Re: Food Irradiation

[Rich Oesterling <rgo@srv.net>]

At 18:46 2/20/96 -0600, Janine Katanic wrote:
>
>	It's me again. I still have a few lingering questions about food 
>irradiation, but more specific this time, so maybe that will help.
>
>	1. The FDA says that one of two labels must be on irradiated food
>		a. Treated with Radiation
>		b. Treated by Irradiation.
>
>	What's the real difference here, folks? Is it just that one might 
>be more pleasing to the ear than the other? (as my colleagues have 
>suggested?)  If you were an average consumer (and you certainly might be),
>and there were two identical apples in front of you, one with the
>"Treated with Radiation" and one with "Treated by Irradiation", which one
>would you choose?
>
>	2. In 1958, Congress classified the irradiation of food as an 
>additive. Since I can't find anything to negate this statement, I'm 
>assuming that this is still in effect. Am I right? If this is the case, 
>what are we "adding" anyway?
>
>	Thanks for all of your help everyone.
>
>	Janine Katanic
>	katanic@flop.engr.orst.edu

Yes, it is still in effect.  Along with the Delaney amendment, it pretty
well typifies the level of intelligence of our elected representatives.
(Doesn't say much for the electorate, either).  The last I heard, the food
irradiation industry was unsuccessful in getting irradiation defined as a
"process".  If they were to be successful, the labelling requirement would
not apply.

I liked "picowave" better.

Rich Oesterling