Subject: [s.b.f-s] ON-LINE Discussion: "From Irradiation To Electronic Pasteurization"

From: [email-masked] (Paul King)
Date: 9 Sep 96 04:36:14 UTC

To all SBFS subscribers: 

Here is your chance to participate in a debate which I thought we won long ago.
It is on food irradiation. Though it is generally accepted that irradiation of
food is a safe practice, there are still many who question the practice. Ask a
person on the street about it and they will react to the idea of irradiated food
with revulsion and disfavour. Let's show our side of the story.

Susan Meeker-Lowry is the author of Economics as if the Earth Really Mattered
and Invested in the Common Good (both New Society Publishers). She is also the
managing editor of Food & Water Journal.

Below is Susan Meeker-Lowry's article as it appeared in a left political
magazine called "Z" Magazine. Being a fan of Z (for its politics, not its
science), I asked the editors for permission to post it to sci.bio.food-science
so that persons more knowledgeable on irradiation can respond. I know enough
about food irradiation to appreciate its safety, but not much beyond that. They
said "OK," so here it is. Feel free to dissect this article, and respond to it
to your liking. 

Let the on-line discussion begin!

Paul King

Lines: 567
>from  the pages of Z Magazine, May 96.

>From  Irradiation To Electronic Pasteurization 
By Susan Meeker-Lowry 

         If the USDA, the nuclear industry, and the food industry have
    their way, nuking food to kill bacteria like e. coli and salmonella,
    and to extend its shelf-life will become standard operating
    procedure. While it is legal to zap fruits, vegetables, spices,
    grains, pork, and poultry with radiation, you haven't seen much of
    this irradiated food on the supermarket shelves (with the exception
    of spices) thanks in large part to campaigns opposing the process
    launched by organizations like Food & Water and thousands of
    consumers who don't like the idea of eating irradiated food.
    
         Thanks in large part to these campaigns, investors in food
    irradiation have lost their shirts: Food Technology Service, Inc.
    (FTSI) based in Mulberry, Florida (formerly known as Vindicator), the
    nation's first food irradiation facility, has posted over $5 million
    in losses since opening in 1992 because people don't like the idea of
    eating nuked chicken and vegetables. As a result, other companies
    were reluctant to jump on a bandwagon that promised only bankruptcy.
    But all that may change.
    
         The FDA's imminent approval of beef irradiation has industry
    promoters salivating. Ever since several children died and hundreds
    were taken ill after eating e. coli contaminated hamburgers at a
    Jack-in-the-Box restaurant in 1993 (and in several other less
    publicized incidents), the USDA has been pushing for FDA approval of
    beef irradiation as one "solution" to the growing problem of meat
    contamination. While most people might balk at irradiating fruits and
    vegetables (very few people die from eating contaminated fruit,
    although harms caused by pesticide residues are all too real), the
    fact is our meat supply in this country is contaminated by dangerous
    pathogens.

         E. coli is responsible for 500 deaths and 20,000 illnesses
    annually, and these numbers appear to be rising. Hamburger, which is
    easily contaminated is connected to 70 percent of e. coli outbreaks.
    Salmonella is responsible for almost 2 million poisonings each year
    in the U.S., resulting in up to 2,000 deaths. While you hear most
    about salmonella contaminating poultry, raw eggs, and raw milk, red
    meat is linked to a third of all salmonella outbreaks.

         Taking advantage of the very real hazards in the nation's meat
    supply, irradiation promoters, working with the USDA, and researchers
    at major land grant universities in pro-irradiation departments, are
    busy at work creating "educational" materials (some call it "consumer
    training") for both meat industry execs and consumers. The meat
    industry has been reluctant to irradiate its products since people
    obviously don't want to eat irradiated meat. Plus it appears zapped
    meat simply doesn't taste that great. In 1994, The Economist,
    reporting on taste test research, said irradiated meat has a
    "burnt-hair taste -- especially beef." To counter this negative
    publicity, thousands of dollars, much of it tax dollars, are being
    spent on promotional videos and related materials to influence the
    public to accept food irradiation.

         For example, scientists at Iowa State University (ISU), home to
    one of two publicly held food irradiation facilities in the U.S., are
    working on a video that they say will convince "at least 50 percent
    [of consumers who view it] . . . to purchase irradiated meat
    products." The video likens food irradiation to milk pasteurization,
    and features interviews with 15 scientists and government officials
    advocating the process. Opponents to irradiation were represented by
    two employees of Iowa food cooperatives and their remarks were
    limited to a few sentences.

         The USDA is taking the results of university consumer acceptance
    studies and projects like the one at ISU to meat industry executives
    to convince them it is possible to "win consumers' approval" of the
    irradiation process. Thanks to a pro-active campaign by Food & Water, 
    International Beef Processors (IBP), the largest meat processing 
    corporation in the U.S., came out against irradiation in
    March of this year when CEO Robert L. Peterson stated, "We at IBP do
    not irradiate any of our meat products, nor do we have plans to
    begin. We agree that current irradiation procedures can affect
    traditional meat flavors."

         Still the USDA and the irradiation industry persist, joining
    forces with the state of Hawaii to promote the irradiation of
    Hawaiian fruit destined for U.S. and Japanese markets. So far, the
    main outlet for zapped Hawaiian fruit has been Carrot Top Market
    based in Chicago. Other purveyors of irradiated food include
    Sterigenics, a California-based irradiation company that markets its
    own brands of irradiated spices under the Purely by Choice label; and
    New Horizon Technology, Inc. (NHTI), a new commercial irradiation
    facility in Washington state founded by two scientists at the DoE's
    laboratories at Hanford (one of the largest nuclear waste dumps in
    the world) and FTSI.

