phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/13/85)
I understand that preliminary tests are being done on the use of
radiation to sterilize food. The food is exposed to a source of
radiation which breaks up complex molecules such as proteins and
nucleic acids, killing germs and other living agents which cause food
to spoil. Afterwards, the food is not radioactive and is supposed to
be edible. My question is, are the results of breaking large molecules
at random places likely to be completely innocuous? I guess the final
answer will come from testing, but there's a fundamental difference
between testing this form of food preservation and testing substances
like Nutrasweet. You can provide large (100X) doses of Nutrasweet to
accelerate the test. 100X doses of food are not likely to provide the
desired results.
Anyway, would those more familiar with the subject care to comment?
--
The California Lottery may be a tax on the stupid, but at least
some of the proceeds are used for education.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comrpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock) (11/15/85)
Phil Ngai <phil@amdcad.uucp> writes: +--------------- | I understand that preliminary tests are being done on the use of | radiation to sterilize food. The food is exposed to a source of | radiation... Afterwards, the food is not radioactive and is supposed to | be edible. My question is, are the results of breaking large molecules | at random places likely to be completely innocuous?... +--------------- Actually, as I understand it, the technique is *old*, as such things go. It was first tried by the U.S. miltitary some 20 years ago(?), with great success. The idea was to have a cheap way to store large quantities of "normal" (not frozen or dehydrated) foods, for the usual military and civil-defense reasons. They use only ionizing radiation, such as gamma or electron-beam, not neutrons or alphas, thus no secondary radiation is even possible. From newspaper reports at the time (I mean, really *years* ago), the processed food looked, smelled, and tasted just like what went in, with one difference -- you could leave it on the shelf at room temperature for decades and it wouldn't spoil (if the package were intact). Of course, some people prefer to chill such things as milk just before consuming them, but I saw a picture of a guy drinking a carton of warm milk that had been on the shelf for a couple of years. (Yecchh! ;-} ) The machines to do it aren't (weren't?) particularly cheap, since they have to have large heavily shielded areas (much like cancer-therapy treatment rooms), and no one seems to have taken on the task of making them cheap (i.e., in volume). Freeze drying since became popular among campers, etc., so irradiation didn't catch on in the general public (which is to say, with those who MARKET to the general public). This seems to be changing recently. I don't know the social or economic driving functions. I think the new E-beam machines may be cheaper. I do know that in the years since the technique was first tried, our general cultural paranoia of anything with the word "radiation" in it has added a new cost element to the process -- the necessity to educate the public at each and every proposed processing plant site that such irradiators are NOT in any way related to nuclear weapons, power plants, or waste sites, and are NOT going to poison them and destroy the local environment! Hmmm... there is one point of commonality: Since some versions of food irradiators DID contain lethal quantities of radioactive substances inside their lead shields (such as Co-60), you have the usual problems of transportation (while building the plant), disposal (tearing it down), and security (don't want some terrorist stealing this 20-tonne gamma source and driving down the street pointing it at people! ;-} ). But the articles I've been reading lately imply that the cost-effective versions will probably employ electron-beam techniques, which have NO transportation hazards. (ANYTHING has a terrorist hazard, but I dare say you could steal some ion-implant machines fromm Silicon Valley, tear them open, and point them at people as easily as you could do anything with modern E-beam food processors. Heard anybody in the Valley screaming about "radiation" in the semicon plants?... Oops! Me and my big mouth! ;-} ) As far as long-reaching effects from the molecular disruption, I have no new info. They certainly weren't as sensitive to those issues back when the technique was first developed. The main (intended) disruption was to the enzymes that cause decomposition of other proteins, and only secondarily the sterilization.( You can kill bacteria with other techniques, but the natural catabolic enzymes continue to tear down the food.) As with any other risk assessment, one has to look that whether the one-time damage to the food due to the irradiation is better or worse than the continued damage caused by the slow spoilage of the food inherent in other techniques. Such slow spoilage or rancidity has itself been implicated in cancer-promoting mechanisms. Ideally, one should eat fresh foods. But if one HAS to eat preserved or stored foods, I would prefer not to eat nitrites and other chemical preservatives, or food which is on its way to being rancid. Thus it may be that proper irradiation techniques may have a valid, useful place in the world, ESPECIALLY for foods intended for emergency or disaster relief use. Certainly the safety studies should be done, but the results should be compared with the available alternatives, and not judged by an overly-idealistic absolute standard. Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (11/18/85)
