Statement from the Minnesota Beef Council
July 4, 2003
Consumer
Reports
Julia
Kagan or Margot Slade,
Editorial Directors
101
Truman Avenue
Yonkers,
NY 10703
The article titled, “The Truth About Irradiated Meat”
in the August issue of Consumer Reports contains inaccurate and
misleading statements that do a disservice to your readers.
Bacteria Reduction:
The article states that bacterial levels in irradiated,
uncooked ground beef and skinless chicken tenders were generally much lower than
in the non-irradiated meat. But the irradiated meat still contained some
bacteria. The previous sentence is misleading, since no claim is made by
irradiation companies that all bacteria is eliminated. Literature and point of
sale material from irradiation companies clearly state that the process helps to
reduce or eliminate the threat from harmful bacteria.
The tone of the article implies that because it does not result in a
sterile product the irradiation process is therefore of little value. Are you
seriously suggesting that the additional reduction in the levels of bacteria by
more than 99+ percent resulting from irradiation is of no benefit? The multiple
barrier approach to food safety requires that several interventions be put into
place whose contributions to microbial reduction are additive. Irradiation
represents a huge increment in the total microbial kill built into the food
manufacturing process. Had irradiation been in place, the likelihood is that
several of the more recent E. coli O157:H7 related outbreaks would have been
avoided; ie, some kids would be alive today, that aren’t. You need to consider
the possible consequence when you publish the type of article that this current
piece represents. How many additional kids will suffer and die needlessly, as a
result of your article?
In fact at the doses commonly used to irradiate ground beef, the
following levels of pathogen reduction can be expected;
Furthermore, the Consumer Report study did
not identify the species of each bacteria found in the samples. This is
important because not all Listeria, Salmonella and E. coli are human pathogens,
thus their presence is not necessarily a potential cause of foodborne illness.
Sensory Factors:
Consumer Reports states that trained testers noted a slight
but distinct off-taste and smell in most of the irradiated beef and chicken
sampled. The report also states that the taste differences were usually subtle.
These
statements contradict each other; distinct means clear and distinguishable, and
subtle is defined as difficult to distinguish. How
Further, your article fails to consider the considerable variation in
taste and other sensory attributes that is naturally present in beef from
different sources. The slight change in sensory properties due to irradiation
that is detected by some people needs to be evaluated in this context. In
general, research has shown it is of no significance.
The Minnesota Beef Council has conducted a number of
sensory tests of irradiated and non-irradiated ground beef during the past 6
years. Our evaluations clearly indicate that the overall liking for the flavor
and texture does not differ between the control and the irradiated samples.
A 1999 University of Minnesota study involving over 200
participants, Acceptability of Irradiated Fresh Ground Beef Patties:
Influence of Information and Product Identification; Vickers et al. showed
an over all liking of 6.4 (scale of 9) for both the non-irradiated control and
the irradiated ground beef in a “blind” taste test. The overall liking
scores were higher when samples were identified (6.6 vs. 6.3 when not
identified) and when benefit of information was provided (6.5 vs. 6.3 when no
information was provided).
Numerous
scientific consumer studies have shown that the taste of irradiated foods is not
significantly changed, and some studies have actually shown that people prefer
the taste of irradiated burgers. A 2001 study conducted by the Sterling-Rice
Group involving 475 participants in Atlanta and Denver showed that Hedonic
scores for aroma, juiciness, and flavor were not statistically different. And in
the Atlanta test, participants actually preferred the irradiated burgers (6.8
vrs.6.5).
Safety of Irradiated Foods:
Consumer
Reports says recent European research… suggests that the substances known as
(2-ACBs), unique byproducts created by irradiating fat in a food such as ground
beef, may act as tumor promoters in laboratory rats.
Public Citizen’s misrepresentation of the recent European
research on irradiation is repeated in the Consumer Reports article.
This activist group distorted the research of Dr. Henry Delincee. In an
open letter to the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Delincee countered by
saying, “Public Citizen’s claims are not founded on scientific arguments.
They use my research to produce distrust among consumers. The benefits of
irradiation far outweigh any risk.”
In fact, Dr. Henry Delincee writes, “It is explicitly
written in the English summary of our report (Burnouf et al., 2002) that “We
warn against misuse of the data presented here, aiming at disqualifying food
irradiation“…”Thus, at present
on the basis of our results, it seems not appropriate to draw a final conclusion
concerning to the risk associated with human consumption of irradiated
fat-containing foods.” … “This is because our studies have been carried
out only with highly pure substances and not with irradiated food containing a
large number of complex components. Other food components may influence the
reactions of 2-ACBs not evident from our experiments on purified 2-ACBs. It
should also be pointed out that the amounts of 2-ACBs in irradiated foods are
much lower than the concentrations tested in our studies.”
A recent statement from the
Scientific Committee on Food, part of the European Commission’s Health and
Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Statement
of the Scientific Committee on Food on a Report on 2-alkylcyclobutanones
(2-ACBs), further substantiates the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated
foods. The statement, based on a
review of irradiation studies, including work conducted by Dr. Delincee in 1998
and 2001 (the same studies cited and misinterpreted by Public Citizen and the
Center for Food Safety), states, “Reassurances as to the safety of irradiated
fat-containing foods can be based on the results of the large number of feeding
studies carried out with irradiated foods…”
The World Health
Organization in March 2003 issued the following: In view of the growing body of
evidence, including negative Ames tests with 2-DCB, that these compounds pose no
health risk to consumers, WHO has no basis to question the conclusions of
several joint FAO/IAEA/WHO expert groups as well as many national expert
advisory bodies that irradiated foods are safe and nutritionally adequate.
And finally;
As we evaluate the
pros and cons of food irradiation, let’s keep in mind that there is virtually
unanimous agreement in the scientific and public health community about the
benefits and safety of food irradiation. Organizations that endorse food
irradiation include the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical
Association, the World Health Organization, the American Dietetic Association
and dozens of others.
We can choose to
believe the thousands of scientists who say “It’s about time,” or we can
let scare tactics from misinformed individuals and
“bogus science” and “half-truths” perpetuated by the Consumer
Reports article create doubt in this proven technology and prevent the public
from making an informed choice about the purchase of irradiated foods.
By
distorting the safety and effectiveness of food irradiation, articles such as
“The Truth About Irradiated Meat” do a great disservice to the public
and jeopardize the lives of innocent people
--especially children and highly vulnerable adults. I for one believe that those
who deliberately spread distorted and inaccurate information about food
irradiation must be held accountable.
Sincerely,
Ronald F. Eustice
Executive Director
E-mail: ron@mnbeef.org
Website: www.mnbeef.org