Food irradiation

[Lance Christie]

What both advocates for food irradiation and
opponents of it do not address is the body of
research evidence on HOW ionizing irradiation
sterilizes materials exposed to it, and WHY the
effect of ionizing radiation which kills
pathogens exposed to it can adversely alter the
composition of food even as it has no adverse
effect on medical equipment or
implants.  Ionizing radiation kills bacteria by
damaging their DNA.  Ionizing radiation is a high
energy source at the atomic level; when a charged
particle strikes a molecule, it imparts energy to
it.  In the case of DNA, it can break the RNA/DNA
protein apart or oxidize it, rendering it
incapable of expressing enzymes.  Think about the
intensity of ionizing radiation required to hit a
critical DNA target in nearly every one of
billions of bacteria in a food specimen in order
to render it sterile.  Now consider that ionizing
radiation particles that are passing through the
food that do not hit a protein in a bacterium are
hitting billions of protein and carbohydrate
structures in the food, fracturing or oxidizing
these substances.  Natural enzymes break down
proteins and carbohydrates - that's how our
digestion, along with that of all other living
things, works.  However, the points in protein
structures or carbohydrates at which natural
enzymes "break" larger structures into smaller
ones that we can use as nutritive building blocks
are not the same as the points of breakage
produced by the collision of a high-energy
ionizing radiation particle with the same
nutrient structure.  Ionizing radiation produces
protein and sugar fragments that are not produced
in nature by enzymes, or by protein denaturing
from heat (cooking).  At best, the nutrient
fragments produced by radiation can be acted upon
by our natural enzymes, in which case the
fragments are turned into amino acids or glucose
by our enzymes and incorporated into our
metabolisms as nutrients - no harm done.  Often,
the fragments cannot be acted upon by our natural
enzymes, nor do they "fit" any receptor sites in
our bodies, and so the fragments become
undigestible, inert compounds that travel through
our bodies with no effect and are eliminated as
unusable wastes.  What is lost is the value of
these substances because they cannot be used as
nutrients by us or our intestinal flora:
irradiation of food turns part of it into the
nutritional equivalent of cardboard.  At worst,
the fragments produced by irradiation act as toxins or carcinogens.

The practitioners of irradiation of food have
learned how to limit irradiation to what is
needed to kill bacteria, instead of flooding the
food with much greater amounts of ionizing
particles which caused gross damage to the cell
structure of food and the flavonids and enzymes
in it, producing wilted, bad-tasting
glop.  However, no matter what, the irradiator is
stuck with the fact that they cannot irradiate
food with less radiation than is necessary to
kill the bacteria in it, which means there is a
minimum flood of ionizing particles you have to
put through the food.  I am speaking here to the
effects of that minimum flood.  -Lance

NY Times, February 2, 2009
Spinach and Peanuts, With a Dash of Radiation
By ANDREW MARTIN

Before the recent revelation that peanut butter
could kill people, even before the spinach scare
of three summers ago, the nation’s food industry
made a proposal. It asked the government for
permission to destroy germs in many processed
foods by zapping them with radiation.

That was about nine years ago, in the twilight of
the Clinton administration. The government has taken limited action since.

After spinach tainted with a strain of E. coli
killed three people and sickened more than 200
others in 2006, the Food and Drug Administration
gave permission for irradiation of spinach and
iceberg lettuce. It has yet to begin. Meat
irradiation is permitted but rarely used. Among
common items on the grocery shelf, only spices
and some imported products, like mangoes from
India, are routinely treated with radiation.

The technology to irradiate food has been around
for the better part of a century. The federal
government says that it is safe, and many experts
believe that it could reduce or even eliminate
the food scares that periodically sweep through American society.

It might even have killed the salmonella that
reached grocery shelves in recent weeks after a
factory in Georgia shipped tainted peanut butter
and peanut paste, which wound up in products as
diverse as cookies and dog treats.

But irradiation has not been widely embraced in this country.

Food manufacturers worry that the apparent
benefits do not justify the cost or the potential
consumer backlash. Some consumer groups complain
that widespread irradiation of food after
processing would simply cover up the food
industry’s hygiene problems. And some advocacy
groups question the long-term safety of irradiation.

Amid all these doubts, one thing is certain —
food poisoning continues. The cases that rise to
public attention are only the tip of the
iceberg.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimates that there are 76 million cases of
food-borne illness each year in the United
States. The vast majority are mild, but the
agency estimates there are 5,000 deaths from
food-borne disease and 325,000 hospitalizations each year.

