News and Politics | August 28, 2008 | 45 comments

Voice your opinion on FDA plan to irradiate vegetables

source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/irradiationcomment.htm

Image
JanforGore
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has okayed the irradiation of lettuce and spinach. Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation in order to destroy disease causing pathogens, like bacteria and viruses.

However, you can make your voice heard by taking part following this link to the FDA's 30-day comment period. OCA has created some talking points you might include and elaborate upon.

Irradiating food makes food more dangerous, not safer. Some major concerns with food irradiation include:

-The formation of free radicals, which can set off chain reactions in the body that destroy antioxidants, tear apart cell membranes, and make the body more susceptible to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, liver damage, muscular breakdown and other serious problems.

-Serious health problems in laboratory testing, including, including premature death, fatal internal bleeding, cancer, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, mutations and other genetic damage, organ malfunctions, stunted growth and vitamin deficiencies.

-The creating mutant forms of dangerous bacteria, like E. coli and Salmonella

-Nutrient loss in foods, including the destruction of vitamins and essential fatty acids.

-The formation of carcinogenic chemicals, like benzene and toluene.

-While irradiated lettuce and spinach must be labeled in supermarkets, there are currently no labeling requirements for restaurants serving irradiated produce or other items. Patrons and clients may consume irradiated lettuce and spinach in the future without their knowledge, nor consent.

-There are many alternatives to irradiation. Visit OCA's Irradiation Alternatives page for more information

Make your voice heard! Click here to send the FDA a message during the 30-Day Comment Period.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Voice your concerns and or objections to the FDA plan to irradiate lettuce and spinach at the link above. Once again, the FDA is taking it upon itself to effect the food we eat without our consent and without alerting consumers to potential health threats from irradiation. This is a chance for citizens to exercise their right to be heard to protect their own health and the health of their children.

Thank you.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Health,   Food
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  Health,  Food,  Current Radio News,  6 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

45 comments // Voice your opinion on FDA plan to irradiate vegetables

  • fiat_lux088
  • zoman
  • crazy_french
    • 0
      crazy_french  

    • im growing my garden. and im raising my livestock. naturally. and respectfully, how can you expect humans who live on mother natures land to expand to vast knowledge when they don't even realize how much stuff they are doing that is bad to it! wtf!

    • 3 years ago
  • wholefreespirit
  • darkhorsejim
    • 0
      darkhorsejim  

    • Just say no-again. Especially if the FDA-Federal Deception Agency-is pushing this for their corporate backers. Go organic, buy local & read labels to understand what you're ingesting. This is ludicrous to keep lowering the quality & safety of our food supply, especially with depleted nutrients from over farming & chemically laden crops from corporate agriculture. Empower yourself & your family at this crucial juncture.

    • 3 years ago
  • zoman
    • 0
      zoman  

    • My God we get a chip in our nail, so we cut off the finger. If you do this you must mark the packages so we as consumers can make a choice. I don't want my milk to come from injected cow's, or my corn to be human engineered.
      I guess this is one way to get me to loss the weight I need to lose. I will not knowingly eat anything zapped, injected, or engineered.

    • 3 years ago
  • SilenceNoMore
  • Robroy1
    • 0
      Robroy1  

    • I do what I can and make my voice heard when possible on this topic. I am a farmers market person and try to buy from the local farmers and growers whenever possible. This radiation must be stopped along with GMO's

    • 3 years ago
  • commandercool
    • 0
      commandercool  

    • This is like GMOs, but worse. We still don't know the effects of GMOs, and we cannot jump in with irradiation either - i just know the US will not spend enough time studying long term effects and just throw them onto shelves.

      I am worried for everyone that will knowingly or unknowingly buy this produce, and i will avoid it for as long as i live. I am happy with my local produce :)

    • 3 years ago
  • synclaire
    • 0
      synclaire  

    • Thank you so much for this story! Absolutely disgusting and maddening that they would do this sort of thing but I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering all the other shenanigans they've been up to.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • Food and Water Watch: Irradiation and Vegetables Don't Mix

      In my view this is only a process to get corporate farms and factory farms off the hook for unsanitary practices... if vegetables weren't irrigated with wastewater that was contaminated with feces and pesticides in the first place due to runoff in our rivers and streams of toxic feed and feces from factory farms, vegetables wouldn't have the bacteria on it that they do... and in many places wastewater irrgation would not be necessary if people worked seriously to conserve freshwater. Irradiation like carbon capture sequestration and desalination is just another bandaid to mask the real problem that corporate factory farms don't want to fix because it cuts into their profits. So once again the FDA covers for them at the risk of human health.

