Conscious Choice: The Push to Irradiate

June 2003

The Push to Irradiate

Food Police say "yes" to this controversial measure

by Bobbye Middendorf

If the agencies Americans hold as the stewards of food security proclaim that irradiating food is safe and that the food remains wholesome and tastes good once it is irradiated, isn’t that the end of the matter? The World Health Organization (who), Food and Drug Administration (fda), United States Department of Agriculture (usda), and even the Center for Disease Control (cdc) all agree that irradiation is the way to go.

Attending the First World Congress on Food Irradiation — held in Chicago last month — I learned that these icons of food safety and public protection have taken their lead from, and work in close cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (iaea), a United Nation’s agency. Importantly, however, iaea’s mission is not related to public health. Rather, its mission is to preserve and protect the nuclear industry! To quote from iaea’s mission statement, it "...assists its Member States, in the context of social and economic goals, in planning for and using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes..."

The fda is close to allowing irradiated ground beef into the school lunch program, which, by the way, is a gigantic government contract opportunity for the irradiated meat industry. In a pilot program, the usda is paying the state of Minnesota to conduct pro-irradiation "education" campaigns in three Minnesota school districts, causing some Minnesota parents to protest.

In the supermarket, consumers are not on the irradiation bandwagon as they by-and-large do not purchase irradiated meat that is, by law, labeled as such (though consumer "education" campaigns are on the horizon). Yet school kids eating school lunches — and their parents — won’t have a choice as it is not required that they be informed that the food the kids are eating has been irradiated. This also goes for those eating in restaurants, hospitals, and nursing homes.

"If there’s something wrong with the meat they’re serving in schools, they should tell us," says Mary Strohmeier, a parent in Minnesota’s Spring Lake Park school district, one of the three districts targeted for the pilot project. "If there isn’t a problem, then why are they forcing this change [to introduce irradiated meat]?"

Strohmeier heard about food irradiation education in suburban Spring Lake Park and was compelled to research it. What she discovered fueled her concerns, especially for four of her five children attending schools in the district. "I’m no tofu and granola mom, but this is a mother bear thing, and they’re messing with my cubs."

Her investigations uncovered wording in the proposal that says, "A successful outcome of the project is to serve it in the school district." (This "education" project is due to be rolled out across the state next school year.) The materials from Minnesota School Food Safety and Irradiation Education Project say, "These food safety processes also keep food fresh and nutritious. Irradiation does not significantly change the nutrient value of the food...There is no evidence of any health risks associated with food irradiation."

Strohmeier points out that the radiation used on food is millions of times higher than what is used in chest x-rays. Says Strohmeier, "There’s a 40-year history of research on food irradiation, and it is not a glowing endorsement." Studies include results that indicate potential chromosomal aberrations, reproductive and immune dysfunction, and significant nutrient loss. Says Strohmeier, "There has been an effort to do more scientific research, but it has been blocked by industry."

To address what she sees as misguided and irresponsible actions by the school board, clearly intending to serve her children irradiated meat, Strohmeier spearheaded a campaign, "Healthy Kids Minnesota."

Pros and Cons

Taking a short-term perspective, irradiation indeed kills food-borne pathogens like e.coli, salmonella, and listeria. According to the cdc, food borne pathogens claim 5,000 lives each year in the U.S. Recent food recalls involved millions of pounds of meat. Thus irradiation is embraced by not only the food industry to counter liability issues but also public health agencies to make the food supply safer.

Even though irradiating food addresses short-term concerns about public health and liabilities, alleged collusion between the nuclear industry, industrial food processors, and those agencies charged with protecting our health, appears to have blinded them in considering existing scientific evidence that indicates potential long-term health problems may result.

Michael Levine, ceo of The Organic Meat Corporation, of the Organic Valley Family of Farms, is wary. "We are uncomfortable with the irradiation process. There’s uncertainty in terms of safety and no clear result regarding carcinogens. Its effects are unknown." Levine points out that the meat industry’s embrace of this practice would lead those consumers who are uncomfortable with eating irradiated food, to choose organic meats.

To their credit, the pro-irradiation voices claim that it’s an important tool, not a replacement for good sanitary practices. Realistically however, with industrial animal-raising outlets sending disease-prone animals to slaughter and processing lines moving faster with fewer inspectors, irradiation becomes a panacea to cover up problematic industry practices.

Microbiologist Elsa Murano is currently usda’s Under Secretary for Food Safety. In keynote opening remarks at the Congress on Food Irradiation, she emphasized that usda is committed to using science as the basis for policy decisions. However, when confronted with an audience question from a researcher with the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen who cited examples of scientific studies that reported potential hazards in irradiated food, she dismissed him saying they were "myths." Hence, one wonders, does research only count as "science" if the results agree with the policy line?

So what are the problems, potential problems, and findings in the scientific studies the industry doesn’t want us to know about?

