Irradiating Hawaii' fruit--This is long but very informative as to how irradiation lobby misinforms public as a means to an end.Also shows how for the time being Colby of Food and Water is an unwitting ally.
Bill 62 - Irradiating Hawaii's Fruit
Introduction
Commentary by Hawaii Island doctors opposed to Bill 62
Mission of the Coalition Against Irradiation
Food Irradiation: What's Going On? analysis by M. Eileen O'Hora-Weir
related links
featured on the OneWorld News Service May 23, 1997
OneWorld News Service - United States
OneWorld News Service - Food
OneWorld News Service - Agriculture
Hilo, Hawaii, United States - On Tuesday May 20, 1997, the County Council of the Island of
Hawaii (known as the Big Island) in the state of Hawaii, voted 7-2 to approve Bill 62 which would
authorize the use of local taxpayer money to build a tropical fruit irradiation plant on the island. The
irradiation facility would sterilize fruit fly larvae using gamma rays generated by radioactive
Cobalt-60. With the elimination of the sugar cane industry on the island within the last few years,
supporters of the facility led by Mayor Stephen Yamashiro are aiming to boost the local agriculture
industry by making it possible to ship Hawaii's tropical fruit to the mainland United States.
Currently, Hawaii's fruit is banned from the US mainland because of the fruit fly threat to mainland
agriculture. Opponents of the irradiation facility are fearful of the potential for radioactive
accidents on an island already threatened by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tidal waves
(tsunamis). They also point out that US mainland consumers may not be willing to eat irradiated
fruit which then could harm the reputation of Hawaii produce.
Mayor Yamashiro sought the $2 million in County of Hawaii funds to build the facility and market
the irradiated fruit even though Isomedix, a New Jersey company, has stated it plans to fund the
construction of the $1.25 million facility itself. Yamashiro believes that if funding comes from the
County of Hawaii, there would be a guarantee that the facility would still be built if Isomedix backs
out.
Curtis Tyler (Republican-Kona), one of the two council members who voted against Bill 62,
stated: "This is not a project whose time has come - or ever should come - for this island." Harry
Kim, the well-respected County of Hawaii Civil Defense Agency administrator and the person in
charge of the safety of the residents of Hawaii in the face of natural disasters since 1976 testified
that he wished "we would look into other alternatives...I resent the attempt by anyone to minimize
the hazards and risks." Kim was critical of the "stretched out" Nuclear Regulatory Commision's
ability to properly regulate radioactive plants: "You're lucky if you get a visit once or twice a
year."
The anti-irradiation organization Food & Water from the state of Vermont plans to broadcast a 60
second commercial on Hawaii television stations warning Hawaii residents of the dangers of
irradiation. Following a campaign a few months ago in which Food & Water sent hundreds of
anti-irradiation postcards to Mayor Yamashiro's office, the Mayor accused Food & Water of
"terrorist" tactics. After confronting the overwhelming support among the majority of County
Council members in favor of the irradiation facility, opponents pledge that it is only the beginning
and are calling for more local non-violent protests and more publicity regarding the issue directed
towards local Hawaii residents as well as potential irradiated fruit consumers on the United States
mainland and elsewhere.
May 22, 1997
Joshua Meisler, editor, Kilima
(based in part on news reports in the Hilo-based Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Kona-based West
Hawaii Today, and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin)
[Menu]
The following is a commentary by Dr. Mark Cohen and other Hawaii Island doctors opposed to
Bill 62 (originally published in the editorial section of the Hawaii Tribune-Herald):
Doctors cannot issue opinions based on rumor. We need to examine the patient for ourselves, or
see reports from informed sources. In formulating our opinion regarding the advisability of building
and operating the proposed irradiation facility we did not visit the patient, but we read many
documents from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, engineer's reports, and original news items.
The amount of material was copious. Indeed, we could continue reading for many more months,
for the complexity of constructing and operating an irradiation plant is staggering. The Mayor and
members of the County Council have many matters to contend with, and none of them are doctors
or engineers. It is highly unlikely that they fully understand the engineering, health, and safety
issues involved. And yet, the Mayor and several council members are promoting this facility based
largely on the recommendation of those who would profit from it. Such a recommendation cannot
be regarded as unbiased. And funding such a potentially hazardous and economically burdensome
facility, without fully understanding the implications, is irresponsible.
The ignorance is apparent in a statement made by the Mayor following his testimony at the
hearing. The Mayor said that Dr. Cohen "...is irresponsible for opposing this plant because he uses
gamma rays on his patients." The Mayor does not appear to understand that the radiation planned
for the Isomedix fruit treatment facility is 2,000,000 times stronger than the radiation used in an
X-ray (100,000 rads vs. 1/20 of a rad). Nor does he seem to know that Cobalt-60 is not used by a
single doctor or hospital in the state of Hawaii because there are safer alternatives. The Mayor
should not be promoting the irradiation facility if he lacks such basic knowledge, for without this
knowledge he cannot know the ramifications of what he is promoting.
