Euphemisms and Evasions

What disturbs me is that people think the Food and Drug Administration is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what people think they are doing is as different as night and day.

-Dr. Herbert Ley, Jr.
Former Commissioner
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The New York Times, January 4, 1970

The FDA's decision to approve food irradiation, and the controversies that swirled around it, received remarkably little attention in the national media. Most people were not even aware of the FDA's announcement of its authorization of the use of radiation on fresh fruits and vegetables.

Why was such a momentous announcement widely overlooked? Perhaps it had something to do with its timing. Although the FDA had given preliminary approval months before, the press release for the final rule was not released until April 15, 1986-the day after the United States' retaliatory bombing raid on the capitol of Libya. The major networks, preoccupied with the events in the Middle East, made no mention of the authorization on the news that night. Print media showed almost as much disinterest. The story was relegated to the back pages. Most journalists referred confidently to the "30 years of research" that had "proven the process safe," and the FDA's assurance that, to quote the press release, "labels will have to inform consumers if a food is irradiated."² The press was hoodwinked by false implication of complete labelling.

We have already seen the hole in that thirty years of research. A close look at the supposedly "complete" labelling requirements reveals an equally immense gap between reassurances and reality.

THE FDA'S SMOKESCREEN

The FDA's conveniently timed press release was just one of many apparent efforts to throw a cloak of euphemisms and evasions over the food irradiation issue. When the HHS announced the preliminary approval of irradiation on December 12, 1985, the press release contained the word "picowave." HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler explained that thus new term in fact meant low-level ionizing radiation.

Why the new phrase? And where had it come from? To answer the second question, "picowave" was the brain child of Neil Neilson, president of Emergent Technologies of San Jose, California. Emergent Technologies, it should be noted, is a company that builds food irradiators. As to why the term was coined, as Neilson himself noted:

The word was created by me as a result of many weeks of trying to find an alternative to "food irradiation." The motivations for developing and using an alternative are the facts that the expression "food irradiation" is much too broad, potentially misleading, and often frightening.³

Neilson and the federal government apparently did not wish to confuse the public by providing them with a scientifically accurate description of the process. Before the new term could officially be adopted, however, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had to approve the proposed wording.

The HHS announcement, with its new addition to the language, prompted a flood of letters to the OMB. "Picowave" didn't cut it with consumer groups, food activists, and scientists who believed that the public deserved accuracy, not euphemisms. OMB did not approve the wording, and HHS was forced to return to the far more informative description, "treated with radiation."

Figure 4.1. The Radura-The FDA Symbol for Irradiated Food.

In its final ruling, in addition to the rather vague labelling requirements, the FDA introduced a logo that would accompany such labelling. The logo, known as the radura, is already in use internationally. In a 1990 issue of 77w FDA Consumer, the radura is described as "a solid circle, representing the energy source, above two petals, which represent the food. Five breaks in the outer circle depict rays from the energy source." ⁴ Visually, the radura is a triumph of advertising design, a benign, health-foody symbol for a process that is known to strike instinctive fear in the heart of the average consumer. (See Figure 4.1.) Indeed, as reporter Patricia Leigh Brown noted in The New York Times in January 1992: "It looks as it if might be a logo for a garden club. Or Woodstock. It is a friendly, natural image, the perky green soul mate to the Happy Face of the 1970s."⁵

The FDA's press release was misleading. It led the press and many people in the forefront of the anti-food irradiation movement to believe that all irradiated foods would be labelled as such. As a result, many assumed that food irradiation was a dead issue. After all, research had shown that the public did not want irradiated foods. When the National Food Processors Association (NFPA) undertook a nationwide survey to determine the response to irradiated food, only a small percentage of the respondents had positive opinions at the start of the survey. After fourteen minutes of questions and more detailed information, the respondents liked the idea even less. ⁶ A 1985 survey of 1,400 U.S. households asked consumers if they would buy irradiated food assuming there was no price increase, and it would not spoil quickly. Only 28 percent gave an unqualified yes; another 28 percent said no; and 44 percent was undecided. Further analysis of the undecided group indicated that the "44 percent undecided will initially say no."

Given the lack of consumer interest in these foods, irradiation's opponents greeted the FDA's labelling requirement with relief. It would be easy to educate consumers about food irradiation since they would be seeing labels in the marketplace.

