식품업계의 반격이라 할 만한 책이 출판되었습니다. 이 책이 불량지식일까요,
이 책에서 오해라고 한 내용이 불량지식일까요?

지은이가 객관적이고 독립적인 대학이나 연구기관에 소속된 연구자도 아니고,
그렇다고 독성이나 안전성 연구를 수행하는 연구자도 아니며… 경제적으로 책 내용과
이해관계가 엄청나게 많은 과자 회사 직원, 향료 회사 직원인데다… 이 책이 지은이가
펴낸 첫 번째 책인데…길고 거창한 지은이 소개를 하고 있다는 사실 그 자체만으로
이 책의 신뢰성을 떨어뜨리고 있다고 볼 수 있습니다.

음식 및 첨가물의 안전성은 과학으로만 모든 문제를 해결할 수 있는 것은 아닙니다.
예를 들면… 젤리의 쫄깃쫄깃한 맛을 내는 젤라틴의 원료는 가죽제품을 만들고 난
찌끄레기(부산물)을 가지고 만듭니다. 즉, 피혁공장에서 운동화, 구두 등의 속받이를
만들다 남은 찌끄레기들을 원료로 젤라틴을 만들고 있습니다.

그러나 공업용 피혁 폐기물로 젤라틴 원료를 만드는 것은 법적으로 아무런 문제가
없습니다. 젤라틴은 식품이 아니라 식품첨가물로 분류되고 있기 때문에 식품위생법의
대상이 아닙니다. 피혁 폐기물이라고 하더라도 화학적 처리 과정을 거치면 식품첨가물의
원료가 됩니다. 

================

불량지식이 내 몸을 망친다 (음식과 첨가물에 관한 오해와 진실)
최낙언 지음 , 지호 펴냄 | 2012.04.09 발간

최낙언

서울대학교와 대학원에서 식품공학을 전공했다. 1989년부터 해태제과에서 아이스크림 개발을 맡았다. 2000년 향료회사로 직장을 옮겨 현재 이 회사에서 근무하고 있다.
 www.seehint.com / www.wordlinklab.com

==========

목차

추천사
머리말

1부 먹어야 산다
1. 음식의 역사가 인간의 살아온 과정이다
2. 탄수화물―달콤함에 대한 시큼한 오해
3. 단백질―감칠맛에 대한 씁쓸한 오해
4. 지방―매끈함에 대한 거친 오해
5. 이소프레노이드―너무 비난받거나, 신비화된 물질
6. 소금, 독인가 약인가

2부 감각이 결정한다
1. 감각은 운명이다
2. 참을 수 없는 냄새의 유혹
3. 맛은 미각과 후각이 전부가 아니다

3부 문제는 양이다
1. 양에 모든 답이 있다
2. 비만은 오로지 많이 먹기 때문이다
3. 독과 약이 하나다
4. 억울한 물질과 우상화된 물질들
5. 첨가물은 그렇게 나쁜 것인가
6. 그래도 식품은 안전하다

4부 걱정도 줄이고 기대도 줄이자
1. 불량 지식이 문제다
2. 불량 지식도 해롭다
3. 없는 것이 자랑인 시대
4. 걱정도 줄이고 기대도 줄이자

5부 기다려야 하는 것은 기다리자
1. 장수의 비결은 아직 모른다
2. 아직 내가 나를 모른다
3. 진화의 관점에서
4. 우리는 좋은 식품을 좋아하지 않는다

보론: 지식의 융합

감사의 글
참고문헌
찾아보기

 ==============================

[참고] 공익과학센터의 식품첨가제

Chemical Cuisine
Learn about Food Additives
http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm#banned_additives

FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle

Food and consumer groups say the practice increases the risk of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease. A beef industry trade group say a ban isn’t needed.

By Jerry Hirsch
 
출처 : LA타임즈 October 31, 2009
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-feed31-2009oct31,0,1227725.story?track=rss

A fight is brewing over the practice of feeding chicken feces and other poultry farm waste to cattle.

