Search results

(166,221 - 166,240 of 182,746)

Pages

CRS85585Apage10
Title
CRS85585Apage10
Page from
info:fedora/mu:55327
CRS85585Apage12
Title
CRS85585Apage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:55327
CRS861046SPRpage25
Title
CRS861046SPRpage25
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
CRS-21 1977 the Section awarded more than 50 research contracts to laboratories all over the world to promote food irradiation. There were two main program components, which have continued to be the focus of international efforts on food irradiation. 1. Technological and economic feasibility of irradiation: To collaborate in the implementation of projects for extending shelf-life of food items
CRS861046SPRpage17
Title
CRS861046SPRpage17
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
the 1970s the Army contracted with two private laboratories, Industrial Bio4Test Laboratories (IBT), and Research 900 (now Hazelton-Raltech) to conduct animal feeding studies using irradiated beef, ham,‘ pork, and chicken, at a cost of more than $10 million. 12/ The purpose of these studies wasto demonstrate that irradiated foods were safe (free from) toxic chemicals and carcinogens) and nutritious. ‘In
CRS861046SPRpage12
Title
CRS861046SPRpage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
. ll] Taub, I. A., et al. Chemiclearance: Principle and Application to Irradiated Meats. In Proceedings of 26th European Meeting of Meat Research Workers. 1:233. 1980. 33/ Ibid. lg] Federal Register, v. 49, Feb. 14, 1984. p. 5715.
CRS861046SPRpage26
Title
CRS861046SPRpage26
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
cas-22 all foods irradiated up to an average overall dose of 100 hrads was achieved by the Joint Expert Committee. As a result of the IFIP research, the 1976 meeting of the Joint Expert Committee decided to recomend for unconditional public health acceptance of irradiated wheat, potatoes, strawberries, papaya and chicken. gfij Fish, rice and onions were recommended for provisional acceptance
CRS861046SPRpage15
Title
CRS861046SPRpage15
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Testimony before House Comittee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production. Thei Status of the Technical Infrastructure to Support Domestic Food Irradiation. Hearing, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., July 26, 1984. p. 69. ‘ H.
CRS861046SPRpage32
Title
CRS861046SPRpage32
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
petitioned for approval of irradiated ham. FDA rescinded the bacon approval in 1968, citing deficiencies ff] Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Sec 409. 33/ Ibid., Sec. 201(5). fig] Ibid., Sec. 402(a)(7). 47/ Takeguchi, Clyde A. Irradiated Foods--Criteria for Deregulation. Presented at First National Workshop on Radiation Processing of Food, Uni- versity of Maryland, College Park, Md., July 16, 1981. H.
CRS861046SPRpage30
Title
CRS861046SPRpage30
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
; Peterson ed,, QRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, v. I. p. 18-38. A Morrison, R. M. and T. Roberts. Food Irradiation: New Perspectives on a Controversial Technology. Economic Research Service, USDA, Chp. IX, Dec. 1985. p. 4-7. Neff, D. The Regulation of Food Irradiation. Nuclear Law Bulletin, no. 35, June 1983. p. 94-111. Vas, K. National and International Programs in: Preservation of Food by Ionizing Radiation
CRS861046SPRpage60
Title
CRS861046SPRpage60
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
, 1983. §§/ Libby, W. F. and E. F. Black. Food Irradiation: An Unused Weapon Against Hunger, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Feb. 1978. p. 51-55.
CRS861046SPRpage51
Title
CRS861046SPRpage51
Page from
info:fedora/mu:30496
Text
15 2 (35) Lobster meat 0.25 166 02 (35)% (boiled) ‘ Blue crab 0.75 90 l ("(33) ~ (cooked) A (3 i . King crab meat 0.20 23-28 6 (42). King crab meat 0.20 7-11. '1 (33)g Raw shrimp 0.15 10-15 l (33) (shelled) 9 Shrimp (cooked) 0.15 10-155 2 (35). Clams (soft 0.50 119 shelled) 75/ Hasselback, N. H.0 Irradiation: %Bombarding Bacteria Doubles Sea— H. I H‘
CRS84777Epage18
Title
CRS84777Epage18
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