         While founders raise the $5 million necessary to build their
    facility, NHTI has an agreement to use the DoE's cobalt-60 irradiator
    at Hanford. To get the venture off the ground New Horizon zapped 100
    cases of Walla Walla sweet onions which are proudly featured in
    sandwiches sold in the Baron's Beef & Brew restaurant in Richland,
    WA. To "educate" skeptical customers, Baron's co-owner, Vicki
    Silvernail, compares an irradiated onion to a sunburned person.

Atoms for Peace Technology 

         Food irradiation has been around a long time -- in 1916 Sweden
    first experimented with irradiation of strawberries and the first
    U.S. patents were taken out in 1921. In the 1950s, food irradiation
    was considered one of the atoms for peace technologies and in 1957
    irradiation was first used on spices for sausage in Germany but was
    promptly banned the following year. In 1958, irradiation was
    classified as a food additive requiring safety testing but in 1976
    this requirement was relaxed somewhat. The first irradiation permits
    were issued in 1963 for wheat, potatoes, and bacon, and in 1990 for
    raw poultry.

         Today, food irradiation is approved in 37 countries on over 40
    products although it is actually used in only 18 countries and very
    sparingly at that. It has been endorsed by the United Nation's Food
    and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization
    (WHO) as an important solution to the problem of food losses due to
    insect pests, food spoilage, and microbial contamination. (WHO's
    approval provoked considerable controversy which continues to this
    day. WHO did not undertake any studies, nor did they consult
    members.) In the U.S., potatoes, poultry, wheat, spices, dried
    vegetables, and pork can all be irradiated. 
    
         While the FDA requires that irradiated foods be labeled, if only
    some ingredients are irradiated (spices in a sauce, for example) the
    label requirement is waived. In the U.S. the FDA recommends general
    irradiation be permitted only up to the lower dose of 100,000 rad
    with the exception of spices which are permitted up to 3 million rad.
    In practice, however, there is the possibility foods will be zapped
    with much higher doses. Vice President of McCormick &amp; Company
    (the spice company) R.L. Hall stated, "In existing large-scale
    irradiators, it is quite likely that an overdose of up to 250 percent
    can be expected."

         Irradiation disrupts the organic processes that lead to food
    decay. Proponents like it because it destroys bacteria, kills some
    insect pests, and extends the shelf life of foods. They gloss over
    the problems, implying that the threats posed by microbial
    contamination are greater than those posed by irradiation. Food is
    irradiated either by being exposed to large doses of ionizing
    radiation from radioactive gamma sources (cobalt-60 is used today,
    although cesium-137 was also used until 1988), or to extremely high
    energy electron beams (e-beams). Irradiated food is not rendered
    radioactive.

         Gamma rays have sufficient energy to knock electrons out of the
    atoms, breaking the molecular structure of the food which results in
    positively and negatively charged particles called free radicals.
    Free radicals react with the food to create new chemical substances
    called "unique radiolytic products" (URPs). While some URPs may not
    be harmful, others, such as formaldehyde, benzene, formic acid,
    glyoxal, malondialdehyde, lipid peroxides, and quinones are
    definitely cause for concern. 
    
         Benzene, for example, is known to cause cancer. In one
    experiment benzene was found to be over seven times higher in cooked,
    irradiated beef than in cooked, non-irradiated beef. Unfortunately,
    benzene is excluded from consideration by the FDA as a hazard
    accompanying irradiation because it is also generated by charcoal
    broiling. Some URPs are completely new chemicals that have not been
    identified, let alone tested for toxicity. Irradiation also destroys
    vitamins including vitamin A, some Bs, C, and E. Amino acids and fats
    may also be altered by the process.

         Numerous animal studies indicate health problems associated with
    eating irradiated foods. Public Citizen details several in a document
    sent to the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) regarding
    irradiation of poultry products in 1992. One in particular, carried
    out by Raltech Scientific Services, Inc. under contract with the U.S.
    government (actually twelve studies in one) examined the effect of
    feeding irradiated chicken to several different animal species.
    
         Results indicated the possibility of chromosome damage,
    immunetoxicity, greater incidence of kidney disease, cardiac thrombus,
    and fibroplasia. In reviewing Raltech's findings, Donald Thayer, a
    USDA researcher stated in 1984 that ". . a collective assessment of
    study results argues against a definative [sic] conclusion that the
    gamma-irradiated test material [irradiated chicken meat] was free of
    toxic properties." Other studies on rats fed irradiated food also
    indicate possible kidney damage as well as testicular damage and a
    statistically significant increase in testicular tumors.

Flawed & Fraudulent Research 

         While irradiation proponents claim decades of research
    demonstrate the safety of the process, many (if not most) of the
    studies used to prove their point are questionable. Some were
    undertaken by the U.S. army to obtain approval from the FDA for
    can-packed bacon in 1963, approval withdrawn in 1968 after the FDA
    discovered the research to be flawed. Others include those completed
    by Industrial Bio-Test (IBT), a firm convicted in 1983 of performing
    fraudulent research for government and industry. The Army (one of
    their clients) discovered "missing records, unallowable departures
    from testing protocol, poor quality work, and incomplete disclosure
    of information on the progress of the studies." As a result of IBT's
    violations, the government lost about $4 million and 6 years worth of
    animal feeding study data on food irradiation. Some of this
    discredited work is still used as part of the "scientific" basis for
    assurances of the safety of food irradiation today.

         The FDA's assessment before the approval of pork irradiation,
    was also seriously flawed. The agency included 5 of 441 available
    toxicity studies, since only those 5 were "properly conducted, fully
    adequate by 1980 toxicological standards, and able to stand alone in
    support of safety." Why the FDA relied on even the remaining five is
    baffling since when they were reviewed by the Department of
    Preventative Medicine and Community Health of the New Jersey Medical
    School, two were found to be methodologically flawed. Two others
    appeared to be sound, but investigated the effects of diets
    consisting of foods treated to lower doses than what the FDA
    currently approves. Further, two of the studies they chose to include
    did indicate problems with irradiation -- one suggesting that
    irradiated food could have adverse effects on older animals, and the
    other showing that animals fed a diet of irradiated foods experienced
    weight loss and miscarriage, most likely due to irradiation-induced
    vitamin E deficiency. Yet the agency ignored these possible negative
    impacts on health.
    
