No subject

Research Confirms That Consumers Reject "Pasteurization" Label
for Irradiated Food
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The two federal agencies responsible for food regulation 
may have intentionally withheld from lawmakers critical consumer research 
that is compellingly contrary to several provisions in the recently passed 
farm bill about the labeling of irradiated food, Public Citizen has 
learned.
On May 8, Congress passed the farm bill, which included several industry 
provisions that weakened the labeling of irradiated food and opened the 
door for manufacturers to mislabel it as "pasteurized." Yet research 
commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA) - and withheld from lawmakers while they were 
crafting the bill - shows that consumers do not want irradiated food termed 
"pasteurized."
"It is outrageous that government agencies responsible for public health 
and the safety of the food supply would withhold information so relevant to 
a law before it was passed," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public 
Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "This is a glaring 
omission at best and deceptive at worse. We suspect that the agencies held 
onto the research because they didn't like the results. The lawmakers may 
not have put these harmful provisions in the law had they seen this 
research."
The provisions were slipped into the bill as a "technical amendment" late 
in the process by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who took $192,138 in 
agribusiness PAC contributions in the last two election cycles (1999-2000 
and 2001-2002).
Since 2001, the USDA and the FDA have each commissioned research into 
consumers' opinions on labeling.  In the FY 2002 Agriculture-FDA 
Appropriations bill, Congress instructed the FDA to report by Feb. 1, 2002, 
the findings from its consumer focus groups and how the agency planned to 
implement the findings. Although the FDA conducted the research in 2001, it 
didn't provide Congress with the information until last Thursday, July 18, 
more than five months after the original deadline.
The FDA research involved six focus groups composed of seven to 10 
consumers each. They unanimously rejected "pasteurization" as a replacement 
for "irradiation," using phrases such as "sneaky," "deceptive," and "trying 
to fool us" to describe such an attempt to change terminology. "Most of the 
participants viewed alternate terms such as 'cold pasteurization' and 
'electronic pasteurization' as misleading," the report said. "Everyone 
agreed that irradiated foods should be labeled honestly.  They indicated 
that the current FDA-required statement is a straightforward way for 
labeling irradiated foods."
Additionally, Public Citizen recently obtained portions of the USDA's 
report on consumer attitudes on labeling, after requesting information 
about the focus group results under the Freedom of Information Act in early 
April.  The report, which was compiled by an outside consulting firm, is 
dated March 22, 2002, yet the USDA apparently has never released the report 
to the public or lawmakers (a congressional source involved in the writing 
of the farm bill said she never knew of it). The report found that 
consumers "consider it misleading to label irradiated meat and poultry 
products as 'pasteurized.' "
The focus groups rejected the euphemism because they "consider irradiation 
and pasteurization to be two different processes," the report said. The 
USDA consumer research was conducted in six focus group sessions, composed 
of household grocery shoppers and "food preparers." Between the FDA and 
USDA focus groups, consumers were queried in six different cities 
representing all regions of the country.
"When you are creating rules that directly affect consumers, it's vital 
that consumers be heard," said Hauter.  "We find it hard to believe that 
USDA didn't know Congress was debating the very issue their new report 
addressed - it was even in The New York Times. Why would these agencies 
bother to ask consumers what they think if they aren't going to inform 
decision-makers about the results?"
"When government agencies consistently find that consumers reject the use 
of 'pasteurization' to describe irradiation, government policies should 
reflect that," said Tony Corbo, legislative representative for Public 
Citizen. "Consumers have repeatedly denounced this terminology, and for the 
government to ignore its own research is utter hypocrisy.
"What's even more alarming about USDA's failure to publicize this research 
is how far they've gone to keep it from getting out," Corbo added.  "At a 
June 5 meeting of the USDA's Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry 
Inspection, Undersecretary for Food Safety Elsa Murano denied that this 
research had ever been conducted. Meanwhile the report had been done since 
March."
Irradiation uses gamma rays, X-rays or accelerated electrons that alter the 
molecular structure of food in an attempt to kill pathogens and insects. 
The process destroys nutrients, may change the taste, smell and appearance 
of food, and produces new chemical compounds, some of which have been found 
to promote cancer and cause genetic and cellular damage in rats and human 
cells. Irradiation is a distinct process that is very different from 
pasteurization, which uses rapid heating and cooling to partially sterilize 
liquid products, namely milk.
###
Public Citizen is a national consumer advocacy organization based in 
Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org
NOTE: If you no longer wish to receive press releases from Public Citizen, 
please send an email to the above address and type "unsubscribe" in the 
subject field.