The Effect of Food Irradiation on Children's Health - Essay Example

This is an issue which impacts every household in America and quite possibly the world, yet a thorough understanding of the topic is limited. It is an unfortunate circumstance that only a limited number of the public is aware of the decisions which are being made concerning the food they, and even their grandchildren will eventually consume. A battle is currently being waged among those who feel that the purveyors of profit and some government officials have overstepped their bounds. This is an extremely divisive issue and the reason it is persisting for so long is because the proper research has not been done on the needed subject population. The assigned topic of this paper could only be dealt with peripherally, because there is only one study with data which relates directly to the subject. Albeit I found the study to be inconclusive and the sample of human participants to be dubious (malnourished children) and the sample size statistically insignificant, it was the only data available. To be sure, this points to the urgency and significance for a controlled study to be undertaken... 1 2 The Effect of Food Irradiation on Children's Health My findings on this topic bring to mind, an old Chinese proverb which states: "In life there are no problems, only situations which present us with the opportunity to learn something new." I will begin by making it abundantly clear that on this specific topic, we literally know a little bit of nothing. Of course we know irradiation is a process in which food is submitted to ionized radiation to kill bacteria. And that in 1915 radiation was used to kill trichina in meat, but the process had a long way to go because though the process eliminated the bacteria, it left a taste which was offensive to the pallet. After more than eighty five years, there have only been two known studies which have initiated feeding programs using humans as subjects. One was a 15 week feeding program conducted in China, and unfortunately for us, the data is in Chinese. The remaining feeding program of record was a 1976 feeding study which took place in India. The study was conducted by a two man team (Dr. P, C. Kesavan and Dr. P. V. Sukhatme). In the initial round of the study, the doctors fed freshly irradiated wheat to mice, rates, monkeys and five malnourished children. Their initial observations were that the mice and rats, which were fed the freshly irradiated wheat showed increased levels of polyploidy cells [cells with chromosome abnormalities] in their bone marrow. Initial observations of the monkeys and malnourished children who were fed the freshly irradiated wheat showed high elevated levels of polyploidy cells in circulating lymphocytes [white blood cells]. Several months [the literature was not specific on how many calendar days this was] after the wheat was withdrawn, levels of polyploidy returned to normal. Mice fed diets of freshly irradiated wheat-based diets showed evidence of dominant lethal mutation as indicated by increased numbers of intrauterine 3 [prenatal] deaths. In the second stage of the study, the researchers stored the wheat for twelve weeks after it was irradiated, and then began to reintroduce the irradiated wheat into the diets of the subjects. In this phase there was neither an increase in the number of polyploidy cells nor was there evidence of dominant lethal mutation. The researchers did not make a definitive assertion on why the increase of polyploidy occurred in the initial stage with the ingestion of freshly irradiated wheat. And they offered only speculation on why the dominant lethal mutation was evidenced. They merely offered speculation that a transient mutagen found in freshly irradiated wheat might have been the cause. The attitude of the scientific community towards this study centers on the concept that 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing. This study serves as the benchmark for many of those who are in opposition to irradiation of foods; I have seen it quoted, misquoted, misrepresented, and even totally misunderstood. On the other hand there are some who find the results in this study to be substantial enough for a blanket endorsement of food irradiation. The United States Food and drug Administration stated: The agency agrees with the conclusions of the committee of Indian Scientists that the studies with irradiated food do not demonstrate that adverse affects would be caused by ingestion of irradiated foods." (Federal Register 51, April 18, 1986 p13 385).Why are the United States Food and Drug Administration, The Department of Energy and Transportation, The Department of Agriculture, The World Health Organization and other quasi-governmental organizations interested in irradiated foods There are two primary reasons why the technology is being pursued. Primarily because of food safety. Within this realm, it is not just the government officials and corporate moguls who have a vested interest in 4 eliminating some of the food safety issues which are inherent of food processing. The average consumer is also making his/her sentiments known concerning the bacteria found in meats poultry, seafood and the infestation of fruits and vegetables, which cause food-borne illnesses. Given the nature of the beast, no one is immune, and we are all susceptible to being victimized. In a WHO fact sheet, an assessment is presented on the incidence of food borne diseases and their related costs: In Industrialized countries, the percentage of people suffering from food borne diseases each year has been reported to be up to 30 per cent. In the United States, for example, around 76 million cases of food borne diseases, resulting in 350,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths, are estimated each year. In 1994 an outbreak of salmonellosis due to contaminated ice cream occurred in the United States, affecting an estimated 224,000 persons. Food contamination creates an enormous social and economic burden on communities and their health systems. In the United States, diseases caused by the major pathogens alone are estimated to cost up to $34 billion annually in medical costs and lost productivity. (WHO N 327) The second reason there is a clamor for irradiated foods is due to the freshness factor and disinfestation of fruits and vegetables. Again, it not just the government promoting the endeavor, it is the plight of the farmer who has to ship his oranges from Florida to Rhode Island, or their apples from Washington state to New York. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that for every one dollar spent on irradiation consumers would get back two dollars because their food would stay fresher longer and they would have fewer illnesses. Irradiation would also translate into healthier eating habits as it would make it much easier to stock fruits and vegetables and keep them fresh at home for longer periods. Though the USDA has not approved the irradiation of beef, it has taken the leap on approval for chicken, pork and some fruits. The USDA has taken its endorsement of irradiated foods to an even higher level and on a 5 much broader scale. It has approved the consumption of irradiated meat in the nation's school lunch programs. School lunch programs in the US feed more than 27 million children nationwide each year. (USDA) This is an unprecedented move, not just for the US, but it enormously surpasses any food irradiation feeding program on the planet. In all fairness it is important to point out that each state, and in most instances each school district and school, has been provided with the option to participate. This is not a forced, funding is contingent upon participation activity. On this note, fourteen states have opted not to participate. The state of New Jersey has committed a blanket endorsement of the irradiated food program. The sates of California, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Minneapolis, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia, will leave the decision up to the individual school districts on weather they will participate in the school lunch irradiation program.