         Further damning the FDA's work, Marcia van Gemert, the
    toxicologist and chair of the FDA committee that investigated the 441
    studies and wrote the final report in 1982 recently wrote in a letter
    dated October 19, 1993, "These studies . . . were not adequate by
    1982 standards, and are even less adequate by 1993 standards to
    evaluate the safety of any product, especially a food product such as
    irradiated foods."

But Does it Work? 

         Contrary to what we are told, irradiation will not ensure
    uncontaminated food. While it kills most bacteria, it does not remove
    the toxins created in the early stages of contamination. In any case,
    not all microorganisms in food are bad. Some smell awful, letting us
    know food is spoiled, others, such as yeasts and molds, compete with
    harmful bacteria and provide a natural control on their growth. Since
    some bacteria may not be destroyed by irradiation, it will be easier
    for the survivors to multiply unchecked, and there will be no putrid
    smell to indicate spoilage. For example, current doses of radiation
    are not powerful enough to kill c. botulinum in chicken. It does,
    however, kill most of the yeasts and molds that naturally compete
    with it along with most of the organisms that indicate spoilage by
    smelling bad.
    
         Under the right conditions c. botulinum will multiply and become
    a health hazard with no warning odor to indicate toxicity. It's a
    fact that irradiation has a mutagenic effect on the bacteria and
    viruses that survive zapping. These mutated survivors may be
    resistant to antibiotics or could evolve into more virulent strains
    of microorganisms. They could also become radiation-resistant and if
    released into the environment, could contaminate food prior to
    irradiation rendering the process ineffective. Radiation resistant
    mutants of salmonella have been developed by repeated irradiation
    under laboratory conditions, and resistant strains have also been
    found in environments with high natural or artificial radiation.
    
         Scientists at Louisiana State University recently found one
    bacteria occurring in spoiled meat and animal feces that can survive
    a dose of radiation five times what the FDA will eventually approve
    for beef. The bacteria, D. radiodurans, was exposed to between 10 and
    15 kilograys (kGy) of radiation for several hours -- enough to kill a
    person several thousand times over.

         Scientists speculate the bacteria's resistance to radiation
    could have originated from desiccation or prolonged dehydration,
    which has the same destructive impact on chromosomes as radiation.
    Jennifer Ferrara, with Food & Water, says, "This discovery raises
    serious doubts about the propriety of a technology that may
    accelerate the evolution of already harmful bacteria into still
    deadlier strains. Will a radiation-resistant, super-salmonella be
    next?"

         Proponents of irradiation do not dispute that the process
    damages many vitamins, specifically A, many of the Bs (thiamine, B2,
    B3, B6, B12, folic acid), C, E and K. Essential polyunsaturated fatty
    acids are also affected. The extent of loss depends on the type of
    food and the radiation dose. Generally the more complex the food, the
    less it suffers. Still a 20 percent to 80 percent loss is not
    uncommon. The justifications for irradiation in light of such
    significant vitamin loss are: irradiated foods probably won't be a
    huge percentage of anyone's diet; or in countries experiencing
    extreme hunger, at least it's food.

Accidents Happen 

         Workers in irradiation plants could be exposed to extremely
    large doses of radiation due to equipment failure, leaking, or
    accidental exposure to the source -- just like workers in nuclear
    power plants. The irradiation chamber requires constant maintenance
    and upkeep since it is a very corrosive atmosphere, increasing the
    likelihood of exposure, and irradiation sources will have to be
    produced, transported, stored, and installed, then replaced when
    depleted.
    
         While advocates of irradiation maintain the safety of the
    technology, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recorded 54
    accidents at 132 irradiation facilities since 1974. This number is
    probably low because about 30 states have agreements with the NRC to
    monitor and enforce regulations of irradiation facilities themselves.
    The NRC has no information on incidents in these states. (This
    agreement does not apply to nuclear power plants, which are monitored
    by the NRC). Here are a few of the reported accidents:
    
         In 1974, whistleblowers at the Isomedix company in New Jersey
    reported that radioactive water was flushed down toilets and had
    contaminated pipes leading to sewers. The same year a worker received
    a dose of radiation considered lethal -- prompt hospital treatment
    saved his life.
    
         In 1982, International Nutronics in Dover, New Jersey, a company
    that used radiation baths to purify gems, chemicals, food, and
    medical supplies had an accident that completely contaminated the
    plant forcing its closure. A pump malfunctioned siphoning water from
    the baths onto the floor. The contaminated water was dumped down the
    drain into the Dover sewer system.
    
         The NRC wasn't informed of the accident until ten months later
    -- and then by a whistleblower, not the company. In 1986, the company
    and one of its top executives were convicted by a federal jury of
    conspiracy and fraud. Radiation has been detected in the vicinity of
    the plant, but the NRC claims the levels "aren't hazardous." The
    plant was located in a heavily populated area.
    
         In 1986, the NRC revoked the license of a Radiation Technology,
    Inc. (RTI) plant (also in New Jersey) for repeated worker safety
    violations. (RTI was the company that petitioned the FDA for
    permission to irradiate pork, granted in 1985). RTI was cited 32
    times for various violations, including throwing radioactive garbage
    out with the regular trash. The most serious violation was bypassing
    a safety device to prevent people from entering the irradiation
    chamber during operation resulting in a worker receiving a near
    lethal dose of radiation.
    
         In 1988, Radiation Sterilizers (RSI) in Decatur, Georgia
    reported a leak of cesium-137 which had been provided by the DoE from
    their weapons' production facility in Hanford, WA, to sterilize
    medical supplies and treat food. In addition to contaminating the
    plant and endangering workers, medical supplies and consumer products
    were contaminated. The supposedly "fail-proof " cesium-137 capsules
    leaked into the water storage pool. Officials found "extensive"
    radiation contamination throughout the facility. In addition,
    inspections of plant workers' homes and cars found that radioactivity
    had been transported outside the facility.
    
