FOOD IRRADIATION BUOYED BY REGULATORY AND ...

E ach year an estimated t@ million Americans, especially theelderly and infants, are poi

soned by toxins produced by Salmonella, a gram negative, md-shaped, illness causing bacteria that harborsitselfin poultry, other meats, and eggs.An estimated 2,000 of those infectedby the Salmonella bacteria die. In aneffort to decrease the number ofSalmonella sufferers, the Food andDrug Administration (FDA), on May1, approved the irradiation of chicken,turkey, and other fresh or frozen uncooked poultry.

In addition to Salmonella, the approved irradiation process could beused to control other bacteria, such asYersinia and Campylobacter, whichare common in poultry and can causehuman gastrointestinal diseases via thepoultry itself, when it is not thoroughly cooked, and through cross contamination of other foods in thekitchen.

According to the FDA, this irradiation process —the first approved oneaimed at controlling bacteria in foodthat cause human illness, rather thancontrolling insects or parasites or toretard spoilage —greatly reduces butdoes not eliminate bacteria. So, suchradiation-pasteurized poultry would besafer longer than unirradiated poultry,but, says the agency, it would still require refrigeration.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), which is responsiblefor inspecting poultry and other meat products, sought approvalofthe irradiationprocess along with Radiation Technology, Inc., a Rockaway, New Jersey

based irradiation firm, because, according to Donald D. Derr, deputydirector for scientific support in theUSDA's science and technology program, “Werecognize and are con

cerned about microbial pathogens inpoultry products. While irradiation isnot the only method to address this,it is one tool that may be effective insolving the problem.―

In an article in a 1988 issue ofPoultry Science, Tanya Roberts, PhD,an agricultural economist with theUSDA, wrote that Salmonella-contaminated meat and poultry were “esti

mated to cost Americans around onebillion dollars in 1987.―Dr. Robertsalso noted that if other factors, suchas the impact on industry on both thefarm and retail levels, were accountedfor, the costs would be greater. In theDecember 1985 issue ofthe AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics,she wrote, “thenet benefits estimatedfor irradiation are likely to be quite abit greater than one billion dollars.―

Applications of the Technoloaj@

Beyond its parasite control/diseaseprevention possibilities, food irradiation can and does reap tremendous rewards through decontamination, deinfestation, and extension of the storage life offoods, particularly in developing nations, the economies of whichare heavily dependent on agriculture.These uses of the food irradiationprocess increase both the amount offood available for domestic consumption and the amount of food availableand suitable for trade.

The FDA contends that extensive re

search over the past 50 years hasshown that the use of gamma radiation, electron radiation, and X-rays issafe at levels up to 300 kRad or 3kiloGray (kGy) to treat poultry and itsparts, up to up to 100 kRad (1 kGy) forfresh foods, up to 3 MRad (30 kGy)for spices and herbs, up to 100 kRad(1 KG) for pork, and up to 1 MRad (10kGy) for dry or dehydrated enzymeproducts. FDA scientists further notedthat there is no evidence that irradiation at any level would be hazardous,though it does cause minor changeslike those caused by canning, cooking,or freezing, which may affect theflavor and texture of foods, and atmuch higher levels than those approved, it might cause significantchanges in flavor and nutritional valueof food.

In a statement issued May 2 on theFDA's poultry decision, Lester M.Crawford, DVM, PhD, administratorofthe USDA's food safety and inspection service (FSIS), wrote, “Thesafetyof irradiated foods has been carefullyresearched and thoroughly evaluatedby the world's leading scientific andmedical experts over the past 40 years.USDA agrees with the AmericanMedical Association, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], the World HealthOrganization [WHO], and the CodexAlimentariusCommission that food irradiation can be extremely useful forpublic health protection, productquality, and shelf-life.―

