Hot lunch
Will S.F. schools feed your children radiation-zapped beef?

By Rachel Brahinsky

From the brain-wasting insanity of mad cow disease to the mysterious avian flu linked to infected chicken shit, the perils of illnesses spawned by the food system have been making headlines for weeks. In fact, symptoms of food-related illnesses – including fever, diarrhea, open skin sores, and boils – are commonplace: some 76 million people in this country report illnesses from contaminated food each year.

It's a tough problem to crack. Strict adherence to kitchen cleanliness and careful handling and cooking of meats helps, but mistakes abound, and the high-volume, centralized food system is a breeding ground for bacteria and disease.

Enter food irradiation, a controversial process by which high doses of gamma radiation – enough to provide about 15 million times the energy used in a chest X ray, and 150 times the amount capable of killing an adult – are zapped through food, neutralizing stomach-churning pests and bacteria including salmonella, E. coli, and listeria (but not the prions that cause mad cow disease).

In the next few weeks San Francisco education officials will be contemplating whether to allow irradiated meat in school lunches.

Nuclear cleanliness

Zapping food, boosters of the technology say, adds an extra layer of protection in an increasingly globalized food marketplace. They point to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which estimates about 5,000 people die annually from food-borne illnesses. San Francisco health officials estimate about 300 such illnesses are reported in the city annually, with no deaths reported in recent years.

But critics charge that irradiated food carries its own hazards, including possible links to a myriad of health problems, both for consumers and the workers who employ the technology. And they point out even irradiated food isn't foolproof and can become contaminated by poor handling or storage after it's nuked. What's more, they note the process spurs further globalization, as it makes food less susceptible to spoilage even while being shipped over long distances.

Yet another issue is that irradiation can be used to mask food system problems that originate in the packing plants, problems which are tied to unsafe conditions for workers who are forced to favor speed over hygiene.

That's why critics are urging the San Francisco Board of Education to steer clear of the technology. Some argue that if irradiated meat is allowed into school lunches, Bay Area children's health would be risked as part of an experiment with an unproven technology. Others are primarily concerned with the broader social and environmental reaches of radiation.

"I don't disagree that food-borne illness is a problem, but in terms of the numbers, most people don't die – they have a stomachache," said Pamela Coxson, whose son is in the fourth grade at César Chávez Elementary School.

Plus, she told the Bay Guardian, "anything like this that gets used widely has the potential to cause environmental damage. I'm not paranoid about this. I know [radiation] can have a beneficial effect. But all of the research shows that when you irradiate things, things change."

Mixed results

Dozens of tests of food irradiation have produced mixed results. Studies conducted from the 1960s to the present show that while radiation doesn't linger in food, the process changes the makeup of nuked foods and creates new substances that don't occur naturally. Many studies have linked these by-products (known as 2-alkylcyclobutanones) to tumors, prenatal death, genetic damage, reproductive dysfunction, and chromosomal aberrations in laboratory animals.

Other studies have come up with different results, showing the food to be relatively safe. The professional medical societies are split over the technology, and major governmental institutions, including the World Health Organization, have deferred to the nuclear industry's insistence that it's safe.

Still, many consumers rights groups oppose irradiation.

A Consumer Reports investigation, published in August of last year, says that "irradiated meat could help reduce widespread risk from foodborne illness," but it then concludes: "Should you buy it? There's no reason to if you cook meat thoroughly. Irradiation actually destroys fewer bacteria than does proper cooking." It also found the food was marked by a "slight but distinct off-taste and smell ... likening it to singed hair."

Debating the issue

The Bush administration's decision in May 2003 to allow irradiated beef into the federal school lunch program has triggered a series of debates on the issue across the country. Schools were allowed to begin purchasing nuked beef Jan. 1.

Following in the footsteps of the Berkeley and Los Angeles school boards, which have already outlawed the practice, S.F. school board member Mark Sanchez authored a resolution late last year opposing the technology.

The outcome of the resolution is uncertain, in part because board president Dr. Dan Kelly opposes it. Kelly told us he's not a strong advocate of irradiation but he believes it would be foolish for the district to oppose it.

"It's not a rare thing to have food poisoning," Kelly said. "And the kinds we're concerned about are primarily bacterial. By and large these are problems of the industrial food supply."

Kelly said his priority is to think about the immediate safety of kids. "The impact on workers, yes, that's an issue. But that's a side issue. It doesn't mean I'm advocating [irradiation], but I don't think we should preclude it. Undercooked meat – you know it's going to happen. So you need to cut it off at the source."

Kelly also noted that irradiated meat isn't yet widely available, so he believes it may not reach the district as a real option anytime soon. It's true irradiated foods have been slow to gain acceptance, but they're available in supermarkets in most states, according to the nonprofit Public Citizen, which opposes the technology.

Public Citizen's Tracy Lerman agreed that it seems irradiated food sales have been sluggish, but for her, that underscores the need to keep them out of the schools. If the general public won't eat irradiated food, Lerman asked, why would we want to feed it to our children? (It's also worth noting that, just as with genetically modified foods, the European Union is far more cautious than U.S. authorities on the risks of irradiation in the food supply.)

The larger issue for some critics is that even when food is irradiated, it can still be unsafe for consumers, suggesting the solution might be improved handling and cooking policies. They also point out that the kids who eat school-provided lunches are predominantly low-income kids, often from communities of color.

The school board was expected to send the resolution to committee for consideration Jan. 27, after press time. When the debate comes to the full board, probably in early February, members will likely hear from parents like Maribeth Goldstein, who is wary of having kids serve as participants in the irradiation experiment.

"We have problems enough with the school lunches," Goldstein told us. "It's just too risky. We don't have enough knowledge."

For more information go to www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety/food_irrad or www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/etext/000026.html. To follow the debate at the school board, watch for board agendas at portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm.

E-mail Rachel Brahinsky