|
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /> dioactive fallout-in order to get to deny the consumer his choice, the of Food Technologists, American
<br /> their objective met. The end result is activists are only underscoring the Medical Association, and many oth-
<br /> that activists are trying to suffocate i fact that they are motivated by their i ers. In fact, no expert government
<br /> the progress of food irradiation in own special interests, and not by the body has ever stated "that irradi-
<br /> any way they can. Diehl (1990) cor- interests of the consumer whom they ated foods are unsafe."
<br /> i rectlyobserved: "In the last 30 years claim to represent. Yet, despite the evidence, activ-
<br /> of its history, food irradiation has a "Not Enough Research Has i iota make the claim that not enough
<br /> again and again been burdened with Been Done to determine if irradi• research has been done. But on what
<br /> demands no other processing j ated foods are safe." Research on I technical expertise are they basing
<br /> method has ever had to meet." food irradiation has been ongoing their judgment? Diehl (1990) noted
<br /> for the past 40 year, making food that evaluating an animal feeding
<br /> Assessing Activist Claims imdiahon the mostacrutinized pro- study, for example, requires medical
<br /> Opponents of food irradiation : case in the history of food preserve- j knowledge, experience with toxicity
<br /> bove made several claims which have I tion (Kantor, 1989). To give some testa, and an understanding of sta-
<br /> been reported by the media, but as idea of tbis vest amount of research, tistia. It a highly doubtful that ac-
<br /> s rule have gone unchallenged. The Diehl (1990) noted that since 1956, a twists would be able to interpret
<br /> following in an assessment of some of bibliography on food Irradiation has correctly the mass of data before
<br /> thew Claims been prepared by the Federal Re- them: nor would they be able to per-
<br /> 7 *"Consumers Will Not Accept search Cluster for Nutrition, Karp- calve the difference between a prop-
<br /> irradiated foods." Several authors i rubs, Federal Republic of Germany, Orly executed study and a poorly
<br /> (e.g. Marcotte, 1988; Diehl, 1990; and it contains nearly 9000 doca- done one. If they lack the technical
<br /> Bi sn and Schutz, IM; and Iaaba• manta The data gathere4 from tour expertise necessary, how then can
<br /> rams, 1989) have reported that mar- decades of studies have confirmed they possibly know that not enough
<br /> ket tests and consumer attitude re- the following: (1) no unique nmU- research has been done?
<br /> search conducted ~y t the olytic products have been found In In mairin thew claim, activists
<br /> world do not bear out this claim- irradiated foods; (Y) there is no evi- are demanding an abaolute prwf of
<br /> According to these studies, there is done to suggest that free radicals irradiation's safety. However, soon-
<br /> 0o evidence to suggest that informed formed is irradiated foods are toxic tints know that there is no such thin
<br /> consumers will not choose foods carcinogenic, or even different from as a "sero" risk. FDA (1986) note
<br /> identifiedasbeingIrradiated; infact, hoe to calm formed by frying, bak- "Safety requires proof of a reasoc-
<br /> education about the benefits and ing, or exposure to sunlight; and (3) able certainty that no harm will re-
<br /> safety of irradiation and products of nutrient retention of irradiated cult... It does not-and cannot
<br /> superior qualityappear to be sigaif- foods is similar to that of host pro- require proof beyond any possible
<br /> ieant factors in inHuen their de- coved foods (Josephson, 1989; Ur• doubt that no harm will ra.
<br /> elisions to accept irrsdi prod- bain,1989; Maclean, 1990). suit under any conceivable eireum
<br /> nets in addition, marketing trends On May 2 1990, the Food and stances." Because it is impossible u
<br /> may also have a positive impact. Drruugg Administration approved irra• prove a negative, activists know the
<br /> Hareotte (1988) noted that time diation for hash and frozen un- can keep making their claim ove
<br /> trends include a growing interest in cooked poultry products. Medium and over again.
<br /> fresh fruits and vogetables, sops- radiation doom up to 300 kilorad an Activists are not motivated by ai
<br /> dally imported tropical and exotic permitted. FDA has ass approved ob*tive assessment of food irradi
<br /> fruits; concern about chemical resi- irradiation at certain doses for the cation. Rather, they are interested i
<br /> dues; and the growing knowledge of following: in 1986, for treating fruits stirring up controversy and one doe
<br /> microbial pa an contamination and vegetables and dry or dehy not need technical expertise for the
<br /> of poultry and other foods. drated harbs, spices, seeds, tees, and Claiming that not enough researe
<br /> Tire validity of the claim that vegotabs N in 1986; for has been done, citing studies tbi
<br /> consumers will not accept irradiated I inactivating N u trichinae parasite haw since been contradicted
<br /> foss can only be determined when, In pork; In 1954, for inhibiting the shown to be poorly executed, or.
<br /> or if, consumers me given the op- s mating of white potatoes; and in repeating emotional charges th
<br /> portunity to select atsd purchase a 1983, for disinfesting wheat and have been refuted over and ov
<br /> variety of irradiated foods in the wheat flour. again an all effectiva ways to fan t'
<br /> marketplace (Bruhn and Schutz, In addition W FDA's approval, 8re. Ironically, activists claim th
<br /> 1989; t oaharanu,1989; Loans, INS). acceptance of irradiation as a eats loons information is necessary, b
<br /> However, activists are doing every- proem has come from such organi• they themselves provide no new e
<br /> thing in their power to deny con- nations and committees u the It idence to support this claim
<br /> sumers that choice. This is ironic Expert Committee on Wholesome- *"Irradiation Is Not Need
<br /> because while they claim that con- was of Irradiated Foods (npnsent• because there are other rases att
<br /> semen will not accept irradiated Ing the World Health Organiret - methods available."
<br /> products, they are not willing to we the Internal Atomic Eaer~y Agency, might be tusti8ed if we lived it
<br /> of the marketplace will bear them and the Food and Agricuituro prga- Utopia However, we lice is a we
<br /> out. It is aso ironic because they nixation of the United Nations), the where there an foodborne disew
<br /> portray the experts as the ones un• Council for Agricultural Science and where alternatives are desired
<br /> vustworthy, even sinistsr. By trying Technology (CAST), the Institute chemical pesticides. and where tb
<br />
|