Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food, 20771-20779 [2014-07926]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Teresa A. Croce, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,
240–402–1281.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 179
[Docket No. FDA–2001–F–0049 (Formerly
Docket No. 01F–0047)]
Irradiation in the Production,
Processing and Handling of Food
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
The Food and Drug
Administration (‘‘FDA’’ or ‘‘we’’) is
amending the food additive regulations
to provide for the safe use of ionizing
radiation for control of food-borne
pathogens in crustaceans at a maximum
absorbed dose of 6.0 kiloGray (kGy).
This action is in response to a petition
filed by the National Fisheries Institute.
DATES: This rule is effective April 14,
2014. See section VII of this document
for information on the filing of
objections. Submit either electronic or
written objections and requests for a
hearing by May 14, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit either
electronic or written objections and
requests for a hearing identified by
Docket No. FDA–2001–F–0049, by any
of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic objections in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written objections in the
following ways:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
paper submissions): Division of Dockets
Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Agency name and
Docket No. FDA–2001–F–0049 for this
rulemaking. All objections received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
objections, see the ‘‘Objections’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
objections received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number(s), found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
I. Background
In a notice published in the Federal
Register of February 6, 2001 (66 FR
9086), we announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 1M4727) had
been filed by the National Fisheries
Institute, 1901 North Fort Myer Dr.,
Arlington, VA 22209 (petitioner). The
petition proposed that the food additive
regulations in part 179, Irradiation in
the Production, Processing and
Handling of Food (21 CFR part 179), be
amended to provide for the safe use of
approved sources of ionizing radiation
for control of food-borne pathogens in
raw, frozen, cooked, partially cooked,
shelled, or dried 1 crustaceans or cooked
or ready-to-cook crustaceans processed
with batter, breading, spices, or small
amounts of other food ingredients. In a
letter dated July 16, 2009, the petitioner
asked FDA to modify the scope of the
petition to exclude consideration of
breaded and battered crustaceans.
Subsequently, we published an
amended notice of filing for the petition
of February 6, 2001, in the Federal
Register (74 FR 47592; September 16,
2009), indicating that the petition
proposed to amend the regulations in
part 179 to provide for the use of
ionizing radiation for the control of
food-borne pathogens in raw, frozen,
cooked, partially cooked, shelled, or
dried crustaceans, or cooked or readyto-cook crustaceans processed with
spices or small amounts of other food
ingredients. On August 31, 2012, at our
request the petitioner clarified the scope
of its amended petition from 2009 by
providing us with a list of the particular
‘‘other food ingredients’’ that would be
added to the crustaceans prior to being
irradiated (Ref. 2).
The petitioner requested a maximum
absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy to achieve a
6-log reduction of Listeria
monocytogenes.
II. Evaluation of Safety
Under section 201(s) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(s)), a source
of radiation used to treat food is defined
1 Dried crustaceans refer to crustaceans with a
water activity (aw) of 0.85 or below (Ref. 1).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20771
as a food additive.2 While the source of
radiation is not literally added to the
food, the radiation is used to process or
treat food, such that, analogous to other
food processing technologies, its use can
affect the characteristics of the food. In
the subject petition, the intended
technical effect is to reduce the
microbial load on and prolong the shelf
life of crustaceans.
Under section 409(c)(3)(A) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.348(c)(3)(A)), a food
additive cannot be approved for a
particular use unless a fair evaluation of
the evidence establishes that the
additive is safe for that use. Safe or
safety in the context of food additives
‘‘means that there is a reasonable
certainty in the minds of competent
scientists that the substance is not
harmful under the intended conditions
of use. It is impossible in the present
state of scientific knowledge to establish
with complete certainty the absolute
harmlessness of the use of any
substance.’’ 3
The FD&C Act does not prescribe the
safety tests to be performed and not all
food additives require the same amount
or type of testing. The amount and type
of testing required to establish the safety
of an additive will vary depending on
the particular additive and its intended
use.
