Irradiation Misrepresented by Consumer Reports > Health Issues

By Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D.
Posted: Monday, August 11, 2003

ARTICLES
Publication Date: August 11, 2003

Warning: Reading Consumer Reports may be dangerous to your health.

Consumer Reports (CR) has helped millions of Americans select the best consumer goods available at the lowest prices and has called attention to some of the excesses of the marketplace. As a result, it has established a reputation among consumers as an honest, informative magazine. In recent years, however, CR policy appears to have been taken over by consumer and environmental activists and the magazine is dispensing advice that is not in the best interests of its readers. For example, CR recommended that consumers buy organic food instead of conventional food although it found that there were no health, nutritional, or taste differences between them and organic food cost much more (if CR had applied the same standards to food that it applies to refrigerators it would have rated conventional food a "best buy"). A pesticide danger ranking system developed by CR's parent organization, Consumers Union, was so scientifically unsound that it was severely criticized by the Society of Toxicology. While CR admitted that genetically engineered food is safe to eat, it nevertheless called for mandatory labeling, knowing full well that this will give vendors of organic food an unfair marketing advantage among many consumers.

An article titled "The Truth About Irradiated Meat" (August 2003) is the latest outrage. At first, CR correctly reports that "irradiated food is safe to eat, according to federal and world health officials," and that the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that irradiating half of all ground beef, poultry, pork, and processed meat would prevent approximately one million cases of food poisoning, 8,500 hospital admissions, 6,000 grave illnesses, and 350 deaths in the U.S. each year. In their own tests, CR found that 84% of non-irradiated chicken fingers contained Listeria monocytogenes (a pathogenic microorganism responsible for several disease outbreaks last year), while the irradiated product contained none.

In spite of this, CR does everything it can to persuade consumers not to buy irradiated meat. First, they claim that irradiation does not kill all the bacteria. That's true, but the process is designed to kill the pathogenic bacteria more readily than the benign organisms. A similar situation is encountered in the pasteurization of milk, a process that kills Salmonella but not spoilage bacteria (or else milk would never spoil). Second, their taste test panel (which consisted of a grand total of two people) found an off-flavor so "subtle" that "some consumers may not notice it." If the off-flavor is so subtle, how about acknowledging that the vast majority of consumers would not recognize it — instead of planting the notion of poor taste into people's psyches? Besides, why not do a real taste test by comparing the taste of a juicy medium rare or rare hamburger with the burnt offerings obtained from having to cook non-irradiated beef to a crisp? In addition to falsely claiming that irradiated meat tastes bad, CR says that the typical irradiation dose for meat is 150 times the dose capable of killing an adult. While this may be true, it is irrelevant, since human radiation exposure from eating irradiated food is zero. Another red herring is that irradiation can't destroy the agents thought to cause Mad Cow Disease: neither does cooking (or incineration, for that matter).

And Finally, Cancer

And if these arguments aren't enough to dissuade the consumer from buying irradiated food, it's time for that old bugaboo, cancer. CR cites unpublished European studies that suggest that some of the chemicals formed in meat as a result of irradiation may cause cancer. These chemicals belong to a class of compounds called 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs) and have been under intense study by Dr. Henry Delincee and his colleagues at the Federal Research Center of Nutrition in Karlsruhe, Germany since 1998. CR has apparently found this information in an affidavit to the U.S. Department of Agriculture from a paid consultant to Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety, two activist organizations that have led the fight against irradiated food. However, CR did not inform their readers that the consultant was condemned by Dr. Delincee for "obviously not telling the truth, thereby committing perjury" and for submitting an affidavit of "no value." Nor did CR explain that the World Health Organization, after examining the 2-ACB data, wrote that the chemicals "do not appear to pose a health risk to consumers." If CR is so concerned about cancer, they should have informed their readers that mutagens and carcinogens are also formed when meat is cooked at the high temperatures required to kill bacteria — and that the amount of these chemicals is much reduced at the lower temperatures that can be used if the meat is first irradiated. Perversely, CR is recommending that consumers buy products that are not only more risky in terms of food poisoning but also pose an increased (although extremely small) cancer risk.