    • 3 years ago
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • JanforGore:

      I bet you're right about that. Although we might not share a concern over food irradiation, we definitely share a concern over unsanitary farming practices.

    • 3 years ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • JanforGore:

      to add a quote from: Anthony Corbo from Food and
      Water Watch at a fda meeting:

      " My name is Tony Corbo, and I'm a legislative representative for Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer organization that was founded in November 2005 and is based in Washington, D.C.

      I welcome this opportunity to offer our comments on improving produce safety in light of the recent national recalls.

      At the outset, I want to reiterate the points that Caroline Smith-DeWaal made earlier today, that the Food and Drug Administration is an agency in crisis. There
      have been too many recalls involving products under the Agency�s jurisdiction in recent years, and it�s becoming clear that the Agency may not have the authority and the necessary financial resources to do
      its job to protect American consumers. These recalls are undermining consumer confidence in the Agency. The situation is becoming especially critical on the food side of FDA.

      The word �food� is the first noun in the Agency�s name, yet it seems that food safety has become the stepchild within the Agency and within the overall food
      safety net in the Federal Government. Just consider some of these facts.

      FDA�s Center for Food Safety and Applied and Nutrition along with FDA�s Office of Regulatory Affairs are responsible for regulating $417 billion in domestic food and $49 billion in imported food that is
      produced in some 126,400 domestic food establishments and 172,000 foreign establishments.

      In the current fiscal year, CFSAN has been given the meager staff of some 2,700 full-time equivalent positions to police 80 percent of the nation�s food supply. An FDA inspector is lucky to have visited a plant on his or her beat once every five years.

      FDA port inspectors are hard pressed to inspect even 1 percent of imported food.

      This situation is reprehensible and requires immediate action to correct.

      Food and Water Watch believes that there is need for national enforceable standards to regulate fresh produce food safety. Simply issuing guidances to industry is not going to instill confidence in consumers that FDA is protecting the food safety."

      This is just a clip of that meeting, but what has the FDA bent toward, irradiation of our food, and to me, it is called passing the buck. We need a safe food supply, not more unproven practices, which we again become the guinea pigs in a big petri dish.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • Bad Taste: Report by Public Citizen.

      What is the World Health Organization hiding regarding tests of irradiated foods on animals? And how can people defend the FDA by just reading their own website, as if they would actually tell the truth on it? Any food process that can create free radicals that changes the structure of food needs to be questioned as to its effects on the human body. Hell, you can't even take an X-ray of someone's toe without them placing a shield over themselves. What is our shield at the dinner table? That is what a public comment period is for... for citizens in a "Democracy" to express their concerns that agencies sworn to protect us tellt them the truth, and to relay concerns in light of other information gathered that refutes their claims.

    • 3 years ago
  • bittramp
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • JanforGore:

      "3. Does irradiation make food radioactive?

      No. Radioactivity in foods can occur by two routes: contamination of foods with radioactive substances or by penetration of energy into the nuclei of the atoms that make up the food.

      The irradiation process involves passing food through an irradiation field; however, the food itself never contacts a radioactive substance. Also, the ionizing radiation used by irradiators is not strong enough to disintegrate the nucleus of even one atom of a food molecule. "
      http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm#food1

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      That wasn't my point. My point was: Where is the consumer's protection in light of what irradiation DOES do to food? I never stated it made it radioactive, but then if you know that for sure, maybe you can post about that instead of trying to discredit my opinion since you know so much about it. The fact is that irradiated foods have not been proven completely safe for human comsumption, and the FDA is attempting to skirt that as well as proper disclosure. As for my Xray reference it was to highlight that even when getting an x-ray on one of the smallest parts of the body the person is protected because a certain risk is involved... what is the protection applied to foods such as vegetables that are not of the same makeup as beef and other foods? How are we as consumers to know we really are safe? Those are the questions I am attempting to find out answers for regardless of those who don't seem to care about it.

    • 3 years ago
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  

    • I had a grandmother that swore that food heated in a microwave oven would cause cancer.

