Food for Thought: Irradiation Is Dangerous, Group Insists

[Guest guest]

http://onhealth.webmd.com/conditions/news/webmd/item%2C109784.asp

Wednesday, December 27, 2000

Food for Thought: Irradiation Is Dangerous, Group Insists

Debate Over the Controversial Procedure Could Get Hot in the New Year

By Ori Twersky

WebMD Washington Correspondent

Reviewed by Dr. Tonja Wynn Hampton

Dec. 25, 2000 (Washington) -- Most Americans have largely ignored the

government's recent decision to allow the irradiation of juice. After all,

the government has now endorsed the irradiation of everything from sprouting

seeds to meat. But if one prominent citizen group gets it way, this

relatively noncontroversial decision could become one of the hot buttons of

the upcoming year.

Public Citizen, the group founded by consumer activist and recent

presidential hopeful Ralph Nader, says it has uncovered evidence proving

that the FDA endorsed the irradiation of juice along with other foods based

upon research the agency's own experts term " inadequate. " The group is now

calling for a public hearing to look at the evidence.

" For 17 years, the FDA has knowingly and systematically ignored its own

testing protocols -- protocols that must be followed before irradiated foods

can be legalized for human consumption, " says Mark Worth, a senior

researcher at Public Citizen.

Similar to the process used to sterilize medical equipment, the irradiation

of food involves exposing it to a radioactive substance, such as cobalt or

cesium, in order to eliminate disease-causing germs. The radioactive

substances emit gamma rays that, in turn, create temporary chemicals within

the food that can eliminate living germs.

According to the citizen watchdog group, the majority of studies conducted

have determined this process is unsafe. Further studies must now be

conducted to determine the full potential impact on human health, the group

says. But under pressure by the military and the food processing industry,

the FDA has ignored this need in its mad rush to approve the process, the

group claims.

Efforts to approve the irradiation of food began with the military in the

mid-1960s as a means of disposing of radioactive waste rather than a means

to protect human health. Since then, Worth says, food processors have joined

the military in promoting the irradiation of food because the process helps

disguise commercial food makers' unsanitary practices.

While helping eliminate germs and extending the shelf life of food, the

irradiation of food can lead to several harmful effects, agrees

Epstein, MD, chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and professor of

medicine at the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago. " At the

very least, we have strong evidence demonstrating a significant loss of

nutrients and an increase in the risk of genetic hazards and cancer, "

Epstein says.

According to Epstein, these hazards have been substantiated in numerous

animal studies, including a 1968 military study in which lab animals fed

irradiated food suffered from premature death, cancer, and reproductive

problems. Irradiation leads to the breakdown of numerous chemical bonds in

the food, which creates a number of unknown chemicals and other toxic

hazards, Epstein explains.

The FDA does not comment on pending petitions, but supporters of irradiation

maintain that these " orchestrated attacks " are misguided and potentially

dangerous. They say that food irradiation is a necessary component of food

safety. While not a " cure-all, " irradiation is a particularly important

development for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and children, who

are especially susceptible to food-borne germs, they say.

Food-borne organisms such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Campylobacter cause

millions of infections and thousands of hospitalizations each year, observes

Rhona Applebaum, PhD, executive vice president of the National Food

Processors Association. " Irradiation is another tool for dealing with these

emerging pathogens. Irradiation is no way, shape, or form a way to bypass

good food producing practices, " she tells WebMD.

This debate could lead to history repeating itself, according to the Grocery

Manufacturers of America, an association of food and beverage makers.

" Acceptance of pasteurization was long delayed because of fear mongering and

misinformation, " notes Katic, director of science and nutrition policy

at GMA and a registered dietitian. " We should not let that happen with food

irradiation. "

Scientific bodies from across the world have confirmed the benefits and

safety of food irradiation, says Lester Crawford, PhD, director of the

town Center for Food and Nutrition Policy in Washington. A former

administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and

Inspection Service, Crawford says, " You can't erase decades of scientific

substantiation. "

The American Medical Association, CDC, as well as the World Health

Organization also have endorsed the process. Together, they deny that the

irradiation of food has been linked to either cancer or reproductive

problems. Food irradiation is in fact just the next logical step toward

reducing the incidence of food-borne disease in the U.S., the CDC says.

But Public Citizen's protest may still have an unexpected impact. Unable to

get food irradiation banned on the federal level, Public Citizen will at

least attempt to ensure that this food is properly labeled, says Wenonah

Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Mass Energy and Environment Program.

Public Citizen also will work toward getting irradiation banned on the local

level, she says.

That could spell a problem for supporters of this process. The test

marketing of specific food items has shown that consumers are willing to

purchase irradiated foods, but consumer acceptance could lessen if the

technology is represented in a bad light, Applebaum concedes. If the group

succeeds in just getting an " irradiated " label on these products, it could

mean trouble, she tells WebMD.

As for consumers that do not wish to purchase irradiated food, " let them buy

organic food products, " Applebaum says. The irradiation of foods will still

take place regardless of the label, she points out. " If they clearly don't

want irradiation, I think that's fine. But that doesn't justify distorting

science, " she says.