FDA to allow irradiation of produce

I read a story on the San Francisco Chronicle's website this afternoon about the FDA's recent decision to permit the irradiation of fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce (i.e. it's being permitted, but not required). The reasoning behind it is that it will kill any possible E. coli or salmonella on these leafy vegetables. These aren't the only irradiated foods that will be permitted on the US market. The irradiation of many animal products, as well as of dried spices has been permitted for some time. Labeling indicating the foods in question had been irradiated was required, however, which limited the number of producers wanting to indulge themselves in using this technology for food processing. So? Now the FDA is thinking of changing the labeling requirement altogether -- basically, to leave consumers in the dark so that they're unable to choose for themselves. Now applications are apparently pouring in for permission to irradiate other types of lettuce and vegetables.

Critics say that not enough testing has been done on the safety of irradiating food, or on its effects on food's nutritional value. I'm wondering, myself, what effects irradiating food would have on phytonutrients in it, for instance. There's so much about nutrition that we still don't understand, especially in terms of synergy.

The Organic Consumers Association featured a story on this that definitely presents an anti-FDA side of it. It also seems to indicate that the irradiation is already being allowed to proceed without labeling. Hopefully, I'll be able to dig up some clarification on this over the next few days. As of today, there was nothing on the FDA's press release page on their decision.

The safety of GMOs revisited

The Institute for Responsible Technology has recently issued a report called ''State-of-the-Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods''. According to the Organic Consumers' Association:

the 28-page study describes the conflict of interest among regulators that allowed GMO foods on the market; the wide range of adverse findings from animal feeding studies [...]; reports by farmers of thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock; toxic and allergic properties of GM foods; numerous scientific assumptions used as the basis for safety claims that have since proven false; inadequate regulatory oversight; biased industry safety studies; manipulation of public opinion; and the mistreatment of scientists critical of the technology.

The report is available for free download here.

When ''organic'' doesn't mean organic

The Organic Consumers Association just released the results of a study where several well-known personal care products labelled ''organic'' or ''natural'' were found to contain concentrations of a substance called 1,4-dioxane, which is a by-product produced when foaming agents are processed with certain petrochemicals, with the intention of softening the harshness of the detergents in the products. It is an eye and respiratory tract irritant and is highly suspected of causing central nervous system damage, as well as liver and kidney damage. It has also been classified as a probable carcinogen.

It is commonly found in personal care products that aren't organic, and in the US, the FDA does not regulate it with any set standards. There are currently no standards in the US controlling the usage of the terms ''natural'' or ''organic'' with reference to personal care products. I plan to do some research on what the status quo is in Canada at this time concerning 1,4-dioxane.

Some of the products on their list include well-known brands such as Kiss My Face, Jason and Nature's Gate -- all products I've bought in the past, myself. The Whole Foods private label ''365'' is on the OCA'S list, as well.

The LA Times jumped on the story last Friday. I suspect we'll be hearing more about it over the next few days.