revised February 2001
Irradiation damages the quality of food.
· Irradiation damages food by breaking up molecules and creating free
radicals. The free radicals kill some bacteria, but they also bounce
around in the food, damage vitamins and enzymes, and combine with
existing chemicals (like pesticides) in the food to
form new chemicals, called unique radiolytic products (URPs).
· Some of these URPs are known toxins (benzene, formaldehyde, lipid
peroxides) and some are unique to irradiated foods. Scientists have not
studied the long-term effect of these new chemicals in our diet.
Therefore, we cannot assume they are safe.
· Irradiated foods can lose 5%-80% of many vitamins (A, C, E, K and B
complex). The amount of loss depends on the dose of irradiation and the
length of storage time.
· Most of the food in the American diet is already approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for irradiation: beef, pork, lamb,
poultry, wheat, wheat flour, vegetables, fruits, shell eggs, seeds for
sprouting, spices, herb teas. (Dairy is already
pasteurized). A food industry petition currently before the FDA asks for
approval for luncheon meats, salad bar items, sprouts, fresh juices and
frozen foods. Another petition before the USDA asks for approval for
imported fruits and vegetables.
· Irradiation damages the natural digestive enzymes found in raw foods. This means the body has to work harder to digest them.
· If unlabeled, raw foods that have been irradiated look like fresh
foods, but nutritionally they are like cooked foods, with decreased
vitamins and enzymes. The FDA allows these foods to be labeled "fresh."
· Irradiated fats tend to become rancid.
· When high-energy electron beams are used, trace amounts of radioactivity may be created in the food.
Science has not proved that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe for human health.
· The longest human feeding study was 15 weeks. No one knows the
long-term effects of a life-long diet that includes foods which will be
frequently irradiated, such as meat, chicken, vegetables, fruits,
salads, sprouts and juices.
· There are no studies on the effects of feeding babies or children
diets containing irradiated foods, except a very small and controversial
study from India that showed health effects.
· Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors,
reproductive failures and kidney damage. Some possible causes are:
irradiation-induced vitamin deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes in
the food, DNA damage, and toxic radiolytic products
in the food.
· The FDA based its approval of irradiation for poultry on only 5 of 441
animal-feeding studies. Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., the toxicologist who
chaired the FDA committee that approved irradiation, later said, "These
studies reviewed in the 1982 literature from
the FDA were not adequate by 1982 standards, and are even less accurate
by 1993 standards to evaluate the safety of any product, especially a
food product such as irradiated food." The 5 studies are not a good
basis for approval of irradiation for humans, because
they showed health effects on the animals or were conducted using
irradiation at lower energies than those the FDA eventually approved.
· The FDA based its approval of irradiation for fruits and vegetables on
a theoretical calculation of the amount of URPs in the diet from one
7.5 oz. serving/day of irradiated food. Considering the different kinds
of foods approved for irradiation, this quantity
is too small and the calculation is irrelevant.
· Even with current labeling requirements, people cannot avoid eating
irradiated food. That means there is no control group, and
epidemiologists will never be able to determine if irradiated food has
any health effects.
· Science is always changing. The science of today is not the science of
tomorrow. The science we have today is not adequate to prove the
long-term safety of food irradiation.
Irradiation covers up problems that the meat and poultry industry should solve
· Irradiation covers up the increased fecal contamination that results
from speeded up slaughter and decreased federal inspection, both of
which allow meat and poultry to be produced more cheaply. Prodded by the
industry, the USDA has allowed a transfer of
inspection to company inspectors. Where government inspectors remain,
they are not allowed to condemn meat and poultry now that they condemned
20 years ago.
· Because of this deregulation (continued under President Clinton, a
protégé of Tyson Foods), the meat and poultry industry has recently lost
money and suffered bad publicity from food-poisoning lawsuits and
expensive product recalls. Irradiation is a "magic
bullet" that will enable them to say that the product was "clean" when
it left the packing plant. (Irradiation, however, does not sterilize
food, and any bacteria that remain can grow to toxic proportions if the
food is not properly stored and handled.)
· In 2000, seven meat industry associations submitted a petition to USDA
to redefine key regulations relating to contamination. If accepted by
USDA, this petition would permit unlimited fecal contamination during
production, as long as irradiation was used
afterwards.
Labeling is necessary to inform people so they can choose to avoid irradiated foods.
· Because irradiated foods have not been proven safe for human health in
the long term, prominent, conspicuous and truthful labels are necessary
for all irradiated foods. Consumers should be able to easily determine
if their food has been irradiated. Labels
should also be required for irradiated ingredients of compound foods,
and for restaurant and institutional foods.