(Public Citizen) Since California has imposed the district option on selection, the parents of the Los Angeles County school district, which is one of the largest in the country, has opted out of the irradiated food lunch program. There are also some districts in Missouri, which have placed thumbs down on participating in the program. The obvious question here is weather the dissenters are keeping the boat afloat or are the causing the boat to sink Point is, it matters not if the boat is afloat or if it is sinking, the move by the USDA presents us with an anchor and a life jacket. There is an enormous window of opportunity present here.We need permission to board the vessel to collect the definitive data, which will resolve all of the unanswered questions and allay all of the fears. Which ever direction the data leads, we will be able to make a much more informed decision on the effects of irradiated foods on children's health.Since the inception of 6 ionic research more than eighty five years ago, scientists have generated a considerable amount of technical information on the general area of irradiated foods. However, in the specific area of the effect of irradiated foods on children's health, we have barely scratched the surface in this area. The nature of the concept proposed to eliminate meat borne diseases and sustain long shelf life of food has the stigma of carting additional baggage; which are perceived as being harmful to the environment, a reduction in the nutrient value of food, a precursor of extended health care anomalies, and an impediment to sustained human development. George L. Tritsch, Ph.D., Cancer research scientist at the Rosewell Park Memorial Institute, New York department of Health, offered verbal testimony before the United States Congressional Hearings into Food Irradiation on June 19, 1987, he said; I am opposed to mass consumption or irradiated food because, the condensation products of the free radicals formed during irradiation produces statistically significant increases in carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and cardiovascular disease in animal and man. Irradiation works by splitting chemical bonds in molecules with high energy beams to form ions and free radicals. When significant critical bonds are split in organisms contaminating food, the organism is killed. Comparable bonds are split in the food. Ions are stable; free radicals contain an unpaired electron and are inherently unstable and therefore reactiveA free radical can either combine with another free radical to form a stable compound or it can initiate a [chemical] chain reaction by reacting with a stable molecule ro form another free radical, until the chain is terminated by the reaction of two free radicals to form a stable compound. (Tritsch #2). In a 2003 report issued by the World Health Organization, it suggest that Dr. Tritsch is sound in his theory, but his logical progression is debilitated because, "Microorganisms are destroyed by OH-radicals formed in their cells reacting with their DNA, thereby breaking the chain bonds and blocking replication. Chronic toxic and genotoxic compounds can only form if pathways exist for their formation. (Scientific Committee on Food 3.2) This and other matters must be resolved through a controlled long-term research study 7 this will yield irrefutable conclusive evidence on the safety pro or con. The situation is deserving of further study so we will once and for all have the answers we need to address the prevailing and forthcoming questions and perplexities. Fact of the matter is, the FDA, USAG, WHO, FAO, and many other regulatory and public information agencies currently endorse irradiation and because they do, the astronauts and soldiers are not the only groups without consumption choices. The consuming public will soon be inundated with irradiated foods at the market. Not only do we want to know, we must know. Methodology The subject population will come from participants in the school lunch program at a participating irradiated meat food lunch program. As it is possible for climatic conditions to present certain biases; participating schools will be selected in states from four different regions across the country. Once the states are targeted and chosen, school districts must be selected. The criterion for school district selection is that they reflect the highest level of racial, economic and social diversity. We will select one grade level (elementary, middle and high schools) from each school in the district. Each sample will comprise 25 students. It will be necessary to employ three types of auxiliary professionals in each district; A professional registered nurse who will monitor the subjects and schedule their two week visits to the pediatrician. All findings of the doctor will be passed on to the registered nurse, who will accompany the children on office visits. All reports from the pediatrician will be handled exclusively by the nurse who will submit them on the day of receipt, with both doctor and nurse comments and recommendations and observations attached. The nurse will be responsible for general oversight of students in school setting during their participation in the program, and for 8 all office visit logistics and doctors reports. A professional social worker/health professional will be contracted to assist in questionnaire design and formulation. This person shall collect individual data from the participants on a weekly basis. This person will meet with the nurse in a formal setting once per week to discuss progress or lack thereof concerning all of the subjects. This person will maintain a current working file on the domicile of all participants and have an immediate knowledge of all school related activities. This person shall meet once a week with the study coordinating team to make sure that all field documents and processes are fresh and relevant. weekly data updates on all persons in the district are a must. The third field person is of course the pediatrician. The Pediatrician will provide the necessary information on the physical well being of the subjects. All subjects will be required to have a complete wellness check up by the Pediatrician prior to acceptance as a participant. The doctor may recommend that a particular prospect not be a participant or that any particular participant is discontinued. These individuals on the field will be supported by a ten member professional support and administrative staff in each district. Works Cited Federal Register 51, April 18, 1986 p13 385. available on-line: www.ccnr.org/food_irrasiation.html Public citizen, Irradiated Foods in LA Schools, Oct/Nov 2003 vol 4 no 5 availabel on line: www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_irradmeatLAschools.html Scientific Committee on Food, revision of the scientific Committee on food on the Irradiation of Food April 4, 2003. available on-line: Europa.eu.int/comm./food/ps/sc/scf/index_en.html Sarikantia, S. G. U. S. Congressional Hearing into Food Irradiation, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Excerpt #1. Available on-line:www.cenr.org/food-irrasiation.html What's wrong with food Irrasiation Feb. 2001. Available on-line:www.organic Consumers.org/irrad/irradfact.cfm Who food safety and Food borne Illness. Available on-line: www.who.int/mediacenter/factsheet/ Fs237/en Read More