> I understand that preliminary tests are being done on the use of > radiation to sterilize food. No - it has been used on spices and pork for years. The food is exposed to a source of > radiation which breaks up complex molecules such as proteins and > nucleic acids, killing germs and other living agents which cause food > to spoil. Afterwards, the food is not radioactive and is supposed to > be edible. My question is, are the results of breaking large molecules > at random places likely to be completely innocuous? > Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 I don't believe that is how it works. It is not supposed to alter the chemical structure. Supposedly there is a difference but it is so small that it is barely detectable with our most sensitive measuring methods. I would be interested in reading more about this on the net because it is a very emotional issue here in Santa Cruz. Some people claim that it would reduce food spoilage in the world and be a great benefit to humankind, and others say that it would posion everyone. Most of the claims on either side are presented in a non-technical fashion and I would love more information. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (11/18/85)
> I understand that preliminary tests are being done on the use of > radiation to sterilize food. . . > . . . My question is, are the results of breaking large molecules > at random places likely to be completely innocuous? I guess the final > > Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 > UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil > ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com There's been research underway on this for some time (I remember hearing about it in the 60s). I've no idea whether it's safe (not being gifted with superhuman intelligence), but it's worth noting that food has been preserved and chemically altered by exposure to NON-ionizing radiation for a long time --- we call it cooking.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/19/85)
In article <560@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: >> I understand that preliminary tests are being done on the use of >> radiation to sterilize food. > No - it has been used on spices and pork for years. This is interesting. Does this mean pork marketed in the US, or only some butchered here and shipped overseas, or is this taking place in other countries only? And what sort of pork products? As for spices, this is something I never thought of before, but it sounds eminently sensible -- spices need sterilizing to kill off pests and infestations, but can't be heated or dampened, in many cases. So does this apply to spices from certain areas, or what? And are some brands or marketing channels of spices selling irradiated varieties, and others not? (For example, would bulk spice xyz be irradiated, but the stuff sold in little bottles (and priced 10000% higher) not be irradiated, or vice versa?) Any details you could provide, or pointers to sources of info, would be appreciated. Regards, Will PS to "net.cooks" readers -- this host has just eliminated access to many "non-technical" groups, so I cannot participate in net.cooks any more. I don't know if the software will let me post to it or not. If this does get on that group, is there someone there who would be willing to batch the net.cooks postings for each week or couple of weeks and send them to me as one mail message? If so, please drop me a line! Thanks! Will Martin UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (11/21/85)
In article <225@redwood.UUCP> rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock) writes: [referring to radiation used for food sterilisation] >[...] They use only ionizing radiation, such as gamma >or electron-beam, not neutrons or alphas, thus no secondary radiation >is even possible. Huh? Surely you got that one the wrong way about: it's neutrons and (especially) alphas that are heavily ionizing, isn't it? Sorry to nitpick, but I hope I haven't misremembered all that school physics... Kay. -- "Be careful: the system is complex and chaotic, though it has many attractive features..." _The Pot-holes of the Yorkshire Moors_ ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!flame!kay
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (11/22/85)
> Phil Ngai <phil@amdcad.uucp> writes: >+--------------- >| I understand that preliminary tests are being done on the use of >| radiation to sterilize food. The food is exposed to a source of >| radiation ... My question is, are the results of breaking large >| molecules at random places likely to be completely innocuous?... > +--------------- > > This seems to be changing recently. I don't know the social or economic > driving functions. I think the new E-beam machines may be cheaper. I do > know that in the years since the technique was first tried, our general > cultural paranoia of anything with the word "radiation" in it has added > a new cost element to the process -- the necessity to educate the public > at each and every proposed processing plant site that such irradiators > are NOT in any way related to nuclear weapons, power plants, or waste sites, > and are NOT going to poison them and destroy the local environment! > On a local (VERY liberal) radio program there was a discussion of the food irradiating industry. It was strongly biased against, so the info presented may be of questionable quality, but for what it is worth here is their side... (I don't have my own position on this so I need to borrow someone elses ... :-) They didn't mention E-beam machines. They did spend a great deal of time discussing the use of Cesium-mumble and Cobalt-mumble isotopes. The assertion was that this