RE: Re[2]: Irradiated milk to be available in Feb 2000 -Reply

["Bradshaw, Keith" <Keith.Bradshaw@nnc.co.uk>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Neil, David M [SMTP:neildm@id.doe.gov]
> Sent:	10 November 1999 21:24
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	RE: Re[2]: Irradiated milk to be available in Feb 2000
> -Reply
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 10, 1999 6:00 AM, Bradshaw, Keith
> [SMTP:Keith.Bradshaw@nnc.co.uk] wrote:
> > 	Why does the world need it?  Last figures I saw there was a world
> > excess food calories production.  Aren't 25% of the US population now
> > clinically obese (with Europe close behind)?  Don't both the EC and the
> US
> > intentionally destroy food? 
> Usually because it's 'tainted', suspect, or over an arbitrary date. What
> would an improved sterilization method do to that amount?
> 
	NO, not because of those reasons at all!  THE EC AND THE US HAVE
INTENTIONALLY DESTROYED FOOD TO KEEP THE PRICE UP.  In fact the latest thing
is to pay farmers  NOT to grow things.

> >Who gets the benefits
> The consumer
> 
	I think if you believe that you're very naive.

> >and who gets the risks?
> The Neo-Luddites who avoid the new methods because they're new.
	 
	The long-term effects, and remember we are talking about feeding the
stuff to pregnant and lactating women, babies and children, remain unknown.
I don't think it's contentious to state that the nutritional quality of
fresh fruit and veg is reduced by irradiation.  It's precisely these foods
that nutritionists want us to eat more of.

> > There are starving people in the world because of politics and
> economics,
> > not scientific reasons.  Irradiating food won't help those.
> > 
> Actually, that's PRECISELY why it would help.  The problem is
> distribution.
> The U.S. has an overproduction of milk.  Can we send it to Ethiopia?  No,
> if
> it lasted the shipping, the people who need it most don't have the
> refrigeration to keep more than they can consume on the spot.  And if it's
> made into cheese, the same arguments apply at a slightly slower rate. Same
> for meat.
> 
	Heard of skimmed milk powder? Lasts for years.  Last I heard, the EC
had thousands of tons of the stuff in storage.
>  
> > 	No, I want irradiated foods clearly labelled 
> Is your spell checker out of whack?   "labeled"
> 
	My we are touchy.  This is the only valid point you make in this
whole message.  Actually I never bother with the spell checker.

> >as such.  And
> > preferably banned, except in special cases such as spices where the
> benefits
> > may outweigh the risks. 
> That's all cases. And what about medical supplies - or did you think that
> bandage you used the last time you had a cut had been autoclaved in the
> paper wrapper?
> 
	Yes, but I'm not expected to eat bandages.  Sterilising non-food
items, or food for patients on sterile diets etc, are all perfectly fine by
me and a good use for nuclear waste radionuclides.  But wholesale
irradiation of staple foods to increase their 'shelf-life' in the
supermarket or to cover up poor hygiene and diseased animals in the food
chain are not.

> > I do not want to increase my intake of free radical
> > precursors without knowing about it. 
> There's a technical term for "free radical precursors".  They're called
> molecules.  Speaking of free radicals, in an aqueous environment (like
> meat
> or milk) they react and vanish in moments. In a dry environment, such as
> the
> spices you endorsed, they do not react nearly as fast.  So which would put
> more into your body? ...
> 
	It's a while since I read about this.  But I seem to remember that
the analytical test for detecting irradiated foods depends on measuring
certain long-lived free radicals.  So some at least must persist even in
water-rich foods.  As to irradiated spices, obviously the weight consumed is
only a small fraction of your total food intake.  Spices in the UK tend to
be imported from hotter climates which have more exotic insect life than we
have, and it was this I was thinking of rather than microbes.

> On that same issue, I presume you must be devoting a lot of time to
> stamping
> out barbecues, gas stoves for cooking, and Girl Guides roasting weenies on
> a
> stick over the campfire; all of which impart much greater concentrations
> of
> free radicals than irradiation (by whatever name) ever did.
> 
	Not sure.  I think some scientists in this area ARE concerned with
things like polyunaturated fat oxidation and the like during frying etc.
Because of this, I don't think we should increase consumption of such things
by irradiating food.

> > I do not want supermarkets to get away
> > with selling me old food at the same inflated price as fresh food.
> > 
> Are you under the misconception that the meat in the butcher's case is
> rushed straight from the slaughterhouse to the store?  Carcasses are
> 'hung'
> for a substantial length of time to allow the cellular enzymes to
> tenderize
> the tissue.  Truly fresh meat is rather tough.
> 
	No, I knew this already.  It should be perfectly safe if the meat
came from a healthy animal hygenically butchered.  It should not need
cleaning up to kill off gut bacteria (E Coli).

	In the UK at the moment we are being exhorted to increase our
consumption of FRESH fruit and veg.  If these things are allowed to be
irradiated, and not labeled as such, consumers will end up buying what they
think is fresh food but actually isn't.  Fresh food is nutritionally more
complex than is properly understood at present, which is why we are told to
eat it rather than simply supplement our diet with vitamin tablets.

>  > 	In the UK, I believe they were going to call it PICOWAVED, i.e.
> > microwaved but at shorter wavelength!
> > 
> An apt analogy!
> 
> Thank you very much for the amusing post.
> 
> Please understand that I was not trying to make a fool of you. 
> I would never presume to improve on the job the Almighty already did.
> 
	I really seem to have touched a nerve.  I don't think there's any
need for comments like that on this list and I'm sure the list owner agrees.
If you were trying to sell me food irradiation, you've failed now.

	All my own personal non-corporate thoughts.

	Keith


	END



**********************************************************************
NNC Limited
Booths Hall
Chelford Road
Knutsford
Cheshire
WA16 8QZ

Country of Registration: United Kingdom
Registered Number: 1120437

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
the NNC system manager.
**********************************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html