crosspost: Pasteurized now means Irradiated!

[Guest guest]

" JoAnn Guest " <angelprincessjo>

Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:51 am

Pasteurized now means Irradiated!

 

Environment News Service:

http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2002/2002L-03-08e.html -

 

 

 

Opinion: Food Irradiation Threatens Public Health,

National Security

 

By Samuel Epstein, M.D.

 

CHICAGO, Illinois, March 8, 2002 (ENS) - Iowa Senator Tom

Harkin's last minute provisions in the Senate farm bill allowing

irradiated beef to be labelled " pasteurized, " instead of the Food and

Drug Administration's small print " treated by irradiation " label, is

a surprising denial of consumers' fundamental right-to-know.

 

Consumers are wary of irradiated food, and with good

reason even if they don't understand the dangers involved. Irradiated

meat is a very different product from cooked meat. Irrespective of

whether radiated by radioactive cobalt pellets or rods, X-ray

machines or electron beams, the current permissible radiation dosage

is about 200 million times greater than a chest X-ray.

 

 

A technician removes bundles of cobalt-60 from shipping

containers and dismantles them for storage until they are transferred

to adjacent processing cells. (Photo courtesy Mechanical Engineering)

As well documented since the 1960s, these massive doses

of ionizing radiation produce profound chemical changes in meat.

These include elevated levels of the carcinogenic chemical benzene,

and also the production of unique new chemicals, known as radiolytic

products, some of which have been implicated as carcinogenic.

Additionally, irradiated food has been shown to induce

genetic damage in a wide range of studies, including tests on

malnourished children by India's National Institute of Nutrition.

 

Of particular concern in this regard, are a group of

readily detectable unique chemicals known as cyclobutanones which

have recently been shown to cause chromosomal damage in intestinal

cells of rats and humans.

 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) have ignored the strong evidence on

the cancer and genetic risks of irradiated food. Instead, they have

relied on a group of five studies, selected from a total of over 400

studies prior to 1980, on which their current claims of safety are

based.

 

The FDA has persisted in these claims even though its own

expert Irradiated Food Committee warned that the tests are grossly

flawed and inadequate.

 

Furthermore, as admitted by USDA's Agricultural Research

Service, irradiation results in major losses of vitamins,

particularly A, C, E and the B complex. These losses are

substantially increased by cooking, resulting in empty calorie food,

a concern of major importance for the malnourished. Radiation has

also been used to clean up food unfit for human consumption, such as

spoiled fish, by killing odorous contaminating bacteria.

 

While the USDA is actively supporting meat and poultry

radiation, it has been moving to deregulate and privatize the

industry by promoting self-policing programs. Irradiation is also

aggressively promoted by the Department of Energy's Byproducts

Utilization Program to reduce disposal costs of spent military and

civilian nuclear fuel by providing a commercial market for nuclear

wastes.

 

Food irradiation plants pose grave dangers to national

security. They are relatively small, unregulated, and unlikely to be

secure. As such, they are highly vulnerable to sabotage.

 

Of particular current concern are terrorist attacks to

steal radioactive cobalt pellets. These could be mixed with

conventional explosives to produce so-called " dirty bombs, " whose

effects could be devastating.

 

These plants pose additional dangers to local communities

by generating high levels of ozone, a very toxic atmospheric

pollutant when it is close to ground level instead of high in the

stratosphere where it protects the Earth from ultraviolet radiation.

 

Not surprisingly, the focus of the radiation and

agribusiness industries has been directed to the lucrative clean up

of contaminated food, rather than preventing contamination at its

source. However, bacterial food poisoning, particularly with E.coli

O157, which can be dangerous and lethal to young children, can be

largely prevented by long overdue improved sanitation, apart from

thorough cooking of meat.

 

Sanitation in cattle feedlots, including reducing

overcrowding, drinking water disinfection and fly control, would

drastically reduce cattle infection rates.

 

Moreover, O157 infection rates could be virtually

eliminated by feeding hay seven days prior to slaughter, which the

industry is unwilling to do because of higher costs. Sanitation would

also prevent drinking water contamination from feedlot run off,

incriminated in recent outbreaks of O157 poisoning; this would remain

a continuing threat even if all meat were irradiated.

 

 

Steers awaiting slaughter (Photo courtesy Capitol Land &

Livestock Co.)

Pre-slaughter and post-evisceration sanitation at meat

packing plants are also highly effective for reducing carcass

contamination rates. Practical techniques are available for rapid

individual or pooled carcasses for fecal and bacterial contamination.

The expense of producing sanitary meat would be trivial

compared to the high costs of irradiation, which would be passed on

to consumers, apart from assuring its wholesomeness and safety,

besides preventing nuclear accidents and terrorism.

 

Rather than sanitizing the label in response to special

interests, Congress should focus on sanitation, not irradiation of

the nation's food supply.

 

For further information on food irradiation, see the

recently published article " Preventing Pathogenic Food Poisoning:

Sanitation, Not Irradiation, " endorsed by over 20 leading

international experts, " International Journal of Health Services, "

volume 31(1):187-192, 2001.

 

{Dr. Samuel Epstein is Professor Emeritus Environmental

and Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago School

of Public Health, and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition}

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Frank

What a frightening piece of news for the American

people. I know in the U.K. there would be uproar if

anything like this was proposed. Perhaps after the

food scares we have had we have grown wary of new

technology to do with what we eat but we would

certainly be out there protesting like we did for GM

foods.

Best wishes

Chris

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need on one web page

from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

http://uk.my.

[Guest guest]

Gettingwell, Chris Garen <chrisgaren555> wrote:

> Hi Frank

> What a frightening piece of news for the American

> people. I know in the U.K. there would be uproar if

> anything like this was proposed. Perhaps after the

> food scares we have had we have grown wary of new

> technology to do with what we eat but we would

> certainly be out there protesting like we did for GM

> foods.

> Best wishes

> Chris

>

 

My understanding is the irridiated foods in the US can now be

labelled " cold pasteurization " rather than " irradiated " (which the

article doesn't really clarify)- it's still meant to confuse

consumers. I think they no longer have to carry the irradiation

symbol either.

 

Apparently foods have been irradiated in Canada for over 40 years.

It's suppose to be labelled, but I've never noticed any labels

(potatoes, onions, spices )but I largely eat organic.

 

Is there no food irradiation in the UK?.

 

Mary

[Guest guest]

Hello Mary,

As far as I know the only irradiated food we have is

 

some dried herbs. There was some talk a while ago but

there was a lot of opposition and as far as I know the

UK does not have irradiated foodstuffs. WE have had a

lot of foodscares and people here do not trust what

the governments say over food. So far we have

successfully kept GM foodcrops being grown in the UK

apart from some test fields which have thrown up more

reasons not to have GM than for them. Products have to

be labelled as containing GM material even restaurants

have to have a sign up if they are selling GM products

to say that what you eat may be genetically modified.

Of course we still suffer from overprocessed full of

chemical junk but it is up to the individual to

educate themselves and try to make the right choices

even if the advertisers are lying through their teeth

telling you their product is wonderful.

Best wishes

Chris

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need on one web page

from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

http://uk.my.