According to official NRC Information Notices, there have been numerous equipment failures and
safety violations at irradiation plants. In Israel, an operator died from acute radiation syndrome 36
days after an accident. In El Salvador, two workers had their legs amputated due to acute
radiation exposure and burns. One of those workers died 197 days later.
Other NRC reports indicate that several other irradiators have had their Cobalt-60 sources jam in
the exposed position. This has resulted in fires, injuries, and loss of life.
In New Jersey, Isomedix, the company proposing to build the irradiator on this island, deliberately
bypassed the radiation monitor interlock system. The NRC concluded that "this incident was a
very serious violation of safety requirements." This month the NRC is holding a hearing on another
Isomedix violation because their plant in Puerto Rico operated for three hours without a licensed
operator.
It would be impossible to detail all of the incidents that we have read about. The NRC Incident
Reports are available from the NRC Website on the Internet, and the commission is very
cooperative in making their reports available to the public.
From the copious amount of material we have read, we have concluded that in order for an
irradiation plant to run safely, the workers at the facility and the plant's equipment would have to
perform perfectly. We believe that no matter how hard people try, perfection does not exist in this
world. A proposal may look perfect on paper, but in the real world people make mistakes,
equipment fails, and accidents happen. Therefore, we believe that the risks to health and safety
are too high to build and operate an irradiation facility on this island.
We have not even addressed the economic, liability, and decontamination issues that need to be
thoroughly addressed and understood when considering bringing such a facility to Hawaii. Nor
have we even touched on the highly controversial decision to build this plant with $2 million of
taxpayer money. From what we have read, we do not believe that $2 million will be enough
money, and believe that the taxpayers will be burdened with an open-ended economic black hole.
The decision to build and operate an irradiation facility is probably the most complex issue the
County Council has ever faced. Therefore, we are appalled at the seemingly irresponsible rush to
pass Bill 62. We urge the County Council to respect the complexity and the critical nature of
irradiation, and to uphold their responsibility to the citizens of Hawaii. Do not pass Bill 62. You do
not yet know the full implications of what you will be doing.
Mark Cohen, M.D.
Lorraine Sonoda-Fogel, M.D.
Susan Gilbert, M.D.
Ronald Voit, M.D.
Paul Mckenna, M.D.
David Cope, M.D.
William Kama, M.D.
A. Scott Miles, M.D.
Kathleen Pestralla, M.D.
Jan Hauser, M.D.
Alice Adee, M.D.
Thomas Green, M.D.
Ray Wertheim
[Menu]
On June 15, 1997, the Coalition Against Irradiation which has been organized to stop the
proposed food irradiation facility, announced that "it's mission is to stop the building of a
commercial irradiation facility on the Big Island of Hawaii now and for times to come. Using the
Coalition's resources and the wisdom of the people, the Island will be kept free from the possibility
of nuclear accidents and radioactive contamination. Future generations will live in a healthy
environment on the Island of Hawaii, using safe, nuclear-free technologies to provide a
sustainable and diversified economy with meaningful work for everyone."
The Coalition will attempt to put the irradiator issue on the ballot of the next election in order for
the community to decide, and will also begin the process for an initiative to close the loophole
inserted into the County Charter by Mayor Yamashiro to allow commercial use of nuclear
materials on the Island, and to write a positive anti-nuclear law.
[Menu]
Food Irradiation: What's Going on?
by M. Eileen O'Hora-Weir
As is status quo for Hawaii, we are buying into a technology for all the wrong reasons. As the rest
of the country moves toward downsizing the nuclear industry, Hawaii moves to embrace this
technology. Is Hawaii being encouraged to construct a food irradiator to research uses in tropical
food production thereby creating a demand for this technology? If you look at Hawaii's current
levels of production of exotic tropical fruits (less than 500 acres statewide), the lead time required
to increase production levels (5-10 years), as well as a realistic estimate of the size of potential
markets in light of global competition, it is debatable whether Hawaii can support a long-term,
cost effective irradiation facility for our tropical fruit industry. It appears that this proposed facility
may be more about the transfer of technology than about the exotic tropical fruit industry in
Hawaii.
The isotope, Cobalt 60, is currently being produced in Canada by Nordion, Inc. Other places
which have the capacity to produce Cobalt 60, Chile and Eastern Europe, are currently not
producing as there is no demand for the product. The taxpayers of Canada, who have been
heavily subsidizing the nuclear industry in that country, are calling for early retirement of the
industry. In reaction, Nordion has engaged in an aggressive campaign to increase the demand for
irradiated products using Cobalt 60 technology. If their campaign is unsuccessful, there is a good
chance that the production of Cobalt 60 will cease after the year 2000. This means that newer and
perhaps better technologies must be developed or we revert to using isotopes such as Cesium
137.