         RSI had intended to use cobalt-60, but changed to cesium-137
    because the cobalt was unavailable. In 1985, when RSI requested the
    cesium, the NRC expressed serious reservations regarding the
    durability of the cesium capsules, fearing corrosion and leakage
    could occur if they were repeatedly immersed into water. As a result,
    RSI was given permission to use the capsules as a trial for one year
    only. After just one month of use, the DoE claimed the capsules were
    safe and the NRC reversed its decision. Clean-up costs exceeded $30
    million. After this incident, irradiation facilities stopped using
    cesium-137 in favor of cobalt 60.
    
         Sometimes containers of radioactive material are found where
    they have no business being. For example a young boy found a
    cobalt-60 source in a Mexican dump, brought it home where it sat on a
    shelf irradiating the family, eventually leading to the deaths of
    everyone living in the home, including his grandmother, his mother,
    and his sister. Radioactive sources have been known to leak out of
    the facilities where they are being used, as well. Four gallon jugs
    containing radioactive tritium leaked onto a sidewalk outside of the
    John Hopkins Hospital in Maryland in 1981. In Arizona, the American
    Atomics plant was responsible for leaking 284,000 curies of tritium
    gas into the atmosphere in 1978 alone. This contaminated food served
    to 40,000 school children, the city sewer system, and swimming pools
    in the area.
    
         In 1993 the NRC fined the Department of Agriculture for
    repeatedly violating numerous radiation safety guidelines at more
    than 20 research sites. According to the New York Times, the repeat
    violations included the USDA's failure to inspect laboratories, test
    for leakage, and keep material securely stored. Other violations
    included failing to train certain workers, letting unauthorized
    people handle radioactive material, and using an irradiator on blood,
    grasshoppers, and spiders without first obtaining authorization.

Lost in Transit 

         There have been numerous documented incidents of radioactive
    sources being lost or damaged during transit. Some are safely
    recovered, others are discovered by unsuspecting passersby, and
    others simply disappear. Since the general belief at this time is
    that food will be irradiated using cobalt-60, despite its limited
    availability, because it is considered safer than cesium-137, my
    inquiry in this area was limited to incidents involving shipments of
    cobalt-60 in recent years (since 1988). The Transportation
    Development Department of Sandia National Laboratories, which keeps
    track of all reported incidents involving radioactive materials, sent
    about a dozen "incident reports" involving cobalt-60. As Cheryl
    Crockett at Sandia explained, "It is possible there may be more
    [accidents] than what I collect due to unclear information about what
    was transported." In other words, not all accidents involving
    radioactive materials are reported to the authorities.
    
         While it is not possible to compute significant statistics from
    such a limited number of reports, it appears safe to say that most
    accidents involving radioactive materials result in some kind of
    damage or contamination (75 percent of the accidents in this case).
    What is more surprising is how often the radioactive source is lost
    and never recovered. For example in 1993 a Cessna carrying cobalt-60
    in a steel drum with a lead shield crashed into Mt. Taylor in New
    Mexico. All four occupants of the plane were killed and the cobalt-60
    has not been recovered. It is believed to be buried under eight feet
    of snow.
    
         In 1991 two containers of cobalt-60 were not delivered to
    Berthold Systems in Pennsylvania. How do officials decide that "the
    potential exposure hazard to the public is expected to be minimal"
    when no one knows where they are? In another instance a ten foot long
    rod of cobalt-60 was missing from a package received by Berthold
    Systems. It was later discovered under a dumpster outside a cargo
    building at JFK Airport. The report states, "Evidently, the padlock
    which secures the cylinder latch was lost. It is not known where,
    when, or how the padlock was lost."

DoE's Byproduct Utilization Program 

         While irradiation proponents like to distance themselves from
    the Department of Energy (DoE) and issues related to nuclear weapons,
    energy, and waste, the DoE was one of the first developers and
    promoters of food irradiation through its Byproducts Utilization
    Program (BUP). BUP was created in the 1970s to promote the use of
    nuclear byproducts which the DoE claimed "have a wide range of
    applications in food technology, agriculture, energy, public health,
    medicine, and industrial technology . . . . Transfer of this
    federally-developed technology to industry will ensure full
    realization of the benefits of the peaceful atom." DoE's reason for
    promoting nuclear byproducts was made clear at hearings held in 1983
    before the House Armed Services Committee:". . . the utilization of
    these radioactive materials simply reduces our waste handling problem
    . . . we get some of these very hot elements like cesium and
    strontium out of the waste."
    
         The DoE was particularly keen on developing technology to
    reprocess spent nuclear reactor fuel in order to recover the
    cesium-137 (and plutonium, although this wasn't loudly discussed) and
    it actively promoted the development of food irradiation using
    cesium-137 for years. According to the DoE in 1983, "The strategy
    being pursued . . . is designed to transfer federally developed
    cesium-137 irradiation technology to the commercial sector as rapidly
    and successfully as possible. The measure of success will be the
    degree to which this technology is implemented industrially and the
    subsequent demand created for cesium-137."
    
         Today there are about 50 irradiation plants in the U.S., mostly
    for medical purposes, and about 130 irradiation facilities world
    wide. Since the accident involving cesium-137 capsules in Decatur, GA
    in 1988, cobalt-60 has been used exclusively in irradiation
    facilities. Cobalt-60 is manufactured by placing nonradioactive
    cobalt-59 in the core of a nuclear reactor for about 18 months. A
    Canadian company, Nordion International, Inc. supplies about 90
    percent of the world's industrial cobalt and can't keep up with the
    demand.
    
