RE: New York Times - Red Meat Irradiation Rules -Reply

[Michael S Ford <MFORD@pantex.com>]

<<<<Brian_Gaulke wrote on Fri 12 Feb 99  10:38 >>>

It seems that Mike has given the real reason the food industries
might be interested in irradiation, i.e., reducing losses by increasing
shelf life thereby increasing profits.  The issue of reducing deaths
could just be a convenient way of selling the idea to the public and
regulators.....

<<<<<<<<<<

Brian,

Sure the beef packers might see the economics of prolonged shelf
life as sufficient incentive, but you also might consider the negative
impact that the misinformed scare-mongers would initially have the
market place.

I realize that some folks think making business decisions based on
profit considerations is what makes the US  a bunch of capitalist
pigs, but ignoring market acceptance makes for negative profits, 
angry shareholders, and eventually bankrupt companies.

On the other hand, the beef processors that do not embrace
irradiation may soon find themselves facing lawsuits from parents
with dead children who might be alive if the company had used a
technology that would have prevented unnecessary death and
suffering.  (Yes, these children suffer incredibly agonizing deaths. 
Imaging, as a parent, having to watch your child go through that).

In my estimation, that would occur once and all of the major
processors would build irradiators.

I could care less what brings this technology to the market place. 
I'm tired of worrying every time my 5 year old sinks his teeth into a
fast food burger.

Have a great day!
v/r
Michael
mford@pantex.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html