From: Schwetz, Bernard
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 4:51 PM
To: EXECSEC
Subject: FW: Irradiation Labeling, Docket No 98N-1038



> ----------
> From: 	jimspaulding@fastdial.net[SMTP:JIMSPAULDING@FASTDIAL.NET]
> Sent: 	Thursday, February 22, 2001 4:50:22 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,

Irradiated foods may be safe and sensible ....and they
may not be. Either way, each consumer should be allowed
to chose for himself whether or not to use them. They
should be clearly and conspicuously labeled.  And by
"clearly", I mean a familiar and commonly understood
word such as "irradiation" should be used. 
The attempt by some lawmakers to use deceptive euphemisms
is designed to help the food processors, not the public.
And the public's interests should definitely come first.
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."
 FDA should not stand in the way of consumers making
those choices by putting confusing new labels on irradiated
food. 
Informed choice is part of a free-market economy. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 



Sincerely,


James Spaulding
10 Congress St.  APT. 310
Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301