         The only isotope available in sufficient quantities for the kind
    of large-scale irradiation that would be necessary to zap all
    hamburger is cesium-137, one of the most abundantly available
    radioactive wastes -- and also one of the deadliest. With a half-life
    of 30 years, cesium-137 remains dangerous for about 600 years. In
    order to obtain cesium-137 from spent commercial reactor fuel, it
    must first be reprocessed. (Plutonium is another "by-product" of
    reprocessing spent reactor fuel.)
    
         Neither the government nor industry currently claim to have
    plans for the use of cesium-137 in irradiation facilities -- although
    Food Chemical News (1/8/96) reported that some companies objected to
    a recent petition brought before the FDA to approve the use of
    cobalt-60 to treat poultry feed because it didn't also approve the
    use of cesium-137. The companies were urged to withdraw their
    objections and file a food additive petition for the use of
    cesium-137.

Beware the Linear Accelerators 

         Due to the shortage of cobalt-60 and the dangers inherent in
    using cesium-137, irradiation proponents are latching on to linear
    accelerators which are thought to be safer because they require no
    radioactive isotopes. Linear accelerators use a high power electron
    beam to x-ray food. Dennis Olsen, an expert on this technology, says
    their advantage is they have such high power levels the food needs to
    be exposed for a very short time (zapping with cobalt-60 takes hours,
    he said).
    
         One of the major disadvantages of electron beam irradiation is
    the potential of induced radioactivity. According to the Council for
    Agricultural Science and Technology's 1986 report on food irradiation,
    "Radioactivity can be induced if the energy level is great enough."
    According to Olsen, "You need 14 to 15 million electron volts (MEVs)
    before food becomes radioactive. Most e-beam machines can't go beyond
    10 million electron volts." Even so Olsen didn't think linear
    accelerators were very practical for food because their "penetration
    is small -- only about one and a half inches on each side." There are
    also concerns regarding refrigeration since MEVs need to be at room
    temperature and for safety reasons food needs to be chilled.
    
         Electron beam enthusiasts claim the technology is much safer for
    workers than conventional irradiation. According to Roy Hamil of
    Sandia Labs, "If there is a problem you just push the `off' switch."
    But, as a worker at a Maryland e-beam facility discovered on December
    11, 1991 it's not that simple. An employee turned the machine off to
    begin a maintenance check.
    
         However, e-beam machines are subject to a phenomenon known as
    "cold" or "dark" current, meaning that an electron beam can be
    present even when the voltage is turned off. The operator spent
    between one and three minutes with his head, hands, and feet directly
    in the beam's path. The day after the accident the victim's fingers
    began to turn red, swell, and become very painful. Two weeks later,
    he had lost all function in both hands, had sores and blistering on
    his feet, face, and scalp, and had to be hospitalized for severe
    pain. Three months later it was necessary to amputate four fingers on
    his right hand and most of four fingers on his left hand.
    
         In addition, there have been numerous reports of accidents at
    medical centers using e-beams to treat cancer patients. In 1991, a
    malfunctioning e-beam constructed by General Electric-CGR killed five
    cancer patients at a medical facility in Spain. In the U.S., in 1986,
    two cancer patients were killed by a malfunctioning electron beam
    irradiator in Texas.
    
         But industry is pushing it. To make it more acceptable to the
    public the process is called "electronic pasteurization." Sounds very
    21st century. A recent article in The Packer touts e-beams for the
    quarantine treatment of fruits and vegetables coming in from Mexico.
    
         According to the DoE's Sandia Labs, such a facility could
    produce 900 tons of produce a day on standard pallets. The article
    declares that "a market might exist for as many as 30 plants for
    produce and other foods." It goes on to state that, "These kinds of
    facilities also could be built to increase produce shelf life,
    sterilize products, and kill or control bacteria in meats, hamburger,
    poultry, shellfish, and other perishables."
    
         In terms of food safety, e-beams do the exact same damage to
    food as radioactive sources. Dr. Walter Burnstein, founder and
    president of Food &amp; Water states, "People don't like to be
    tricked, and that's clearly what irradiation proponents are trying to
    do with electron beams.
    
         It's clearly a case of putting old wine in new bottles, and it
    still doesn't taste good." Ironically, Japanese scientists, in a
    desperate attempt to find some use for food irradiation technology,
    want to use doses of radiation strong enough to kill 250 people to
    make bad wine taste better and cheap whiskey smoother. "It's funny, "
    said Hiroshi Watanabe, joint head of research at the Japan Atomic
    Power Co.'s research facilities in Takasaki, "if you irradiate good
    wine or whiskey, they taste terrible. But if you expose bad wine and
    cheap whiskey to gamma rays, they taste better." Unfortunately, all
    the debate about zapping food with e-beams or radioactive isotopes,
    does nothing to solve the very real food safety crisis in this
    country.
    
         The problem goes right back to the highly concentrated nature of
    the meat industry and the abhorrent conditions in the feed lots,
    slaughter houses, and packing plants. What's needed is a
    local/regional approach to food systems. If you want to be part of
    the solution oppose industry's magic bullets (like irradiation), let
    your supermarket know how you feel about irradiation and pesticides,
    and support your local farmer and food co-op.
    
For more information contact Food & Water, RR1, Box 68D, Walden, VT 05873; 
802-563-3300. 

Susan Meeker-Lowry is the author of Economics as if the Earth Really Mattered
and Invested in the Common Good (both New Society Publishers). She is also the
managing editor of Food & Water Journal.

---

From: [email-masked] (GrayStarNJ)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 12:22:05 -0400

Paul King mentioned that he thought the debate over food
irradiation had long since been resolved, but he feels that proponents of
the process should "dissect" Susan Meeker-Lowry's article.  He's right;
among knowledgeable scientists the subject has been resolved.  Irradiation
is an effective and safe process, and will play an important role in many
areas of the food industry, particularly in curbing food borne disease.

