February 28, 2001 EATING WELL Irradiated Beef: In Markets, Quietly By MARIAN BURROS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Articles • More Dining Articles • Living Home Forum • Join a Discussion on Genetically Engineered Food

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IRRADIATED ground beef is now available in about 1,500 stores across the country, but retailers are apparently still nervous about consumer response. So nervous that Omaha Steaks, the large mail-order beef company, does not tell its customers in advance that all the ground beef it has been selling since January has been irradiated to kill potential bacteria.

When ground beef is ordered on the company's Web site, the word irradiated does not appear on the screen. It is not in the company's catalog either. Yet the words "treated by irradiation" and the symbol for irradiation, called a radura, are on every package of the patties because the federal government requires the labeling.

Vickie Hagen, director of marketing for Omaha Steaks, said the company is "a little nervous about the word `irradiation' as far as consumers' perception.

"People hear it and start thinking something more negative," she said. "We're doing something in the customers' best interests because we've made them the safest burgers available."

An employee of Clemens Markets, a small chain in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that his company sells irradiated beef but that he could not talk about it because he might be fired if the chain's name was publicly connected with irradiation. Irradiated beef, he said, "is not a major success story."

Irradiated ground beef patties: the first stealth food.

Many of the estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illness in the United States each year are connected with meat and poultry. The animals are raised and slaughtered under conditions that encourage bacterial contamination, and the industry is looking to irradiation to solve the sanitation problem.

Despite consumers' food safety concerns, many are apparently reluctant to try irradiated food. At the Food Irradiation 2001 conference that winds up in Washington today, the primary topic is how to "overcome buyers' resistance" to irradiated ground beef. The federal government has also approved irradiation of poultry, pork, grains, fruits, vegetables and spices, but very little beyond spices is being irradiated.

Rightly or wrongly, much of the public remains skeptical about irradiated food. In a recent federal government survey, 50 percent of respondents said they would buy irradiated food. But asked if they would pay more, just half of those said yes. That has made supermarkets leery.

"There's a real fear among the supermarket industry about putting the products on the shelves," said Chuck Jolley, publisher of the trade journal Meat and Poultry. "They don't know what consumer reaction is going to be, so they are saying, `I'll wait for the other guy. I'll be second, but I'm not going to be first.' "

Diane Toops, the news and trend editor of another trade magazine, Food Processing, said: "The irradiation business is making all of the same mistakes biotechnology has made, trying to force their new technology down the throats of consumers who have a lot of questions. I think the irradiation industry has a problem that is almost impossible to solve unless they start getting out there some really clever consumer campaigns using a health message."

Irradiation of ground beef was given the green light by the federal government last February, and the first products appeared last May in stores in the Midwest. How many carry the patties today is unclear. Wil Williams, a spokesman for Titan, which owns the SureBeam Corporation, the company that irradiates most of the ground beef sold in this country, put the number at approximately 2,000 in 18 states. But several other industry experts said the figures were 1,500 stores in 14 states. With the exception of Florida, which has an irradiation plant, most irradiated beef is found in the Midwest, near the SureBeam plant in Sioux City, Iowa.

Total sales are even harder to determine. Jeffrey Barach, a vice president of the National Food Processors Association and the co-chairman of the irradiation conference, said of consumer acceptance of the beef: "Some say it's great; some say it's not going well. We still have a little perception problem, and that has to do with the labeling issue. When you pick up a product and see a statement that it is treated by irradiation and you see a radura, to some people that means a little radioactivity."

The food industry has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to permit the substitution of the phrase "cold pasteurization."

Omaha Steaks' Web site does have information about irradiation, but it is called electronic pasteurization, and you would find it only if you knew what to look for. "Pasteurization is a nice, very positive word," Ms. Hagen said.

But Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute, objected to what she said was the industry's attempt to hide irradiation behind other words. Consumer research, she said, shows that shoppers want the term irradiation to appear on treated products.

Irradiation kills bacteria, parasites and insects but does not make food radioactive. It does not destroy viruses like those that cause hepatitis or the prions that may cause mad cow disease. And there is some loss of vitamins, though it is minimal.

Once irradiated meat is unwrapped, the potential for contamination is the same as it is for nonirradiated meat, so safe handling practices must be followed. And while irradiating hamburgers makes them safer, they should not be eaten rare.

Critics worry that if irradiation becomes a major factor the meat industry will not bother to clean up. "We'd like to see filth taken out of the food supply rather than just treated to make it safe to eat," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group.

At two small chains that sell the meat, Byerly's and Lund's in Minneapolis-St. Paul, frozen irradiated patties account for only one percent of total ground beef sales, even though they cost less than the fresh patties at these stores.

