| 1. What is food irradiation? 2. What is the status of food irradiation in the U.S. and abroad? 3. How are foods affected by irradiation? 4. How are humans affected by eating irradiated food? 5. Is electron-beam or x-ray irradiation 'better' than nuclear irradiation? 6. Why is it proposed for use? 7. Who supports/opposes irradiation? 8. What does labeling have to do with irradiation? 9. What's wrong with the food that it has to be irradiated? 10. What is the 'science' on food irradiation? 11. What are the environmental effects of irradiating food? 12. What are the socio-economic and global issues involved in food irradiation? 13. What is the status of irradiation in other countries? 14. What strategies are irradiation supporters using to convince the public that irradiation is harmless and desirable? 15. What can I do to help? 16. I still don't know enough to come to a definite conclusion for or against food irradiation. Help! |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. What is food irradiation? Bombardment of a food by ionizing radiation: "gamma rays" from nuclear material, x-rays or high-speed electrons from electronic guns. They are used to kill bacteria in the food. Electrons are knocked off molecules and ricochet around in the food. They break up cell walls, slice and dice chromosomes, kill enzymes, and create free radicals (oxygen atoms missing an electron). These free radicals recombine to form stable compounds, or continue their destructive path. Some of the compounds created are known to be cancer-causing (formaldehyde, benzene, lipid peroxides). Others have never been seen or studied before. These new compounds are called Unique Radiolytic Products (URPs). Scientists have not studied the long-term effects on humans of a diet of irradiated foods containing unknown amounts of URPs. Therefore, we cannot say that URPs have no health effects, or that a diet of irradiated food is safe. Food irradiation is not the same as microwaving. Gamma rays, x-rays and electron beams carry more energy than microwaves. They also affect the food differently. The food does not become radioactive unless there is equipment error or human error. Very tiny amounts of radioactivity can be created by electron-beam irradiation. They decay rapidly, but may cause problems if irradiated foods that have not been stored are eaten regularly. For this reason, the Government of India decided not to allow irradiation of wheat, a major food in many people's diets. The doses permitted by the FDA for food irradiation vary by the food. For fruits and vegetables, a maximum dose of 100,00 rads (1 kiloGray), for poultry, 450,000 rads (4.5 kiloGray), for red meat, 700,000 rads (7 kiloGray), for spices 3,000,000 rads (30 kiloGray). Comparisons to human x-rays vary, but even the 1 kiloGray dose is equivalent to millions of chest x-rays. 2. What is the status of food irradiation in the U.S. and abroad?top Food irradiation is permitted in more than 40 countries. In the US, it is approved for beef, pork, poultry, shell eggs, fruits, vegetables, wheat, wheat flour, seeds for sprouting, herbs and spices. In August 1999, a food industry coalition asked the FDA to also approve irradiation for deli meats, frozen foods, prepared fresh foods, fresh juices, seeds and sprouts. The FDA will almost certainly approve irradiation for these foods. The FDA is currently considering a petition for irradiation of crustaceans and molluscs (lobster, shrimp, oysters, etc.) Foods not yet requested for irradiation are: dairy (which is already pasteurized) and a few foods like honey and coffee. Bacon was approved for irradiation in 1963. The approval was taken away in 1968 because animals fed irradiated bacon showed adverse health effects. In the US, small amounts of meat, fruit and vegetables have been test-marketed in the last 15 years. Although more than 200 billion lbs. of food are sold in the United States, current capacity of all food irradiation firms combined would irradiate only 1 billion lbs. of food. - Source: Ion Beam Applications, quoted in Food Chemical News November 5, 2001, p.10 Wholesale. American Foodservice Corporation -- one of the largest independent ground beef producers in the U.S. and a supplier of several large fast food chains, including Burger King, and casual restaurants -- will test irradiated patties in 2000-2001. Retail. The first retail label to sell irradiated beef is Huisken Meats, in supermarkets in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, beginning in May 2000. Schwan's home delivery and Omaha Steaks are using irradiation. Many grocery chains want to sell irradiated food at retail but are waiting for consumer reaction to Wal-Mart's test-markets of irradiated beef. They have delayed their initial roll-out, which was probably planned for in the mid-South. A company in Hawaii has irradiated papayas for export to the mainland and Asia beginning in August 2000. Also, Kraft and Del Monte have said they will irradiate some products. 