	But to dissect her article line by line is hardly worth the
effort.  It is an accumulation of truths, half-truths, half-lies and total
falsehoods, with emphasis on the latter.  If what she has to say is true
she has nothing to worry about, because no one will use the process.  She
claims that the process is ineffective, that it is unsafe, and that
irradiated products don't taste good, etc.  Why would industry employ such
a process if it doesn't work?  Believe me, no company throws their money
away.  What she did was a beautiful example of fear mongering. The hope is
that if you throw enough mud against the wall, some of it may stick.

	I would rather spend my effort answering legitimate questions on
food irradiation for those who really want to learn something.  If anyone
has such a question, please ask.  If your intent is to fulfill some other
agenda by inciting fear and spreading falsehoods, don't waste our time.

Martin H. Stein
GRAY*STAR, Inc.
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul King)
Date: 11 Sep 96 15:01:26 UTC

[email-masked] (GrayStarNJ) wrote:

|	Paul King mentioned that he thought the debate over food
|irradiation had long since been resolved, but he feels that proponents of
|the process should "dissect" Susan Meeker-Lowry's article.  He's right;
|among knowledgeable scientists the subject has been resolved.  Irradiation
|is an effective and safe process, and will play an important role in many
|areas of the food industry, particularly in curbing food borne disease.

|	But to dissect her article line by line is hardly worth the
|effort.  It is an accumulation of truths, half-truths, half-lies and total
|falsehoods, with emphasis on the latter.  If what she has to say is true
|she has nothing to worry about, because no one will use the process.  She
|claims that the process is ineffective, that it is unsafe, and that
|irradiated products don't taste good, etc.  Why would industry employ such
|a process if it doesn't work?  Believe me, no company throws their money
|away.  What she did was a beautiful example of fear mongering. The hope is
|that if you throw enough mud against the wall, some of it may stick.

|	I would rather spend my effort answering legitimate questions on
|food irradiation for those who really want to learn something.  If anyone
|has such a question, please ask.  If your intent is to fulfill some other
|agenda by inciting fear and spreading falsehoods, don't waste our time.

|Martin H. Stein
|GRAY*STAR, Inc.
[email-masked]

For those of us "on the inside" of the issue, this is a teriffic argument.
However, an outsider would see this as arrogance, since you make sweeping
general remarks, without giving at least one example.

First of all, Meeker-Lowry portrays the industry as "losing their shirts" over
the use of irradiated food. Are they really? And is this desctruction of a part
of the food industry at least partially due to, as Meeker-Lowry says, the
campaign efforts of the organisation she represents (Food and Water)? And is it
true that certain manufacturers are being scared away from irradiation due to
the negative publicity generated by the people Martin Stein refers to as "fear
mongers?"

If all this is true, then the fear mongers are winning. And is it helping our
cause any by simply saying that Meeker-Lowry is "full of it?" I would think that
it is more likely that Food and Water's cause is being helped instead.

I studied food science in Newfoundland, Canada, where there used to be a
thriving harp seal industry. This was mostly a family-based industry - we are
not talking about "big business" here. Harp seals were used for food, their fat
is widely known for its unusually high content of Omega-3 fatty acids (among the
highest of all living species), known for its health benefits; and their fur
used for coats. However, across Europe and North America, there was (and still
is) an anti-sealing movement going on with the support of many public figures
including actors Bridget Bardot and Martin Sheen. It is based on the same
ludicrous fear-mongering as the one Meeker-Lowry proposes for irradiation.
However, we Canadians thought that the "truth" would win out, eventually. It
never did. So, it cost Newfoundland two industries: 1) sealing was gone, since
there was no longer a market in either Europe and United States; and 2) the
codfish industry is eliminated due to the appetite for the growing population of
harp seals for cod and other North Atlantic fish species. I have observed the
mention of anti-sealing issues in sitcoms as if they were honourable pursuits 
(like a Roseanne episode I saw a couple of years ago, where Roseanne's daughter
takes up the anti-sealing cause. Mattel even manufactured toys of little seals
for awhile as a "wildlife preservation" issue). Falsehoods can be pretty
powerful stuff.

If Foood and Water, along with other organisations, are as successful as they
claim in stopping companies from using irradiation regardless of the facts, then
the claims they make in their writings deserve to be taken seriously and
confronted directly. The right kind of fear mongering has the real and present
danger of destroying an industry for no good reason, and people deserve to know
the facts.

I admit it is a long article, and I do not expect anyone to dissect a 500-line
article line by line. And my physics is really a freshman level's. If someone
could take any one point that she makes, and show it for what it is, that would
be fine. This newsgroup has a wide audience that includes non food scientists,
and I am sure they would like to read about whatever we have to say on the
topic.

I also plan to select some of our responses and email them to the editors of Z
Magazine.

Cheers

Paul King

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:24:10 GMT

Hello Pual and Everyone,

>Let the on-line discussion begin!

What? No takers so far?  (At least none that have reached my screen).

Paul, I'm not sure what you mean by "our side of the story".  "Sides"
involves strong advocates and strong opponents. I do not think that
science adopts either side, but takes an objective assessment based on
the best expert knowledge available, so that it can advise society as
a whole,, so that society -- which has to take the decisions -- does
so in a well-informed way.

The scientific position is clearly set out in the IFST Position
Statement "The Use of Irradiation for Food Quality and Safety". This
was posted here on 11 April, but I append it below. I do not need to
repeat its points here, but I do think that some additional
observations are called for on offerings of the kind exemplified by
that of Susan Meeker-Lowry.(SM-L). 

There is a certain kind of activist, almost instantly recognisable by
what they say and how they say it, who is fundamentally anti-science,
anti technology and anti any kind of technological progress,
regardless of the facts, regardless of the potential benefits to the
public and regardless of any exposure of the invalidity of their
claims. I would wager that SM-L was hostile to food irradiation before
she knew any of the facts and alleged facts that she quotes.

