Policymakers purporting to serve our best interests instead show a disturbing inclination to dictate what we put in our mouths.
In the name of public health, the Metropolitan Water District voted Feb. 11 to fluoridate their water supply, which reaches over 18 million people in Southern California — including San Diego. And last October, in the name of providing consumers with a wider variety of produce for purchase, Congress passed a farm bill that allows all imported fruits and vegetables to be irradiated.
Under these policies, the food and water we consume will be subjected to controversial treatments without our consent because someone decided that it is better for us this way.
Food irradiation is a popular idea in the meat industry and the federal government, which will save money by buying cheaper, irradiated meat to serve in school cafeterias beginning next year. Farmers also love the idea because irradiation kills any crop-threatening foreign pests lurking in the mangos and plantains we import from other countries.
Not everyone is sold on the practice, however.
The ultimate goal behind irradiation is to sterilize food. Irradiation can kill bacteria and parasites like E. coli or salmonella in meat, for instance. It is generally agreed upon that irradiation alters food: The process warms the food, may slightly change its taste or “”slightly”” reduce its levels of the vitamin thiamine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The process also stops natural ripening, extending shelf life.
The problem is that irradiation, which uses gamma rays or electrons, may introduce elements that are harmful to humans.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describe irradiation as a simple, harmless process, comparable to pasteurization for milk or pressure-cooking for canned foods. The American Dietetic Association says irradiation research, testing and evaluation have been going on for 50 years without finding negative effects. The Center for Consumer Research points out that NASA astronauts dine on irradiated beef, pork, smoked turkey and corned beef.
Yet Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, describes irradiation as “”the equivalent of several billion chest X-rays.”” It says that irradiated produce contains “”destroyed”” vitamins, nutrients and chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects. The Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit public interest organization, contends that irradiation also breaks down cells and “”smashes”” enzymes, making digestion more difficult for the body.
They also say that between 5 percent and 80 percent of vitamins A, C, E, K or B complex are lost during irradiation, depending on the type of produce and its exposure to radiation.
Public Citizen has found that irradiation experiments over the last 50 years have produced health problems in lab animals, including “”premature death, mutations and other genetic abnormalities; fetal death and other reproductive problems; immune system disorders; fatal internal bleeding; organ damage; tumors; stunted growth; and nutritional deficiencies.””
A major problem with irradiation is that its use is constantly being disguised or downplayed, meaning that consumers often do not know whether or not they are eating irradiated food.
The New York Times reported on Jan. 29 that the irradiation industry wants to replace the worrisome term “”food irradiation”” with “”cold pasteurization”” to downplay the process — and mislead the consumer. Futhermore, the irradiation radula, or logo affixed to irradiated produce, looks a lot like logos that have nothing to do with irradiation, a PR trick that further misleads the consumer.
The bottom line is that meat irradiation and produce irradiation are two different debates. Meat irradiation at least makes meat safer to consume by killing potentially deadly bacteria. The General Accounting Office points out that food poisoning in schools increases by about 10 percent each year. Food-borne illnesses cause 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths each year, says the Center for Consumer Research at UC Davis.
The only valid argument for permitting the importation of irradiated produce into the country for consumption that pertains to consumers is that it offers more variety.
But that’s not a strong enough argument for Public Citizen, which has advised a moratorium on further recommendations to expand food irradiation. And it’s not a strong enough argument for Whole Foods, the health-conscious supermarket that told the San Francisco Chronicle that it will not carry irradiated food.
It may be true that irradiation is an option for meat, considering the process could eradicate harmful or deadly bacteria. But as consumers, we should not be willing to buy and eat irradiated food because producers are afraid of foreign pests ruining their crops.
Then there’s the water.
In 2006, 18 million Southern Californians can turn on their faucets and get a blast of fluoridated water. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported Feb. 12 that the Metropolitan Water District, which provides water for over 90 percent of San Diego County, has voted to fluoridate their water supply.
Why? They’re worried about our teeth.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that one-third of California’s water supply and two-thirds of the United States’ water supply is fluoridated. Fluoride bonds with teeth, hardening their outside surfaces and perhaps preventing decay. Advocates of fluoridation, like the American Dental Association, say that it can reduce dental disease by 30 percent.
Critics like the Fluoride Action Network say that fluoridation can impede the growth of children’s permanent teeth, cause brown and white spots, impair bones and that the process only delays dental disease, it does not prevent it. They point out that the benefits of fluoride come from topical application, not ingestion.
The Fluoride Action Network says that 98 percent of Western Europe has elected not to fluoridate its water. It isn’t that they doubt the potential benefits of fluoridation. They object to the process because it is what Germany has called mass “”compulsory medication.””
That is just what it is. Southern California consumers may or may not stand to benefit from drinking fluoridated water, but the Metropolitan Water District should not be in a position to medicate us.
Flouridating water and irradiating meat are both unnecessary and dangerous processes undertaken purportedly in the public interest, but actually without public approval or widespread public support — and the public should strongly oppose them.