Maurizio Zifferero, deputy directorgeneral of the International AtomicEnergy Agency's (IAEA) department

hANewsline

FOOD IRRADIATION BUOYED BY REGULATORY AND

SCIENTIFIC ACCEFrANCE BUT HELD BACK

BY PERCEPTION PROBLEMS

snm —

Newslirof research and isotopes, speaking onbehalf of the IAEA director generalduring an international conference onthe topic, said, “TheIAEA is wellaware of the concern expressed byindividualsand groups about the safetyandwholesomenessofirradiatedIbod.It is because of such concern thattheIAEA has supported and encouragedintensive and thorough testing of thewholesomeness of irradiated food forthe last two decades. Like our colleagues at WHO and FAO.. .and othergroups, we are convinced that irradiated food presents no toxicological,bacteriological, or health hazards tohumans. Indeed, properly used, foodirradiation techniques can contributesignificantly to improved humanhealth by reducing food-bornepathogensandto prosperityby facilitaring international trade in perishablefoods.―

Despite the technology's great potential and the sanction ofthe process— when performed according to cer

tamstandards—fromhealthandagricultural organizations worldwide, useoffood irradiationhas progressed relatively slowly, particularly in the U.S.,where it is only actually used to irradiate spices. During the internationalconference, which was held inGeneva, Switzerland in December1988, international experts on foodscience and agriculture cited the needfor more uniform standards and increased public education to broadenthetechnology'sbase. The IAEA, theWHO, and three divisions of the

United Nation's —the FAO,the Genera! Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,and the Conference on Trade andDevelopment, the lattertwo of whichmake up the International TradeCentre(flt) —organizedtheconference. In an international consensusdocument drafted during the conference, representativesfrom 57 countries agreed on a set of principles fortheacceptabletradeof irradiatedfoods(see box, p.22A).

Muchof the focusof theconference

was on the use ofthe technology to address the tremendous food losses inboth developing and developed nations. B. Sigurbjörnsson,director ofthe joint FAO/IAEA division ofnuclear techniques in food andagriculture, speaking on behalf of theFAOdirectorgeneral,toldattendees,“Manyestimates have been made asto what proportion ofibod is lost afterharvest due to insect and microbialcontaminationand other spoilage. Themost conservative estimates put thislossat25% to3O%, but in many counthesthisisknowntobe5O% orhigher,especially of perishable crops.―

Worldwide, food irradiation is being employed in 24 ofthe 37 countriesthat have approved of its use for processing food and food ingredients, according to the IAEA (see map, p. 13A).These countries are irradiating foodsranging from spices to fruits, vegetables, and grains to pork, poultry, andseafood. In the U.S. , according to theGeneral Accounting Office (GAO),asof August 1989, there were 40 companies in 21 states with licenses tooperate commercial radiation facilities. Sixteenofthese facilities irradiatefoods (spices), according to the GAO.

The Food Irradiation Process

Irradiation processing kills bacteriaby damaging their genetic structureandcurbsripeningbyslowingtherateof mitosis. The technology can alsominimize the changes in color, flavor,texture,and nutritionalvalue thatareassociated with other processingtechniques, such as heating, accordingto the FDA.

There are four potential sources ofradiation for the process —gammarays from cobalt-60 (@°Co)or cesium137(‘“Cs),electrons (beta rays), andX-rays. “While cesium-137 istheoretically possible, cobalt-60 is theonly one that's used commercially'according to Clyde A. Takeguchi,PhD, a consumersafety officer at theFDA.MartinWelt,PhD,chairmanofAlpha Omega Technology, Inc., a

Parsippany, New Jersey engineeringfirm that has recently developed an irradiation system for food, predicts thata combination of @°Coand X-raymachines will be the wave of thefuture. “Thetrend will be to X-raysover the next decade:' says Dr. Welt,“becausethey are not coming from aradioactive source. But X-rays won'tsupplant@°Cobecauseofits easeof use— it's the height of simplicity.―

In the U.S. , practical interest in theconcept of irradiating food to controlmicroorganisms and insects and to cxtend the shelf-life began in the midstofthe “Atomsfor Peace―campaign inthelate 1940s(1). Toestablishthe safety and efficacy of the irradiation process, the U.S. Army began a series ofexperiments with fruits, vegetables,dairy products, fish, and meats in theearly 1950s.

