Are we eating rotten meat?

We were going to have steak for dinner one night and it had this odd smell. It looked fresh but definitely was not fresh. I got to wondering why, how did I pick out something that looked perfectly okay until it was cooked? Here is what I discovered. Our local grocery stores buy there meat from a meat supplier. Most of the meat in the grocery stores comes from one of four suppliers in the United States.

I looked for information online about irradiation of food to discover this could be a problem.

Article from 2001, Irradiation damages the quality of food. Science has not proved that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe for human health.

From the FDA Website;

Irradiation of Food and Packaging: An Overview

• 3. Labeling        Like other forms of processing, irradiation can affect the characteristics of food.  Consumer choice mandates that irradiated food be adequately labeled and under the general labeling requirements, it is necessary that the food processor inform the consumer that food has been irradiated.  Labeling of irradiated foods however, is undergoing reevaluation in the US.  If whole foods have been irradiated, FDA requires that the label bear the radura symbol and the phrase "treated with radiation" or "treated by irradiation."  Yet, if irradiated ingredients are added to foods that have not been irradiated, no special labeling is required on retail packages.  Special labeling is required for foods not yet in the retail market that may undergo further processing in order to ensure that foods are not irradiated multiple times.  In this regulation, FDA advises that other truthful statements, such as the reason for irradiating the food, may be included ⁽¹³⁾.

•       Because the words "radiation" and "irradiation" may have negative connotations, the labeling requirement has been viewed as an obstacle to consumer acceptance.  Many in the food industry believe that an alternative wording, e.g. "electronically pasteurized," would be helpful.  In 1997, Congress attempted to resolve this issues in two ways.  First, it mandated that the FDA could not require print size on a label statement to be larger than that required for ingredients and second, it directed the FDA to reconsider the label requirement and to seek public comment on possible changes.  The FDA had not in fact mandated a type size but did require a statement that would be "prominent and conspicuous."  In response to this congressional directive, the FDA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in 1999 seeking public comment on the labeling of irradiated food, particularly on whether the current label may be misleading by implying a warning and invited suggestions of alternative labeling that would inform consumers without improperly alarming them.  Thousands of comments were received, with a large number compiled into a categorical database for further examination by the CFSAN's Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements.  This leading office for labeling policy has not yet determined whether there will be a change in labeling requirements.

•  

Evidently the consumers right to know what they are purchasing is overridden by the industry's right to sell the consumer something they may not wish to purchase. This was the same phrase I read concerning the labels on GM and GMO products. As a consumer you cannot be given informed consent to what the food product actually contains or how the food product has been altered.

SEEKING! Twenty million United States citizen and consumers to inform Congress that we as citizens, have a right to know what is in our food and exactly what has been done to alter it. 

Whistleblowers Lead Way "Graham explained that a senior official at the FDA had told him: "industry is our client."

Inform Congress and FDA that the public is their client regardless of what industry may be influencing them.