Irradiation, Organic Food, and My Righteous Anger

gomidog

One of the biggest problems with the food industry today is the millions of pounds of fresh meat and produce that are lost to spoilage each year. Irradiation can not only make food last longer and prevent some of this waste (and also allowing for the easier transport of meat and vegetables to areas where there are shortages.) but also drastically reduce the occurrence of food borne pathogens. I am super for it but...
When will these people get a clue?

Why I am so frustrated is this: Why is it that the people with what are initially good intentions end up being so harmful and anti-science? A good idea gets turned into a bad idea like so:

Be nice to animals and treat them well (Yes! I like animals!) ----> crazy PETA propaganda that wants to abolish eventually all human-animal interaction and ANY ANIMAL DEATH (no! That isn't natural! Even if all humans become peaceful vegetarians, pumas will still eat deer. That's how it goes, so PLEASE DON'T PUT YOUR CAT ON A VEGETARIAN DIET!)

Reduce the number of animal studies (Yes! Using science, the amount of testing that can be done in vitro is increasing every year. We have cells on a microchip! More efficient monitoring techniques leading to smaller testing groups!) ----> Boycotting all modern medicine in favor of homeopathy (No! Are you crazy? You need medicine!)

Forest Preservation (Yes! Responsible Forestry is great! That is why logging in the US and Canada is much better now!)----> Greenpeace spiking trees (No! For obvious reasons!)

And so on and so forth. If the green movement is to succeed at all, it will be through science, not superstition and misinformation. Science is not just about making a profit, like these people seem to think. Science is about observing the world and methodically figuring it out. This is what frustrates me. Why is it so hard to be an environmentalist without being associated with these foolish homeopathy-PETA-Greenpeace people? Why can't one be pro-human and pro-science and also pro-animal and pro-nature at the same time? They are not mutually exclusive. *sigh* I'm done ranting. Peter, what do we do about these people who want to drink raw milk and get TB? It's so bad...

Apreche

It's because the people aren't actually for things that are good, they are for things that feel good. Anti-intellectualism is equal across the entire spectrum, it's not simply confined to the religious right.

TheWhaleShark

Peter, what do we do about these people who want to drink raw milk and get TB? It's so bad...

Let them die of TB. Evolution will sort everything out.

Man, you're on the ball with the "posting topics that Pete likes to talk about." I'll rant with you when I get home.

Apreche

Man, you're on the ball with the "posting topics that Pete likes to talk about."

So pete, I've got this new indie RPG where every character is a member of a metal band.

HMTKSteve

Man, you're on the ball with the "posting topics that Pete likes to talk about."

So pete, I've got this new indie RPG where every character is a member of a metal band.

Read that storyline in KODT a few years back...

gomidog

Hey, I looked at the end of the article (which is super crazy) and it said that the guy was a software engineer! How can someone be all computery and still be this anti-tech?

HMTKSteve

Hey, I looked at the end of the article (which is super crazy) and it said that the guy was a software engineer! How can someone be all computery and still be this anti-tech?

Maybe he was a COBOL or PASCAL programmer.

Apreche

Hey, I looked at the end of the article (which is super crazy) and it said that the guy was a software engineer! How can someone be all computery and still be this anti-tech?

Maybe he was a COBOL or PASCAL programmer.

Just because someone knows a lot about computers or some such does not mean they are smart in the general science mindset. In fact, if you took a group of programmers, you would find lots of crazies who believe in conspiracy theories, aliens, etc.

Andrew

Just because someone knows a lot about computers or some such does not mean they are smart in the general science mindset. In fact, if you took a group of programmers, you would find lots of crazies who believe in conspiracy theories, aliens, etc.

Indeed. I'm not sure if it's because of the number of computer professionals that we statistically have to have some people like this or if there is some underlying factor, but there are definitely some crazy computer peoples.

TheWhaleShark

Hey, I looked at the end of the article (which is super crazy) and it said that the guy was a software engineer! How can someone be all computery and still be this anti-tech?

I know scientists who believe in ghosts and crystal healing bullshit.

Ignorance is a universal affliction.

Eh, screw it. It's a slow day. Think of this as me putting your tax money to work dispensing insight and wisdom for the benefit of public health.

Any statements in this post and any other posts are not necessarily a reflection on any official policies or stances of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and should not be taken as such.

This ties in well with the current sex offender thread and the earlier evolutionary psychology thread. I would say, and I'm sure most would agree, that we're probably the most informed society that has ever been, as far as we know. Our ability to generate and disseminate information is staggering; people can base their entire career studying the the proper processing of cheese samples for particular types of microbiological analysis. I know people who do that, actually.

