Irradiation for Seafood? - Take Action -

[Vance]

I really don't want to come back and log in to post around here at this moment but I recieved this email and I posted at every community that I hang around to spread the information. I feel that it is too important for me to not neglect. Anyway here it is:


WESTON A. PRICE FOUNDATION
ACTION ALERT
December 14, 2004

Take Action - Tell the FDA Not to Approve Irradiation for Seafood!

An industry trade association, National Fisheries Institute (NFI),
petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry to allow for the irradiation of
mollusks in 1999. In 2001, NFI filed another petition with the FDA to
allow for the irradiation of crustaceans, including shrimp. FDA is
currently evaluating those petitions, while the industry is pressuring
the agency to move forward and approve the petitions.

Irradiation is the process by which food is exposed to high doses of
radiation-the equivalent of up to 1 billion chest x-rays. Irradiation
kills bacteria and extends the shelf life of food, but destroys vitamins
and creates new chemical compounds. Problems include, but are not
limited to, premature death, fatal internal bleeding, prenatal death,
suppressed immune systems, tumors, stunted growth and nutritional
deficiencies.

Irradiation addresses less than seven percent of contamination found in
seafood. In fact, if consumers believe their food to be safe, they are
less likely to follow strict handling and cooking precautions and are
more likely to get sick as a result. If the seafood industry truly wants
to protect consumers, it should educate them about the real sources of
poisonings, instead of offering them a deceptive security blanket.

Send this letter (free) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by clicking on
the following link: http://en.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=15862486&u=143684 (pre-written)

The letter, as below:

Lauren Tarantino, Director
Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-200)
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740-3835
fax: 301-436-2973

Dear Ms. Tarantino:

Re: Docket No. 99F-4372 and Docket No. 01F-0047, amendment of Food
Additive regulations to allow for the irradiation of fresh or frozen
molluscan shellfish and crustaceans and processed crustaceans.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my serious concern
over the petitions currently being considered by the FDA regarding the
irradiation of seafood. In 1999 and 2001, two petitions were submitted
to the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by the National
Fisheries Institute to allow for the irradiation of seafood.
Irradiation is not an acceptable option for protecting consumers from
seafood poisoning. Instead, it may cause unnecessary health concerns. I
ask you to not approve this petition.

The level of irradiation necessary to kill naturally-occurring bacteria
in seafood will cause deterioration of texture and juiciness, as
shellfish are delicate foods. Low levels of irradiation cannot kill all
bacteria present in seafood. Irradiation does not obliterate food-borne
viruses that cause more than 9 million people to become sick annually.
It also won't cleanse seafood of methylmercury, which causes
neurological birth defects, or of the toxins that cause shellfish
poisoning. More importantly, irradiation will not protect consumers from
the top sources of seafood poisoning: unsafe holding temperature, poor
personal hygiene, inadequate cooking, and contaminated equipment.

Irradiation not only offers consumers a false sense of security, but
also poses a host of health concerns to consumers. Recent research has
shown that one type of chemical created by irradiation,
alkylcyclobutanones, promotes cancer development and genetic damage in
rats and genetic damage in human cells.

As a concerned consumer, I am urging you not to allow the irradiation
of seafood. Thank you for considering my concerns.

Best Regards,
<your name>

Irradiation is quite dangerous method... There was a test on children and detected the numbers of health problems and odd diseases. I have few articles but I don't have the time to look and post (final exam in an hour). If you want to support the Irradiation, that is entirely up to you but no need to bash me for being anti-irradiation.

take care,
Magatsu

 

[Peachy Lady]

Thanks for this information. I agree with you in this. Hope to see you post more in the near future...by the way, Merry Christmas to you!

 

[Cheri]

Magatsu, You'll be back I just know it. You need us. ha ha ha


Back on Topic here, For me, I agree with Food Irradiation, because of that It kill bacteria, parasites and insects in foods. Irradiation does not make food radioactive, as I thought.

But, I would like to see the articles Magatsu, I thought that Irradiation helps protect people from getting sick and saves lives. But, If you proof me otherwise I would be more than glad to look through the articles that you willing to provide later.

 

[Vance]

Okay, my professor gave me an 'pardon' from final exam due to my grade in that classroom. Hooray. That will be my third 'pardon' this week. Studying hard, positive attitude and assertive (such as participate in debates and discussions) does help!

But, I would like to see the articles Magatsu, I thought that Irradiation helps protect people from getting sick and saves lives. But, If you proof me otherwise I would be more than glad to look through the articles that you willing to provide later.

Sure, I will post maybe 5 or few more than 5 articles. There are over 100 articles alone about Irradiation, its concerns and side effects. Anyway, here it is...

Let Them Eat Feces:
Agribusiness & Government Move to Weaken
U.S. Food Labeling Laws and Irradiate Beef
by Ronnie Cummins
Little Marais, Minnesota

Once again Corporate America's food giants find themselves scrambling to restore public confidence in the wake of the latest outbreak of e-coli 0157, which the press has dubbed the "hamburger disease." In August, after several dozen consumers in Colorado were poisoned by the e-coli feces in their burgers, 25 million pounds of hamburger meat had to be recalled from the Hudson Foods Corporation. Even the giant chain Burger King was forced to stop serving hamburgers in their restaurants briefly. In interviews with the press, the government Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admitted that food poisoning has reached epidemic proportions in the US, with up to 80 million consumers per year being poisoned, mainly by feces and bacteria-contaminated beef, poultry, eggs, and fish. National polls in the US have found 80% of all consumers expressing concern about food safety issues such as e-coli and salmonella, pesticide residues, artificial growth hormones, and genetic engineering.