Or would they? On page 13,399 of the April 18,1986 Federal Register, the FDA's final ruling states that "the labelling requirement applies only to a food that has been irradiated, not to a food that merely contains an irradiated ingredient but that has not itself been irradiated."⁸ And what, pray tell, would constitute a "mere" ingredient? If a primary ingredient were irradiated, such as the peaches in a can of peaches packed in some non-irradiated sugar water, would that need to be labelled?

No, according to FDA spokeswoman Betty Campbell. When I called the FDA for clarification of the labelling issue, Campbell indicated that not only would canned peaches be exempt from labelling, so would the irradiated tomatoes in a can of tomato soup and the irradiated peas in a package of frozen peas. Once a food has gone through some sort of additional processing, all labelling bets are off. In fact, Campbell noted that she could not think of a case in which a processed food would have to be labelled. Campbell explained that the FDA does not feel it is necessary to label irradiated processed food because irradiation is no longer a "material fact." Since irradiation does not change food any more than any other types of processing, the FDA does not consider previous radiation as a material fact.⁹

In the grand tradition of the late, lamented picowave, and the hundreds of discarded studies, the FDA summarily downgraded food irradiation from an additive requiring labelling to a "non-material fact." And the public was left entirely unaware.

Even Sidney Wolfe, M.D., the head of Public Citizen, a group that has been a major force in the fight against irradiated foods, was fooled. When I spoke with Dr. Wolfe to find out what he thought of the FDA's cleverly worded and timed press release, he said he felt the FDA had "come down on the right side of required labelling." When I informed Dr. Wolfe of the gaping loophole in the labelling ruling, he was completely surprised.^l0

It is understandable that food producers, advertisers, and marketing executives strive to present their products in the most marketable, palatable way possible. Such is the nature of business. But it is the job of the FDA and other federal agencies entrusted with protecting the health and welfare of the public to insure that consumers receive accurate and timely information on the products they will eat, wear, or use in their homes. Existing labelling requirements fail on this most basic count. But even if the requirements were more stringent, it would not be a guarantee of consumer protection. As we shall see in Chapter Seven, the FDA's record in enforcing its own rules and regulations is abysmal.

THE PUBLIC RELATIONS OF IRRADIATION:
THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH

To support its campaign for irradiation, the irradiation industry has turned to a group called the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). This group describes itself as a scientific consumer education organization, and operates un der the slogans, "We know the difference between a health hazard and and a health hoax," and "First in science, first in influence."¹¹

In 1982, the Center for Science in the Public Interest published an expose of the council that indicated the direction of its "influence." The ACSH receives most of its funding not from membership dues or foundation grants, but from private industry; specifically, from chemical manufacturers and a variety of food companies, including (at the time of the article) Dow Chemical of Canada, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (the culprit in the Love Canal disaster), the National Soft Drink Association, and International Flavors and Fragrances.¹²

According to their mission statement, ACSH "is committed to providing consumers with scientifically balanced evaluations of issues relating to food, chemicals, the environment, and health."¹³ The fact that providing "scientifically balanced evaluations" and being "first in influence" would seem to be mutually exclusive goals does not appear to trouble ACSH.

The council's claim of being influential does, however, appear to be accurate. In the late 1980s, several European markets decided to stop accepting American beef because of the hormones routinely used in raising cattle in the United States. The action prompted a flurry of news stories on the dangers of hormones in beef, chicken, and milk. Amid the controversy, ABC-TV's national news anchor Peter Jennings quoted an authoritative source that assured hormone treatment was safe. The source? The ACSH.

The council publishes a wide range of pamphlets on health-related issues, covering everything from AIDS to "Wood as Home Fuel." These pamphlets are notable for their consistent advocacy of dubious technological techniques and chemical additives, including the recognized carcinogen dioxin.

Dioxin, a by-product of the manufacture of defoliants (such as Agent Orange), has been linked not only to cancer, but also to birth defects, neurological disorders, and liver damage. As noted in The New York Times in 1983, "On the basis of animal tests, dioxin is 150,000 times as toxic as cyanide and as much as 670 times as lethal as strychnine."¹⁴

According to the ACSH, however:

• "Dioxin's reputation as being extremely toxic is based primarily on tests done on . . . highly susceptible animals."¹⁵

• "Despite the frightening image that the word 'dioxin' has come to represent, there are no known human deaths from exposure to this substance."¹⁶

• "When compared with large-scale and indisputable public health hazards such as cigarette smoking, drug abuse, and drunk driving, the damage to society and individuals caused by dioxin exposure is negligible."¹⁷

