|
Page 6 ~ Environment Hawai i ~ February t9g7 -
<br /> Some Pros and Cons c . _ ood Irradiation '"''S"~
<br /> ysis or because negative daugg~
<br /> eerde
<br /> sre clod. One of the two also s r
<br /> that irradiated food could have adverse effects
<br /> on older animals. In a rhirdFDA-cited study,
<br /> Is irradiation safe? Proponents insist is is; izarion, freezing, and other forms of food animals fed a diet of irradiated food experi-
<br /> opponenrs azgue it is not. Here is a summary preparation... All reliable scientific evidence, enced weight loss and miscarriage."'
<br /> ofcheposirionsofproponenrsandopponenrs based on animal feedingcestsandconsump- RichazdPiccioni,Ph.D.,seniorstaffscien-
<br /> on safety and other issues related to irradia- rion by human volunteers, indicates chat tilt at Accord Reseazch and Educational Ac-
<br /> tion. theseproductsposenouniqueriskrohuman sociates, Inc., has noted: "Without coxiw-
<br /> beings."' to ]cal cestin at exa orated doses, the
<br /> Unique Radiolytic Products S g gg
<br /> One study in India concluded that there rxrcinogenictiskroIarge human populations
<br /> Background.Irradiatedfoodscontaincettain wasgreadyincreasedincidenceofpolyploidy, ingestinganyadditiveorresidueisimpossible
<br /> compounds that aze formed when the food is or chromosomal damage, in a group of chit- to assess." Contrary m proponents' claims
<br /> subjected to high-energy ionizing radiation, dren fed irradiared wheat as wmpazed to a chat URPs, if they exist, aze safe, Piccioni
<br /> such as gamma rays or X-rays. The FDA has control group. Suppotters of irradiation, writes: "the available scientific literature pro-
<br /> estimatedthattheconcentrationofradiolycic however,challengethisstudy'sresuhsasnon- videsevidencecomakeastrongpresumption
<br /> products formed in food treated at a dose of reproducible. ofcarcinogeniclry income ifnotall irradiated
<br /> tkilograyisontheorderof3partspermillion. ~ foods."~
<br /> Opponents. Such scientific studies that have Public Citizen's Health Research Grou
<br /> Proponents Arty food undergoes changes been done to date do noxsuppottthesaferyof P
<br /> when it is treated, whether that treatment food irradiation, critics say. In fact, the FDA's nored in r986 that the FDA's review of scien-
<br /> involves boiling, baking, or irradiating. Ac- own sracement on irradiation acknowledges uficliteraturedidnotincludeonecarriedout
<br /> cording, to information prepared by the that "currentsrateof-the-attcoxicirytescsaze under auspices of the USDA: "This study,
<br /> Atomic Industrial Forum(agroupthatfavors 'not sensitive enough to detect the potential ~'hichwasactuaflyrzdifferentstudies,exam-
<br /> nucleazenergy),onestudy ofradiolvticprod- mxiciryofURPsat...lowlevels."]Ofthegq[ medtheeffectoffeedingirrad:aredchickento
<br /> ucts in highly irradiated meat "concluded studies that had been done on the subject at a several animalspecies.Oneofchese rz studies
<br /> that There aze actually no such things as the time ofthe FDA's review, all but fivewere found that frwc flies fed irradiated chicken
<br /> unique radiolytic products (or URPs):'' judged by the review team to be "itradequate had a statistically significant dose-related in-
<br /> The American Dietetic Association posi- ro evaluate the safety of irradiated food."+ Of rsease m the rate of death of their offspring
<br /> Lion paper on irradiated foods stares: "[F]ree chose five, the NewJerseySchool ofMedicine COmpazed with flies who were not Fed irradi-
<br /> radicalsandothercompoundsproduceddur- Depattment of Preventive Mediune and atedchicken:'
<br /> ing irradiation are identical to those formed Community Health determined two "to be Mother study cited by Public Citizen
<br /> during cooking, steaming, roasting, Pasteur- methodologically flawed, either by poor sra- found chat"mice fed irradiated chicken had a
<br /> See "Safest''; page 7
<br /> ' Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.. "20 Questions: An ~"Posi[ion of the American Diearic Association: Food sDonald B. Louria, "lapping the Food Supply," The
<br /> IntroductionroFood Irradiation."Sep[ember l9$6. Irradia[ion,"faurnaloftHeAmerirau DietetirAuaiariou, gu/lrtia afthrAtomirSdratrsr,Sepremberl990.pp.34-
<br /> 96:] Qanuary 199G). 70.
