 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Food Irradiation Network UpdatesGeneral
campaign update (November 2003)
Dear Friends, Since these two major developments, there has been little or no further legislative activity on this issue in the UK, the EU or at Codex level. We continue to await announcement of a date for the Council of the European Union to discuss finalisation of the EU list of foods permitted for irradiation. Once a date has been set for this debate, we will be lobbying UK and other EU states' ministers to oppose expansion of the list. Our main activities over recent months have consisted of:
Irradiated food remains unpopular among consumers and food retailers within the UK, as in most EU member states. No labelled irradiated foods are available in shops in the UK. The small number of irradiated food products that are on sale in the UK are unlabelled and therefore illegal, hence our focus on encouraging regular detection surveys to be conducted by the Food Standards Agency and by similar government departments in other EU states, as well as by consumer groups such as Test Aankoop / Test Achats in Belgium. Test Achats is planning a co-ordinated detection survey of possibly irradiated foods in Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal. We await a report on the progress and findings of this survey. Finally, I will be going on maternity leave next week. For specific enquiries relating to the Food Irradiation Campaign please contact Kath Dalmeny at the Food Commission on 020 7837 2250, or email kath@foodcomm.org.uk Wishing you all a very happy non-irradiated Christmas and New Year! Merav Shub, The Food Commission Below are some updates on developments in Australia and the Philippines in recent months. Network
update November 2003 In late July 2003 a group of Australian anti-food irradiation campaigners began a Fast Against Food Irradiation. The Fast was triggered when campaigners learned that the first shipment of radioactive Cobalt 60 rods - the nuclear material used to irradiate food - had been secretly transported to Steritech's new nuclear irradiation facility in the Narangba Industrial Estate at Deception Bay, just north of Brisbane. Currently, herbs, spices, herbal teas and tropical fruits are allowed to be irradiated at the plant. The fasters travelled from Canberra to Brisbane, visiting Steritech's two other nuclear facilities in Dandenong, Victoria and Wetherill Park, New South Wales, along the way. Their aim was to raise public awareness of the risk to the Australian food supply, as well as to local residents of Narangba, some of whom live just 500 metres from this now active nuclear facility. Putting their health on the line, the campaigners were determined to maintain their fast until Australia's Federal Government initiated inquiries into both the health effects of consuming irradiated food and 'therapeutic goods', and the motivation and timing of the approvals for food irradiation in Australia. But as they approached Day 19 of their fast, weakness and ill-health forced several of the original fasters to withdraw. However three remained determined to continue. On Monday 11th August, Day 19 of the fast, they took their message to Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. When in opposition, Peter Beattie supported the campaign against food irradiation. The current Labor Party platform clearly states that "Labor will: prohibit the establishment of nuclear irradiation plants". Even recently, Premier Beattie has repeated that he would not feed his own children irradiated food - yet it would seem that he is happy to feed it to others. The campaigners are calling on the Beattie Government to acknowledge responsibility both for development of the nuclear industry in their region and for the start of full-scale food irradiation in Australia. They are calling on the Government to take immediate action to stop this process. Note: Steritech is the only commercial irradiation company in Australia. Steritech recently obtained Australia's first ever approval to irradiate food, ending the moratorium and opening the door for the expansion of the food irradiation industry in Australia, and for the import and export of irradiated food. Two grassroots organizations in Australia and the US have now declared 23 November as International Stop Food Irradiation Day. There will be protests in both Australia and the USA at irradiation facilities. Network
update November 2003 The Philippines are hoping for a US$10 million stand alone grant from the US for setting up a comprehensive irradiation facility. The facility, if approved by the US, will allow the Philippines agriculture sector to conduct irradiation treatment of fruit and vegetables, a phytosanitary measure required by the US in exporting commodities to their ports. This will mean greater market access for the country's fruit and vegetables, especially Philippine mangoes, which have seen a growing demand among US consumers. SureBeam Corporation, the American irradiation company based in California that lobbied for the US government's approval of the irradiation method, has recently been active in the Philippines. SureBeam has been negotiating with two local agribusiness companies to build an irradiation facility. The plant will possibly be located near Manila, and will cost at least US$5 million. Network
