re: food irradiation related question

["Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@lanl.gov>]

Does anyone else find this a common tactic by the anti-food irradiation
crowd?  As soon as you present a solution to a problem, they say the 
problem is really much bigger than that.  For example I have read several
times that the the lack of people using proper hygine and preperation 
techniques for food will just recontaminate it.  For some reason this 
is supposed to mean that killing parasites as the stuff leaves the 
packaging plant is a waste of money and time.

This person in Seattle seems to be doing the same thing.  They cannot 
argue that you haven't presented a solution to the meat contamination
so now they are trying to change the debate to a different problem. What
the are saying is likely true, but it is not the issue.  Perhaps they 
would like to expand the use of irradiation?

Michael Baker


>An individual against food irridation and I have been trading "letters to 
>the editor" in the Seattle PI.  Her latest letter makes the statement 
>that since E. coli is the cause of not just meat contamination but a 
>number of fruits and vegetables (throught runoff, manure as fertilizer, 
>cross contamination, etc.).  As a result,  meat irradiation alone will 
>not solve the answer and a larger solution needs to be determined.   The 
>individual has mentioned a researcher from the University of Georgia who 
>believes the answer may be in adding a benign, competitive bacteria to 
>cattle feed to crowd out the detrimental bacteria.
>
>Does anyone have any further information about such a process?  
>
>Sincerely,
>Andrew H. Thatcher, MSHP, CHP