DECEMBER 1997 · VOLUME 18 · NUMBER 12
B E H I N D T H E L I N E S
DECEMBER 1997 · VOLUME 18 · NUMBER 12
B E H I N D T H E L I N E S
CLEAN FOOD, or irradiated dirty food? The irradiation industry is betting that consumers will settle for the latter. In November, in response to a petition filed by Isomedix, a New Jersey radiation firm, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the use of irradiation -- a process by which food is exposed to high levels of nuclear radiation -- for meat products including beef, lamb and pork. Irradiation is already permitted in the United States for poultry. Irradiation kills significant numbers of micro-organisms, such as E. coli.
"Irradiation of meat could prove to be another important tool to protect consumers from food-borne disease, says Michael Friedman, lead deputy FDA commissioner. "The process has been shown to significantly reduce bacterial contamination."
Companies like Isomedix are hoping to ride the wave of public concern over outbreaks of E. coli and other food contaminants to overcome consumer resistance to the controversial irradiation process. Public opinion polls show three quarters of the U.S. population oppose irradiation and would refuse to eat irradiated food.
Critics say there are sound reasons underlying consumer resistance to irradiation. Although the FDA has approved the use of irradiation, there are serious uncertainties surrounding the safety of irradiated foods.
"No long-term studies on the safety of eating irradiated beef have been conducted, and the effects on humans are unknown," notes Michael Colby, executive director of Food & Water, Inc., a Vermont-based food safety organization that is the leading the campaign against food irradiation.
Food & Water and other irradiation critics also say the technology fails to deal with the real food safety problem: unhealthy conditions on animal farms and in slaughterhouses and packinghouses.
PAY A BRIBE, TAKE A TAX WRITE OFF. That has long been the rule in Germany and other industrialized countries. These nations have not only tolerated bribery of overseas government officials, they have effectively encouraged bribery through tax policies that treat bribes like any other business expense. A new treaty among the rich countries, finalized in November, is set to impose a modicum of ethics and sanity on international business practices. The new Anti-Bribery Convention, agreed to by members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, a grouping of the world's rich nations, requires countries to criminalize bribery of foreign public officials.
The treaty may make a real dent in corruption in developing countries and the countries of the former Eastern Bloc. As Dr. Peter Eigen, chair of Transparency International, an advocacy group that monitors worldwide corruption, notes, a large share of the corruption in developing countries "is the explicit product of multinational corporations, headquartered in leading industrialized countries, using massive bribery and kick-backs to buy contracts in the developing countries and the countries in transition."
The treaty among rich nations follows initiatives among developing countries to crack down on corruption. Last year, the Organization of American States -- which includes the nations of North and South America -- adopted a Convention Against Corruption.
The anti-corruption campaign is unusual, because it has been underwritten by big corporations in the United States. General Electric, IBM and Westinghouse are among the leading advocates of an international anti-corruption treaty. These companies are bound by the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which imposes restrictions on U.S. companies' ability to bribe foreign officials, and want to create a level playing field, in which they are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis European and Japanese competitors.
The U.S. experience with the FCPA shows that enforcing and implementing the bribery treaty will be complicated and difficult. There have been very few prosecutions under the FCPA, in part because determining the difference between a "bribe" and a "commission" paid to a friend of a high government official can be tricky, and in part because it is difficult to gather hard evidence of bribery.
ONE OF THE MOST NOTORIOUS tree-cutting company in the United States has lost its license to operate in California. In December, the California Department of Forestry notified Pacific Lumber that it would not be issued a Timber Operating License in 1998. The Department said it was denying Pacific Lumber's license request because of the company's repeated failure to comply with state forest practice rules. It noted more than 100 violations of forest practice rules, including many for improper winter operations which degrade salmon habitat.
Pacific Lumber is controlled by Charles Hurwitz and is famous for its threat to clearcut the Headwaters Forest, one of the largest intact old-growth redwood forests in the United States on private land.
"I hope that this action slows PL's reckless destruction of forests and salmon habitat," says Paul Mason of the Garberville, California-based Environmental Protection Information Center. "Unfortunately I fear that Pacific Lumber will simply rely more upon contract loggers who have separate licenses." Roughly half of PL's logging is currently done by contract loggers.