47.77 15.92 Illinois 28,591 14.66 11.60 63.00 7.77 Indiana 12,050 13.37 9.82 56.76 18.11 Iowa 6,537 15.01 7.36 60.55 7.97 Kansas 7,124 10.71 14.40 46.25 23.53 Kentucky 8,823 16.88 17.28 56.34 8.70 Louisiana 10,321 16.57 12.30 49.75 17.73 Maine 3,070 18.73 11.92 54.50 14.10 Maryland 18,125 9.88 23.27 35.91 29.59 Massachusetts 20,093 14.42 8.69 41.79 31.93 Michigan 19,978 I 18.09 8.14 62.72 9
CRS84777Epage35
Title
CRS84777Epage35
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
Hampshire 0.36 0.40 New Jersey 2.86 2.75 New Mexico 0.70 0 80 New York 6.75 7.63 North Carolina 2.14 1.91 North Dakota 0.55 0.32‘ Ohio 3.38 3.89 Oklahoma 1.18 1.15 Oregon 0.82 0.92 Pennsylvania 4.38 4.93 Rhode Island 0.39 0.42 South Carolina 1.34 1.24 South Dakotai 0.34 0.29 Tennessee 1.72 1.92 _ Texas 7.18 5.49 Utah 0.59 0.61 Vermont 0.18 0.20 iVirginia 2.40 3.72 Washington 2.11 2.27 West Virginia 0.65 0.70
CRS84777Epage09
Title
CRS84777Epage09
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
York 48,718 8.33 51,346 7.63 North Carolina 11,724 2.01 12,856 1.91 North Dakota 1,589 0.27 2,127 0.32 Ohio 26,207 4.48 26,171 3.89 Oklahoma 8,215 1.40 7,768 1.15 Oregon 6,010 1.03 6,215 0.92 Pennsylvania 29,525 5.05 33,134 4.93 Rhode Island 2,325 0.40 2,813 0.42 South Carolina 5,850 1.00 8,312 1.24 South Dakota 1,330 0.23 1,926 0.29 Tennessee 9,257 1.58 12,915 1.92 Texas 42,900 7.33 36,910 5.49 Utah
CRS84777Epage06
Title
CRS84777Epage06
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
: Maryland (18.1), New Jersey (12.5), New Hampshire (11.1), Virginia (8.4), Kansas (5.6), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (4.2), Washington (2.1), South Carolina (1.8), and Wisconsin (1.5). 4/ Congressional Research Service Report No. 82-28 E. Estimated Fed- eral Tax Payments by Residents of Individual States Compared to Federal Out- lays in the States, Fiscal Year 1977, with additional tables for fiscal
CRS84777Epage29
Title
CRS84777Epage29
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
,342 8 566 6 199 19 1,469 8 52 34 55 27 North Carolina 1,588 50 309 46 118 49 1,101 44 25 48 1 35 37 North Dakota 2,561 4 546 7 206 17 1,188 39 0 86 24 536 1 Ohio 1,984 33 339 40 140 41 1,379 16 103 20 23 42 Oklahoma 1,804 44 325 44 170 27 1,199 37 47 35 63 23 Oregon 2,160 19 437 15 235 11 1,370 17 78 25 41 34 Pennsylvania 2,337 11 405 20 164 30 1,647 4 67 29 53 28 Rhode Island 2,250 17 509 9 140 40 1,530
CRS84777Epage19
Title
CRS84777Epage19
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
8.66 51.07 18.89 1.89 North Carolina 12,856 14.61 20.94 55.64 7.16 1.65 North Dakota 2,127 17.49 17.40 38.83 9.17 17.11 Ohio 26,171 _ 13.92 10.41 57.69 17.04 0.94 Oklahoma 7,768 13.84 22.00 54.25 7.23 2.68 Oregon 6,215 18.71 12.12 61.27 6.16 1.74 Pennsylvania 33,134 14.54 10.98 60.19 12.38 1.91 Rhode Island 2,813 17.27 13.04 53.87 14.43 1.39 South Carolina 8,312 13.39 23.41 47.01 15.37 0.82 South
CRS84777Epage17
Title
CRS84777Epage17
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
), Hawaii (137), New Mexico (133), Missouri (133), Connecticut (130), Washington (124), Massachusetts (124), California (119), North Dakota (109), Florida (106), Mississippi (104), Rhode Island (102), Kansas (102), Nevada (101), and New York (101) (computations based on data in table 3). For fiscal year 1983, 48.0 percent of the $672.6 billion of Federal expen- diture allocated to the 50 States
CRS84777Epage25
Title
CRS84777Epage25
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
than on the total including defense contract awards. The States with the largest downward ad- justments for defense spending, in descending order (dollar amounts in paren- theses) are: Virginia (0.61), Hawaii (0.53), Connecticut (0.26), California (0.22), Washington (0.21), Missouri (0.17), Mississippi (0.16), Alaska (0.16), Wyoming (0.15), New Hampshire (0.12), Maryland (0.10), Massachusetts (0.10
CRS84777Epage04
Title
CRS84777Epage04
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80094
Text
to be prepared by the Census Bureau for three fiscal years (1983-1985). These data have been used to provide the basic information in the several tables included in this report. In addition, the Comptroller General submitted a report to Congress on October 1, 1984, on ways in which the consistency and uniformity of the data can be improved. A copy of the Comptrol- ler General's report was not available

Pages