In 1958, Congress gave the FDAauthorityoverthefoodirradiationprocess under the 1958 Food AdditivesAmendment to the Food, Drug andCosmetic Act. Since then the FDA hasapproved the following food irradiation processes: August 1963, to control insects in wheatandwheat flour;August 1964,to inhibit sprout developmentinwhitepotatoes;July 1983,mitial approval of the killing of insectsandcontrollingof microorganismsinherbs, spices, and vegetable seasonings; June 1985, to control insects andmicroorganisms in dry enzyme preparations primarily used in fermentstion-type food processes; July 1985,tocontrol the parasite in pork that causestrichinosis; April 1986, to control insects and inhibit growth and ripeningin all fresh foods, such as fruits,vegetables, and grains (this rule wasan omnibus rule delineating the scope

ofthe agency's position on the food irradiation process for all foods); and thelatest approval for poultry.

TheFDAhastwicerejectedrequestsfrom the Health and Energy Instituteand other groups for hearings to present evidence against food irradiation.

(continuedon page 17A)

12A The Journalof NuclearMedicine•Vol. 31 •No. 9 •September1990

snm@ —

v@vv@uI@

otherwise, you should be more concerned about heated foods, in termsof nutritionalvalue. The amount [ofreaction product] that shows upafterheatingis greaterthanthatafterradiation?'

In a keynote address during theinternational conference, John Hawthorn, PhD, ofGlasgow in the UnitedKingdom, noted, “Theirradiationprocess is remarkably genfle whencompared with, for example, heatpasteurization, which typically wouldrequire that the food so treated beheatedthrough 50 degrees Celsius. Butthe energy releasedby 10kGy is onlyequivalent to 24 degrees Celsius.―

Dr. Roberts and her colleague Rosanna Mentzer Morrison, an agricultural economist with the USDA,wrote in an article in the AmericanAgricultural Economics Association'sjournal Choices, “Irradiationis a ‘coldtreatment? It achieves it effects without

raising the temperature ofthe productsignificantly, usually leaving the foodcloser to its unprocessed state thanfreezing or canning―(3).

In addition, notes Dr. Welt, the irradiationprocess causes “nosignificant loss of nutrients. The FDA hassaid this.―Acknowledging that somesensitivenutrients, such as thiamin aredepleted, Dr. Welt argues, “Thebenefit ofeliminating trichinosis is greaterthat the drawback of the loss ofthiamin.―

In response to the criticism that the

irradiation process could lead to thedevelopment of mutant pathogens infood, Dr. Hawthorn said, “itis pertinent to consider whether the use of theprocess could produce microbialmutants of increased virulance, or antibiotic resistance, or increased radiation tolerance, or greater pathogenicity. Similar mutations may arise fromconventional food processes, such asheating, chemicals, or UV [ultraviolet] light. There are quite extensivedata on this point and a lack of cvidence ofany such problems arising in

(continued on page 204)

14

12(I)Ui

I—.1@z0C.)U.0

Ui

z

at any level of toxicologicalsignificance in irradiated foods ingested by test animals, some consistent toxicological trendsand patternswould be manifest in the studiesreviewed. Because it has seen no consistent trends or patterns, the agencyconcludes that foods irradiated as prescribed by this regulation are safe―(2).

According to the American Councii on Science and Health (ACHS) —an independent, nonprofit consumereducationorganizationconcerned withissues related to food, nutrition,health, the environment, and otherareas —when Ibod is irradiated underconditions of FDA approval, no newchemical (radiolytic) products havebeen detected.

Some scientists arguethatconventional techniques —heat treatment,freezing, and canning —alter the foodmore thanirradiation.Dr. Weltsays,“Studieshaven't found anythingunique in food due to radiation treatment. . . .Ifyou wantto be concernedabout reaction products, unique or

(continuedfrompage 12A)Bothtimes,theagencyconsideredthepretrial evidencepresented insufficientto warranta hearing. Summarizingtheir December 1988 denial ofa hearing, the FDA wrote, “.. .none of theobjections has provided the information necessary to justify a hearing?'

Concerns of the Opposition

The petitioners and others havevoiced several concerns. While thereis universal scientific agreement thatthe food irradiationprocess does notcause food to become radioactive,critics argue that the radiolytic, or reaction, products formed during theprocess could be harmful. Basically,there is fear ofthe unknown. The FDAcoined the term unique radiolytic products (URPs) for products formed during the irradiation process that areunique to that process. “Ofthe totalradiolytic products formed, a smallfraction may be assumed to be uniqueor ‘exotic'.. . . If exotic moleculesof. . .extreme toxicity. . .were present

17ANewsline

REGIONALTRENDSIN APPROVALSOF IRRADIATEDFOODITEMS

1981 ‘82 83 84 ‘85 86

AfricaandMiddleEast AsiaandPacific

Europe North and South AmericaNote: Based on countries that have unconditionallyapproved one or more irradIatedfood hems.

