--- HSI Research Team  wrote:
> To:  
> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:00:00 -0500
> From: HSI Research Team 
> Subject: Radiation Nation
> 
> RADIATION NATION 
> 
> Health Sciences Institute e-Alert
> 
> February 10, 2003
> 
>
**************************************************************
> 
> Dear Reader,
> 
> After sending you the e-Alert last week about
> irradiated beef 
> ("Don't Beam Me Up" 2/4/03), I came across a news
> item 
> announcing that a popular supermarket chain began
> selling 
> irradiated ground beef on February 2nd in six
> mid-Atlantic 
> states, including Maryland, where I live. These
> stores are 
> among some 4,000 nationwide that currently sell
> irradiated 
> beef. 
> 
> This alone would be unsettling enough. But in
> response to 
> that e-Alert, I received a reply from HSI Pane
list
> Jon Barron 
> with additional information about the irradiation
> process 
> that I guarantee will make you think twice the next
> time you 
> stop off at your grocery to buy meat products. 
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Who let the nutrients out? 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> To briefly recap: Irradiation is a process by which
> a food 
> product is exposed to extremely high doses of
> radiation to 
> kill bacteria, parasites and funguses that may cause
> spoilage 
> or disease. And if that were all irradiation did,
> that would 
> be fine. But as we'll see, there's much more to it
> than that. 
> 
> Jon begins by describing the process in more detail:
> "Food is 
> exposed to 'hard' irradiation, usually gamma rays
> from a 
> source like cobalt-80, in doses of 100,000 to
> 3,000,000 rads. 
> To give yo
u a sense of how high a dose this is,
> understand 
> that a dose of just 10,000 rads will totally destroy
> any 
> living tissue." 
> 
> As HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D., made clear last
> week, an 
> abundance of nutrients are also eliminated by this
> process. 
> Jon agrees, and says, "as much as 70% of the Vitamin
> A, B1 
> and B2 in irradiated milk is destroyed, and about
> 30% of 
> Vitamin C." Unfortunately, irradiation also
> accelerates the 
> growth of aspergillus mold, "which produces the most
> potent 
> natural carcinogens known to man, called
> aflatoxins." 
> 
> I wish I could say that's the worst of it - but
> we're just 
> getting started. 
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> A radiotoxin by any other name...
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Processing food with the extremely high levels of
> gamma
 rays 
> described above results in the creation of some very
> 
> dangerous molecules, about which Jon gives this
> interesting 
> but frightening background: "They were originally 
> called 'radiotoxins' by Russian researchers. Since
> that word 
> would be frightening to American consumers, the FDA
> came up 
> with a couple of 'softer' terms. They call them
> 'known 
> radiolytic products' to describe the molecules that
> are 
> created such as formaldehyde and benzene (known
> carcinogens), 
> and as for those chemical molecules created by
> irradiation 
> and that have never before been seen by man, the FDA
> came up 
> with the equally soft 'unique radiolytic products.'"
> 
> 
> Long before the FDA started assigning more palatable
> terms 
> for these very unappetizing results, it had already
> reviewed 
> more than 400 studies about the irradiation process.
> But Jon 
> tells us whe
re that review process fell woefully
> short: "They 
> accepted 226 studies for further review. They then
> narrowed 
> their criteria and selected only 69 for in-depth
> review. Of 
> these, the FDA itself reported that 32 of the 69
> showed 
> adverse effects, and 37 showed safety problems. Then
> without 
> explanation, they eliminated all but 5 of the 69
> (including 
> every negative study) and said they would base their
> decision 
> on those 5 alone. 
> 
> "In the FDA's final report approving food radiation,
> they 
> wrote that when up to 35% of the lab-animal diet was
> 
> radiated, feeding studies had to be terminated
> because of 
> premature mortality or morbidity." And in one test
> at the 
> Medical College of Virginia, rats fed irradiated
> beef "died 
> of hemorrhagic syndrome in 34 days." 
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Running from th
e radura
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> According to Jon, "Foods already approved for
> irradiation 
> include: fruits, vegetables, wheat, flour, herbs,
> spices, 
> nuts, seeds, peas, pork, and chicken." And to that
> we can add 
> ground beef - now in a supermarket in my
> neighborhood, and 
> very likely in yours as well. 
> 
> If you don't like the idea of irradiated food (and
> at this 
> point I can't imagine how anyone possibly could),
> you can 
> look for a symbol called the "radura" which is
> required on 
> the packaging of irradiated foods. The radura is a
> green 
> circle (broken into four segments at the top of the
> circle), 
> enclosing a flower image represented by a large
> green dot 
> with two petals below the dot. 
> 
> But even if you avoid products marked with the
> radura, you're 
> still not in the clear. As Jon explains, "The
 FDA
> requires a 
> label stating a food has been radiated if, and only
> if, it 
> was radiated as a 'whole food' and then is sold
> unchanged. 
> But, if you process it in any way, if you add any
> other 
> ingredients to it, it no longer requires a label
> stating that 
> it (or any of its ingredients) were irradiated. To
> put it 
> simply, an irradiated orange would require a label; 
> irradiated orange juice would not." 
>  
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> An uncomfortable level of comfort  
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> But even if people see the radura on a package of
> ground 
> beef, a bag of Brazil nuts, or a sticker on an apple
> - do 
> they know what its significance is? And worse, do
> they have 
> any idea of the risks? By and large, my guess is
> "no." In a 
> report from Reuters last December, a survey
&
gt; conducted by the 
> National Cattlemen's Beef Association found that
> almost half 
> of Americans say they would feel comfortable
> purchasing 
> irradiated meat. This response was 10 percent higher
> than it 
> had been to the same question on a similar
> nationwide survey 
> earlier in the year. 
> 
> In other words, people are apparently becoming
> comfortable 
> with the idea of irradiated food. And it seems
> they'll have 
> ample opportunity to buy it. SureBeam Corporation
> (the 
> largest provider of irradiation technology in the
> U.S.) plans 
> to process more than 300 million pounds of beef this
> year. 
> Last year they processed only 15 million pounds. 
> 
> Feel free to forward this e-Alert to friends and
> relatives. 
> Help us spread the word that this idea, whose time
> has 
> apparently come, is not a good idea, although it
> looks like 
> it's probably here to stay. 
So it may be the best
> that we can 
> do to avoid irradiated foods by looking for the odd
> green 
> flower.
> 
> My thanks to Jon Barron for his exhaustive profile
> of this 
> subject. Jon has researched and written extensively
> about 
> alternative medicine, nutrition, and herbal remedies
> for 
> almost thirty years. For more information about Jon
> and his 
> work, visit his web site at jonbarron.com. 


Reply via email to