Statistics over the past 4 years indicate that up to 35% of America's hamburger meat may be contaminated by feces, with up to 1.5%-3.5% likely containing the deadly e-coli 0157. In 1993 the Foundation on Economic Trends sued the USDA over the e-coli and meat contamination issue--forcing the government to begin placing warning labels on all 2 billion packages of fresh meat sold in the USA each year. Statistics on salmonella and feces contamination of poultry and eggs are even worse, with the Clinton Administration announcing in July 1996 that the government's long-term goals were to reduce feces residues on poultry to just under 50%!

In addition, an investigative article in US News and World Report on Sept. 1 reported that cattle and other animals are now being fed raw manure on a massive scale--as a low-cost alternative to alfalfa, hay, and other traditional feeds. And now, after a year of media reports on the BSE epidemic in Europe, the US news media appear finally to be waking up to the fact that literally billions of pounds of dead and diseased animals and waste body parts continue to be rendered and fed back to America's farm animals and pets. No wonder sales of organic foods and natural, free-range meats have skyrocketed over the past 5 years. No wonder the USA has had to resort to using the WTO to try to force its beef on Europeans, who have banned all US beef imports since 1988. Even Boris Yeltsin, certainly not known for his consumer activism, briefly halted half a billion dollars in chicken imports from the USA to Russia in 1996, citing widespread feces and salmonella contamination. The Wall Street Journal reported on Sept. 18 that Clinton has sent USDA secretary Dan Glickman to Russia to deal with the "growing backlash" against food exports to Russia, "especially poultry."

Reacting to the ongoing crisis in public confidence, the Clinton Administration and America's food multinationals have decided to take drastic action. Not drastic action in the sense of implementing stringent food safety measures. The drastic actions they have in mind are entirely different: to crack down on and intimidate the media and food critics; to restrict or to take away altogether consumers' rights to know what's been done to their food; and finally to start using nuclear waste to irradiate America's feces-tainted meat, poultry, and produce.

Source: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/waste.html


Can you imagine that? They irradiated the beefs that are contaminated by feces to cover the problem... I wouldn't eat these foods, not even if I am starve to death!

I can easily guess that anti-freedom people (especially, you -- ravensteve) would debate with me about Clinton and his decision about that feces problem. To remind you something, Clinton have no idea what is going on, he listened and took the advice from mutli-national food industries. Bush have the same problems so don't bring the politics about Clinton or Bush in this topic. I repeat: don't bring the 'Clinton' politic into this topic. I will alert your posts to mods immediately if you do that due to offtopic reason so stay clear from any offtopic but irradiation foods. Don't say that I didn't warn you. (Btw, Clinton loves fast foods, that's why he supported the multi-national food industries and the result: he had a heart surgery) More articles in next post(s).

 

[Vance]

In legalizing food irradiation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not determine a level of radiation to which food can be exposed and still be safe for human consumption, which federal law requires. I, II

In legalizing food irradiation, the FDA relied on laboratory research that did not meet modern scientific protocols, which federal law requires. I, IV

Research dating to the 1950s has revealed a wide range of problems in animals that ate irradiated food, including premature death, a rare form of cancer, reproductive dysfunction, chromosomal abnormalities, liver damage, low weight gain and vitamin deficiencies. V, VI, VII, VIII

Irradiation masks and encourages filthy conditions in slaughterhouses and food processing plants. Irradiation can kill most bacteria in food, but it does nothing to remove the feces, urine, pus and vomit that often contaminate beef, pork, chicken and other meat. Irradiation will not kill the pathogen that causes mad cow disease. IX, X

Irradiation destroys vitamins, essential fatty acids and other nutrients in food -- sometimes significantly. The process destroys 80 percent of vitamin A in eggs, but the FDA nonetheless legalized irradiation of these products. XI, XII

Irradiation can change the flavor, odor and texture of food -- sometimes disgustingly so. Pork can turn red; beef can smell like a wet dog; fruit and vegetables can become mushy; and eggs can lose their color, become runny and ruin recipes. XIII, XIV, XV

Irradiation disrupts the chemical composition of everything in its path -- not just harmful bacteria, which the food industry often asserts. Scores of new chemicals called "radiolytic products" are formed by irradiation -- chemicals that do not naturally occur in food and that the FDA has never studied for safety. XVI, XVII

The World Health Organization did not follow its own recommendation to study the toxicity of "radiolytic products" formed in high-dose irradiated food before proposing in November 2000 that the international irradiation dose limit -- equal to 330 million chest x-rays -- be removed. XVIII, XIX

Soon, some irradiation plants may use cesium-137, a highly radioactive waste material left over from the production of nuclear weapons. This material is dangerous and unstable. In 1988, a cesium-137 leak near Atlanta led to a $30 million, taxpayer-funded cleanup. XX

Because it increases the shelf life of food and is used in large, centralized facilities, irradiation encourages globalization and consolidation of the food production, distribution and retailing industries. These trends have already forced multitudes of family farmers and ranchers out of business, reduced the diversity of products in the marketplace, disrupted local economies in developing nations, and put American farmers and ranchers at a great economic disadvantage. XXI

Source: http://www.citizen.org/cmep/rad-food/factsheet10reasons.htm

Note:


I. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, § 170.22.

II. Federal Register, various filings, 1983-2000.

III. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, § 170.20.

IV. Federal Register, various filings, 1983-2000.

V. A Broken Record: How the FDA Legalized -- and Continues to Legalize -- Food Irradiation Without Testing it for Safety. Washington, D.C.: Public Citizen, Cancer Prevention Coalition, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, Oct. 2000.

VI. Kesavan, P.C., Swaminathan, M.S. "Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of irradiated substrates and food material." Radiation Botany, 11:253-181, 1971.

VII. Schubert, J. "Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of irradiated foods and food components." Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 41:873-904, 1969.

VIII. Spiher, A.T. "Food Irradiation: An FDA Report." FDA Papers, Oct. 1968.

IX. Nestor, F. and Hauter, W. The Jungle 2000: Is America's Meat Fit to Eat? Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability Project, Public Citizen, Sept. 2000.

