COM 0212.228 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Fmm:~ms-eihn Dana Datta.~nalysis at Hawan County COwdl Pa9e3 of5 Wednesday. May O),19911.d929 PM TO: Counplman.~-¢nes Arakakl 3 that they evouldn'T bring their plant to our Island until the County Council or the growers put in writing that all marketing, distribution and payment of liabilities beyond the Token $75,000 bond required by the Nuclear Regulation Commission would be up To us. Among the Great Mysteries in The Mayor's proposal---now endorsed by the Finance Committee with The exception of Council Member Tyler---are (1) estimates of how much of what crops will be processed each month of the year, (2) estimates of much time will be used each month of the year for research purposes, (3) estimates of how much time will be used each month of the year for other purposes such as sterilizing medical equipment or killing silverfish in county records (both recommended by the Mayor and the R8D Department) and (4) estimates of how much down-Time There will be. Analysis of mainland irradiation facilities indicate That to keep charges for plant use affordable, The irradiation plants have to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. As use decreases, processing costs increase----and guess who would come before the County Council demanding money from your wallets to subsidize These costs2 Some additional Great Mysteries are (1) whether any reputable insurance company will issue policies against personal injury, property damage and clean-up in case of accidents for an irradiation facility located in alava-earthquake zones, (2) how much These policies will cost for adequate liability coverage, (3~ who will pay for these policies, (4) the liability of the County---read your wallet and mine- --in case of accidents, (SJ County IiabiliTy for damages to business and industries who may be able To prove an irradiation facility has hurt them, such as The current hot-vapor papaya processing plant, eco-tourism and organic agriculture and (6j the Big One: the costs of distribution and marketing. Some reputable, objective sources such as the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. General Accounting Office, and the Congressional Research Quarterly have reviewed The safety, nutritional value, IiabiliTy and profitability issues associated with food irradiation. Their reports help explain why there Is considerable uncertainty and controversy on these issues. For a variety of technical, methodological reasons, the Food and Drug Administration "gold standard" tests of food safety could not be conducted. Instead, in 1986 the Food and Drug Administration reviewed about 440 basic and applied research studies, were able to identify only out of Those 440 studies Thar were methodologically adequate. Food and Drug Administration approval of irradiated foods on these five studies. The conclusions of three of these five studies have been challenged by reputable scientists. Further since 1986, there are nevv methodologies and nevi research but no impartial, highly respected group such as the National Academy of Science to sort it out. Thus, Those who want to make the case that irradiated food is safe, attractive, wholesome and no more or less nutritious than anyt'ning else can point to Food and Drug Administration approval, to some of the ne~~i research, to some countries such as the Netherlands and South Africa which permit sale of irradiated fruits, and to The endorsement of prestigious groups such as the American Medical Association and The American Dietetic Association. Those viho want to make the case that irradiated foods may have long term carcinogenic effects and have reduced nutritional value can point out the usually required studies were not done, To some of The new research, To some countries such as Japan which do not permit sale of irradiated fruits, and to the disapproval of groups such as The American Association of Retired Persons, The AFL-CIO and the Censer for Science in the Public Interest who are against food irradiation. This, and the conflicting more recent research evidence, mean That consumer groups concerned with food safety can make some large waves. The po~roer of consumer groups should not be trivialized orunder-estimated. Calling them names such as "terrorist" will not make it cheaper or easier for the County---read, your wallet and mine---to pay for effective "consumer education" campaigns. Internationally, 70 consumer groups are working for a moratorium on irradiated foods until a reliable, affordable method is found To determine which