poop, is still poop." These are words spoken by a consumer advocate
in opposition to irradiating meat. "Irradiation is a better
answer," are words written by Robert Zimbelman in response to last
week's blog on test and hold.
convened a public meeting last September on what action should be taken
in response to a petition from the American Meat Institute to have FSIS
recognize the use of low penetration and low dose electron beam
irradiation on the surface of chilled beef carcasses as a processing aid.
meeting, the opponents to the already approved and used high dose,
penetrating irradiation used to sterilize ground beef (so we can eat
it pink in the middle if we choose ) were asked to carefully evaluate the
pros and cons to this proposed application, keeping in mind that lives
could be saved and beef made safer IF low dose irradiation were used as
an additional intervention but NOT as a substitute for a comprehensive
food safety plan at slaughter facilities.
This would NOT guarantee sterility, not by a long shot; but it would
reduce the pathogen load substantially, thus allowing the other proven
interventions a better chance at further reducing the pathogen count AND
reducing the chances the grinders, who were the subject of last week's
blog, do not receive contaminated product from their source. Not to
mention reducing food borne illnesses.
the debate is whether or not the scary Radura symbol would need to be on
the label for non-penetrating irradiation. And part is whether the source
facilities would see this new tool as something that would cover up a
less than stellar process to prevent contamination.
would like to hear today is what did the consumer advocates finally
decide as to their position? Where is FSIS at in responding to the AMI
petition and how do the large slaughter facilities feel about the
allegation they would just get sloppy? And anything else you want to add,