Tired of e-coli deaths? Worried about salmonella? Irradiation would effectively remove these threats to the food supply...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/02/business/irradiate.4-421447.php
Quote
Is the U.S. ready to accept irradiated food?
By Andrew Martin
Monday, February 2, 2009
NEW YORK: Before the recent revelation that tainted peanut butter could kill people, even before the spinach scare of three summers ago, the food industry in the United States made a proposal. It asked the government for permission to destroy germs in many processed foods by zapping them with radiation.
That was about nine years ago, in the twilight of the Clinton administration. The government has taken limited action since.
After spinach tainted with a strain of E. coli killed three people and sickened more than 200 others in 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave permission for irradiation of spinach and iceberg lettuce. The industry has yet to start using it. Meat irradiation is permitted but rarely used. Among common items on the grocery shelf, only spices and some imported products, like mangoes from India, are routinely treated with radiation.
The technology to irradiate food has been around for the better part of a century. The U.S. government says it is safe, and many experts believe that it could reduce or even eliminate the food scares that periodically sweep through society.
It might even have killed the salmonella that reached grocery shelves in recent weeks after a factory in Georgia shipped tainted peanut butter and peanut paste, which wound up in products as diverse as cookies and dog treats. But irradiation has not been widely embraced in the United States.
In the European Union, irradiation is approved for bloc-wide use only for "dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings," and such foods must be clearly labeled as having been so treated. But Haravgi-Nina Papadoulaki, a spokeswoman for the EU health commissioner, Androulla Vassiliou, said Monday that the European Food Safety Authority hoped to propose new guidelines by the end of 2009.
In December 2002, the European Parliament voted against expanding the list, citing tests on laboratory rats that suggested a possible cancer risk from a chemical called 2-ACB created when meat is irradiated.
But because of the common market, if a country approves irradiation for a particular food, the company making that product can still market it throughout the EU, which comprises 27 countries. Thus, for example, poultry can be irradiated in France or Belgium, where the process is allowed under national law, and sold in other countries, unless it is specifically banned.
Food manufacturers in the United States worry that the apparent benefits do not justify the cost or the potential consumer backlash. Some consumer groups complain that widespread irradiation of food after processing would simply cover up the food industry's hygiene problems. And some advocacy groups question the long-term safety of irradiation.
With all these doubts, one thing is certain - food poisoning continues. The cases that rise to public attention are only the tip of the iceberg. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are 76 million cases of food-borne illness each year in the United States. The vast majority are mild, but the agency estimates there are 5,000 deaths from food-borne disease and 325,000 hospitalizations each year.
This situation upsets advocates of irradiation. "Our society is running around with our head in the sand because we have ways to prevent illness and death that aren't being used," said Christine Bruhn, director of the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California at Davis. "The rules are so tight on irradiation that you can't pull it out and use it when a new problem arises, and that's to the detriment of the American public."
Suresh Pillai, director of the National Center for Electron Beam Research at Texas A&M University, likened fears of irradiation to early phobias about the pasteurization of milk.
"It's unnecessary for people to be getting sick today with pathogens in spinach or pathogens in peanut butter," Pillai said. "We have the technologies to prevent this kind of illness."
Food is irradiated by brief exposure to X-rays, gamma rays or an electron beam. The process is intended to reduce or eliminate harmful bacteria, insects and parasites, and it also can also extend the life of some products.
Advocates say it is particularly effective at killing pathogens in things like ground beef and lettuce, where they might be mixed into the middle of the product or hiding in a crevice that is hard to clean by traditional means.
Food and Water Watch, an advocacy group, has long maintained that irradiation would be too expensive, impractical and sometimes ineffective because it might hide filthy conditions at food processing plants. Patty Lovera, the group's assistant director, said irradiation not only killed bacteria but could also destroy nutrients in food.
She pointed out that irradiated beef was offered at many grocery stores across the United States at the beginning of the decade but it did not last long. Customers were turned off by the higher price and by the extended shelf life of irradiated beef. "People that did the shopping, they would look at the date and be freaked out at how long it would be good for," Lovera said.
Food industry officials, meanwhile, remain wary of irradiation because of the upfront costs and the potential public reaction to any technique with the word "radiation" in it.