CR has been able to maintain its enviable reputation for honesty and integrity by refusing to accept advertisements. However, the organizations and foundations that are providing substantial financial support to CR's parent, Consumers Union, are the same ones that are making huge contributions to groups that advocate the purchase of organic food, want to get rid of pesticides, and are against both genetically engineered food and irradiated food. In fairness to its readers, CR should divulge that the rules have changed, and that some of its opinions may result from a conflict of interest.

Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D., is an ACSH Advisor and a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. He likes his meat rare and his science well done. For more information, see ACSH's booklet on Irradiated Foods.




Responses: August 13, 2003 Dear ACSH: I think that Consumer Reports generally provides excellent information in many areas (like computers), and that there are many times when they do not. However, meat irradiation is the wrong approach to food safety. Just tonight on the local TV news, a WHO report urged the removal of antibiotics from livestock because the antibiotics simply cause more and more resistant bacteria. When you remove the antibiotics, the resistant bacteria decline in population. Isn't this a much better idea than shooting gamma rays into foods? After all, what kind of mutant organisms could that produce? Overprocessed foods are one of the leading causes of disease today. The chemical industry seems to think that we can simply erase thousands of years of collected wisdom and start the world again with new genetic-engineered and synthetic creations. But how can this possibly nourish humanity? Or is their real objective to eliminate us and create a whole new superhuman? Technology has a strong role to play in our society, but it should be judged in an open market, competing against natural/organic and "mainstream" lifeforms. Then consumers can make an enlightened decision, and we can all learn together, in a beautiful, harmonic process. —airgun177 The editor replies: We've let frequent letter-writer "airgun177" have his say one final time, but since he tends to make the same sweeping generalizations each time he writes — technology is harmful and nature beneficent — this rejoinder should suffice for all hypothetical future iterations of the airgun177 argument: Nature frequently kills or injures humans, and technology more often than not ameliorates that suffering. Airgun177 makes irresponsible leaps of logic, such as noting the problem of bacterial resistance (a problem, by the way, that is manageable and often preferable to letting disease ravage livestock) and then implying that antibiotic-free cows will necessarily be less-diseased cows — not to mention jumping to the conclusion that radiation will produce "mutant organisms" more dangerous than the numerous perfectly conventional ones left to thrive in the absence of irradiation. Markets should indeed decide what practices thrive, and tools such as antibiotics and irradiation, properly used, lower costs and increase safety, giving them an edge over the tech-free practices that kept human beings undernourished, ill, and short-lived for millennia. The only gambit left to the defenders of organic agriculture is to impede technology's spread by resorting to fraudulent, frightening health claims. Airgun177 is welcome to continue the "beautiful, harmonic process" of living off the land — but we "new superhumans" (if that's how he flatteringly chooses to see users of science and industry) can and will do better than that. Todd Seavey Editor HealthFactsAndFears.com August 21, 2003 Dear ACSH: I think that irradiation is totally misrepresented by Consumer Reports. In a local TV news segment (see http://www.wrgb.com/consumer/conreports/conreports.asp), not only did they mention the "slight but distinct off-taste and smell" (both slight and distinct, what a combo), they went as far as to say "Consumer Reports says the best way to kill bacteria is to cook meat thoroughly. In fact, thorough cooking actually destroys more bacteria than irradiation." But people cook their meat, and they still get sick. I wonder why? Consumer Reports must have forgotten about bare hand contact and cross contamination. According to the CDC, bacteria is often transmitted from raw, uncooked foods, such as chicken or beef, to hands; the bacteria are then transferred to other foods, such as salad. Cooking the raw food kills the initial bacteria, but the salad remains contaminated. What good is cooking going to do then? It's already too late. You just transmitted the bacteria to the nice tossed green salad everyone is going to eat. Or how about transmitting it to yourself, or to someone you just shook hands with — because you forgot to wash your hands after forming those nice bacteria-loaded non-irradiated beef patties. The CDC also states: an overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrates that irradiation does not harm the nutritional value of food, nor does it make the food unsafe to eat. I tend to agree with an overwhelming body of scientific evidence over a Consumer Reports taste test any time. If you like all-natural beef and think it poses no problem, by all means eat it, just remember that cow manure is all-natural too. I wonder if cooking that will kill off 99.9999% of the bacteria? Irradiation sure would. —Daoud September 1, 2003 I wonder how rigid these technophobes are? Since Airgun177 is so willing to go au natural, he, and all of the people like him, should be for the abolition of the MMR, diphtheria, tetanus, and polio vaccines, the search for a "cure" for AIDS, the aboliltion of medical research, and anything remotely out of line with "natural/organic." I am curious as to what would qualify as "natural." I am afraid that someone already has an idea on how best to create an agency to determine (with expensive study and learned insight from those who always seem to know what is best for others) what "natural/organic" is. Dr. Rosen, it is people like you who help keep the people of the world free from this sort of mind pollution. Thank you. Richard Holtmeyer University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law [Editor's note: In August, an article on HealthFactsAndFears.com by ACSH's Joseph Rosen criticized Consumer Reports. Now, Consumer Reports editor Margot Slade and Rosen exchange letters about it; Consumer Reports does not come out looking good.] October 2, 2003 TO: Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D. Advisor, American Council on Science and Health Professor of Food Science, Cook College Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Dear Dr. Rosen: I have read your article "Irradiation Misrepresented by Consumer Reports," and I feel compelled to comment. Consumers Union, the independent, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, used no foundation or organization funding in development of its August article, "The Truth About Irradiated Meat." Consumer Reports stands behind its testing methodology and its published report as an unbiased assessment of meat irradiation. One purpose of our report was to investigate the advertising claims that consumers are receiving about irradiation from sources such as retail supermarkets and restaurants. As noted in the report, one supermarket chain's flyer says that irradiation "eliminates any bacteria that might exist in food." Our tests showed that while bacteria levels were generally lower in irradiated meat, irradiation didn't kill all bacteria. The purpose of our taste tests was to determine how irradiated meat tastes compared with non-irradiated meat. (A flyer from Surebeam, a leading irradiator, says, "You can't taste the difference.") Trained taste testers, with a combined thirty years of sensory testing experience, were used for our blind test. Our report noted that the "off" taste they detected in most irradiated meat was distinct but usually subtle and that some consumers may not notice it. Consumers Union believes that the U.S. meat supply is not as safe as it should be, and that government, industry, and institutions can and should do far more to prevent contamination in the first place. As our report notes, irradiation can provide an extra measure of safety. But thoroughly cooking food is an even better safeguard. The purpose of our report is to help the consumer make an informed buying decision concerning irradiated meat — a decision based on unbiased, fair, and accurate information. That is what we delivered. Sincerely, Margot Slade Editor November 3, 2003 Ms. Margot Slade, Editor Consumer Reports Dear Ms. Slade: Thank you for your letter dated October 2, which I am going to answer point by point. 1. I did not accuse you of using foundation or organization funding for your August article. I simply pointed out that many of the donors to CU are the same ones who contribute to organizations opposed to pesticides, genetic engineering, and irradiated food. The presence of Joan Claybrook, the president of Public Citizen (an organization that is in the forefront of opposition to irradiated food) on your Board of Directors does little to enhance your objectivity. 2. You are using one supermarket chain's claim that irradiation "eliminates any bacteria that might exist in food" as an excuse to insinuate that irradiation of beef is not protective against pathogenic bacteria. What makes it even worse is that your reporter, Carolyn Cairns, knew that she was misinforming your readers (see enclosures 1 and 2 from Professor Smith of Kansas State University below). 