I don't see where motorcycle helmet laws are even roughly equivalent to
mandatory irradiation of foods.
The E-coli problem in meats is an outcome of raising beef in feedlots and
feeding them the by-products of grain processing. These concentrates give
the animals they are fed to the equivalent of chronic diarhea and in time
the most virulent coliforms result. These virulent strains of E-coli
perhaps COULD occur in the digestive tracts of pasture raised animals, but
the fact is there is no evidence that they do. With feedlot (confinement)
beef there IS the likelihood of virulent coliforms multiplying in the
digestive tracts of the cattle and potentially infecting every animal in
the feedlot since they are constantly wading in their excrement. Any sort
of wound or breach of their skin and you then have virulent coliforms in
the flesh. Moreover, if you've ever worked in a slaughter house you know
that the animals come in covered in excrement and despite skilled removal
of the hides contamination of the outside of the carcass with manure from
the hide inevitably occurs occasionally. This isn't too much of a problem
with the steaks since even a rare steak is cooked on the outside where the
contamination occurs. But for hamburger the outside of the carcass is
ground up and mixed along with everything else. So much for eating juicy,
pink-on-the-inside chopped sirloin steaks at your favorite steakhouse--or
for that matter the same goes for fixing them at home. With commercial
hamburger the rule any more is cook it to a frazzle to kill the coliforms
because there is a fair chance of getting seriously ill or dying otherwise.
If you are fortunate enough (as I am) to raise your own beef on pasture and
hay and take it to a small, clean, local packing house (as I do) then you
still may enjoy the luxury of juicy hamburgers.
Is mandatory food irradiation the answer to making commercial hamburger
coliform free? First, it isn't necessary. One only need cook one's
hamburgers and meat loafs, etc. well done to avoid risk. The answer ought
to be phasing out animal confinement operations since these pollutive
eyesores (and nosesores), while being the darlings of the grain processors,
are the worst and most unecological things going on in agriculture. And
even disregarding soil errosion and chemical abuses associated with grain
farming, or the air and water quality issues of animal confinement, as for
the quality of life of the animals or the quality of food on the tables of
consumers animal confinement operations are the pits there too.
As for the reasons advanced for mandatory irradiation, the real bottom line
is the meat processors could then fill their warehouses when there is a
drought in Texas and beef has to either be slaughtered or starve--so the
price is 7 cents a pound on the hoof. Irradiated it would last long enough
to be sold when beef prices soar because of the resulting shortage after
all the cows in Texas are slaughtered and beef raisers are trying to
rebuild herds. What a great way to make a killing, and a little judicious
lobbying and contributions to some political campaigns is easily affordable
by comparison to the potential profits. So the food safety issue is rather
a good sales approach but it isn't the compelling reason behind lobbying
efforts. If we wanted safe food, we really should raise beef on grass and
hay like nature has for untold thousands of years.
As for the safety of irradiated foods, what happens when ionizing radiation
sterilizes food is that high energy (primarily gamma) particles bombard the
chemical bonds in the food, breaking and changing the molecular structures
at virtually random places. The result is what is called "unique radiolytic
by-products" or in other words a potpouri of unusual chemicals that our
bodies have little experience with and that we don't even have methods of
chemical analysis to fully identify. So it is quite true that we don't know
what the health consequences may be of eating irradiated foods. However, it
wouldn't be good science to assume that there would be no consequences or
even that there would be no adverse consequences. Almost certainly there
would be adverse consequences, but there is virtually no way of predicting
what they might be or how serious they might be. They might be quite
serious indeed. As you point out we can be pretty sure of what will happen
when an unprotected skull hits the road surface (or anything else) at 60
mph, but what our peril might be from eating irradiated beef is anyone's
guess. Does that make it advisable for government to mandate irradiation of
beef and turn the population into guinea pigs so we find out what
consequences can be expected? Hardly. And we certainly needn't pass such
measures so the grain processors, feedlots and slaughter operations can
increase their already bloated profits. Much better if we all just cook our
hamburgers well done.
Regards,
Hugh Lovel
*****
Hugh Lovel
8475 Dockery Road
Blairsville, Georgia 30512
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail