Irradiation of Food

Once again the proponents of food irradiation are trying to gain public approval of a potentially dangerous process by resorting to comparing nuclear irradiation to pasteurization of milk. As stated in The Times article (March 15), John Masefield, chief executive of Isomedix Inc., said, “If it was called something else, we wouldn’t be arguing. . . . We’re trying to use ‘cold pasteurization’ or ‘ionizing pasteurization.’ ” Does Masefield believe the public is so gullible as to buy into the Orwellian newspeak?

Besides the primary difference between nuclear food irradiation and milk pasteurization being the lack of nuclear material used in pasteurization, nuclear irradiation rips apart molecular bonds, forming new compounds. Known carcinogens such as benzene and aflatoxin are produced in higher quantities. Botulism is not killed by irradiation, but its natural enemies are.

It’s just as misleading to suggest that the Tustin irradiation operation is not a nuclear facility, as stated by Thomas Mates. He said because “we cannot have a core meltdown,” they are not a nuclear operation. Any facility that uses nuclear material such as cobalt-60 is subject to strict Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines.

We should prevent meat contamination in the first place by cleaning up filthy meat plants and replacing pro-industry, profit-oriented inspection with pro-consumer, human-health-oriented inspection.

DAVE DOLNICK

Thousand Oaks

* At last, there is an article that tells both sides of the issue.

Before my retirement from USDA in 1980, I was the administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Service and prior to that an associate administrator of the Agriculture Research Service.

How can a country that has put such a high priority on science have failed to communicate to the public its true position relative to food safety and other public health matters?

I relied on scientific support for our programs. I learned early in my career that I could find good, qualified scientists on both sides of most issues. Therefore, I made it a policy to find out what the majority of the best-qualified peers recommended. I could rely on the National Academy of Sciences to make its evaluation and recommendations. However, the academy somehow lost its role, maybe due to the influence of various issue groups.

FRANCIS J. MULHERN

Mission Viejo