Food Irradiation article

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Hello Charles, and group,

This is an excellent article. I agree with the emphasis on the food, not the
technology. 

Two thoughts: Where you note that food is not left radioactive, the idea that
this no more possible than a person being left radioactive from dental or
chest x-rays seems to work well. And the idea of the direct parallel with milk 
pasteurization works well, including the public controversy that required
pasteurized milk to be labeled "boiled milk". (See the sidebar on the
historical parallel in the MIT article.) 

There is also a parallel to the idea of being told that we would not
pasteurize milk, but instead to tell people to "boil it yourself". This is the 
same as being told to "cook meat to 160 degrees" to assure that bacteria are
killed, when the issue should be to eliminate the bacteria in the first place
(admittedly from a preference for medium-rare flavorful, not medium-well chewy 
:-)  Another aspect: propose that people consider being told that we would no
longer allow pasteurizing milk. 

Great job. Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

> Well here is the article I'm going to submit to the food co-op to rebut
> their bogus one about food irradiation. Any comments? (this is pretty long)
> Thanks to everyone for your help.
> Not a lot about radiation, but I tried to emphasize the 'food safety' aspect.
> 
> Charles Migliore 
> Chasmig@aol.com
> 
>         People shop at the food co-op for different reasons. The co-op is certai
> nly a
> great place to buy wholesome, organic, locally grown,  food and earth-friendly
> household products. I for one like buying organically produced foods because
> they are certified to be free of pesticides, herbicides and other poisons, and
> generally contain no preservatives. There is something to be said for the
> peace of mind to be had when I know my food is free of added poisons. These
> added chemicals cannot be seen, felt, tasted, or smelled, but are only
> detected with sensitive laboratory equipment. Some are eliminated from the
> body in natural processes, but others build up in body tissues, to largely
> unknown effect over a lifetime of accumulation.  There are some benefits to
> adding these substances to food, or it wouldn't be done. These benefits
> include longer shelf life and freedom from pests like fruit flies, weevils and
> worms. No one wants to bite into an apple with a worm in it, or cook with
> moldy spices. We expect our vegetables to last at least a few days in the
> refrigerator or in the cupboard after we bring them home. But many of us agree
> that the benefits pesticides, presevatives, and herbicides bring may not be
> worth the risk to our health in the long run.
> 
>         At the food co-op we are able to take advantage of the best local farmer
> s
> have to offer. All food, until recently, was grow locally. It is only in the
> recent era of modern transportation that we are able to enjoy what were once
> seasonal fruits and vegetables year round. Today, we can buy fresh
> strawberries, tomatoes, lettuce, and peppers year round. But unless these
> veggies and fruits are grown expensively in a local greenhouse, they are
> shipped from a long distance away where they are in season. It is just a fact
> of life in Minnesota- we cannot grow crops outdoors in the winter! Even the
> food co-op imports some produce from other regions of milder climate this time
> of year. 
> 
>         Just as we have come to expect to have off-season produce available year
> round, we expect to be able to make a trip to the grocery store and buy a
> pound or two of meat as we need it. While many of us who choose to eat meat,
> myself included, have a freezer stocked with good, locally grown organic beef,
> we still buy meat from the grocery store on occasion. This convenience is
> taken for granted. Not everyone can afford to stock up for a whole season's
> worth of meat or buy a freezer to keep it in.  
> 
>         Food bought at the grocery store or food co-op is expected to be inexpen
> sive
> and presumed to be safe. While the labels of packaged foods indicate the ones
> without preservatives, and chemical-free organic produce is labelled as such,
> there is no way of knowing for certain the safety of store-bought meat. 
> 
>         The simple fact is that our meat supply is not as safe as we presume.  F
> ood-
> borne 'pathogens', as they are called, cause between 8000 and 9000 deaths from
> food poisoning each year, and between 13 and 33 million people end up with
> diarhea. Many '24 hour bugs' are actually food poisoning caused by tainted
> meat. 4 deaths and 700 illnesses resulted from the well publicized  'Jack in
> the Box' incident alone.  The folks most affected are the ones with weakened
> immune systems, the elderly, and the poor. 
> 
>         While this should obvoiusly cause every meat-eater concern, it is nothin
> g
> new. It has always been accepted that meat needs to be well cooked before it
> is eaten, and this eliminates most problems. Modern processes and knowledge
> and awareness of sanitation have improved the quality and safety of our meat
> over the years. But there is more that can be done, and should be done, to
> make our food safer. There is a well tested, proven effective, inexpensive,
> and safe method for improving the safety of the food we eat.  
> 
>         This method is treating food with radiation. Many folks have a knee-jerk
> reaction when they hear this word. Perhaps no other word is as loaded as the
> word 'radiation'. It is indeed ironic that something so associated in the
> minds of some people with death, destruction, and cancer is  proven to improve
> the safety of the food we eat. The fact of the matter is, in large enough
> amounts, RADIATION IS DEADLY.
> 
