Say NO to Irradiated Food in School Lunches!/Save Accurate Irradiation Labels!

[Guest guest]

> Friday, March 01, 2002 1:20 AM

> Action Alert: Save Accurate Irradiation Labels!

>

>

> > Action Alert: Save Accurate Irradiation Labels!

> > Tell Congress ASAP that Irradiation is not Pasteurization and Say NO to

> Irradiated Food in School Lunches!

> >

> > What is Congress trying to do?

> > On February 13th, in the final moments before the Senate passed its

> version of the Farm Bill, a massive 396-page amendment was presented by

> Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). No one except a select few Senators and staff

> knew the details of its contents and the amendment was adopted without any

> debate. Among the amendment's many provisions, Section 1079E grants the

Food

> and Drug Administration the power to define what the term " pasteurization "

> means.

> >

> > Why is this significant? Because for the past five years, the food

> irradiation industry has been trying to force the FDA to change the

labeling

> requirements for irradiated food to allow the terms " cold pasteurization "

or

> " electronic pasteurization. " Right now, foods that have been approved for

> irradiation must carry the disclaimer " Treated with irradiation " or

" Treated

> by irradiation. " The language in Senator Harkin's amendment would allow

the

> irradiation industry to label their foods with these euphemisms and hijack

a

> familiar term (pasteurization) to sell food treated by an entirely

different

> process.

> >

> > Food irradiation is the process of exposing foods to high doses of

> ionizing radiation to kill bacteria and increase shelf life.

Irradiationists

> promote it as a way to virtually sterilize food and protect the public

> against E. coli, Salmonella, and other bacteria. But food irradiation is

> really a technological quick fix for problems that can be traced back to

> industrialized farming and unsanitary food processing practices. Besides

> killing bacteria, it can deplete vitamins and other nutrients and create

new

> chemicals in the food. Also, it doesn't kill all the bacteria, so normal

> food-handling procedures must be followed anyway. Those bacteria that do

> survive are radiation-resistant, and may eventually require higher doses

of

> irradiation.

> >

> > Sales of irradiated food have been weak, in various test-marketing

efforts

> across the country in the last two years. The irradiation industry's

> reaction to the slow sales has been to try to trick consumers into

> purchasing these products by telling the FDA it's ok to use the term

> " pasteurization. "

> >

> > The FDA is approaching the deadline for revising its labels for

irradiated

> foods. (Some of you remember commenting on the first round in 1999). The

> irradiation industry knows the public wants labels, so Harkin's amendment

is

> a way to give consumers labels-- but labels they don't understand.

> >

> > If we fail to remove Harkin's amendment, we'll get labels from the FDA

all

> right, but they'll all say " electronically pasteurized " or " cold

> pasteurized. "

> >

> > About School Lunches

> > Section 442 of the Senate version of the Farm Bill directs the Secretary

> of Agriculture not to prohibit the purchase of irradiated food for various

> nutrition programs it administers. Among those nutrition programs affected

> will be the National School Lunch Program and the Child Nutrition Act of

> 1966. The Bush Administration attempted to allow the purchase of

irradiated

> food for the National School Lunch Program last year, and dropped the idea

> after a public outcry. This proposal is especially worrisome because

> irradiated food served by schools does not have to be labeled.

> >

> > What's coming next?

> > The next step for the Farm Bill is a conference committee, which will

> resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

> One thing both the House and the Senate versions have in common is an

> attempt to provide " country of origin " labeling for food, a major step

> towards helping consumers make more informed choices about the food they

> buy. But just as they have the right to know where their food comes from,

> consumers deserve to have clear and unambiguous labeling of foods that

have

> undergone treatments like irradiation. Redefining the term

" pasteurization "

> does a disservice to those who depend on the term to market their product

> and to consumers who need clear information.

> >

> > What you can do:

> > Contact your senators and representative ASAP! Call the Capitol

> Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for them by name.

