|
° - - -
<br /> - F; v n ` '
<br /> • ;canned irradiated•chicken to.television these was in meat irradiated•ac a dose that four of the five children in the fiat
<br /> cameras during a .food-irradiation de- more than fifteen times a's great as char group developed polyploidy, a chiomo-
<br /> bate in Washington, D.C., pan epee- now approved by the FDA..Accotding soma! abnormaliry.ch9t may cauu ean-
<br /> nent slipped a dr_lying of a skull and io George H. Pauli, an FDA consumer- tor, tghile children in the second group-- °
<br /> • crossbones onto the table.' Bur while . safcry officer who has supervised the, displayed far fewer polyploid cells, and ~ '
<br /> such ploys reflect the opponents' flair agency's-food-irradiation dcliberacions, ...:children in the third groupshow6d '
<br /> ,for public •telations,• they .shed little the amount of benzede in the.igadiat-~ none. The authors concluded, `.`These. ,
<br /> 7ighc on aproccss that may possess con- cd meat was 100 times Icss than that • observations clearly indicate that the ' I'
<br /> sideriblc benefit foP mankind: - found in nonirradiafed eggs.. ~ appearance.of polyploid cells'is due to ~
<br /> i
<br /> ' ~ ~ Both sides cim various toxicological the feeding of irradiated wheat They,
<br /> ertrErrrrv~nsosofsciennsuin - tesu.co support their conclusions, but recommended'scorage df rrradrafe8
<br /> this country who havq done cr- all such acses have lirriited usefulness wheat, "'for periods beyond twelve.
<br /> . tensivc research on the whole- wheirapplied.to food irradiation. A ~ ~ weeks, Before it,can be considerell`safe
<br /> sdmeness of food irradiation; only a 'standard rozicologibal evaluation of a " forrhuman consumption."•Othcr,NIN / _
<br /> few have publiclyexpressed •opposi- food additive entails supplementing :'studies showed pglyploidy,~pr Iethal~
<br /> tion ro it, andthe sevyral ocher scion- .test animals' diets with the•additive in . Mutations in .animals ~fod,•rradiated
<br /> 'I tisa who arc xcively against food'irra- quanti'[ics fargreacerthan those ~to be ~~wheat. ~
<br /> ,'b diation are not cxperieneed irf the : .used in practice; to find the maximum " " ~However,,.fhe studies' concluswns -
<br /> field. This consensus almost certainly. .quantiry that'pzoduces nd ill effects; ,:'conflicted with the findings of stmtlar=
<br /> cxisa because nc~ prcpondcrance of cvi= ,that quantiry is [hen divided by a safe- ; :eXperimena on rats and mice conduct- '
<br /> ' dente rtfutes the opposition's claims. ry factdr, usually 100;,to determine th'c ' ed ar the Bhabhe Atomic RFSearc `
<br /> Nof even the most ardent food-irndi'a= amount bf the additive allowable in hu= 'Center, in $ombay, and so the Ihdia '
<br /> lion opponent argues that the process man dices; Buc with food. irradiation ,Ministry of•Health asked two iridepen '
<br /> 'makes. food radioactive, but, as ratites- the additive is the f9pd,r[self, and no denrscie`niisa, m identify reasons'fo / I '
<br /> lion chemisrry• hasshown,"irradiation:. animal would be ableto'eattheduanti-,~ the,di'screpancy,~After.examinipg:c
<br /> dots create tiny number of molecules ry of irradiated food- iequired" to' find two `sets of studios, jtlio-scebti s I
<br /> known as radiolytic produces-formed the tie=CffEct level: Or, if the animal' harshly criticized, the NIN stud' s. ° .