update January 2003 We ended 2002 on a high note, with the successful outcome of the European Parliament vote in Strasbourg on 17 December. To the great relief of all concerned about food irradiation, the Members of the European Parliament sent a clear message against allowing more foods to be irradiated in the EU. Despite strong support from the pro-irradiation industry, and following months of lobbying led by the Food Irradiation Campaign, an amendment recommending that several more foods be added to the EU-wide list of foods authorised for irradiation was overturned by 269 votes to 180. Opposition to extension of the list came from across the political spectrum but included in particular the Greens, Socialists and Liberals. Our thanks go to all supporters of the campaign who sent or co-signed letters to their MEPs voicing their opposition and pointing out the concerns of consumers, retailers and many food industry bodies. This greatly strengthened our efforts in Brussels, which involved meetings with MEPs and distributing pamphlets expressing the consumer views on irradiation. The successful outcome of the vote was in spite of the lobbying efforts of the well-funded International Association of Industrial Irradiation, which hired professional lobbying consultants to fax voting recommendations to MEPs, and to distribute pro-irradiation materials. Among other points, the MEPs voted in favour of:
Though the vote was a victory for consumers, this battle is not yet won. The EU Council, made up of ministers from each member state, must now present its views. A date has not yet been set, but we shall be following closely and presenting our concerns to ministers in the run-up to the Council meeting. We need the Council to agree with the view taken by the Parliament, as this would almost certainly mean that no more foods would be added to the list for the foreseeable future. Those member states who currently have several foods authorised for irradiation (Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK) would then have to reduce their lists in line with the EU, to allow just herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings to be irradiated. Network
update November 2002 The Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted on the Breyer report on Tuesday 5 November 2002. Some very good points in the report were adopted as well as some excellent amendments . Among other points, the MEPs have supported:
However the Committee did not provide a clear direction for finalising the Community list of foods authorised for treatment with ionising radiation. The adoption of a number of contradictory amendments on this point indicates confusion. Paragraph 2 of the original report stated that the Committee: Welcomes the Commission's suggestion that the current list be regarded as complete and requests that this be accepted so only herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings are permitted for irradiation in the EU; Three amendments to Paragraph 2 were adopted. First was Amendment 17, submitted by UK MEP John Bowis (PPE/DE - Democrats/Conservatives) which makes the following changes to Paragraph 2:
Then came Amendment 18, submitted by French MEP Françoise Grossetête (PPE/DE - Democrats/Conservatives), offering a complete replacement of Paragraph 2: Notes with interest the second option envisaged by the Commission in its communication, namely that the products which are irradiated in some Member States in substantial amounts should be included on the positive list, provided this technology can improve the safety of certain products; Amendment 20, submitted by UK MEP Philip Whitehead (PSE - European Socialists/Labour), also suggests a complete replacement for Paragraph 2: Insists that before any proposal is submitted to add foodstuffs to the positive list (pursuant to Directive 1999/2/EC) a detailed analysis must be carried out on each foodstuff, with evidence given to demonstrate that each of the conditions for authorising food irradiation in Annex I of Directive 1999/2/EC are clearly met; This result is confusing. Amendment 17, 18 and 20 were all suggested as alternatives for Paragraph 2, yet all were adopted, and make the new version of the report contradictory. It is this version which the plenary of the European Parliament will vote on in mid-December (16-19 December 2002). Amendment 18 is of greatest concern, in that it suggests that the following foods should be added to the approved list: chicken offal, egg white, peeled shrimps, frog legs, deep frozen aromatic herbs, dried fruit, cereal flakes and germs, and gum arabic (additive). This Amendment should be opposed by MEPs in mid-December, as allowing these foods onto the list at this stage would open the floodgates for food irradiation in Europe. This technology should clearly be treated with caution, and should not receive blanket approvals in the EU at this stage, and certainly not before the other requirements of the Breyer report have been fulfilled. The lobby of MEPs will continue, leading up to the mid-December vote. Network
update September 2002 Background The key recommendations of Hiltrud Breyer's report were:
Debate of the Breyer Report by the Environment Committee - 11 September 2002: The Food Irradiation Campaign attended the debate of the Environment Committee, during which a wide variety of comments were made by MEPs, some supporting certain statements of the report and others objecting to certain statements. Some comments called for more information to back up the report. In summary the key points raised by MEPs were as follows:
Mrs Testori, of the European Commission explained:
Public meeting at European Parliament on 11 September 2002, hosted by:
The meeting was held at a room in the European Parliament in Brussels at lunchtime. Illegally irradiated foods found on sale in the UK and Denmark during 2001 and 2002 were displayed, and a leaflet prepared by the Food Irradiation Campaign (The Food Commission) were provided. Merav Shub and Klaus Melvin Jensen gave brief presentations on the food irradiation situations in the UK and Denmark, and on implications for consumers in other member states, and answered questions. Meeting