Specifically, in evaluating the safety
of a source of radiation to treat food
intended for human consumption, we
must identify the various effects that
may result from irradiating the food and
assess whether any of these effects pose
a public health concern. In this regard,
the following three areas of possible
concern need to be addressed: (1)
Potential toxicity, (2) nutritional
adequacy, and (3) potential
microbiological risk from the treated
food. Each of these areas is discussed in
detail in this document. We have
considered the data and studies
submitted in the subject petition as well
as additional data and information in
our possession relevant to safety. This
includes our previous evaluations of the
safety of the irradiation of other foods,
including the irradiation of poultry
(‘‘poultry rule’’) (55 FR 18538; May 2,
1990), the irradiation of meat (‘‘meat
rule’’) (62 FR 64107; December 3, 1997),
the irradiation of molluscan shellfish
2 The term ‘‘food additive’’ means any substance
the intended use of which results or may reasonably
be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its
becoming a component or otherwise affecting the
characteristics of any food (including any substance
intended for use in producing, manufacturing,
packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging,
transporting, or holding food; and including any
source of radiation intended for any such use) (21
U.S.C. 321(s)).
3 21 CFR 170.3(i).
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
20772
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(‘‘molluscan shellfish rule’’) (70 FR
48057; August 16, 2005), and the
irradiation of fresh iceberg lettuce and
fresh spinach (‘‘fresh iceberg lettuce and
fresh spinach rule’’) (73 FR 49593;
August 22, 2008).
A. Radiation Chemistry
‘‘Radiation chemistry’’ refers to the
chemical reactions that occur as a result
of the absorption of ionizing radiation.
Numerous studies regarding the
chemical effects of ionizing radiation on
different foods under varied conditions
have led to a sound understanding of
the fundamental principles of radiation
chemistry.4 The knowledge gained
through these studies provided us with
a knowledge base from which general
conclusions about irradiated foods can
be drawn by extrapolating from data on
particular foods irradiated under
specific conditions to similar types of
foods irradiated under different, yet
related, conditions. Overall, the data
show that the type and amount of
products generated by the radiationinduced chemical reactions (‘‘radiolysis
products’’) are dependent upon the
chemical constituents of the food and
the specific conditions under which the
food has been irradiated. The principles
of radiation chemistry also govern the
extent of change, if any, in the nutrient
level and the microbial load of
irradiated foods.
We have reviewed the pertinent data
and information concerning radiation
chemistry as it applies specifically to
crustaceans irradiated at a maximum
absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy. As described
in the review memoranda, our safety
review of the conditions of use generally
focused on the effects of irradiation on
the portion that individuals are most
likely to consume, i.e., the meat or flesh
of crustaceans.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Factors Affecting the Radiation
Chemistry of Foods
Along with the chemical composition
of the food, the specific conditions of
irradiation are essential to assessing the
radiation chemistry of a given food. The
specific conditions include radiation
dose, physical state of the food (e.g,
solid or frozen versus liquid or non4 Several books provide more detailed discussions
of radiation chemistry with references to the large
number of original research studies, particularly in
the area of food irradiation. Sources that can be
consulted for further information include, but are
not limited to: ‘‘Radiation Chemistry of Major Food
Components,’’ edited by P.S. Elias and A.J. Cohen,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1977; ‘‘Recent Advances in
Food Irradiation,’’ edited by P.S. Elias and A.J.
Cohen, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983; and J.F. Diehl,
‘‘Chemical Effects of Ionizing Radiation,’’ Chapter 3
in ‘‘Safety of Irradiated Foods,’’ Marcel Dekker,
New York, 1995.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
frozen state, dried versus hydrated
state), and ambient atmosphere (e.g., air,
reduced oxygen, or vacuum). The
radiation dose directly affects the levels
of radiolysis products generated in a
particular food; therefore, we can
extrapolate from data obtained at higher
radiation doses to draw conclusions
about the amounts of radiolysis
products expected to be generated at
lower doses. Generally, the types of
radiolysis products resulting from
irradiation are similar to those products
generated by alternative food processing
methods, such as canning and cooking
(Refs. 3 and 4).
The extent of chemical change that
occurs when food is irradiated is also
determined by the physical state of the
food. When the food is in a frozen state,
the initial radiolysis products have a
greater tendency to recombine rather
than diffuse throughout the food and
react with other food components.
Provided all conditions are the same,
including dose and ambient
atmosphere, the extent of chemical
change that occurs in a specific food
will be lower if the food is in a frozen
state than a non-frozen state because the
radiolysis products are less mobile in
frozen conditions. Likewise, the extent
of change in the dehydrated state is less
than the change that occurs in the fully
hydrated state.