A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. McDonald’s Corp., the nation’s largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.

Members of the coalition are threatening to file a lawsuit or to push for federal legislation establishing such a ban if the FDA doesn’t act to do so in the coming months.

Farmers feed 1 million to 2 million tons of poultry litter to their cattle annually, according to FDA estimates.

Using the litter — which includes feces, spilled chicken feed, feathers and poultry farm detritus — increases the risk of cows becoming infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union.

That’s because the spilled chicken feed and the feces contain tissue from ruminants — cows and sheep, among other mammals. The disease is transmitted through feeding ruminant remains to cattle.

“It takes a very small quantity of ruminant protein, even just 1 milligram, to cause an infection,” said Steve Roach, public health program director with Food Animal Concerns Trust, a Chicago-based animal welfare group that is part of the coalition.

Although it is rare, people can contract a fatal form of the disease by eating meat from cows with BSE.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn., the beef industry’s main trade group, said the ban was not needed and that several FDA reviews had determined that the chance of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease from eating poultry litter was remote.

“Science does not justify the ban, and the FDA has looked at this now many times,” said Elizabeth Parker, chief veterinarian for the trade group.

Parker noted that the FDA this year banned the use of certain types of tissue from any form of animal feed, even that eaten by chickens. Those tissues include brain, spinal cord material and other high-risk tissues where the pathogens believed to cause mad cow disease typically are found. The tissue ban greatly reduces chances that prions, implicated in mad cow, can find their way into the food chain, Parker said. She also said the disease was not a threat to public health.

“We have tested 800,000 cattle in recent years and have not found any evidence of BSE circulating in the herd,” Parker said.

But others remain concerned.

“I still think you need to totally restrict using any ruminant protein in feed that gets back to ruminants,” said Linda Detwiler, a food safety consultant and former U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian.

Prohibiting high-risk tissues as a feed source makes the chances of transmitting mad cow disease through poultry litter low but does not remove all risk, Detwiler said.

The practice also makes McDonald’s, one of the nation’s biggest beef purchasers, nervous. “We do not condone the feeding of poultry litter to cattle,” it said in a statement.

The issue has kicked around since the first U.S. case of mad cow disease was discovered almost six years ago in an animal imported from Canada. There have been two known indigenous cases of mad cow infections in domestic cattle since then, but both were in animals born before the enactment of stricter regulation of feed.

Generally, the FDA has left the decision on whether to feed cattle poultry litter up to state regulators. California allows the practice with one exception: Poultry litter is banned in feed for lactating dairy cows.

In 2004, the FDA announced its intention to prohibit the use of poultry litter in cattle feed, but after reviewing the proposed ban decided against it. The agency said its rules prohibiting the use of high-risk tissues in all animal feed were sufficient to keep mad cow pathogens from reaching poultry feed. The FDA also said there was little risk to human or cattle health from the other components of poultry litter.

“With respect to pathogenic microorganisms, drug residues and contaminants in poultry litter, FDA is not aware of any data showing that the use of poultry litter in cattle feed is posing human or animal health risks that warrant restrictions on its use,” the agency said.

But Hansen, the Consumers Union scientist, said that besides the mad cow risk, the feed can contain disease-causing bacteria, antibiotics and even foreign objects such as dead rodents, rocks, nails and glass.

Such hazards are not eliminated by any processing of the feed that might occur, he said.

Feeding farm animals feces may sound gross, but it goes back to the dawn of animal agriculture, said Dean Cliver, professor emeritus of food safety at UC Davis.

“In the old days when people had mixed farms, what came out the back end of the cows was eaten by pigs, and what came out the end of pigs was eaten by chickens. That was the natural way of farming,” he said. “Anything that hit the ground was fair game.”

jerry.hirsch@latimes.com

twitter.com/latimesjerry