Speaking out against the practice of irradiation is one of the world’s leading authorities on the causes and prevention of cancer, Samuel Epstein, M.D. As professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, Epstein has published hundreds of books and articles. He co-authored "Preventing Pathogenic Food Poisoning: Sanitation not Irradiation" appearing in the International Journal of Health Services. He writes, "A wide range of independent studies prior to 1986 clearly identified mutagenic and carcinogenic radiolytic products in irradiated food, and confirmed evidence of genetic toxicity in tests on irradiated food."

David Murray in The Biology of Food Irradiation (1990) outlines the dramatic loss of nutrients in the aftermath of irradiating food. He points to the creation of free radicals in irradiated foods saying, "Disproportionate and selective losses of essential nutrients occur in foods as a consequence of irradiation...An insidious characteristic of irradiation-induced loss is the way it continues during storage."

Since increasing "shelf life" is touted as one of the great benefits of irradiating food, this would imply that we’ll be ingesting more empty calories. Accepting "empty calories" in a bag of chips is quite different than eating an imported irradiated papaya. The calories ingested may be nearly as empty — but you’ll be thinking it’s otherwise.

The fda is considering acting on growing health concerns stemming from trans fats. The article, "Effects of irradiation on trans fatty acids formation in ground beef" published in the journal Radiation Physics and Chemistry (2002) indicates that irradiation doubles the amount of this already-unhealthy fat.

Food irradiation issues are complex and wide-ranging. Practicing irradiation furthers the globalization and industrialization of the food supply. Nutrient loss, food imports from countries with lax environmental and pesticide standards, increased competitive pressure on family farms, and expansion of nuclear sites to irradiate food are all reasons for concern.

Moreover, a recent European Union (E.U.) study whose title is translated as "Toxicological study to assess the risk associated with the consumption of irradiated fat-containing food," uncovers new chemicals unique in irradiated fatty foods. The study says, "Since 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-acbs) are radiation-specific components and not inherent to food, an assessment of their potential health hazard is advisable." The study uncovered "the case of the missing 2-acbs." Researchers found traces in feces and a small amount in fat of rats in the study. What happened to the rest? How was it metabolized by the body? The E.U. recommends a go-slow approach until more is known.

The irradiation industry and food protection agencies assume that the benefits of killing food-borne pathogens outweigh the potential long-term health risks. More troubling, though, is that they dismiss the scientific evidence that uncovers those risks. They claim to want a dialogue with consumer groups, but Public Citizen’s Mark Worth attended a who conference in Geneva where he was not allowed in and relegated to sitting in the lobby.

Red Flags

While the industry wants you to think electronic pasteurization — which is a euphemism for irradiation — is just like the heating used in pasteurization, or using a microwave, or (in industry giant, SureBeam’s case) just killing pathogens with a stream of electricity, it goes far beyond. Keep a watch for this wording as the food irradiation industry is trying to place it in common usage. They are also saying irradiation should, this decade, become the "fourth pillar of public health, alongside pasteurization, chlorination and immunization."

If you don’t like what’s going on, connect with the consumer advocacy groups listed. Contact your school district and congressional representatives. Be mindful of red flags in the marketplace. Note too that mainstream media rarely critiques these food industry practices.

Bobbye Middendorf is a Chicago-based freelance writer.

Educate Yourself!

Skeptics of irradiated food may be your best source of information — and maybe even protection! Many of the organizations below have extensive resources and links including action steps you can take.

Organic Consumers:

Organic Consumers: (Formerly Purefood) has as an extensive and invaluable fact sheet called "What’s Wrong with Food Irradiation — with sources for each statement."

Public Citizen’s:

Public Citizen’s: Should take you directly to Public Citizen’s page about irradiation, safety issues and many links.

Center for Food Safety:

Center for Food Safety: Often works jointly with Public Citizen, and is a part of International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA; on the Web at icta.org), praised by Utne editor Jay Walljasper.

Dr. Samuel Epstein’s Web site:

Links directly to Epstein’s article mentioned. You can also review the list of signatories that includes Chicago-based Quentin Young, M.D., a leader in public health policy, and medical and social justice issues and past President of the American Public Health Association.

Dr. Joseph Mercola’s Web site:

Connects you with another local skeptic and his article (one of several at his site), "The Problems with Irradiated Food: What the Research Says."

Mary Strohmeier e-mail:

Contact this Minnesota-based anti-irradiation activist at HealthyKidsMN@aol.com.

Pro-Irradiation Industry Web sites:

Some benign-sounding organizations are actually fronts for disseminating pro-industry information. To see what they’re selling, check out American Council on Science and Health and www.HealthFactsAndFears.com.

Other Sources of Pro-Irradiation:

www.surebeam.com; www.foodsafe.msu.edu; www.ncfst.iit.edu; www.who.int/fsf; www.iaea.org/icgfi; www.foodsafety.gov; www.foodsafetycouncil.com

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: