COM 0931.012 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

L7273 IZ`29W.T, Al i' 0_4 - FOOD IRRADIATION: Countering the Tactics and Claims of Opponents Misinformation, boycott threats, picketing, and pressuring legislators are tactics used by anti-irradiation activists. What should food professionals do? Donald R. Pszcsola, Assistant Editor Cl AN INFORMED PERSON may _ Char" that it will be used to conceal motivated by political concerns; ran well wonder why food irradiation food contsmmation, lower food ical environmentalists; or thos Mr such intense controversy. quality sand increase risk soaking to gain influence, mono) After all, a survey of the facts will to public health ( ish1,1990). Anti. and power from a sines issue. Had the following to be true: irradiation activists have resorted to no tactics that members of thi 1. Irradiation offers a variety of blatant misinformation campaigns. camp use, however no similar t advantages. including ha thepo- threats of boycotts, picketing o su• those of terrorists. WOOthey dobe tential to help solve the emblem of p~rmarketa pressuring of state leg- bomb airports or hijack airplane salmonellosis and other foodborne Liston, anif actions that prey on the they do gyrey on people's feu any diseases-a roblsm which has been Consumer's fear of nuclear aeci- lack of lmowledge, are no=; recognized for several decades, dents-all in an attempt either to and self-righteous. sad are obsesses L More than 40 Yeah of research stall FDA approval of irradiation or with achieving their own ends-u confirm the wholesomeness, safetyy even more dramatic, ban the sale this case Vat elimlaation of irradu torconsumption, andnutritional ed- and distribution of irradiated foods tion as a food processing techniqu, equacy of irradiated foods s~taptes MBecauss of their effor~te~idrra One taf 00 employed by a uradi ctics 8. Thirty-six countries have ap- e 1989. forces occurred m Florida i provd the process for more than 49 diction has become a political different foods (AOAC,1990) and 20 chologibal issue. Whether y~ayom of Flo, He is ready for this food process- A company countries are currently engaged is pub ~aed~ cmerciAl•acels Irradiation of aps- lag method and will accept it and ids (Plant City. p~ comfood items (Josdiatio 1989)• whether food pr~ocessori will take build an irradiation fecility in o 4. food items Astronauts, patients with sup the financial risk of investing in it state. The $7.5 milli pI=tw pressed immune systems who re- =x estion still left to be an- foods su as propoudstrawberries, fish, quire sterilized diets, and studyy vol- ~png untesn haw consumed ir=e teed This article will describe some of chicken -1-0 f Cobalt-80. The si products without adverse A effects- anhe Zteent efforts of on opponents It will tasaess wee ehgaow the t3wo "M wss Mulben 6. The Food and Drug g tntioa hss approved ireadiatioa for of their that a~up and u porters of foodgirradi. Tamp&.It w lGcW ~ tea certain uses: most recently (May 2, ways its proximity to a mayor citrus 1990) for controlling bacterial con- anon may respond. portation route (Be" 1989b). tamination in chicken, turkey, and l~ irradiation o ponents w" to the other fresh and frosen uncooked Using Terrorism Citnu Co h at the cty~wo Major hsdth organizations, in as a Tactic mission the irM%1 tion fa tomational Committees of experts, The opponents of food irradiation tion of~ ridw to tth citrus societies have an- consist of different types. Those may poaens~ In particular, a eve e and scientific include Antinuclear activists; con- dd d~ it contended that Despite the evidence. however. tumor advocates; Aati•tclentt Water activist im, ep ooppppoonents of food irradiation have faddists, and those opposed to a major market forcitrus' we eLimd that the process will under- processing natural of onac fkin d;a; ddvud 1s noott accept any food that was irn mine the world food supply-they 92 rooo TROVOloor-JJ14 1990