__________________________________________________________________
To: Whom it may concern
From; Board of Directors, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
(PSR)
RE: Irradiated meat in the Portland Schools Food programs
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility has a long-standing commitment to environmental and human health. Our group has been contacted by parents of Portland schoolchildren who are concerned about the use of irradiated meat in school cafeterias and by the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)recent decision permitting the use of irradiated foods in its National School Lunch Program. Under the plan, schools will have a choice between irradiated and non-irradiated meat.
Boxes of meat arriving at schools will be labeled, but labeling in the cafeteria and parental notification while encouraged, will not be required.
Oregon schools are not mandated by the USDA decision to serve irradiated meat.
Oregon PSR strongly recommends that Portland schools not serve irradiated meat in their cafeterias.
Following are findings we consider important in our decision.
Despite over a thousand studies, irradiated food has not been proved to be safe: in fact many studies have shown that adverse health consequences can result from irradiation.
* The amount of radiation used for food products is 10 million to over 100 million times the amount used for a standard chest X-ray.
* Studies of irradiation safety are unfeasible; the standard “100-fold safety factor” cannot be employed since the amount of radiation required would basically ruin the taste and consistency of the food.
* Irradiation fails to kill completely some of the most dangerous bacteria in meat, such as E. coli OH-157 and Salmonella
* Unhealthy chemicals are found in higher concentration in irradiated meat, such as lipid peroxides and cancer -causing benzene.
* Chemical byproducts in irradiated meat may increase the risks of colon cancer and DNA damage for those who eat them.
* Irradiation breaks the bonds of fats, including heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, and decreases the amount of the beneficial anti-oxidant vitamin E.
* Irradiation may lead to an increase in the numbers of chemicals used, in order to increase bacterial kill rates and alter the taste of radiation-damaged food.
* Even irradiated meat can become re-infected with disease-causing bacteria through improper handling and storage.
* Meat irradiation encourages sloppy practices by food processors, who may feel that dirt and fecal matter left on food will be made sterile by radiation.
* No one really knows the long term health effects of the consumption of irradiated meat.
Irradiated meat is controversial - it is opposed by large numbers of scientists and citizens:
* More than 90% of the comments submitted to the USDA opposed the agency’s decision.
* The European Union, British Medical Association, International Organization of Consumers, Center for Food Safety, Public Citizen, and the Consumer Federation of America all oppose irradiated food in the
schools.
* Furthermore, the European Union refuses to allow irradiation of foods (served in any setting) beyond spices, herbs, and other seasonings used in very small quantities.
Irradiated meat is more costly:
* The USDA estimates that irradiated ground beef, for example, will cost an additional 13 to 20 cents per pound. At a time when Oregon schools
are affected by an ongoing state budget crisis (and cutting school days from the calendar) such an expenditure makes little sense.
* A typical food irradiation facility, based on 1990 estimates costs $2 million to $10 million to build. Add to that the costs of transporting foods from centralized irradiation facilities; purchasing radioactive substances or linear accelerators (another million dollars
at least initially; then more each year to maintain the supply); storage, disposal. and cleanup of radioactive material; worker safety training; government regulation of facilities; building and maintenance of containment and storage units; and protection of radiation facilities
from terrorist attack.
The uses of irradiated foods supports/ requires a new nuclear food industry, with the perils of the nuclear power industry:
* Many hundreds of large nuclear facilities will be required to irradiate any significant fraction of the food supply. Meat is the first step.
* The new nuclear food industry will build its factories in our communities.
* The possibility of accidents during transportation of large amounts of potent radiation sources will make our streets and highways more dangerous.
* To produce the large amounts of radioactive cobalt and cesium required, the industry will push for laws to allow reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods. Commercial reprocessing , which produces large
amounts of high level nuclear waste, is presently banned in this country.
Food irradiation caries significant risks for workers:
* Accidental exposure to very high dose radiation fields can cause acute tissue damage, cancer, and even death.
* Irradiation produces ozone, which makes breathing factory air hazardous for plant workers.
Current labeling laws are inadequate:
* Foods containing ingredients that are irradiated and comprise more than 10% of products sold in bulk or in stores are required to be labeled with a flower-like symbol (implying a seal of approval) and wording only implying radiation.
* Congress is considering eliminating labeling requirements altogether.
* There are no requirements for labeling irradiated foods served in schools, restaurants or hospitals.
When irradiated , food is offered, a large majority favor labeling:
* Ninety -two percent of consumers surveyed said they wanted irradiated foods to be labeled.
There are less risky and cheaper methods than irradiation to protect the safety of our food supply. These include:
* Integrated pest management and reduction of pesticide and agricultural chemical use.
* Changes in agribusiness practices, including reduction in factory farms, consumption of locally-grown food (reducing transportation time),
wiser and more limited use of agricultural antibiotics, eliminating the use of unsafe recombinant bovine growth hormone in cattle, vaccination of animals, controlling over crowding animals and heat stress, and
improving food handling and storage.
* Hiring more inspectors and using better equipment in the present technically sound but under-funded food inspection programs.
