Re: Food Irradiation - Consumer Reports

[Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>]

Joyce,
As a long time member of CU and subscriber to Consumer Reports, it seems to
me that their skepticism about what are all too often overblown claims by
the proponents of new products/technologies is a healthy one. up to a point.
However, it seems to me that they have in many instances (ie x-rays, food
irradiation) gone beyond skepticism to outright hostility toward the
employment of radiation for purposes where the benefits clearly outweigh
the risks.

Maybe it's a reflection of the culture from which their staff is drawn, but
 it seems to me that someone from HPS, perhaps more specifically from the
Greater New York Chapter, might creatively have a friendly chat with them.
We presumably can speak from a health rather than a commercial perspective.
Andy



At 09:29 AM 2/18/98 -0600, Joyce Davis wrote:
>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
>
>