3. How are foods affected by irradiation? top Some vitamins, like A, C, E, K and some B complex vitamins, are damaged. From 5% up to 80%, depending on how long the food is stored. Some of these vitamins are natural anti-oxidants: that is, they destroy dangerous free radicals in the body. Irradiation both a) increases the amount of free radicals in a food, and b) damages the vitamins necessary to neutralize the free radicals! Free radicals are implicated in many diseases. Over 95% of bacteria in the food are killed: both bad bacteria, like E. coli, and good bacteria, like those with telltale odors that announce that the food has spoiled. Viruses (like the Norwalk virus in shellfish) and the bacteria that causes botulism are not killed. Irradiated raw foods that are purchased to be eaten raw are the most damaged, because they have the nutrition of cooked food and the appearance of fresh food. In addition to creating more free radicals, irradiation deactivates the enzymes in fresh foods that are vital for optimal digestion and metabolism. See article on enzymes at http://www.living-foods.com The bacteria-killing, enzyme-depletion and vitamin-depletion effects of irradiation are similar to cooking. Irradiated cooked fresh foods have even fewer nutrients than nonirradiated cooked foods. Irradiation will not reduce the use of chemicals on food. It is applied after harvest. The effect of irradiation on complex chemicals such as pesticides in the food has not been studied. Aflatoxin, a highly carcinogenic substance produced by molds, is produced in greater quantities in irradiated food (because the bacteria that crowd it out have been killed). Irradiation affects different foods in different ways. Some develop off-flavors, or mushy textures, or become more susceptible to molds and fungus. When potatoes sprout, they develop a green color, which indicates the presence of the poisonous chemical solanine. When irradiated potatoes sprout, they do not turn green even when solanine is present. The bacterium that causes botulism is not killed by irradiation, but its natural enemies are. Food may be contaminated without any warning smell. This can be a big problem for meat that is irradiated in a sealed package. Irradiated food can be stored for longer periods of time. However, this benefits packers and retailers, rather than consumers. 4. How are humans affected by eating irradiated food? top We don't know. There have been no long-term human studies, and almost no studies on children. The FDA based its approval of irradiation to treat meat products on only 5 animal studies of 441 studies submitted, and these 5 either showed health effects or had obvious scientific flaws. In fact, animal studies have shown many health effects, such as tumors, kidney failure, death of offspring and miscarriages. Irradiation for fruits and vegetables was based on a theoretical calculation of the danger of the new chemicals that were created, not on animal studies. For more information on the science, see our Resources. We do know that irradiation can damage vitamins A, C, E, K, B1, B2, B3, B6 and folic acid, up to 80%, depending on the vitamin and how long the foods are stored. People who rely on fresh foods for their vitamins may suffer vitamin deficiencies. It is ironic that the vitamins that are destroyed are those needed to fight the extra free radicals created by irradiation! People who eat irradiated foods will be eating them in large quantities for a long period of time--possibly for life--especially if the FDA stops requiring labels. Scientists have no idea what result this will have on human health. Some foods may be irradiated twice, for example ground meat in a prepared frozen chili that is also irradiated. The effects on these foods on health has not been studied. The existing science on the safety of food irradiation is totally inadequate for the FDA to unleash this technology on the public. The FDA should require labels on the food so that people can avoid irradiated foods, and so that public health officials can determine if people who ate these foods and people who avoided them have different health problems. Without labels, epidemiologists will never be able to determine the health effects of irradiated foods in the diet. 5. Is electron-beam or x-ray irradiation 'better' than nuclear irradiation? top
See an overview of e-beam irradiation. Irradiation from electron beams, x-rays and gamma rays damage the food in similar ways, and pose the same risks for human health. The dose is what is important, not the source. Nuclear irradiation uses radioactive cobalt-60 or cesium-137, which can release radioactivity in transport or plant accidents. The nuclear materials would be owned by private companies rather than the government. Safe disposal of all of the material is unlikely. Both nuclear and e-beam irradiation can cause serious injuries to workers in these facilities. E-beam irradiation may create very tiny amounts of radioactivity in the food, which might be a problem if irradiated foods are eaten in large quantities over long periods. Even if e-beam irradiation is widely used, as seems likely, nuclear materials will also be used. This will happen for four reasons: 1) electron-beam irradiation must be used on small, evenly shaped foods because it does not penetrate deeply. Large or irregularly shaped items (like a whole chicken) must be irradiated using x-rays or nuclear materials. 2) the source of the irradiation is not disclosed on the food label (if a label is even required). 3) The nuclear industry still wants to get rid of the cesium-137 from nuclear power stations, and the Canadian and U.S. nuclear industry want customers who need cobalt-60 to be manufactured from cobalt-59. 4) Other countries that do not have cheap and reliable sources of electricity will use nuclear material to irradiate foods. 