COM 0931.012 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

now' 7, (Countering Tactics and Claims continuedl ated, and that if the plant was built, eted supermarkets that were test Giddings (1987) described sc an international boycott of all Flor- marketing irradiated produce-this i their tactics. ida citrus (irradiated or not) would kind of activity putting pressure on i Opponents of food irradiatico occur, both the retailer and the processor. have been quite successful in their Whether this boycott would have Such pressure may explain, in part, I efforts. Three states have so far occurred or not is a matter of con- why first-generation irradiated banned irradiation-Maine (May, ecture. In December 1989, the Mul- I products are not found on U.S. store 1987), New York (July, 1988); and berry City Council voted for an or- shelves. Since there is an absence of I New Jersey (December, 1989). Other dinance that would ban the irradia- irradiated products, consumers have states that have hotly debated food tion process within the city limits. not yet become accustomed to rec- eradiation include Hawaii. Illinois. The vote came after a lenity and ognizing the radura symbol; cone- I Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ore- divisive public debate, which was : uently, FDA continues to require ! qon, and Vermont (Diehl, 1990). attended by about 300 people, in- the words "treated with radiation Furthermore, in Congress, there is a cluding the president and owner of or "treated by irradiation" to appear bill opposing the process. The bill Vindicators of Florida, scientists, i with the symbol on packages of irre- sponsored by SenatorGeor~e Mitch consumer activist groups, politi- dieted food (FDA, 1990). However, at (D-Me) and Douglas Boaco (D- cians, and residents of Mulberry. to a consumer who does not make a Ca), requires the labeling of minor A Mulberry City Commissioner distinction between radioactive irradiated ingredients as well as pro- who proposed the ordinance was I foods and irradiated foods, the use hibits the sepias and distribution of quoted in a local newspaper as say- of such words may prove confusing irradiated foods until further re- eng, "I can't remember an issue that and mislsadinQ. search is done. was so adamantly opposed by the i e Makin[ lnfiammatory De- The future of irradiation may not le of Mulberry" (Beata, 1989a). I mands. More recently activists be certain in the European Commu- However, according to the same have argued that all foods contain- nity either. Member countries are newspaper, the mayor of Mulberry I eng irradiated ingredients be spe- planning to create an unrestricted said that "he remains skeptical of ! cially labeled. (FDA requires.label- common market by 1992, which the anti-irradiation forces. He be- ing if the entire product or in* r in- would require compute harmoniza- Heves that while the protesters are ~d~ ant has been irradiated. tion of food laws and regulations. vocal, most of them are not from Irradiated spices in foods are con- However, not all member countries Mulberry" (Beals, 1989a). Prior to sidered minor ingredients and do ppeermithrradistion.WhiletheV the mating; the mayor noted, "As not require labeling.) Activists cal- Kingdom lifted its ban on ire.. far as the city of Mulberry is con- culate that the labels will frighten lion in July of 1989, and the Neth- earned, I've only been contacted by consumers into chooaiaQ nouirradi- erlands. Belgium, and France per- ' a man and his wife. I'm looking for- ated foods, dise ads the industry mit irradiation of certain commodi- ward to Tuesday night to hear the from usinmgg irradiated ingredients in ties, other countries (e.g., Germany other aide of the story" (Beals, products (Giddings, 1989), and over- and the Scandinavian countries' 1989a). This seems to suggest that all put irradiated foods at s great have not granted an~yy exemptions the role of the activist groups may I disadvantage compared to foods Tit's is due to the 0Horta of Wool have had a more dramatic effect on i processed by other methods (Diehl, anti-nuclear consumerist groups. the outcome of the meeting than the j 1990). It is for these reasons that Why have the activists been so fa' noted that successful in their anti-food irradia dissatisfaction of the residents Josephson (1990) wryly themselves. This point is further re- activists won't be satisfied until the =o %:w:1 in the U.S. and othe inforced by the fact that it is usually radura symbol is replMced with a d? There are seven the activist groups who are quoted skull and croabones. rwons. First, activists have delib u speaking for the consumer, and a Using Stalling Tactics. An- eately confused the public regard not the consumers themselves. other delay tactic commonly used by ing the differenca between radioac 8 threatening to boycott cites activists is their argument that irra- Live foods and irradiated food roducts or by sttggating that a diation should not be allowed be- Gamma rays of Cobalt-80, X-rays t would occur if the plant was cause there is no method yet to db- enargles below 6 million elecm atttivlst rou succeeded in I ta:tmiue whether a food has been ir- 'dolts (MeV), and electrons at One the'[ollowfnEE 1) they stalled, per- radiated Ironically, activists are gia• below ID M o cannot add at hapi derailed, plans or an imdia- I ca itng on the fact that therm- massurable radioactivity activity to cal changes in irradiated foods are so bac4round radioactivity of fool tion fadlity in Mulberry; (2) they stifled the market by the I use minor these that ~is a maanstof do- son, 1 _90b) Sthe" Sources econd the (a ue'"s Lis oppo - consuman from he* tunity to choose; (3) they held the testing whether the food has been have ban adept at using the m . . vin dtrus industry hostage to threats; ' irradiated Marcotte (IRS) noted that m's' and (4) they tried to intimidate the JO e Pressuring Legislators. Per- formation from activist Sources he sireea chhidng nnow ochnoloFY. and bbe" been sip assuring staatte Is la ~ eviasace frome~wlQfBed at- The activists have used a variety ton top =bills that would prohibit ities. Third, the activists know of other tactics as well. the selling and distribution of irra to Piny dirt y--+.g•9 preying on P yi • Picketing. In 1966, they pick. diated products within their states. pie s [ear of nuclear accidents or Y e[fnn TiCYYh MV - • ms NM