Meat + Poultry - December 2008 - 45

Safe.

not been utilized in mainstream processing and production
in the U.S. "First, the labeling requirement would be perceived by consumers as a warning, according to consumer
studies that have been done," he said. "Second, misinformation about the safety of the process and lack of education
and understanding by consumers about the technology" has
hurt it. He points out that last year, FDA proposed a rule
concerning labeling alternatives for irradiation.

It's in our name.

And in this corner...
But consumer activist groups strongly disagree with FSIS and
industry assurances on the safety of low-dose, low-penetration food irradiation. They include Tony Corbo and Patty
Lovera from Washington-based Food and Water Watch. "We
have a general opposition to irradiation, and we're against
calling it a processing aid, which would remove FDA labeling
requirements," Corbo says. "FDA and USDA did consumer
research on irradiation, including using focus groups. The
group feedback showed unanimously that consumers call
irradiation what it is, and there's no validity to 'radiationscare' mentality. In summarizing the focus group results to
Congress back in 2002, the FDA said consumers did not see
the current disclosure labeling as a warning, and there was
agreement that irradiated foods should be labeled honestly.
Participants thought the current FDA-required statement is
a straightforward way for labeling irradiated food. So why
do they want the irradiation off the labeling?"
FSIS had agreed labeling should take place when food
is irradiated. But earlier this year, FSIS
sent FDA a letter asking it to concur
with its evaluation of the AMI petition
to recognize the use of low-penetration, low-dose e-beam irradiation on
chilled-beef carcasses as a processing
aid - which would mean that no radiation labeling would be necessary.
FSIS had asked AMI's legal counsel to
Corbo
evaluate whether low-beam irradiation
treatment would cause any changes in treated meat products. FSIS also noted that FDA's regulations seem to require
labeling irradiated products, whether used in traditionally
irradiated levels or low-level irradiation as a processing aid.
But AMI's law firm, Olsson, Frank & Weeda, disputed this,
saying meat derived from an irradiated carcass is a "secondary product" and they need not be labeled as irradiated.
FSIS retorted that under its regulations, products derived
from carcasses are not secondary products, and inclusion of
any irradiated meat in multi-ingredient products must be reflected in the ingredient statement on finished-product labeling.
FSIS said it viewed irradiation of meat and poultry products as
something that must be disclosed through labeling. But after
receiving the AMI petition, FSIS said it "has been discussing
the merits of low-penetration and low-dose e-beam irradiation on chilled-beef carcasses as a processing aid."

Food Sdf tq Net Services

888.525.9788 I www.faod-safatyn nt.com

EXPERT RESOURCES | UNSURPASSED RESULTS
www.MEATPOULTRY.com

December 2008

MEAT&POULTRY

http://www.faod-safatyn http://www.nt.com http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - December 2008

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - December 2008