Re: Food Irradiation propaganda help

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

     I believe Drew Thatcher has the final version of our co-authored op-ed 
     piece that was in the Seattle P-I, which might help.  Otherwise, I can 
     fax you a copy of what they printed.
     
     The strongest argument FOR irradiation, it seems to me, is that it is 
     a cheap way to prolong shelf life greatly, and a way that does not 
     alter the food chemically nearly as significantly as freezing, 
     freeze-drying, and canning (all ways of prolonging shelf life) and 
     does not require special storage procedures like refrigeration.  In 
     fact, chemical alteration by irradiation is essentially undetectable.
     
     Salmonella in chicken can enter at many points in processing.  All 
     cookbooks now warn you to wash any surfaces that you have handled 
     poultry on with detergent before using those surfaces for other food 
     preparation.  Besides, I am not sure what is meant by "raising 
     chickens under unsanitary conditions."  Anyone who has worked on a 
     farm knows that there is a certain inherent unsanitariness in farm 
     work.  I remember all too well when the hippies fussed about milk 
     pasteurization.
     
     I cannot see any argument against food irradiation as long as there is 
     adequate worker protection.  The sources exist.  There is no effect on 
     the food.  
     
     I also think the myths like "the food is radioactive after 
     irradiation" cannot be debunked too often.
     
     
     Clearly my own opinion.
     
     Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
     Transportation Systems Department
     Sandia National Laboratories
     Mail Stop 0718
     P. O. Box 5800
     Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
     505-844-4791
     505-844-0244 (fax)
     rfweine@sandia.gov
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Food Irradiation propaganda help
Author:  Chasmig@aol.com at hubsmtp
Date:    1/28/98 9:33 AM


I buy some of my food at the local food co-op (health food store). They issue 
a newsletter every month, and the last issue had an article about food 
irradiation. As you may guess, it was very negative, with lots of charged 
language, partial truths, and false (misguided) statements. I mentioned my 
displeasure with the inaccuracies to the store manager, and she invited me to 
write a rebuttal for the next issue. I could use some interesting "factoids" 
to use in my article. I know the basics, but have a few holes in my knowledge. 
Specific questions I have are:
     
1.Is salmonella present in ALL poultry, or just that poultry raised in 
unsanitary conditions? I thought it was indigenous to their digestive systems.
     
2. How many people die from food poisoning each year that is preventable by 
irradiation? How many get sick?
     
3. What is the strongest argument in favor of widespread (or at least 
increased) food irradiation?
     
4. Any useful analogies to dissociate irradiation from bombs and power plants? 
I know the napalm/gasoline anology for bombs/power, but what is a good way to 
convince people that there is no relationship here? (besides 'radiation')
     
5.  I know that rotting is delayed by killing the bacteria that cause it, but 
what inhibits eye formation in exposed potatoes? Does this contradict the 
argument that the food is not significantly chemically altered?
     
I know this is not the national press, but I think every little step we take 
to give folks the facts helps. This article was obviously written by an 
amateur and "lay" person. There were gross misconceptions about radiation and 
this application of radiation that many reading this newsletter may accept on 
their face as fact.
     
thanks for your help
     
Charles Migliore
Chasmig@aol.com