Tell that to the residents of Times Beach, Missouri, who had to abandon their town thanks to dioxin contamination. Or to the thousands of veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange while in Vietnam, and who are now struggling to have their disabilities recognized by the federal government. Or to medical experts such as Berthram Carnow, M.D., of the University of Illinois School of Occupational Medicine, who testified in court that "exposure to dioxin is 200,000 times more deadly than exposure to cyanide."¹⁸

In many of its publications, the ACSH sounds more like a public relations firm for the chemical industry than an unbiased information source interested only in the public good. In the provocatively titled "Naturally Occurring Carcinogens in America's Food Supply: Does Nature Know Best?" the council notes that:

A large number of substances that occur naturally in foods have been found to be carcinogenic (cancer causing) when evaluated by the criteria scientists customarily use to assess the cancer causing potential of man-made substances. Many more carcinogens are produced by cooking and by the actions of microorganisms. These natural carcinogens are more numerous, more widespread and in many cases more potent than man-made carcinogens in food.¹⁹

After examining the various naturally occurring carcinogens, including the aflatoxins promoted by irradiation, the council concludes that:

The cancer hazards posed by the natural carcinogens in food substantially outweigh those from man-made chemicals . . . . Moreover, the natural toxins and carcinogens exist without serving any useful human purpose, while manmade chemicals are added to foods to serve a specific function [emphasis added].²⁰

What they fail to mention is that most of these "specific functions" are purely profit motivated. With the exception of preservatives, the majority of the chemicals that are being poured into our food supply serve no specific health or nutritional purpose. They exist solely to increase marketability and sales by making foods look better (redder steaks, oranger oranges), last longer, or cook faster. In this case, as in many others, the council's position seems to have far more to do with economics than it does with science or human health.

In 1982, the ACSH published the first edition of its "scientifically balanced" evaluation of food irradiation. Not surprisingly, the pamphlet is a testament to the supposed benefits of the technology, with nary a word indicating the extent of the controversy surrounding it, or the evidence of its dangers. The current edition of this pamphlet includes such reassuring "facts" as:

• "Tests showed that . . . radiolytic products did not pose a cancer hazard, interfere with reproduction, cause birth defects, or post [sic] other long-term hazards."²¹ No mention is made of the scores of studies that directly contradict this statement.

• "There is no linkage between irradiated food and nuclear weapons production when cobalt-60 (the preferred source) is used."²² The issue of cesium-137 is not mentioned.

• "Most of the scientific research on irradiated food started in the 1940s at a cumulative cost of approximately $200 million (1988 dollars), 90% of which was financed by U.S. taxpayers."²³ No mention is made of the $6 million worth of fraudulent research conducted during that time.

• "Food irradiation has been approved by approximately 35 countries dating back to 1958."²⁴ Not a word about the countries that have banned (or tried and rejected) food irradiation.

• Radiation sterilized foods "have been enjoyed by American and Soviet astronauts."²⁵ The fact that American astronauts only "enjoyed" irradiated beefsteak for a short time, and that no irradiated foods are currently in use by NASA, is entirely ignored.²⁶

The actions of the ACSH's executive director, Edward G. Remmers, stand as a prime example of the council's less-than-objective stance on the food irradiation issue.

In November 1986, a debate on food irradiation was held at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, New Jersey. Two of the panelists, Dr. Tritsch and Dr. Louria, protested that letters had been sent to their respective supervisors challenging their right to appear at the debate. The letters had come from Remmers.

In his letter to Dr. Louria's superior, Remmers charged that "potential exists that a UMDNJ [University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey] faculty member, at New Jersey taxpayer's expense, may be entering a scientific field in which he has little or no expertise, thereby tarnishing his image and reputation and lowering UMDNJ's reputation."²⁷ Remmers noted that Dr. Louria's attendance at the debate would "raise various questions about the policies" of UMDNJ.²⁸

Dr. Louria, who was considered sufficiently qualified to testify before a congressional subcommittee on the issue of food irradiation, was not pleased. Dr. Louria has blasted Remmers' letters, calling them "a flagrant attempt at intimidation," and noting that:

It's an attempt to suppress people with contrary views. At a forum like this, you should have people with no ax to grind. If they are afraid of an interchange of information, that should make us look at food irradiation with enormous skepticism .... Insult and invective are no replacement for research and data.²⁹

FOOD IRRADIATION AND THE MEDIA

Unfortunately, the ACSH's approach to the data on food irradiation has prevailed in most media coverage of the issue. The most dramatic example of this was seen on December 13,1991, when ABC-TV aired a 20/20 story entitled "The Power of Fear."

