Irradiated Beef

[Rail Paul]

The new S-R circular advertises the arrival of irradiated ground beef, using the Surebeam Fresh technology. Wegmans has had irradiated beef for about a year in NJ. My understanding is it has sold very well.

"(U)sing a non-nuclear concentrated beam of electricity to help eliminate the threat of food borne bacteria."

Of interest is S-R's advice to cook the meat to 160 degrees. I don't recall that advice prominently mentioned at Wegmans, if it was mentioned at all.

Prices look like they are about a dime to 15 cents per pound higher than the store brands @ 2.39 for 80%, 2.79 for 85%, and 40 cents more at 3.39 for 93%. I assume they zap the beef in the store, but I don't know for sure.

[msp]

Beef is irradiated at packaging plants, not at grocery stores.

The suggested internal temperature of 160F for ground beef comes from the USDA general guidelines and applies to all beef-- irradiated or otherwise.

[menton1]

I hope this beef is clearly labeled so that the consumer can choose NOT to buy this beef. Irradiation has been proven to create carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde in the food!! It has also been linked to birth defects and degradation of nutrients in the food. The biggest problem is that there are products that are irradiated that are not clearly labeled, e.g., milk in boxes. Here is just one link to read further:

http://www.all-organic-food.com/irradiat.htm

[vengroff]

Hah! I just came back from Giant on R.I. Ave in DC and was going to post on this very issue. They had a big stand-up cardboard display advertizing irradiated beef. It also featured the 160 degree warning.

[tommy]

I hope this beef is clearly labeled so that the consumer can choose NOT to buy this beef.

irradiated meat will be labeled with a radura, the international symbol for radiation...or greenpeace, or something.

[Rail Paul]

I hope this beef is clearly labeled so that the consumer can choose NOT to buy this beef.

Wegmans has a specially marked area in the meat section to highlight their irradiated products. I'll stop by S-R in the next few days and see how irradiated meat is presented. The artwork shows a blue label on tubes of meat, similar to the Montfort products.

This may also address msp's comment. Our local S-R grinds at least some of its beef locally. It would make sense that the Surebeam enhanced meat would be processed at a central facility.

[=Mark]

I hope this beef is clearly labeled so that the consumer can choose NOT to buy this beef.  Irradiation has been proven to create carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde in the food!!  It has also been linked to birth defects and degradation of nutrients in the food.

Please cite the relevant studies from where this "proof" was obtained. I've looked pretty deeply into the issue and only find anecdotal stories, urban myths and outright fearmongering.

As for the degradation of nutrients in food, there is another common practice that causes this: Cooking.

[tommy]

what mark said.

[Kim WB]

Ok, true confessions. I bought the beef at wegmans over the summer...because I liked the "jimmy dean sausage" way it was packaged... cut it in half, used a bit, folded over the ends, and froze both halfs. Have since used one half, jsut thought of defrosting another for the coming week...crew tryouts for son #1, play practice for son#2, a busy week for husband #...oh, whatever...not a lot of family meals planned, just trying to get some ideas together for relatively healthy, easy dinners.

Yet another mother, looking for convenienence, thrusts carcinogens into the mouths of their babes. Or irradigens. Or whatever they are called. Please, save the PM's...if I just admit now I am a terrible parent, will it save me from well meaning e-gulleter's?

[Rail Paul]

Yet another mother, looking for convenienence, thrusts carcinogens into the mouths of their babes. Or irradigens. Or whatever they are called.  Please, save the PM's...if I just admit now I am a terrible parent, will it save me from well meaning e-gulleter's?

I'd say you're doing just fine, Kim.

Anything which reduces the bacteria count in your kids' food is a good thing. I'm somewhat dubious of so-called junk science, long on speculation and short on clinical trials and research.