was a way to utilize nuclear waste from the electric and bomb industries, thus reducing the need to store/dispose of said waste and justifying the creation of it. They also pointed out that the quantity of isotope used was an order of magnitude or so greater than at your local hospital. (And supposedly, therefore, not 'reasonable' for comparison). > Hmmm... there is one point of commonality: Since some versions of food > irradiators DID contain lethal quantities of radioactive substances > inside their lead shields (such as Co-60), you have the usual problems > of transportation (while building the plant), disposal (tearing it down), > and security (don't want some terrorist stealing this 20-tonne gamma source > and driving down the street pointing it at people! ;-} ). But the articles > I've been reading lately imply that the cost-effective versions will probably > employ electron-beam techniques, which have NO transportation hazards. > Or, as happened in Mexico, melting it down for scrap and distributing the resultant *TONNES* of radioactive steel all over Mexico and the Southwest of the U.S. (Yes, this really did happen and they still haven't found it all). The radioactive pellets are small and not that massive. > As far as long-reaching effects from the molecular disruption, I have > no new info. They certainly weren't as sensitive to those issues back > when the technique was first developed. The main (intended) disruption > was to the enzymes that cause decomposition of other proteins, and only > secondarily the sterilization.( You can kill bacteria with other techniques, > but the natural catabolic enzymes continue to tear down the food.) > An interesting point was made that the FDA was trying to pass a ruling that exempted them from the need to show that the process was safe, therefor letting them off of the liability and testing hook. Don't know if this was really true. There were, of course, claims that testing had been done showing birth problems and such in animals fed on iradiated foods .. I can't help but think that psuedoRANDOM breakdown products of something as complex as living tissue is bound to have some real nasty stuff in it. (Personal conjecture, though it was also a thought expressed later in the talk show...) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/22/85)
> > Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 queries: > > I understand that preliminary tests are being done on the use of > > radiation to sterilize food. . . > > . . . My question is, are the results of breaking large molecules > > at random places likely to be completely innocuous? I guess the final > > > > UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil > > ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com > > There's been research underway on this for some time (I remember hearing > about it in the 60s). I've no idea whether it's safe (not being gifted > with superhuman intelligence), but it's worth noting that food has been > preserved and chemically altered by exposure to NON-ionizing radiation > for a long time --- we call it cooking. Quantum and random modification of gene structures of molecules will be made during the initial ionizing radiation sterilization process. For example, after ingestion, a quantum modified molecule or fragment may be recognized as a clock command which might signal premature cell division, thereby triggering the onset of a common disease of cancer. Cooking and later chemical processing in the stomach will grossly modify the food genetic molecules to the point where they won't be accidentally recognized (accepted) as functional by some random cell. We now know that high temperature cooking or the recondensation of fat dripped onto the glowing charcoals back onto the grilled meat at the family barbecue has resulted in cancer of the alimentary tract. So there will be danger in eating radiation sterilized food and my guess is that uncooked sterilized food is more carcinogenic than the (post) cooked variety. I'm pretty sure it will be very beneficial, however, in saving the lives of victims of catastrophe such as the famine in Africa and the mud drownings in Columbia. This is because of its ability to maintain itself as stable, for weeks or even months without refri- geration. That will be a tough one to prove. I certainly would chance it under those conditions. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
rmrin@inuxa.UUCP (D Rickert) (11/22/85)
> Phil Ngai <phil@amdcad.uucp> writes: > +--------------- > | I understand that preliminary tests are being done on the use of > | radiation to sterilize food. The food is exposed to a source of > | radiation... Afterwards, the food is not radioactive and is supposed to > | be edible. My question is, are the results of breaking large molecules > | at random places likely to be completely innocuous?... > +--------------- > > Actually, as I understand it, the technique is *old*, as such things go. > > It was first tried by the U.S. miltitary some 20 years ago(?), with great > success. The idea was to have a cheap way to store large quantities of > "normal" (not frozen or dehydrated) foods, for the usual military and > civil-defense reasons. They use only ionizing radiation, such as gamma > or electron-beam, not neutrons or alphas, thus no secondary radiation > is even possible. From newspaper reports at the time (I mean, really > *years* ago), the processed food looked, smelled, and tasted just like > what went in,... The taste was the problem, some of it didn't taste the same after treatment. -- You are Beautiful, Dick Rickert my manufactured love;- AT&T CPL but it is only Svengali, Indy, IN talking to himself again. Reward is its own virtue!
