The New York Times did an editorial on food irradiation that prompted me to do my own research. It was interesting that they mentioned that “NASA has long fed astronauts irradiated beef”.  Anyway, this is an example of a scary word (radiation) attracting far more attention than some other processes without a scary name.

Several hours of research later, here’s what I’ve got:  Critics say it should not be used because of loss of nutrients, quality and potentially harmful chemical byproducts.  The Organic Consumers Association makes the claim:

Eating irradiated food may make “the body more susceptible to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, liver damage, muscular breakdown and other serious problems

There is definitely a yuck factor (”mutations, radiation, etc.”), but is there a danger?

• We lose nutrients when we freeze and can food to preserve it, but nobody is screaming that those processes be disallowed.  Loss of nutrients is no more than, and often less than other methods we use to extend shelf life or make food safer to eat.
• Chemical byproducts seemed to be the most likely real concern to me.  The citations I found that referenced harmful effects of feeding irradiated food were mostly from Japan and Eastern Europe.  The doses of radiation used on the animal feed were one to several orders of magnitude higher than what is used in our food (think Chernobyl and the atomic bomb).  The Institute for Food Technology reviews several research reports on the unique chemical byproducts that may be produced by irradiation.  Even in those that show potential carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effects, the lowest exposure amount at which effects are seen is 8000-10,000 times higher than would be consumed in a normal diet.  Levels of benzene and toluene are lower in irradiated beef than in juch non-irradiated fish.  We produce carcinogens every time we grill or burn food.
• Labelling.  Irradiated food must be labelled in the grocery store, when it is a major component.  Spices, flavorings etc. may be irradiated and included without labelling.  Restaurants are not required to disclose use of irradiated food items.

Irradiation is primarily a process used to increase food safety (lowering risk of bacterial contamination) and secondarily to increase shelf life (fresh strawberries last 2-3 times longer if irradiated).  Although I agree that we need to address food safety on the production level, too, there will always be bacterial contamination and if a process reduces risk of food-borne illness without increasing other risks, why not use it?

My bottom line?  I think irradiation is no more likely to decrease food’s value or increase it’s carcinogenicity than most other cooking and sanitation practices.  The food safety aspects are incontrovertible.
Here’s some links and resources  to help you do your own research.

FSIS document explaining irradiation

Iowa State University fact sheet

Some discussions:  Food Production Daily, Health Castle, Ethicurean, Fresh Talk.   Blogher summarizes many blog posts–lots of gut-level distrust, but no solid scientific reasons to reject it.  A great two-sided discussion follows.

There is an uplifting story in the UK newspaper The Times about the 20th anniversary of “Send a Cow”.  The program sent live, pregnant cows to Africa as a way to alleviate hunger and poverty and foster independence. The author, an inaugural contributor 20 years ago, went to see if allegations that the program was keeping Africa poor, were true or not.

Some unique and key aspects make this program more than just a “throw money at it” charity:

• The cows (and their resulting income) are the property of the women in the family,
  

  we find that if the profit from the milk goes to the woman, it will end up back with the family. With the men, we couldn’t be quite so certain.

• The first calf of each gift-cow must be given to a new family, who in turn must gift the first calf of that cow.  In Rwanda, a calf born to a Hutu must be given to a Tutsi family

Still, there have been opponents.

Environmentalists argue that the entire scheme is unsound because not only are bovines poor converters of food, but cows frequently break wind and emit damaging methane. But an independent carbon audit of this entire cow-giving process, gas and all, including the huge amount of fertility returned to the soil, has shown it to be so carbon-friendly that they’re practically in love with it. This, fortunately, spares Send a Cow an embarrassing encounter with the redoubtable Mrs Kibuuka where it says: “Sorry, your six kids will not be going to school after all because your cow farts too much.”

Send a Cow is still an active organization.  Also check out another of my favorite charities, Heifer International .  [p.s.  why not give a cow, sheep or goat as a gift in the name of that hard-to-buy-for person?]

News, views and tidbits plucked from the web.

An Attack on ‘Unnatural Agriculture’?.  agEconomist presents some thought-provoking arguments about why it is important to consider all options (including biotech) and the economic impacts of policy changes in our drive for sustainability.

Animal Cloning and Food:  More Than a Feeling.  The “ick factor” is a perfect example of the sentiments behind the opposition to cloning and the larger issue of genetically modified food: “It doesn’t feel right.”

Organic Food is no Middle Class Fad.   Helen Browning of the UK’s Soil Association says that preferences for organic have made it through recessions before.  I find it most interesting that she phrases her descriptions in terms of “ethical choices” and not safety, which is more how I see the reasoning behind many folks’ organic choice.

Cheap, Healthy Food.   Some good advice here, such as reminders that simple, fresh foods are both healthier and cheaper that most junk foods.  Sad that canned fruits and fish win out over fresh in the price wars, though.

Church wine bars?  From Chow.  The Church of England is contemplating opening a series of wine bars to bolster both its membership and support the wine industry.