6. Why is it proposed for use? top To kill bacteria that cause food poisoning and spoilage. In other words, primarily to protect food companies against expensive law suits and product recalls. For some products, to increase the time the food can be sold (shelf life). These sound like worthy goals until you ask, "what's causing the problem?" and "are there other solutions?" What's causing the problem? A variety of reasons (see Nicols Fox's book Spoiled): for example, more food prepared away from home by uneducated food handlers, more imported foods from countries with lower sanitation standards, mass production slaughter techniques that allow cross-infection, etc. But the big problem, the one that galvanized the food industry to demand irradiation from Congress, is fecal contamination of meat and poultry that in turn leads to food poisoning. The food industry has been pushing irradiation to save the image of meat products after massive contaminations by E. coli in ground meat, Salmonella in chickens, and Listeria in refrigerated deli meats. Irradiation advocates say that irradiation does not create a sterile product, and all food safety procedures need to be observed anyway. Therefore, irradiation protects the producers more than the consumers! Are there other solutions? See Alternatives to Irradiation. Many small changes can make a difference, because food safety can be affected anywhere from farm to table. The single most important change would be to remove the meat inspection functions from the USDA. 7. Who supports/opposes irradiation? The public health official's job is to improve the public health statistics now; public health advocates of irradiation are not looking at the long-term health, environmental and political consequences. The food industry producers and marketers want to sell food and avoid lawsuits now; they are not looking at the long-term consequences. The Department of Defense wants to get rid of some of its nuclear wastes by selling them to private businesses; they are not looking at the long-term consequences. Grassroots opponents are supported by a growing number of scientists, doctors, and epidemiologists who advocate the precautionary principle. Our coalition wants the FDA to require permanent labeling of irradiated food. We think irradiation has not been proven safe, and we don't like the political and environmental results on our food system. Unlike irradiation advocates, almost none of us are paid to advocate our point of view. 8. What does labeling have to do with irradiation? The current FDA labeling requirement is stopping the food industry from irradiating our food supply whenever and wherever they want. The irradiationists know that most people (over 75%) don't want to buy or eat irradiated food. Therefore, they told their friends in Congress to require the FDA to revise the labeling requirement. The FDA will ask for public comments on its revised labeling regulation by the end of 2001. Then it will rewrite and publish the regulation, which will affect all irradiated foods in the U.S. The current status of labeling is: all irradiated foods must be labeled to the first purchaser (which may be a restaurant, school, or manufacturer). Consumer labels are required only for a) foods sold in their whole form (a bag of oranges, a papaya, a bag of wheat flour, a package of chicken breasts) and b) meat and chicken that is part of another food (like chicken in a tv dinner). These consumer labels have two parts: a radura and a tiny statement "Treated with radiation" or "Treated by irradiation." The statement can be the size of the typeface on the ingredient label and does not need to be any special color or design. For whole fruits and vegetables, the statement should be either on the fruit or on a display nearby (but there is no enforcement and irradiated papayas are being sold without labels already). Large food companies and irradiation advocates want the statement removed for foods that are required to be labeled to the consumer (the radura would remain). They have already influenced Congress in 2000 to require that, should the FDA keep the statement, the wording would be changed to something like "electronically pasteurized." For specifics, see our fact sheet on labeling to find out which foods have to be labeled, and how. All irradiated food should be labeled to the consumer, for these reasons: a) The existing science on safety is inadequate, therefore people should be able to make their own decision on whether or not to buy irradiated foods. b) Irradiation-caused vitamin loss should be disclosed. Irradiation-sensitive labels can be used on packages to prove a packaged food has been irradiated. Thermoluminescence tests can be used to determine if dehydrated foods have been irradiated. 9. What's wrong with the food that it has to be irradiated? top That's the big question that nobody wants you to ask. The answer is fecal contamination. Food poisoning from meat and poultry is primarily caused by animal feces. (Chickens are frequently contaminated with Salmonella or Campylobacter when raised in giant confinement buildings, which is the current practice). The question to ask the food producers is: Why are the feces getting into the food? It's true that food is never sterile. But there's a difference between dirt and feces. We expect food to be contaminated with dirt, dust, tiny stones, insect fragments, etc. These are unavoidable, and can be washed off. But we don't expect food to be produced in such a way that it is routinely contaminated with feces, or Salmonella or Campylobacter. Irradiation allows food producers to continue to automate slaughtering plants, replace government inspectors with industry personnel, and then 'clean up' the contaminated products with irradiation. Read the book Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry by Gail Eisnitz for an investigation of the places where our meat and poultry are slaughtered. 