The Federal Food & Drugs Acts require foods, drugs and cosmetics be labeled respecting their contents so as to not represent a “false, misleading . . . or erroneous impression regarding its . . . composition . . . or safety.” The Acts also state that “no person shall sell an article of food that (a) has in or on it any poisonous or harmful substance and (b) is unfit for human consumption.” These regulations, of course, are intended to safeguard the consumer from being targets of malicious rogues or acts. As such, consumers trust that what they buy is exactly what they read. The problem is there may be much more in any product than perhaps even the manufacturer knows, and the most trusting person must question the quality and safety of their food and drugs.
In light of certain revelations concerning some common food products, this is even more true. Just recently, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration tested traces of perchlorate, a rocket fuel chemical that can affect the thyroid, found in organic milk, lettuce and bottled spring water in four different states. What did officials say concerning this matter? An Environmental Protection Agency spokesman said in one interview, “alarm is not warranted . . . it is important that EPA and FDA and other agencies come to some resolution about the toxicity of this chemical.” So, while the U.S. government works to know more “about the health effects of perchlorate and its occurrence in foods,” Americans should continue to “eat a balanced diet, choosing a variety of foods that are low in trans fat and saturated fat, and rich in high-fiber grains, fruits and vegetables.”
While such nutritional information is helpful, how is alarm not warranted? It might be just a minute amount of chemical, but it is rocket fuel! How about a diet low, i.e. without, toxins like rocket fuel? With states able to set their own standards, the EPA has suggested a conservative level of one part per billion (ppb) of perchlorate in drinking water. A better conservative suggestion might be . . . 0 ppb! After all, if one would like rocket fuel on their salad or with a splash of water, they can simply go to their local auto shop and purchase a whole bottle of fuel injector cleaner. Of course, you will be required to show identification before purchase just in case it will be used for something other than for food or a car.
When asked whether the level of toxicity was worrisome, officials continued to calm citizens by stating that . . . “the answer is, we don’t know yet.” However, several Federal agencies, including the FDA and EPA, have been studying perchlorate since the 1990s to determine its level of safety. Yet, officials state they “don’t know.” How much time is needed?
The issue of toxins in food is not a new one. The argument has been around for decades. Coupled with other environmental issues, such as pollutants in the air, it is understandable why there is not a current cure for cancer, let alone the common cold – such ailments could be caused by any number of conditions in our daily lives. However, the singular issue of perchlorate coupled with those arguments reinforces the idea that the government is not doing the job of protecting its citizens from harm. While the fight against foreign threats is necessary for our country’s survival, that point is mute with the potential threat our food supply poses on a daily basis with every bite – no matter how minute the levels. While the FDA and EPA study the affects of known toxic chemicals on our health, rather than protecting our health from them, the agencies do nothing more than reinforce their own ineffectiveness. It is no wonder that many are looking to Canadian pharmaceuticals for cheaper drugs to treat their ailments.
©2004 Steve Sagarra
In a society that espouses freedom from discrimination, is it reasonable to ban same-sex marriages? The question is a matter of reconciling personal beliefs with the notion of equal rights and democratic government. Many opponents to same-sex unions claim on biblical and moral grounds that the institution of marriage is only the union of a man and a woman. For proponents, equal rights is the centerpiece of the argument, as many seek the ordinary rights of individual liberty and equal protection that heterosexual Americans enjoy under the Constitution. Many other bans on marriages - notably interracial ones - have been upheld throughout the course of United States history, only to be seen as unconstitutional in later years. Are bans based on sexual orientation any different than ones based on race and other forms of prejudice?
Opponents fear the fate of marriage itself regardless of rights. “The sanctity of marriage” is the newest catch phrase in the fight against same-sex marriages, promoting only the union of a man and a woman. The question to be asked is what is a marriage. Is it the final step between two consenting individuals based on love for each other, no matter their orientation? Only recently have unions been based on love and commitment towards another; historically, marriages were based on stature and the production of an heir. With this in mind, a marriage is historically a man-made mechanism for ensuring procreation, as well as a modern means for enforcing monogamous relationships. This is not always the case, especially when couples are unable to have children, nor is it a necessary condition for either to occur.
