Irradiation Is a Safe, Effective Way to Combat Food-Borne Pathogens
Like most health professionals, we respect the work that James Marsden and AMI, in cooperation with the Beef Promotion and Research Board, have done in studying technologies that reduce the risk of food-borne illness from pathogens.
The work performed in the meat industry concluded that irradiation is one of the most effective and practical ways to achieve this goal.
We are dismayed that a tiny group of militant activists called Food & Water Inc. is now attacking the AMI Foundation for its work.
The activities of Food & Water were the subject of a segment on ABC's "20/20" television program in December 1991. The segment was called the "Power of Fear" and exposed the unscientific claims that Food & Water was promoting.
It clearly showed that this group had no scientific or technological basis for its assertions. Editorials in many newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal (April 27, 1994), have further exposed and refuted their activities.
An article in the July 1993 Reader's Digest refuted all claims made by Food & Water and urged the implementation of irradiation to reduce food-borne illness. Public Health Service, FDA, USDA, the American Medical Association, university food scientists and many food processors have also rejected Food & Water's unscientific claims against irradiation.
The AMI Foundation's work indicates it truly wants to make certain that the U.S. food supply is as safe as scientifically possible.
Food & Water must not have any influence on decisions made by processors and retailers.
Processors and retailers must rely on medical experts, health professionals and food scientists for guidance in providing consumers with safer meat and poultry products.
The research work must continue with guidance from the AMI Foundation. It along with the medical and scientific communities have made great gains.
The research and educational support conducted by these groups gives the food industry credibility. This action shows that the meat industry is genuinely concerned about the health of consumers.
Medical and public health officials are aware of the work accomplished by the AMI Foundation.
The special report made in July by the American Gastroenterological Association Foundation relied heavily on the research provided by the foundation.
The work conducted at the University of Georgia Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement using food irradiated by Food Technology Service Inc. (formerly named Vindicator) of Florida was sponsored by the foundation.
Their work concluded that irradiation was the only effective technology that can provide safer ground beef and reduce the threat of E. coli 0157:H7.
We believe that the article by Dr. Philip Lee, director of the U.S. Public Health Service, in the July 27, 1994, issue of the Journal of American Medical Association, endorsing irradiation for meat and poultry, relied heavily on research by the foundation, the U.S. Army and USDA's Agricultural Research Service.
Public health officials, medical officials and food scientists are impressed by this research, conducted on behalf of meat processors.
Attacks on sound scientific research from misinformed activists can no longer be tolerated.
It is only right that meat and poultry processors be involved in supporting technologies that provide consumers with safer food products.
The annual cost of food-borne illness, estimated to be between $6 billion and $30 billion, is staggering. These preventable illnesses have been devastating to many families.
We applaud the AMI Foundation for the research work it has done, and we strongly endorse its recommendation that irradiation be used on all meat and poultry products as a way to combat food-borne pathogens.
American consumers will be grateful once this technology is fully implemented in the meat, poultry, fish and shellfish industries. Irradiation is an effective, environmentally friendly method.
We hope that research done by the meat industry will be sufficient to bring processors and retail marketers to immediate implementation of irradiation once all appropriate government regulatory agencies issue the necessary approvals.
We do not want this technology to be forced on processors or on consumers. We want processors to offer irradiated foods because they know it is right, and to give consumers a choice.
This point of view was presented by:
L. Beghian, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts
Lowell Waynflete Fellow, Magdelen College, Oxford University
A. Brynjolfsson, D. Sc., consultant in food irradiation
F.J. Francis, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts
G.G. Giddings, Ph.D., consultant in food irradiation
E.S. Josephson, Ph.D., University of Rhode Island
M. Kroger, Penn State University
S.A. Miller, Ph.D., University of Texas Health Science Center
E.G. Remmers, Sc.D., American Council on Science and Health
J.H. Steele, D.V.M., M.P.H., University of Texas
E.M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H., American Council on Science and Health