The problem we have is that, relative to the amount of information that's out there, people have next to no education about it. Simply "knowing" a piece of information or having access to it isn't good enough; there's so much information out there that people have no idea what to do with most of it, so they wind up thinking or doing the wrong thing. We're certainly the most informed that we've ever been, but relative to the amount of information, we're the least educated.

That's the problem most people have with science, and a problem in the field itself, actually. We generate information and inform the consumer, without ever telling them what it actually means. This leads to all sorts of wonky conclusions and ill-conceived movements, often to the detriment of the public. We're actually approaching a point where we're too good at generating information, so much so that it may actually be leading avenues of research astray.

Apreche

This article is suddenly relevant to the discussion. In Albion, where they are a fetish for security cameras, the increased surveillance is actually making it harder to fight crime.

TheWhaleShark

Man, you're on the ball with the "posting topics that Pete likes to talk about."

So pete, I've got this new indie RPG where every character is a member of a metal band.

Metalocalypse is like halfway to that, actually.

Apreche

Metalocalypse is like halfway to that, actually.

Metalocalypse the tabletop game. Let it be written. Let it be done.

ninjarabbi

Man, those people are just as crazy as the "Man never landed on the moon" people. Iove how the compare food sterilization with roman lead poisoning. They also talk about "living" juice. Wouldn't the juice only be living if it was still in the plant? They never actually explain how irradiation gets rid of the nutritional value. All they really say is

Live foods keep people alive, but dead foods make people dead.

And

As it turns out, the people susceptible to food-borne illnesses are precisely those individuals who have compromised immune systems due to their intake of vaccines and antibiotics. Thus, it is modern medicine that has made these people vulnerable to food-borne illnesses.

While it is true that there are many plants that can help you when you are sick, saying that you should never use real medicine because you will get sick is completely bassackwards. Many of our current medicines originated from plants, but the current medicine better because it is stronger and made for human consumption. They even explain:

How the USDA plans to join the FDA in keeping everyone sick

While the FDA may be more likely the produce drugs that help with symptoms instead of cures, it is definitely blown out of proportion to say that they are trying to keep us sick.

konistehrad

They [the USDA] believe this because they've never been taught about the phytonutrients, digestive enzymes and life force properties that are found in fresh foods, but that are destroyed through heat or irradiation.

The USDA is irradiating my life force properties?!

HMTKSteve

The midichlorians... The FDA is killing them...

jcc

Wouldn't a better solution to the problems of spoilage and pathogens be to discourage overproduction and unhealthy growing conditions? Giving all foods the shelf life of Twinkies is an admirable goal, but I'm not sure if it's going to solve the problems people think it will solve. If a food has a longer shelf-life, most retailers' natural inclination is to simply extend the period of time that things stay on the shelf, and to purchase more at one time.

Sail

If a food has a longer shelf-life, most retailers' natural inclination is to simply extend the period of time that things stay on the shelf, and to purchase more at one time.

I fail to see why this is a problem.

HMTKSteve

Wouldn't a better solution to the problems of spoilage and pathogens be to discourage overproduction and unhealthy growing conditions?

I would rather have too much food in the food supply than run the risk of famine because the food supply does not have enough elasticity.

jcc

If a food has a longer shelf-life, most retailers' natural inclination is to simply extend the period of time that things stay on the shelf, and to purchase more at one time.

I fail to see why this is a problem.

It would get rid of the benefits of the new technique. It's sort of like if a new safety feature were added to a car, and then people took it as an opportunity to drive more recklessly than they did before.

Jason

The midichlorians... The FDA is killing them...

I say it's time to bring balance to the Force. With extreme prejudice.

Sail

It would get rid of the benefits of the new technique. It's sort of like if a new safety feature were added to a car, and then people took it as an opportunity to drive more recklessly than they did before.

That still makes no sense to me and I don't understand how the analogy relates at all. You'll have to be more verbose.

jcc

Pretend you are a fishmonger. You buy X fish with the idea of selling them over Y days, their current shelf life. Your knowledge of fish demand is uncertain from day to day, so there will be some days when you sell all your fish and have to turn away those who are keen to buy more, and some days when you sell very few fish and a lot get thrown out. If the cost of purchasing a large number of fish wholesale is less per fish than the opportunity cost of buying a smaller number of fish (potentially without the wholesale discounts) and selling out with unmet demand, you will buy more fish than you can sell and just write the spoilage into your pricing. If a new technique quadruples the shelf-life of your fish, perhaps this will allow you to make your estimates on a week to week basis rather than a day to day, (which should make it somewhat more predictable) but you'll still have the same basic issue on a larger scale. Increased shelf-life can reduce waste due to variance, but if it is more profitable to overbuy and waste fish than it is to underbuy and not have any for sale, you will overbuy and waste fish, no matter what the shelf life. This is because your interest is primarily in maximizing profit, not necessarily in reducing spoilage or conserving the fish population, except when they lead towards that primary goal.