The question is, does this model of marriage contradict our ideas of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” In the State of the Union Address of 1948, President Harry S. Truman outlined succinctly the basic tenets of American principles:
“The United States has always had a deep concern for human rights. Religious freedom, free speech, and freedom of thought are cherished realities in our land. Any denial of human rights is a denial of the basic beliefs of democracy and of our regard for the worth of each individual. Today, however, some of our citizens are still denied equal opportunity . . . some are denied equal protection under laws. Whether discrimination is based on race, or creed, or color, or land of origin, it is utterly contrary to American ideals of democracy.”
Why should Americans who are not gay care about gay rights? Many argue that the movement for gay equality is central to the continuing defense of individual liberty in America. For the proponents of same-sex marriage, religious morality set into law undermines the purpose of American constitutional government: the protection of the individual's right to determine how best to live his or her life. What is perceived at stake is not the fate of the gay community, but the future of constitutional principle and the rights of free individuals in American society.
In a pluralistic society based on the premise of the separation of church and state, there does not seem to be a conflict between morals and rights. After all, a civil union does not need the blessing of the church. Yet, much like a drivers license, a marriage license is a privilege bestowed by the governing state. It is not a right, however, mandated by the Constitution or other such document. The act of marriage is not even a God-given right – it too is a privilege blessed by God Himself, or rejected should that be the case. In either case, the question is often asked: is there anyone that objects to the two being joined together in holy matrimony. As is its right granted by the federal government – and thus mandated by the people – in the matter of civil unions, the state has a right to object to same-sex marriages.
©2004 Steve Sagarra
Under the current climate, we live in a world of suspicion. Some discerning citizen possibly notes our every move in their attempt to avert another 9/11. This is especially true if you are of Middle Eastern descent, and even more so if perceived as a Muslim or Islamic. It is not so much an Orwellian world of democratic totalitarianism – if there can be such a thing – as it is simply a concerned national citizenry exposed to the dangers of the world and the attempt to keep it at bay. It is unfortunate that we must live in such interesting times, as the Chinese proverb counsels, but reality makes it unavoidable. Even as the United States and its allies fight to avert the dawning of it, terrorism has wrought such a world.
The events of the past few months show the importance of our cause against terrorism. Too cowardly to meet their foe in person, terrorists hide behind video cameras shown brutalizing – and beheading – individuals both civilian and military alike. More than a lack of regard for the Geneva Convention and general military conduct, it shows a bellicose disregard for human life and civil liberties. Such evil does nothing but to bolster our cause as a just and honorable one. The problem is identifying those people as evil, and separating them from our Islamic neighbors living here in the United States. To protect ourselves, we are forced to make a judgment of suspicion – even if we do not mean to. The human mind sees through terrorist-tinted eyes to conclude such an injustice, despite all logic to the contrary. It is a combination of our own natural prejudices and an unconscious perceived threat, whether real or imagined, formed from a description that matches an image.
As a nation, we must not sacrifice what we hold most dear – “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all” – for a world secured through intolerance, alarm and intimidation. Otherwise, it will become an Orwellian world indeed in which everyone is an informant, and everyone is suspect. The last century gave us a glimpse of such a future – in the form of Nazi Germany during the 1930s and ‘40s, and the era of McCarthyism in the United States during the 1950s. Under such conditions, religious groups, ethnic minorities and political affiliations came under attack, and millions of lives lost, due to an ideology that espoused prejudice, suspicion and fear. Thankfully, perseverance and righteousness saw the world through such times.
Conversely, we must not sacrifice democratic ideology and freedom because we fear a world secured through the lessening of civil liberties in the name of national defense. We are in a fight for our very existence against ideological zealots who want nothing less than our annihilation as a nation. It is not the first time we have faced such a prospect. Unfortunately, it will probably not be the last. Neither is it the first time that fear and suspicion against a particular group has run through the national psyche. Consequently, be forewarned that “Big Brother” may indeed be watching – for better or for worse – and everyone is a suspect.
©2004 Steve Sagarra