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (11/26/85)
About a year ago a local liberal muckraking weekly
(the Bay Guardian) did a feature on food irradiation.
Their arguments against make sense to me:
(1) The massive doses of radiation involved cause chemical
changes in molecules in the food, thus, may be creating
toxins / carcinogens.
(2) The only controlled study on the health effects of
irradiated food (on children in India) did in fact find
that health problems resulted.
(3) Plans are to not label food so treated.
(4) Plans involve transporting highly radioactive material --
lots of it -- into food processing plants. Contamination
of the food, and leaks into the environment, are certain
to occur, given the lousy safety record of the nuclear
industry (please, no flames from you nuclear types out there).
(5) The whole motivation is to justify the creation of lots
of nuclear waste by utilizing it in this fashion.
(6) The Feds claim that the procedure is safe and no
studies to prove this are needed before unleashing this
on the public. The Feds have been wrong before.
(7) Very little economic benefit to the public results.
I haven't heard any arguments in favor that weigh
very strongly at all.
The procedure is already used in some cases for garlic
and potatoes, among others. (I suspect the oversized baking
spuds you can mail-order from Idaho.) Again, marketers
don't have to mention that your food has been irradiated.
(If the potatoes sprout on you they're probably O.K.)
I am unaware as to how close the food irradiators are
to implementing their idiot scheme.
I welcome hearing further arguments / opinions.
steve popedgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (11/27/85)
In article <11084@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) writes: > > About a year ago a local liberal muckraking weekly >(the Bay Guardian) did a feature on food irradiation. >Their arguments against make sense to me: > >(4) . . . . Contamination >of the food, and leaks into the environment, are certain >to occur, given the lousy safety record of the nuclear >industry (please, no flames from you nuclear types out there). Not being a nuclear type, I guess I can point out that the nuclear industry, while far from perfect, has a rather good safety record. Sure beats the chemical industry. >(5) The whole motivation is to justify the creation of lots >of nuclear waste by utilizing it in this fashion. Considering that we already have a far more than sufficient stock of nuclear waste, this doesn't seem too credible. >(7) Very little economic benefit to the public results. Seems to me that long-term shelf storage without refrigeration could be of considerable economic benefit. And since we live in a market economy, I suspect if it's not of economic benefit it won't be used. You might wonder if the economic benefit will be passed on to the consumer. Since the grocery business is among the most competitive, low-margin businesses going, I would tend to expect so. If you could cut your prices and gut the competition wouldn't you? > I am unaware as to how close the food irradiators are >to implementing their idiot scheme. I'd suggest reading something more than one inflamatory newspaper article before making such a sweeping condemnation. It's possible the people who favor food irradiation are fools and scoundrels. It's also possible they are quite decent, bright folks who are simply mistaken. Heck, they might even be right and the well-meaning folks at the Bay Guardian (wasn't that a roller derby team?) mistaken (though quite innocently and reasonably so, despite the flecks of foam around their lips). The pros and contras of food irradiation have been discussed in the news and letter columns of Science, among other places, and might represent a more balanced view. If I haven't made it clear, let me say that I am not claiming food irradiation is safe (as someone else noted, even cooking can produce carcinogens and toxins). I simply don't know enough to say one way or the other. On the other hand, opponents don't serve their cause well when they resort to name calling and unlikely conspiracy theories. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (12/04/85)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh > The procedure is already used in some cases for garlic > and potatoes, among others. (I suspect the oversized baking > spuds you can mail-order from Idaho.) Again, marketers > don't have to mention that your food has been irradiated. > (If the potatoes sprout on you they're probably O.K.) > I am unaware as to how close the food irradiators are > to implementing their idiot scheme. Irradiated food has been available in most other countries of the world for years. I especially saw a lot of it in Australia. They had many grocery stores in the out-back that didn't have refrigeration. Since they had irradiated products including milk, they didn't need refrigeration. We have irradiated milk available here in Pennsylvania. I assume there must be a lot of products either available or becoming available.
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (12/06/85)
>> I am unaware as to how close the food irradiators are >>to implementing their idiot scheme. > >I'd suggest reading something more than one inflamatory newspaper >article before making such a sweeping condemnation. It's possible the >people who favor food irradiation are fools and scoundrels. It's also >possible they are quite decent, bright folks who are simply mistaken. > >If I haven't made it clear, let me say that I am not claiming food >irradiation is safe (as someone else noted, even cooking can produce >carcinogens and toxins). I simply don't know enough to say one way or >the other. On the other hand, opponents don't serve their cause well >when they resort to name calling and unlikely conspiracy theories. >-- >D Gary Grady To my way of thinking, the fact that (1) the would-be irradiators don't want to own up to the fact by labeling the irradiated food (2) they are trying to pass off irradiation as so safe as to be above scrutiny and (3) they are trying to act anonymously, leaves the irradiators open to name calling. If what they're doing is so good, why don't they act on the up-and-up? Any plan which forces something on consumers, without them asking for it and without informing them, and without even claiming to give them any benefit, qualifies as an idiot scheme in my book. Various people who have heard about the planned mass irradiation, are well informed, and support it for various reasons, have argued in favor of it. But I haven't heard anything from the irradiators themselves in anything resembling a public forum. They're just quietly trying to make a few bucks. Correct me if I'm wrong. A few years ago, during the height of fruit-fly paranoia here in California, food irradiation outfits offered to dose the fruit as an alternative to quarantines. Public disapproval killed the idea, but it does demonstrate how the irradiators are acting opportunistically, trying to take advantage of a situation to gain entry into the industry. Are we supposed to believe, all of a sudden, that the food we're eating is no good because it hasn't been zapped? We're talking about normal everyday food, not survivalist stashes or third-world situations which lack distribution and refrigeration. And these statements that it's O.K. to irradiate food to the point of carcinogenesis, simply because cooking does the same thing, don't convince me of much. I like to cook, I like to eat cooked food, and therefore am willing to weigh the increased risks against these benefits. I see no benefits of comparable value coming from food irradiation. The fact that irradiation is commonplace in many countries is no argument either. Adverse health effects would be very hard to identify since everybody eats food. I apologize for a little name calling. After all, it's us fools who continue to eat who are the real idiots. steve pope
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (12/06/85)
In article <11159@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) writes: > Any plan which forces something on consumers, without them >asking for it and without informing them, and without even claiming >to give them any benefit, qualifies as an idiot scheme in my book. Agreed, most certainly. The alleged benefits of preservation by irradiation have to do with energy savings and consequent cost savings. As I said in my last posting, the grocery business is very competitive and low-margin, and one would assume at least some of the cost savings would be passed on to consumers. In addition, the consumers themselves would have food with long shelf life. I'd certainly consider that a benefit. > A few years ago, during the height of fruit-fly paranoia >here in California, food irradiation outfits offered to >dose the fruit as an alternative to quarantines. Public >disapproval killed the idea, but it does demonstrate how >the irradiators are acting opportunistically, trying to >take advantage of a situation to gain entry into the industry. Suppose they honestly believe the irradiation is safe? Then offering to save a fruit harvest would be a helpful gesture, not an act of insidious conspiracy, what? Seems to me the incident in question reveals nothing either way about the motivations of these folks you're maligning. > And these statements that it's O.K. to irradiate food to >the point of carcinogenesis, simply because cooking does the >same thing, don't convince me of much. Again, grossly distorting the views of those you