participants: Individual meetings were held in Brussels with: -
Hiltrud Breyer, MEP - Germany Other lobbying activities undertaken:
Conclusion We await with interest the report of the European Commission on levels of controls of food irradiation in the Member States, and the EC recommendations for harmonisation and strengthening of these controls across the EU. Network
update May 2002 New U.S. legislation on labeling irradiated food jeapordises consumers' right to know Earlier this month a piece of U.S. legislation was passed that could enable food irradiation companies to start using the word 'pasteurization' on irradiated food product labels. One provision permits the industry to request permission from the U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to use the term 'pasteurization' on the labels of irradiated foods: if the Secretary does not respond within 120 days, the permission is granted. There is no public notice requirement, nor is any consumer input required before a decision is made. A second provision directs the secretary of HHS to revisit the issue of food irradiation labeling through the standard regulatory process. During that process, any irradiation firm can petition the secretary to use alternative labeling terminology. The secretary has 180 days to respond. Again, there is no provision for a public notice requirement nor any opportunity for the public to comment. Due to widespread consumer rejection of irradiated food, the irradiation industry is seeking to use euphemistic labels such as 'cold pasteurized' and 'electronically pasteurized', in the hope that this will persuade consumers to buy the food. Joan Claybrook, president of the U.S. consumer watchdog Public Citizen, commented "Food producers who use irradiation want to label their products with the word 'pasteurized' because it conjures up images of wholesome milk". American consumer focus groups have called this approach 'sneaky' and 'deceptive'. This bow to industry lobbying threatens U.S. consumers' right to honest and accurate labeling, and may add to unresolved labeling issues in trade with European countries. In Europe, all foods intended for consumers and caterers must be labeled as either 'irradiated' or 'treated with ionizing radiation,' whether they are whole foods or ingredients, even if they constitute less than 25 percent of the finished product. In contrast, U.S. regulations require only irradiated foods sold in shops to be labeled, although spices are exempt. The threat to consumers' right to know extends far beyond the U.S. Unlabeled irradiated food imported from the United States has been found in European supermarkets over the past year, resulting in some U.S. products being pulled from shop shelves. In Denmark, a dry guacamole mix imported from the US was recently found to contain irradiated ingredients but was not labeled as irradiated. The product was subsequently pulled from all Danish supermarkets for violating domestic labeling laws. "With
the new U.S. Farm Bill causing confusion about the labeling
of irradiated products, we strongly fear that there will be
more cases of illegal irradiated U.S. food in Danish supermarkets,
and that could seriously harm Danish consumer confidence in
U.S. produced food," said Klaus Melvin Jensen, campaign
manager of Active Consumers Denmark, which exposed the illegal
product. Last summer a Food Irradiation Campaign product survey
also Pasteurization uses rapid heating and cooling to partially sterilize liquid products, namely milk. Irradiation is a very different process, using gamma rays, X-rays or accelerated electrons to treat food for purposes such as delaying ripening and sprouting, destroying spoilage organisms and food-poisoning bacteria, and eliminating insects. The process can destroy important nutrients, produce chemical byproducts in food - some of which may have carcinogenic or mutagenic effects, and entails a wide range of other serious concerns for consumers, workers and the environment. The use of the term 'pasteurization' in irradiated food labels runs counter to the official U.S. position on labeling of export products. In a discussion paper on misleading food labels, the U.S. delegation to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, an international food-standard setting body, wrote, "Confusion often occurs because a promotional communication uses a word, phrase, symbol or image that is similar to a more familiar word, phrase, symbol or image, but that does not have a similar meaning. This may be of particular concern when labels are translated or a product is exported." Network
update May 2002 Public pressure is keeping irradiated foods off supermarket shelves While doubts remain about the benefits and concerns persist about the dangers of irradiated food, UK consumers continue to send the clear signal to food manufacturers and retailers that they don't like the technology and they won't buy food treated with it. Supermarkets know that the market for irradiated food is almost non-existent. Those promoting the use of irradiation for food are trying to get the rules on irradiation labelling abolished, or to get the process re-named as 'electronic pasteurisation' or 'cold pasteurisation'. One way consumers can ensure that these sneaky methods don't succeed is to call on supermarkets to publish their policies on food irradiation. Supermarkets know that if they let irradiated food sneak onto their shelves, they would lose customers. After all, supermarkets sell more than two thirds of all food that is consumed in the UK. In February
The Food Irradiation Campaign conducted a survey of the nine
major UK supermarkets to find out their policies on irradiated
food. All of them replied that their policy was not to stock
irradiated products. We asked them how they check that their
