Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0212.353 1996-1998 ~~~'~~,ti~~ti~~~~ i~l YOUR WALLET AND MINE: WILL WE ALL GET RICH OR WIND UP MIGHTY POOR? About three weeks ago, the ma;ority of the County Council Finance Committee voted to give the Mayor close To a blank check in a bill stating their support of apost-harvest treatment facility plus an up-to-$2 million immediate down payment. They did this after hearing that there was no independent, thorough analysis of what the benefits might be and who would get them or of what the costs might be and who would pay them. Glowing claims that prosperity is just around the irradiation corner, yes: evidence and analysis, no. So, what's to look at here? The County R&D Office hasn't done anything like an analysis of who vvill benefit and how much, and who will pay and how much. They were counting on Isomedix to do this analysis. But when Isomedix made their 3 hour presentation to the County Council's Finance Committee, Isomedix said, in shocked tones, "Mot? Do an analysis? Up to you guys---the growers and the County---to figure out whether you can make this work economically." Among the Great Mysteries in the Mayor's proposal are (1 j estimates of how much of what crops vvill be processed each month of the year, j2j estimates of much time will be used each month of the year for research purposes, j3j estimates of how much time will be used each month of the year for other purposes such as sterilizing medical equipment or killing silverfish in county records jboth recommended by the Mayor and the R&D Department] and (4j estimates of how much down-time there will be. Analysis of mainland irradiation facilities indicate that to keep charges for plant use affordable, the irradiation plants have to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. As use decreases, processing costs increase----and guess who would come before the County Council demanding money from your wallets to subsidize these costs, directly or indirectly? Some additional Great Mysteries are (l j whether any reputable insurance company will issue policies against personal injury, property damage and clean-up in case of accidents for an irradiation facility located in alava-earthquake zones, (2) how much these policies will cost for adequate liability coverage, (3) who will pay for these policies, (4) the extent of County liability- -read your wallet and mine---in case of accidents, (5) County liability for damages to business and industries who may be able to prove an irradiation facility has hurt them, such as the current hot-vapor papaya processing plant, eco-tourism and organic agriculture. jb) whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission vvill approve the plant and who will pay the costs of the EIC and other required studies, and (7) what could be the Big One: the costs of distribution and marketing. For a variety of technical reasons, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "gold standard" tests of food safety could not be conducted. Instead, in 1986 the FDA reviewed about 440 basic and applied research studies, relying in the end on only five. Three of these fve studies have been challenged by reputable scientists. Further since 1986, there are new methodologies and new research, but no impartial, highly respected group such as the National Academy of Science to sort it out. Thus, those who want to make the case that irradiated food is safe, attractive, and nutritious can point to FDA approval, to some of the new research, to some countries such as the Netherlands and South Africa which permit sale of irradiated fruits, to the fact that a food irradiation facility is not a nuclear power plant, and to the endorsement of some prestigious groups such as the American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association. Those who want to make the case that irradiated foods may have long term carcinogenic effects and reduced nutritional value and that even Cobalt 60 plants have had catastrophes can point out the usually required studies were not done, to some of the new research, to some countries such as Japan which do not permit sale of irradiated fruits, to NRC records of past unsafe practices and 1170 [L. DI O. ~ I Z~53 r;,e FND/CI//~~P,,...~ Itc~t 2w Presentedy~MnMi REi. Date. MAY 1 5 ]997 2 accidents, and to the disapproval of some groups such as the American Association of Retired Persons, the AFL-CIO and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The power of consumer groups should not be trivialized. Calling them "economic terrorists" vsll not make it cheaper for the County---read, your wallet and mine---to pay for effective "consumer education" campaigns. Internationally, 70 plus consumer groups are working for a moratorium on irradiated foods until a reliable, affordable method is found to determine which products have been irradiated and which have not. Within the United States, the Food and Water coalition has persuaded such large corporations as McDonalds, Kellogg's and Perdue not to use any irradiated products. Apparently none of the "marketing studies" about which the Finance Committee was told was done under real world conditions of a determined anti-irradiation campaign versus a