One potential test of the American public's acceptance could come with the marketing of irradiated spinach and lettuce. After the E. coli outbreak in 2006, the spinach industry lost 30 percent of its business. The food agency approved irradiation for spinach and iceberg lettuce in August.
"There's no shortage of people who are looking at it," said Hank Giclas, vice president for strategic planning, science and technology for the Western Growers Association. "I don't know of anyone who is moving forward with it at this time."
It remains an open question if peanut butter or products with peanut paste would be likely candidates for the technique. Irradiation typically does not work so well on products with high amounts of fat or oil like peanut butter because they can turn rancid during the process. A spokesman for the American Peanut Council said irradiation was tested but found unacceptable because it degraded the taste of the nut.
Nonetheless, Pillai said a low dose of radiation might be effective in killing traces of salmonella in peanut butter - or manufactured products with peanut paste - without ruining the taste. But he said it would not work as a substitute for basic hygiene and food safety measures.
Similarly, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association said food companies should make sure that plants were clean and follow good manufacturing and food safety practices. If problems remain afterward, then irradiation could be an option, provided it is permitted by the government.
Nine years ago, the association, then called Grocery Manufacturers of America, was among the sponsors of the application that was filed with the food agency seeking approval to irradiate ready-to-eat meat and poultry products and fruit and vegetable products.
Now that spinach and iceberg lettuce have been approved, it is focusing on persuading the FDA to permit irradiation of hot dogs and deli meats. An FDA spokesman declined to comment, saying the agency does not comment on open petitions.
The "US Government" telling me it's safe doesn't make me think it's safe. Radiation is radiation. I'd rather not put that in my body.
So you think it is less safe than...
Quotethe agency estimates there are 5,000 deaths from food-borne disease and 325,000 hospitalizations each year.
Open the link and scroll down
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/110798/opl_Satlette.html (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/110798/opl_Satlette.html)l
Kelly, irradiating food does not make it radioactive. Think of shining a bright light which penetrates the food killing bacteria. Once the "light" is removed, the food has not changed. This is a common sense approach to sterilization and is safe.
Still not going near it. You guys can have your irradiated food.
Your choice. I am just trying to find the logic in your choices. You would foist the global warming argument and the farce that is the Kyoto protocols upon us, but in the face of simple, settled scientific advance you refuse to get past your fears?
The logic is self-evident. You can put all the words you want in my mouth, but keep in mind that I don't get into petty arguments. And certainly not over the internet.
5000 deaths is nothing to ignore... not to mention 325,000 hospitalizations. Perhaps this should be added to the economic stimulus package. Here are the facts...
http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu/Facts.html
QuoteWhat is Food Irradiation?
Food irradiation is a promising new food safety technology that can eliminate disease-causing microorganisms such as E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, and Salmonella from foods.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved irradiation of meat and poultry and allows its use for a variety of other foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, and spices. The agency determined that the process is safe and effective in decreasing or eliminating harmful bacteria. Irradiation also reduces spoilage bacteria, insects and parasites, and in certain fruits and vegetables it inhibits sprouting and delays ripening.
The effects of irradiation on the food and on animals and people eating irradiated food have been studied extensively for more than 40 years. These studies show clearly that when irradiation is used as approved on foods:
Disease-causing microorganisms are reduced or eliminated
The nutritional value is essentially unchanged
The food does not become radioactive
Irradiation is a safe and effective technology that can prevent many foodborne diseases.
How does irradiation affect food?
The process involves exposing the food, either packaged or in bulk, to carefully controlled amounts of ionizing radiation for a specific time to achieve certain desirable objectives.
When microbes present in the food are irradiated, the energy from the radiation breaks the bonds in the DNA molecules, causing defects in the genetic instructions. Unless this damage can be repaired, the organism will die or will be unable to reproduce. It matters if the food is frozen or fresh, because it takes larger radiation dose to kill microbes in frozen foods. The effectiveness of the process depends also on the organism’s sensitivity to irradiation, on the rate at which it can repair damaged DNA, and especially on the amount of DNA in the target organism:
Parasites and insect pests, which have large amounts of DNA, are rapidly killed by an extremely low dose of irradiation.
It takes more irradiation to kill bacteria, because they have less DNA.
Viruses are the smallest pathogens that have nucleic acid, and they are, in general, resistant to irradiation at doses approved for foods.
