From: EXECSEC
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:42 PM
To: EXECSEC
Subject: FW: Irradiation Labeling, Docket No 98N-1038



-----Original Message-----
From: paul@generalstandards.com [mailto:paul@generalstandards.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 12:06 PM
To: bschwetz@oc.fda.gov
Subject: Irradiation Labeling, Docket No 98N-1038




Bernard A. Schwetz
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Bernard A. Schwetz,


I DEFINITELY want irradiated foods to be clearly and
conspicuously labeled. "Irradiation" is a commonly
understood term that FDA should not discard for a deceptive
substitute. 
I'm not the only one who feels this way. An independent
opinion poll in 1999, commissioned by the American
Association of Retired Persons and the Center for Science
in the Public Interest, showed overwhelming support
for the term "Treated by Irradiation," instead of "Electronically
Pasteurized" or "Cold Pasteurized." Just as consumers
want label information about "dolphin-safe tuna" or
"low fat" foods, they also want clear information on
irradiated food. 

Please don't change the current sensible label. Informed
choice is part of a free-market economy. Some shoppers
want to buy irradiated foods because they want foods
with lower pathogen risks. Other shoppers may avoid
irradiated foods because of changes in taste, smell,
texture, or nutrition, or for other reasons. FDA should
not stand in the way of consumers making those choices
by putting confusing new labels on irradiated food.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS HONESTY AND TRUST: 
If the public is afraid of the the term "Treated by
Irradiation,", then we should educate the public as
to its safety and advantages.  Not mislead or lie to
them.  We should retain their confidence by honest
information AND HONEST LABELS! 

I have not decided yet which I prefer; however when
I do, I want to be able to clearly see what I am buying.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 




Sincerely,


Paul Rainosek
8302A Whitesburg Dr. SW
Huntsville, Alabama 35802