www.emagazine.com\/view\/?3790<\/a><\/p>\nRough Transcript:<\/strong><\/p>\nSonali Kolhatkar:<\/strong> My guest, Britta Belli, this morning, has just written a new article in this month\u2019s issue of E, the environmental magazine, that\u2019s called, \u201cNuking Food: Contamination Fears and Market Possibilities Spur an Irradiation Revival\u201d. Britta is also
\nthe Managing Editor of E and she joins us on the line this morning. Welcome to Uprising.<\/p>\nBritta Belli:<\/strong> Hi, Thanks for having me.<\/p>\nSonali: <\/strong> Thanks very much for joining us today. Now what do you mean in the subtitle of your article about an irradiation revival? Have we been seeing any kind of a slump in irradiation? And, are we expecting a renewal or revival based on what Bush has been saying?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> We are expecting a revival. Really, this had kind of been off the table since the last time the FDA allowed public comment which was in 1999 and some 5000 people said they were against it and consumers have not been willing to accept irradiated food and it\u2019s always been required to bear a label that says, \u201ctreated with irradiation\u201d. Well, most consumers aren\u2019t going to buy these products in the grocery store so you seldom see them, even though the process itself has been approved. But now, most recently, the FDA has proposed changing that labeling rule saying that these products could either say that they\u2019ve been pasteurized or, possibly, have no label at all. So, this is the proposed rule change that\u2019s under consideration right now and that could drastically change the amount of irradiated food in our supermarket.<\/p>\nSonali: <\/strong> Now, was this done sort of quietly? Do people know about this?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> The rule change was certainly, I mean, in the national media. And, there were groups like Food and Water Watch, and other groups that opposed it, sent out the word and public comment was allowed through July. So, public comment has actually closed now on this proposed rule change and it really remains to be seen what the FDA is going to decide. But, it has a lot of implications for the amount of food we\u2019d be able to import now that would be irradiated and even treated within this country with irradiation.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Now, when the word, \u201cpasteurized\u201d is used, how similar is the process of irradiation to pasteurization?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> It\u2019s really a very different process. Irradiation is, obviously, being treated with radioactive rays, gamma rays or electron beams that are passing through the food. Some people have likened it to, you know, millions of chest x-rays passing through the food. Whereas, pasteurization is a heating, a process in which food is heated in order to kill bacteria. So, it\u2019s a very different type of process.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> More conventional.<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> Right.<\/p>\nSonali: <\/strong> I\u2019m looking at the EPA\u2019s website and their information on food irradiation says that this is how irradiation kills bacteria: \u201cWhen ionizing radiation strikes bacteria and other microbes, its high energy breaks chemical bonds in molecules that are vital for cell growth and integrity. As a result, the microbes die or can no longer multiply causing illness or spoilage.\u201d So, as I understand it, Britta, basically, what we\u2019re doing is not necessarily targeting the actual bacteria that may be in the food with irradiation. We\u2019re targeting the food so that the bacteria can\u2019t actually live off of it anymore. Is that accurate?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> That\u2019s not quite how I understood it because, I mean, you\u2019re also killing any insect larvae, you\u2019re killing any bacteria that resides on, so, it passes through the food but it only kills the bacteria and these viruses that are residing on the food itself. <\/p>\nSonali: <\/strong> So, what does the EPA mean when it says that it \u201cbreaks chemical bonds in molecules that are vital for cell growth and integrity\u201d? They\u2019re not talking about the food, they\u2019re talking about the actual bacteria? <\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> Right. Well, that was my understanding. But, it is changing, I mean, it is changing the chemical composition of the food itself in slight ways also and I think that\u2019s another area of serious concern to people about this irradiation process. Scientists have said that it\u2019s no different, that the chemical change is no different than, say, freezing or cooking food, but there is, certainly, a real chemical change that takes place in the food itself, so yes.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Now, I understand that irradiation can also delay ripening in bananas and avocados like you\u2019ve said in your article, as well as inhibit sprouting in root vegetables. Would that be along the same lines of what you said in terms of affecting the food?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> Certainly. I think it\u2019s a very interesting side effect, that by the delaying of the ripening and also the sprouting of the food, this allows the food industry to now shift things much farther and it has a longer shelf life and certainly calls into question the nutritional value of this food. We know that any amount of packaging and handling and shipping reduces the nutrient value of our food, but now you\u2019re even adding to that length of time that the food can remain out and can travel.<\/p>\nSonali: <\/strong> So, in addition to addressing or, at least, attempting to address the issue of food safety, this process would enable the United States to import much more of its food than it does now and, in light of the recent food fears over food being imported from China, this does not seem to be a very wise thing. What do you think?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> Right. I mean, we really feel that this is a right-to-know issue, that consumers have the right to know where their food is coming from. And, it\u2019s really a parallel issue with the idea of knowing where our food is coming from. Another, you know, thing that\u2019s been suggested by the Food and Water Watch is: Our food should really bear a label that says, This is from Cuba; This is from Mexico; This is from China, which it doesn\u2019t, you know, which is not required. The same thing is true with this. We support the idea that food should bear a label if it\u2019s been irradiated, that people should know, similar to the organics label which tells us that this food is not genetically modified, that this hasn\u2019t been treated with, you know, dangerous chemicals and pesticides.