The first line of the article: “Milk and meat from the offspring of cloned livestock are entering the food supply”, but the headline reads “Animal Clones Are in Food Supply”

I know newspapers are in the business of selling news and must attract customers to do so, but shame on the Wall Street Journal for grabbing attention with something that is sensational and not actually true.

There may well be offspring of cloned animals in the food supply.  This is not a big deal.  First of all, the FDA’s review of cloning technology has ruled that even meat and milk from cloned animals themselves is OK.  Giving a nod to public concern, they have asked for a voluntary withholding of the clones themselves from the food supply.  Cloning company,  Bovance, (and business partners ViaGen and TransOva) have put a tracking system into place for the cloned animals themselves to facilitate this.

Cloning involves taking a cell from the donor animal and inserting the part of the cell that contains the DNA into an egg (from the same species of animal) from which the DNA has been removed.  This ‘reprograms’ the donor cell into acting like a fertilized egg, and it grows and develops into a regular embryo that is genetically identical to the donor animal.  Reprogramming does not affect the chromosomes or DNA of the animal, but does affect how the DNA (genes) are used to control the development of the embryo.

But as for the offspring of clones? Because the DNA is not changed, offspring of clones are in no way different than any other animals. Even though there is no scientific reason to expect them to be different, there have been studies done on offspring of clones (all the way through production of milk and meat, and sure enough–no differences!

There may well be an insignificant number of offspring of clones that have been harvested.  Based on the facts, I fail to see why we should care. As far as food safety goes, this is really a non-issue.

Elanco announced recently that they have purchased worldwide operating rights and supporting operations for Posilac (rBST) from Monsanto.

From the time they announced they were divesting of Posilac, Monsanto has maintained that the decision was because they are concentrating on their plant business and less on livestock. Although I suspect that their poor track record in addressing consumer’s concerns with the product may have had something to do with it, analysis of their business activities lends creedence to it being more a business than a PR decision.

Although the green blogosphere was all over Monsanto’s decision to divest, touting it as a victory for consumer’s voices and preferences, there has been much less coverage of Elanco (whose parent company is Eli Lilly) purchasing the business. The few posts I’ve been able to locate are shamefully playing the fear card: “Maker of Prozac buys Milk Hormone“, with one discussion going so far as to imply that Lilly is going to repackage and give the product to unsuspecting women!

I consider myself green, and run my ranch using mainly non-traditional production methods,. One of my favorite blogs is Ethicurean. But, this whole process of research about rBST has me disgusted with much of what I read. I have seen so many outrageous claims about this product, and milk, meat and traditional agriculture in general, that sometimes I wonder if I can believe anything I read! Through the farmer’s markets, I get to hear many common misconceptions about traditional food. I’ve even been accused of callously contributing to global warming because I raise beef.

On the other hand, Monsanto has a really poor track record for honoring the concerns of the public and has been historically heavy handed in the way it has dealt with the public. The ag sector in general often adopts an adversarial stance relative to alternative production methods and the green movement. I’ve been accused of “damaging agriculture” by producing and selling pasture-raised beef.

Sometimes the debate seems like it’s between two toddlers. Emotion and defending a position become more important than making an informed decision about what’s best. I also get extremely frustrated that it often seems like the viewpoint is “all or none”: It takes a whole set of options to create the optimum, because there are a whole range of people, land and production scenarios. We need food and agriculture, regardless of how it’s produced. I don’t see what is inherently threatening about producing our food under a variety of methods. I do see what is threatening about fear tactics and misinformation. I also see how people feel threatened when they believe they are not getting the whole story.

It’s OK if we don’t all agree on how food should be produced. It’s great (and necessary) to debate pros, cons, risks and rewards. It doesn’t do any of us any good to have decisions influenced by fear, not facts. So, get real, all of you!

Weekly Earthlinks a day early, as we are headed North to my “farma mater” to see family.

An Upside to Higher Food Prices? Do higher food prices have some benefit for humanity? Do higher food prices spur production, mean more income for farmers and discourage use of food for fuel? Or do they destabilize governments and contribute to ill-health? Enter your opinion on this discussion on the poll from The Economist.

Remember Food Safety when Reusing Plastic Containers: Some tips from the USDA–Do not use plastics such as margarine containers in the microwave. Avoid using garbage bags to store food. Do not re-use plastic drink bottles.

Get the dirt on eco-eating: Know your certification programs. From our friends at American Farmland Trust; a handy list (with links) to many eco-conscious and sustainability-focused certification programs.

Label-Wise, American Savvy About On Par With Global Consumers : An online Nielson survey says that despite the plethora of labels on our food, Americans don’t seem to be all that much savvier about food labeling than their counterparts in the rest of the world.

Celebrity Dog Food: Rachel Ray has released “Nutrish”, her own line of dog food. Don’t miss the satirical response from Gallery of the Absurd. And I thought “Angus” branded dog food was silly!

There’s an interesting discussion going on at one of the leading feminist blogs. It’s about one woman’s frustrations surrounding food choices and feeding her family. In one single post, she touches on enough topics to fill this blog for the next six months: How do you feed your family healthy, tasty, economical and appealing meals that you can afford financially and time-wise? Add to that a desire to make your food choices reflect your values and other concerns such as the desire to eat local, support sustainability and ethical accountability, and it’s enough to make any Mom pull out their hair!

