Home
Agriculture
Apparel
Building Materials
Chemicals
Electronics & Electrical
Food & Beverage
Industry Supplies
Minerals
Textiles
Agrochemicals & Pesticides | Vegetables | Fruit | Plant Seeds

A number of medical groups consider irradiated food safe

http://www.usnews.com/articles/health/living-well-usn/2008/09/05/the-basics-on-the-foodfight-over-ir [2008-9-8]

Tag : spinach
The process involves treating a food with a short burst of highenergy radiation that damages the DNA of bacteria. Though the FDAhas only just approved the technique for use with fresh spinach andiceberg lettuce, the technology is not new. In fact, the agency hasconducted safety tests on the technology for more than 40 years,and its use on meat has been approved since 1997. Spinach andiceberg lettuce are the first types of produce approved forirradiation at levels intense enough to kill pathogens. (Lowerdoses have been approved for other purposes, such as controllinginsect infestations and slowing ripening produce's maturation.)
Why do some food processors want to irradiate food?
Groups that represent food processors, such as the GroceryManufacturers Association and the American Meat Institute, want toirradiate certain products to kill problematic pathogens and toextend shelf life. Research shows that irradiation destroys 99.9percent of common foodborne pathogens. However, advocacy groupssuch as Food & Water Watch and the Organic ConsumersAssociation oppose the irradiation of food on the grounds that itdoesn't address the root causes of outbreaks, such as unsanitaryconditions at farms and food processing plants, and reduces thenutritional quality, taste, and texture of food.
Why has the Food and Drug Administration decided to approve thetechnology for use with spinach and lettuce now?
According to Christine Bruhn, a University of California expert onconsumer attitudes about irradiated food, a highly publicized 2006E. coli scare associated with spinach helped spur the approval. In2000, a major food industry trade group petitioned the FDA toapprove irradiation for a variety of foods, including lettuce andspinach. The approval process had been slowed, however, by thesheer number of products being considered. After the 2006 outbreak,spinach and lettuce were put on a fast track. Decisions on theother foods in the original petition, including pre-processed meatand poultry and pre-processed vegetables and fruits are stillpending.
Does this decision mean I'll start seeing more irradiated productsin the supermarket?
Possibly. However, consumers have been slow to accept irradiatedfoods in the past, and the same could be true in this case, expertssay. Only a limited number of supermarkets—such as Wegmans,for example—so far carry irradiated meat. One company thathas embraced irradiation is Omaha Steaks, a meat producer inNebraska that irradiates all of its ground beef. For the moment,however, the vast majority of spinach and lettuce will not beirradiated because the technology remains relatively expensive, andthe number of irradiation facilities is limited. Most of theirradiation facilities that do exist are used to irradiate medicalequipment—not food.
How can I tell if a product has been irradiated?
The FDA requires that irradiated foods bear a distinctive, circular"radura" symbol and the statement: "Treated withradiation." There's a move afoot by industry groups to pushfor a change in the wording on the label to something that soundsmore appealing, such as "cold" or "electronic"pasteurization, says Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety, aWashington-based advocacy group that opposes irradiation.
Is irradiated food safe?
A number of medical groups, including the American MedicalAssociation, the World Health Organization, and the AmericanDietetic Association consider irradiated food safe. Though theirradiation process does not leave any residue or radioactivity onfood, a few isolated studies in animals have hinted at possiblereproductive effects associated with irradiated foods. However, theFDA's assessment is that these studies are not valid and that theoverwhelming majority show no evidence of toxicity. Criticsconsider irradiation a surface fix, arguing that the technologydiscourages farms and manufacturers from developing better farmingtechniques that would prevent contamination in the first place.They also argue that allowing irradiation may cause food processorsto loosen standards of cleanliness in plants, increasing the riskof contamination.

Hot Products: A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0-9