Food Irradiation ***ACTION ITEM***

[nosmokes]

so color me one of those agitators that just wants real, wholesome food. not food that's covered with shit that's been zapped to hopfully kill any E-coli so the food processors are off the hook liability wise or so they can keep a slab of beef in the back for 4 weeks and still sell it as fresh.
--###--

original-CFS

Food Irradiation


Your Right to Know: FDA Poised to Weaken Labeling on Food Irradiation

What if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a rule that would intentionally hide information you rely on to make decisions about what to feed yourself and your family? Or if FDA proposed changing food labeling information to something the agency knows would be misleading to consumers?

Well, FDA has announced just such a rule to weaken labeling of irradiated foods.

Currently, irradiated food must be labeled as "Treated with irradiation" or "Treated by radiation" and must display the irradiated "radura" symbol. But now, in yet another attempt to appease industry at the expense of the public, the FDA has proposed a new rule that would allow irradiated food to be marketed in some cases without any labeling at all. In other cases, the rule would allow the terms "electronically pasteurized" or "cold pasteurized" to replace the use of "irradiated" on labels. These terms are not used by scientists, but rather are designed to fool consumers about what's been done to their food.

Consumers have a right to truthful labeling in order to make informed choices for themselves and their families. A public comment period is open until July 3, 2007.
Let your voice be heard by writing a letter to FDA today
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article including sign-on email here

[Karenina]

1. K&R!!!

A-C-T-I-O-N!!!

[helderheid]

2. rec 2!

[peacetalksforall]

3. It's getting to the point where a person can't travel without bringing

their own food. I've modified my habits.

It's going to take tons of government employees in the future. Soon, restaurants will claim that they don't use x, and x, and x type products, ingredients, processes. Then, the government will have to supervise it and communicate with the public. And then they will outsource it to friends of George whether he is still in the WH or not.

I've been very lucky - gut feelings told me not to use or eat certain things - and I've been proven right on everything I can remember, but the jury is stll not back on two of them.

[StarryNite]

4. Those motherf*ckers!

They pull this shit and then they want to take our vitamins and herbs away! If there was nothing to fear they would not hesitate to label the crap as being irradiated. People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[MonkeyFunk]

13. No one wants to take your vitamins or herbs away...

don't believe every panicky email you receive.

[diamidue]

21. No, they just want total control over them

CODEX is not our friend.

"Codex is empowered by governments to set standards of operation for the health industry. Over 90% of the international organizations "allowed" to send delegates to the meetings represent giant multinational pharmaceutical corporations. The only "consumer" organization is the "International Organization of Consumer Unions". Neither the natural health care industry nor the general public has any representation at Codex meetings".

[MonkeyFunk]

22. nonsense

they want to make sure that the pills contain what the bottle says.

People here demand that the FDA do a better job regulating pet food, but god forbid they should ensure that your valerian actually contains valerian.

[StarryNite]

27. I wish you were right but I don't think so.

Codex is about restricting our ability to buy herbs and vitamins. Big pharma doesn't make money off of those items.

[TZ]

30. Ah and after what happened with the pet food and tooth paste

from China, you think that the Chinese Herbs that are commonly sold in this country shouldn't be tested to make sure that there is no ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) in them? Why is it that people whine that there isn't enough regulation on drug safety but scream bloody murder when the FDA wants to make sure that the herbs, supplements and vitamins on the market meet the same safety and efficacy standards as OTC drugs?

[diamidue]

36. Of course they should test products

from abroad & they do and they have been doing so for years. They evidently are getting lax in their checking, tho - as evidenced by recent Chinese incidents. That is NOT what CODEX is about tho. Please do more research on it. And I am far more concerned with allopathic drugs than healthfood store herbs. The 4th largest leading cause of death in the USA is adverse reactions to legal, prescription medications - (after heart disease, cancer and stroke). In comparison, how many people do you know who have died of bad vitamin C?

[NYC]

5. Recommended.

I already did this. I hope your thread gets a lot of attention.

Many years ago, The New York Times quoted a scientist regarding food irradiation: "Irradiated shit is still shit."

[gravity]

6. It makes the food safer

I'm tired of all this pseudoscience crap. There is no evidence that irradiated food is any more dangerous than other food. It's actually safer since there is less bacteria.

The problem is that the public doesn't make informed decisions, but reacts to fear spread on the Internet.

On Edit: I'm talking about irradiated food that has no material changes which the FDA is proposing the label change.

[BadgerKid]

8. Have you considered the references

in the (edit: irradiated food fact sheet) PDF on the linked web site?

I'm working through PubMed at the moment...

