Irradiation opponents blast pilot program materials; USDA Food Chemical News Sugarman, Carole April 28, 2003 In the continuing saga of the Minnesota pilot program funded by USDA to educate parents about irradiation in the school lunch program, a group of consumer organizations is now charging that the state's brochures "are not even close to providing balanced information." The brochures will be distributed to parents in three school districts. "They've left stuff out. It's all one-sided. And they still make the assertion that this is not an irradiation promotion campaign," Tony Corbo of Public Citizen, told Food Chemical News. In a letter sent last week to USDA's Eric Bost, Public Citizen and five other consumer groups told the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services that much of the information prepared for parents is "factually inaccurate" and that FNS should demand the return of the $ 151,000 in funds that were appropriated for the program. As USDA mulls over how to implement its charge from the 2002 Farm Bill to allow the use of irradiated foods in the school lunch program, it decided to fund this pilot project (see FCN, Feb. 10, page19). Minnesota, which has long been an enthusiastic supporter of irradiation, approached USDA about sponsoring such a pilot, and the agency agreed to a grant. At last look, Public Citizen had skewered the grant proposal submitted by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (see FCN April 7, Page 1), saying it was quite clear that the program was intended to promote the technology, not provide a balanced view. In that round, and this latest, Doug Gray, spokesman for Minnesota's food and nutrition service, told FCN that program officials stand by the proposal and the educational materials. "We are providing the best science-based information to districts on this technology," he said. Point, counterpoint In the letter to Bost, the consumer groups (Public Citizen, Clean Water Action Alliance, Community Nutrition Institute, Government Accountability Project, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Organic Consumers Association), cited 11 "fallacies" in the fact sheets that will be provided to parents. The fact sheets and the groups' criticisms repeat familiar arguments that both irradiation proponents and opponents have been making for years. For example, in the brochure entitled "Basic Information," it says that "Irradiation does not significantly change the nutrient value of the food." In response, the groups wrote: "Nothing could be further from the truth. There have been numerous studies that show that when foods are irradiated; there is a substantial reduction in key vitamins." In another section, the brochure says that "Irradiation, like pasteurization, provides a step of protection that is not available by any other means." "Irradiation is not like pasteurization," the consumer organizations wrote to Bost. "The USDA has repeatedly stated that under current dosage limits, no one has proven that irradiation can achieve the same levels of pathogen reduction as thermal pasteurization. Furthermore, there are alternative technologies available that can be used to achieve pathogen reduction in meat and poultry products (e.g. steam pasteurization, hydrostatic pressure)." And on it goes. USDA didn't respond by press time to this latest attack by the consumer groups. But last month, Jean Daniel, spokeswoman for FNS, told FCN that as the pilot develops, feedback will be gathered about the public's reaction to the educational materials. Under Secretary Bost has said that the information developed at the end of the pilot would be balanced, Daniel said. Comments galore Meanwhile, April 11 was the deadline for the public to submit comments to USDA about its Farm Bill mandate to allow the use of irradiated foods in the school lunch program--and many people wanted their voices (or e-mails) heard. A USDA spokesperson told FCN that the agency received more than 5,000 comments, which agency personnel are sifting through to determine the percentages of pro and con. A brief reading of a sampling of the comments (available online at http://www.ams.usda.gov/fst) reveals a lot of angry and emotional testimonials from parents. At least some of them are obviously part of an orchestrated letter-writing campaign, and in some instances, the anti-irradiation "talking points" are repeated verbatim from one letter to the next. In fact, attached to at least a few of the letters are directions on how to comment to USDA, plus the talking points. For example, at the end of one letter, the talking points letter writers are advised to include: "Taxpayer money should not be used to prop up this questionable technology at the expense of the safety of American children" and "Irradiation is not an acceptable way to deal with fifth on meat. Is this administration willing to put our children's health at risk to let industry off the hook on cleaning up their processes?" Pro-irradiation forces amassed their own letter-writing campaigns. The SureBeam Corp., a major irradiation firm in San Diego, sent an e-mail to investors telling them that "your help is needed!" and that they should write letters to USDA expressing their support for irradiation. Included in the e-mail's talking points are: "No food preservation technology has been studied more extensively," and "Irradiation doesn't substitute for good manufacturing practices, and will not replace inspection or sanitation procedures already in place...Irradiation is an additional step to make our food safer..." Even the Surgeon General comments "It's not just consumer groups that question the effect that irradiated foods might have on consumers," a story last week in the Wall Street Journal began. "U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona has said he didn't believe there was enough scientific evidence gathered on the long-term effects of irradiation." Given the current administration's positive spin on irradiation, the comment probably raised at least a few eyebrows. But it wasn't exactly what Carmona meant. "The Wall Street Journal loosely paraphrased a snippet of what the surgeon general actually said," Craig Stevens, spokesman for Carmona, told FCN. About a month or more ago, Carmona was chatting with a group of reporters after he gave a speech, and the subjects of food, meat and irradiation came up, Stevens said. According to Stevens, Carmona said that there's no known harm in irradiation, but as it continues to be accepted into the diet, science should continue to take a look at it. Like any scientist, Carmona believes that scientific investigation never ends. But Carmona believes irradiation is a way for healthy and safe meat to get to the public, Stevens said.