      Anyway, Idaho State University also has some good information on food irradiation, for those interested.
      http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm

      ISU's web page includes "The Policy of the American Medical Association (AMA) on Food Irradiation":

      "H-150.961 Irradiation of Food

      It is the policy of the AMA to: (1) affirm food irradiation as a safe and effective process that increases the safety of food when applied according to governing regulations; (2) consider the value of food irradiation to be diminished unless it is incorporated into a comprehensive food safety program based on good manufacturing practices and proper food handling, processing, storage, and preparation techniques; (3) encourage the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue the requirement that all irradiated fruits, vegetables, meats, and seafood carry the international logo that has become recognized as indicating that the food has been subjected to gamma irradiation; and (4) affirm the principle that the demonstration of safety requires evidence of a reasonable certainty that no harm will result but does not require proof beyond any possible doubt (i.e., 'zero' risk does not exist). (CSA Rep. I-93-4)."
      http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm#ama

    • 3 years ago
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • SDLN:

      Also found in ISU's report:

      "Organizations That Support Food Irradiation

      American Dietetic Association
      American Council on Science and Health
      American Medical Association
      American Veterinary Medical Association
      Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
      Food and Drug Administration
      U.S. Dept of Agriculture
      Health Physics Society
      International Atomic Energy Agency
      International Food Information Council (IFIC)
      Scientific Committee of the European Union
      United Nations Food and Agriculture (FAO)
      World Health Organization (WHO)
      National Food Processors Association
      New England Journal of Medicine
      UK Institute of Food Science & Technology
      Institute of Food Technologists
      American Farm Bureau Federation
      National Fisheries Institute
      American Feed Industry Association
      National Food Processors Association
      American Meat Institute
      National Meat Association
      Animal Health Institute
      National Pork Producers Council
      Apple Processors Association
      National Turkey Federation
      Chocolate Manufacturers Association
      Northwest Horticulture Association
      Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
      Produce Marketing Association
      Food Distributors International
      U.S. Chamber of Commerce
      United Egg Producers
      Millers' National Federation
      United Egg Association
      National Cattlemen's Beef Association
      United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association
      National Confectioners' Association
      Western Growers Association
      Grocery Manufacturers of American "

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • SDLN:

      Big whoop. Where are their tests proving it is safe? And sure, any organization that can get away with jacking up the price of the food irradiated to claim to consumers it was made "safe" for them is for it. It is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ just like everything else. I choose to remain skeptical based on my knowledge of it and the fact that I don't trust this government to have my best interests at heart. If you do and will eat anything they put out here without your consent or knowledge, go to it. However, they are still getting my comment on this.

    • 3 years ago
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • SDLN:

      Please don't mistake my disagreement with you on the dangers of irradiation as being an attempt to discourage you from voicing your concerns to the FDA. I've certainly voiced my own concerns, which, as I mentioned earlier in this comments section, mainly involve the FDA's desire to not require labeling of irradiated foods.

      Also, although I share your skepticism concerning the motivations of certain organizations and general distrust of the government, the ADA, AMA, AVMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, are not in the business of jacking up food prices for profits. To be honest, even those private organizations that could stand to see increased short-term profits by intentionally poisoning their customers probably wouldn't consider it a wise business move considering the long-term downside of that decisions.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • bittramp
  • SDLN
  • bittramp
  • SDLN
  • uroborus8
  • NeoDotCom
    • 0
      NeoDotCom  

    • Attack of the killer tomatoes!
      Attack of the killer tomatoes!
      They'll beat you, bash you,
      Squish you, mash you
      Chew you up for brunch
      And finish you off for dinner or lunch!

    • 3 years ago
  • McGaspa
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  

    • This quote is certainly worth noting regarding the studies conducted by the government regarding safety of irradiation......

      Donald B. Louria, MD University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey says...

      "It is distressing to me that despite all the studies, many favorable and many unfavorable, the FDA utilized only five safety studies.

      I looked in detail at two of those studies. Each raises considerable question. In one, the irradiated food was obtained from some other group and we are never actually given any data to show that the food was irradiated properly or even irradiated at all.

      Additionally, the authors note an increase in abnormalities in dogs at autopsy and then seem to feel that the abnormalities they found were meaningless and should be ignored. In the other study from England, in the group receiving the food irradiated most, there were increased deaths in the offspring and this is completely ignored even though the authors say there is no explanation for it.

      To me, it is somewhat amazing that these are listed as two of the five studies that are considered impeccable enough to be evaluated for safety. Those studies have considerable imperfections. For the FDA to selectively choose the five is, I believe, improper for deciding safety."