[struggle4progress]

9. What's wrong with providing people processing information so they can make their own choices?

One might expect a different chemistry associated with food sterilized by radiation than one gets by thermal sterilization, since the ionizing radiation will produce a number of free radicals. It also seems possible that the Woodward-Hoffman rules will allow some thermally-forbidden photochemistry. And no matter what you say, of course, the FDA won't be inspecting any significant amount of the unlabeled product to determine whether it actually "has no material changes."

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. In view of # 9, what a scandalously irresponsible post you've just written!

Are you completely without shame?

[nosmokes]

11. Or Not.

and how do you expect the public to make an informed decision when we can't even have the ingredients on the label. it's a matter of democracy. The public was never asked if they wanted feed-lotted corn fed beef that was going to be fed anti-biotics and growth hormones because it was eating an unnatural diet and the growers had to get it to slaughter weight as quick as possible in an unhealthy environment before it died. we (the public) were never informed of all that or the country would have never developed such an appetite for beef. or at least not this beef. and now we aren't informed about GMO ingredients in our food. so how can you make the statement the public reacts to fear spread over the internet? lord knows the public can't get the truth off of the label.

[SlipperySlope]

34. Irradiated fecal matter is STILL fecal matter

I would prefer we achieve food safety by keeping feces out of the meat in the first place, not by zapping it to kill the bacteria and calling it "safe".

Feel free to eat all the sterilized shit you want, but please don't foist it on me.

[Oilwellian]

7. I remember signing a petition against Taco Bell for irradiating their meat

Within a few weeks, I got a threatening letter from a TB bigwig stating they didn't irradiate their food and if I persisted in bad mouthing them, they would sue. I wrote him back and told him where he could stick his lawsuit....intimidation doesn't work on those who are well informed. Technically, his letter was right, THEY don't irradiate their meat, but their supplier does. Cute, huh?

[Possumpoint]

12. I think

that everyone of you are idiots. You fear the potential of free radicals resulting from the passing of electrons through your food. What the "F" do you think happens naturally. I'd rather eat irradiated food then fear E-coli being embedded in it. I'm much less likely to die or get sick from the treatment then the contaminated food. I remember when you could eat sunny side up eggs and salads without fear, not now. Killing salmonella in chicken so that it can be cooked moist, not dry is very appealing.

Your fears are without basis, irrational.

[nosmokes]

15. har!

you call us idiots and say our decisions are irrational and made w/o basis. yet i posted an article citing numerous sources. you just seem to be pulling whatever you want outta your ass. you'll forgive me if i give your ass less credence than the sources cited by the center for food safety.

[Possumpoint]

16. Again

I challenge you, which is more important, killing the pathogens that sicken and kill us or worry about potential long range risks. If you wish to be nasty, I do give your ass more credence then mine, you carry more mass in it.

[nosmokes]

23. the challenge is a sustainable food system that doesn't poison

us in the first place; that feeds the soil instead of depleting it; that recognises and incorporates natural processes, not tries to industrialise them.

[gravity]

18. The problem is that the label deters more foods from being irradiated

just because of irrational consumer beliefs. Food producers opt out of safer food preservation even when the science supports the use. It's a matter of public safety in the end.

[nosmokes]

20. according to some scientists irradiation isn't nearly so benign

as you claim it to be. there is at least some body of evidence that says there are problems with the process of irradiation. and we haven't even looked at what might happen when we start doing on a large scale over an extended period of time. just like w/ GMOs they wanna rush this onto the market and into the food chain w/o giving consumers the benefit of being able to make a choice. how about we make the food industry conform to higher standards and keep the shit off the food in the first damn place? the chances of your beef being contaminated drops dramatically when it's raised on open range and grass fed the way it's supposed to be instead of standing in a feedlot shoulder to shoulder with a few thousand of it's closest strangers knee deep in their own filth being force fed food they aren't designed to digest so they're all half sick most of the time and ankle deep in their own filth.

we don't need irradiated food we just need some common sense put back into our food production system and the corporate bean counters taken out. will this mean you pay more for food? you bet your ass. so write your congress critters and tell 'em to write a farm bill that makes sense for family farmers, not industrial agriculture and not food processors.

and for the other poster - no one has said anywhere that it's gonna make the food radioactive.

[TZ]

29. would you like to post those info on those "scientists" who agree with you?

I have never yet heard one, and I spend a lot of time around biologists.
Tell me somethiing do you ever post ANYTHING but "Scienctists are unethical greedy monsters who are ignoring your safety to put unsafe experiements on the market". I have yet to see anything but a science is out to get you topic, from you. You seem to like to distort what is going on in the biotech industry alot. I happen to be an insider, yes, but I have no monetary interests in the field and most of the people I know in the field don't have it, except for their pension plans. I am tired of you bashing a field that you really don't have knowledge of. As Gravity said you are posting pseudoscience.

