[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Food Irradiation - Consumer Reports
- To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (IPM Return requested) (Receipt notification requested), JOYCED@DNFSB.GOV (IPM Return requested) (Receipt notification requested)
- Subject: Re: Food Irradiation - Consumer Reports
- From: Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
- Date: 18 Feb 1998 08:55:02 -0700
- Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
- Conversion: Allowed
- Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited
- Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
- Priority: normal
- Return-Receipt-To: Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
- X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 ( 22 )
- X400-MTS-Identifier: [/c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; 03F2534EB045684B-mtaSNL]
- X400-Originator: rfweine@sandia.gov
- X400-Received: by mta mtaSNL in /c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; Relayed; 18 Feb 1998 08:55:02 -0700
- X400-Received: by /c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; Relayed; 18 Feb 1998 08:55:02 -0700
- X400-Recipients: non-disclosure;
I have not yet read that Consumer Reports article, but I will write and I
encourage everyone who can to do so. Consumer Reports had a recent article on
air pollution (in which I have some expertise) that was way off the mark. I
wrote with some corrections and got a snotty response from someone who clearly
had no idea what she was talking about. I also remember the CR reports on ALAR.
I am concerned that Consumers Union, that I have long respected and belonged
to, is caving in to enviroadn anti-nuke hysteria hype. What can be done?
Perhaps we should write a single letter and affix xignatures to it.
Clearly my own opinion and no one else's.
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 - Consumer Reports
Author: JOYCED@DNFSB.GOV at hubsmtp
Date: 2/18/98 8:26 AM
The March 1998 issue of Consumer Reports has an
interesting article on Chicken: How Safe? How Tasty?, that
mainly addresses the issue of bacteria in chicken meat.
Marring what seems to be an unbiased article is a reference
to irradiation that I quote:
" While it may be useful, irradiation isn't a panacea. It could
lead to unwanted public-health and environmental side
effects, and it's not clear that it's economically competitive
with other alternatives. As former USDA official Carol Tucker
Foreman puts it, irradiation is not ' a substitute for taking
propoer sanitation measures in processing plants. After all,
sterilized poop is still poop'".
Given the high status of Consumer Reports with many US
consumers, this lightly tossed off comment about unwanted
health effects may carry a lot of weight.
I haven't checked it but the CU website is listed as
www.ConsumerReports.org. Their data are available there
for a price.
HPs may want to set CU straight.
Only the opinion of
J. P. Davis
joyced@dnfsb.gov