[erie1]

Wegman's this past summer actually had a traveling road show cooking burgers to customers spec's (med rare etc") to show off their beef. I used it several times on the grill as I am a "run the cow by the fire to warm it up" burger guy. I'll take my chances on the cancer vs ecoli as I eat the irradiated maybe once a month if that.

[Nick]

If the packing/slaughter houses would slow down their lines and do ecoli testing there would probably be no need for irradiation. The mindset seems to be - run it through and we'll clean it up later with the nukes. Pretty sorry state of affairs. I wonder how much extra per pound meat would be if they'd slow down the lines - leading to a cleaner environment and and better conditions for the workers.

My friends' local slaughter house/meat shop has no ecoli problems (and they test for it.)

As far as whether irradiation is safe or not - remember when above ground nuclear bomb testing at the Nevada flats was considered safe? If money's at stake and you've got some scientists and PR people in your corner (pocket?), go for it.

[tommy]

I wonder how much extra per pound meat would be if they'd slow down the lines - leading to a cleaner environment and and better conditions for the workers.

you can irradiate 100% of the meat. you can't test 100% of the meat. if you're looking for close-to-100% safe beef, i'm guessing the answer is it would be cost prohibitive.

[guajolote]

Here's some good scientific talk about irradiation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...9&notFound=true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...0&notFound=true

[=Mark]

As far as whether irradiation is safe or not - remember when above ground nuclear bomb testing at the Nevada flats was considered safe? If money's at stake and you've got some scientists and PR people in your corner (pocket?), go for it. 

I think these folks know it would not be a good idea to take their lunch breaks in the radiation chamber. Saying that we did not know the dangers of exposure to radiation in the 40's does not apply 50+ years later. In the early 1800s at the beginning of the steam locomotive era it was feared that speeds in excess of 20 mph would be fatal. I suppose we should outlaw travelling faster than that just in case...

[msp]

The word "irradiation" is an unfortunate one. It brings to mind men in huge white suits and gas masks at a nuclear plant.

And the words elicits reactions not based on science or reality but on fear. When trying to learn about irradiation, be aware of the bias in information from a web site promoting organics.

Nickn's point is well taken-- if we raised our food differently from the way we do, perhaps we could reduce the pathogens. More importantly, if we were more careful in the way we handle food at home, we could have an enormous impact on the amount of food-borne illness we experience. Improper handling in the home is far and away the biggest factor in food borne illness. Restaurant induced illness gets more publicity/npotoriety because so many more people are sickened at once.

Meanwhile, though, I would urge anyone seriously concerned about the effects of radiation to explore the scientific research, and be wary of biased information coming both from meat producers and --on the other end-- organics propagandists. Both have an agendas; neither present information fully.

Also, Tommy's point is important-- we can irradiate all the beef; we can test only a portion. But be aware that irradiation does NOT ensure complete safety of beef when that beef is mishandled. We, the home cooks and consumers, still have responsibility to respect our ingredients and store and cook them properly. And was it Tommy who pointed out how long we have already been using irradiation in this country?

If any of you have scholarly and/or well researched articles and documents on the subject of irradiation, I would be most interested in PMs with links or leads to the info, as I am in the throes of writing an entry on the topic for the upcoming volumes of the Encyclopedia of American Food and Wine.

Kim, as a mother, I see distinct advantages of the irradiated products, especially as my pre-teen and teenage kids are starting to cook-- it gives me comfort. (Furthermore, I have taught them to do as I do when cooking chicken-- they don't eat it unless they've taken it's temperature). So let the egulleters pin our sorry heads on the back of the donkey...at least we know our kids will be healthy enough to laugh at the sight!

[g.johnson]

I hope this beef is clearly labeled so that the consumer can choose NOT to buy this beef.  Irradiation has been proven to create carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde in the food!!  It has also been linked to birth defects and degradation of nutrients in the food.  The biggest problem is that there are products that are irradiated that are not clearly labeled, e.g., milk in boxes.  Here is just one link to read further:

http://www.all-organic-food.com/irradiat.htm

Though I think there are legitimate concerns about irradiated food, that website is full of hysterical exagerration, half truths and unsubstantiated allegations. Sorry.