@JJ:

(continuedfrompage 17A)practice. Radiation resistant mutantscan be produced but only under veryspecial laboratory conditions, whichcould hardly arise in commercialsituations.―

Opponents also point to a series ofstudies conducted at the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) in Hyderabab,India that reported an increase in theincidence of polyploidy (a conditionin which cells have several times thenormal number of chromosomes) inanimals fed freshly irradiated wheat.A small study of five malnourishedchildren provided similar results. Butwhen the wheat was stored for threemonths before feeding, the researchersdid not observe the increased incidence of polyploidy. In addition,studies subsequently performed bytheIndianDepartmentofAtomic Energyat Bhabha Atomic Research Center(BARC) on a large population ofanimals did not confirm the findings,accordingto P.M. Nair, a conferenceattendee from India.

J. F. Diehl, consultantto the Secretariat of the conference, told participants that the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on theWholesomeness of Food Irradiationand numerous other expert groups“concludedthat the Indian studies didnotdemonstrateanadverseeffect dueto the consumption of freshly irradiated wheat —or of any otherirradiated food. The main reason forthis conclusion is that the incidence ofpolyploidy in the groups receiving theirradiateddiet was in the normal range,while in thegroupsreceivingthenonirradiated diet, the incidence was zeroor improbablylow.―

Mr. Nair added that the IndianGovernment appointed a committee toexaminetheNIN andBARCdata.Thecommittee's report stated, accordingto Mr.Nair,that“theNIN studiessuffer frommajorinadequacies,namely. . . imprecise and inadequate sam

pling and techniques . . . poor qualityslides . . .subjective selection of sam

35

30z

@ 25

6(l)@ 20

Ii.00::i is

@w io

z

0

pies . . . internal inconsistencies and. . .variance with well established facts

of biology.―One of the majorcriticisms of the

irradiation process is that it might killall the spoilage organisms without killing all the potentially toxic organisms,leaving a food that provides no scentclues that it might be toxic. Dr. Hawthorn responded by saying, “Mostmicrobiologists in this field point outthatsimilar reasoningcan be appliedto conventional pasteurization, and fifty years of experience with this process on almost a worldwide scale hasshown that such fears are groundless.―

Dr. Welt adds that several studiesdone in the early 1980s at the U.S.Army Laboratories in Natick, Massachusetts and at the Johns HopkinsMedical Institutions in Baltimore,Marylandshowthatwhenpoultrywasabused to trigger release ofthe botulintoxin from the pathogenic organismbotulinum, “notoxin was liberatedbeforeputrification,―evenattheFDA'smaximum approved dose of 3 kGy.While Dr. Welt concedes that food irradiation does not eliminate thebotulinumbacteria, he notes that whenusing the process to pasteurize food,irradiators “applythe same . . .criteria

used in the canning industry?' That is,they allow the same number ofpathogensto remainafterprocessing.“Evenat high sterilization levels,―concludes Dr. Welt, “it'smuch morewholesome than canned food?'

Opponents also argue that the Dcpartment of Energy (DOE) wants touse the food irradiation process to getridofsome of its storesof radioactivewaste. Dr. Welt acknowledges that intheearly 1980s,the DOE wasconsidering a proposalto use ‘37Csnuclearwaste material, but the program wascancelled in 1988. But when @°Coisthesource,thereis no linkagebetweenirradiated food and nuclear weaponsproduction,contendstheACSH.Foodirradiation with this isotope does notincrease the stockpile of radioactivewaste because it is produced in Canadaand returned there fbr recycling or disposal. When machine sources of irradiation (electrons and X-rays) areused, no nuclear waste is produced.

Critics have complained that theFDA does not requirea special labelfor irradiated foods sold in retailstores. However, FDA regulations dorequire the retail labels of irradiatedfoods to carry the internationally recognized irradiation logo (see ‘Thble1)

20A The Journal of Nuclear Medicine •Vol. 31 •No. 9 •September 1990

snm a

@ Newslin

TRENDSIN THE USEOF IRRADIATORSFORFOODPROCESSINGON A COMMERCIALScALE

.RadiationTypo

of Food .Doss (kOy) : Effect

20—71

snm——. ‘a-—

radiated poultry or products containing it as an ingredient.