"The Power of Fear" was one of the first nationally televised network programs to focus on food irradiation. It was also a study in the efficacy of the food irradiation public relations machine.

The segment focused not on food irradiation and its relative risks and benefits, but on the techniques of Food and Water, Inc., a group dedicated to stopping food irradiation. Though far from the only group opposed to food irradiation, Food and Water has been the most vocal and visible of irradiation's adversaries, mounting a massive grassroots and media campaign to halt the technology in its tracks. Along the way, Food and Water has aired radio commercials that ask the rhetorical question: "What if you found out that those fresh fruits and vegetables everyone keeps telling you to eat more of . . . might kill you?" The group has also organized picket lines and demonstrations, and has issued scores of newsletters and fact sheets.

Food and Water's objections to food irradiation are based on much of the data already discussed in this book. For Food and Water's president, Walter Burnstein, D.O., an osteopathic physician from New Jersey, the widespread acceptance of food irradiation "will be a public health disaster of the magnitude we have never seen before."³⁰ Food and Water's publications and press releases reflect the intensity of their concern over the issue. Their dramatic presentation of the facts has been enormously successful at increasing public awareness of, and opposition to, food irradiation. As a result, Food and Water is the bane of the food irradiation industry.

In "The Power of Fear," 20/20 correspondent John Stossel examined the conflict between Food and Water, Inc. and Vindicator of Florida, Inc., a commercial irradiation company that opened a plant in Mulberry, Florida, after several years of heated opposition. (See Chapter Five.)

From the introduction onward, "The Power of Fear" came down squarely on the side of food irradiation. In the lead-in to the piece, 20/20 anchor Barbara Walters stated that:

A consumer group has been doing everything possible to prevent treating food with radiation that kills bacteria. But John Stossel has discovered that on this issue, the consumer group may be on the wrong side, for they seem to be basing their argument on fear instead of facts.³¹

The pro-irradiation argument presented in "The Power of Fear" was remarkably akin to the "objective" data presented in the ACSH's pamphlet on the topic. Among Stossel's assertions:

• "The FDA thinks irradiation is good for America .. . ."³²

• Mulberry was chosen as the site "because it is right in the middle of citrus and strawberry country."³³

• "The astronauts eat irradiated foods."34 Stossel also interviewed Sam Whitney, the avuncular president of Vindicator of Florida, Inc., who asserted that: "The problem here is not irradiation. The problem is people dying and getting sick from unsafe foods. Now, if you're sick, vomiting, with diarrhea, you need this plant [Vindicator's Mulberry facility] bad, 'cause we'd make that food safe for you to eat."³⁵

On the "con" side of the argument, Stossel interviewed Dr. Burnstein and Michael Colby, the director of Food and Water. Colby noted that, "If you look at existing studies on humans and animals fed irradiated food, you will find testicular tumors, chromosomal abnormalities, kidney damage, cancer, and birth defects."³⁶

Stossel went on from this to conclude that, "They [Food and Water] base these frightening cancer claims on one old study done on just five children in India [emphasis added]."³⁷ When Stossel called one of the authors of the Indian study and asked her if the children were developing cancer, she answered, correctly, that they were not. Chromosomal abnormalities associated with leukemia are not, after all, the same thing as having active leukemia or a malignant tumor.

Stossel then slammed all of Food and Water's claims, stating that the research cited by the group was "outdated or had been discredited." ³⁸ In interviewing Colby, Stossel accused Food and Water of basing their arguments on "irrelevant science," and noted that "most of these studies aren't about the effect of irradiation on people who eat the food."³⁹ In a later interview with Dr. Burnstein, Stossel charged the group with "twisting the data to make your point."⁴⁰

The only acknowledgement of the complex issues of radiolytic products and their possible impact on human health was a throwaway line to co-anchor Hugh Downs after the segment was over. Downs asked if "the opponents believe that irradiated food is itself radioactive?" Stossel's offhand response revealed just how little he had investigated the real issues involved in the food irradiation debate.

