The investigation uncovered that "Instead of analyzing whether irradiated foods are safe, wholesome and nutritious, the WHO, IAEA and FAO by the end of the 1980s had shifted almost completely to studying how they could persuade more countries to legalize irradiated food, more corporations to sell it, and more people around the world to eat it. Attention turned to information control and how to make those responsible for shaping pubic opinion " health authorities, government agriculture, commerce and consumer affairs officials, food industry executives, food retailers, caterers, education broadcast channels and consumers " repeat positive messages about irradiation in order to put the public at ease and even develop friendly feelings about the technology. [26]
Given the WHO's focus on public relations efforts, it shouldn't be too surprising then to hear the ubiquitous food poison lawyer Bill Marler spout the same message when he addressed Congress on the subject of food safety. Marler testified that "the nation requires education about the benefits of irradiation of all mass-produced food including produce. Resistance to this practice seems to be rooted in public perception, not science. [27] Actually, it's the other way around: Resistance to the practice is rooted in science, and public perception is being manipulated by vested interested and their useful proxies.
The Center for Food Safety, however, recognizes how irradiation can be used as an economic weapon, describing to us how it contributes to consolidation of the agriculture industry and the globalization of food.
Demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the issue, The Center for Food Safety explains that "American food processing companies see the use of irradiation as a potential means of boosting profits. In fact, the motivation for expanding irradiation to additional categories of food may be less about getting rid of disease-causing organisms, and more about increasing market share in international trade. Irradiation can dramatically increase the shelf life of food. This gives corporations more flexibility in marketing and transportation, making it easier for large companies to move some operations to countries with lower labor costs and lower sanitary and safety standards. As in many other "outsourced" industries, American workers, farmers and ranchers, could lose their jobs. In other words, food irradiation supports globalization at its worst, where concerns over long-term health risks carry less weight than the lure of expanded markets. Additionally, since irradiation has become a tool for the globalization of U.S. food production, food irradiation procedures are modeled for large, centralized operations. This furthers the consolidation of "Big Ag" companies and contributes to the destruction of small U.S. family farms-- further degrading the security and diversity of our food supply. [28]
What Does Prevention Really Require?
FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in her recent statement to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that one of the key questions to ask about the food safety legislation is "Does the legislation refocus the system to place greater emphasis on prevention? [29]
The answer to her question is no. The legislation before the Senate does not refocus the system to place greater emphasis on prevention. If it did, we would be addressing the source of pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 and that issue has been assiduously avoided by Taylor's legislation.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