Although the details may differ from one technology to another, in
principle and in essence their approach is the same. SM-L's arguments
are in essence exactly those used in times gone by to try to prevent
the legalisation of pasteurisation of milk (a public health measure
that, arguably, has saved more lives than most others).

They exist in many countries, we certainly have them here in Europe
and the UK. Because their scaremongering makes a far better media
story than the sober assessment of scientists, they become the
darlings of the media, quoted or interviewed to the virtual exclusion
of responsible science. In a nutshell, their approach is based on (1)
it is only being proposed because of an unholy conspiracy between
government and industry to inflict it on the public; (2) it is
dangerous (3) accidents can happen (4) the quality is bad (5) the
public do not want it.

As regards (1) for that to be true there would have to be a world-wide
conspiracy of a character and dimensions in which only a paranoid
nut-case could possibly believe. Dangers and accidents are a feature
of life in all its aspects. I am surprised that SM-L, after
contemplating the statistics,  ever leaves her home, for fear of being
involved (read killed or seriously injured) in a traffic accident or
being mugged; on the other hand, presumably she cannot stay at home
when considering the number of serious accidents in the home.

On quality, invariably they quote examples from experiments of earlier
days when the technology was finding its way, and in the case of
irradiation, when much higher doses to achieve sterilisation by
irradiation alone were being applied in experiments. Why are they
frightened to leave it to the marketplace, i.e. the consumer to
decide?  If the quality of irradiated products is as inferior as they
claim,  the public will not keep buying them and manufacturers, in
self-interest, will stop making them.

As for "the public do not want it", I have long ago given up being
surprised by the way in which these people skillfully use their media
exposure and various campaigns to make people's flesh creep and scare
the daylights out them, and then have the nerve to pose as objective
observers and say (often with figures of opinion polls) "The public
does not want it". I should perhaps add that a few of these people are
scientists. But to the extent that they have become zealots for a
cause, they forfeit the right to be considered genuine scientists.

Part of the skill of these anti-science activists is in using true
statements in a slanted way to the extent that story is so slanted as
to be untrue. Some subscribers to sci.bio.food science may remember
"The campaign to ban DHMO". For convenience I append it here.

 The following is reproduced here with acknowledgements to the
authors. It may still be accessible at
<http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/ >
This can be viewed at the level of a gloriously funny spoof of an
activist-promoted media-amplified food scare; but it is also a very
perceptive demonstration of the anatomy of a bogus scare story; of
how a number of substantially true statements, suitably slanted and
woven together, can present an entirely fictitious picture. (For the
benefit of the complete layperson, DHMO, the fearsome-sounding
"dihydrogen monoxide", is H2O, water!) 

                       Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide

The Invisible Killer

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills
uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are
caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of
dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid
form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can
include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated
feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those
who have become  dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death. 
 
Dihydrogen monoxide:

     is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid
rain. 
     contributes to the "greenhouse effect." 
     may cause severe burns. 
     contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape. 
     accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. 
     may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of
automobile brakes. 
     has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every
stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is g
global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice.
DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest.
and recently California. 

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

     as an industrial solvent and coolant. 
     in nuclear power plants. 
     in the production of styrofoam. 
     as a fire retardant. 
     in many forms of cruel animal research. 
     in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce
remains contaminated by this chemical. 
     as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can
be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact
on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer! 
 
The Horror Must Be Stopped!

The American government has refused to ban the production,
distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance
to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other
military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and
designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it
during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities
receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground
distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use. 

                                   It's Not Too Late!

Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this
dangerous chemical. What you don't know can hurt you and others
throughout the world. Send email to [email-masked],
or a SASE to: 

                                   Coalition to Ban DHMO
                                        211 Pearl St.
                                    Santa Cruz CA 95060

Reminder: The above is reproduced here as a demonstration of the
anatomy of a bogus scare story; of how a number of substantially true
statements, suitably slanted and woven together, can present an
entirely fictitious picture. (For the benefit of the complete
layperson, DHMO, the fearsome-sounding "dihydrogen monoxide", is H2O,
water!). 

Now, seriously, here is the IFST Position Statement on "The Use of
Irradiation for Food Quality and Safety".

THE USE OF IRRADIATION FOR FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY

The Institute of Food Science & Technology, through its Public Affairs
and Technical & Legislative Committees, has authorised the following
Position Statement, dated 11 April 1996:-

Summary

Subject to adequate controls such as exist in the UK,  and to
informative labelling, irradiation of food is commended as an
additional method of reducing food poisoning and preserving food
without detriment to health and with minimal effect on nutritional
quality.

Application of particular value would be 

	the irradiation of dried herbs and spices to reduce the levels
of contaminating microorganisms generally and to reduce the chances of
survival of non-spore-forming food poisoning bacteria in particular;
	the irradiation of some poultry and poultry products, in
particular of mechanically-recovered meat, in order to reduce the
chances of survival of Salmonella, Campylobacter and other food
poisoning bacteria;
	the irradiation of some imported sea foods, in particular warm
water prawns and other shellfish, for similar purposes.

Background

National and international bodies, including the World Health
Organisation (WHO), the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and
Codex Alimentarius, have commended irradiation, in general up to a
maximum overall average dose of 10 kilogray, as being effective and
acceptable as a food process. This has encouraged, to date, 37
countries to approve more than 40 foods or groups of related foods on
either a conditional or unconditional basis.

Under the Treaty of Rome, prohibition of food irradiation in countries
of  was strictly not possible after 1993. However, regulation of food
irradiation in the European Union remains unharmonised and there is as
yet no EU Directive on  food irradiation. Some countries, such as
Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Portugal and the UK are in favour of
a Directive to allow the irradiation of specified foods, whereas other
countries, such as Denmark, Germany, and Luxembourg, remain opposed.

