Sanet Post, Steve Hall
Re: Irradiation
January 22, 1997

Jeff Gold wrote:

>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

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