FDA: ease irradiated-food rules

The government proposed Tuesday 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 significant change to the product. Examples include changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life of a food, which would be flagged in the new labeling.

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.

The proposal also would let companies petition the agency to use terms other than "irradiated." Alternatives already are allowed, but no companies have pursued them, the FDA said.

The agency posted the proposed revisions Tuesday and will accept public comments on them for 90 days.

A consumer group opposes 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," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.

A 1984 FDA proposal to allow irradiated foods to go label-free drew more than 5,000 comments. The agency's final ruling reversed course, requiring the few FDA-regulated foods now treated with radiation to bear identifying labels.

"We have long argued that the use of the term irradiation or radiation has such a negative impact on the consumer that it basically acts as a warning label," said Jeff Barach, vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association, an industry group. "Fixing this problem will help in food industry efforts to provide consumers with safe and wholesome foods with reduced risk of food-borne pathogens."

Courtesy Associated Press

Steve - do they ever learn? Was the response from the public back in '84 not strong enough? It is absolutely outrageous that they are revisiting this issue. This is a blatant attempt to force irradation into the mainstream food supply as a response to the recent foodborne illness outbreaks. Hiding it under the term pastuerized? If I was was Dairy Council, I would be crying foul. If there is a major public outcry because of this, and we stay away from pasteurized foods in droves, see how quickly the FDA will back off.

Irradiation is a band-aid, not the cure for preventing food-borne illness. The entire food supply chain needs to be overhauled. For example, back in 2002, when the egg industry was in the throes of a full-blown salmonella outbreak, they did not turn to irradiation. Egg producers became more more diligent about sealing henhouses against pests and wild birds; they require people who enter to wear shoe coverings, hairnets and other special clothing; and they make sure feed and water are salmonella-free. Now the cases of salmonella from egg consumption has dropped dramatically.

In the interim, there are many natural band-aids, such as oregano and other spices, that have been found to be very effective for preventing foodborne illness. However, these are not money makers for Big Biotech.

The FDA is taking public comment on this issue for the next three months. Please inundate them with emails explaining your extreme disapproval of the idea. Make sure you let them know that it is crucial that irradiated foods stay labeled!