<br /> when the ionizing energy from aradio- weie fed one kind df radiated food. Tho-number of polyploid cells and
<br /> activcisotope..x alinear acccieratos ' ouzofpropornonto•its'normalinrakeof' , iir.the children fed freshly irr iated~
<br /> i splits food molecule's,' creating newilthac food, thc'sttr~y might produce ill wheat Pis well within the noimal range', . I '
<br /> • ones. The argumcrit/over food irradta-. .eCreca cays~d not by irradiation but by 'ofl occurrence in -healthy human be-
<br /> lion's wholesomeness essentially [urns"a [he.tcs[ diet's. nutritional imbalance. irtds,"~ c~ey said, whereas the number '
<br /> on whether,thesrradrolytic products,'- Scientists have tried to got around oCpoly loid cells Found before the. ~.1
<br /> - • 'or RPs, arc hazardous;when eaten:. • these limitations by defining: the addi-' studies began=none-cotitiadittod thb ~ '
<br /> In defending fbod i~iadiacion's safe- live as~RPs, which are; after all; what cd'nventional undcistanding that all hu-
<br />
<br /> • ry, an PDA commiaee`in 1980 cited distinguishes irradiated food', but this man beings have somq.polyploid cells.
<br /> data showing that a low:radiation dose rapproach'also has drawbacks: RPs exist ' The'srientisa also questioned thostud-
<br /> would generate RPs in a ratio of no • in such low concentrations that the ' 'its' claim chat ~•tr the two children who
<br /> more.than thirty parts per million. Of needed czccss canngrbe supplied, and. were examined after they had stopped
<br /> chose thirty pare, about 90 percent ' ~in any event many RPs have not even ,eating the irradiated wheat, ill abhor-
<br /> have tfeen identified as identical to been identified: For all these reasons tc>val Cells disappeared within twenty-
<br /> natural food•componcnts grid therefore toxicological testing can do no more • foq'r weeks. Such cells, the scientists
<br /> __,presumably gafe. Of chc remaining 10 than provide tough. indicators of irmdi- satH~ should continue to exist foi;yeaa.
<br /> percenroftheRPs-or three parts pet. ~ aced food's safcry. Those and dthet problems led the sci-
<br /> \ ' million-most have been fo(ind-co be_ Even so, opponents claim to have entices to.conclude ghat "the b Ik of.
<br /> • c}iemically similar to natural food tom- found a Smoking gun in a sec of studies . the NIN data arc not only mutual! con-
<br /> pbnentS. Their understanding of the conducted by the National Inscimce of , iradicrory but also and ac variance~vith
<br /> bomposition of cquivalcnt natural food Nutrition in.Hyderabad,'India, in the ` "the. well established facts of biolog}•."`
<br /> Icd the rescarchea to conclude chat if early 1970s..Referring,to eJidcnee chat The scientisc5 .critique led the Iridi-
<br /> the. iemaining~~~.RPs harbored., any sig- malnutrition could ipcccasb.one's vul- an government unconditiorrally~co,ae-•
<br /> nificandy toxic substanecs, these e'S"tst- nerabiliry~to the toxicity ofdrugs, sci- cept irradiated-wheat products. .And ' • '
<br /> ed in quantities'"so.small-a.few para.' entisu-atNIN devised a study;to rest. other fogd-policy-making agencies ~
<br /> .per billion-ras io be harmless:. Such : the cffcciof irradiated food on severely' around th'e world, including the FDA,
<br /> levels, they said, were undetectable in ,underfed children. Three 'groups of • dismissed the NIN studies as a product ,
<br /> state-of-the-arc toxicological tests.. In five .children, all.two- to five-year-olds of bad science. Michael,G. Simie, a re-• . I
<br /> addition, FDA officials now maintain, , suffaingfromadiseaserifm~l,nutrition search chemist at the National Insti-
<br /> they are comparable co the quantity of called kwashiorkor,. were hospitalized ntteofSnndardsandTechnology's,,Cen=
<br /> ° significantly toxic substances~knbwn to' ~ and rehabilitated: One group, was fGd,. ter for~Radiacion Research and apro-
<br /> exist, harmlessly, in'-, sbme noniiradi- • freshly irrac~iatod'wheac, one received ~ fcssed; independent in the food-imadi=
<br /> aced foods: The•FDA oftcials assert wheat irradiated' and then scored for.: scion eontroyeray, speaks for most seien-
<br /> that only one significantly toxic RP,, . pvelve we ks; grid one got noniriadiat- tisa.who have ivorked in [hc fieldtvhen
<br /> .benzene, has ever been idcncificd, anti'. cd whcacfThc study's authoa stated he calls.chc NIN studies "discredited."
<br /> ~
<br /> 28 ~ sct>rsutnex these
<br /> i
<br />
<br />
|