snipped...
> I understand the biochemistry of irradiation and parasitism.
snipped...
Dale,
Does your understanding conflict with the views of the author of this
article?
Craig
The following article appeared in the Fall/Winter 1997-1998 issue of the
Food and Water Journal:
Nuclear Lunch
The Dangers and Unknowns of Food Irradiation
The recent push for food irradiation fails to acknowledge the
technology’s inherent dangers, its intricate connections to the nuclear
industry, and the FDA’s failure to prove safety.
Beginning in 1986, the FDA has given the green light to expose nearly
our entire food supply to nuclear irradiation. Since then, staunch
citizen opposition has kept the technology out of use. But the recent
hamburger recall has led both the food and nuclear industries to push
hard for beef irradiation’s approval. Its use in the beef industry
would open the door to irradiation as the “solution” to contamination
crises in all food groups, from poultry to fruits and vegetables.
With beef irradiation's quick passage through the FDA process, citizen
opposition, not government regulation, remains the critical component in
keeping irradiated food off store shelves. And from the hazards
inherent in the technology to the FDA’s own admission that the safety
studies are flawed, the risks involved with food irradiation still far
outweigh the presumed “benefits.”
Irradiation Basics
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 and minerals,
including vitamin A, thiamine, 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.
Safety Studies Flawed
The FDA reviewed 441 toxicity studies to determine the safety of
irradiated foods. Dr. Marcia van Gemert, the team leader in charge of
new food additives at the FDA and the chairperson of the committee in
charge of investigating the studies, testified that all 441 studies were
flawed.
The government considers irradiation a food additive. In testing food
additives for toxicity, laboratory animals are fed high levels (in
comparison to a human diet) of potential toxins. The results must then
be applied to humans with theoretical models. It is questionable
whether the studies the FDA used to approve food irradiation followed
this process. In fact, the FDA claimed only five of the 441 were
“properly conducted, fully adequate by 1980 toxicological standards, and
able to stand alone in support of safety.” With the shaky assurance of
just five studies, the FDA approved irradiation for the public food
supply.
To make matters worse, the Department of Preventative Medicine and
Community Health of the New Jersey Medical School found two of the
studies were methodologically flawed. In a third study, animals eating
a diet of irradiated food experienced weight loss and miscarriage,
almost certainly due to irradiation-induced vitamin E dietary
deficiency. The remaining two studies investigated the effects of diets
of foods irradiated at doses below the FDA-approved general level of
100,000 rads. Thus, they cannot be used to justify food irradiation at
the levels approved by the FDA.
Other studies indicate serious health problems associated with eating
irradiated food. A compilation of 12 studies carried out by Raltech
Scientific Services, Inc. under contract with the U.S. government
examined the effects of feeding irradiated chicken to several different
animal species. The studies indicated the possibility of chromosome
damage, immunotoxicity, greater incidence of kidney disease, cardiac
thrombus, and fibroplasia. In reviewing Raltech’s findings in 1984,
USDA researcher Donald Thayer asserted, “A collective assessment of
study results argues against a definitive conclusion that the
gamma-irradiated test material was free of toxic properties.”
Studies of rats fed irradiated food also indicate possible kidney and
testicular damage and a statistically significant increase in testicular
tumors. One landmark study in India found four out of five children fed
irradiated wheat developed polyploidy, a chromosomal abnormality that is
a good indication of future cancer development.
Irradiation proponents often claim that decades of research demonstrate
the safety of food irradiation, but the studies they use to prove it are
questionable. For example, their “proof” includes studies completed by
Industrial Bio-Test (IBT), a firm convicted in 1983 of conducting
fraudulent research for government and industry. As a result of IBT’s
violations, the government lost about $4 million and six years of animal
feeding study data on food irradiation. Some of this discredited work
is still used as part of the “scientific” basis for assurances of the
safety of food irradiation.
Accidents Happen
Workers in irradiation plants risk exposure to large doses of radiation
due to equipment failure, leaks, and the production, transportation,
storage, installation, and replacement of radiation sources. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recorded 54 accidents at 132
irradiation facilities worldwide since 1974. But this number is
probably low since the NRC has no information about irradiation
facilities in approximately 30 “agreement states” which have the
authority to monitor facilities on their own.
New Jersey is home to the highest concentration of irradiation
facilities, and virtually every New Jersey plant has a record of
environmental contamination, worker overexposure, or regulatory
failures. Accidents can be nearly fatal to workers and extremely
dangerous to the surrounding communities. For instance:
In 1991, a worker at a Maryland facility suffered critical injuries when
exposed to ionizing radiation from an electron-beam accelerator. The
victim developed sores and blisters on his feet, face and scalp, and
lost fingers on both hands.
In 1988, Radiation Sterilizers, Inc. (RSI) in Decatur, GA, reported a
leak of cesium 137 capsules into the water storage pool, endangering
workers and contaminating the facility. Workers then carried the
radioactivity into their homes and cars. Cleanup costs exceeded $30
million, and taxpayers footed the bill.
In 1986, the NRC revoked the license of a Radiation Technology, Inc.