I think some of the people who protest do [believe that the food is radioactive], but the leaders of the organization admit that won't happen, but they say that somehow, the food will change in other ways that will hurt us or the people who live near the plant will be hurt-something like that.⁴¹

The 20/20 report prompted dismay among food irradiation's opponents and considerable glee among the powers-that-be at Vindicator and the ACSH.

In a press release dated February 4,1992, Vindicator president Whitney crowed about the "expose of the Osteopath [Dr. Walter Burnstein] and Michael Colby on the ABC 20/20 show."⁴² Although the press release came out on Vindicator's letterhead (tinder the slogan "Dedicated to preventing foodborne illness"), this author received it not from Vindicator, but from the ACSH-the "objective" scientific consumer education organization.

Others were far less enchanted. Karl Grossman, an associate at the Center for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), and a journalism professor at the State University of New York College at Old Westbury, promptly fired off a letter to Victor Neufeld at ABC TV news, with copies to Stossel and Downs. In his letter; Grossman stated that, "Rather than deal with journalistic integrity and fairness on a controversial subject, 20/20 chose to avoid facts and warp the story."⁴³ Among the facts that 20/20 chose to ignore or distort, Grossman listed the following points:

• The residents of Mulberry, Florida, have long held that their city was chosen as the Vindicator site not because of its proximity to fruit growers, but because it is a poor area with a history of past toxic waste dumping.

• Opposition to the plant had not originated with Food and Water, but with local government. In 1989 the Mulberry city council voted four to one to pass a law banning any food irradiation plant from being built in Mulberry.

• After discrediting Dr. Burnstein as a non-researcher, Stossel went on to accept the scientific analyses of Whitney-a businessman with no scientific background and a vested economic interest in food irradiation. • Stossel spoke to none of the scientists and researchers who feels that irradiation is not a way "to clean food with radioactivity," despite the fact that many of these individuals are in the metropolitan New York area, where Stossel is based.

• No mention was made of previous abuses of food irradiation or of past accidents in irradiation facilities, although these facts are prominently noted in Food and Water's publications.

• The role of cesium-137 was completely ignored, thereby sidestepping a crucial issue of the food irradiation debatethe use of food irradiation as a way to use radioactive waste products from the military.

In summary, Grossman noted that:

A consumer group-Food & Water-has attempted to put light on a most serious issue, a most legitimate function of citizens and a truly independent, alert, honest free press. 20/20 has dealt with that illumination with an attack on the group and a twisted, unfair account of the issues involved in food irradiation [emphasis added].⁴⁴

A few days after the segment was aired, Dr. Tritsch also sent a letter to Walters at 20/20. In this letter, Dr. Tritsch noted that the presence of chromosomal changes consistent with cancer and leukemia in four out of five children is not an inconsequential finding. After debunking the supposed benefits to be gained from food irradiation, Dr. Tritsch pointed out that "there is no real advantage to the consumer to eating irradiated fruits and vegetables, only to the grocer in allowing a few extra days of shelf life for his produce."⁴⁵ Like Grossman, Dr. Tritsch called 20/20 to task for its stilted presentation of the issue.

If you choose to report on science you are obligated to make the effort to understand what is being presented. This is not a political matter that can be judged on emotions and consensus, but should be based on science, pro and con .... If you are indeed biased on a subject, you should so inform your audience during the show and not pretend to be impartial reporters. ⁴⁶

Others also came to Food and Water's defense. Among them was Dr. Epstein, who issued a general statement summarizing the known and potential risks of irradiated foods, and lauding Food and Water's efforts.

Food and Water has emerged as the sole opposition to food irradiation .... Food and Water combines astute and aggressive activism with well based scientific concerns. Thus, Food and Water is our proverbial "little Dutch boy" with a finger in the dike against irresponsible run-away technology. ⁴⁷

Stossel's comments about the Indian research prompted a response from a member of another research team that studied the effects of eating irradiated wheat. Dr. Vijayalaxmi, now a research scientist at Integrated Laboratory Systems in North Carolina, issued a statement in response to "The Power of Fear." In it, Dr. Vijayalaxmi made clear her own views on the research concerning irradiated foods, and the significance of the NIN finding:

If I (and my colleagues) did not have the personal experience of conducting the scientific experiments using irradiated wheat. . . I might have been persuaded to overcome the power of fear: I still have concerns in the "unconditional clearance" of irradiated foods.⁴⁸