· Because irradiation can deplete vitamins, labels should state the
amount of vitamin loss after irradiation, especially for fresh foods
that are usually eaten fresh. Consumers have the right to know if they
are buying nutritionally impaired foods.
· Current US labels are not sufficient to enable consumers to avoid
irradiated food. Foods are labeled only to the first purchaser.
Irradiated spices, herb teas and supplement ingredients, foods that are
served in restaurants, schools, etc., or receive further
processing, do not bear consumer labels. Consumer labels are required
only for foods sold whole (like a piece of fruit) or irradiated in the
package (like chicken breasts). The text with the declaration of
irradiation can be as small as the type face on the
ingredient label. The US Department of Agriculture requirements have one
difference: irradiated meat or poultry that is part of another food
(like a tv dinner) must be disclosed on the label.
· The US Food and Drug Administration is currently rewriting the
regulation for minimum labeling, and will release it for public comment
by early 2002. They may eliminate all required text labels. If they do
retain the labels, Congress has told them to use
a "friendly" euphemism instead of "irradiation."
Electron-beam irradiation today means nuclear irradiation tomorrow.
· The source of the irradiation is not listed on the label.
· The original sponsor of food irradiation in the US was the Department
of Energy, which wanted to create a favorable image of nuclear power as
well as dispose of radioactive waste. These goals have not changed.
Cobalt-60, which is used for irradiation, must
be manufaactured in a nuclear reactor.
· Many foods cannot be irradiated using electron beams. E-beams only
penetrate 1-1.5 inches on each side, and are suitable only for flat,
evenly sized foods like patties. Large fruits, foods in boxes, and
irregularly shaped foods must be irradiated using x-rays
or gamma rays from nuclear materials.
· Countries that lack a cheap and reliable source of electricity for
e-beams use nuclear materials. Opening U.S. markets to irradiated food
encourages the spread of nuclear irradiation worldwide.
Irradiation using radioactive materials is an environmental hazard.
· The more nuclear irradiators, the more likelihood of a serious
accident in transport, operation or disposal of the nuclear materials.
· Food irradiation facilities have already contaminated the environment.
For example, in the state of Georgia in 1988, radioactive water escaped
from an irradiation facility. The taxpayers were stuck with $47 million
in cleanup costs. Radioactivity was tracked
into cars and homes. In Hawaii in 1967 and New Jersey in 1982,
radioactive water was flushed into the public sewer system.
· Numerous worker exposures have occurred in food irradiation facilities worldwide.
Irradiation doesn't provide clean food.
· Because irradiation doesn't kill all the bacteria in a food, the ones
that survive are by definition radiation-resistant. These bacteria will
multiply and eventually work their way back to the 'animal factories'.
Soon thereafter, the bacteria that contaminate
the meat will no longer be killed by currently approved doses of
irradiation. The technology will no longer be usable, while stronger
bacteria contaminate our food supply.
· People may become more careless about sanitation if irradiation is
widely used. Irradiation doesn't kill all the bacteria in a food. In a
few hours at room temperature, the bacteria remaining in meat or poultry
after irradiation can multiply to the level
existing before irradiation.
· Some bacteria, like the one that causes botulism, as well as viruses
and prions (which are believed to cause Mad Cow Disease) are not killed
by current doses of irradiation.
· Irradiation encourages food producers to cut corners on sanitation,
because they can 'clean up' the food just before it is shipped.
Irradiation does nothing to change the way food is grown and produced.
· Irradiated foods can have longer shelf lives than nonirradiated foods,
which means they can be shipped further while appearing 'fresh.' Food
grown by giant farms far away may last longer than nonirradiated,
locally grown food, even if it is inferior in nutrition
and taste. Thus, irradiation encourages centralization and hurts small
farmers.
· The use of pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and other agrichemicals,
as well as pollution and energy use, are not affected. Irradiation is
applied by the packer after harvest or slaugher.
· Free-market economists say irradiation is 'efficient': it provides the
cheapest possible food for the least possible risk. But these
economists are not concerned about the impaired nutritional quality of
the food. They are not considering the environmental
effects of large-scale corporate farming, the social costs of
centralization of agriculture and loss of family farms, the replacement
of unionized, impartial government inspectors with company inspectors ,
the potential long-term damage to human health, and
the possibility of irradiation-resistant super-bacteria. All of these
developments should be (but are not) considered when regulators and
public health officials evaluate the benefits of food irradiation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
