henry (03/27/83)
Jan Wolitzky observes: ".....................................................one may ask whether it is reasonable for consumers to accept the addition of substances to their food that produce no positive effect for them, but are there simply to increase the profit of the producer...." Try putting this another way: one may ask whether it is reasonable for consumers to accept the addition of substances to their food that produce no positive effect for them except lower prices and better availability. It really is true that providing the same foods at the same outlets, without preservatives, would cost more. Making food last longer before it spoils simplifies processing and distribution and minimizes the percentage that has to be chucked because it spoils. All of this translates into lower costs and wider availability. It's nonsensical to say that it means higher profits for the producers, because those folks set the prices, remember? The prices will be set to give them their percentage, regardless of cost changes. If they want more money, they don't NEED to find some deplorable way to reduce costs -- they simply raise the price. I just wish people who flame about the big, bad corporations would learn a bit about economics first. Food additives are not a sinister plot aimed at giving Our Secret Rulers more money -- they are there because people like you and I demand cheap food, in wide variety, at every store. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch: if we want food without preservatives, we will have to accept that it either costs more or is harder to get. Or both. Because it does make life harder for the suppliers, and they won't stay in business unless they keep their profit margins high enough to satisfy their stock- holders. That's just the way the world works. Personally, I would be willing to pay a modest premium for largely preservative-free food. And I think truth-in-labelling laws ought to be extended to require restaurants to state whether they treat their food with preservatives. But I'm not under the illusion that food additives are a Horrible Plot of the Dirty Capitalist Robber Barons, because it just isn't so. Henry Spencer U of Toronto
davidson (04/06/83)
As I understand it, the technique of sterilizing packaged food with radiation makes most chemical preservatives unnecessarily (as well as making refrigeration unnecessary). Unfortunately, the FDA views such sterilization as being an additive, and requires that it be proved safe. Since it is unpatentable, there has been no manufacturer willing to put up the costs of proving it safe. The military made an attempt to do so, but the laboratory they contracted the tests to botched them. Does anyone know more about the limits or legalization progress of this technique? -Greg