X. Piccioni, R. "Food irradiation: Contaminating our food." The Ecologist, 18:2:48-55.

XI. FDA Memorandum, from Kim Morehouse, Ph.D. to William Trotter, Ph.D. April 11, 2000.

XII. FDA Memorandum, from Antonio Mattia, Ph.D. to William Trotter, Ph.D. Nov. 2, 1999.

XIII. Webb, T. et al. Food Irradiation: Who Wants It? Rochester, Vermont: Thorsons Publishers, 1987.

XIV. Huang, S. et al. "Effect of electron beam irradiation on physical, physicochemical and functional properties of liquid egg during frozen storage." Poultry Science, 76:1607-15, 1997.

XV. Wong, Y.C. et al. "Comparison between irradiated and thermally pasteurized liquid egg white on functional, physical and microbiological properties." Poultry Science, 75:803-808, 1996.

XVI. Murray, D. Biology of Food Irradiation. Somerset, England: Research Studies Press Ltd., 1990.

XVII. Op. cit. Note 5.

XVIII.International Consulative Group on Food Irradiation: Review of Data on High Dose (10-70 kGy) Irradiation of Food. Report of a Consulation, Karlsruhe, 29 August - 2 September 1994. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1994.

XIX. High-Dose Irradiation: Wholesomeness of Food Irradiated with Doses Above 10 kGy. Report of a Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Study Group. Technical Report Series 890. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999.

XX. Last radioactive capsules taken from DeKalb plant." Macon Telegraph, Nov. 20, 1990.

XXI. A Citizen's Guide to Fighting Food Irradiation. Washington, D.C.: Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program, 2000.

 

[Vance]

Question: Is irradiated food safe to eat?

Answer: No.

Irradiated food has caused a myriad of health problems in laboratory animals (and people in a few studies), including chromosomal damage, immune and reproductive problems, kidney damage, tumors, internal bleeding, low birth weight, and nutritional muscular dystrophy.

Irradiation leads to the formation of Unique Radiolytic Products, mysterious chemical compounds that have not been identified or studied for their potential harm to humans. These products are free radicals, which set off chain reactions in the body that destroy antioxidants, tear apart cell membranes, and make the body more susceptible to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, liver damage, muscular breakdown, and other serious health problems.

Irradiation does nothing to remove the feces, urine, pus, vomit and tumors often left on beef, chicken, and lamb as the result of filthy and inhumane slaughterhouse conditions. These conditions have worsened as conveyer belts have speeded up (400 cow carcasses are processed per hour nowadays) and public oversight of slaughterhouses has been reduced.

Irradiation can spawn mutant forms of E. coli, Salmonella and other harmful bacteria, making them more difficult to kill.

Irradiation destroys vitamins, nutrients and essential fatty acids, including up to 95 percent of vitamin A in chicken and 86 percent of vitamin B in oats. In some foods, irradiation can actually intensify the vitamin and nutrient loss caused by cooking.

Irradiation can lead to the formation of carcinogens and other toxic chemicals such as benzene, formaldehyde, octane, butane and methyl propane in certain foods.

Irradiation can corrupt the flavor, texture and other physical properties of certain foods, leading to meat that smells like a wet dog and onions that turn brown.

Irradiation kills beneficial microorganisms, such as the yeasts and molds that help keep botulism at bay, as well as the microorganisms that create the aromas that tell us when food has gone bad.

Question: Are irradiation facilities safe?

Answer: Not always.

According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 45 accidents at U.S. (food and medical-supply) irradiation plants were recorded from 1974-89, at least two of which were covered up by irradiation company executives, some of whom were criminally charged in federal court and given prison time.

Irradiation plant workers are exposed to dangerous radiation hazards. Several have died or been exposed to near-fatal doses of radiation at facilities throughout the world.

Irradiation plants emit smog-forming, ground-level ozone into the environment.

Neighbors and the environment are endangered by plants that use radioactive cobalt-60 or cesium-137, which must be replenished after several years of use. Most of the cobalt-60 comes from a facility in Canada, creating transportation hazards when "fresh" material is driven to and waste driven from the plants.

Irradiation encourages the proliferation of nuclear technology at a point in history when a vast majority of Americans and people throughout the world are demanding that we back away from the use of nuclear material. A facility in Florida is owned by a company associated with a Canadian outfit that has sold nuclear technology to China, India and Pakistan.

Question: Did U.S. officials thoroughly study irradiation before legalizing it?

Answer: No.

The FDA relied on only 5 of more than 400 scientific studies to determine that irradiated food is safe to eat. Of those five, only three have been published in peer-reviewed journals. In two of the studies, researchers used doses of radiation at or far below those approved by the FDA, rendering the studies virtually if not completely useless.

The agency has rejected every study that has drawn into question the safety of irradiation.

The FDA used 38 studies that agency scientists once declared "deficient" to support the safety of irradiated food.

The FDA has not followed its own rules that require elaborate toxicological experiments be conducted before legalizing irradiation, including a requirement that the Unique Radiolytic Products generated by the process be subjected to in-depth testing.

The FDA has begun to conduct and approve expedited reviews of food irradiation applications from industry, admitting-in at least one-that certain packaging materials may not be safe when exposed to radiation.

No long-term studies have been done on the consumption of irradiated food, a problem the FDA admits but has done nothing to correct.

Question: Can the research into food irradiation be trusted?

Answer: Not all of it.

Research conducted at public universities is increasingly industry-funded. A prominent Iowa State University professor who's been researching food irradiation for many years was just hired by Titan Corporation, a leading irradiation company (and erstwhile defense contractor). And, Titan recently entered a research contract with Texas A&M University.

Much of the early research into food irradiation, done during the 1960s and 1970s, was conducted by an Army-hired firm that was eventually convicted of fraud for fabricating the results of its work.

Very little toxicological testing has been done on irradiated food during the past 20 years. New, updated tests should be performed with the benefit of improved scientific methods.

Question: Is food irradiation good for the economy?

Answer: No.

