Statement from the American Meat Institute
Meat industry group says an article critical of irradiation
of meat "does a serious disservice to consumers".
The American
Meat Institute has hit out at criticisms of the use of irradiation for meat
safety.
Dr Randall
Huffman, vice president for scientific affairs at the AMI said: "The recent
article, 'The Truth About Irradiated Meats,' which appeared in the August 2003
issue of Consumer Reports magazine, does a serious disservice to consumers on an
important topic of food safety.
“By repeating
inaccurate assertions about residual bacteria in irradiated products and basing
its recommendations about the wholesomeness of irradiated ground beef and
chicken on suspect, unscientific data, the story paints a false and misleading
picture of food irradiation.
"The real
truth about irradiation is that it is a safe, effective and scientifically
validated technology to help make raw foods even safer for the very consumers
the magazine claims to serve.”
Dr Huffman said
the report confuses and misrepresents the presence of bacteria in raw ground
beef and chicken.
He said that all
raw foods contain bacteria, most of which are benign species common to air,
water, soil and virtually all human and household surfaces.
By stating that
"irradiated meat still contains some bacteria," the magazine displays
a lack of understanding of both microbial ecology, as well as an ignorance of
the reality that irradiation is administered at precisely calibrated doses
designed to kill off harmful pathogenic bacteria - not destroy all living
organisms in a food product, he said.
He added that
irradiation levels required for complete sterilisation in raw beef or chicken
products are not practical and are beyond what is permitted by the law.
He added that
the report alleges that irradiated ground beef products have a distinctive and
detectable taste and smell.
“Science
outlines a clear and comprehensive protocol for conducting sensory analysis of
food products and virtually everything that Consumer Report's amateur shoppers
and analysts did in ‘testing’ their irradiated and non-irradiated ground
beef samples flies in the face of accepted procedures,” Dr Huffman said.
He said that:
* Sampling needs
to be standardised. In a scientific analysis designed to maximise confidence in
the results, ground beef would be obtained from the same processing plant on the
same day of production and all samples handled and stored at identical
temperatures and for the same length of time.
* Trained
experts are not the equivalent of ordinary consumers, because using trained
panellists is an inappropriate methodology when there is a desire to determine
if the average consumer can discern differences among products sampled.
* Comparing
paired samples compromises the data. In scientific analyses, panellists
typically must identify characteristics correctly in a triangulated selection of
three samples at a time, to ensure confidence that the results are more reliable
than mere guesswork.
Dr Huffman said:
“Despite its obviously biased position on food irradiation, the report does
inadvertently support the real message about food safety that consumers need to
hear.
"Our food
supply is remarkably safe, and while irradiation treatment helps increase that
margin of safety, ultimately, consumers must take responsibility to properly
handle, store and prepare fresh foods to ensure the full measure of protection
from foodborne illnesses.”
Web posted: July 8, 2003