In the UK, irradiation was approved by the Advisory Committee on Novel
Foods in 1986 as a safe and satisfactory method of food processing,
and this opinion was reaffirmed in 1987 after receiving submissions
>from  industry, consumer groups and interested parties. in 1991, the
Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations in the UK cleared specific
categories of food for irradiation, at specified doses (including
fruits, vegetables, bulbs, roots and tubers, cereal grains, spices,
poultry, fish, shellfish and condiments, and made provision for
labelling to ensure that consumers would be fully informed whether
foods or ingredients within them had been irradiated.

Public opinion has been mobilised in several countries to oppose food
irradiation. An objection was the lack of means for testing whether or
not a food had been irradiated. Recent advances have overcome this
problem for many, but not all, types of foods. Control will be
exercised mainly by the enforcement authorities via access to
documentation accompanying food and by registration of irradiation
premises and inspection of records.

References

Reports of Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committees on Food Irradiation
(JECF)

The Technical Basis for Legislation on Irradiated Food (1966) WHO
Technical Report Series No. 316.

Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods" (1977) WHO Technical Report Series
No. 604.

Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods (1981) WHO Technical Report Series
No. 659.

UK Regulations

The Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations, 1990, SI 2490, HMSO
(1991).

Guidelines on the Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations, 1990,
HMSO (1991).

UK-labelling

The Food Labelling (Amendment) Irradiated Food) Regulations, 1990, SI
2489, HMSO
(1991)

Codex - labelling

CODEX, The Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged
Food (CODEX STAN 106-1985 as amended in 1991)

Poultry
IAEA. Irradiation of Poultry Meat and its Products : Compilation of
Technical Data for its Authorisation and Control, (1993), IAEA
TECDOC-685.

Seafood

Borsa J and Iverson S L. (1993). Costs and Benefits of Grain
Disinfestation and Poultry and Shrimp Decontamination using 10-MeV
Electron Accelerators. In Cost-Benefit Aspects of Food Irradiation
Processing. Proceedings of an IAEA/FAO/WHO Symposium March 1993, IAEA
Vienna pp 223-231.

Herbs and Spices

IAEA. Irradiation of Spices, Herbs and Other Vegetable Seasonings - a
Compilation of Technical Data for its Authorization and Control,
(1992)  IAEA-TECDOC-639 IAEA, Vienna.

Detection 

Stevenson M H. (1992)  Progress in the identification of Irradiated
Foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 3, 257-262.

Glidewell S M et al (1993) Detection of Irradiated Food: a Review.
Journal Sci. Food Agric. 61, 281-300.

The Institute of Food Science & Technology (IFST) is the independent
professional qualifying body  for food scientists and technologists.
It is totally independent of government, of industry, and of any
lobbying groups or special interest groups. Its professional members
are elected by virtue of their academic qualifications and their
relevant experience, and their signed undertaking to comply with the
Institute's ethical Code of Professional Conduct. They are elected
solely in their personal capacities and  in no way representing
organisations where they may be employed. They work in a variety of
areas, including universities and other centres of higher education ,
research institutions, food and related industries, consultancy, food
law enforcement authorities,  and in government departments and
agencies.  The nature of the Institute and the mixture of these
backgrounds on the working groups drafting IFST Position Statements,
and on the two Committees responsible for finalising and approving
them, ensure that the contents are entirely objective.

IFST recognises that research is constantly bringing new knowledge.
However, collectively the profession is the repository of existing
knowledge in its field. It includes researchers expanding the
boundaries of knowledge and experts seeking to apply it for the public
benefit.

Its purposes are 

(1) to serve the public interest by furthering the application of
science and technology to all aspects of the supply of safe,
wholesome, nutritious and attractive food, nationally and
internationally;

(2) to advance the standing of food science and technology, both as a
subject and as a profession;

(3) to assist members in their career and personal development within
the profession;

(4) to uphold professional standards of competence and integrity.
The Institute takes every possible care in compiling, preparing and
issuing the information contained in IFST Position Statements, but can
accept no liability whatsoever in connection with them.  Nothing in
them should be construed as absolving anyone from complying with legal
requirements. They are provided for general information and guidance
and to express expert professional interpretation and opinion, on
important food-related issues.

******************************************************************
J Ralph Blanchfield
Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/ 
******************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul King)
Date: 12 Sep 96 18:11:36 UTC

[email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield) wrote:

|What? No takers so far?  (At least none that have reached my screen).

Only one other besides us, Ralph ... pretty sad...

|Paul, I'm not sure what you mean by "our side of the story".  

Sorry. Bad choice of words. I guess the tendency of persons such as Meeker-Lowry
to characterise the issue as a "conflict", where sides must be taken is part of
the problem. But as I illustrated earlier in this thread, falsehoods are
powerful things that can influence political decisions, and decisions made in
corporate boardrooms. Regardless of how we discard Meeker-Lowry, if her
orgaisation's efforts are as successful as she claims, then these falsehoods
deserve to be taken seriously and discussed openly.

[some stuff snipped out]

|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
| The following is reproduced here with acknowledgements to the
|authors. It may still be accessible at
|<http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/ >
|This can be viewed at the level of a gloriously funny spoof of an
|activist-promoted media-amplified food scare; but it is also a very
|perceptive demonstration of the anatomy of a bogus scare story; of
|how a number of substantially true statements, suitably slanted and
|woven together, can present an entirely fictitious picture. (For the
|benefit of the complete layperson, DHMO, the fearsome-sounding
|"dihydrogen monoxide", is H2O, water!) 

When I asked permission to post the article on the Internet, I told them about
the web page, gave them the web address, and asked him if he knew what DHMO was
>from  the parody. He (the Z Magazine editor) admitted a lack of knowledge about
food, so...

At any rate, I see one of the purposes of our newsgroup is to de-mystify the
various food technologies. Whenever I see the "SM-Ls" of the world trying to do
the opposite, I tend to get kind of upset about it.

Thanks, Ralph, for posting the NO_DHMO parody and the position statement.

Paul King