standards are maintained. This is what they told us: Co-operative
group Iceland Safeway Sainsbury's Marks
and Spencer Somerfield
Tesco
Waitrose Network
update March 2002 Developments at the 34th session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) - 11th-15th March 2002
This year the conference room was packed. Forty-eight national governments from all parts of the globe were represented, plus an equal number of non-governmental observers, including international agencies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), food industry associations and three international consumer organisations, namely Consumers International (CI), the International Association of Consumer Food Groups (IACFO) and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). Three international consumer groups is an unusually large number for this committee meeting. In recent years, limited resources have meant that only CI have managed to send a delegate regularly. Such under-representation at CCFAC remains a serious concern for consumers. A particularly contentious agenda item was the proposed draft revision to the Codex General Standard for Irradiated Foods. The present standard sets a maximum average irradiation dose level of 10 kilo Gray (kGy) which applies to all foods. (10 kGy is equivalent to about 100 million times the dose received during a hospital chest x-ray). The proposed revision would remove this maximum dose limit. Some delegations, including the WHO, the Philippines, the USA and Australia, expressed their support for this. They argued that, since bodies such as the WHO have declared irradiated food to be safe and nutritionally adequate after exposure to any dose necessary, the current limit of 10 kGy has become redundant. However, the delegation from Spain, speaking on behalf of the EC, and supported by Germany, Poland, Sweden and Consumers International, argued that the limit should not be removed. Preliminary findings of a recent study carried out in Germany suggest that certain chemical by-products formed in food that has been irradiated, known as cyclobutanones, could be toxic enough to cause significant DNA damage, potentially leading to carcinogenic or mutagenic effects. These chemicals have yet to be found in any non-irradiated foods. They therefore require considerable study in order to determine their safety. Sweden pointed out that there is a lack of evidence of any actual need to irradiate foods at doses higher than 10 kGy. Only the Australian delegation countered this argument, stating that New Zealand had recently approved the irradiation of herbs and spices at 20 kGy. Consumers International called for more evidence to be presented demonstrating whether or not any country needs to use higher dose levels. The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) - which advises the European Commission - is currently reviewing the cyclobutanone study. The SCF had not made its recommendation on the implications for safety prior to the CCFAC meeting. This presented an obstacle to progress. In addition, time constraints meant that the large number of diverse written comments submitted by delegates before the meeting could not be dealt with properly in the time allowed. The result: postponement of any decision on the 10 kGy limit until next year. It was agreed that over the next few months a working group will have the task of re-drafting the current food irradiation standard based on the comments received. This group is to be led by the Philippines and includes Argentina, Australia, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Poland, Sweden, Thailand, UK, USA, EC, Consumers International, the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the WHO. The re-drafted standard will be presented for comment and approval at the 35th CCFAC meeting in the Netherlands next year. Much now hangs on the SCF's assessment of the cyclobutanone study. The WHO delegate stated that the WHO is prepared to take into consideration any safety risks discovered…yet he also commented that the method used in the cyclobutanone study (comet assay) was not one in which the WHO has much confidence. It is possible that this study and any recommendations based upon it will simply lead to differing interpretations and further conflict. Calls by food industry and consumer groups such as the Food Commission to take into account broader concerns, such as the potential for misuse of food irradiation to mask poor hygiene and contaminated food, were not considered at the CCFAC meeting. As with many Codex issues, a narrow focus on lab-based scientific data dominated the short time spent discussing food irradiation. In this case the result is more delay: another year to keep on raising consumer concerns, another chance to challenge the ill-advised weakening of the world's food irradiation regulations. Network
update January 2002 International
legislative developments Whilst this is a positive development for consumer groups, the fear is that continuing pressure from the irradiation industry and from legislators outside Europe will nevertheless bring about the widespread proliferation of the technology. A proposal to amend the international Codex standard governing food irradiation, including a removal of the current maximum irradiation dose limit and the weakening of several other aspects of the standard, is still in progress. The annual CCFAC (Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants) meeting in Rotterdam in March 2002 will attempt to make progress on this proposal. Consumer groups will be attending and voicing their opposition. News
from the United States As well as promoting food irradiation within the US, SureBeam is expanding its operations internationally to Brazil, Saudi Arabia and other countries. News
from Australia
|