[msp]

As a post script to my last post...None of this is to say that I believe irradiation is without concern, or that we should use irradiation indiscriminately or as a substitute for good breeding and slaughter techniques.

As with so many things, use of the technique in moderation may help improve wellness and safety and overuse could have detrimental effects on the same.

Edited January 26, 2003 by msp (log)

[Kikujiro]

Not an issue over here, as irradiated beef isn't allowed in Europe. The UK will apparently in theory allow some irradiated foods, including poultry, but so far has only granted licenses for herbs. IR foods have to be labelled.

I note that the US administration's desire to change the labelling requirements over there goes hand in hand with its threat to bring a WTO action against Europe for labelling GM foods. Informed consumer choice seems a low priority with these folks.

[Kikujiro]

Though I think there are legitimate concerns about irradiated food, that website is full of hysterical exagerration, half truths and unsubstantiated allegations. Sorry.

How about this? Not making claims that it isn't hysterical, but would be interested to know before I take it all in, as Cabby would say.

[g.johnson]

Here's some good scientific talk about irradiation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...9&notFound=true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...0&notFound=true

From the first article:

Case in point: the MRI, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging, machines that have revolutionized medical diagnosis and saved thousands of lives are actually NMR, or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, machines, but they had to be renamed to eliminate the dreaded n-word.

Well that was the excuse. Those of us in the biz think that it was really because Radiologists were scared that a lucrative examination would be taken over by Nuclear Medicine departments.

[tommy]

this seems like another issue where people will have to make up their own minds on who/what to believe.

[g.johnson]

Though I think there are legitimate concerns about irradiated food, that website is full of hysterical exagerration, half truths and unsubstantiated allegations. Sorry.

How about this? Not making claims that it isn't hysterical, but would be interested to know before I take it all in, as Cabby would say.

A quick skim through their page of "scientific evidence" reveals a mixed bag. For example they say, correctly I believe, that irradiation creates free radicals in food and that free radicals are harmful. However, they provide no evidence that free radicals remain in irradiated food more than transiently, which I think unlikely given their reactivity. Similarly they claim that irradiation won't work because lettuce pick up E. Coli through their root systems. The logic seems screwed however: irradiation is the only process that will kill bacteria within the organism. Washing certainly won't. On the other hand this article, claiming that irradiation only kills harmless bacteria and not harmful ones, seems well researched though I don?\'t know the background.

So, a mixed bag. Treat with caution.

[Nick]

Does anyone know of any chefs/restaurants that are openly serving anything that's been irradiated? Is it running a close second to free range, grass-fed, etc.?

[Rail Paul]

I'm not aware of any restaurants that advertise they use irradiated products, nickn. Most people prefer a benign ignorance of what goes on in the kitchen and up the food chain, from what I can tell.

I followed up a few open items folks have raised in these posts.

MeatNews, a trade publication, cites a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that 20% of US ground beef in supermarkets may contain measurable bacteria or drug residue. Antibiotic drugs are administered to help cattle gain weight, there is some concern these low doses may be abetting the growth of "super sized antibiotic resistant illnesses" in humans who consume the meat from said animals

Meat News The same article also says the USDA's Office of Food Safety and inspection Services believes it has the right to shut down a processor for two or more violations of humane slaughter laws or cleanliness regs within a 12 month period.

Ralph Nader's Public Citizen believes irradiated beef is unhealthy. The Center for Science in the Public Interest notes that irradiation will kill vital nutrients in food.

Science in the Public interest

The NY Times says in an October 26, 2002 article, that the American Medical Association has determined that irradiated foods are safe to eat, concurring with research developed by the World Health Organization.

It's interesting how the battle lines drawn over irradiated foods mirror the battle lines drawn over genetically modified food materials