From: EXECSEC
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 5:00 PM
To: EXECSEC
Subject: FW: Irradiation Labeling, Docket No 98N-1038



-----Original Message-----
From: blbarnes3@hotmail.com [mailto:blbarnes3@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:26 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,

<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I want irradiated foods to be clearly
and conspicuously <DIV></DIV>&gt;labeled. "Irradiation"
is a commonly understood term <DIV></DIV>&gt;that FDA
should not discard for a deceptive substitute. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I'm not the only one who feels this
way. An independent <DIV></DIV>&gt;opinion poll in
1999, commissioned by the American <DIV></DIV>&gt;Association
of Retired Persons and the Center for Science <DIV></DIV>&gt;in
the Public Interest, showed overwhelming support <DIV></DIV>&gt;for
the term "Treated by Irradiation," instead of "Electronically
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Pasteurized" or "Cold Pasteurized."
Just as consumers <DIV></DIV>&gt;want label information
about "dolphin-safe tuna" or <DIV></DIV>&gt;"low fat"
foods, they also want clear information on <DIV></DIV>&gt;irradiated
food. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Please don't change the current sensible
label. Informed <DIV></DIV>&gt;choice is part of a
free-market economy. Some shoppers <DIV></DIV>&gt;want
to buy irradiated foods because they want foods <DIV></DIV>&gt;with
lower pathogen risks. Other shoppers may avoid <DIV></DIV>&gt;irradiated
foods because of changes in taste, smell, <DIV></DIV>&gt;texture,
or nutrition, or for other reasons. FDA should <DIV></DIV>&gt;not
stand in the way of consumers making those choices
<DIV></DIV>&gt;by putting confusing new labels on irradiated
food. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Thank you for your attention to this
matter. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 



Sincerely,


Bonnie Barnes
West Virginia 25411