While food irradiationhas supportinternationally and on the Federallevel, many state governments, responding to consumer groups, haveput up roadblocks to its progress.Accordingto a May 1990report by theGAO, “Eightstates [Alaska, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maine, NewJersey, and New York] have taken orare considering action to restrict theuse of food irradiation. Maine, NewJersey, and New York have enactedlegislation restricting the use of irradiation on foods or the sale ordistribution of irradiated foods, exceptfor spices used as an ingredientin aproduct.Officials in these statestold[the GAO] that their states took theactions in response to public concernbycitizengroupsratherthanasa resultof scientific evidence questioningthesafety of food irradiation.―

The GAO noted that “officialsinNew York and New Jersey also saidthattheirstates'actionsto restricttheuse of food irradiation were taken, inpart, because of perceived gaps insafety data related to food irradiationand . . .to allow more time to study theprocess and allow a consensus toemerge on its efficacy.―Both laws aretwo year moratoriums, rather than fullbans, so the issue will be reviewedagainin late 1991orearly 1992inbothstates. The New Yorklaw, which tookeffect on November 21, 1989, does notrequire the withdrawalof irradiatedfoods that were on the market prior tothat date and allows irradiated foodsto be served to hospitalpatientswithcompromised immune systems.

Mr. Den of the USDA saysthathe“understand[s]the position of statelegislatures. They are responding totheir constituencies. The informationthey get is affected by several factors. . . .There is an absence ofknowledge about the process...thereis confusionofthis processwithnuclearpowerandtheproblemsasso

Meat, poultry,fish,shellfish, some vegetables, :baked goods, and prepared •foods :.

Sterilization. Treated

: product can be stored at: roomtemperaturewithout: spoilage. Treated productis:safe

for hospitalpatients@ who need sterilediets.Spices

and otherseasonings

.

:30Reduces

number of: microorganisms and: insects.Replaces: chemicalsusedforthis::

purpose.Meat,

poultry,and fish :0.1-10Delays spoilageby: reducingthe numberof:

:::

::

microorganismsin the: fresh, refrigeratedproduct.: Kills some typesof food

@ poisoningbacteriaand: rendersharmlessdisease: causingparasites(e.g.,

@ trichlnae).Strawberries

and someother fruits @1—5Extends

shelf life by@ delaying moldgrowth.Grain,

fruit, vegetables,and@other foods subject to :insect infestation :

:0.1—2:

Killsinsectsor prevents: them from reproducing.

@ Could partially replace: post-harvestfumigants

@ used for thispurpose.Bananas,

avocados,mangos,papayas,guavas,and certainother non-citrusfruits :@1Delays

ripening.:

:Potatoes,

onions, garlic, :and ginger0.05—0.15:

InhibitssproutingGrain,

dehydratedvegetables,and other foodsVariousdoses:

Desirable physical changes@ (e.g., reducedrehydration@ times).

(Table1;Adaptedfrom“IrradiatedFoods,―a reportby theAmericanCouncilonScienceandHealth,,@8-9.)

and one of two phrases — “treatedwithradiation―or “treatedby irradiation?' For wholesale labels, the FDArequires the logo, the wording, and thecaution:“donot irradiateagain?'According to Dr. Thkeguchi, the FDAdoes not require labeling fbr irradiatedspices that are ingredients in otherfoods because “thereis no safety concern, it'sjust like any other sterilizingprocess.―

P. Pbthisiri, of the Ministry ofHealth in Bangkok, Thailand, toldconferenceattendeesthat“Labelingof

irradiated products is important, sinceit not only inlbrms consumers that theproduct has been irradiated, but alsoindicates the purpose for which thetreatment was given . . . .Additionaluse ofa logo to identify irradiatedIbodshouldbe permittedandmayevenbecome recognized as a symbol ofquality.―

In additionto the FDA, the USDAmust approve the irradiationof poultryand other meat products before theyare used commercially. USDA may setadditional labeling requirements lbr ir

Newsllne 21A

v@vvoIII i@XV1W@A. @I.