Food irradiation encourages the further consolidation of the food production, processing, distribution, marketing and retailing industries by giving the advantage to giant companies that can afford this prohibitively expensive technology. In the process, the food product marketplace is further homogenized and family farmers are put at a greater disadvantage.

If the U.S. government allows imported food to be irradiated-as it may do in the near future-more of our fruit, vegetables and meat will come from other countries, resulting in the closure of farms and the loss of agricultural jobs here at home. Plus, this imported food will be older, more bland and less nutritious than food grown in the U.S.

Food irradiation adds unnecessarily to the cost of food when less expensive alternatives are available. A recent survey by Consumers for Science in the Public Interest showed that irradiated ground beef being sold in the Midwest cost up to 75 cents more per pound-more than 40 percent higher than non-irradiated beef-and that the irradiated beef contained 25 percent fat.

Question: Are consumers receiving credible information about food irradiation?

Answer: No.

Many "unbiased" supporters of food irradiation in reality work on behalf of the food industry. The corporate-funded American Council on Science and Health, for instance, is chaired by A. Alan Moghissi, whose anti-environment and anti-consumer positions include fighting the removal of asbestos from schools and proclaiming that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a good thing for the agriculture industry.

Food irradiation companies have been increasingly successful in getting the media to call irradiation "pasteurization," which is an entirely different process by which microorganisms are killed by quickly heating and cooling food.

Companies that irradiate with "e-beam" technology such as the Titan Corporation are seeking to distinguish themselves from companies that irradiate with gamma rays from radioactive sources. This is highly misleading, as both e-beam (electrons fired from a linear accelerator at nearly the speed of light) and gamma rays (high-frequency electromagnetic waves) are forms of ionizing radiation-meaning that they obliterate the bonds that hold atoms and molecules together and create new chemical compounds.

Furthermore, Titan and other irradiation companies are comparing irradiating food with cooking food in a microwave oven. This comparison is bogus. The radiation used to irradiate food is ionizing, meaning that it drastically changes the chemical composition of food (see above). Microwave radiation is non-ionizing, meaning that the chemical structure of food is largely left intact.


Question: Should vegetarians care about irradiation?

Answer: Yes.

Food processing companies aren't irradiating just meat. Fruit and vegetables are being irradiated, too-all of which suffer nutrient destruction as bad or worse than in meat. Spices such as garlic powder and paprika are being irradiated as well, and can be added to processed foods without being labeled.

Everybody should be concerned about E. coli contamination. Irradiation does nothing to prevent this and other harmful bacteria from winding up in drinking water supplies. Just last may, E. coli-tainted drinking water killed at least seven people and sickened more than 2,000 others in Ontario, Canada.

Source: http://www.citizen.org/cmep/rad-food/QandA.htm

 

[Vance]

Food Irradiation Will Be Used To Mask Filthy Slaughtering and Food Processing Practices


Food irradiation dose limit would be removed, health and safety regulations discarded under new plan, substandard food could be "treated" with high-dose radiation in unlicensed and dirty facilities.

A proposed international food irradiation standard winding its way through legal channels in Europe could jeopardize the quality and safety of food sold to United States consumers.

Under an international plan endorsed March 16, virtually every assurance that irradiated food will be of good quality, be handled by trained workers, and be processed under safe and clean conditions in government-inspected facilities would disappear. The proposal also would remove the international dose limit for food irradiation.

The proposal was endorsed in The Hague, Netherlands, by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC), which advises the Codex Alimentarius ("Food Code") Commission. Operating under the auspices of the United Nations and World Health Organization (WHO), the Codex sets global food safety standards for more than 160 nations, representing about 97 percent of the world's population. The United States is one of the 160 nations.

"This proposal confirms that irradiation will be used to mask filthy slaughtering and food processing practices," said Wenonah Hauter, director of the Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "These antiquated ideas set back food safety more than 100 years, to a time when people routinely died from eating contaminated food. It is an outrage to the highest order. People throughout the world have cause for great worry."

Under international trade rules, countries that are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) can challenge the standards of other countries by claiming the standards are trade barriers. If the WTO agrees, countries whose standards are challenged must amend the standard or face trade sanctions.

U.S. standards governing irradiated food are much stricter than what Codex is proposing. That means that if the Codex measure is approved, other countries could challenge US standards through the WTO.

A successful challenge could pressure the US to weaken its standards.

The proposal would amend the Codex's 22-year-old food irradiation standard by stating that food companies "should" rather than "shall" comply with the standards. Many of the changes were proposed without any advance notice and approved at meetings that were closed to the public.

Under the looser standards, irradiated food would no longer have to be "of suitable quality," in "acceptable hygienic condition," or "handled ... according to good manufacturing practices."

Additionally, food irradiation facilities would no longer have to comply with "safety" and "good hygiene practices," or be staffed by "adequate, trained and competent personnel." Nor would they have to be licensed or inspected by government officials, or maintain certain records on radioactive activities.

Also, food irradiation would no longer have to be carried out "commensurate with ... technological and public health purposes" or conducted "in accordance with good radiation processing practice."

The changes could place numerous US food and nuclear safety regulations at risk.

Among them are Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules requiring all irradiation facilities using radioactive material to be licensed and regularly inspected; Department of Agriculture rules requiring beef, pork and poultry products to meet certain quality standards; and USDA and Food and Drug Administration rules requiring food to be processed under hygienic conditions.

CCFAC also endorsed removing the current irradiation Codex dose limit of 10 kiloGray, which is the equivalent of about 330 million chest X-rays. When food is exposed to such doses of ionizing radiation, the flavor, texture, odor, nutritional integrity and chemical composition of food can change significantly. Very few of the new chemicals that are formed in irradiated food have been studied for toxicity. Most US foods are dosed with between 1 and 7.5 kiloGray.

One chemical that is a byproduct of the irradiation process, called 2-DCB, was found in 1998 to cause cellular and genetic damage in human and rat cells.