All of this drives advocates of irradiation crazy.

“Our society is running around with our head in
the sand because we have ways to prevent illness
and death that aren’t being used,” said Christine
Bruhn, director of the Center for Consumer
Research at the University of California,
Davis.  “The rules are so tight on irradiation
that you can’t pull it out and use it when a new
problem arises, and that’s to the detriment of the American public.”

Suresh Pillai, director of the National Center
for Electron Beam Research at Texas A&M
University, likened fears of irradiation to early
phobias about the pasteurization of milk.

“It’s unnecessary for people to be getting sick
today with pathogens in spinach or pathogens in
peanut butter,” said Professor Pillai, who
described the potential for irradiation of food
as “humongous.” “We have the technologies to prevent this kind of illness.”

Food is irradiated by brief exposure to X-rays,
gamma rays or an electron beam. The process is
intended to reduce or eliminate harmful bacteria,
insects and parasites, and it also can also extend the life of some products.

Advocates say it is particularly effective at
killing pathogens in items like ground beef and
lettuce, where they might be mixed into the
middle of the product or hiding in a crevice that
is hard to clean by traditional means.

The United States is dotted with irradiation
centers, but they are generally used to sterilize
medical supplies like bandages and implants, not food.

Food and Water Watch, an advocacy group, has long
maintained that irradiation would be too
expensive, impractical and sometimes ineffective
because it might hide filthy conditions at food
processing plants. Patty Lovera, the group’s
assistant director, said irradiation not only
kills bacteria but can also destroy nutrients in food.

“There’s a whole impact on the food product,
which we think is an unacceptable cost,” Ms. Lovera said.

She pointed out that irradiated beef was offered
at many grocery stores nationwide at the
beginning of the decade but it did not last
long.  Customers were turned off by the higher
price and by the extended shelf life of irradiated beef.

“People that did the shopping, they would look at
the date and be freaked out at how long it would be good for,” she said.

Food industry officials, meanwhile, remain wary
of irradiation because of the upfront costs and
the potential public reaction to any technique
with the word “radiation” in it. (Irradiation
leaves no traces of radioactive material in food.)

One potential test of public acceptance could
come with the marketing of irradiated spinach and
lettuce. After the E. coli outbreak in 2006, the
spinach industry lost 30 percent of its business.
The F.D.A. approved irradiation for spinach and iceberg lettuce in August.
“There’s no shortage of people who are looking at
it,” said Hank Giclas, vice president for
strategic planning, science and technology for
the Western Growers Association. “I don’t know of
anyone who is moving forward with it at this time.”

Officials at two irradiation companies said
business for food was growing slightly.

“It’s changed a little bit, but not a whole lot,”
said Harlan Clemmons, president and chief
operating officer of Sadex, which operates an
irradiation plant in Iowa. He said he does twice
as much business irradiating pet treats and livestock feed as human food.

“It’s very amazing,” he said. “There are so many
products that could be made safe by using irradiation.”

It remains an open question if peanut butter or
products with peanut paste would be likely candidates for the technique.

Irradiation typically does not work so well on
products with high amounts of fat or oil like
peanut butter because they can turn rancid during
the process. A spokesman for the American Peanut
Council said irradiation was tested but found
unacceptable because it degraded the taste of the nut.

Nonetheless, Professor Pillai said a low dose of
radiation might be effective in killing traces of
salmonella in peanut butter — or manufactured
products with peanut paste — without ruining the
taste. He said it would not work as a substitute
for basic hygiene and food safety measures.

“You customize the amount of dose with the
product that you are using,” he said.

Similarly, a spokesman for the Grocery
Manufacturers Association said food companies
should make sure plants are clean and follow good
manufacturing and food safety practices. If
problems remain afterwards, then irradiation
could be an option, provided it is permitted by the federal government.

The association, then called Grocery
Manufacturers of America, was among the sponsors
of the application that was filed with the
F.D.A.   nine years ago, which sought approval to
irradiate ready-to-eat meat and poultry products
and fruit and vegetable products.

Now that spinach and iceberg lettuce have been
approved, it is focusing on persuading the F.D.A.
to permit irradiation of hot dogs and deli
meats.  An F.D.A. spokesman declined to comment,
saying the agency does not comment on open petitions.



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canyonlands Sustainable Solutions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/canyonlandssustainable?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---