At present, foods that have been irradiated must carry a label to that effect. But the food industry wants a change in the regulations that would allow them to sell irradiated food without a label. Or, as a lesser dishonesty, they want to be able to use nicer-sounding terminology, such as "cold pasteurized" or "electronically pasteurized," even though there is nothing electronic about radioactivity. Consumer Reports says that radioactive sterilization of food does not make the food radioactive, but it does change the taste (they describe the taste as "burnt hair") and the high levels of radioactivity used alters the structure of the fats, producing chemicals that cause cancer in rats. The meat industry also wants a new regulation that would allow them to irradiate spoiled meat and then sell it. Without labeling, of course. There is controversy over whether food irradiation is a good thing or a bad thing. It definitely does reduce the amount of bacteria in food, though it does not eliminate bacteria entirely. But the issue here is not whether they should be allowed to irradiate food. The issue here is whether they should be required to say so on the label. What do folks here think? Should the food industry be allowed to sell irradiated foods without telling the buyer? Or does the consumer have the right to know what she/he is eating? I think people have a right to know. The food industry disagrees.
I agree... the people have the right to know. As we know, food labels have to have certain information on them, including an ingredients list. Why shouldn't we include a "processes list" as well - something that would state irradiated, or "naturally raised" for pork or chicken.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jul 2 2007, 04:07 PM) [snapback]471720[/snapback]</div> I agree with you. I think we have a right to know if our food has been irradiated, genetically altered or anything else. I have a right to know what I'm putting into my body. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that they're fighting this, either.
I, too, think that people have a right to know what they're consuming. Lots of people probably could care less about it, but I don't think that that should limit the rights of people who do care and who do wish to know about these kinds of things. I think it's scary that the FDA actually considers such requests viable enough for evaluation and consideration. More and more our rights are falling victim to the food industry as they try to weaken food labeling standards. And, consumers aren't the only victims. Those who farm and wish to raise meat and produce the old fashion way are falling victims themselves. It's a tragedy. *edit* I'm going to add that it's also infuriating to me.
I apologize for going slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to bring up something that really annoys me. "Radiation" is often cited as some sort of boogie man that we all need to be afraid of. I suppose that this is probably from the high-energy photons associated with various radioactive materials. However, if you want to be correct about it, any type of electromagnetic emission is a type of radiation. Therefore, any food that's ever seen light (or been in the path of radio waves) has been "irradiated." And to say that "there's nothing electric about radioactivity" is not really correct and is very misleading. None of these foods that are irradiated (or "cold pasteurized" or "electronically pasteurized," if you prefer) have been sitting next to a lump of Plutonium or anything like that; they've been irradiated by some high-energy photons. Whether or not this is "bad" is still up for debate (for this reason, BTW, I agree that labeling is probably the best course of action at this point). However, by interchanging the use of "radioactive" and "irradiated" is intellectually dishonest and has the effect of stirring up fear where it may or may not belong. If there's any evidence that you can point to that these foods are dangerous in some way, then please do that. However, creating a generalized fear of "radiation" does little for public health and makes people afraid and ignorant of science.
There's enough about the modern, factory-farm production of animal products that is terrifying, without adding unlabeled irradiation. Not only No, but HELL NO!! There isn't enough information on labels now, and removing notification of irradiation is just... there are no words for that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Jul 2 2007, 01:51 PM) [snapback]471762[/snapback]</div> You are correct. Although the gamma rays used in food irradiation are indeed photons, they are ionizing photons, emitted by cesium 137 or cobalt 60, and because they are ionizing (i.e. extremely high energy) they can cause chemical changes which affect taste and safety. My point, however, was labeling, and on that I gather we are all in agreement.
A few things: 1) Irradiated food should be labeled. If people don't care, they don't care. But nowadays a lot of people DO care and should know. 2) The FDA is NOT there for the consumer's protection. Why do you think the only law they have about growth hormone in cows is dairy goods made from cows without growth hormone that advertise it have to put in big letters "The UDSA states there is no significant difference blah blah blah"? 3) Did you know EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF FOOD you eat has been irradiated? That's right, it gets TONS of radiation from that big yellow thing you see in the sky.