The WHO is continuing to research the potential toxicity and mutagenicity of the chemical, which is a radiation byproduct of a certain fatty acid found in beef, chicken, pork, lamb, duck, eggs, mangoes, papayas, peanuts, seafood and many other foods.

The 2-DCB studies were conducted in Germany, one of several European Union countries that is skeptical of the purported benefits of irradiation. At the recent meeting in The Hague, the German delegation objected to the CCFAC proposal.

The proposal is about halfway through the approval process. It next will be debated by the full Codex Commission, which meets July 2-7 in Geneva.

Public Citizen has been vigorously opposing efforts to weaken international food irradiation standards by organizing nongovernmental organizations and writing letters to Codex delegates. In February, Public Citizen sent letters of concern to all US delegates to CCFAC, all international delegates to the full Codex Commission, and to CCFAC Chair S.P.J. Hagenstein.

Public Citizen also has challenged the WHO's assertion that irradiated food is safe to eat by sending letters to top officials within the organization.

Source: www.laleva.cc/food/irradiation_dirtyfood.html

 

[Vance]

Yes, gamma rays can kill harmful bacteria in food, but one big problem is that they kill the helpful microflora, too. Bacteria are not just agents of disease.... One need not be a Luddite to recognize the cult of nuclear idolatry.

Geoffrey Sea, Director
Atomic Reclamation and
Conversion Project

There are potentially serious concerns about the issues of waste disposal, engineering safety, transport of radioactive material, production of new isotopes, handling by poorly trained personnel, and others we haven't even thought of yet.

Sheldon Margen, M.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of California, Berkeley

I am opposed to food irradiation because it is clear that this process increases the levels of mutagens and carcinogens in the food. The inevitable consequence of this is that in two to five decades in the future, the incidence of cancer will increase from what we see now, in direct proportion to the amounts of irradiated food consumed. Thus, food irradiation becomes very expensive both in terms of human lives, as well as health care costs.

George L. Tritsch, Ph.D.
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Buffalo, NY

It is distressing to me that despite all the studies, many favorable and many unfavorable, the FDA utilized only five safety studies.

I looked in detail at two of those studies. Each raises considerable question. In one, the irradiated food was obtained from some other group and we are never actually given any data to show that the food was irradiated properly or even irradiated at all.

Additionally, the authors note an increase in abnormalities in dogs at autopsy and then seem to feel that the abnormalities they found were meaningless and should be ignored. In the other study from England, in the group receiving the food irradiated most, there were increased deaths in the offspring and this is completely ignored even though the authors say there is no explanation for it.

To me, it is somewhat amazing that these are listed as two of the five studies that are considered impeccable enough to be evaluated for safety. Those studies have considerable imperfections. For the FDA to selectively choose the five is, I believe, improper for deciding safety.

Donald B. Louria, MD
University of Medicine & Dentistry
of New Jersey

I am not against food irradiation. I am opposed to the hype, some of which is voiced by people who should know better and therefore appear to be deliberate falsehoods.... I and others worked very hard trying to find a useful place for irradiation during the Atoms for Peace program. Unfortunately, we were not able to find it.

Noel F. Sommer, Ph.D., Emeritus
Postharvest Pathologist
University of California, Davis

The large scale irradiation of food, as proposed by the industry and administration, represents the largest prospective toxicological experiment in human populations in the history of public health.

Samuel S. Epstein, MD
Professor of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine,
The University of Illinois at Chicago

What we do know with certainty is that irradiation causes a host of unnatural and sometimes unidentifiable chemicals to be formed within the irradiated foods, and that the number, kind, and permanence of these foreign chemical compounds depend on the food itself and the dose of radiation.

Our ignorance about these foreign compounds makes it simply a fraud to tell the public that we know irradiated foods would be safe to eat; it is dishonorable to trick people into buying irradiated foods, because such behavior is a violation of the basic human right.

John W. Gofman, MD, Ph.D.
University of California, Berkeley

It has been shown repeatedly that mutagenic doses of formaldehyde are formed during irradiation of carbohydrate. Meat, although protein, also contains carbohydrates. Anyone can choose not to eat saturated fats and cholesterol, but once the food supply is supplemented with mutagens, it will take massive efforts to dislodge a well entrenched and financed industry which will deny to the end that it is responsible for the inevitable increase in neoplasia which in effect it has caused.

Furthermore, the organisms remaining in the irradiated food are by definition radiation resistant, and no work whatever has been done on what these new organisms populating the gastrointestinal tract and their progeny will do to man and the environment.

George L. Tritsch, Ph.D.
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Buffalo, NY

First, since we do not know what we are seeking in the experiments, though they are designed with the best toxicological techniques available, they can not prove the safety of the irradiated food in question, but merely give us a measure of confidence that it is safe. The ultimate test will be in the human after lifetimes or generations of consumption.

Dr. Jacqueline Verrett
former FDA toxicologist

These studies reviewed in the 1982 memo from the FDA were not adequate by 1982 standards, and are even less adequate by 1993 standards to evaluate the safety of any product, especially a food product such as irradiated foods.

Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D.
Toxicologist and former chair
of an FDA irradiation committee

Radiation is a carcinogen, mutagen, and teratogen. At doses of 100,000 rads to fruits and vegetables, the cells of the fruits and vegetables will be destroyed, but fungi, bacteria, and viruses growing on the fruits and vegetables will not all be killed or inactivated at these doses. They will be mutated, possibly leading to more virulent contaminants. Has anyone addressed this problem?

Geraldine Dettman, Ph.D.
Radiation Safety Officer,
Biosafety Officer, Brown University

 

[Vance]

In the course of legalizing the irradiation of beef, chicken, pork, fruit, vegetables, eggs, juice, spices and sprouting seeds -- a process that has spanned nearly 20 years -- the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has dismissed or ignored a substantial body of evidence suggesting that irradiated food may not be safe for human consumption.