I share these frustrations about food choices. It seems like we have more information at our fingertips than we can process. Add to that the fact that much “information” is actually propaganda and it’s even harder to make intelligent food choices.

I get PO’d by label claims that are confusing, relatively meaningless and designed to take advantage of people’s concerns for their health and desire to be environmentally or socially responsible.

I get frustrated when I talk to my farmer’s market customers who think “eggs from vegetarian fed chickens” means the chickens led a life of total freedom(chickens aren’t vegetarians). I find it equally dismaying to hear people blaming beef or milk for early onset of puberty (studies show the leading causes have nothing to do with either).

Then there’s the whole local versus industrial and traditional versus organic thing. To paraphrase one particularly well-written comment:

In practice, there are some things it is nearly impossible for industrial agriculture to do particularly well. Others fare better. Localizing food production more solves some problems, introduces others; it’s not a panacea. Over all of this also hangs the spectre of energy policy; some of the most productive (at least in some sense) industrial techniques are deeply coupled to assumptions about cheap fossil fuel availability. … local’ is no more a magic word than so-called `organic’, but it has a place in the discussion of how to fix some of the more broken parts of our current agricultural system.

Much of what is in the press or on the web is so slanted toward converting the reader to a point of view, it’s hard to believe anything. And who has the time to do all the research?

My frustrations are exactly why I started blogging here. I find myself on a mission to sort through some of the crap, research and propaganda so other moms, consumers, producers and food industry folks can get a sens of understanding on some very confusing issues.

A post comparing airlines and food safety got me to thinking: In general, is large-scale-produced food more safe than smaller-scale production?

One factor that is often not considered when we evaluate small-scale production food safety is “assessment bias”. If Joe’s 2 bushels of homegrown tomatoes from the farmer’s market are tainted with Salmonella, it is likely to go undetected or reported. Even if people got sick and reported the illness it is unlikely his tomatoes would be identified as the source and even less likely it would make national headlines.

I don’t think we have good statistics on real safety measures of small versus large production. Yet, food safety, especially for meat, ranked above quality and price in a survey of local food purchasers in the upper midwest.

There are some things “small food” has going for it with regard to food safety:

• Accountability. All producers, large and small are accountable. Small producers are usually directly accountable to the consumer. We put our livelihoods on the line each time we sell an inferior or unsafe product.
• Known source (sometimes). I say sometimes here, because many farmer’s markets sell produce obtained at large terminal produce hubs. Here in Texas, that means that unless you know that your market vendor is growing their own, you may be buying jalapenos and tomatoes from the Rio Grande valley or Mexico (one of the sources for the recent salmonella outbreak).
• Direct relationship with consumer. Having to look my customers in the eye when they buy my beef or ask me questions about my production, quality and safety practices is more effective than a whole slew of federal regulations.

On the other hand, “big food” is often under more rigorous scrutiny and regulation to ensure food safety. Many types of food have mandatory testing not requred for small and local producers. Many of the regulations and production practices in use were put in place to ensure food safety. Small producers often do not have food safety training or food safety plans.

So, don’t presume that local = safe. Ask questions of your local producer about productions practices, food safety, etc. Ask about sources for produce, handling and refrigeration practices for meat and eggs. When purchasing from a small producer it is up to you to be your own “food safety authority”.

The Troublemaker Mom: From Science Women. I’ve sooo been there, and it seems particularly hard for moms in the hard sciences where there’s not much room for the warm-and-fuzzies integral to parenthood.

The chocolate genome: Mars (the confection company, not the planet) is investing $10 million to help sequence the genome of the cacoa tree (from which we get cocoa). The project is in conjunction with the USDA.

Food and Environmental Justice named as a Church issue: In support of core prinicples regarding the environment and human rights, the Unitarian Universalists (of which Thomas Jefferson and Susan B. Anthony were members), have name Ethical Eating as a primary issue of study and action for the next four years.

Ranch Wife Guide 101: From Chewing the Cud. Funny tips on how to maintain your ranch AND your marriage. Hmmm… but maybe my husband would say I’m the “he” referred to in this post?

Number of women farmers growing: Some insights about women farmers and ranchers in the West, for Suzanne, who asked about it in this post about women farmers in the Northeast.

I love it when I find something that makes my job easier!

There is a new site that addresses many of the issues, myths and misconceptions about animal agriculture. Here’s a sample:

MYTH	Farming in the U.S. is controlled by large corporations, which care about profits and not about animal welfare.
FACT	There are 2.1 million farms in the U.S., and according to a May 2006 report on the structure and finances of U.S. Farms, exactly the same numbers counted by the 1997 Census of Agriculture. The 2006 report found that the vast majority of America?s farms (98%) are family-farms. The study also discovered that 61% of all farms did not participate in any farm program in 2003. This finding clearly indicates that only a minority of farmers receive agricultural subsidies. For more information on the report, click here.

I’ve added the Animal Agriculture Alliance to our blog roll for future reference