|
_ -c=,x .
<br /> } ~ ~ _ 3 maintain chat the process could combai
<br /> _ ,'+c-' _ ~ hunger in Thiid World counmes, by
<br /> ` ~ * _ ~ . - . ,reducing food losses due to spoilage. ,
<br /> - ^`1` ~ While that may• be claiming "
<br /> ' 1 ~ - T1' - l ~ .too much, thitt~'-seve}t.nations, in-. ` '
<br /> ~ ~ ~ " , I .eluding such poor countries'as China
<br /> ; , ~ % T ( and.IIanglade"sh, have approved the pry- ,
<br /> y cess, and of those, tivenry-four are using •
<br /> i,
<br /> ~ r~~' ~ r.~4._ ~ Mostoppositiontofoodirradiationis~
<br /> ~I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ visceral.: tt starts from the assumption.
<br /> r' ~ ~ ~ ~ chat radiation, frequently a lethal ~ '
<br /> i.7 ~ ~ agent, cannot possibly affect food in
<br /> ~ . ~ ` : .safe ways.'Considering ~hatradiation is
<br /> 1 1~` ~ linked to such symbolic and literal dis-
<br /> ~ tits~~~astefs as Hiroshima, •Three Mile Is- •
<br /> ~ rK - . ~ ~ sT land, and Chernobyl; the power of tfiac
<br /> ( 'r ? assumption is undeniable; even if food,
<br /> :y , ^ ! irradiation has nothing but radioactiv-
<br /> III ~~'I~ ~ ~ ~~,i`' ~ iry in common, with aromic bombs and
<br /> f. . - nadear reactors. Fear of radiation has
<br /> ' ~ ' provoked a segment of the public to re- -
<br /> " - ~ ~ G-c'A'ti 4~.• sist the process, and the dispute thus
<br /> -'--'-'--r`°- I - ~ chiefly pia expera who support,food'--'~\
<br /> PUBLIC.HEALTH ~ Food eradiation worksf by exposing irradiation against laymen who oppose
<br /> ~ foodao bcams.or isotopes of ionizing it, instead of grappling with the details
<br /> Tom`®O.7 ~ energy, which split mpi~cules of organ- ' 'of scientific inquiry, the coalition of .
<br /> I - l}.l: , . - I isms within the Foo$'~t~at cause dis anti-nuclear activisa,. organiofood ad- _
<br /> ~Y,Y,~,-]la4to~l, ~ ease, spoilage, orotherforms of deien vocates, and holistic-health praetition-
<br /> _ ll oration. If enough molecules are split ~ea who compose the organizbd opposi-
<br /> EmationaLopposition persists) the organisms die. Meanwhile, the eq- ~ 4on to food irmdiation habitu911y make
<br /> in the face bfscinrtific evidence that eigy passes throiSgh the food, IeaJing ii startling $ut invariably hollow claims
<br /> •theprocess is harmless otherwise relatively unchahged. Food- of conspiracy. Fol insfancq, Donis
<br /> ~ irradiation advocates.cite•substantial ` Mosgofian, ihcfotmcr director of rho
<br /> ~
<br /> I ~ evidence that low doses of radiation San Francisco-teased National Coali-
<br /> - can destroy the salmonella bacteria tion.to Stop Food Jrradiation; charged
<br /> °'tharinfese up to half the poultry now iri 187 tliacduring~heitwo-and-a-half-
<br /> tie~ Tee Foooand Drug Qd- marketed in the United States, kilt tri- year [enure as Secretary of Health and
<br /> mini tration announced, Iasi china in pork, wipe out harmful insects Huinan Services; Ma
<br /> `~J rgaretHeckle,
<br /> _ 'I V. May, as approval oF'irradia- and microorganisms char infest solno longtime food-irradiation advocate,
<br /> [ion to kiB salmonella and ocher hariYt- fmia and vegetables, kill parasites. in "headed.up.the entire process of get-.
<br /> fur bacteria in poultry, the only uncer- fish, inhibit sprouting. in potatoes and .ring food irradiatior. through FDA:", .
<br /> rainry,about the poultry°industrv's re-~ ,onions, and delay spoilage.in a variety ' That unsubstantiated allegation, with
<br /> sponse• lay`i~ w}yat reason it would of foods, all while affecting taste. and is implication that Heckler influenced •
<br /> provide for declining°the FDAsinvitaG , _ nuvitional-content ,only sligfitty--~'he '.the FDA's. decision-making process,.; -
<br /> lion co use the process. The rationales, advocates 'say that at higfiecradiation overlooks the faces.that the report es--
<br /> that industry spokesmen gave-citing) exposures-above the level currently tablishing the FDti's..pro-irradiation
<br /> food irradiation's poor public image apbroJed by the FDA-food can be policy was wriccen nearly three years
<br /> rather.than concerns about its safery,-1. sterilized (for consutnpcion,.say, 67 before Heckler bacame Sccretary,•an'd
<br /> - accurately. reflects-the degree bf~public ~'~I 6osoiral patients whose immune. sys- .that the FDA's final mle on fruits and '
<br /> . confusion aboutche,process. Indedin- terns have;;been seriously damaged) ~ vegetables-ttir9gency's mostSignifi-
<br /> ing to,impugn food irradiation's whole-~'~ and itban begiven a.nearly indefinite. cane food-irradiation rule of chi 1980s
<br /> . someness, the spokesmen concurred shelf life without refrigeration. In some -was announced after her departure. '
<br /> with the.widesp:read assumpuon• ~instancesirradia[ioncould.reolacetos- ~'~,Opponenahavealsoresortedtocol-.~_~r,.;-,
<br /> - among scientists that the process is. is pesticides. For example; the Hawai- oiful antics to draw attention to'their
<br /> • safe. They were also correci in ac= ian papaya industry, which slumped 'causq In 1987; when a Canadian par - -
<br /> knowledging that most laymen would .after the Environmental Protection liamentary cbininittec'was considerin
<br />
<br /> ' .,rather depend on proper cooking to kill Agency banned achemical defumigant she future of food irradiation, a man
<br /> . - salmonella Than eat irradiated poultry. called ethylene dibromide, useZt in - tivearing.a chicken suit strolled through , -
<br /> ' ' ;"I-he'isstie~,"'said Rogcl Coleman; of •fruit-fly-disinfestation, actively backed downrown Toronto handing out anti-ir-
<br /> the National Food Processors Associ- ~ irradiation as an alternative.~~klrradia- r radiation leaflets. In.Occobcr of that
<br /> ' - anon, "is consumer acceptance." ~ bon's: most ardenrsupporters evens .year, when a proponenC tried to display .
<br /> ZG ILLUSTRATION BY ALAN E.COBER S6PTF.~IDfR 1990
<br /> _
<br />
<br />
|