FDA’s recent approval of irradiation to treat iceberg lettuce and spinach is another example of the agency running away from its real problems – it currently cannot effectively protect American consumers from unsafe food and wants to rely on industry-sponsored techno-gimmicks to act as a fig-leaf to hide its shortcomings.
Over the past two decades, FDA has been crippled by its inability to keep up with the changing nature of the food supply along with and the lack of field inspection resources. Recent congressional hearings have exposed these deficiencies. We know that the FDA is responsible for regulating about 80% of the U.S. food supply and has become overwhelmed by the ever-increasing volume of food imports. At the present time, FDA conducts inspections of the domestic food establishments under its jurisdiction once every five to ten years; it conducts virtually no inspections of the foreign establishments that can export food to the United States. Understaffed FDA inspection personnel are only able to inspect about 1% of imported foods presented at ports of entry.
There have been numerous food recalls and public health alerts involving domestic and imported food products ranging from peanut butter to imported peppers. But instead of advocating proposals that would strengthen the FDA’s ability to regulate the safety of the food supply along with the requisite inspection workforce to enforce food safety standards, the FDA’s current leadership has put forth ideas in their Food Protection Plan that would privatize food inspection and rely on the food industry to police itself.
The agency’s current thinking fits hand-in-glove with its decision to permit industry to irradiate iceberg lettuce and spinach. There is currently no comprehensive food safety system to regulate the safety of fresh produce. As a substitute, FDA feels content to rely on technological “silver-bullets” to avoid putting a regulatory scheme in place that would have enforceable food safety standards. Technologies such as irradiation will serve as the perfect excuse for the agency to divert the few inspection resources it has away from those firms that chose to use that technology on the basis that the food that is being produced is “safe.” We fear that some in the food industry will use irradiation as a way to skirt good manufacturing practices because they have a “kill-step” at the end of their food production process. There would be no way to know that because there would be no FDA inspections to find out.
Furthermore, what message does this send to our foreign trading partners? The FDA Import Detention website is replete with examples of contaminated imported food that has been stopped at ports-of-entry. China, India, Mexico, Brazil are all countries that are building food irradiation facilities with the primary purpose of enhancing their capacity to export their food products. Since FDA has virtually no ability to inspect foreign food establishments, do we really know under what conditions the food in these countries is being produced? What good manufacturing practices and good agricultural practices are in place and how well are they regulated? We believe that irradiation will serve as a disincentive for many foreign governments to make the necessary investments to modernize their food safety regulatory systems.
Food & Water Watch also has concerns about the safety and efficacy of irradiation as a food safety technology. FDA claims that irradiated foods are safe to eat. There have been studies that challenge that claim and even FDA’s own food safety officials have testified before Congress that they are concerned about the information of certain chemicals, such as furan – a known carcinogen – when some foods are irradiated. Irradiation can cause a change in the texture, taste and nutritional content of food, especially at the doses required to reduce pathogen levels so that the foods are “safe” to eat. These dosages are the equivalent to tens of millions of chest x-rays.
While FDA has approved irradiation as a so-called food safety measure for a number of foods, irradiated foods have not received widespread consumer acceptance for good reason – not enough research has been conducted into the long-term health effects of consuming a steady diet of irradiated foods, and irradiated foods cost substantially more than non-irradiated foods.
Finally, there is one other issue that should cause consumer concern. At the present time, irradiated foods are required to be labeled as either “treated with radiation” or “treated by irradiation.” FDA is currently evaluating comments to a proposed regulation which it published in April 2007 that would eliminate the current labeling requirements for irradiated foods. While FDA officials have been recently quoted in the media claiming that irradiated spinach and iceberg lettuce would have to be labeled as such, they are being disingenuous about that requirement being permanent. In addition, as part of the same proposed regulation, FDA is also considering whether euphemisms such as “cold pasteurization” or “electronic pasteurization” should be used as substitutes on the labels of irradiated foods even though the agency’s own research shows that consumers view those terms as being deceptive.
American consumers deserve a food supply that is safe and wholesome. We have all come to recognize that our food safety system is under severe strain. Fixing it is not going to be easy or inexpensive. Taking shortcuts could make matters even worse.
This is a guest post by Tony Corbo, senior lobbyist for Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food.
Recent Comments