|
Perhaps the public deserves more credit than
usually accorded them.
An article by Christine Bruhn in Emerging
Infectious Diseases, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1997 makes the following
claims.
"In a nationwide Food Marketing Institute survey 69% of
consumers indicated they were very or somewhat likely to purchase products
irradiated .... Surveys completed in several areas of the country indicate
60% to 70% of consumers would prefer irradiated food. In one study,
information about irradiation increased interest in purchasing to 90%, and
education plus food sampling increased purchase intent to 99%"
She also states that "[i]rradiated chicken gained
over 60% of market share when priced 10% lower than nonirradiated chicken and
47% when priced the same."
These numbers may explain the stridency of some
"public interest" groups.
To tie into several other threads, the most toxic chemical
substances known are crystalline botulism and tetanus toxins. The
U.S. Army's "Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare" gives the
estimated LD50 of these toxins as 1 ng/kg when administered by injection and 3
ng/kg when inhaled [Chapter 33 at p647].
However, a USDA publication claims that "[r]easearch has
indicated that the infective dose [of E. Coli O157:H7] to be as few as 50-100
bacteria". I do not know how much a bacterium weighs, and an
infective dose is not necessarily a lethal dose, but it seems to me that this
strain of bacteria should easily replace plutonium on the scaremonger's top 10
list.
Therefore, in a rational world,
shouldn't un-irradiatiated foods carry a scary health warning label?
2306 West River Street
Two Rivers, WI 54241 |