[nosmokes]

31. why don't you read the OP?

open the pdf and check out the sources cited there. psuedo science is quite often what comes out of studies financed by the biotech firms. c'mon, do you really believe they don't twist the data or design the studies to show their products in the best possible light? and since public funding of science dwindles every year that makes scientists more and more beholden to the corporations or customers that finance their work. it's a major problem. as more and more funding of research is funded by interesred and vested sources we are getting les and less independent unbiased results. even the scientists themselves are admitting they have changed results or altered the parameters of a study so the outcome favors the funding entity.

[Gregorian]

14. Aftere all of these years, I thought it was benign. Oops. Signed it.

[Sirveri]

17. Irradiation is harmless, so is labeling.

The real issue here is the public and their fear of radiation. The food doesn't become radioactive, and deionizes relatively quickly. It's not like they're exposing it to a neutron flux or anything. Personally I would just irradiate EVERYTHING, and then label everything irradiated that way people were forced to eat it, maybe then they'd get over their unfounded fears.

Then again, if people want to be scared of it, it makes it cheaper for me. So I hope everyone signs this so that I have cheaper and cleaner food.

[gravity]

19. The labels can be harmful since it prevents more foods from being irradiated

because it could result in lower sales from public perception. The unfounded fears make the food more dangerous for all.

[BadgerKid]

24. Irradiated beef reached retail in May 2000

"In the United States, irradiation of meat and meat
products requires prior approval not only by FDA, but
also by the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety
and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS).FDA approved
irradiation of refrigerated or frozen raw meat and meat
products for control of foodborne pathogens in 1997,
FSIS’s separate approval became effective in February
2000.The first commercial packages of irradiated beef
reached the retail consumer market in May 2000.The
frozen beef patties (hamburgers) were electron irradiated
at Sioux City, Iowa, by SureBeam Corporation; they
were marketed in five states by the end of May 2000
(Mermelstein, 2000) and in 18 states by February 2001
(Mermelstein, 2001).The Iowa facility is capable of
processing about 100,000 t of hamburger meat per year.
Another company, Ion Beam Applications, irradiates
spices herbs and feeds in eight plants located in
California, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and
Texas."

J.F. Diehl. 2002. Food irradiationFpast, present and future. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 63 (2002) 211–215.

[BadgerKid]

25. Irradiation of beef increases trans fat content

Conclusions

"Although the gamma radiation has been an excellent
method to conserve meat, the molecular structure of this
meat can be changed, and this fact is observed in this
paper. The total trans fatty acids in non-irradiated
ground beef is smaller than the irradiated one. The
extraction done in samples irradiated after 90 days of
storage is similar to the extraction done at the day of
storage.
The increase of trans fatty acids in the irradiated
ground beef is one of the important factors that can be
considered in the irradiation process."


Brito et al. 2002. Effects of irradiation on trans fatty acids formation
in ground beef. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 63 (2002) 337–340

[farmboxer]

26. Kevin Trudeau's Book

is right on!

[TZ]

28. So you take a CONVICTED con artist book as truth?

Look at this link about your buddy. 20 pages of consumer complaints about Mr. Trudeau. People whine about Big Pharma's greediness. Heere is someone who is totally unethical and has taken advantage of plenty of people...talk about greedy and dangerous. I wouldn't trust a word this crook said nor ever give him a penny of my hard earned money
http://www.infomercialscams.com/scams/natural_cures

[lonestarnot]

32. LOL

[nosmokes]

33. and i never endorsed trudeau or anything he's ever wrote or

touted. so why are you trying to cast his taint on me? still wanna talk ethics?

[arikara]

35. I won't buy any meat from big stores

We'll do without first. I get ours locally. Same for produce, plus I've put in a garden and bought all seed from local seed savers. I refuse to support what they are doing with our food supply. I can't believe some of the posts in this thread.

Those of you who think its great to radiate and chemicalize food, don't you wonder why they are doing it in the first place? If they didn't raise the animals in cruel obscene feedlots the way they do they wouldn't be full of pathogens. Why do you think the food is now full of disease when it didn't used to be? The change coincides with the loss of family farms and takeover by these massive corporate feedlots and slaughterhouses. Animals used to run around in a field eating good healthy grass now live horrible lives in filth and are fed on rendered shit and waste from other animals. Butchering used to be done by skilled workers, now its done by low paid unfortunates who have to work so fast they can't take care with the meat consequently filth and feces is spread all over it. Then instead of having to clean up the business, they are allowed to irradiate the food.

And don't forget about the chemically treated disease laden crap from the feedlots that is spread on commercially grown vegetables causing yet more disease.

[karlrschneider]

37. I have no problem with requiring accurate labeling but I would like to have the opportunity to buy

irradiated products. I will feel a bit safer eating my rare burgers.