Furthermore, the atmosphere can
affect the formation of radiolytic
products in a given food, thus having
the potential to affect the chemical
composition of the food. Irradiation in
oxygenated environments facilitates the
formation of additional oxidationreduction (redox) agents as a result of
the interaction between oxygen and the
radiolysis products of water (e.g.,
hydrogen radical, hydroxide radical,
and solvated electrons (a free electron in
a solution)). Because all foods have
components that are susceptible to
redox reactions, an atmosphere with
high oxygen content increases the
likelihood of such occurrences and
therefore, leads to the formation of a
greater number and variety of radiolysis
products when compared to an
atmosphere with low oxygen content
(Refs. 3 and 5). The final products of
radiation-induced oxidation reactions in
foods are similar to those produced by
oxidation reactions induced by other
processes (e.g., storage or heating in air).
In general, the types of radiolysis
products generated by irradiation are
similar to those produced by other food
processing methods (Refs. 3 and 4).
Radiation-induced chemical changes, if
sufficiently large, however, may cause
changes in the organoleptic or sensory
properties of the food. Because food
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
processors wish to avoid undesirable
effects on taste, odor, color, or texture,
there is an incentive to minimize the
extent of these chemical changes in
food. Thus, in most cases, the dosage
selected will be the lowest dose
required to achieve the desired effect,
and the irradiation will be conducted
under reduced oxygen levels and/or on
food held at low temperatures or in the
frozen state.5
2. Radiation Chemistry of the Major
Components of Crustaceans
The major components of crustaceans
are water, proteins, and lipids.
Irradiation of water produces reactive
hydroxyl and hydrogen radicals. These
radicals are likely to recombine forming
water, hydrogen gas, or hydrogen
peroxide; however, they can react with
other components of the irradiated food,
in this instance, crustaceans, forming
secondary radiolysis products. While
the most significant effects of irradiation
on the protein and lipid components of
crustaceans result from chemical
reactions induced by radicals generated
from the radiolysis of water, additional
radiolysis products can result directly
from the absorbed radiation. These
products form in very small amounts
and are the same as or similar to
compounds found in food that have not
been irradiated (Ref. 4).
Because meat is high in protein,
lipids, and water, the radiation
chemistry of proteins, lipids, and water
(in both liquid and frozen states) was
extensively discussed in the preamble to
the meat rule (62 FR 64107 at 64110 to
64111). The radiation chemistry of
proteins and lipids discussed in the
meat rule is also relevant to other flesh
foods, including foods such as poultry
and fish, that may be referred to as
‘‘meat’’ in common usage, but that do
not conform to the definition of meat in
9 CFR 301.2.
Crustaceans are similar to other flesh
foods in that they consist predominately
of protein (up to 21 percent), lipid
(approximately 1 to 2 percent), and
water (74 to 84 percent). However, they
differ from other flesh food in that they
contain lower levels of fat and slightly
higher levels of carbohydrate (up to 2.5
percent) by weight of the raw edible
portion (Ref. 6). While the carbohydrate
level in crustaceans is slightly higher
than in other flesh foods, the overall
level remains relatively low.
a. Proteins. We have previously
provided a detailed discussion of
5 In the case of crustaceans, irradiation would
occur under either chilled or frozen conditions.
This temperature requirement is not necessary for
dried crustaceans because they are shelf stable due
to their low water activity.
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
protein radiation chemistry in the meat
and molluscan shellfish rules. Studies
conducted with high-protein foods such
as meat, poultry, and seafood, have
established that most of the radiolysis
products derived from proteins possess
the same amino acid composition and
may be denatured (i.e., only altered in
their secondary and tertiary structures).
Although the changes to proteins caused
by ionizing radiation are similar to those
that occur as a result of heating, the
changes are far less pronounced and the
amounts of reaction products generated
are far lower (Refs. 4 and 7). Studies
have established that there is little
change in the amino acid composition
of fish irradiated at doses of 50 kGy and
below, which is above the maximum
absorbed dose for crustaceans—6.0 kGy
(Ref. 8). Therefore, we conclude that no
significant change in the amino acid
composition of crustaceans is expected
to result from the conditions set forth in
this regulation.
b. Carbohydrates. The main effects of
ionizing radiation on carbohydrates in
foods have been studied extensively and
discussed at length in the scientific
literature (Refs. 9 and 10) as well as in
reviews by such bodies as the World
Health Organization (WHO) (Ref. 11). In
the presence of water, carbohydrates
react primarily with the hydroxyl
radicals generated by radiolysis of water
resulting in the abstraction of hydrogen
from the carbon-hydrogen bonds of the
carbohydrate, forming water and a
carbohydrate radical. Carbohydrate
radicals may result from ionization of
monosaccharides such as glucose or
polysaccharides such as starch. In
polysaccharides, the glycosidic linkages
between constituent monosaccharide
units may be broken, effectively
shortening the polysaccharide chains.