3. I am not impressed by the "combined thirty years of sensory testing experience" of your trained taste testers. Did you use one taster with thirty years of experience or thirty each with one year of experience? The truth is that you used only two tasters. According to Professor Beverly Tepper, an expert in taste testing in my department, you need to train a taste panel for one to three months, to to three sessions per week. Did you spend the money to do a proper taste test? Obviously not. And in order to get statistically significant results, at least six tasters are required. More typically, twelve to fourteen tasters are used. To make it worse, Ms. Cairns was aware of research done at Kansas State by Professor Penner and her student, Lori Hamilton, that demonstrated that 113 untrained consumers (people just like you and me) could not discern any taste differences between irradiated and non-irradiated hamburger (see enclosure 3). I think you owe Surebeam an apology for criticizing their assertion that "you can't taste the difference." Don't try to weasel out of this one by pointing to the sentence that stated that some consumers may not notice the off-taste. Consumer Reports' intent is clear: to discourage consumers from purchasing irradiated food because it tastes bad. 4. I agree with you that the U.S. meat supply is not as safe as it should be. That is exactly why we need to irradiate our ground beef! Your organization should be leading the effort to make irradiation of ground beef mandatory in order to protect consumers. Instead you publish an article that scares off consumers and that may contribute to the failure of the food irradiation industry. It just makes no sense! 5. The purpose of your report was to discourage the consumer from purchasing irradiated beef. There is no way that the consumer can make an informed buying decision based on the biased, unfair, and inaccurate information that you delivered. For example, you wrote that a typical irradiation dose for meat was "150 times the dose capable of killing an adult." Just exactly what was the consumer to do with this bit of biased, completely irrelevant, and useless information put out by Joan Claybrook's Public Citizen? What possessed you to repeat it? How fair was it to suggest that irradiated beef contained chemicals that were tumor-promoters in rodents without also reporting that the doses administered to the rodents were hundreds of times greater than the doses humans would be exposed to? How accurate was your assertion that irradiation did not kill all the bacteria without mentioning that the procedure was designed to destroy the pathogenic bacteria? In any event, I am impressed that you actually were concerned enough about my article to take the time to write to me, and I hope that you can now understand why I wrote the article. For the sake of your readers, I urge you to do the correct thing and admit that your report was inaccurate. It is one thing to make a mistake recommending the wrong toaster; it is another to discourage people from purchasing a product that could prevent serious illness to themselves and their loved ones. Sincerely, Joseph D. Rosen Professor of Food Science ENCLOSURE 1: Date sent: Sat, 16 Aug, 2003 From: J. Scott Smith, Kansas State University Subject: ACSH article on Consumer Reports irradiation article To: Joseph Rosen, Rutgers University Dear Joseph, I appreciate your article on the Consumer Reports article and think it was well done and very appropriate. Since late last year, I have communicated with Carolyn Cairns, Senior Project Leader, Consumer Sciences division at CU about irradiated meat (I believe she was the senior author of the irradiated meat article). I knew an article was in the works and had hoped it would be science-based rather than what was published. In our discussions, I tried to impress on her that irradiation was used to kill pathogenic bacteria and NOT kill all the microflora. We even discussed D values and how that can be used to predict contamination (pathogens) in the final product (based on a typical dose of 1.5 kGy). We also discussed the taste issues, and I informed her about some ongoing research at K-State. One of my colleague's grad students did a project last summer and her data showed that consumers COULD NOT differentiate between irradiated and non-irradiated ground beef patties (frozen, ebeam, 1.5 kGy). There was a slight preference for the irradiated patties, but it was not significant. Oh, and the consumers evaluating the products numbered over eighty, so it was a large enough sample with which to perform valid statistical analysis. (Note from JDR: there were 113 tasters according to the grad student's thesis.) One of my graduate students had a poster presentation at the 2003 IFT meeting on the cyclobutanone toxicity issue. What's interesting about this is that I sent Carolyn a copy of the abstract as soon as it was on the IFT website (way before the CR magazine was published). We have evaluated cyclobutanone levels in beef patties (published in J. Ag. Food. Chem. late last year) and have not been able to reproduce some of the results posted on the website in Germany (see citation below — we have an English translated copy). Anyway, here is more info to put in your file or future articles. I am curious about your comment