Irradiated Beef

[g.johnson]

Just had another look at the Organic Consumers Associaton site. The scientific literature they quote is old – mostly from the 60s and I couldn’t see anything later than 1982. A lot of work must have been published more recently, but since they don’t quote it, I conclude that it shows that irradiation is safe.

[msp]

While Science in the Public Interest has done some worthwhile campaigning for matters of public health, they tend toward radical overstatement in order to make their point.

[=Mark]

Here is just one link to read further:

http://www.all-organic-food.com/irradiat.htm

Though I think there are legitimate concerns about irradiated food, that website is full of hysterical exagerration, half truths and unsubstantiated allegations. Sorry.

But you have to love the comment posted there about metallic molecules being turned into "tiny atomic bombs."

[Rail Paul]

I stopped by the West Caldwell S-R to check out the irradiated meat on Friday evening.

I was surprised that the 80/20 and 93/7 burger was just loaded into the meat section, no special labeling, only blue and silver packaging. Other than a small Surebeam yellow divider, nothing distinguished the products.

In contrast, at Wegmans, the irradiated meat has its own safety message ("this is better") and a message that the safe beam kills bacteria to supplement the already high standards a[[lied to all Wegmans food.

I'll grill the burgers over the weekend (rare) and report back if I survive.

[tommy]

I'll grill the burgers over the weekend (rare) and report back if I survive.

cool. let us know either way.

[macrosan]

It's interesting how the battle lines drawn over irradiated foods mirror the battle lines drawn over genetically modified food materials

Why is that interesting ? It's pretty self-evident that the same consumers will be interested in both issues, the same untrustworthy corporate PR people will be employed to argue with them. The "battle lines" therefore are bound to be virtually identical. That's interesting ?

I don't know the science well enough. My instinct says that the companies selling the product doesn't know the science well enough. Just as with GM food, my solution is not to use the product on the basis that "natural" (wherever I can find that) is more likely to be safer.

Incidentally, if anything ever proved the presence of PR people running these campaigns, it lies in that Walt Disney image creation of the irradiated food logo, designed to suggest "goodness" and "naturalness" with its green color and "homely" shapes. Surely no-one will deny that this is a deliberate attempt to deceive, and demonstrates the serious lack of self-confidence and ethics of the organizations promoting the product.

[Rail Paul]

I don't know the science well enough. My instinct says that the companies selling the product doesn't know the science well enough. Just as with GM food, my solution is not to use the product on the basis that "natural" (wherever I can find that) is more likely to be safer.

Although you raise several important points, I'd like to focus on just one. It's very clear the issue of genetically modified grain is so important to some governments that they would prefer to let their own people starve rather than accept it as donations.

Having scientific conclusions that everyone will accept is well into the future. People live (and die) in the present. Waiting twenty years isn't going to work when people are starving today.

That speaks volumes about morality, as far as I can tell.

It's the same issue with irradiated beef. I'd suspect my tiny risk of contracting e-coli exceeds the even smaller risk of biological damage from the radura. I have the choice to eat or not eat the beef, people in Zimbabwe do not. They get to die of starvation as their government refuses donations of GEM grain.

[macrosan]

Rail Paul, we've had this debate before It's not an issue of morality, it's an issue of science. You can't simply say that expediency justifies anything.

I'm no supporter of the Zimbabwean regime, but everyone knows they won't accept GM grain, because they will then lose their European market. Everyone also knows that the US government could easily, if it so chose, offer the "starving Zimbabweans" non-GM grain, but the US government, driven by the GM (Monsanto) Lobby, refuses to do that. So the US government, acting on behalf of Monsanto et al, is not being remotely altruistic. It is callously using hunger in Africa to drive GM food into their crop chain. Once the Africans do that, there is no way back for them. African agriculture will have been effectively colonised by American commercial interests as they once were by commercial European interests 100 plus years ago. So where is the morality in all this ?

It seems to me that you're effectively saying that it is proper for me to have sreious doubts about the safety of GM and irradiated food, but poor Africans are not allowed the luxury of doubt.

[Rail Paul]

I'll grill the burgers over the weekend (rare) and report back if I survive.

cool. let us know either way.

Grilled them tonight. Rare, and very delicious. At E plus 90 minutes, I'm still vertical. Dee turned off the lights and I didn't not appear to be glowing any more than usual.

Next report at 10 am ET...

[Rail Paul]

Rail Paul, we've had this debate before    It's not an issue of morality, it's an issue of science. You can't simply say that expediency justifies anything.

......

It seems to me that you're effectively saying that it is proper for me to have sreious doubts about the safety of GM and irradiated food, but poor Africans are not allowed the luxury of doubt.

macrosan -

It's clear you and I hold diametrically opposed views on this. I respect your interest in not accepting yet unproven science. That's reasonable.

However, I'm surprised that you have taken the position that allowing one's own population to starve on a principle is an acceptable governmental stance. I find that position unacceptable, but you certainly have a right to it.

But, rather than argue over positions which neither of us will likely change, I've chosen to make an extra contribution to Americares effort to feed and medicate starving people in Ethiopia, Malawi, and Zimbabwe. If you feel strongly about the issue of hunger, you may consider a gift to a UK charity which respects your views in the conquest of hunger. I'm sure starving people will apreciate that gift more than our spewing electrons...

Americares

Paul

[macrosan]

I'm surprised that you have taken the position that allowing one's own population to starve on a principle is an acceptable governmental stance.

Just to be clear that I do not believe this is an issue of principle, it's an issue of pure pragmatism, which is that if Zimbabwe accepts GM grain (for planting) then they will have destroyed their European market, and will remain in thrall to the Monsanto's for ever. So accepting that grain might well lead to more hunger and death than will be caused by their famine today.

I am sure your charitable gesture is well-intentioned, but I truly do not need your advice on my own charitable giving, nor do I believe that proper and conclusive debate is any less impoprtant to hungry people around the world than the giving of food.

[Rail Paul]

Next report at 10 am ET...

Still alive, feeling fine...

[Rail Paul]

So accepting that grain might well lead to more hunger and death than will be caused by their famine today.

I find that an awful alternative, but you're welcome to endorse it.

It's similar to that held by many people who opposed the so called "Green Revolution" which brought high yield rice to Asia in the late 1950s and 1960s. Same arguments about risky and untried science, tinkering with nature, God's will, export market concerns, etc. We'll know in another few years whether history repeats, I'm sure.

(Thanks for giving me the benefit of being well intentioned, by the way.)

[Rail Paul]

I noticed the irradiated beef is no longer offered in West Caldwell Shop-Rite. It is available on special order. The butcher said there wasn't much of a demand for it, and they didn't re-order after a few weeks of testing it. He didn't say, and I didn't ask, anything about protests.

Shop-Rite didn't do any advertising, other than a single blurb in the circular. The meat was on a high shelf in the display case. That's unlike Wegman's which had shelf talkers, a special section, and sample recipes. The Bridgewater Wegmans still has a nice, and fairly large selection of SureBeam beef.

I thought I saw a note that Giant-Eagle is introducing SureBeam products in additional Pittsburgh and Eastern Ohio stores.