COM 0212.035 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

F O O b & W A T E 2 5 thrombus, and fibroplasia. In reviewing most consumers are not willing ro Raltech's findings ut 1984, a USDA re- take the unnecessary risk. searcher, Donald Thayer, asserted, "A collective assessment of study results ar- Environm@rital anQ WoYlc- gues against a de&nitive conclusion that place $a7tards The highgt concen- the gamma-irradiated test material was Workers in irradiattion plants risk ex- of irradiation free of toxAc properties." posure xo large doses of radiation facilities is w New Studies on rats fed irradiated food also due to equipment failure and leaks. Jersey, and virtually indicate possible kidney damage, testicu- Risks of exposure come wick produc- awry Naw Jamey lac damage, and a statistically significant tion, transportation, storage, and in- plant has a recoM of incmase in testicular rumors. One Sand- stallation and replacement of environmental con- mark test on children in India who were radiation sources. lamination, worker fed irnd;atcd what resulted in four out Aeei de70.ta Happen overoxpowre, or of five children developing polyploidy, a chromosomal abnormaliry that is a The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regttlatory failures. good indication of the future develop- (NRC) has recorded 54 accidents at meat of cancer. 132 irradiation facilities worldwide Irradiation proponents often claim that since 1974. '['his number is very prob- decades of research demonstrate the ably low because the NRC has no in- safety of food irradiation, but the scud- formation on the irradiation facilities ies they use to prove their poirtt are rn approximately 30 states. The NRC questionable. Some were undertaken Brv~ dtese "agreement states" the by the U.S. Army w obtain approval authority to monitor facilities in their fmm the FDA Cor can-packed bacon in states' 1963• The FAA withdrew approval five The highest concentration of irradia• years later. Irradiation proponents' Lion facilities is in New Jersey, where scare of research also includes studies plant safety records are not encourag- completed by Industrial Bio-Test (1B'1), ing. Virtually every New Jersey plant a firm convicted in 1983 of performing has a record of environmental con- fraudulent research for govemment and lamination, worker overexposure, or industry. A5 a result of IBT's violations, regulacorv failures. the government lost about $4 million Accidents can be nearly fatal to work- and six years of animal feeding study ors and extremely dangerous to the data on food irradiation. Some of this communities surrounding irradiation discredited work is sill( used today as facilities: part of the "scientific" basis for assur- ances of the safety of food irradiation. • On Aecember 11, 1991, a The truth is, no one can real]y be sure worker at a Maryland irradiation about the safety of irradiated foods, and facility suffered curies( injuries 8Y".%a of Cons'amers Are Concerned 84% oZ Consumers Consider Food about Food Irradiation Zrxadiation a Haaard II 28%~,~~' ~ ~ 3096n ~o~~ ~ la% ~ 14% Ne t. S% op„„n, y 4~J L 'jS Nv tYG Y M II, r~,,,a,,,a, 30% ~a Il"k rm~m.a 34% sw I Sowce HealthFocus. 1494 Source: Food Mark~ung Insaruce, 1995 ~0'd IGiT~l.9~~RFl£jT Ol. ~I11 d91VP1 2 ~]pi;i~ t.lOr~~ Wdz~:2l L66T-T~-bO