Re: food irradiation

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Hi Kwan, nice to "meet" you again :-)

Group,

Note that Franz is right, but largely irrelevant. 

Today the public has no choice because a very few, very well-funded, activists 
have an effective political campaign. ("Food and Water" is run by about 3
people.) 

The public CAN (COULD) choose because products are marked as irradiated, but
the activists threaten Hormel and others by making a prudent business
decision. (Hormel and others are not afraid the public won't buy their
irradiated food, but that there will be a campaign/boycott against all Hormel
products.) Franz' version of "science" means having no public life of a
citizen. 

Those (most?) supporting food irradiation here are knowledgeable of the
science (or professional confidence in those that have done the investigation
and published for 40+ years), and are simply using that knowledge to
communicate their support to the company that is rightfully afraid of the
business effectiveness of the anti-science activists. 

Franz argues to do nothing to support rational public policy (as he has done
elsewhere) which is indeed an action "outside of science", and he is failing
the public because, as somebody? said: "All it takes for evil to succeed, is
for good men to do nothing." (My apologies to the women who are included in
the intent - and I'd be interested if somebody knows who said it.) 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
===================================
> Franz has given a very wonderful advice to us all. Excellent!
> Kwan
> 
> 
> At 05:04 PM 12/12/96 -0600, you wrote:
> >At 12:33 12.12.1996 -0600, you wrote:
> >>I think that the message is clear that Hormel would like lots of positive
> >>calls to their toll-free number. For those of us who are not food safety
> >>experts, how about a technical discussion (with references) concerning the
> >>pro's and con's of food irradiation?
> >>
> >>====================================================================
> >
> >I am very surprised and disappointed to read that quite a few radsafers
> >react in the question of food irradiation in a way which reminds me on green
> >activists - supporting with all might an opinion without having paid any
> >attention to contra arguments. What is the use of a "poll"(?) when a kind of
> >a lobby asks to call a company to support some way of processing food, which
> >- as far as I recall - the company did not even confirm that it will use it? 
> >
> >An organized action to support a company with telephone calls is not the way
> >scientific experts usually choose. To make it clear: My personal opinion is
> >that everything has been done to ensure that radiation treatment of food
> >does not pose any harm. The IAEA and the WHO have published enough arguments
> >and research to support this view. I have never read any scientific article
> >to confirm any health problems associated with radiation treatment, I have
> >always heard about "confirmation of hazards" from several groups, but I have
> >never obtained any reference to this "scientific work". So my position is
> >clear,  b u t  I think also that it must be the right of everybody to
> >decide, not to consume irradiated food!!! Whatever the reasons might be. The
> >question seems to be the labelling of irradiated food. If it is not
> >labelled, then the consumer has no choice. If it is labelled, some people
> >would decide to preferentially buy it, some will refuse. I think that this
> >is the right of the consumer. As I noticed in US supermarkets, the Jewish
> >citizens can select kosher food, because it is clearly declared kosher.
> >Everywhere there has to be a declaration of the content in cans and so the
> >Muslim citizens can have a look, whether a certain product contains pork! So
> >why should it not be possible for someone, who does not want to eat
> >irradiated food to make his/her choice?
> >
> >The question, which in my opinion is the most crucial in our Western world,
> >is simply: Do we  n e e d   irradiated food? Is it necessary to extend shelf
> >life? We have so excellent distribution chains, where food is always kept at
> >low temperature, we have excellent logistics. I do not believe that
> >extension of shelf life is an argument which could be used in the Western
> >world - it might be a striking one in developing countries. Is it advisable
> >to decontaminate spices from salmonella and similar contamination? Yes it is
> >- for instance the Finnish government has explicitely allowed application of
> >food irradiation with regard to spices. Is it advisable to treat poultry
> >with radiation to kill salmonella? It might be in cases with heavy
> >infestion, but even in this case it would be advisable to strenghthen
> >hygiene instead of irradiating.
> >
> >In developing countries, where up to two third of the harvest is destroyed
> >by insects, application of ionizing radiation for insect infestion control
> >might be essential.
> >
> >I tried to give some examples of pro and tried to express that in my opinion
> >the cases of application should be carefully considered and justified. 
> >
> >Please, radsafers, respect other people's opinion, and if you do not share
> >them, discuss and try patiently to get them to accept your opinion or rather
> >scientific evidence. Never tell them that they are stupid because they have
> >another opinion - then you will never get them to accept your scientifically
> >based arguments!
> >
> >Franz
> >Schoenhofer
> >Habichergasse 31/7
> >A-1160 WIEN
> >AUSTRIA/EUROPE
> >Tel./Fax:      +43-1-4955308
> >Tel.:          +43-664-3380333
> >e-mail:                schoenho@via.at
> >
> >
> Kwan Hoong Ng, PhD
> Department of Medical Physics
> University of Wisconsin
> 1530 Medical Sciences Center
> 1300 University Avenue
> Madison, WI 53706
> Tel: 608 263 4355, Fax: 608 262 2413