disagree with is poor tactics; it makes you look unreasonable. The question of the safety of food preservation by irradiation remains open, though from what I've seen the scientific consenus is that it's probably safe for most foods. I'd certainly advocate careful testing before unleashing it. For what it's worth, carcinogens are all over the place, even in "organically" grown fruits and vegetables. That doesn't mean we should just give up and start guzzling red dye #2, smoking clove cigarets (like a certain programmer of my acquaintance), and scarfing up on lard-fried plutonium. It does mean we should recognize that the issues here aren't black and white. > I apologize for a little name calling. After all, it's us >fools who continue to eat who are the real idiots. I always thought we were piggies. Oink, oink. > >steve pope -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
prl@ethz.UUCP (Peter Lamb) (12/07/85)
In article <351@mhuxl.UUCP> smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) writes: >**** **** >From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh >Irradiated food has been available in most other countries of the >world for years. I especially saw a lot of it in Australia. They >had many grocery stores in the out-back that didn't have refrigeration. >Since they had irradiated products including milk, they didn't >need refrigeration. I'm not sure about this - do you mean milk marked UHT? If so, then as far as I know this is not irridated, rather somehow flash pasteurised at a much higher temperature than normal pasteurisation (I believe the UHT stands for `Ultra Heat Treated' or something similar). Certainly if the claims that irridation doesn't affect the taste are true, then UHT milk is _not_ irridated, it tastes very different from ordinary milk. I don't remember ever seeing packaged food in Australia being marked as irridated, but then our packaging laws aren't what they might be..... -- Peter Lamb ({seismo|decvax}!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!prl) Institut fur Informatik ETH-Zentrum 8092 Zurich
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (12/09/85)
Gentle net.physics readers: It seems to me that all this bickering might be stopped if we could be assured that any food which has been treated with radiation (of the X-ray/gamma variety) or which has ingredients which have been treated with the same be clearly marked so on the container or in the ingredients statement. Things like fruit which had been so treated would be required to have stickers declaring so if sold loose (not in a container which had been marked). Then those who do not wish to ingest such would feel safe, while the rest of us could choose as we wish. Maybe even Mr. Pope would agree, as the matter of unwitting ingestion of foods preserved in this manner seems to be the brunt of his objection. So those who care, why not write to Congress or to other appropriate gummint agency? It would do a lot more good than fuming to the net. Who knows, there may already BE such a requirement in the works and you will never know till you check it out. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (12/09/85)
In article <630@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >It seems to me that all this bickering might be stopped if we could be assured >that any food which has been treated with radiation (of the X-ray/gamma >variety) or which has ingredients which have been treated with the same be >clearly marked so on the container or in the ingredients statement. > ... >It would do a lot more good than fuming to the net. Who knows, there >may already BE such a requirement in the works and you will never know till >you check it out. Not under the Reagan Administration there isn't. -- Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (12/17/85)
> In article <351@mhuxl.UUCP> smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) writes: > >**** **** > >From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh > >Irradiated food has been available in most other countries of the > >world for years. I especially saw a lot of it in Australia. They > >had many grocery stores in the out-back that didn't have refrigeration. > >Since they had irradiated products including milk, they didn't > >need refrigeration. I heard that the U.S., or at least part of California, is going to sell food in supermarkets marked as " PICO WAVED ". Does that mean it is Irradiated food put under a nondescript name to not scare or inform the general public?