Dr. Vijayalaxmi's letter summarized the findings of polyploid cells in humans and animals, and of increased embryonic deaths, testicular damage, and immune suppression in test animals. While acknowledging that the long-term significance of polyploid cells "is not clear-at the present state of our scientific knowledge,"⁴⁹ Dr. Vijayalaxmi also noted that:

In man, the numbers of polyploid cells has been shown to increase after exposure to radiation, in cancer, during viral infection and in senility .... The consistent association of polyploid cells with the consumption of freshly irradiated wheat in animals and in children should, therefore, receive serious attention.⁵⁰

Like Grossman and Drs. Tritsch and Epstein, Dr. Vijayalaxmi had serious reservations about both Stossel's presentation of the irradiation issue and his conclusions regarding it. After pointing out that the number of countries that have approved irradiated foods is in no way a measure of its consumer acceptance, and that the astronauts ate irradiated foods for only a brief time, Dr. Vijayalaxmi succinctly countered the argument that food irradiation would save thousands of people from food poisoning:

I believe that the food poisoning due to the consumption of chicken which are loaded with bacteria occurs because of bad hygiene in the poultry processing industry. If irradiation is a solution to this problem, it would be like a doctor advising the patients that "cure is better than prevention" [emphasis added].⁵¹

To Stossel's claim that many of the studies cited by Food and Water are "outdated and discredited," Dr. Vijayalaxmi noted that "scientific observations which are properly made and published in refereed scientific journals will not become outdated or discredited, until proved otherwise by further scientific evidence."⁵²

Dr. Vijayalaxmi's analysis of the real source of the food irradiation controversy was a concise refutation of Stossel's statement that "many would say that the controversy exists only because of Food and Water."⁵³ She said:

The controversy exists because of the misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation of the scientific data. Food and Water is bringing out this controversy to all consumers for their judgment: perhaps they stretch some of the concerns, as Dr. Burnstein said. . . "We are taking that extra inch." I felt that Mr. Stossel and Mr. Whitney also stretched the safety issues, although neither of them said so.⁵⁴

Despite the biases evident in the 20/20 piece, it remains the most prominent piece of television journalism on the topic of food irradiation. For many Americans, the position presented by Stossel must seem the only reasonable analysis of the issue.

Even the American Medical Association (AMA) has been taken in by the assurances of the FDA and industry mouthpieces such as the ACSH. In 1985, Harold Lubin, M.D., representing the AMA, presented testimony to the House of Representatives in favor of food irradiation. His testimony supported the redefinition of food irradiation as a process, rather than an additive, thus easing the need for proving safety. Dr. Lubin went on to testify for the AMA in support of legislation that would restrict states from enacting state or local laws to place limits on food irradiation beyond those set by the FDA. In his testimony, Dr. Lubin said that although "whole food irradiation does cause slight chemical and physical changes in food," the changes "are no more significant than the changes that occur from other accepted processes such as boiling or freezing." He then concluded, on behalf of the AMA, that "food irradiation produces no significant reductions in the nutritional quality of food."⁵⁵

In the early stages of researching this book, I called Dr. Lubin at his home in Illinois, to ask his opinion of the research documenting the dangers of irradiated foods. When asked about the Indian study, Dr. Lubin repeated the FDA's position that the research report was a flawed study done in India by a consumer group. When I pointed out that the study had been conducted by the NIN and had been replicated in three different species besides humans (rats, mice, and monkeys), Dr. Lubin seemed to become uncomfortable, and said he didn't feel it was appropriate for us to debate the study over the phone.

Dr. Lubin displayed similar discomfort and unfamiliarity with much of the research presented in Chapter Two of this book. To cite only one example, he was not aware of the research documenting the link between cardiac damage and food irradiation, nor the research that showed the hemorrhagic effect. After several more questions on specific research, Dr. Lubin said that I was attributing to him an authority on food irradiation that he did not believe he possessed, and that he was flattered I saw him as such an authority.

I reminded Dr. Lubin that he had given testimony for the AMA to the US Congress, and that members of Congress refer to his testimony as prof that food irradiated is safe.

Apparently unfazed, Dr. Lubin held his ground and said that he was not conversant with the studies I was quoting, and that he would have to go see them. He said that he was only an advocate of good science.

Stossel, like Lubin, perhaps believed that his 20/20 report was also advocating good science. Like millions of consumers, he was relying on the word of "experts" such as Dr. Lubin, who have been manipulated, overtly and covertly, by a large and influential network of businesses, groups, and individuals with a vested interest in irradiation. Advocating good science is not on their agenda.