If the food still has living cells, they will be damaged or killed just as microbes are. This is a useful effect: it can be used to prolong the shelf life of fruits and vegetables because it inhibits sprouting and delays ripening.
Are irradiated foods still nutritious?
Yes, the foods are not changed in nutritional value and they don’t become dangerous as a result of irradiation. At irradiation levels approved for use on foods, levels of the vitamin thiamine are slightly reduced, but not enough to result in vitamin deficiency. There are no other significant changes in the amino acid, fatty acid, or vitamin content of food. In fact, the changes induced by irradiation are so minimal that it is not easy to determine whether or not a food has been irradiated.
A big advantage of irradiated food, is that it is a cold process: the food is still essentially “rawâ€, because it hasn’t undergone any thermal process.
Are irradiated foods available now?
A variety of foods have been approved for irradiation in the United States, for several different purposes. For meats, separate approval is required both from the FDA and the USDA.
However, irradiated foods are not widely available yet. Some stores have sold irradiated fruits and vegetables since the early 1990s. Irradiated poultry is available in some grocery storesâ€"mostly small, independent marketsâ€" and on menus of a few restaurants. On the other hand, most spices sold wholesale in this country are irradiated, which eliminates the need for chemical fumigation to control pests. American astronauts have eaten irradiated foods in space since the early 1970s. Patients with weakened immune systems are sometimes fed irradiated foods to reduce the chance of a life-threatening infection.
In addition, irradiation is widely used to sterilize a variety of medical and household products, such as joint implants, band-aids, baby pacifiers, cosmetic ingredients, wine and bottle corks, and food packaging materials.
Approval Food Purpose
1963 Wheat flour Control of mold
1964 White potatoes Inhibit sprouting
1986 Pork Kill Trichina parasites
1986 Fruit and vegetables Insect control
Increase shelf life
1986 Herbs and spices Sterilization
1990 - FDA
1992 - USDA Poultry Bacterial pathogen reduction
1997 - FDA
1999 - USDA Meat Bacterial pathogen reduction
Does irradiation destroy all bacteria?
No. Irradiation is equivalent to pasteurization for solid foods, but it is not the same as sterilization. Food irradiation can be an important tool in the war against illness and death from foodborne diseases. But it is not a substitute for comprehensive food safety programs throughout the food distribution system. In addition, food irradiation is not a substitute for good food-handling practices in the home: irradiated foods need to be stored, handled and cooked in the same way as unirradiated foods.
Will irradiation increase the cost of food?
Yes, any food processing method will add cost. Canning, freezing, pasteurization, refrigeration, fumigation, and irradiation will add cost to the food. These treatments will also bring benefits to consumers in terms of availability and quantity, storage life, convenience, and improved hygiene of the food.
The increase in price for irradiated fruits and vegetables is estimated at 2 to 3 cents per pound. Irradiated poultry and meat products are expected to cost 3 to 5 cents a pound more than non-irradiated meat. The price is likely to decline as irradiated foods become more widely available.
Does the irradiation process make food radioactive?
No. Irradiation by gamma rays, X-rays and accelerated electrons under controlled conditions does not make food radioactive. Just as the airport luggage scanner doesn’t make your suitcase radioactive, this process is not capable of inducing radioactivity in any material, including food.
Can irradiation be used to make spoiled food good?
No. Neither irradiation nor any other food treatment can reverse the spoilage process and make bad food good. If food already looks, tastes or smells bad - signs of spoilage - before irradiation, it cannot be “saved†by any treatment including irradiation
How do I know if food has been treated with irradiation?
Special labels are required on irradiated foods, including the international symbol of irradiation, known as a “raduraâ€, and a statement indicating that the food was treated with irradiation
Why are we interested in food irradiation?
Presently over 40 countries have approved applications to irradiate approximately 40 different foods. These include such items as fruits, vegetables, spices, grains, seafood, meat and poultry. More than half a million tonnes of food is now irradiated throughout the world on a yearly basis. Although this amount represents only a fraction of the food consumed annually, it is constantly growing. This trend is due to three main factors:
Increasing concerns over foodborne diseases
Foodborne diseases pose a widespread threat to human health and they are an important cause of reduced economic productivity. Studies by the US Center for Disease Control in 1999 estimated that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. Economic losses associated with such foodborne diseases are high-estimated between US $6.5 billion and $33 billion.
