Irradiation is a substitute for adequate regulation of the meat packing industry -- not a good substitute, but a substitute nonetheless.
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 03:13:43PM -0700, ken hanly wrote: > There are possible hazards to irradiation but there has been little > risk-assessment of potential hazards. Not irradiating also has risks. The > CDC for example sees the potential for better control of contamination as > important enough that it recommends the adoption of irradiation. Some of the > issues brought up in Louis' post are addressed. eg. the problem of > transportation of radioactive materials. > > http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm#wastegenerate > d > > The stuff about chest xrays is surely irrelevant and implicitly a scare > tactic. > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > P>S> The link that Ian posted re GMO's seems to me an excellent article with > a wealth of relevant references. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 12:32 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:29067] Re: Re: Industrial farming > > > > ken hanly wrote: > > > > >Wow! Ill bet that will render hamburgers sterile and there will be no > baby > > >99 cent Macs. > > > > > >Cheers, Ken Hanly > > > > > > > > Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, June 1990 > > Vol. 46, No. 5 > > > > Zapping the food supply > > > > Donald B. Louria > > > > New arguments are boiling up over an old idea--irradiating food with > > ionizing radiation to kill microorganisms and prolong shelf life. The > > idea of exposing food to gamma radiation is over 30 years old, and in > > 1963 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began to permit the > > irradiation of wheat. Over the years, a few more foodstuffs such as > > spices and tea were added to the FDA's list of candidates for > > irradiation. But in 1984 the FDA started to approve irradiation of a > > much broader list of products which now includes meat, poultry, and > > fresh fruits and vegetables. Simultaneously the FDA has increased the > > levels of radiation that may be used. The FDA's recent willingness to > > allow most of the food supply to be irradiated--and at high doses--has > > triggered an acrimonious debate. > > > > The amount of radiation involved is substantial. The FDA has approved a > > 3,000,000 rad dosage for treating spices, 300,000 rad for pork, and > > 100,000 rad for fresh fruits and vegetables. These intensities are > > millions of times greater than that of an ordinary chest X-ray (which is > > typically about 20 millirad). The announced goal of promoters of food > > irradiation is to obtain general approval for the use of up to one > > million rad. > > > > Irradiation does not make food radioactive, nor has alleged > > radioactivity been at issue in the debate. But there is concern that > > foods processed by irradiation may contain radiolytic products that > > could have toxic effects. > > > > The source of radiation is either cobalt 60 or cesium 137. The prospect > > of increased transportation and handling of cobalt and cesium--dangerous > > substances--has caused negative publicity. Some irradiation proponents > > say food processors could theoretically use as-yet-undeveloped linear > > acceleration techniques instead. But if food irradiation becomes > > commonplace any time soon, cesium or cobalt will be used. > > > > The major objective of irradiation is to destroy microorganisms that > > cause food to spoil. For example, irradiating chicken should reduce the > > outbreaks of salmonella that are probably caused by careless or > > unhygienic methods in production and processing. Irradiating pork might > > reduce the already limited risk of trichinosis, and irradiating turkey > > would diminish the number of episodes of diarrhea that result from > > eating undercooked meat. William McGivney, an advocate of the > > technology, asserts that "irradiation offers a means to decontaminate, > > disinfect and retard the spoilage of the food supply."1 Most opponents > > counter that adequate cooking and hygienic preparation will accomplish > > the same goal. > > > > Promoters of irradiation emphasize that the shelf life of various foods > > will be increased. But these proponents have not produced any > > projections of the actual economic, or other, benefits of longer shelf > > life, especially in a developed country that has an abundant food > > supply. It may be easier to imagine that less developed countries might > > benefit if the shelf life of foodstuffs could be prolonged. But > > advocates have made no estimates of the extent to which better > > preservation would reduce world hunger, or of the cost of widespread > > food irradiation in less developed countries. > > > > Irradiation is expected to reduce the need to use toxic chemicals as > > post-harvest fumigants, but some evidence indicates that irradiated > > foods are more, not less, subject to infection with certain fungi.2 > > > > At dispute in the controversy over food irradiation are the quality of > > the FDA's safety assessment, the loss of nutritional value that > > irradiated foods undergo, the risk of environmental contamination posed > > by irradiation facilities, and the possible cancer-causing nature of > > irradiated foods. An additional dispute revolves around the motives of > > the Energy Department, which has promoted irradiation and is the > > potential supplier of cesium 137, a waste byproduct of nuclear reactors. > > > > full: http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1990/s90/s90louria.html > > > > > > -- > > > > Louis Proyect > > www.marxmail.org > > > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
