Irradiation Education Project
Mary Hunn, from the Minnesota Department of Education told WCCO television that the irradiation pilot project was "a survey... the Department was not promoting a specific technology". Yet the pilot project proposal stated that "A successful outcome...will be the acceptance and introduction of irradiated meat in select districts." Clearly, a survey consists of nothing more than information collection and does not encompass consumer acceptance and product use. Terms more often associated with market research and test marketing.
Controversy erupted from the onset prompting the attention of local groups who called on the USDA�s Under Secretary, Eric Bost to bring the Minnesota �education� program to a halt. Mark Ritchie, president of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy said, �Not only is the government funding a program that is promoting a specific technology, it already has picked the company and is paying for its advertising�It is an improper use of taxpayer money.� Under Secretary Bost�s reply ; he and the organizations would simply have to disagree and the pilot project moved forward.
Representatives from nine entities served as pilot partners and assisted in the development of education materials to be distributed in the pilot project school districts. Pilot partners included representatives from the SureBeam Corporation, a major food irradiation company; the Minnesota Beef Council, which was partially subsidized by SureBeam; and International Dairy Queen Corporation, which used the SureBeam irradiation process to treat the hamburger meat sold at some of its stores. Another pilot partner was the Minnesota School Food Service Association, the state affiliate of the American School Food Service Association (ASFSA). The general counsel of the ASFSA, Marshall Matz, also represents irradiation companies in his legislative advocacy practice. Among his clients, Titan-Scan, a division of the Titan Corporation and the parent company of SureBeam Corporation prior to it spin off in August 2002.
In the background of the pilot project was Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota�s Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy (CIDRAP). He served as the state�s chief epidemiologist, where he first touted the benefits of irradiation. Osterholm left the state to start his own consulting firm, only to return as head of CIDRAP in September 2001. CIDRAP�s website had a special section on food irradiation; among its funders was SureBeam. To varying degree�s half of the pilot partners for the Minnesota irradiation education project had ties to the SureBeam Corporation.
On April 8th, 2003, the Spring Lake Park school board made Pilot Project education materials available to parents for the first time. The materials were riddled with inaccuracies, exacerbated by vague and subjective information. The brochure titled �Fact Sheet � Nutrition and Irradiated Food� gave this example: �The energy used to irradiate food is similar to the energy in radio, TV and microwaves.� Radio�s, TV�s and microwave ovens generate non-ionizing radiation, which is radically different from the ionizing radiation used to treat food. It is also important to note that this example is careful not to say "a radio", use of the words singular form renders the statement flagrantly incorrect. Realistically, it would take approximately 1.4 billion TV�s to generate the amount of energy used in this example. Unfortunately, those who read the materials believed that energy level used in the irradiation process was like that of a television or microwave. This comparison was often repeated to public by well meaning school board members, naturally stating the comparison in singular from "it�s like the radiation from a T.V.". The misinformation spread like the Norwalk flu.
When concerns were voice by parents over the loophole language and educational content, the Chairman of the Spring Lake Park school board issued the following reprimand: �The district is NOT responsible for the validation of any of the materials in the study. I am assured by some very trustworthy, educated and prominent individuals in our State that the information documented as part of the study is factual� your efforts are misguided. Please be advised that if you intend to speak during the �communication to the board� portion of the agenda, there will only be one person allowed to speak on the topic and they will have a maximum of 5 minutes.�
In contrast, Sauk Rapids school board took a decidedly different approach and assumed full responsibility for the educational content of the materials. Upon reviewing the education materials sent to the district, Sauk Rapids school board elected to withdraw the district from the education project, authorizing the superintendent to communicate that action, and directing the return of all education materials to the Minnesota Department of Education.
In addition to the complaints regarding the educational content, there exists an implied endorsement that I find troubling. Schools distributing materials to parents identified as �education�, inadvertently lend credibility to materials content. If the district passed out the very same materials to parents and identified it as advertising it would be taken with a healthy serving of skepticism. This project raises serious issues regarding partnerships that prey on the trust that exists between public schools and the communities they serve. Districts should use caution when distributing materials said to provide educational content and held accountable for the expectations this language sets in the mind of the communities they serve. With regard to the irradiation pilot project, the information used was intentionally misleading, pressing the outer edges of what should even pass as ethical advertising, let alone education. That which represents seedy advertising should not be carelessly identified as education anywhere, least of all our neighborhood schools.
The schools participating in the Pilot Project did not place orders for irradiated beef. In the Final Assessment and Evaluation Report, school board members, responding to final assessment questions, issued a scathing review accusing the USDA of inundating communities with pro irradiation propaganda that lacked credibility. The USDA deemed the Pilot Project a success and the education materials were distributed to school nation wide.
of Education
Food & Nutrition Service