High food losses from infestation, contamination and spoilage.
The FAO has estimated that about 25% of all worldwide food production is lost after harvesting to insects, bacteria and spoilage. Economic losses due to insects and microbes have been estimated to fall between $5 and $17 billion yearly in the US alone. Food irradiation can help reduce these losses and can also reduce our dependence on chemical pesticides, some of which are extremely harmful to the environment (e.g. methyl bromide).
Growing international trade in food products.
As our economies become more global, food products must meet high standards of quality and quarantine in order to move across borders. Irradiation is an important tool in the fight to prevent the spread of deleterious insects and microorganisms.
If X-Rays aren't safe for pregnant women, why would you put consistently x-rayed material in your body? Have there been any long term--talking decades--studies in irradiated food consumption? Or has the technology not been around that long?
A food that will be preserved for very long lengths of time indicates that its enzymes have been broken. A vegetable with its metabolic processes intact is healthier for you than one that has lost them. So, while you might think you're gaining the nutrients by eating an irradiated vegetable, you're not.
NotNow, I just want to point out that those frequencies of light aren't visible. So, "shining" and "bright" is not what's happening to the food here. Those frequencies are even more intense than microwaves--which I'm suspicious of to begin with. So no, I don't want to eat irradiated foods.
Safer foods are the ones that are organic, not overly processed or overly pasteurized, and which have been handled with proper sanitation. This is the kind of food we can grow in our backyards, and which I and my family do.
The recent peanut butter salmonella problem would not have happened with the irradiation. I stand by the numbers of deaths and hospitalizations that would not happen if this simple program were implemented.
Kelly... it is entirely probable that the radiation you are now getting from your cell phone and computer monitor is much ore than you would get in a lifetime of irradiated food.
I rely on my computer and cell phone for things, this is true, but where I can get away from something not entirely beneficial for my body, I will. The nutrients within non-irradiated food are key here. My body needs nourishment, not a false pretense of it.
So let's talk about the safety of electronics. Of "the grid." About children growing up constantly connected to something electronic--hand held video games, cell phones, mp3 players, living under power lines. How healthy is that?
I found this link, which provides a pretty extensive list of the negatives associated with irradiation of food:
http://www.purefood.org/irrad/irradfact.cfm
My key concern is that no long-term studies exist documenting the effect of human consumption of irradiated foods. The above link notes that the longest study yet conducted is 15 weeks. Though I can't account for the credibility of the site, I was unable to find reference to any much longer study on the interwebs.
If people want their food to be irridated, more power to them, but let the private sector handle it. But the government has no right to force the extra cost and potential unknowns on the masses. It's not like food isn't expensive enough these days.
Sorry Kelly, I am not trying to argue with you, and you certainly have the right to not ingest irradiated foods. I do not support using the power of government to force such activity even though I believe the process is safe and will be quite helpful in many parts of the world that don't have access to the "organic" foods that you describe. I also encourage the long term testing that you and Ken describe, although my google search turned up a LOT of research. I don't claim to be an expert and am simply stating my beliefs in the area. I wish that those that wish to spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money and subrogate American power to foreign interest in the name of global warning would do the same.
Quote from: kellypope on February 06, 2009, 01:19:57 PM
NotNow, I just want to point out that those frequencies of light aren't visible. So, "shining" and "bright" is not what's happening to the food here. Those frequencies are even more intense than microwaves--which I'm suspicious of to begin with. So no, I don't want to eat irradiated foods.
Visible light has a higher frequency than microwaves. The infra-red that you use to cook in your oven has a higher frequency than microwaves. ...not really a good basis of an argument against irradiated food. Yeah, you don't want ionizing radiation penetrating you because it will harm your own
living cells.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 06, 2009, 04:38:49 PM
I found this link, which provides a pretty extensive list of the negatives associated with irradiation of food:
http://www.purefood.org/irrad/irradfact.cfm
...no sources, and from a site who states: "Organic Consumers Association/BioDemocracy Campaign is a grassroots organization seeking organic, non-irradiated food for human and animal health." Hardly an unbiased source.
Bottom line though, is that the consumption of irradiated foods, just like genetically modified foods, is going to be a personal choice. All we need are clear labels. Maybe the FDA and Department of Agriculture can get the kinks out of the current regulatory environment under this new administration?
Are you kidding?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg)