|
|
|
"Irradiation" equals "Pasteurization" ... NOT!by Audrey Schwartz The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published "Guidance" for food companies who wish to petition to be allowed to label their irradiated food as having been subject to "cold pasteurization" or "electronic pasteurization." This new labeling opportunity is allowed as a result of the passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002. Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, feels the food industry lobbied for this provision in the farm bill because the term "irradiation" has a negative connotation with the general public-the result being that they don't want to buy irradiated products. Pasteurization, on the other hand, is a familiar term to most of us because it has been a step in the processing of milk, among other food items, for more than sixty years. The public is not generally reluctant to buy food products that have been pasteurized. Public Citizen feels that, if food companies gain the approval to use the terms "cold pasteurization" and "electronic pasteurization" on irradiated food product labels, there will be an increase in the number of irradiated foods on the market. However, consumers will not know that the food they are buying was irradiated. Pasteurization, in the case of milk, is a processing method whereby milk is heated to a certain temperature for a certain period of time (methods vary) in order to kill harmful microbes. The result is that the shelf-life of milk is extended, but some flavor is lost in the process, as well. The irradiation of food involves different technology. Currently, three technologies exist. The oldest method is to use gamma rays given off by a radioactive substance (cobalt 60 or cesium 137) to penetrate the food. This process does not make the food radioactive. The second method is to bombard the food item with electrons or "e-beams." The newest technology uses x-rays. The dose of irradiation used depends on the food and the type of organism that the process is trying to kill. Parasites, insect pests, and most bacteria are killed by irradiation. For current doses approved for food, however, irradiation does not generally kill viruses. The irradiation of wheat flour as a method to control mold, and of potatoes to inhibit sprouting, were approved by the FDA in 1963 and 1964, respectively. Since the 1990s, the types of foods have increased for which the approval to use irradiation has been requested. Currently, its use approved for beef, pork, poultry, shell eggs, fruits, vegetables, wheat, wheat flour, herbs and spices. The FDA has also been petitioned to approve the irradiation of deli meats, frozen foods, prepared fresh foods, fresh juices, seeds and sprouts, crustaceans and mollusks. The food industry touts irradiation as way to eliminate food contamination by e.coli, salmonella and listeria. Due to the number of outbreaks over the past few years, this argument has helped companies gain support from the general public for using this process. On an economic level, companies want to irradiate foods in order to decrease their losses due to spoilage-meaning that food can be subject to longer shipping periods and transported greater distances in order to reach more markets. Once it arrives, the food can be left on the shelf, for sale, for longer periods of time. Those who oppose irradiation have several arguments against its use. First, they claim that current food processing practices are responsible for incidents of food-borne illness. For example, in the meat industry the quantity of animals slaughtered, and the speed with which workers are forced to work, affect their ability to keep the meat sanitary. Opponents argue that making the food industry accountable to improve sanitary practices, and more government oversight of food processing, could eliminate outbreaks of food-borne illnesses without the use of irradiation. Second, they claim that foods subject to irradiation are altered, affecting nutritional quality. Since irradiation heats the food, raw food has the nutritional value of cooked food. Irradiation may result in some vitamin loss while increasing the amount of free radicals. The process kills naturally occurring enzymes in the food, which normally work with our own body's enzymes to digest food properly. The process also kills the type of bacteria that alerts you to the fact that a food is spoiled-meaning, you could be eating spoiled food. Third, critics decry the lack of scientific study of this process, claiming that there have been no long-term human studies on the effects of a diet of irradiated food. In addition, much of food to be irradiated is already in its package; it is unclear what effect the process will have on the packaging, or whether this could transfer to the food. The current labeling requirements are that all irradiated foods must be labeled to the first purchaser. The "radura" symbol is used internationally to mean that food has been irradiated, and a statement the same typeface size of the ingredient label must say "treated with radiation" or "treated by irradiation." Consumers will only see these labels if they are buying the food in its whole form, such as a package of chicken breast, a bag of wheat flour, a papaya, or if the irradiated meat or chicken is part of another food such as chicken in a frozen dinner. It is not necessary to label food if a minor ingredient like a spice used in the preparation has been irradiated. If the first purchaser is a restaurant, school or food manufacturer, the consumer will most likely not know they are buying irradiated food. At Honest Weight, herbs and spices are supplied by Frontier, Mike's Spices and some local vendors. None irradiate their products. Currently, tropical fruits seem to be the only produce subject to irradiation-although, due to a serious pest infestation, there was some talk of subjecting clementines to irradiation in the future. Irradiated produce would not be carried at Honest Weight. Elsewhere in the Capital District, according to a recent article in Metroland, two supermarket chains already offer or are planning to offer irradiated meat. According to Public Citizen, consumer focus groups have been conducted by the FDA, by Public Citizen, and jointly sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons. The results have shown that consumers are not in favor of allowing the "pasteurization" terms to be used instead of "irradiation." The FDA is supposed to be asking for public comment by the end of this year on revising the labeling regulations for irradiated foods. This is a separate issue from the allowance of "pasteurization" petitions. You can visit the FDA's website or that of various consumer and food advocacy groups for the notification of this comment period, and express your opinion at that time. Currently, you can contact your government representative and express you opinion on the "pasteurization" issue, labeling requirements, and irradiation in general. Thanks to the helpful Coop staff who provided information for this article. |
CoopScoop
Home |
