From: Schwetz, Bernard
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 3:55 PM
To: EXECSEC
Subject: FW: Irradiation Labeling, Docket No 98N-1038



> ----------
> From: 	jlevin@haas.berkeley.edu[SMTP:JLEVIN@HAAS.BERKELEY.EDU]
> Sent: 	Thursday, February 22, 2001 3:54:57 PM
> To: 	bschwetz@oc.fda.gov
> Subject: 	Irradiation Labeling, Docket No 98N-1038
> Auto forwarded by a Rule
> 
> 
> 
Bernard A. Schwetz
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Bernard A. Schwetz,

I am very upset that Congress may change the labelling
on irradiated foods.  I 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.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 



Sincerely,


Joel Levin
269 Hanover Avenue #501
Oakland, California 94606