Posted on 08/22/2003 7:26:30 AM PDT by aculeus
Warning: Reading Consumer Reports may be dangerous to your health.
Consumer Reports (CR) has helped millions of Americans select the best consumer goods available at the lowest prices and has called attention to some of the excesses of the marketplace. As a result, it has established a reputation among consumers as an honest, informative magazine. In recent years, however, CR policy appears to have been taken over by consumer and environmental activists and the magazine is dispensing advice that is not in the best interests of its readers. For example, CR recommended that consumers buy organic food instead of conventional food although it found that there were no health, nutritional, or taste differences between them and organic food cost much more (if CR had applied the same standards to food that it applies to refrigerators it would have rated conventional food a "best buy"). A pesticide danger ranking system developed by CR's parent organization, Consumers Union, was so scientifically unsound that it was severely criticized by the Society of Toxicology. While CR admitted that genetically engineered food is safe to eat, it nevertheless called for mandatory labeling, knowing full well that this will give vendors of organic food an unfair marketing advantage among many consumers.
An article titled "The Truth About Irradiated Meat" (August 2003) is the latest outrage. At first, CR correctly reports that "irradiated food is safe to eat, according to federal and world health officials," and that the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that irradiating half of all ground beef, poultry, pork, and processed meat would prevent approximately one million cases of food poisoning, 8,500 hospital admissions, 6,000 grave illnesses, and 350 deaths in the U.S. each year. In their own tests, CR found that 84% of non-irradiated chicken fingers contained Listeria monocytogenes (a pathogenic microorganism responsible for several disease outbreaks last year), while the irradiated product contained none.
In spite of this, CR does everything it can to persuade consumers not to buy irradiated meat. First, they claim that irradiation does not kill all the bacteria. That's true, but the process is designed to kill the pathogenic bacteria more readily than the benign organisms. A similar situation is encountered in the pasteurization of milk, a process that kills Salmonella but not spoilage bacteria (or else milk would never spoil). Second, their taste test panel (which consisted of a grand total of two people) found an off-flavor so "subtle" that "some consumers may not notice it." If the off-flavor is so subtle, how about acknowledging that the vast majority of consumers would not recognize it — instead of planting the notion of poor taste into people's psyches? Besides, why not do a real taste test by comparing the taste of a juicy medium rare or rare hamburger with the burnt offerings obtained from having to cook non-irradiated beef to a crisp? In addition to falsely claiming that irradiated meat tastes bad, CR says that the typical irradiation dose for meat is 150 times the dose capable of killing an adult. While this may be true, it is irrelevant, since human radiation exposure from eating irradiated food is zero. Another red herring is that irradiation can't destroy the agents thought to cause Mad Cow Disease: neither does cooking (or incineration, for that matter).
And Finally, Cancer
And if these arguments aren't enough to dissuade the consumer from buying irradiated food, it's time for that old bugaboo, cancer. CR cites unpublished European studies that suggest that some of the chemicals formed in meat as a result of irradiation may cause cancer. These chemicals belong to a class of compounds called 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs) and have been under intense study by Dr. Henry Delincee and his colleagues at the Federal Research Center of Nutrition in Karlsruhe, Germany since 1998. CR has apparently found this information in an affidavit to the U.S. Department of Agriculture from a paid consultant to Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety, two activist organizations that have led the fight against irradiated food. However, CR did not inform their readers that the consultant was condemned by Dr. Delincee for "obviously not telling the truth, thereby committing perjury" and for submitting an affidavit of "no value." Nor did CR explain that the World Health Organization, after examining the 2-ACB data, wrote that the chemicals "do not appear to pose a health risk to consumers." If CR is so concerned about cancer, they should have informed their readers that mutagens and carcinogens are also formed when meat is cooked at the high temperatures required to kill bacteria — and that the amount of these chemicals is much reduced at the lower temperatures that can be used if the meat is first irradiated. Perversely, CR is recommending that consumers buy products that are not only more risky in terms of food poisoning but also pose an increased (although extremely small) cancer risk.
CR has been able to maintain its enviable reputation for honesty and integrity by refusing to accept advertisements. However, the organizations and foundations that are providing substantial financial support to CR's parent, Consumers Union, are the same ones that are making huge contributions to groups that advocate the purchase of organic food, want to get rid of pesticides, and are against both genetically engineered food and irradiated food. In fairness to its readers, CR should divulge that the rules have changed, and that some of its opinions may result from a conflict of interest.
Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D., is an ACSH Advisor and a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. He likes his meat rare and his science well done. For more information, see ACSH's booklet on Irradiated Foods.
So is the article incorrect? What has the article misrepresented to make industry's viewpoint look better?
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
In other words leftwingers are more trustworthy than people who worked as executives in some of the companies you list. People like me.
If you are going to cite a web site and don't give a link then you are repeating the 'unpublished report' error. Actually, it is worse because the web is self-publishing and definitely not peer-reviewed. For example, there are web sites that deny the Nazi Holocaust and others that claim the Apollo Moon Landings are faked.
As for the claim that it is a propoganda arm, I'd like to make 2 points. First, the web site making the claim may have biases of its own coloring its claims. Second, just because it is propoganda does NOT automatically mean that it's information is false.
Which toothpaste will make me bright-faced?
Which underwear won't scratch me under there?
Which carpet cleaner'll make my carpet cleaner?
Will taking Viagra make me gush like Niagara?
Who can say? Ask Consumer Reports.
"Consumer Reports stinks," it's critic retorts.
Well hell, I read it on a message board.
When'll my faith in you be restored?
If this trend continues, you can shoot me in the head.
You can't trust anyone, you might as well be dead.
Feed me some ice cream and put me in a boat.
Maybe I'll sink, or maybe I'll float.
Think this rhyme is stupid? Yes? Shut up.
If you think you can do better, I suggest you put up.
When you shoot me in the head, put a bullet in my pup.
He be so bereaved to lose me he won't want to grow up.
The end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.