I was taught that we tend to hide the things which --in our heart of hearts-- we know to be wrong. So, to the food producers who favor the elimination of irradiation labelling: Tell me --again-- why it is that you'd like to stop labelling your food as such...? If these folks thought that irradiation was really a positive, I suspect there would be a big, bright violator on the corner of each package that says "NOW IRRADIATED FOR YOUR SAFETY" or somesuch. But there isn't, is there?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jul 2 2007, 05:43 PM) [snapback]471855[/snapback]</div> Because the clout of the food industry (Monsanto) says such labeling must be so. And so it is. Next up, deregulation of the organic labeling requirements so that genetically modified crops (Monsanto) can be labeled organic.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jul 2 2007, 05:36 PM) [snapback]471849[/snapback]</div> The thing I object to is all the wishy-washy stuff about "radiation" harming food. Determining whether high-energy irradiation is bad for food is something for science to determine, not something where we should all gather in a circle and discuss our feelings about. I see disturbing parallels at times between comments about things like food irradiation and, say, others' comments about global warming; this idea that you personally know better than people who study it for a living. (I feel it important to point out that I'm actually not referring to you, Daniel. You're almost always fairly level-headed and rational. I'm merely venting about things I hear at times from my fellow liberals that gets under my skin) That said, I don't trust the FDA as far as I can throw them and I think that, while most studies have suggested it's safe, the jury is still out on food irradiation. So, again, my vote is to keep labeling for the time being. I should also say that I would happily eat "cold pasteurized" food.
i too would like to see a very thorough, unbiased analysis on this subject before making any conclusions about the content of the food being changed. that said, i think the lack of labeling nowadays combined with the likely-questionable processes involved in putting foods on our dinner tables is pretty scary.
I take it that the US hasn't signed up to "pasture to plate" food traceability that most other international food producers have. We producers are required to maintain enough data on animal and crop products so that a particular can of beans, or steak on your plate could be traced right back to a specific paddock on my farm at any time. Pasture to plate regs So next time you buy some tasty NZ lamb (if you can afford the protectionist US tariffs), you might look to see if the label has the name of the sheep, I know I'll be sending in some names along with their numbers. I suspect knowing what your meal was named might be at least as offputting as knowing it was irradiated... But farmers probably have stronger stomachs than most.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Jul 2 2007, 08:52 PM) [snapback]472043[/snapback]</div> Consumer Reports (a very scientific outfit) reports that food irradiation changes the taste, and that there are chemical changes in irradiated fat which are linked to cancer. The cancer connection is not proved, but there is sufficient evidence to warrant caution at this point. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Jul 2 2007, 09:25 PM) [snapback]472060[/snapback]</div> If I knew how to use Photoshop I'd make a label: Canned Sheep. Contents: Sarah, George, Fred, and Samantha. But you are right: Here in the U.S., instead of a right to know where our food came from, our manufacturers have a right to conceal from us anything their lobbyists can convince our regulators that we "don't need to know." And since regulators can expect lucrative jobs in industry if they serve the wishes of industry, U.S. consumers are pretty much screwed. Food is the subject of this thread, but the same applies across the board, in all industries and all products. Since trans fats became an item of concern, the FDA ruled that products can be labeled "ZERO TRANS FATS" even if they do contain trans fats, as long as the amount is below a level that lobbyists have convinced the FDA is safe. IOW, you don't get to decide how low you want to keep your consumption of trans fats: The FDA says below a certain level, products can claim to have none at all. You can bet the regulators who passed that rule will get (or maybe have already gotten) a fat check from industry.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 2 2007, 06:47 PM) [snapback]471860[/snapback]</div> I would think its because, warranted or not, anything associated with the word "radiation" has a negative connotation. Ever wonder why yogurt containers don't have a big bright banner on them proclaiming "Live Bacteria Culture"? At best, they will have at the end of their ingredients list the phrase "Contains active yogurt culture." Is it because yogurt manufacturers know in their heart of hearts that the bacteria used to make yogurt is bad for you?
the old adage "follow the money" once again applies here. Our right to know what we put into our bodies will be trumped by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 2 2007, 06:47 PM) [snapback]471860[/snapback]</div> You give the average consumer a LOT of credit...