The following is a sampling of research -- appearing in scientific journals and other publications -- that raise questions about the FDA's assertions that people who eat irradiated food have nothing to worry about.

Reproductive Problems, Cancer in Mammals

"A careful analysis by FDA of all Army data present (including 31 loose-leaf notebooks of animal feeding test results) showed significant adverse effects produced in animals fed irradiated food...

What were these adverse effects?

A decrease of 20.7 percent in surviving weaned rats.

A 32.3 percent decrease in surviving progeny of dogs.

Dogs weighing 11.3 percent less than animals on the control diets... Carcinomas of the pituitary gland, a particularly disturbing finding since this is an extremely rare type of malignant tumor."

Food irradiation: An FDA report. FDA Papers, Oct. 1968.

Fatal Internal Bleeding in Rats (I)

"A significant number of rats consuming irradiated beef died from internal hemorrhage within 46 days, the first death of a male rat coming on the 11th day of feeding. This rat became sluggish on the 8th day of the regimen and started refusing food. He continued to be morbid during the next two days, did not eat any food, lost weight and appeared anemic. He was found dead on the 11th day.

Vitamin K deficiency in rats induced by feeding of irradiated beef.

Journal of Nutrition, 69:18-21, 1959. (Cosponsored by the Surgeon General of the US Army)

Fatal Internal Bleeding in Rats (II)

"Hemorrhagic death had occurred in all males fed irradiated diets by day 34... There is evidence to suggest that inefficient absorption of vitamins, i.e. vitamin K, from the intestinal tract may contribute to a deficiency state." [Note: Vitamin K plays a major role in blood clotting.]

Influence of age, sex, strain of rat and fat soluble vitamins on hemorrhagic syndromes in rats fed irradiated beef.

Federation Proceedings, 19:1045-1048, 1960. (Cosponsored by the Surgeon General of the US Army)

Fetal Deaths in Mice

"Freshly irradiated diets produced elevated levels of early deaths in [mice fetuses]... The increase in early deaths would suggest that the diet when irradiated has some mutagenic potential."

Irradiated laboratory animal diets: Dominant lethal studies in the mouse.

Mutation Research, 80:333-345, 1981.

Embryo Deaths in Mice

"Feeding of mice for two months before mating with 50 percent of the standard complete diet irradiated with gamma rays provokes a significant increase of embryonal deaths, probably to be interpreted as a dominant lethal mutation associated with gross chromosomal aberrations, such as breaks repeatedly found to be induced by irradiated materials."

Pre-implantation death of mouse eggs caused by irradiated food.

International Journal of Radiation Biology, 18:201-216, 1970.

Radioactive Organs and Excrement in Rats

"Considerable amounts of radioactivity were present in the liver, kidney, stomach, gastrointestinal tract, and blood serum of rats fed irradiated sucrose solutions. Radioactivity was present in urine and feces samples.

Biochemical effects of irradiated sucrose solutions in the rat. Radiation Research, 37:202-215, 1969.

A Thalidomide Warning (I)

"The thalidomide disaster might have been prevented if an easily performed investigation of possible cytotoxic effects in plant cells had been made. It must be acknowledged that any compound causing [cellular] damage must be considered a potential hazard to any living cell or cell system -- including man."

Toxic effects of irradiated foods. Nature, 211:302, 1966.

A Thalidomide Warning (II)

"Irradiating can bring about chemical transformations in food and food components resulting in the formation of potential mutagens, particularly hydrogen peroxide and various organic peroxides.

It is now realized, especially since the thalidomide episode, that older testing protocols do not detect the more subtle population hazards such as mutagens and teratogens. In view of the serious consequences to the human population which could arise from a high level of induced mutations, it is desirable that protocols for irradiated food should include in vivo tests on mammals for possible mutagenicity."

Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of irradiated foods and food components.

Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 41:873-904, 1969. (Cosponsored by the US Atomic Energy Commission and Food and Drug Administration)

A Host of Problems

"Numerous studies have been carried out to ascertain whether cytotoxic effects occur when unirradiated biological test systems are cultured or fed with irradiated media or food. In such studies, adverse physiological growth retardation and inhibition, cytological cell division inhibition and chromosome aberrations and genetical effects have been observed in a wide range of test systems, ranging from bacteriophages to human cells... The available data suggest that a variety of free radicals may act as the toxic and mutagenic agents."

Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of irradiated substrates and food material. Radiation Botany, 11:253-281, 1971.

A Cancer Warning

"An increase in concentration of a mutagen in food by irradiation will increase the incidence of cancer. It will take four to six decades to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in cancer due to mutagens introduced into food by irradiation. When food irradiation is finally prohibited, several decades worth of people with increased cancer incidence will be in the pipeline."

Food Irradiation. Nutrition, 16:698-701, 2000.

Mutations in Fruit Flies

An increase in the rate of mutation has been found in fruit flies reared on a basic medium that was irradiated with a sterilizing dose (150,000 rads) of cobalt-60 gamma rays... Visible changes were two to six times more frequent in the irradiated series than in the controls, such as half-thorax, vestigial wings and incurved wings." [Note: Fruit flies have long been a dependable bellwether for determining the potential mutagenicity of substances.]

Mutations: Incidence in Drosophila melanogaster reared on irradiated medium. Science, 141:637-638, 1963.

Fatal Vitamin E Deficiency in Rats

"A considerable number of the second litter of the experimental group of rats that ate irradiated beef died. Symptoms observed were marked fluid buildup of the face, ruffled hair coat, general incoordination, spastic hopping gait, and sometimes complete loss of movement with dragging of the hind quarters.

Those pups most severely affected often became completely prostrated a short time before death. In no case were these symptoms noted in the control group. The probability is that the pups were suffering from the characteristic muscular dystrophy syndrome commonly referred to as nutritional muscular dystrophy known to result from a marginal vitamin E intake."