10. What is the 'science' on food irradiation? See Public Citizen's overview of the research at http://www.citizen.org/cmep/rad-food/researchoverview9912.htm or contact Food & Water http://www.foodandwater.org 1-800-EAT-SAFE for their pamphlets. The 'science' on human health effects is inadequate to prove irradiation is safe. In approving poultry for irradiation, the FDA used only 5 studies of 441 submitted, and these all have obvious methodological flaws or showed health effects in the animals. There have been almost no studies on children, and no studies on humans longer than 15 weeks. In approving fruits and vegetables for irradiation, the FDA decided that the doses were too low to show animal health effects, so it used a theoretical calculation of the number of URPs created, based on a 7.5 oz. serving of irradiated food daily. They blithely decided this would have no human health effects. Obviously this estimate is way too low, and in addition a chemist has calculated that even this amount of irradiated food daily (one large apple) would eventually weaken the liver, which would have to process a higher load of carcinogenic and mutagenic URPs. The key point is that the safety of food irradiation cannot be guaranteed by the science of the year 2001. Science changes. Absence of proof of effect is not proof of absence of effect. If scientists do not do studies that seek to measure unique radiolytic products produced by irradiation, they cannot say that a diet containing these products is safe. 11. What are the environmental effects of irradiating food? If nuclear materials are used, radioactivity may be released in plant accidents and transport. The record is not reassuring. In the US alone, many nuclear accidents have already occurred at food irradiating plants. For example, a cesium-137 spill in the State of Georgia cost the taxpayers about $47 million to clean up. Because the nuclear materials will be owned by private companies, they will have a financial incentive to dump these materials without paying the regulatory fees. This has already occurred numerous times with existing irradiation plants. Nuclear irradiators can by law release small amounts of radioactivity into the environment. Whether or not this is dangerous probably cannot be proven. However, we are already exposed to increased radioactivity from atomic weapons testing fallout and nuclear plant releases. Any additions are unwise. Electron-beam facilities do not have environmental effects except for consuming large amounts of electricity. However, both nuclear and electronic high-energy beams can injure or kill exposed workers. Irradiation gives our environmentally unsustainable system of meat and poultry production a new lease on life. Eventually, the few bacteria that survive irradiation will multiply and work their way back into the food chain. When that happens, irradiation doses will have to be increased, damaging the foods in new and untested ways. 12. What are the socio-economic and global issues involved in food irradiation? E-beam and x-ray facilities are cheaper to operate than nuclear facilities and do not carry the dangers or stigma of using nuclear material. Therefore, they are being used first. However, once irradiation is established, hundreds or thousands of irradiation facilities will be built. Nuclear material will be privatized and used, both cobalt-60 and cesium-137. The Department of Energy has decided, for now, not to reopen the nuclear Fast Flux Test Facility in Hanford, Washington, which is sitting on a very contaminated site. The FFTF could bring in money by manufacturing cobalt-60 from cobalt-59 for food irradiation, which is now done in Canada. However, under the new Bush administration, the DEA may reverse this decision. There is not enough cobalt-60 now for widespread use. In countries with expensive or unreliable electricity, either cobalt-60 or cesium-137, a byproduct of nuclear weapons manufacturing, will be used. Therefore, in the big picture, any widespread use of irradiation encourages the continued use of nuclear power. See Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly article "Fallout from the Peaceful Atom" for background. Radiation-resistant food bacteria like E. coli may emerge because some food bacteria survive irradiation, and another species of radiation-resistant bacteria already exists. Gene transfer between food bacteria and the resistant bacteria is quite possible in the long term. See article on radiation-resistant bacteria D. radiodurans. Irradiation is a capital-intensive process that requires large amounts of food to be processed in centralized facilities. The use of irradiation speeds up the centralization of our food system. Because Third World people tend to depend on very few staples, irradiating just one of these staples means that a large percentage of their diet will be irradiated for years and years. The potential harmful effects of a diet of irradiated food will be magnified. If irradiation becomes widespread, plants will be genetically engineered so that their food products will have better taste, smell and texture after irradiation, even if the nutritional content decreases. It is possible that some of these new plants will patented to need irradiation. 13. What is the status of irradiation in other countries? It is legal in at least 35 countries, for example Russia (cereals), South Africa (fruit and vegetables), Belgium (spices and food ingredients), France (spices, mechanically deboned poultry meat), The Netherlands (spices, frozen fish and seafood), Hungary (onions and paprika), Norway (spices), Canada (seafood and pork), China (potatoes). Other foods may be irradiated also. Food irradiation has been used illegally to camouflage spoiled seafood for resale. Recently, Canadian regulatory authorities have moved closer to allowing irradiation of red meat and poultry. There are anti-irradiation groups in several countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and European activists are closely watching the FDA policy on labeling. Because of world trade regulations, if the FDA stops requiring labels, the US will be able to force other countries to accept irradiated foods without labels, even if the other country requires labels for its own foods. For this reason, continued labeling in the U.S. is the key to blocking use of irradiation worldwide. 