Food irradiation, to date, has not been a profitable industry. Food Technology Service, Inc. in
Florida, the only commercial irradiator in the U.S. dedicated to food, has been losing money since it
began operating a few years ago and has found that there isn't a big demand for irradiated fruits
and vegetables. Florida has become a large producer of exotic tropical fruits, especially since
Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Florida is not under USDA (United States Department of
Agriculture) - APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) quarantine to the other 49 states
for many of these fruits such as longan and lychee. Florida also has lower labor and transportation
costs. The products which are irradiated, such as mushrooms and tomatoes, are treated in that
manner to both control pests and delay maturation (extend shelf life). Unless the meat industry, in
particular the chicken industry, begins to use irradiation as a means of controlling 'E. Coli' bacteria
and salmonella, the future of the only existing irradiator dedicated to food is questionable.
Below is an excerpt from Frontier Cooperative Herbs web site, "The Facts About Food
Irradiation":
Doesn't irradiation make foods safer?
Irradiation can kill most of the E. coli bacteria and salmonella present in food, but so can proper
cooking and hygienic preparation, which carry none of the risks. And although the allowable
doses of radiation are enough to kill these two bacteria and the bacteria that signal spoilage
through a foul odor, they aren't enough to kill the bacteria that causes botulism. So irradiation
removes the warning signs we rely on to determine when foods are dangerous to eat.
Since the meat industry has been resistant to establishing irradiation as a required protocol for
meats, interest in irradiation of tropical food products has increased. Since most tropical countries
are less developed and have lower costs of production, the recent trend has been toward moving
food production to these countries. Currently, USDA quarantines are differentially applied based
on a country's ability to comply with the APHIS regulations. This is being viewed as unfair trade
practices under the new international trade treaties. A generic protocol that can be applied to a
wide range of food products allowing all foreign producing countries access to U.S. markets will
be a convenient way to resolve the conflict.
A news report regarding an editorial entitled "Cyclosporiasis and Raspberries -- Lessons for the
Future" in the New England Journal of Medicine (May 29, 1997 -- Volume 336, Number 22) by
Michael Osterholm of the Department of Health in Minnesota appeared on the Yahoo - Reuters
Internet news site (Wednesday 5/28). Mr. Osterholm claims that irradiation is the means for
eliminating the problem of cycloporiasis, a bacteria which causes severe diarrhea, and which is
associated with imported fresh fruits and vegetables. There was an outbreak in the U.S. in 1996
from Guatemalan raspberries. Mr. Osterholm's solution does not address the real problem which
is that food distributors will go to great lengths to avoid proper inspections and allowable
distribution channels. You may recall that, early in 1997, tainted strawberries showed up in school
lunches in the U.S. in spite of the federal requirement that all foods used in the school lunch
program must be domestically grown. Also, it is widely suspected that Thailand and Taiwan are
illegally shipping untreated exotic tropical fruits into the mainland U.S. via Canada. A better
system of inspections and tracking would be the answer, not necessarily irradiation. Mr.
Osterholm claims that irradiation is as safe as pasteurization yet the food industry isn't adopting it
for fear of incurring the wrath of activist groups. "We must not let any group use arguments
without a scientific basis to keep an important technique from the marketplace." Yet what is
"scientific" about comparing irradiation to the "cooking" of foods which is a standard analogy?
Cooking either diminishes or eliminates the vitamins and enzymes in fresh foods as does
irradiation. Cooked fruits and vegetables have their place in one's diet, but they cannot be
substituted for the fresh product. The "cooked" analogy makes sense only if you choose to ignore
those very conspicuous posters in your doctor's office instructing you to eat more fresh fruits and
vegetables to reduce the risk of cancer.
To undermine the opposition to irradiation of fresh foods, which is being viewed as a serious
threat, the irradiation industry is encouraging the federal government to change the status of food
irradiation from an "additive" to a "process". If such legislation is successful, irradiated products
will not need to be labeled. Currently the "radura" is the label which must be displayed in the store.
If the labeling requirement is changed, consumers, who to date have expressed considerable
concern over the use of irradiation as a treatment of fresh foods, will have no way to discern
which products have been irradiated.