(RTI) facility in New Jersey for 32 worker-safety violations, including
throwing radioactive garbage out with the trash and bypassing a key
safety device. As a result of this negligence, one worker received a
near lethal dose of radiation.
In 1982, an accident at International Nutronics in Dover, NJ,
contaminated the plant and forced its closure. Radiation baths were
used to purify gems, chemicals, food and medical supplies.
In 1974, an Isomedix facility in New Jersey flushed radioactive water
down toilets and contaminated pipes leading to sewers. In the same
year, a worker received a dose of radiation considered lethal for 70
percent of the population. Prompt hospital treatment saved his life.
Not a Silver Bullet
Irradiation poses serious risks, and it still does not ensure safe
meat. Although it kills most bacteria, it does not destroy the toxins
created in the early stages of contamination. And it also kills
beneficial bacteria which produce odors indicating spoilage and
naturally control the growth of harmful bacteria.
Irradiation also stimulates aflatoxin production. Aflatoxin occurs
naturally in humid areas and tropical countries in fungus spores and on
grains and vegetables. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers
aflatoxin to be a significant public health risk and a major contributor
to liver cancer in the South.
In addition, irradiation will likely have a mutagenic effect on bacteria
and viruses that survive exposure. Mutated survivors could be resistant
to antibiotics and could evolve into more virulent strains. Mutated
bacteria could also become radiation-resistant, rendering the radiation
process ineffective for food exposed to radiation-resistant strains.
Radiation-resistant strains of salmonella have already been developed
under laboratory conditions, and scientists at Louisiana State
University in Baton Rouge have found that one bacteria occurring in
spoiled meat and animal feces can survive a radiation dose five times
what the FDA will eventually approve for beef. Scientists exposed the
bacteria, called D. radiodurans, to between 10 and 15 kilograys (kGy) of
radiation for several hours--enough radiation to kill a person several
thousand times over. The bacteria, which scientists speculate evolved
to survive extreme conditions of dehydration, survived the radiation
exposure.
The Nuclear Connection
To irradiate beef and poultry in the U.S. on a mass scale, hundreds of
irradiation facilities would need to be built. Currently, the radiation
source for most irradiators is cobalt 60, supplied by the Canadian
company Nordion International, Inc. But the only isotope available in
sufficient quantities for large-scale irradiation is cesium 137, which
is also one of the deadliest. With a half-life of 30 years, cesium 137
remains dangerous for nearly 600 years.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initially encouraged food
irradiation as part of its Byproduct Utilization Program (BUP) created
in the 1970s to promote the commercial use of nuclear by-products. The
DOE claimed nuclear by-products “have a wide range of applications in
food technology, agriculture, energy, public health, medicine, and
industrial technology,” and wanted to “ensure full realization of the
benefits of the peaceful atom.”
At the same time, it would transfer the burden of nuclear waste from
weapons production to consumers--a fact the DOE admitted to the House
Armed Services Committee in 1983: “The utilization of these radioactive
materials simply reduces our waste handling problem... we get some of
these very hot elements like cesium and strontium out of the waste.”
Not only would this take care of the DOE’s waste problem, it would
develop the technology to reprocess spent nuclear reactor fuel in order
to recover cesium 137. The reprocessing would also enable the DOE to
recover plutonium, the main ingredient for nuclear weapons.
After the 1988 irradiator accident in Decatur, Georgia, the DOE stopped
actively promoting food irradiation and the use of cesium 137. But the
store of cesium 137 is ready and waiting.
Irradiation Today
With the FDA’s approval of beef irradiation, the irradiation industry
is poised to use it as a springboard for flooding the market with a new
wave of food irradiation promotion. But to be successful, irradiation
proponents must convince retailers that consumers want the technology.
The irradiation industry sees education or “consumer training” as the
key to citizen acceptance.
In response, scientists at major land-grant universities, with the full
support of the USDA, are developing “educational” materials. Iowa State
University (ISU), home of one of two publicly held food irradiation
facilities in the U.S., developed a pro-irradiation educational video
with a $39,000 grant from the USDA Extension Service. The USDA gave
grants to projects designed to influence public acceptance of food
technologies, specifically food irradiation.
But citizens don’t want irradiated foods. Surveys conducted in 1990 and
1994 by HealthFocus, a marketing consulting firm specializing in
consumer health trends, found that over 80 percent of consumers were
concerned about food irradiation. A study at ISU found when consumers
are given solid arguments both for and against irradiation, acceptance
of the technology is substantially lower than if they were only given
the pro-irradiation side of the story. An August 1997 CBS News poll
found nationwide 73 percent of people oppose it, and 77 percent say they
wouldn’t eat irradiated food.
Citizen aversion to irradiation is so strong, no major supermarket chain
will carry irradiated foods, and all the top poultry companies in the
nation have stated they will not adopt the technology. The U.S.
government may approve its use, but that doesn’t mean citizens will
believe it’s safe, or that they will buy irradiated food.
To learn more about the dangers of food irradiation contact Food and
Water , Inc., a nonprofit, education and advocacy organization working
for safe food and a clean environment.
Food and Water, Inc.
389 Vermont Route 215
Walden, Vermont 05873
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".