>Methods of food production, processing and distribution that increase the
>distance between the producer and the consumer, either physically or
>spiritually, can hardly contribute to sustainability or strengthen the bond
>between ourselves and our planet. I believe this argument alone is enough
>to put irradiation into the undesirable technology catagory.
>Jeff Gold
>Maple Hill Farm
How does irradiation then differ from freezing (frozen orange juice which
becomes a "commodity"), canning (similar argument) or other preservation
techniques? At least at one level, they all allow a product to be stored
for longer (extend storage life), which has good (you can have a wider
variety of food in the winter, for example), as well as not so good {the
above arguments about distance between source and consumer suggest
difficulties with various justice issues (being unaware, one can hardly
influence social justice), movement of nutrients (from land to the sewer,
which may eutrophy lakes, for example), toxics (organic pesticides), plus
the excess cost required for transport...} results.
It seems we should be asking questions not just about new
technologies, but about existing ones as well. It appears that it is
possible to prevent new technologies or at least hold them at bay for a bit.
What about moving toward more sustainable use of the ones we have? Any
suggestions?
Thanks.
Steve Hall
*********************************************
Steven G. Hall, P.E.
Natural Resource Engineer
Biological Systems Control Engineer
Sustainable Agriculturalist
Local and Global Ecological Engineer
Experiential, Environmental and Outdoor Educator
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, ABEN
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
telephone:(607)256-5408 fax: (607)255-4080
e-mail: sgh1@cornell.edu
web site: http://caep.aben.cornell.edu/sghhome.htm
********************************************