      Moreover, it is distressing to me that we have to become self-educated scientist to eat safely anymore. You just cannot take the safety of food for granted.

    • 3 years ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  

    • President’s Budget Fails Consumers
      Statement of Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

      Washington, DC –– “The Bush Administration’s proposed 2009 budget falls far short of what is needed to ensure safe food and clean water. In addition to under–funding food safety and water infrastructure, the President’s budget proposal outlines the administration’s continued efforts to shift government responsibility to the private sector.

      “The last year continued the trend of major recalls and controversy over the safety of imported foods. The Food and Drug Administration’s inspectors are barely able to visit domestic food plants once every ten years and rarely, if ever, visit foreign plants. It is clear we are experiencing a food safety crisis. Yet, it is obvious from this budget proposal that the Bush Administration is not serious about protecting the American public from unsafe food.

      my added comment:

      This is part what is going on, we don't have adequate inspectors to insure safe food on the front end, and now to try and pick up the pieces of a failed system, the government wants to zap our foods. In my view, a dubious misguided approach.

    • 3 years ago
  • wjhodges
    • 0
      wjhodges  

    • I feel like there are a couple of problems with this argument. Mutant, more resistant forms of bacteria only come about when the stronger individuals survive and reproduce. If bacteria are exposed to irradiation, there will be no surviving organisms.

      I think that fear over irradiated foods is based on misinformation.
      Exposing items to radioactivity does not make them radioactive, the same way that exposing items to electricity does not make them electric.

      Another link...
      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/irradiation_02-08.html

    • 3 years ago
  • jefftego
    • 0
      jefftego  
    • wjhodges:

      From my perspective, my opposition is not out fear from the food being radioactive. It is the impact on the enzymes and other nutrients in the food which, like the bacteria, are impacted from radiation.

    • 3 years ago
  • rightbrain
    • 0
      rightbrain  
    • wjhodges:

      “Food is irradiated using radioactive gamma sources, usually cobalt 60 or cesium 137, or high energy electron beams. The gamma rays break up the molecular structure of the food, forming positively and negatively charged particles called free radicals. The free radicals react with the food to create new chemical substances called "radiolytic products." Those unique to the irradiation process are known as "unique radiolytic products" (URPs).
      Some radiolytic products, such as formaldehyde, benzene, formic acid, and quinones are harmful to human health. Benzene, for example, is a known carcinogen. In one experiment, seven times more benzene was found in cooked, irradiated beef than in cooked, non-irradiated beef. Some URPs are completely new chemicals that have not even been identified, let alone tested for toxicity.
      In addition, irradiation destroys essential vitamins, including vitamin A, thiamin, B2, B3, B6, B12, folic acid, C, E, and K; amino acid and essential polyunsaturated fatty acid content may also be affected. A 20 to 80 percent loss of any of these is not uncommon.” (Mercola, 2008) http://www.mercola.com/article/irradiated/nuclear_lunch.htm

      Equating irradiation with an electrical current is a dubious analogy. What is of great concern here is the unknown, and I don’t know about you, but I would rather error on the side of caution.

    • 3 years ago
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • wjhodges:

      I'm not particularly concerned about irradiated food either. The CDC even states that "An overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrates that irradiation does not harm the nutritional value of food, nor does it make the food unsafe to eat."
      http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/DBMD/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm#cdcposition

      Still, I completely support labeling the food. Consumers should know what they're buying. Some foods have been irradiated in the US since the 1960's. My main contention with the FDA's proposal is an attempt not to require labeling.

    • 3 years ago
  • onechance
  • neckfire
  • onechance
  • McGaspa
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  

    • This article should hit the TV here at Current.com. Why? Because this is a public service announcement.

      Thanks for putting this up here Jan!

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • 1percent
    • 0
      1percent  

    • I voice my opinion every time I purchase my food from my local grower..

      Keep your mega mart radio-veggies.. No thanks..

      Ride on!

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • jefftego
    • 0
      jefftego  

    • Comments submittted. Thanks for posting Jan. The FDA has no credibility and this would continue the path of dumbing down our food supply.

    • 3 years ago
  • rightbrain
    • 0
      rightbrain  

    • The 'safer' food becomes in this country, the more sensible alternatives like farmers markets appeal to the health conscious. I would like to hope that eventually everyone has access to either a farmers market, or a home garden.

    • 3 years ago
more from News and Politics:
from the community

top videos