COM 0212.451 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

other reputable physicians and scientists have also had doubts about the declaration that irradiated food is safe. Many question the fact that there have been no long-term studies of the effects of irradiated food on human health. Grassroots democracy enters into this issue from two angles:1. the wishes of food consumers and, 2. the wishes of the residents of Hawaii. The nuclear industry is facing an increasingly wary public around the world. In terms of the food consumers, Hawaii County Government has received over 7,000 letters and postcards from the mainland stating that they will not only boycott Hawaiian irradiated food, but will consider all Hawaiian produce suspect. A consortium of Japanese consumers sent a letter on 3/10/97 to our Mayor stating their plan to boycott Hawaiian produce if irradiation is implemented. The cat is out of the bag in terms of public opinion on irradiation and no amount of the Mayor's wishful thinking or slick expensive marketing subsidized by taxpayers can put that cat back in the bag. Despite tremendous efforts by the Administration to promote the idea of food irradiation, the residents who have spoken in favor of it appear to be those individuals with a clear vested interest. For example, Eric Wienert, owner of Plant It Hawaii, one of the largest tropical fruit tree companies in the state, stands to make large short term profits. Many small farmers have questioned whether irradiation will benefit them and feel that there are a myriad of ways $2 million dollars could be used to help them without putting our whole agricultural industry in jeopardy from boycotts. The opposition to irradiation is broad and widespread on the Big Island. Our people simply don't want to take on the health and safety risks. They also intuitively know that, as our island becomes known as a home of one of the pioneering food irradiation facilities, this could scare off our coveted health oriented and eco-tourists we seek to attract. Social justice issues enter into the issue in a number of ways. Proponents of irradiation like to speak of weighing risks and benefits. This kind of discussion is appropriate when dealing with matters such as selecting a treatment option for cancer. Chemo therapy may be under consideration where there is a clear pressing danger (cancer) and a reasoned decision needs to be made as to whether the outcome of a treatment option will be worth the risks associated with that treatment. These kind of decisions are never easy and usually not wholly satisfactory no matter which choice is made. The difference between this example and issues like irradiation is that there is no reason to see the issue as one, which requires the public to accept additional risks. There is no health and safety risk to continuing to use a successful post harvest treatments such as vapor heat. There is no risk to making sound marketing analysis before embarking on agricultural endeavors. There is no risk to developing better systems of marketing our local agricultural products. It could be considered the height of social injustice to force on our people the health, safety, and economic risks of irradiation merely to allow corporate farmers to prosper in the short run and enrich private irradiation companies. Another social justice issue relates to the Kanaka Maoli. Ka Lahui has taken a position opposing food irradiation. Many Kanaka Maoli in other groups and as individuals oppose irradiation and have grave concerns should Hawaiian Home Lands be considered for such a facility, as these lands were in the irradiation debates in the late 1980s. The violence inflicted on generations of people all over the world who are touched in some way by this deadly project of radioactive boondoggles is staggering. Every inch of the way, from uranium mines, to workers at the reactor treating the cobalt, to the transportation and dockyard workers bringing it to the plant on the Big Island and back again to the storage site for used cobalt, all are at risk. The innocent residents ingest the low level wastes at the mines, near the reactor and storage facilities and soon, if we don't unite to stop this irradiation project, near a used irradiator which may be brought to our island. When water soluble cesium 137 is substituted for cobalt 60, spills of this waste may seep into the groundwater, surrounding ocean