Growth, reproduction, survival and histopathology of rats fed beef irradiated with electrons. Food Research, 20:193-214, 1955.

Chromosomal Damage to Human Cells (I)

"Irradiated sucrose solutions were extremely toxic to human white blood cells. Cell divisions were inhibited. Degenerated cell divisions were observed and the chromosomes were grossly damaged. The DNA was clumped or the chromosomes appeared shattered or pulverized. In contrast, treatment with unirradiated sucrose at the same concentration had no apparent effect on the mitotic rate and the chromosomes were not visibly damaged."

Effects of irradiated sucrose on the chromosomes of human lymphocytes in vitro. Nature, 211:1254-1255, 1966.

Chromosomal Damage to Human Cells (II)

"White blood cell cultures from four different healthy human males underwent a considerable inhibition of mitosis and chromosome fragmentation."

Cytotoxic and radiomimetic activity of irradiated culture medium on human leukocytes. Current Science, 16:403-404, 1966.

Toxic Chemical Formed in Food Containing Fat (I)

"When food containing fat is treated by ionizing radiation, a group of 2-alkylcyclobutanones [toxic chemicals] is formed. To date, there is no evidence that the cyclobutanones occur in unirradiated food. In vitro experiments using rat and human colon cells indicate that 2-dodecylcyclobutanone (2-DCB)... is clearly cytotoxic and genotoxic."

Genotoxic properties of 2-dodecylcyclobutanone, a compound formed on irradiation of food containing fat. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 52:39-42, 1998. (Cosponsored by the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation)

Source: http://www.citizen.org/

 

[Vance]

A Broken Record

How the FDA Legalized ¾
and Continues to Legalize ¾
Food Irradiation Without
Testing it for Safety

A special report by

Public Citizen’s
Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program

and the

Cancer Prevention Coalition
October 2000

Executive Summary

This past May—almost 45 years to the day after a U.S. Army general proudly showed members of Congress a picture of a beef tenderloin that had undergone "radiation sterilization"—irradiated meat went on public sale in the United States.

Today, somewhere in Iowa or Florida or North Dakota, someone is biting into a hamburger that has been irradiated with the equivalent of 150 million chest x-rays—and maybe sprinkling it with spices that have been "treated" with the equivalent of 1 billion chest x-rays.

Has the U.S. Food and Drug Administration done its job to ensure that this food—food that has been exposed to deadly radioactive material or electrons fired nearly to the speed of light—is safe for human consumption?

Unfortunately, for the American consumer, the answer is ‘No.’

In the most in-depth investigation ever conducted into the FDA’s oversight of food irradiation, these disturbing facts have come to light:

* Since 1983, FDA agency officials have knowingly and systematically ignored federal regulations and their own testing protocols that must be followed before irradiated food can legally be approved for human consumption.
* Since 1986, FDA officials have legalized irradiation for several major classes of food while relying on nearly 80 scientific studies that the agency’s own expert scientists had dismissed as "deficient." (The FDA legalized the irradiation of eggs in July, for instance, based on three "deficient" studies, one of which was conducted in 1959.)
* None of the seven key scientific studies that FDA officials used to legitimize their first major approval of food irradiation in 1986 met modern standards. (One of them had actually been declared "deficient" by FDA toxicologists; three others had never been translated into English.)

* FDA officials have systematically dismissed evidence suggesting that irradiated food can be toxic and induce genetic damage. Much of this evidence resulted from government-funded research submitted to the FDA and members of Congress as early as 1968.
* Officials of the FDA, U.S. Army and other federal agencies have consistently misled Congress about the potential hazards of food irradiation, and about the reasons that past research initiatives have failed to demonstrate that irradiated food is safe for human consumption.

In short, the FDA has legalized high-dose radiation "treatments" of fruit, vegetables, beef, pork, lamb, eggs and spices—all without certifying that any of the scientific studies they used to justify these decisions met modern standards.

In this report, we attempt to answer the questions "Who?" "What?" "Where?" and "How?" One questions remains: "Why?"

Food Irradiation: Roots and Reasons

From efforts by the Atomic Energy Commission to fulfill the promise of President Eisenhower’s "Atoms for Peace" program, to efforts by the Energy Department to find markets for radioactive waste generated by nuclear bomb facilities and power plants… From efforts by the food industry to rid their products of pathogens and extend their global reach by increasing shelf-life, to efforts by the weapons industry to find new applications for "Star Wars" technology…

The history of food irradiation is a long one and, like the technology itself, there is far more to it than meets the eye.

In the mid-1960s, after more than a decade of research, the U.S. Army sent a few thousand pounds of irradiated bacon to military personnel in Vietnam. In 1968, however, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked the Army’s irradiation permit after reviewing previously unreleased Army records indicating that lab animals fed irradiated food suffered premature death, cancer, reproductive dysfunction and other problems.1

A Congress member remarked after learning of the previously hidden Army documents, "We were guinea pigs."2

Meanwhile, international interest in the technology had grown enough to prevent food irradiation from joining atomic locomotives and airplanes, nuclear-powered pacemakers and wristwatches, and plutonium-heated long johns in the ash bin of history. During a meeting in Rome in 1964, officials from the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency resolved to "influence legislation in various countries" and "facilitate international acceptance of the process."3

During the 1970s, pressure mounted on DOE officials to solve their radioactive waste problems at two nuclear bomb factories—Hanford in Washington and Savannah River in South Carolina. Food irradiation rose to the top of the list of solutions. "I frankly would like to see us use everything," a DOE official told a congressional committee in 1983, "including the squeal, if you want to refer to pork, we possibly can."4

In 1979 FDA toxicology director Hubert Blumenthal—while serving on the international committee that sought to "influence" national legislation—called for the creation of the FDA’s Irradiated Food Committee (IFC). Based on a theoretical calculation of how many new chemicals are formed in irradiated food, the panel recommended no further testing for food irradiated at low levels and for food comprising a small percentage of the typical American’s diet.5 The panel recommended animal testing for high-level irradiation,6 but the battery of tests was far less comprehensive than the battery normally used by the FDA.7

Two years later, a second FDA panel reviewed 409 toxicology studies on irradiated food and labeled all but five of them "deficient."8 Though none of the five studies met FDA standards, they formed the foundation of FDA rulings to legalize the irradiation of spices in 1983;9 pork in 1985;10 fruit, vegetables and spices in 1986;11 poultry in 1990;12 beef and lamb in 1997;13 and eggs this past July.14

(See "Food Irradiation Timeline," Appendix I.)