<\/p>\nSonali: <\/strong> Now, what\u2019s interesting about comparing the issue of irradiated food to genetically modified foods is that genetically modified foods have not really been accepted in most countries throughout the world yet they\u2019re quite common here in the United States. Europe, for example, has been resistant to it for a long time. However, irradiation as a means of treating the food, is, apparently, accepted widely in 40 to 60 countries. Why is that?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> Really, all the studies that have been done with irradiated food have not shown consistently enough problems for it to be of any major concern. That doesn\u2019t mean that food groups and other consumer groups don\u2019t have their own concerns, but because the process hasn\u2019t been found to have any long-term health effects, it has widespread approval, I mean, and, that\u2019s certainly true. The World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control, you know, American Medical Association in this country have all approved irradiation. But, the larger issue, we think, is that it may allow for poorer sanitation practices. So, instead of groups trying to fix the contamination issues that cause things like E. Coli outbreaks, they\u2019re going to use this irradiation technique as really a quick-fix solution.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> So, it\u2019s not necessarily that people in the food consumer advocacy groups are worried about safety issues since there hasn\u2019t been necessarily any studies showing that there may be problems, but you\u2019re more worried about the way in which it could allow for contamination, the front-end of the food production.<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> Right, that\u2019s certainly a major concern. The other concern, of course, is this fact that if the label were taken away, that we won\u2019t know that this food has been treated. And, we still don\u2019t really know the long-term health effects, so there\u2019s that concern, too.
\nThere\u2019s the actual, you know, concern about eating the food and not knowing and, certainly, how that might change the actual production.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> I\u2019m speaking with Britta Belli. She is the Managing Editor of E, the environmental magazine. She\u2019s written a new article in this month\u2019s issue called, \u201cNuking Food: Contamination Fears and Market Possibilities Spur an Irradiation Revival\u201d. And, we\u2019re discussing that article. Let\u2019s talk about organic foods. You mentioned that earlier that the labeling requirements for organic foods is quite strict which has been why many consumers have been able to fairly trust any kind of organic labeling on foods. Does that allow for irradiation or not? Does that label allow for it?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> That\u2019s certainly a big debate. And, the Organic Consumers Association and other groups who support that strict organic label are adamantly opposed to irradiation being allowed and say that this in no way fits under the organic umbrella. At the same time, is it possible that the USDA could one day allow irradiated food that, in every other way, had followed those organic standards, to be accepted and to bear that label? We still don\u2019t know. There\u2019s always that possibility and that\u2019s something that, certainly, these groups have to be very vigilant about.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> So, the USDA is not currently required to tell anyone that it might include irradiation or would it actually inform consumers?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong>At this point, there\u2019s no talk of changing that, but it\u2019s always a possibility that those organic standards could change and shift, as they do.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Let\u2019s talk a little bit about some of the folks that are involved in, who are quite vocal spokespeople for the practice of irradiating food. You interviewed some folks for your article who are in the industry but have also been government spokespeople. What kind of revolving door is there between government and corporations that is pushing this technology?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> There seems to be quite a bit of that revolving door and, certainly, something that\u2019s caught the attention of groups like Food and Water Watch, that they\u2019ve widely reported on. Richard Hunter is the CEO of Food Technology Service, which is an irradiation company in Florida and had formally been in public health in the state of Florida. So, when you have someone who is kind of touting the benefits of irradiation, who\u2019s both from the government and then in the industry and is actually profiting off it, obviously, this is suspect. So, it\u2019s another issue, who the spokespeople are.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Now, we talked earlier about the fact that the U.S. is going to be wanting to import more food from different countries. We mentioned India and the U.S. is certainly trying to do a trade deal with India, importing fruits like mangoes and exporting foods like lentils and chickpeas to India as part of this trade agreement. For food coming from countries like India, would the irradiation, if it were done, happen on U.S. ground or in India?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> As far as we know, it would happen, actually, in India, before it was shipped here, because you\u2019re actually killing any of these potential pests that we\u2019re so afraid of importing into this country. And, one of the people I spoke with at the Minnesota Beef Council was telling me that he had recently been in India and touring Asia and said there was at least 20 irradiation facilities that he knew of going up around the country, around Asia, I should say. So, it does seem as though we\u2019re poised for this market explosion to happen.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Now, if that were to happen, would consumers know that food coming in was already irradiated outside of the U.S. before it came and, in fact, would importers even know it?