APPLICATIONS OF FOOD IRRADIATION

snm@ —- - -—

w@j@i,j@Iv@vvoIII@

Lxcerpts froni tilt. luternational I)ocunient on Food Irradiation,A(l()pte(Il)eccmlwr 1988 in (jeneva , Switzerland

( ()nd LISI(IIIS:

•“Foodirradiation has the potential to reduce the incidence of foodborne diseases through the reduction of pathogen contamination infoods, especially in solid foods.―

•“Foodirradiation can reduce post-harvest food losses and makeavailable a larger quantity and a wider variety of foodstuffs for consumers. It can also be an effective quarantine treatment for certain foodsand thus contribute to international trade.―

•“Regulatorycontrol by competent authorities is a necessary prerequisitefor introduction of the process

a “International trade in irradiated foods would be facilitated by har

monization of national procedures based on internationally recognizedstandards for the control of food irradiation.―

•“Acceptanceof irradiated food by the consumer is a vital factor in thesuccessful commercialization ofthe irradiation process, and information dissemination can contribute to this process.―

•“Considerationshould be given to the application of food irradiationtechnology for public health benefits . . . . [and] where it can, in appropriate cases, reduce post-harvestlossesof foodand serve as a quarantine treatment.―

Recommendations:a “Governments should ensure that, as a prerequisite to any processing

of food by irradiation or sale of irradiated food, regulatory proceduresfor control are introduced . . . .Regulatory procedures . . .should be consistent with internationally agreeed principles as embodied in the CodexGeneral Standard for Irradiated Foods and associatedCode of Practice?'

a “Governments should encourage research into methods of detection

of irradiated food so that administrative control of irradiated food onceit leaves the facility can be supplemented by an additional means ofenforcement, thus facilitating international trade and reinforcing consumer confidence in the overall system.―

a “Labeling of irradiated foods should be in line with the provisions

adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.―

a “Governments should ensure that all phases ofthe planning and opera

tion of food irradiation facilities are subject to a regulatory structureconsistent with relevant internationally accepted standards for humanhealth and safety and environmental protection.―

•“Governments. . .are encouraged to provide clear and adequate information about food irradiation to the public.― U

ciated with nuclear power. And the twoare totally different. With education,people can begin to understand this.Also, anagendais putforthbypeople

who object to nuclearenergy for anypurpose, but no amount of educationwill change these people's minds aboutthe process.―

Methods of FoodIrradiation Processing

Radappertization(Radiation Sterilization):

Sterilization offood by radiationprocessing. The resulting food

can be stored at roomtemperature in the same waythermally sterilized (canned)foods can.

Radicidation(Radiation Pasteurization):

Treatment of food with doses ofradiation large enough to kill orrender harmless all diseasecausing organisms except viroses and spore-forming bacteria. Processed foods usuallymust be stored under refrigeration.

Radurizat ion:

Another type of radiation pasteurization, designed to kill or

inactivate spoilage microorganisms, thus extending shelflife ofthe refrigerated food product. U

These people, however, are not inthemajority,accordingto the USDA.A June 1990backgroundpaperfromtheFSISstates,“A1989EconomicResearch Service survey indicated that66% ofconsumers surveyed would bewilling to pay a higher price (17centsper pound) for chicken with Salmonella levels substantiallyreduced by irradiation, 18%would pay the sameprice, and 14% would not buy irradiated chicken at any price. Whilethe willingness to pay higher prices forirradiatedchicken maynot be reflectedin actual purchases, the survey shows[that]some consumersare willing totry irradiated chicken?'

P. Loaharanu, head of the foodpreservation section of the jointFAO/IAEAdivision of nuclear techniques in food and agriculture, is op

(continued on page 304)

22A The Journalof NuclearMedicine•Vol. 31 •No. 9 •September1990

(continuedfrom page 22A)timistic. “Progresson food irradiationmay be slow, but it shows steady upward trends,―he says. “Twenty-fourcountries are using the technology totreat food for commercial purposes,compared to five, ten years ago. Thenumber of irradiators being used fortreating food has increased to almost50 in comparison to less than 10 in1980.―