determined pro- irradiation campaign in an adequate sample of diverse markets. Marcia Reynolds, the County Public Information Officer has stated, "All fruit sold was labeled as 'Treated by the Food and Drug Administration," This may be misleading because Isomedix, not Food and Drug treated the fruit, but possibly in non-compliance with the law. The U.S. Department of Agriculture requires that irradiated fruits be labeled individually with the radura (a seal indicate irradiation) and/or in bins clearly showing the fruit has been irradiated. Adequate written technical information on these marketing tests is still lacking, however. The $2 million for the food irradiation facility could be the economic good deal for Hawaii County--- read your wallet and mine--that its advocates have proclaimed IF 100%throughput could be achieved without any additional direct and indirect subsidies, IF adequate liability insurance is obtainable and cheap, IF there were no accidents, losses or damages incurring County liability, IF the other fruit-producing nations don't take advantage of our paying the costs of advertising and then undercut us in price, knocking out our markets, IF consumer acceptance is quickly very high and/or marketing to low-resistance sectors can create all the money growers and nursery people could carry to the bank, IF enough money stays in Hawaii County instead of reaching Zurich the next day to have multiplier effects on the economy, IF a lot more land goes into agriculture and gets taxed at higher rates than it presently is, IF the possible increases in revenues from personal and business income taxes and from increased GTE taxes come to pass and the County collects these vigorously, IF having our own irradiation facilities speed up agricultural research in ways giving Hawaii products a durable competitive advantage---and quite a few other Ifs. The irradiation facility has been supported, however, by some knowledgeable people, and serious proposals to achieve responsible, effective economic improvement should be seriously considered. However, the food irradiation facility could be the Hawaii equivalent of the infamous Washington State Public Power Supply bonds ("WHOOPS"~ IF through human error, bad luck and equipment failure, the Cobalt 60 rods got stuck in the up position out of the shielding pool of water at the same time that an earthquake cracked or destroyed the reinforced walls; IF the "consumer education" campaign costs are high (for example, $10 million buys about 13 weeks of 60-second spots on one relatively inexpensive TV channel; IF this campaign not only failed to make people prefer irradiated products but tainted all Hawaii fruits as suspect; IF other fruit-producing countries sold their irradiated products at much lower costs than ours once we opened the markets; IF farmers encouraged to buy agricultural land and plant trees went bust in about five to ten years and we had to pay direct and indirect costs of another Hamakua Sugar Plantation crisis for workers and growers; IF the county had to subsidize throughput for a long time directly and indirectly, IF opportunity costs were high for failing to invest in research on non-irradiated post-harvest treatments or in lower risk, higher benefit approaches to diversified, sustainable agriculture---and a quite a few other Ifs. Selling County bonds creates an economic debt which must be paid whether or not the facility ever operates or proves profitable. Defaulting on bonds leads to higher future borrowing rates for the County. 3 Prudent decision-making would set up a panel of three knowledgeable persons who support irradiation and three who oppose it to draff the specifications for a full, comprehensive, objective, independent cost/benefits analysis, including monetary and non-monetary, more quantifiable and less quantifiable costs and benefits. This request for proposals would go to a qualified bidders list also identified by the panelists. The analysis would be conducted under the watchful eyes of the County Department of R&D and the panel, to help assure the report would be credible, impartial, and technically adequate. Such a study probably would cost between $50,000 and $75,000 and take about six months. For somewhat more time and money, the analysis could examine a variety of post-harvest treatment approaches. A study done unilaterally by the County Department of R&D and or by anyone who stood to benefit from a decision to go or not go with the irradiator is not likely to take us much further than we are now, due to lack of the appearance of impartiality and objectivity. The Bill as amended by the full Council may include provisions for a full costs/benefits analysis, for Council approval of any specific contracts and for locating the facility on lands other than Hawaiian Home Lands or ceded lands. These, plus a detailed business plan, could go a long way toward a fiscally responsible decision. We don't need another WHOOPS here. Lois-ellin Datta is a former director of the U.S. General Accounting Offce in the area of human services evaluation. She has consulted on evaluation with organizations including the World Bank, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, and the National Cancer Institute.