that only TWO trained tasters were used in the CR article. Do you have insider information on that? If this is true, then I don't see how it is possible to conclude much of anything because there is no way to perform any statistical analysis (unless there is some trick that I'm not aware of). Keep up the good work. This is the German publication (I have an English translation; let me know if you want a copy): www.bfa-ernaehrung.de/Bfe-Deutsch/Information/bfeber91.htm (2nd 2002 paper). The full citation is: D. Burnouf, H. Delincée, A. Hartwig, E. Marchioni, M. Miesch, F. Raul, D. Werner (2001), Etude toxicologique transfrontaličre destinée ŕ évaluer le risque encouru lors de la consommation d'aliments gras ionisés — Toxikologische Untersuchung zur Risikobewertung beim Verzehr von bestrahlten fetthaltigen Lebensmitteln — Eine französisch-deutsche Studie im Grenzraum Oberrhein, Rapport final d'étude Interreg II, projet No. 3.171. BFE-R-02-02, Federal Research Centre for Nutrition, Karlsruhe, Germany. These are the IFT presentations I mentioned above: http://ift.confex.com/ift/2003/techprogram/paper_16839.htm http://ift.confex.com/ift/2003/techprogram/paper_18601.htm J. Scott Smith, Ph.D Associate Prof of Food Chemistry Dept. of Animal Sci. & Ind., 208 Call Hall Kansas State University ENCLOSURE 2: Date sent: Mon, 18 Aug, 2003 From: J. Scott Smith Subject: ACSH article on Consumer Reports irradiation article To: Joseph Rosen The story gets better. I spoke this morning with Karen Penner (KSU foods sci professor and IFT communicator) who had the student doing the consumer research on irradiated beef. Apparently CU/CR also spoke with the student about the research. Basically, consumers were asked to compare irradiated vs. non-irradiated cooked burgers. The consumers were not able to differentiate between the two and show a slight insignificant preference for the irradiated patties. The study involved over 100 consumers so the size was pretty large. CU/CR was aware of these results way BEFORE they published their article. In fact, they may have chosen to use trained sensory panelists because they wanted to show that tasters could tell the difference. Sounds pretty devious, but it is not out of the question. Another rumor I heard is that the marketing folks at CU/CR got their hands on the article and overruled some of the technical staff. This would jibe with your comments about the donors influencing some of the CU articles. I'm disgusted! How can I trust anything CU says if they ignore the science, and have a predetermined outcome? I'll keep you posted when I write something. Will get the translation out to you sometime this week. —Scott ENCLOSURE 3: 45B-7 Influence of consumer education and product exposure on consumers' perceptions of irradiated ground beef L. S. HAMILTON, Food Science Institute, Kansas State University, 216 Call Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506 and K. Penner, Dept. of ASI, Call Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-1600. Food irradiation has the ability to decrease pathogens and increase shelf-life of food. Consumer acceptance of irradiation and availability of irradiated products have been slow to develop. Previous research has shown that increased knowledge of food irradiation leads to greater approval among consumers. Most sensory analyses of irradiated foods have been performed with trained panels, not consumers. The objectives of this study were to determine 1. the effects of education and product exposure towards consumer views of irradiation, 2. if consumer perceptions could determine differences between irradiated and non-irradiated ground beef, 3. if consumers could detect changes in irradiated and non-irradiated samples after three-months frozen storage. A random sample of consumers participated in one of four sessions. Sessions varied in irradiation education and sensory analysis of irradiated (1.5kGy) and non-irradiated ground beef. Following each session, a small number of consumers, by prearrangement, participated in focus groups to elicit additional responses. Consumers at each session completed questionnaires. Sensory analysis results indicated that consumers could not differentiate and had no preference for either ground beef sample (p< 0.05). For the initial and follow-up sensory tests, both irradiated and non-irradiated cooked ground beef were perceived as equal. Educating consumers on irradiation had the most significant impact on their views of food irradiation (p<0.05). Groups who received irradiation education were more accepting of the technology (p < 0.05), and more positively changed their perception of irradiation (p<0.05). Groups that did not receive education were skeptical, uninformed, had more negative perceptions and at times were unaware that irradiation exists. Product exposure had no effect on perception of irradiation. Perception of food irradiation was significantly more positive in consumers who received irradiation education. Sensory analysis