Irradiation: a healthy glow
The FDA's proposed rule to relax the use of the radura on food that has been irradiated has attracted some notice. Her is coverage from The Sacramento Bee that explains why the FDA acted:
But following last fall's high-profile E. coli outbreaks, the agency has been more receptive. On April 4, it proposed several changes to the labeling rules:
• Irradiated food would not have to be labeled at all unless the irradiation process induced a "material change" -- such as an alteration in its taste, smell, shelf life or nutritional value.
• If the process did induce a material change, manufacturers would have to use the radura label -- but it could be accompanied by text saying that the food had been "cold pasteurized," rather than "irradiated," providing the company demonstrates that irradiation kills microbes on the food as effectively as does ordinary heat pasteurization.
After the public input period closes Tuesday, the FDA will consider the comments and prepare the final text of the rule. That process can take months or years.
TK: The Center for Food Safety, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., says they have submitted over 13,000 comments opposing the change. Here is a blog post with a similar message. I think this proposed rule should happen, and I think what opposition there is to the rule is from the top down from consumer group, not the bottom up.
Labels: E. coli, FDA, irradiation
posted by Tom Karst @ 3:22 AM
5 Comments:
I would hardly characterize the opposition to FDA's proposed labeling change on irradiated foods as "top-down" from consumer groups.
Consumers have consistantly shown that they recognize and prefer the current labeling of irradiated foods over the euphamism "pasteurized." In fact, FDA’s own research found that the proposed change would confuse consumers, stating "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading." FDA conducted focus groups on this issue in 2001, where consumers participating unanimously rejected replacing the term irradiation with pasteurization and reacted with phrases such as, “sneaky,” “deceptive,” “misleading,” and “trying to fool us.”
Consumers know that irradiation and pasteurization are not the same thing, and expect and deserve accurate information so we can make our own choices about what we eat and feed to our families. I would guess this is why the Produce Marketing Association released their statement of support for the current labeling regime, and against the proposed change in terminology, even though PMA supports the use of irradiation in produce.
In a time of increased concerns about the safety of our food supply, people are looking for more information about the food they purchase - not less. FDA and the food industry would be wise to
put more accurate and truthful labeling in place, rather than trying to change the name, or remove labels entirely to hide something consumers may not like.
Heather Whitehead
The Center for Food Safety
Is buttermilk the sour liquid that remains after the butterfat has been removed from whole milk or is it a cultured sour milk made by adding certain microorganisms to sweet milk?
Does the consumer care that buttermilk is not "buttermilk" in the 19th century sense of the word? No.
I think pasteurization conveys the general sense of what irradiation does for food.
Tom K
Comparing cultured sour milk to the bombardment of produce with radiation completely misses the point--there's a good reason consumers are more concerned with radiation than buttermilk, and they have a right to their opinion, and to be informed.
Hey chump, how come you're not posting my comment?
Hi,
I found your blog as I was looking for consumer advocacy sites. I found very interesting site that provides aggregation of different consumer advocacy sites. I thought you would be interested to read about it...
my3cents
MeasuredUp
ConsumerReports
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home