RE: New York Times - Red Meat Irradiation Rules

[Mike Grissom <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

At 09:18 AM 2/12/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I am not in disagreement with food irradiation, but I think you have 
>missed the point on this.  If food irradiation becomes a means to 
>lower basic sanitary conditions then it should be opposed.

	Having seen this arguement discussed on MEDPHYS
	some time ago, and in great detail on RADSAFE, perhaps it
	would be useful for this person to scan the archives. However,
	here is an example of why this issue is NOT an issue:

	Leave your chicken in the freezer for a couple of years,
	salmonella organisms still multiply (albeit slower than
	at room temperature). Cook it anyway you want, roast,
	microwave, boil, all of the above. Then eat it with confidence
	that all the organisms were killed...and still get sick.
	The reason is that heavily contaminated food will have
	enough endotoxins present to make you sick (almost
	literally from all the dead bacteria carcasses!).

	So, once again, the purpose of irradiation is to prolong
	shelf life, not to serve as a substitute for sanitary food
	handling procedures to minimize the number of 'starting
	organisms' on your food product.

>If  sanitary conditions are maintained at the current level is food
>irradiation cost effective?

	To be cost effective, the extra step of food irradiation must:

	  o  Be conducted close enough to major food processors
	      to minimize lading costs and handling time
	  o  Achieve significant increases in safe shelf lives, i.e.,
	      much longer pull dates

	There are many other concerns for the industry, but as
	was said earlier, the prevention of unnecessary deaths
	(particularly for children) might warrant a few cents extra
	on your next perishable food purchase.

>If sanitary conditions were raised (heaven forbid we hold an
>industry to high standards) is food irradiation warranted at all?

	The logical answer is yes hold industry to MUCH higher
	sanitary standards and YES food irradiation will still be
	necessary to extend shelf lives to the extent desirable
	because no food handling operation is STERILE. All
	food, especially the organically grown varieties (and
	including vegetable not just meat products), has biologic
	contamination from the environment. Remember, the
	roll of many saprophytic organisms is to break down
	rotting biologic matter. Food ripe to eat (palatable to
	humans) is embarking on that last step, and the organisms
	are already at it! And, many of these organisms produce
	endotoxins to make humans sick (we did not evolve to
	be good carrion eaters, we are fresh meat omnivores or
	vegans).

>Don't be so quick to condemn Ms.Foreman, maybe we should first
>examine the motives of those that support food irradiation.

	No condemnation (I didn't read her article), just concern
	that persons write detailed diatribes about elements of
	industry with little or no knowledge of the processes
	involved, and our reading populations (admittedly a small
	segment of the total population) may not be informed
	enough themselves to recognize the problems/limitations
	of such reporting.

	Ciao,

	MikeG.
	Still believe in the "Health" part of HP...no calculator
	routinely needed!


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html