resulted in equal perceptions of irradiated and non-irradiated beef, thus taste is not a reason for the avoidance of irradiated food. 2003 IFT Annual Meeting - Chicago, Session 45B, Extension & Outreach: General More reader responses: November 21, 2003 IRRADIATED MEAT IS NOT SAFE —ossie747 ACSH replies: Well, that settles that. Todd Seavey Editor HealthFactsAndFears.com December 5, 2003 [Editor's note: The correspondence below shows that another of our advisors, Dr. Marvin Schissel, also has a problem with CR — a more mundane one, to be sure, but ironic given the magazine's mission. —TS] Dear Todd, Concerning the problems with Consumer Reports, it seems that CU is no longer the strong and reliable consumer advocate it once was. The past several years CU has published equivocating articles on medical practices the old CU would have condemned as outright quackery. And this slipshod attitude seems to have slipped over into their business practices. The following correspondence with CU a year ago might be of interest to you. The annoyance I had with CU didn't end there: I still get bills from them for a new subscription I didn't want and didn't order. Here are the three letters: you can print any of this if you want. Regards to everybody, Dr. Marvin J. Schissel September 5, 2002 To: Consumer Reports P.O. Box 2015 Yonkers, NY 10703-9015 Re: Marketing strategies I have been reading the Reports since my parents subscribed to the first offering back in the thirties. I have always considered CU to be a model of the best in integrity and consumerism, which is why I found the following to be particularly upsetting. I got, in the mail, your offer to "receive the current issue of Consumer Reports on Health, FREE." The offer also promised a book, The Best of Health, also free. Your offer states: "Your two gifts are free, period. You will never be asked to pay a penny for them and you are under no obligation whatsoever to buy anything, ever, when you accept them." I was interested, and I sent away for your offer. Shortly thereafter I received something from you. It was not the free issue. It was not the free book. It was a bill for the subscription demanding prompt payment (due date 9/18/02). It said, "Please allow 4-8 weeks for delivery." Not a word was mentioned about the free option. Of course if the "free" issue would not come for eight weeks it would be too late to appraise it and decide if I wanted to pay for a subscription whose payment was demanded eight weeks before. Moreover, in the confusion of everyday affairs it is probable that the "free" offer would be forgotten, and the bill simply paid as received. This is a fraudulent way to increase your subscription lists, not at all like what I had come to expect from Consumers Union. Shame on you! The old CU would never have stooped so low. Perhaps you should do a study on your own business and advertising practices. I will disregard the "due date" on your bill ands will pay it or cancel only after I receive and evaluate the "free" items. And I have made a note to watch for them and make sure I receive them. Sadly, Marvin J. Schissel November 4, 2002 To: Darlene Slovall Subscription Services Consumer Reports P.O. Box 5233 Harlan, IA 51593-0733 Re: Persistent marketing strategies Enclosed is a copy of a letter of complaint I wrote you September 5. I did, after some delay, receive a contrite reply from CU, but the words were not matched by deeds. I have received an issue of Consumer Reports on Health, but I have not yet received your "free" book. However, today I received a nastily-worded demand for payment, with the notice that my service has been "interrupted." I still await the free book and the resumption of "service," at which time I will pay your bills just as I, my company, and my parents have been paying your bills and reading the Reports since you started back in the thirties! This grubby business attitude is particularly embarrassing to me, since I have been a CU associate for years and have advised you in the past on some articles and policies. The old CU was not like this. Regretfully, Marvin J. Schissel November 25, 2002 To: Consumer Reports P.O. Box 2015 Yonkers, NY 10703-9015 Re: Marketing strategies I am enclosing copies of my unpleasant recent correspondence with CU; these will explain the situation. Last week I, at last, received my "free" copy of The Best of Health, so you can now bill me and resume my "service." Also, please send me a copy of the original "free" offer. It seems to me that the bill you sent me (which I tossed) was for an amount more than the original offering (unless the annoyance of all this has made me paranoid). Perhaps this seems to be making too much of a trivial situation. But multiply this by the thousands of solicitations I'm sure you sent out and it is no longer trivial. It indicates a fraudulent tendency the old CU never would have sanctioned. I hope this promotion was a one-time mistake on your part that you won't repeat. Sincerely, Marvin J. Schissel