The proposed new rules would require irradiated food to be labeled only when the radiation treatment caused a material change to the product, such as changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life. In order to use the term "pasteurized" for irradiated products, companies would be required to show the FDA that the radiation kills germs as effectively as conventional pasteurization. Companies would also be able to petition the agency to use additional alternate terms other than "irradiated."

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said, "This move by the FDA would deny consumers clear information about whether they are buying food that has been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation." The FDA seemed to acknowledge that allowing alternative ways of describing irradiation would confuse consumers in their proposal: "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading," but were not available for further comment.

The FDA posted the proposed rule changes on its Web site and will accept public comments on the proposal for 90 days. To view and comment on the proposal, go to the Regulations.gov search engine, enter "FDA-2007-0189-0001" in the Keyword or ID field (the other fields can be left as they are) and click Submit. In the two right-hand columns of the search results, you can click on icons to download a pdf of the document, view it online and make comments.

Editors note: Finding the pages for readers to view and comment on this proposal provided some interesting insights. I first went to fda.gov, where I couldn't find any mention of the proposed changes or how to comment on them. The search term "irradiation" returned 5440 results, the top three ("sorted by relevance") being 1)"Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure" (subheaded "Food Irradiation is a safe measure."), 2) "FDA/CFSAN Is food irradiation safe?" an excerpt from "Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure") and 3) "Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food." The A-Z index has one item under irradiation: "Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure." Through a series of less-than-intuitive links, I eventually found my way to www.regulations.gov and was able to track down the proposal and page for commenting.

**************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************

WASHINGTON — The government on Tuesday proposed relaxing its rules on labeling of irradiated foods and suggested it may allow some products zapped with radiation to be called "pasteurized."

The Food and Drug Administration said the proposed rule would require companies to label irradiated food only when the radiation treatment causes a material change to the product. Examples includes changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life of a food.

The FDA also proposed letting companies use the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods. To do so, they would have to show the FDA that the radiation kills germs as well as the pasteurization process does. Pasteurization typically involves heating a product to a high temperature and then cooling it rapidly.

In addition, the proposal would let companies petition the agency to use additional alternate terms other than "irradiated."

The FDA posted the proposed revisions to its rules on irradiated foods on its Web site Tuesday, a day before they were to be published in the Federal Register. FDA will accept public comments on the proposal for 90 days. A consumer group immediately urged the FDA to drop the idea.

"This move by FDA would deny consumers clear information about whether they are buying food that has been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation," Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.

The FDA acknowledges in the proposed rule that allowing alternative ways of describing irradiation could confuse consumers: "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading," the proposal reads in part. FDA officials were not immediately available for comment.

A 1984 FDA proposal to allow irradiated foods to go label-free garnered the agency more than 5,000 comments. Two years later, it reversed course and published a final rule that requires the small number of FDA-regulated foods now treated with radiation to bear identifying labels, including the radiation symbol.

The proposed rule would apply only to foods regulated by the FDA.

________________________________________________________________________

My Letter to the Editor of the Ventura County Star

Food Irradiation is Dangerous!

Re: April 4 article: “FDA proposes softening labeling requirements for irradiated foods.”

Irradiating foods and not letting the consumer know about it is an absolute OUTRAGE! The FDA's proposal is totally unacceptable! Those of us who DO NOT want to purchase or ingest irradiated foods would lose our right to choose between irradiated and nonirradiated foods.

To read more about the dangers of food irradiation, check out: http://www.sustainable-city.org/articles/irradiat.htm . Nuclear Lunch: The Dangers and Unknowns of Food Irradiation

by Susan Meeker-Lowery and Jennifer Ferrara

Also the book: The Food That Would Last Forever: Understanding the Dangers of Food Irradiation (Paperback) by Gary Gibbs. Dr. Gibbs has done an excellent job of enlightening us as to the recklessness of the FDA in approving the irradiation of food. Illustrating this are these quotes from the book:

"Curiously, despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given food irradiation the green light, its own Recommendations for Evaluating the Safety of Foods (Final Report) stated that 'chronic feeding studies which have substituted up to thirty five percent of the normal [lab animal] diet with specific irradiated foods ... had to be terminated because of premature mortality and morbidity.' To put it plainly, the animals in these studies got sick and died."

"The people within the irradiation industry are very tightlipped about their activities, and the FDA does not require them to disclose such information for the public record. Indeed, many aspects of the FDA's food irradiation policy make it virtually impossible for the consumer to find out just how much of the food supply is being irradiated, or to know where these irradiated foods are being used."

How can we trust a government agency (FDA) that acquiesces to industry while ignoring it’s own evidence?

Ellyn Sutton - eleanor@ieway.com