14. What strategies are irradiation supporters using to convince the public that irradiation is harmless and desirable? a) They use misleading terms such as "electronic pasteurization", "pasteurization with x-rays" and "cold pasteurization." Pasteurization is known to the public as a process of killing micro-organisms in milk and other liquids by heating them briefly to a specified temperature. The connotations of "pasteurization" and "irradiation" are quite different, because we associate pasteurization with milk, a 'friendly' and 'benevolent' food. The use of 'pasteurization' to mean 'irradiation' is therefore misleading. First and most important, pasteurized dairy is the standard. Most American consumers cannot buy unpasteurized dairy products. We do not notice the word 'pasteurized' because it is the status quo. Irradiation, on the other hand, is a new technology that is NOT the status quo. Using the term 'pasteurized' gives irradiation an aura of stability, permanence and even friendliness. Some dictionaries list irradiation as a secondary meaning for "pasteurization"; however, calling irradiated food "pasteurized" is like calling a person with second-degree burns "sun-tanned." Irradiated and pasteurized dairy foods are affected differently. Unlike dairy pasteurization, irradiation does not heat the food significantly, and may last as long as several hours. Dairy pasteurization kills bacteria when the heated water ruptures the bacteria's cell walls. Irradiation kills bacteria because free radicals bounce around in the food and penetrate the bacteria's cell walls. The free radicals may remain to do more damage to other cells in the food. b) They say that the changes in food caused by irradiation is similar to that caused by cooking foods. The problem here is that when we buy fresh food, we expect it to be fresh, with a full complement of vitamins and live enzymes. We don't seek out fresh food, which is usually more expensive than canned or frozen, for second-class nutrition and unusable enzymes. Furthermore, "similar" does not mean "exactly the same." We have no long-term experience with a diet of irradiated foods, so we don't know if the long-term effects on human health are the same. c) They tell us that astronauts have eaten irradiated foods, an irrelevant piece of information that unfortunately captivates nearly every journalist that hears it. They don't bother to find out that exactly ONE item on the NASA menu is irradiated--beefsteak. In addition, the comparison is totally irrelevant: Astronauts are on military missions where they expect health risks greater than civilian life (unlike us). They eat irradiated foods for a short time (unlike us). And they have been told what they are eating (unlike us). d) The only question irradiation advocates consider important is, "Does the existing science prove that a diet of irradiated foods harms human health?" The answer is "No, but the science is totally inadequate to prove it is safe for human health.". Advocates also ignore the equally important issue: Food irradiation is a public policy matter, not just a human health matter. 15. What can I do to help? See the Actions section of our web site, http://www.purefood.org/irradlink.html. Also, contact us to be notified so you can comment when the FDA revises the labeling regulations. 16. I still don't know enough to come to a definite conclusion for or against food irradiation. Help! Look at it from a holistic perspective: People who support food irradiation are trying to solve a problem caused by the status quo without changing the status quo. They accept factory farming and meat industry deregulation, with the resulting sanitation problems. They are trying to put a band-aid on a problem rather than solving the problem. They want to restrict the debate over food irradiation to the narrow question "Is there any science that proves that it harms human health?" They don't want to look at the big picture, which is much greater than the existing science on human health. The big picture includes the possibility of long-term effects on human health, the consequences for other countries' labeling laws, the support irradiation gives to factory farming, the replacement of meat inspection by irradiation (irradiate feces instead of cutting it off), and other issues. Opponents of irradiation, on the other hand, are looking at the big picture. They don't accept the status quo of meat industry deregulation, and they want the contamination problem solved at the source. They want alternative techniques for food safety to be used. They want to reverse the policies of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations that deregulated meat inspection and led to dirtier meat. They want more environmentally sustainable and humane food production methods, better food inspection, and more locally grown food. These goals are blocked if food irradiation is used to keep the status quo. They want government to presume that irradiation is unsafe unless proved otherwise (the precautionary principle). They want labels on all irradiated foods, including food service, so they can know what they are purchasing. They do not want to encourage privatization of nuclear materials. Unlike supporters of irradiation, opponents feel responsible for protecting human health and the environment for everyone, including future generations. Contact: Danila, danila@purefood.org Organic Consumers Association http://www.purefood.org/irradlink.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