* Fully cooking meat, especially ground beef.
|
To: Whom it may concern
From; Board of Directors, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
(PSR)
RE: Irradiated meat in the Portland Schools Food programs
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility has a long-standing commitment to environmental and human health. Our group has been contacted by parents of Portland schoolchildren who are concerned about the use of irradiated meat in school cafeterias and by the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)recent decision permitting the use of irradiated foods in its National School Lunch Program. Under the plan, schools will have a choice between irradiated and non-irradiated meat.
Boxes of meat arriving at schools will be labeled, but labeling in the cafeteria and parental notification while encouraged, will not be required.
Oregon schools are not mandated by the USDA decision to serve irradiated meat.
Oregon PSR strongly recommends that Portland schools not serve irradiated meat in their cafeterias.
Following are findings we consider important in our decision.
Despite over a thousand studies, irradiated food has not been proved to be safe: in fact many studies have shown that adverse health consequences can result from irradiation.
* The amount of radiation used for food products is 10 million to over 100 million times the amount used for a standard chest X-ray.
* Studies of irradiation safety are unfeasible; the standard “100-fold safety factor” cannot be employed since the amount of radiation required would basically ruin the taste and consistency of the food.
* Irradiation fails to kill completely some of the most dangerous bacteria in meat, such as E. coli OH-157 and Salmonella
* Unhealthy chemicals are found in higher concentration in irradiated meat, such as lipid peroxides and cancer -causing benzene.
* Chemical byproducts in irradiated meat may increase the risks of colon cancer and DNA damage for those who eat them.
* Irradiation breaks the bonds of fats, including heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, and decreases the amount of the beneficial anti-oxidant vitamin E.
* Irradiation may lead to an increase in the numbers of chemicals used, in order to increase bacterial kill rates and alter the taste of radiation-damaged food.
* Even irradiated meat can become re-infected with disease-causing bacteria through improper handling and storage.
* Meat irradiation encourages sloppy practices by food processors, who may feel that dirt and fecal matter left on food will be made sterile by radiation.
* No one really knows the long term health effects of the consumption of irradiated meat.
Irradiated meat is controversial - it is opposed by large numbers of scientists and citizens:
* More than 90% of the comments submitted to the USDA opposed the agency’s decision.
* The European Union, British Medical Association, International Organization of Consumers, Center for Food Safety, Public Citizen, and the Consumer Federation of America all oppose irradiated food in the
schools.
* Furthermore, the European Union refuses to allow irradiation of foods (served in any setting) beyond spices, herbs, and other seasonings used in very small quantities.
Irradiated meat is more costly:
* The USDA estimates that irradiated ground beef, for example, will cost an additional 13 to 20 cents per pound. At a time when Oregon schools
are affected by an ongoing state budget crisis (and cutting school days from the calendar) such an expenditure makes little sense.
* A typical food irradiation facility, based on 1990 estimates costs $2 million to $10 million to build. Add to that the costs of transporting foods from centralized irradiation facilities; purchasing radioactive substances or linear accelerators (another million dollars
at least initially; then more each year to maintain the supply); storage, disposal. and cleanup of radioactive material; worker safety training; government regulation of facilities; building and maintenance of containment and storage units; and protection of radiation facilities
from terrorist attack.
The uses of irradiated foods supports/ requires a new nuclear food industry, with the perils of the nuclear power industry:
* Many hundreds of large nuclear facilities will be required to irradiate any significant fraction of the food supply. Meat is the first step.
* The new nuclear food industry will build its factories in our communities.
* The possibility of accidents during transportation of large amounts of potent radiation sources will make our streets and highways more dangerous.
* To produce the large amounts of radioactive cobalt and cesium required, the industry will push for laws to allow reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods. Commercial reprocessing , which produces large
amounts of high level nuclear waste, is presently banned in this country.
Food irradiation caries significant risks for workers:
* Accidental exposure to very high dose radiation fields can cause acute tissue damage, cancer, and even death.
* Irradiation produces ozone, which makes breathing factory air hazardous for plant workers.
Current labeling laws are inadequate:
* Foods containing ingredients that are irradiated and comprise more than 10% of products sold in bulk or in stores are required to be labeled with a flower-like symbol (implying a seal of approval) and wording only implying radiation.
* Congress is considering eliminating labeling requirements altogether.
* There are no requirements for labeling irradiated foods served in schools, restaurants or hospitals.
When irradiated , food is offered, a large majority favor labeling:
* Ninety -two percent of consumers surveyed said they wanted irradiated foods to be labeled.
There are less risky and cheaper methods than irradiation to protect the safety of our food supply. These include:
* Integrated pest management and reduction of pesticide and agricultural chemical use.
* Changes in agribusiness practices, including reduction in factory farms, consumption of locally-grown food (reducing transportation time),
wiser and more limited use of agricultural antibiotics, eliminating the use of unsafe recombinant bovine growth hormone in cattle, vaccination of animals, controlling over crowding animals and heat stress, and
improving food handling and storage.
* Hiring more inspectors and using better equipment in the present technically sound but under-funded food inspection programs.
* Fully cooking meat, especially ground beef.
- Skinny 11-06-2003 3:31 am