the dyes are fit for human consumption. However, the problem is that following prolonged consumption and absorption of the dye in the human body, cancer starts to develop.
They have no nutritional value – red dye is only intended at drawing consumers to a food product (CSPI, 2010). The objective of food manufactures is to increase the sale of their food products. They achieve so by making foods more attractive, with minimal consideration on the health of consumers. Scientists have proven that the dye is not tested prior to its addition in food products (Curran, 2010). This raises alarm on the need to manufacture foods that are properly tested.
Conclusion and Personal Opinion
I think that red dye causes more risks than benefits to consumers.Conclusive research demonstrates that red dye needs to be banned infood products in America. It is a product, which does not add anynutritional value to food, meaning that food manufacturers canmanufacture their food products without the additive. The fact thatthe adverse effects to the health of consumers happens over a longperiod, banning the use of red dye reduces its contribution incausing cancer. Furthermore, there are less harmful dyes for use inmaking food attractive.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, FAO.(2002). Fish Farming plays crucial role in boosting ruraldevelopment and reducing poverty and hunger. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/3960-en.html
Philp, R. B. (2012). Environmental Issues for the Twenty-FirstCentury and their Impact on Human Health. Sharjah: BenthamScience Publishers.
McCutcheon, J. (2014, Mar. 27). Something Fishy? Aquaculture and theEnvironment. Eluxe Magazine. Retrieved fromhttp://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy- aquaculture/
Payette, P. (2014, Aug. 26). Debate ongoing over fish farming in theGreat Lakes. The Environment Report. Retrieved fromhttp://michiganradio.org/post/debate-ongoing-over- fish-farming-great-lakes
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). (2010, Jun.29). CSPI Says Food Dyes Pose Rainbow of Risks. Retrieved fromhttp://cspinet.org/new/201006291.html
Curran, L. (2010, Jul. 8). Food Dyes Linked to Cancer, ADHD,Allergies. Food Safety News. Retrieved fromhttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/07/popular-food-dyes-linked-to- cancer-adhd-and-allergies/#.VCvbb1dQVDU
Deshpande, S. S. (2002). Handbook of Food Toxicology. New York: CRCPress.
Moncrief, D. (2013, Oct. 21). Foods and Beverages that Contain RedDye 40. Livestrong. Retrieved fromhttp://www.livestrong.com/article/292974-foods-beverages-that-contain- red-dye-40/