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> As of now, certainly, yes. Everything does need to bear a label and that\u2019s still the standing rule. But, in terms of what may happen down the line, we don\u2019t know, and it\u2019s really up to the FDA at this point to decide if they\u2019re going to relax those labeling rules and then individual companies would have to prove that there had been no material change to their food in order to forego that label. So, there would be a process there that would have to be made with each item but how easy that process would be, I think we still don\u2019t know.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Now, what about irradiation facilities here in the United States? Is this sort of a growing industry right now? Is it something that\u2019s going to see a big boom if import rates from other countries to the U.S. increase?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> I think it certainly could. And, I mean, as of now, it\u2019s sort of stagnated because there hasn\u2019t been a real need for the food irradiation. There\u2019s only 45 facilities in the U.S. and most of those treat things like medical equipment, rubber gloves and sterilized band-aids and that sort of thing. Most are not used to treat foods. Only Omaha Steaks and a couple other food products are treated with irradiation at this point, but if those labeling rules are relaxed, it certainly would open the door to other facilities.<\/p>\nSonali: <\/strong> Now, let\u2019s put aside the issue of the impact of the irradiation on the food itself. What about the environmental impact on a broader level of having such facilities across the United States? Essentially, the facilities that irradiate food are nuclear facilities. Is that right?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> Right. I mean, this is really providing a use for, sort of, the cast-offs of the nuclear industry. And, they take these cobalt 60 pellets, basically, and they put them into these big rods, which are then, hundreds of these rods are used in these facilities. And, they\u2019re contained in, you know, six feet of concrete. The industry is very carefully monitored, of course, and regulated and has to pass, you know, rigid safety regulations and what not. So, certainly, you don\u2019t want to increase the use of nuclear facilities in this country and I think there\u2019s that concern, as well.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Is cobalt 60, which is the main radioactive material used to irradiate food with its gamma rays, is cobalt 60 a waste product currently of other nuclear processes?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> Yes, it comes from a nuclear plant, apparently, which uses it as an adjuster, a control rod and then, it\u2019s a byproduct and then that is then used in the irradiation facility. One of the people who is in that industry told me that this is the way of keeping it out of the environment. As opposed to just being nuclear waste, this is going into an enclosed facility, and by the time these pellets are removed, they\u2019re virtually not radioactive. So, there\u2019s that idea, I suppose, that this is a useful byproduct as opposed to waste. This is also used in the gamma knife surgery for cancer patients.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> So, it\u2019s almost as though there\u2019s kind of an incentive to use this technology in our foods because it enables a waste product to be turned into a harmless byproduct. I understand cobalt 60 decays to nickel, which is not radioactive?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> Right.<\/p>\nSonali: <\/strong> Could it be providing some kind of financial incentive for these nuclear power plants?<\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> At the moment, I don\u2019t think, because there isn\u2019t that great, growing demand yet. But if, in the future, this technology really takes off and there is that, and they are allowed to have irradiated food in the market at a much greater rate, then there may be that incentive and it could certainly be tied to a growing nuclear economy.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Britta, what can listeners do if they are concerned about not only food safety issues, but these environmental concerns, the contamination concerns and other things that we\u2019ve been talking about today? Now that the public comment period for the labeling requirement has passed, is there anything that ordinary people can do?<\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong> I would recommend going to a group like Food and Water Watch and one of these consumer advocate groups and the Organic Consumers Association and just keeping up on these issues because these groups are really vigilant about watching the industry and about watching the government process and just keeping on their list and letting them kind of guide you into if there is anything you can do in terms of sending letters or support.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> And, again, Food and Water Watch and Organic Consumers Association are two groups that you recommend. <\/p>\nBritta: <\/strong>Yes.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Well, Britta Belli, I want to thank you very much for joining us today. <\/p>\nBritta:<\/strong> Thank you so much for having me.<\/p>\nSonali:<\/strong> Britta Belli is the Managing Editor of E, the Environmental Magazine. She\u2019s also the author of a new article in this month\u2019s issue that we\u2019ve been discussing. It\u2019s called \u201cNuking Food: Contamination Fears and Market Possibilities Spur an Irradiation Revival\u201d. And, you can read that article online at www.emagazine.com That\u2019s emagazine.com<\/p>\nSpecial Thanks to Julie Svendsen for transcribing this interview<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"| the entire program GUEST: Britta Belli, managing editor of E, the Environmental Magazine, and author of the new article, “Nuking Food: Contamination Fears and market Possibilities Spur an Irradiation Revival” During President Bush\u2019s recent visit to India to cement a nuclear agreement with the US, he commented on an impending new agricultural deal to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-daily-program","category-transcripts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1774"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1774\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![](\"graphics\/listen.gif\"\/)
![\"Nuking](\"http:\/\/www.emagazine.com\/images\/upload\/1182873654FE_mango.jpg\")
<\/a>GUEST: Britta Belli, managing editor of E, the Environmental Magazine, and author of the new article, “Nuking Food: Contamination Fears and market Possibilities Spur an Irradiation Revival”<\/em><\/p>\n