Irradiation supporters are certain that an education campaign is all that is needed to persuade people to buy the meat and to quiet the critics. Mr. Williams of Titan said: "There needs to be an education program to get past the myths and distortions. I think American consumers will demand it just as they demand pasteurized milk, and it took 30 years for pasteurized milk to be accepted."

But others believe that the market for irradiated ground beef will always be limited to those with compromised immune systems whether because of age or illness.

What the industry is fighting right now, said Ms. Toops of Food Processing magazine, is "the consumer mantra: don't muck with my food."

In the end, for those who are healthy, there is no substitute for fresh ground beef, as I found in an informal taste test of four grilled hamburgers, irradiated and fresh. Each was cooked exactly the same way for the same amount of time.

The irradiated Omaha Steaks patties, what the company calls its gourmet burgers, with 13 percent fat, were rubbery; some tasted steamed; others had an acceptable though not especially beefy taste. Coleman's hamburgers, made from frozen ground beef with 15 percent fat, were tender and the flavor was good. Coleman's fresh sirloin patties with only 10 percent fat were even tastier. The standout, though, was Sunnyside organic, with 15 percent fat and full beefy flavor.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), February 28, 2001

Answers

Not certain, but isn't the milk that is packaged to sit on the shelf, unrefrigerated, irradiated, too? What's next? Jan

-- Jan in CO (Janice12@aol.com), February 28, 2001.

"Many of the estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illness in the United States each year are connected with meat and poultry. The animals are raised and slaughtered under conditions that encourage bacterial contamination, and the industry is looking to irradiation to solve the sanitation problem."

I think we were discussing this on a previous thread, but perhaps it was a different board. If I'm repeating myself, sorry.

With irradiation, the contaminating feces and pus and etc. will still be there -- just rendered "safe" by irradiation. NO THANK YOU! Oh, ugh, it just gives me the shivers thinking about it! If they want us to be safe and healthy, then they should CLEAN UP their methods of raising and processing the meat! But of course, that is "too expensive". Grrrrrr!

-- Joy F (So.Central Wisconsin) (CatFlunky@excite.com), February 28, 2001.

Jan, you asked "Not certain, but isn't the milk that is packaged to sit on the shelf, unrefrigerated, irradiated, too?" Yes. This product is sold worldwide.

The radiation used is the same type, gamma, we get from the Sun every day.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), February 28, 2001.

Ken, Acouple of questions. a) How does irradiation effect compare to radiation exposure to meat in a microwave oven? b) Has there been enough study on it to compare potential hazards of the irradiation as oppossed to potential infection risks from mass produced meat products? I know home raising is much safer, provided adequate care is taken in the lifestock maintenance, however, as not everyone can raise their own meat, I wonder if this actually improves the mass populations chances at fighting potential health hazards. As has been stated many times here, most of us are lucky to be able to control most elements of our lives and health, but for every one of us that can, there are thousands without that ability. Do you think irradiated meats are a neccessary evolution of food standards required by urban concentration, the less hazardous of potential health risks?

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), February 28, 2001.

"....raise our own, thank you...

-- Action Dude (theactiondude@yahoo.com), February 28, 2001.

I know I've posted this before, but it bears repeating: Here's a good page for info on irradiated food

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), February 28, 2001.

GEEEEEEEZZZ!!!!!! This is one of the reasons I can't wait to buy that land!!!! I WILL RAISE MY OWN.

As for Omaha steaks and that other company.... Whatever happened to truth in advertising? Full disclosure and all that????

The FDA and all the rest should be drawn and quartered for the injustices they have perpetrated on the American people since their collective inceptions!!!!

It is illegal for me to sell my rabbits ready for the frying pan, because I don't have a seperate room, with all white walls, stainless steel sinks and tables, and bleach leaching into every cell in the building. I have to sell them live.

Meanwhile - a major slaughter house can leave entire sides of beef swimming in blood and excrement and still cut it, package it (still bleeding - look at the meat counter sometime) and sell it to anybody.

GO FIGURE....... DEMOCRACY AT WORK.... OR should I say AMERICAN DICTATORSHIP????????

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), March 01, 2001.

Joy, I agree. There's really nothing wrong with irradiation as an additional or supplementary method of food preservation. However, when they try to use it instead of rather than as well as proper hygiene measures, then we'll get - I don't want to think about it - what you said.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), March 01, 2001.

raising your own , while seeming to be the better alternative may also have troubles. What if you are natural raising stock and are within contamination effect radius of a slaughterhouse? How far is safe? I read where now on top of MCD, they have hoof and mouth in England now.Even small homestead type producers are going to be suseptable if the spread continues. Hope they can get this "horseman" dismounted before its too late. I agree process hygiene needs to be maintained, however, it is going to take new techniques to combat the mutations and evolutions of the many desieses today. Just going back to "old ways" probally won't completly solve the problem and in some instances, could be just as hazardous.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), March 02, 2001.

