[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Zapping Meat!
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:04:12 +0600 Bill and Suzanne Duesing
<bduesing@snet.net> writes:
>Living on the Earth, October 24, 1997: Zapping Meat!
>
>Therešs been a lot of talk lately about the use of radiation as a
>treatment for the serious contamination problems that plague Americašs
>
>beef industry. Meat has become so dangerous that the only cure seems
>to be to irradiate it - that is to zap it with ionizing radiation.
>Proponents in government and industry argue that applying yet another
>dangerous and life-threatening technology to our factory meat
>production system will keep us healthier. I say HOGWASH!
>
>The purpose of the radiation is to kill the dangerous organisms which
>are in the beef when it leaves the processing factory. This is like
>taking lots of aspirin after a night of heavy drinking in order to be
>able to drink again the next night. Irradiating meat is a band-aid
>fix that doesnšt begin to touch the real problems.
>
>Since there are dozens of reasons why it isnšt good for our health, or
>
>for the planetšs, to nuke our meat or to eat the contaminated products
>
>of this factory system, we need to raise and process animals
>differently if we are going to eat meat.
>
You then went on for many paragraphs explaining the problems with
"factory meat production". What I failed to see (and I could have missed
it) was any explanation of why irradiation is bad.
Now I agree that confinement feeding (including the feeding of animal
by-products) to produce meat is not the best way to do so. And that is
putting it quite mildly. I also agree with much of your objections to
current meat processing methods.
Where I am confused is that I have heard some convincing arguments
against pasture raised meat animals. Convincing to the uninformed until
you dig a little. But many of these arguments start off with the same
initial stand against irradiation. They then switch to arguing against
the meat production and processing methods instead of sticking to the
subject they started with; stating that irradiation is bad. Neither side
has yet to produce one valid reason why irradiation is not acceptable.
The only reasons given have been the usual scare tactics screaming
about all of the ill effects of ionizing radiation. Many even attempt
to imply (or even say outright) that anyone consuming products which have
been irradiated will themselves be harmed by the ionizing radiation as
if it remained in the products after treatment.
Can you please explain how irradiation is harmful or dangerous to the
consumer? Let's not discuss accidental radiation leaks from the
treatment plant itself to any surrounding area. Proper operation of the
plant will prevent that just as the proper operation of normal slaughter
facilities will prevent cross contamination, or self contamination of
carcasses being processed.
--Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--
DAN.WORLEY@JUNO.COM or
dan_worley@compuserve.com
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".