|
Page K ~ Environment Hawai i ~ Pebruarv X99-
<br /> ~,I Cast-BertefitAnalysis the most fundamental human rights to im-
<br /> `S"JGD.Y Background. The drawbacks of an irradia- Pose risks (deaths) upon individuals without
<br /> from page 7 rion facility may be outweighed by the ben- rhea consent. Human rights should not be
<br /> efirs sacrificedtothepursuitof`ahealthyewnomy,'
<br /> Proponents. Exports having a potential value afrluence, progress, science or any of net goal.
<br /> ofasmuchass3oomillionayeazazebeinglost Proponents The economic boon that irta- The whole `benefits versus risk' doctrine is a
<br /> to Hawai`ibecauseoftheU.S.Depattmencof diction will provide in Hawaii more that profound violation of human rights"
<br />
<br /> Agriculture's fruio-fly quarantine on ship- overcomes any perceived drawbacks. One Finally,thereisthematterofriskavoidance
<br /> menu of Hawaii produce co the U.S. main- University of Hawaii professor of Food Sci- altogether. "No risk is acceptable if is is avoid-
<br /> land. With the USDA ready to approve a enceandHumanNutritionhacwritcen,"The able.... However, when people aze merely
<br /> generic irradiation dose for all fruits chat aze issuehere, ofcourse, is riskversus benefix. The doing a risk assessment, this principle cannot
<br /> host co fmit flies, the way is cleaz to tapping risks aze ielared to the dangers to the environ- wme into play."" In the case ofa fruit ittadia-
<br /> this market. menc and the workers as well as to the rion facility, any "wst-benefie" or "risk-ben-
<br /> In addition, test mazketing of Hawaiian dangers of the irradiated foods to the con- efifi assessment must include a discussion of
<br /> Emit irradiated in Chicago has been hugely sumers. The benefits aze the economic gains ways ro avoid the risk altogether, including
<br /> successful, showing widespread consumer to Hawai`i's agricukure from the national altemarive treatment methods and the pros-
<br /> acceptance of irradiated fruit. mazketing of Hawaii-grown exotic fruits... pea of developing avalue-added processed
<br /> Opponents. Even the state Department of "There aze always nsks when handling, food industry (which has the benefit of in-
<br /> Agriculture has acknowledged that the s3oo scoring, or using radioactive materials. How- ceasing the number of jobs).
<br /> million figure for exports is subject co de- eve, there can also be great risks in handling Govemment Subsidy
<br /> bate.'r No economic analysis has been pro- dynamite, gasoline, or even fire. Yec how
<br /> duced to suppott this or any other figure. many of us dally drive in cars (potential Backgrouund. Both the crate government and
<br /> In any event, jrradiation is not the only bombs), cookovergasflamesorcampfires, or the govemment of Hawaii County aze pro-
<br /> way to exploit mazkets abroad. The same fight cigarettes with matches (all potential posing to spend public money on constmc-
<br /> kind of heat veatmentthat makes exports of torches). rion of a fruit irradiation facility.
<br /> papaya acceptable in mainland mazkers will Opponents. With no analysis of economic Proponents. The spending of public money
<br /> soon be available co lychee. Growers of benefie having been made public and de- on a project that will directly benefit private
<br /> carambola can have access mainland mazkets fended, anydiscussioh ofthe economic boon growers, and only indirectly benefit the pub-
<br /> throughuse of scold creatmentapproved by of an irradiator is premature, to say the least. lit, is just patt of government's role. The
<br /> the USDA. Canadian mazkecs are another Moreover, in the discussionofrisksversus govemmenthasaresponsibiliryroseethanhe
<br /> potential outlet for untreated or unirradiaced benefits, it is important co beaz in mind chat economy prospers.
<br /> fruit,sinceCanadahasnoquarannneagainst peoplewhomaynotbenefitatallwillbeazat OpponenrsIfirradiacionisaproventechnol-
<br /> fruit flies similaz to that which exists on the least pare ofthe riskimposedby an ittadiation ogy (as proponents claim) and the mazkec for
<br /> mainland. facility. The fewemployeeswho mayworkat irradiated fruit is solid (as proponents claim),
<br /> State officials have themselves expressed an irradiation facility may be willing to toter- there should be no impediment to the private
<br /> concemchacwidespreadirtadirionofHawai- ate the radiation exposure in recum fora sectorraisingthecapitalneededforanirradia-
<br /> ian fruit might allow growers in vopitxl wage, but in so doing, theywill incrementally lion facility, either by putting up the money
<br /> countries ro avail themselves of dte same increase their own risks of cancer. In addi- themselves, by attracting equity investors, or
<br /> technology, thus eliminating any edge that rion, they will increase the risk that their by borrowing the funds. Indeed, this is what
<br /> irradiation might provide ro Hawaian fruit offspring will be bom with genetic damage.
<br /> (especially wnsidering the additional ship- These eventualities entail public costs. No caPrrahsm is all about.
<br /> menc costs of sending fruit from Hawaii as matter howsafethedevelopers ofany irradia- In any event, the fruit industry has already
<br /> opposed co Mexico or the Caribbean). "The rion facilirydaim it ro be, there is no question received substantial government assistance.
<br /> establishment ofpost-harvest treatment pro- but that its very presence does impose an The state and federal governments have
<br /> rowls and itradiationwill allowthe shipment incremental risk to the public ac large. spent millions of dollars on reseazch into pest
<br /> of Hawaii fruits and vegetables, but other HereiswhatJohnGofman,M.D.,Ph.D., wntrol,disease,andothercypesofgtrarantine
<br /> countries will eventually ask ro have those has to say on the subject. (Gofinan is proles- treatments for Hawaii products. At some
<br /> veatmem protocols allowed for their fruits soremeritusofinedicalphysicsattheUniver- PO1nt,thesubsidiesshouldend.
<br /> and vegetables."'a city of California, Berkeley, and one of the Environmenal Safety: Cobalt-6o
<br /> Finally, it is not cleaz that there will be leading experts on the health effects of radia- Background. Irradiating food requires the use
<br /> strong mazkecs for irradiated produce. Food rion). "First, it is suenrifica//yreasonable that of ahigh-powered source for the ionizing
<br /> & Water, a mainland organization, has orga- the dose-effect relationship between radia- radiation, which is usually Cobalt-6o.
<br /> nized customer protesu ro srores carrying rion and cancer is Gneaz, and that there is no
<br /> irradiaredfmit>resultinginadeastonesuper- threshold dose... Second, it is a violation of Proponents. The technology chat has been
<br /> market chain refusing co stock irradiated developed for using cobalt-Go as a source for
<br /> Hawaiian produce anymore. "'Dian Althea Gan:, letter of December zz,1995. gamma radiation is well established and safe.
<br /> °o Scientists are in general agreement that there is no The American Dietetic Association, for ex-
<br /> radiation dose that is so small is does nor pose a danger $ee "Safety'; page 9
<br /> '-Leger of DOA Director Yukio Kitagawa to Rep. ro any living organism chat is exposed to i[. Gamma ays
<br /> Robert Herkes, February 2, 1993. and X-nys penecmre skin easily. When [hty encounter
<br /> '"Fsotic Pest Insect Commiaee Budget Proposal for the living cells thry can damage chromosomes, which can Gofman, Radiadoa acrd Publk Xea(rh (San Francisco,
<br /> Fiscal Biennium 1995-1997. Lead to abnormal cell reproduction, including cancer. 1981), p. 415.
<br /> _._l.___...__
<br />
<br />
|