Experts say uniform standards andeducation will help expand the technology, but for it to be viable, industrymust be willing to make a move. TheFDA has put the onus on industry.TheFDA'spart, says Dr. Takeguchi, “istodetermine whether the process is safeand effective. For the processes thatwe've approved, we've determined itto be safe and effective. Whether it'sgoing to be used is up to industry.―

Even with positive test market results, industry fears public rejection.Citing articles in the September 1987

issue of the journal Food Technologyand the November 1986 issue of theIAEA's Food Irradiation Newsletter,Ms. Morrison noted in a June 1989USDA Reportentitled,“AnEconomicAnalysis of Electron Accelerators andCobalt-60 for Irradiating Food,―that“Despite generally favorable responses in test markets to irradiatedmangos and papayas, U.S. food manufacturers and retailers seem unwilling at this time to risk consumeropposition to irradiated food.―

Dr. Wenk says, “Inour society,there are so many alternatives, somany differences of opinion . . .oftenthese differences of opinion are notscientifically based. This issue is popular political football in the UnitedStates.―

In his address on Consumer Viewson Acceptance oflrradiated Food during the Geneva conference, Jan Taylorof the Queensland Government Consumer Affairs Bureau in Brisbane,

Australia, said, “Toquote a participantof the [1988] FAO/IAEA AdvisoryGroup Meeting on the CommercialUse of Food Irradiation in Vienna,[Austria] . . .“foodirradiation is thebest investigated, best regulated, andleast applied food process.' This is atragedy not only for the food industrybut also for those consumers whoshould have the right to make a freeand informed choice of a better qua!ity or safer product.―

References

Sarah M. Tilyou

1. Pauli,GH, Takeguchi, @A.Irradiationoffoods—an FDA perspective, FoodReviewsinternational1986;2(1):79-107.

2. Irradiationin theproduction,processing,andhandlingoffood; final rule.FederalRegister; 1986; 51(75):13376-13399.

3. Roberts,1, Morrison,RM. Irradiation,Itcould become a food preservation technologyfor the 1990s. Choices 19S7;second quarter:8-l1.

(continuedfrom page 264)

medicine's place in medicine's future, positron emissiontomography (PET), practice guidelines, outcomes research,qualityassurance, and governmentaffairswill all be discussed by this uniquely constituted group. Leadership representatives from the SNM, ACNP, ABNM, ABR, RRC for NM,American College of Radiology, American College ofNuclear Medicine, and the American Medical Associationwill convene at this meeting.

Practice Guidelines and Outcomes Research

Most specialty societies are involved in efforts to developpractice guidelines. At the Washington meeting, HenryRoyal, MD, associate professor of radiology, WashingtonUniversity School ofMedicine in St. Louis, Missouri, whois the Society's representative at courses sponsored by theCouncil on Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS)—thatteachhow to write practice guidelines—reportedto a group representing three key Society committees: the Scientific Affairs and Research Committee, chaired by R. Edward Coleman, MD, professorofradiology, Duke UniversityMedicalCenter in Durham, North Carolina, the Efficacy Evaluation

Committee, chaired by Michael L. Goris, MD, PhD, professor of radiology,StanfordUniversity Schoolof Medicine

in California, and the 1@skForce on Development of Practice Guidelines, chaired by James W. Fletcher, MD, chief ofthe nuclear medicineservice, VAMedicalCenter, St. Louis.These committees will be working together to develop acomprehensive plan for nuclear medicine's participation inoutcomes research that will be useful in the developmentofpractice guidelines. This is importantto the futureof nuclearmedicine because, ultimately, practice guidelines may beused as a criterion for payment for medical care. Furthermore, the SNM needs to position itseifto give input to othermedical societies so that nuclear imaging becomes an important component in practice guidelines written by othermedical societies. This is a most complex and challengingissue. The Society plans to address it in some detail at theSNM Midwinter Meeting in Tampa, Florida in January 1991.During the meeting, Barbara McNeil, MD, head of thedepartment of health care policy, professor of radiology atHarvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, willhighlight the issue in her address to the Board of Trustees.I welcomeinputandparticipationfromallSocietymembersinterested in these projects.

Naomi P. Alazraki, MDPresident, The Society of Nuclear Medicine

The Journalof NuclearMedicine•Vol. 31 •No. 9 •September199030A

snm a

Newsline