This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Michael F. Jacobson, PhD
Center for Science in the Public Interest Washington, DC

JAMA. 1995;273(5):378.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Assistant Secretary Philip R. Lee lauded the ability of irradiation to reduce foodborne illness,¹ but he failed to acknowledge the potential risks to workers and the environment that would result from widespread use of irradiation by poultry processors and others. He also ignored irradiation-induced vitamin losses.

Instead of installing irradiation facilities at meat and poultry slaughterhouses and packinghouses, the US Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture should require good manufacturing practices (hazard analysis and critical control points) and establish microbiological standards to ensure the safety of our food supply. Not only would that be more acceptable to many consumers, it could also be less expensive.

In the short run, US Department of Agriculture estimates that irradiation could add as much as 10 cents per pound to the cost of meat (oral communication, Tanya Roberts, Economic Research Service, July 16,1994). Estimates for on-site cobalt 60 . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?