>         This is good! Nobody wants those 'pathogen' bacteria living in their foo
> d!
> Sometimes fear is both our best friend and our worst enemy. We SHOULD be
> afraid of  the proven, invisible dangers in the food we eat. This is self-
> preservation. It is self- defeating, however, to fear something simply because
> of  lack of information. The fact that actual lives can be saved far outweighs
> any superstitious, erroneous fears caused by not understanding the technology.
> Iradiation has been extensively studied for over 50 years all over the world,
> and its safety and usefulness are NOT in question by the scientific community.
> There is a long laundry list of organizations that have declared irradiation
> safe. These include The World Health Organizarion, FDA, USDA, AMA, and scores
> of others. Europe irradiates over 38 billion pounds of food each year. The
> process does not seem so mysterious and scary once explained. 
> 
>         When food is treated, it is exposed to a powerful source of radiation fo
> r a
> carefully calculated period of time. The radiation passes through the food,
> and none remains afterwards. Think of a light bulb. When you turn off the
> light source in a room, does the light stay? It is the same with the radiation
> used to treat food. 
> 
>         The amount of radiation given the food is calculated to eliminate
> contaminating bacteria, but have a minimum effect on the food itself. To grasp
> this concept better, realize that radiation affects rapidly dividing cells the
> most. The meat is not growing, but the microorganisms living on it are growing
> and dividing rapidly. Living cells are very complex, much like a biological
> 'computer'. The DNA could be called the software that runs the cellular
> machine. It is the most sensitive part of the cell to radiation. The radiation
> changes a small part of the DNA software so it wont work. The rest of the
> 'computer' is unchanged.  This means the bacterial cell either dies or is
> unable to reproduce, but all of the basic components of the food are still
> there.  Our bodies digest the food, breaking it down into basic components,
> which is then used to build our own cells. 
> 
>         Some very small chemical changes do happen during irradiation. Some are
> concerned of the possible effects of these 'radio-lytic byproducts'. The word
> 'radiolytic' sounds mysterious and dangerous, but it is not. When food is heat
> processed, or cooked, 'thermo-lytic byproducts' are produced. In fact, while
> the thermolytic byproducts are readily seen, smelled, and tasted, it takes a
> chemist with extremely sensitive state of the art equipment to detect the
> radiolytic byproducts in food. There are many other commonly accepted food
> preservation techniques, like freezing, canning, pickling, and drying that
> change the food much, much more than radiation does. In fact, no substance has
> ever been found in irradiated food that doesnt also exist naturally. The main
> effect of exposing food to radiation is on the living microorganisms that
> infest it.                 
> 
>         It is true that the nutritional value of food can be affected by radiati
> on.
> Up to 10% of the vitamins can be lost during a treatment. This is comparable
> to vegetables sitting in a cool cellar or refrigerator truck for a week.
> Obviously fresh food is the best, but this is not aways possible during
> Minnesota winters, where our food often must travel to us over long distances.
> Fruits and vegetables treated with radiation stay fresh longer, because the
> bacteria that promote rotting are destroyed. Strawberries last weeks instead
> of days. Potatoes and onions sprouting is delayed, because the cellular
> 'software', the DNA, of the eyes' cells are short circuited. These potatoes
> and onions will sprout, it is just delayed. Fuits and vegetables treated with
> radiation stay fresher longer, making the benefits of eating fresh vegetables
> and fruit in the wintertime less expensive, because less will be thrown away.
> Also, tomatoes, for instance, can be picked ripe on the vine, instead of
> ripening in a truck en route. This alone may offset any loss of vitamins. 
> 
>         Irradiation also reduces the need for pesticides on produce and grains. 
> This
> is something all of us who 'shop co-op' are concerned about. These pesticides
> can leave as residue on the food that we eat. One widely used chemical, Methyl
> Bromide, is used to fumigate grains, nuts, and fresh fruits and vegetables. It
> is toxic, an EPA Category 1 acute toxin, the worst kind. It is also 50 times
> more destructive to the ozone layer than CFC's. Radiation also works better
> than another chemical, Ethyl Oxide, at killing bacteria and insect pests.
> Radiation does not require the use of water or other solvents that may damage
> or change the food.   Radiation is a good alternative, especially for those
> concerned about toxic residue left on their food..  
> 
>         Irradiated food should be more widely avalailable. Many shoppers, when g
> iven
> the choice, have chosen irradiated foods over  their non-treated counterparts
> when they were told that the radiation sterilized the food of bacteria. The
> important word here is choice. Right now there is no choice for folks that
> care about the safety of their food. We dont live in a perfect world where
> every packing-plant worker washes hands, or every case of E. Coli
> contamination is found. I would gladly welcome the chance to choose between
> potentially contaminated chicken and chicken that has been sterilized.
> Obviously the best choice is buying food straight from the farmer, so you know
> where it came from. But barring that, the added peace of mind that comes from
> knowing the food is free of bacterial contamination would be welcome. Not only
> should we not fear our food being treated with radiation, we should demand it!