One of the problems with irradiated foods is that the irradiation process generates radiolytic by-products such as benzene, which is a carcinogen. Granted this (benzene) is not radioactive but it is not something humans should be eating, either knowingly or unwitingly. But here's something even more interesting to consider: Some irradiation facilities will use spent fuel from nuclear power generation plants..spent fuel that was formerly disposed of under government supervision but is now left to the radiation facility to do with as it sees fit. When the irradiation facililty is done with it where do you think they are going to store it? Can anyone say "poor, undeveloped counties", the kind that back-to-the-landers usually look to for exactly the same reasons: cheap land prices. Not a pretty picture.

-- John Fritz (JohnFritz23@hotmail.com), March 03, 2001.

John:

What is your source on the use of spent nuclear fuel rods for irradiating foodstuffs? Mine say Cobalt 60, X-Rays and electron beams are used. Nuclear fuel rods use uranimum, which, I believe, give off a type of ray which would be unsuitable for irradition of foodstocks.

Yes, irradiation does slightly change foodstocks, but then so does canning, cooking, smoking or most other food preparation or preservation techniques. Pork cold sterialized by irradition wouldn't need nitrates. Imagine buying whole chickens on sale you can store for months on a pantry shelf without the deterioration caused by freezing.

Irradiation is expensive and likely will be restricted to hamburger since it is most susceptible to contamination. When was the last time you heard of a porterhouse being recalled?

I totally agree with those who say food safety should start at the front end of food processing; however, it doesn't hurt to hedge one's bets either.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), March 04, 2001.

From the Organic Consumers Association's webpage:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH FOOD IRRADIATION revised February 2001

Irradiation damages the quality of food. Irradiation damages food by breaking up molecules and creating free radicals. The free radicals kill some bacteria, but they also bounce around in the food, damage vitamins and enzymes, and combine with existing chemicals (like pesticides) in the food to form new chemicals, called unique radiolytic products (URPs). Some of these URPs are known toxins (benzene, formaldehyde, lipid peroxides) and some are unique to irradiated foods. Scientists have not studied the long-term effect of these new chemicals in our diet. Therefore, we cannot assume they are safe.

Electron-beam irradiation today means nuclear irradiation tomorrow. The source of the irradiation is not listed on the label. The original sponsor of food irradiation in the US was the Department of Energy, which wanted to create a favorable image of nuclear power as well as dispose of radioactive waste. These goals have not changed. Cobalt-60, which is used for irradiation, must be manufaactured in a nuclear reactor. Many foods cannot be irradiated using electron beams. E-beams only penetrate 1-1.5 inches on each side, and are suitable only for flat, evenly sized foods like patties. Large fruits, foods in boxes, and irregularly shaped foods must be irradiated using x-rays or gamma rays from nuclear materials. Countries that lack a cheap and reliable source of electricity for e- beams use nuclear materials. Opening U.S. markets to irradiated food encourages the spread of nuclear irradiation worldwide.

Irradiation using radioactive materials is an environmental hazard. The more nuclear irradiators, the more likelihood of a serious accident in transport, operation or disposal of the nuclear materials. Food irradiation facilities have already contaminated the environment. For example, in the state of Georgia in 1988, radioactive water escaped from an irradiation facility. The taxpayers were stuck with $47 million in cleanup costs. Radioactivity was tracked into cars and homes. In Hawaii in 1967 and New Jersey in 1982, radioactive water was flushed into the public sewer system. Numerous worker exposures have occurred in food irradiation facilities worldwide.

Irradiation doesn't provide clean food. Because irradiation doesn't kill all the bacteria in a food, the ones that survive are by definition radiation-resistant. These bacteria will multiply and eventually work their way back to the 'animal factories'. Soon thereafter, the bacteria that contaminate the meat will no longer be killed by currently approved doses of irradiation. The technology will no longer be usable, while stronger bacteria contaminate our food supply. People may become more careless about sanitation if irradiation is widely used. Irradiation doesn't kill all the bacteria in a food. In a few hours at room temperature, the bacteria remaining in meat or poultry after irradiation can multiply to the level existing before irradiation. Some bacteria, like the one that causes botulism, as well as viruses and prions (which are believed to cause Mad Cow Disease) are not killed by current doses of irradiation. Irradiation encourages food producers to cut corners on sanitation, because they can 'clean up' the food just before it is shipped.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), March 04, 2001.

Earthmama:

Organic Consumer's Ass'n. I tend to somewhat discount the press releases of those with a drum to beat.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), March 04, 2001.

Ken, Everyone has a drum to beat. We should all stand for something, and for my money, I would rather it were a group of citizens whose passion is trying to preserve what's left of the purity of nature, than from corporate/govt disinformation groups whose sole purpose is profit and control of the publics' exposure to information.

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), March 06, 2001.