Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Poison We Never Talk About in School
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Don’t Buy Lies About Social Security
- UN Report: Israel Must Immediately Dismantle Settlements or Face ICC
- Domestic Fair Trade: A Plea to UNFI and Whole Foods for Justice
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush Administration Proposes Easing Rules for Labeling Irradiated Foods
WASHINGTON - The government proposed today 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 today, 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.
"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 foodborne pathogens."
Foods still require FDA approval before they can be irradiated. Examples currently radiated include a small number of fruits, vegetables, spices and eggs. The technique kills bacteria but does not cause food to become radioactive.
Recent outbreaks of foodborne illness have revived interest in irradiation, even though it is not suitable for all food products. For example, irradiating diced Roma tomatoes makes them go mushy, the FDA says.
The proposed rule would apply only to foods regulated by the FDA. However, if and when the rule is finalized, the Department of Agriculture could undergo a similar process to change the irradiation labeling requirements for the foods it regulates, including meat and poultry, said Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.
© 2007 The Associated Press.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

7 Comments so far
Show AllThe FDA also colluded with the AMA to destroy Royal Raymond Rife which made me realize that safeguarding the public is at the botom of their priority list.
I didn't realize that organic foods could be irradiated. And WHAT are the "alternate" terms being considered for irradiation? It's too easy to identify by "pasteurization" irradiated foods. If it doesn't look cooked, it's zapped. Except for those Roma tomatoes.
They just never stop, do they?
I keep saying anew: Greed never blinks.
I don't want my food irradiated. It's bad enough that toxin's have got into the enviroment and contaminate everything. We don't need to add anymore toxification.
So, what the Grocery Manufacturers and Food Products Association is telling the average American is: "You are too dumb to know what is good for you." Please guys, give up greed for Lent, eh?
The FDA, one of my "favorite" agencies is the one that brought you:
1) Mad cow disease with little to no regulation. They have even made it ILLEGAL for ranchers who want to test EVERY cow to do so and lable their meat as completely tested.
2) rbgh (a hormone) injected cows so that they produce more milk. Because the consumer didn't want rgbh in their milk, the FDA made it illegal until last year to label milk as free of rgbh by dairies that didn't use the stuff.
3) Have never implemented COOL, which is a requirement to label all food for the country of orgin. I guess corporations put enough pressure on the FDA so that consumers couldn't even figure out where the stuff they buy comes from.
4) GMO labeling (genetically modified organizisms) is probably my favorite. GMO crops are neither tested for food safety or analyzed for impacts on the environment or organic crops. Nope! The consumer is not to be notified about GMO's because they wouldn't buy such products if honestly labeled.
I could go on and on about this issue. Irradiation is not allowed in organic labeling for a reason. For the FDA to allow a change in the labeling is absolutely wrong and immoral!!!
Go on over to Organic Consumer Association's wb site. I'm sure they will have an Action of some sort that you can sign on to. Cornicopia is another good site.
If we don't act enmass like we did for meaningful organic standards, our food supply is again going to be endangered!
P.S. I just checked organicconsumers.org. They don't have anything posted yet.
How may one comment on this? This information was left out of the AP article.