Let's say you're driving to a place, and you can get there in half the time by doubling your speed, while increasing your risk of horrible disfigurement to 15%. If you are comfortable with that 15% risk, you will increase your speed. Let's say that a new safety device decreases that risk to 10% at the speeds given. Since their risk comfort level has not changed, many will simply increase their speed even more, get there in a even less time, and get back up to their maximum risk level of 15%. The way to reduce reckless driving would be to reduce their comfort with risk, not to make it safer to take bigger risks. This is why so many driver re-education courses have those "Blood on the Pavement" films.

Sail

So we should make cars less safe to decrease accidents and food that spoils faster to keep it from going to waste. Right. OMG wtf.

jcc

So we should make cars less safe to decrease accidents and food that spoils faster to keep it from going to waste. Right.OMG wtf.

No, but we should not expect safer cars to reduce reckless driving or food with a longer shelf life to reduce people's comfort with spoilage. Might some sort of spoilage tax be a more direct way of reducing waste? After all, if spoilage weren't profitable, well-run businesses would not allow it.

Sail

When has anyone said that they expect irradiation to discourage people's comfort with spoilage? The whole point is so that people can worry less about spoilage.

If the fishmonger is more confident in the lasting power of his product, wouldn't the consumer also be confident in this aspect? The consumer will buy more fish just like the retailer does because they know it's going to last longer. They're going to eat more because they have constant access to more and in the end no more fish is wasted than it was before. More is certainly consumed but, at the very least, no more should be wasted.

I'd like to know if statistics exist of the amount of "waste" before and after the invention and implementation of the home refrigerator.

Just because someone knows a lot about computers or some such does not mean they are smart

I can think of at least one example...

jcc

When has anyone said that they expect irradiation to discourage people's comfort with spoilage?

One of the biggest problems with the food industry today is the millions of pounds of fresh meat and produce that are lost to spoilage each year. Irradiation can [...] make food last longer and prevent some of this waste[.]

I suppose the key question is, "Why is this food lost to spoilage?" My answer is that it is intentionally lost to spoilage because spoilage costs less than unmet demand. Increasing the shelf life of foods will reduce some waste by reducing variance in the demand curve, but it will not change the mindset that profitable waste is good waste. If your primary goal is reduction in waste within the food industry (as opposed to the other potential benefits that an extended shelf life might provide), making waste less profitable will get you further than making it less probable.

Sail

I'd like to know if statistics exist of the amount of "waste" before and after the invention and implementation of the home refrigerator.

Here's the piece of information that makes or breaks your case. Even if you're right, I say the benefit outweighs the cost. Safer food for all of us and more food for hungry people.

Hang on a second. Why is food waste bad again? They're biodegradable substances. Take a fish from the sea, it rots and helps to grow a tree.

[Edit] Nevermind. That sounds retarded. I'm really tired.

lackofcheese

I doubt I'm the first to notice, but no-one else has mentioned it, so:-
"Righteous" is spelt wrongly in the title.

HungryJoe

I doubt I'm the first to notice, but no-one else has mentioned it, so:-
"Righteous" is spelt wrongly in the title.

I noticed, but I caught a lot of cyber bullying from Andrew when I asked what a "flame way" was in another thread (because "flame war" was spelled "flame way" in the title), so I just ignored it.

I am often the target of Andrew's cyber bullying. It makes me very sad.

TheWhaleShark

Wouldn't a better solution to the problems of spoilage and pathogens be to discourage overproduction and unhealthy growing conditions? Giving all foods the shelf life of Twinkies is an admirable goal, but I'm not sure if it's going to solve the problems people think it will solve. If a food has a longer shelf-life, most retailers' natural inclination is to simply extend the period of time that things stay on the shelf, and to purchase more at one time.

Yeah, but if it doesn't spoil, that's not really a problem.

Actually, having worked in retail, I'll bet more retailers would be inclined to leave things on the shelf until they sell, rather than put everything out there. If it has a long shelf life, they have a better guarantee of being able to sell the item.

Every major retailer combats "shrink," the loss of potential profit by the mandatory discarding of product. If you increase the length of time something is on the shelf, you up its chances of being sold and thus reduce the amount of shrink you endure.

A longer shelf life is always better.