> >

> > Here's the message:

> > " Tell the Farm Bill Conference Committee to take Senator Harkin's

language

> about food irradiation in Section 1079E (of the Senate version) out of the

> FINAL version of the Farm Bill. This change would protect consumers' right

> to know how their food

> > has been treated. Section 442 (of the Senate version) directs the USDA

to

> start purchasing irradiated food for the various nutrition programs its

> runs. I oppose having the National School Lunch Program purchase foods

that

> have been irradiated and

> > using school children to prop up the irradiation industry. The

conference

> committee on the Farm Bill should remove Sections 1079E and 442 that were

> made part of H.R. 2646, as amended by the Senate. "

> >

> > Note: If any of the senators/representatives below represent your

> state/district, it is ESPECIALLY important that you write to them

> immediately because they are on the Farm Bill Conference Committee that

will

> be deciding the final language of the bill.

> >

> > Senators: Tom Harkin (D-IA), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Tom Daschle (D-SD),

> Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jesse Helms (R-NC), Thad Cochran

> (R-MS)

> >

> > Representatives: Larry Combest (R-TX), Charles Stenholm (D-TX), John

> Boehner (R-OH), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Richard Pombo (R-CA), Terry Everett

> (R-AL), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Gary Condit (D-CA),

> Collin Peterson (D-MN), Cal Dooley (D-CA), Eva Clayton (D-NC), Tim Holden

> (D-PA), Jerry Moran (R-KS)

> >

> > Find their direct phone and fax numbers at http://www.vote-smart.org

> >

> > Sample Letter

> > *********************************

> > Honorable Senator ________

> > U.S. Senate

> > Washington, DC 20510

> >

> > Honorable Representative _____

> > U.S. House of Representatives

> > Washington DC 20515

> >

> > Dear Senator/Representative ________

> >

> > For the past five years, the food irradiation industry has been trying

to

> mislead consumers by co-opting the word " pasteurization " to describe their

> process.

> >

> > Irradiation and pasteurization are two separate and unique processes.

> Section 1079E of the Senate version of the Farm Bill attempts to hide

those

> differences. As a citizen concerned about the food I eat, I strongly

believe

> that I have a right to know if my food has been irradiated.

> >

> > Consumer data has repeatedly shown that consumers prefer the current

> labeling requirements for irradiated food. For example, during the summer

of

> 2001, the FDA conducted focus groups of consumers on this labeling issue.

> Consumers participating unanimously rejected replacing the term

> " irradiation " with " pasteurization " and reacted with phrases such as,

> " sneaky, " " deceptive, " and " trying to fool us. " In a January 2002

nationwide

> poll of 1000 consumers conducted by Lake, Snell, Perry and associates,

only

> one quarter of those surveyed preferred changing the current labeling

> requirements to " cold pasteurization " or " electronic pasteurization. "

> >

> > Section 442 of the Senate version of the Farm Bill directs the USDA to

> start purchasing irradiated food for the various nutrition programs its

> runs. I am opposed to having the National School Lunch Program purchase

> foods that have been irradiated and using school children to prop up the

> irradiation industry. This proposal is also troubling because irradiated

> food served in schools does not have to be labeled.

> >

> > Consumers deserve the right-to-know what they are purchasing and feeding

> their families. Therefore, the conference committee on the Farm Bill needs

> to remove Sections 1079E and 442 that were made part of H.R. 2646, as

> amended by the Senate.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > -------

> >

> > For more information, contact Public Citizen at (202) 454-5131 or

Organic

> Consumers Association at danila

> > -------

> >

> > Thank you,

> > Danila

> > for the Organic Consumers Assn.

> > http://www.organicconsumers.org

> > The OCA is a grassroots non-profit public interest organization which

> deals with crucial issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic

> engineering, corporate accountability, trade and environmental

> sustainability. We are focused on representing the views and interests of

> the nation's estimated ten million organic consumers.

> >

> > PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FRIENDS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED.

> > ==========================================================

>

>

>