From: Schwetz, Bernard
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 7:00 PM
To: EXECSEC
Subject: FW: Irradiation Labeling, Docket No 98N-1038



> ----------
> From: 	judyandsam@aol.com[SMTP:JUDYANDSAM@AOL.COM]
> Sent: 	Friday, February 23, 2001 6:59:54 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,

Dear FDA, 

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.

If the food industry holds that irradiation is so great,
then why would they want to change the labeling? They
should be proud to put it on labels. Instead, they
obviously wish to deceive the consumer. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Samuel Case Judy Aizuss 84 Canyon Road Fairfax CA 94930



Sincerely,


Samuel Case
84 Canyon Road
Fairfax, California 94930