At the County Council Finance Committee hearing on April 24, Mayor Yamashiro gave his pitch
in favor of Bill 62 and claimed that the County of Hawaii needed to appropriate $2 million to ensure
a level playing field so as to attract entrants to the industry. He was referring to the irradiation
industry and described the barrier to entry as the "eco-terrorist" threatening and "extortionist
tactics" used by certain consumer groups. Yet the public is being told that the County's
involvement in irradiation is about the exotic tropical fruit industry and in that industry the barrier
to entry is not "eco-terrorists" but the USDA quarantines which effectively keep our products out
of all the other states. Could someone please explain how any of the four species of fruit flies we
harbor in Hawaii can survive cold summer evenings, let alone the winter, in Minnesota? And why
is it that Florida, which hosts the Caribbean fruit fly, is only under quarantine for mangos and
starfruit to the three states of California, Arizona, and Texas, yet can ship those same fruits into
Utah, Nevada and New Mexico without post harvest treatments? By the way, Florida currently
uses hot dip for mangos and cold treatment for starfruit to comply with the quarantine in the three
states mentioned above. If Hawaii's exotic fruit industry offered a profitable investment for an
irradiation firm, then there would be no need for government involvement. There is some
justification for government spending of public funds to promote "infant" industries, but this is
different than assigning government the role of funding a counter attack on consumer groups who
have not committed any illegal acts.
The only evidence we have of consumer acceptance of irradiated Hawaiian fruits is a poorly
conducted market demo study involving a small quantity of a mix of fruits; 70,000 pounds over two
years. These in-store and trade show demos were personally conducted by the six members of
the Hawaii Exotic Fruit Growers Cooperative who have been the main supporters of this
irradiation project. This test marketing was done at the taxpayers' expense. No significant market
research has been conducted to assure us there will be markets for the projected millions of
pounds of fruit needed annually to justify the economies of scale of an irradiation facility. Clearly,
this isn't about developing a large exotic tropical fruit industry here in Hawaii as no company
would construct a facility without an assurance of either profits or continued subsidies. Without
that assurance, it seems logical to assume that the Big Island irradiator will be a "lost leader",
dedicated to investigating the potential for irradiation in tropical food production, and will serve as
a launching ground to spread this technology throughout the tropical food producing countries.
Locally, a few growers of tropical fruit trees will make a lot of money selling trees and certain
contractors will get to pour a lot of concrete. The taxpayers of the County of Hawaii and their
children will be assuming a debt which, with interest, will eventually amount to well over $3
million.
The U.S. taxpayers have already invested millions of dollars into research of non-nuclear hot and
cold technologies for post harvest treatment of fresh tropical products. Some of that work has
been done right here in Hilo by the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA. There is a five
page update on the status of their research which can be downloaded from the Internet. In short,
we have an effective cold technology that works on Sharwil avocados and starfruit. We have a hot
dip for lychee, a dry heat treatment for papaya which may be better than vapor heat, a heat shock
for red ginger, and many other "on the verge" technologies. When methyl bromide becomes
prohibited for use in year 2001, a dry heat could be used to meet quarantine requirements for in
shipments of green coffee beans. Steam treaments for sterilizing media already exist. Most of
these non-nuclear technologies can be implemented at low cost, on a small scale, which probably
makes more economic sense than the medium to large scale facilities required for irradiation to be
cost effective.
In committing to Bill 62, the County follows a Strategic High-Tech Plan (January 1997) developed
by Hawaii Island Economic Development Board (HIEDB), a nonprofit, 501(c)3 networking
business organization which specializes in facilitating federal resource programs. Membership is
by invitation only (currently there are 44 members) with annual dues starting at $1,000. HIEDB
hosted two "neutral" public forums on irradiation in advance of the County Council hearings on Bill
62.
By passing the $2 mllion Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for an irradiation facility and
associated expenses such as market promotion, will the County have increased our production
possibilities in the future? Will we have significantly expanded sustainable employment
possibilities? Will we have positively impacted Hawaii's image as a pristine environment which,
ultimately, is what gives all of our products, including tourism, a competitive edge? Although an
avid and active supporter of expanding Hawaii's diversified agriculture, I doubt that the answer to
each of the above questions is an unqualified "yes".
June 20, 1997
M. Eileen O'Hora-Weir, dba Dakini Enterprises
Education:
A.S. Horticulture, B.S. Agriculture, M.A. Economics, PhD candidate in Agricultural and Resource
Economics.
Experience:
Farmer (1986-present): Own and operate a small nursery/greenhouse operation raising
oncidium orchids for cut-flower sales and organically certified produce for local markets.
Lecturer (Spring 1997): Business/Economics Division, University of Hawaii at Hilo.
Consultant (1994-96): Market Potential Study for Remote Residential Photovoltaic Program for
HELCO-1996. Photovoltaic Users Survey for PICHTR/DBEDT - 1994.
Research Assistant (1994-96): Evaluation Section, Department of Education, State of Hawaii.
Teaching Assistant (1992-94): Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Affiliations:
Vice President, Hawaii Organic Farmers Association - (1993-1995 & 1996-97).
President, Big Island Sustainable Communities Association (1996-98).
[Menu]
related links: |