New Chemicals Never Studied

Before legalizing a food additive for human consumption, the FDA is required by federal regulations to establish at least a 100-fold safety factor for humans. This is achieved by determining the highest level at which laboratory animals are unharmed by a proposed additive—the "highest no-adverse effect level"—and then dividing that level by 100.15

In the case of irradiated food, the "additive" is comprised of new chemical compounds called unique radiolytic products (URPs) formed in food when it is exposed to radiation.

In 1977 the first in-depth analysis of the radiolytic products formed in irradiated food was released. Working under an Army contract, the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology (FASEB) of Bethesda, Md., measured the concentrations of 65 chemical compounds in irradiated beef and found that 55 either did not occur naturally in beef, did not occur naturally in any food, or increased in concentration when exposed to radiation. FASEB scientists, for example, measured a 650 percent increase in the concentration of benzene—a "known human carcinogen" according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.16 (See Chart 2.)

FASEB scientists became among the first to publicly acknowledge the unlikelihood of identifying every new chemical formed in irradiated food: "The possible presence of undetected substances can never be excluded."17

Despite these uncertainties, the FDA’s Irradiated Food Committee did not recommend further experiments for foods irradiated at low levels or for foods that comprise a very small portion of the typical American’s diet. The IFC also stated, without presenting specific evidence, that any URPs formed in irradiated food likely would not cause health problems in humans because the chemicals likely would be similar to chemicals in non-irradiated food.

The IFC also did not discuss the formation of radiolytic products (unique or otherwise) in poultry, pork, fruit, vegetables, eggs and other classes of food for which the FDA subsequently legalized irradiation.

Furthermore, the IFC report included little or no discussion about establishing a 100-fold safety factor for humans by determining the highest no-adverse effect level for lab animals; how—or even whether—researchers should identify or quantify radiolytic products; or whether the testing of radiolytic products generated in one class of food could be used to demonstrate the safety of other classes of irradiated food.

Most significantly, the IFC prescribed a series of experiments far more limited than those detailed in the FDA’s published guidelines, which required five short-term mutagenicity studies, two-year carcinogenicity tests on two rodent species, one-year toxicity tests on one rodent and one non-rodent species, and a multigeneration reproduction/teratology test on rodents.18

A review of FDA documents reveals that the agency neither fulfilled its own testing requirements, nor determined the highest no-adverse effect level for lab animals or 100-fold safety factor for humans when the agency legalized the irradiation of pork in 1985; fruit, vegetables and spices in 1986; poultry in 1990; red meat in 1997; and fresh shell eggs in July of this year.

More... (over 10,000 characters limit. Very long article)

Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/executivesummarybrokenrecordreport.htm

 

[Vance]

Ugh, I think I have enough with these articles.

Magatsu, You'll be back I just know it. You need us. ha ha ha

Pfft :P I merely posted the information to inform people about Irradiations.


Cheri, there are PLENTY medical articles in journals, books and magazines exposed the dangers of irradiated foods. I'd love to scan or copy from these to post in here but the problem is: medical library forbids me from scanning or copy these medical journals. It is their rule. Anyway, you can find more information about Irradiation at:

http://www.citizen.org
http://www.purefood.org/irradlink.html
http://organicconsumers.org/irradlink.html

Europe, Canada (I think) and many countries banned Irradiation facilities included meats export from USA due to Irradiation and other reasons. Scientists in Europe and Scandinavia repeatedly proved that Irradiation is very toxic to human bodies included animals. That's why zoo is not allowed to feed their animals the irradiated foods when they found out about the side effects from consuming the irradiated foods.

Imagine... irradiated foods apparently have no expiration date and they can stock the foods as long as they want to. So if anyone come and buy the irradiated meat that have been stocking in the store backroom for two months or two years and cook it to eat. Would anyone eat the meat that is sitting on the shelves for two months or two years? To get the general idea, I suggest anyone to buy the one lb of meat and leave it sitting on the shelves in the kitchen for two months and tell me how delicious the smell will be (the smell will be VERY rotten. That's how bad it is. Imagine the rotting foods that people consume already made me want to vomit :P) Also there is absolutely no nutrition values in irradiated foods... All vitamins and minerals are destroyed within merely five second of irradiating. So what's the point to consume the irradiated foods that offer no benefits but multiplies of side effects as these articles I posted above state? You decide.

Cheri, I don't know if you ever check my topic out or not.. Check this out: http://www.alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=12420 -- Robert Bernardini cover more information about irradiation in his book, it made me sick when I learn more about irradiation issues. Anyway, I am done... I think I am going to take my leave now.

Sayonara,
Magatsu

 

[Cheri]

Magatsu, I had no idea about that information, Thanks for posting that; I am kinda speechless in the facts that people will have problems due from Food Irradiation, even through I always thought it was safe.

 

[Vance]

Yeah, sorry about these articles. That can be overwhelming...

Yeah, we have to be careful with these industries who aggressively advertising that their foods or whatever they are making for people is safe for people included governments too. They really don't care about our health, all they do care about is money. One thing I learned from one teacher in 'introduction to journalism' course -- always cast any doubt on any governments or industries' advertisements or their so-called facts and evaluate theirs because we will end up find more truths or facts about them that they desperately want to hide from us. (good examples: smoking the cigarettes is good for you and all fats are bad for you propaganda)