Guest guest Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:40:01 -0500 HSI - Jenny Thompson Don't Beam Me Up DON'T BEAM ME UP Health Sciences Institute e-Alert February 4, 2003 ************************************************************** Dear Reader, If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But then, you could always apply to the FDA to have the name " duck " changed to something more palatable, like " appealing fowl. " Last year the FDA announced that U.S. food companies planning to market irradiated beef may petition the agency to request the use of " neutral language " to describe their meat - something like " cold-pasteurized " rather than " irradiated " - a process that uses gamma rays or electrons to kill bacteria that cause food poisoning. The fact that advocates of meat irradiation want to hide this process behind a brand new " feel good " name tells you everything you need to know about them: They seem to be far more concerned about public perception than they are about public safety. This would be simply irritating if it weren't for the astonishing fact that plans are already underway to feed this highly suspect beef to 27 million American school children. ----------------------------- Warning signs ignored ----------------------------- In spite of being zapped with gamma rays or electrons, irradiated beef is not radioactive. And apparently the process is effective in killing bacteria like E. coli 0157:H7 and salmonella, both of which cause food poisoning. So what's the problem? Two things. One: Studies in Europe have shown that irradiation may form cancer-causing agents in meat fat. The European Union has suspended the irradiation of beef and other foods (except for certain spices and herbs) until further studies have been completed. Two: In a New York Times report last week, Carol Tucker Foreman (the director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America) underlined the uncertain health risks of irradiation, saying, " There is nowhere in the world where a large population has eaten large amounts of irradiated food over a long period of time. " In short: We have good reason to suspect that irradiated meat may add up to serious health problems in the long run. But rather than rigorously test the process and make sure it's absolutely safe, Congress enacted a law last May directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to allow irradiation of beef purchased for the federal school lunch program - a program that offers free or inexpensive meals to 27 million kids every school day. If you go to the grocery store and see a package of meat that is clearly labeled " irradiated, " or " cold pasteurized, " or " never mind what we do to it - just trust us, " you have a choice. You can choose non-irradiated meat, or fish, or vegetables. But a child standing in a lunch line is not exactly a discriminating consumer. He's far more likely to quickly eat what's put on his plate and make a mad dash for the playground, never giving the slightest thought about how the meat has been processed. ----------------------------- More than bargained for ----------------------------- The whole point of irradiation is to create a shortcut. When beef has been irradiated, there's no need to test for bacterial contamination. This is a time and money saving bonus for meat companies. But critics of the plan fear that this new system will encourage meat processors to cut corners on safety where they never dared before, creating relaxed sanitation standards that could considerably compromise meat quality. But what about nutrition? This would seem to be an obvious question, but in the several articles I've read about irradiated beef, the subject of nutrition doesn't come up at all. So I asked HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D., for his take on the way irradiation might affect nutrition, and he sent me this comment: " Any electromagnetic radiation strong enough to kill undesirable elements in food is easily strong enough to do the same thing to desirable elements. Denaturing of enzymes, destruction of desirable bacteria, elimination of vital nutrients are all events that will be proven to occur once we get someone to study them. Since nobody has yet, why are 'we' so fired up about using the unproven technique on kids? (Wouldn't have anything to do with revenue enhancement for the food industry, would it?) The whole thing strikes me as unwholesome, and at the very least extremely premature. " ----------------------------- Dodging gamma rays ----------------------------- Obviously, anyone who doesn't like the idea of irradiated beef can avoid it at the supermarket (trusting, of course, that it's clearly labeled). Beef dishes ordered in restaurants present another problem. But there is something you can do if you have children or grandchildren who benefit from the federal school lunch program. The distribution of irradiated beef to schools may start as early as the 2003-2004 school year. At that time, school districts will have the right to refuse irradiated meat. Check with your school administrators to find out if they plan to serve irradiated beef. Tell them about your concerns and encourage them to postpone a decision to use this process until substantial further testing has been done. This is also a perfect time to get the word out to other parents at PTA meetings. Let them know about the potential dangers that irradiated meat poses to the children in your community. The federal school lunch program benefits the children of low- income households. In many cases, these kids have no other source for their lunch meal. In other words, turning down the meal is not an option. All children deserve a nutritious school lunch, but they also deserve a safer solution to ensuring meat safety. When I was in grade school, we had a name for cafeteria meat dishes like Sloppy Joe sandwiches and chipped beef: we called it mystery meat. Little did we know back then just how genuinely mysterious meat might someday become. ************************************************************** ....and another thing Speaking of mystery meat, last week a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against McDonald's on behalf of children who claimed the fast food chain was responsible for making them obese. As it turned out, the plaintiffs' suit didn't have much beef. The judge ruled that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that deceptive advertising was used by McDonald's, failed to show that McDonald's alone was responsible for their obesity, and failed to state the frequency that plaintiffs ate at McDonald's. In his written opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet emphasized the personal responsibility of the plaintiffs, stating that it was not the court's place to protect them from their own poor judgment, " if they...choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald's products. " In an e-Alert I sent you last summer ( " Rendering Unto Caesar " 8/5/02) I told you about other lawsuits filed against McDonald's in which the plaintiffs placed full blame for their health problems on Big Macs - as if Big Macs and French fries had been forced on them. So I completely agree with Judge Sweet's view of personal responsibility. But don't jump to the conclusion that this ruling might put the brakes on lawsuits aimed at McDonald's and other fast food franchises. Judge Sweet closed his opinion with the suggestion that an amended complaint could be filed, based on the probability that the plaintiffs had no way of knowing the dangers in certain menu items that are so completely processed they no longer resemble the food sources they came from. As an example, the judge singled out Chicken McNuggets, calling them a " McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook. " I don't really agree with Judge Sweet on this point. I think that anyone who's eaten even a single McNugget (and believe me, I'm not recommending it) has all the evidence they need that it bears only the slightest possible resemblance to real food. But I do think " McFrankenstein " is a nice touch. I'd love to know how the spin doctors at McDonald's corporate headquarters are handling that one. To Your Good Health, Jenny Thompson Health Sciences Institute ************************************************************** Sources: " The Question of Irradiated Beef in Lunchrooms " Marian Burros, The New York Times, 1/29/03 " Parents Protest U.S. Schools Irradiated Meat Plan " Randy Fabi, Reuters, 12/13/02 " FDA Allowing Food Companies To Change Irradiation Label to 'Cold Pasteurization' " Reuters, 10/9/02 " Obesity Suit Against McDonald's Dismissed " Consumer Health Digest #03-04, 1/28/03 " Judge Tosses Out McDonald's Complaint, But Suggests Re- filing Under Novel Theory " Obesity Policy Report, 1/28/03 Copyright ©1997-2003 by www.hsibaltimore.com, L.L.C. The e-Alert may not be posted on commercial sites without written permission. ************************************************************** ************************************************************** If you'd like to participate in the HSI Forum, search past e-Alerts and products or you're an HSI member and would like to search past articles, visit http://www.hsibaltimore.com ************************************************************** To learn more about HSI, call (508) 368-7494 or visit http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/HSI/WHSIC313/home.cfm. ************************************************************** Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc. To , e-mail to: Gettingwell- Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.