No Subject

[GEORGE CICOTTE <GEORGE_CICOTTE@health.ohio.gov>]

     Herr Schoenhofer,
     
     I reacted very negatively to the campaign being waged by the group in 
     question.  However, I don't really expect to influence them.  Your 
     comments on the value of tact will work with civilized, intelligent 
     people, and I believe most people are more intelligent than we presume 
     when we see this sort of statement.
     
     Simply stated, I believe that many of the people involved in such 
     "disinformation" campaigns are fully aware that their statements are 
     in error.  Being right is not their agenda.  Being heard and noticed 
     is more important to them than being right, and they don't let facts 
     get in their way.
     
     The issue is not whether we need food irradiation.  The question is 
     more correctly a series of value judgements:
     
     1.  Does food irradiation work to preserve food, kill insects, etc?
     
     2.  Is food irradiation safe for the person consuming the food, and 
     reasonably (equivalent to other methods) safe for those who perform 
     the irradiation?
     
     3.  Does food irradiation have advantages in cost, convenience, 
     safety, etc.?
     
     4.  Is it legal to irradiate food?
     
     5.  Does a person who sees irradiated food have the right to not eat 
     it?
     
     I believe the answers to the above are positive.  Given that 
     assumption, everyone has a legal right, in my opinion, to oppose or 
     support it, as they prefer, and a moral right to the same, but what 
     they do NOT have a moral right to do is to deliberately mislead people 
     with statements they either know to be false, or about which they know 
     nothing, but purport to have irrefutable evidence of, then use that 
     position to harm persons or entities that wish to pursue legal, safe, 
     useful endeavors.  This sort of disinformation doesn't just harm the 
     people in the industry.  Disinformation about radiation usage and the 
     effects thereof has, in my opinion, resulted in the following:
     
     1.  Human death and disease borne of proliferation of fossil fuel 
     usage which would otherwise have been averted.
     
     2.  Damage to aquatic ecosystems and food industries from increases in 
     use of hydroelectric power, both through construction of dams and 
     through increased diversion of water from irrigation and maintenance 
     of fish populations to generation.
     
     3.  Human death and disease from pesticides, pests, infestations, 
     virii, bacteria, etc., in foods which were not irradiated because of 
     opposition to the process.
     
     I believe I can substantiate my assertions regarding prior knowledge 
     by such groups in general, although I cannot do so for the specific 
     group in question, since they appear to have recently sprouted.
     
     You stated that you did not believe that shelf life is an adequate 
     argument.  It appears to me that you believe that the argument must be 
     compelling, that one has to show that we NEED irradiation.  I contend 
     that there are lots of things we accept as normal, but which we don't 
     NEED, and that if it works faster, cheaper, better, more safely, etc., 
     and it is adequately safe in the first place, then in doesn't matter 
     HOW much faster, cheaper, better, or more safely, only that the user 
     can realize an advantage.  The availability and acceptance of the 
     process should dictate whether food is irradiated, not whether one can 
     show that there is no other way.
     
     IMHO, good hygiene is fine, but just because good hygiene is a good 
     idea doesn't mean it is better.  Many perishable foodstuffs, for 
     example, deteriorate quickly after washing, yet if you don't wash them 
     immediately, you allow further degradation by a pest.  An additional 
     problem is that washing creates waste.  If you rinse apples, for 
     example, and dry them, you create waste water with fruit residues, 
     debris, pesticides, and any number of other problems, in addition to 
     making it a process that involves several steps .  IF you put them in 
     a sealed unit, irradiate them, and ship them, when they reach even a 
     third-world location they will be much fresher, more appetizing, and 
     more nutritious than the other way.  You can brush the dead bugs off 
     at the other end.
     
     You used the argument that third world countries may have more need 
     for irradiation, but that developed countries don't need it, and I 
     inferred from your comments that you believe that if one can "get 
     along without it," one should not irradiate foods.  The WHO made their 
     position statement based on the fact that there is a GREATER need in 
     third world countries, not because it should be avoided elsewhere.  I 
     disagree, based on the foregoing arguments.  We shouldn't be required 
     to use rapid (and thus more expensive) distribution methods to avoid 
     using a readily available technology.
     
     With respect to Salmonella in particular:  I took a microbiology 
     course for my Masters in Environmental Science.  I don't know how 
     degrees in Austria are organized, but if you don't know, a Masters is 
     a step up from a regular four year college degree, and a step below a 
     Doctor of Philosophy, usually taking 2 or 3 years of full-time 
     college.  That is just so you'll know it was an in-depth course.
     
     My apologies - I digress.  Salmonella, according to the text and 
     references, is resistant to many antibacterial processes, yielding 
     only to washing and irradiation.  Washing is labor intensive and 
     costly, but is done anyway for several reasons, not just for the 
     bacteria.  The problem is that after the washing, the remaining 
     Salmonella then repopulates the surfaces unless the food is quickly 
     and deeply frozen, which itself reduces the nutrition of the food and 
     makes it less appetizing.  With irradiation, the killing of the 
     bacteria is more complete (if done properly, there is NO Salmonella) 
     and if the food is in a sealed package, all bacteria are excluded.  
     While washing is generally effective, it is nowhere near 100%, and 
     complete cooking is required in order to kill the remaining bacteria, 
     and that which grew since the food was washed.  Unfortunately, that 
     doesn't always happen.  Food irradiation so nearly always works 100% 
     that I know of no cases where a person even became ill because of 
     repopulation of a bacterium on the food.  That's good enough for me.  
     If the restaurants in Seattle, Washington, a couple of years ago, had 
     bought their ground beef from someone who irradiated it, several 
     deaths, including those of children, would have been averted, 
     regardless of how well the meat was cooked.  There are other less 
     publicized but no less tragic instances which I could substantiate for 
     you.
     
     V/R
     George R. Cicotte
     george_cicotte@health.ohio.gov