<br /> One of the "distinguuhed uientisrs" who reviewed the ~ 35. Louru is chairman of the Department of preventive
<br /> AIF document is George Giddings, who. in 1986. was `Fedora[ Reglrtrr, April 18. 1986, p. 13378. Medicine at the New Jersry Medical School.
<br /> direcror of food irradiation services ac the Isomedix "Leiter of Marcia van Gernert, Ph.D.. the toxicologist ° Richard Piccioni, "Analyses of Data on the Impact of
<br /> plant in Whippany, N.J., and who had done work who was chairperson of the FDA review commicree in Food processing by ]onivng Radiation
<br /> on Health and
<br /> earlier ar Michigan State University "under a contract 1982, m New Jersey Assemblyman John Kelley. Otto- the Environment," Imrrnationa/ fourna[ofBiom.ia(
<br /> with the Aromic Energy Commission" bet 19, 1993. Rettarrh, Volume 9 (1987), 203-212.
<br /> H with the idea that some of its funds could "Hawai`i Island High Tech Strategic Plan."
<br /> Irradiation be spent in support of irradiacion. After Languagesuppottiveofirradiacionappeatsin
<br />
<br /> frompage S receivingRETA-H fundingguidelines,Wong both the draft plan, released in December
<br /> forwarded it ro University of Hawaii re- r996,andthefinalplan,releasedonJanuaryz,
<br /> Inlateryears,theappropriarionsincreased, searchers Jim Moy and Robett Paull, along 1997.
<br /> and for the last two years, they have been withOkudaraoftheExoticPestInseccCom-
<br /> runningaround ssmillion a year. Sometime mittee. "The deal buster appears to be'non- The Ma} or's Position
<br /> around t99q, the name of the Oversight research,"'Wongwroteinanaccomparrving On January 7, r997, Environment Hawaii
<br /> Committee was changed co Rural Economic memo."but,"headded,"I'msure we can get wasroldbyMayorYamashirothathisdeci-
<br /> Transition Assistance-Hawaii, although its around thisaslinlenewinformationisneeded siontopromoreirradiazionhadnothingrodo
<br /> makeup and membership selection process ro develop the technology for Hawai`i." with the HIEDB. Rather, he said, "itcame out
<br /> stayed the same. No money was appropriated by RETA-H as a result ofa visit From the deputy secretary
<br /> RETA-H has a contract with the private for irradiation, but the inquiry, as well as the ofAgriculmre sometime before the 1996 elec-
<br /> Hawai i Island Economic Development meeting a month earlier in Hilo with repro- tion." The of$cial, whose name Yamashiro
<br /> Board to provide staff support. In this war, sentatives of Isomedix and Carrot Top, tip- did not recall, encouraged him to take advan-
<br /> Paula Helfrich, who sen~es HIEDB as its pears ro have sparked a renewed interest in rage of so-called generic rules about to be
<br /> executivedirector.alsoendsupsen~ingsstaff irradiation on the parr oFHawai`i County madetinalforirradiationoffruitflies,Yama-
<br /> ro R4fhA-H. and the HIEDB. Throughout 1996; HIEDB Shiro said. The rules will ;illow any produce
<br /> ht Augusn995,Won~appnxtchedRElA- worked with fourwnsuhanainpreparinga See '~hvndintrar:paer?
<br />
<br />
|