|
Mark,
Yes, I totally agree that it is about choices.
Better yet, it should be informed choices.
I would pay more for tropical fruit that is
harvested when it is almost ripe, irradiated and then shipped. Maybe it would
actually taste like tropical fruit, not like the stuff that we get now, which is
probably harvested long before it is ripe and then allowed to "ripen" (yeah
right!!) during transport.
On the subject of informed choices: I think
supermarkets should be required to label their meat with the last inspection's
ecoli and salmonella count. (The same way as processed food currently shows
ingredients.) That way consumers could make informed choices. I would certainly
practice ALARA when it comes to salmonella.
There is nothing like a little bit of free market
forces to get things done. Levels of contamination that we are currently told
are "unavoidable" or "no big deal", would soon be history.
Best Regards,
Kai
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 6:34
AM
Subject: Re: Food Irradiation Alert -
etc.
Some of us would prefer the
option to buy irradiated food. Others can opt out. The pro's are calling for
regulations to allow for irradiation - and this typically involves labeling
what has been irradiated. Labeling should pay for itself: I would pay more for
a sack of potatoes, for example, if I knew that I could keep them at room
temperature without sprouting.
If
produce is not marked irradiated or not, you can find what is not irradiated
by selecting fruit with mold on it (e.g. strawberries). I say this
tongue-in-cheek, but it has been seriously suggested by anti-irradiation
fanatics. Never mind that fruit can be treated with gas in the US (ethylene
oxide?) and not marked as such.
I
can sympathize with Franz on one thing: irradiation shouldn't be an excuse for
sloppy food handling practices. (At least I think that's part of his
thinking.) But, on balance, the benefits of using this extra food processing
tool are enormous. It is on a par with heat pasteurization, but with far less
loss of nutritional value and taste.
Mark G. Hogue, CHP
mark.hogue@srs.gov
"DISCLAIMER: The opinions
expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent Westinghouse Savannah
River Co. or the United States Department of Energy."
|
| "Franz Schoenhofer"
<franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
Sent by: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
12/05/02 02:49 PM
Please respond to "Franz Schoenhofer"
|
To:
"BERNARD L COHEN" <blc+@PITT.EDU>
cc:
"Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>,
<BLHamrick@AOL.COM>, <RuthWeiner@AOL.COM>,
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Subject:
AW: AW: AW: Food Irradiation Alert - Sierra Club of
Canada |
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: BERNARD L COHEN
[mailto:blc+@pitt.edu]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 05. Dezember 2002 16:39
An:
Franz Schoenhofer
Cc: Richard L. Hess; BLHamrick@AOL.COM;
RuthWeiner@AOL.COM;
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Betreff: Re: AW: AW:
Food Irradiation Alert - Sierra Club of Canada
On Thu, 5
Dec 2002, Franz Schoenhofer wrote:
>
I clearly oppose it, when it comes to "extended shelf
live".
> This is an argument, which is in sharp contrast with the world
wide
opinion
> that food should be as fresh as possible. If Americans
accept that foods
> shelf life is extended by radiation - please do it.
Nobody in Europe will
> accept it - simply because there is no need for
it. We have excellent ways
> to ship oysters, fish, crabs, etc. to
any destination within Europe. The
> price is accordingly. If you do not
want to pay the price for fresh
> oysters - leave it and eat a McDonalds
hamburger instead - in Europe this
> would be a kind of
insunuaion.
> Food irradiation
is ok, if it helps peoples to escape famine.
It
> is a crime, if it
is intended to maximise profits of world wide acting
>
companies.
--A
large fraction of the food in poor countries like India is
lost duue to
spoilage; extending shelf life thus avoids famine
and
starvation.
----------------------------------------
Sorry,
if you had read my postings you would have recognized that I
explicitely
have said, that in this case irradiation is justified. I
referred only to
the fact - in my opinion - that irradiation is not
necessary in the case of
our "Western
world".
---------------------------------------------
--Americans and Europeans get
very little tropical fruit because
of spoilage in transit. Irradiation to
extend shelf life would solve
this
problem.
-------------------------------------------------
I
cannot see a "problem". We have lived for thousands of years without
these
tropical fruits. Nowadays we can buy even in my hometown Vienna any
tropical
fruits from Papayas to Leechees, from pineapples to coconuts, from
carambols
to mangos. We can even buy much cheaper apples, oranges, pears,
vegetables,
which would supply us with a lot of vitamin C. Again no reason
to irradiate
these
fruits!
-------------------------------------
--Fishing boats could remain at sea
much longer if they would
avoid spoilage of their catch by
irradiation.
-------------------------------------
Do you
advocate, that irradiation cells with all their shielding would
be
installed in fishing boats? How do you think this could be accomplished
in
reality? How about radiation protection? Nevertheless this argument
is
meaningless. Large fishing vessels freeze fish as soon as it is
caught,
clearly avoiding spoilage, small fishing vessels return within a
few hours
to their harbour, selling fish
instantly.
-.---------------------------------------------
A
personal remark: I am deeply disappointed, that somebody like you, who
is
acknowledged worldwide for his research on Radon falls for the
irradiation
lobby and their wrong arguments!
Best
regards,
Franz
************************************************************************
You
are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send
an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text
"unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no
subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
|