From: [s--r--d] at [genesis.MCS.COM] (Lance Sanders)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Dangers of food irradiation
Date: 28 Nov 1993 16:53:17 -0600


On Sun, 28 Nov 1993 03:29:24 GMT, Bill Evers <[W--VE--S] at [PURCCVM.BITNET]>,
in Message-ID: <[93331 222924 WEVERS] at [PURCCVM.BITNET]> writes:

>Thank you Lawarence Foard!  There is courage and sanity in this news 
>group!  A healthy lifestyle related to food and nutrition will only be 
>achieved by good science not unprovable, religious fanaticism

   I agree.
   However, there are indications that the FDA's criteria for selecting 
research used in forging policy are strangely inconsistent.

   Dr. Donald B. Louria, chairman of the dept. of preventive medicine 
and community health at the U. of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 
in Newark noted in a 08/92 interview that: 

   "The F.D.A. based its approval of irradiation on five or six animal 
studies, although it had 400 to choose; it said the rest were all 
flawed. Taken together, the studies they chose could not possibly 
establish the safety of irradiation. Indeed, two of the studies suggest 
the technology is not safe." 


   The Sept. 1990 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

   "...the proponents of irradiation have not produced any projections 
of the actual economic, or other, benefits of longer shelf life, 
especially in a developed country that has an abundant food supply." 

   
   The May 1992 issue of the Berkeley Wellness letter (published by the U. 
of California at Berkeley) declared that:

   "Though it's also been claimed that irradiation will make 
insecticides and fungicides obsolete, there's some evidence that certain 
foods may be more vulnerable to the ravages of fungi and insects AFTER 
irradiation." 


   The April 1992 issue of Nutrition Action (published by the Center for 
Science in the Public Interest) reported that in one study, the vitamin 
C content of potatoes was reduced by 50 percent after the potatoes 
received a standard dose of radiation.
   In another study, one-third the level of radiation permitted by the 
FDA reduced thiamin levels in pork by 17%, and  a normal dose reduced 
thiamin levels in chicken breasts by 9%. Vitamin E content was also 
affected, and cooking reduces vitamin levels even further. 



   Margaret A. Peckham, program associate, Public Interest Research Group, 
New York:

   "The industry and the Food and Drug Administration have not presented 
a strong enough case for the safety of eating irradiated foods. 
Moreover, there is no guarantee that irradiation will alleviate food 
spoilage. Food that has been irradiated can possibly be recontaminated." 

   "The safety of eating irradiated foods is not the only concern. 
Irradiation plants have a bad record for both safety and honesty. 
Executives have been convicted on Federal charges of fraud and safety 
violations, and there have been incidents involving radiation leaks and 
spills. An incident in Georgia three years ago is costing taxpayers 
there tens of millions of dollars to clean up...a moratorium of the sale 
of irradiated food products is judicious." 


   J.J. Steinberg, M.D., Associate Professor of Pathology; Radiation 
Biology and Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine:

   "Food irradiation affects the cells that make up the food. Cells are 
composed of proteins, fats and nucleic acids --- the building blocks of 
DNA and genes. All radiation scientists would acknowledge that 
irradiating food's proteins, fats and nucleic acids alter their 
chemistry." 
   "Most of these products are benign, some are worrisome. The new 
molecules formed after food irradiation are called 'biologically unknown 
radiolytic products'. Some of these new molecules formed from nucleic 
acids have similar activity to the therapies physicians use in tumor 
treatment, for example, chemotherapy. many of these new molecules act as 
mutagens --- chemicals that can injure or change the DNA of the person 
exposed to them. Excess exposure to mutagens may cause cancer." 
   "The risk of cancer from food irradiation is likely miniscule, but we 
should accept that this food treatment may cause additional real, but as 
yet unquantifiable risk. These food risks may be similar to the risks we 
take when we eat pickled or charcoal-broiled foods, which offer a large 
menu of mutagens to the gourmet. Clearly, these risks are far smaller 
than smoking cigarettes, but they should not be minimized." 


          [And no treatment-specific labels on genetically-altered
           foodstuffs??! In light of the FDA's almost fanatical
           drive to label or control other foodstuffs and
           supplements (including restaurant menus), that move
           should have triggered 'warning klaxons' in consumers.
                         [Mr. Rogers accent: ON]
            "Can you say, 'sleight-of-hand'? I knew you could."
                               [MRacc: OFF]
           Pardon the crudity, but it appears the public runs the
           risk of getting f**ked-over, here, in the long run...]


---------
Lance Sanders                "If they want to sell us Frankenfood, perhaps
[s--r--d] at [genesis.MCS.COM]       it's time to gather the villagers, light some
GE Mail: L.Sanders6           torches and head to the castle."