Starch may be degraded into dextrins,
maltose, and glucose. Sugar acids,
ketones, and other sugar
monosaccharides may also be formed as
a result of ionizing radiation. Various
studies have demonstrated that
radiation-induced products formed from
starches of different origin are
qualitatively similar. The overall effects
of ionizing radiation on carbohydrates
are the same as those caused by cooking
and other food processing treatments,
and carbohydrates present as a
component of food are less sensitive to
the effects of irradiation than pure
carbohydrates (Ref. 3). No significant
change in the carbohydrate composition
of crustaceans is expected to occur
under the conditions set forth in this
regulation, i.e., at a maximum absorbed
dose of 6.0 kGy.
c. Lipids. We have previously
provided a detailed discussion on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
radiation chemistry of lipids in both the
preambles to the meat and molluscan
shellfish rules (62 FR 64107 at 64110 to
64111 and 70 FR 48057 at 48060,
respectively). This discussion noted that
studies have identified a variety of
radiolysis products derived from lipids.
These include fatty acids, esters,
aldehydes, ketones, alkanes, alkenes,
and other hydrocarbons, which are
identical or analogous to compounds
found in foods that have not been
irradiated, but have been subjected to a
different type of processing (Refs. 12
and 13). Heating food causes the lipids
to produce these types of compounds,
but in levels far greater than the trace
amounts produced from irradiating food
(Ref. 14).
One major difference between fish
(both shellfish and finfish) and other
flesh foods is the predominance of
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in
the lipid phase of fish. PUFAs are a
subclass of lipids that have a higher
degree of unsaturation in the
hydrocarbon chain compared to
saturated (e.g., stearic acid) or
monounsaturated (e.g., oleic acid) fatty
acids. The PUFA subclass of lipids is
generally more susceptible to oxidation
than saturated fatty acids due to their
higher degree of unsaturation.
Therefore, PUFAs could be more
radiation-sensitive compared to the
other lipid components, as suggested by
some studies on irradiated oil (Ref. 15).
However, evidence from studies in meat
suggests that the protein component of
meat may protect lipids from oxidative
damage (Ref. 3).
The effects of irradiation on PUFAs in
fish have been described in several
studies we have reviewed, which are
also discussed in detail in the
molluscan shellfish rule. These studies
show that irradiation is not likely to
have a significant effect on the lipid
composition of seafood. For example,
Adams et al. studied the effects of
irradiation on the concentration of
PUFAs in herring and showed that
irradiation of herring fillets at sterilizing
doses (50 kGy), well above the
petitioned maximum dose for
crustaceans, had no effect on the
concentration of PUFAs (Ref. 16).
Armstrong et al. conducted a study to
evaluate the effects of ionizing radiation
on fatty acid composition in fish and
concluded that no significant changes
occurred in the fatty acid profiles upon
irradiation at 1, 2, or 6 kGy (Ref. 17).
Sant’Ana and Mancini-Filho studied the
effects of irradiation on the distribution
of fatty acids in fish, evaluating two
monounsaturated fatty acids and seven
PUFAs before and after irradiation at 3
kGy (Ref. 18). They observed
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20773
insignificant changes in the
concentration of total monounsaturated
fatty acids and an approximately 13
percent decrease in total PUFAs at 3
kGy; these losses were largely attributed
to a loss of the long chain PUFAs.
Research conducted by FDA on various
species of seafood also demonstrated
that the concentrations of PUFAs are not
significantly affected by irradiation
(Refs. 19 and 20). More recently, a study
conducted by Sinanoglou et al. reported
non-significant changes in total fat and
total fatty acids for mollusks and
crustaceans with irradiation at 4.7 kGy,
confirming our earlier conclusions that
irradiation does not significantly affect
PUFAs (Ref. 21). Therefore, based on the
totality of evidence, we conclude that
no significant loss of PUFAs is expected
to occur in the diet under the conditions
of irradiation set forth in this regulation.
3. Radiation Chemistry of Food
Ingredients Added to Crustaceans
The petitioner clarified that the ‘‘other
food ingredients’’ intended to be added
to the crustaceans prior to treatment
with irradiation included spices,6
minerals, inorganic salts, citrates, citric
acid, and calcium disodium EDTA
(calcium disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate).7 We considered
the list of compounds and determined
that for any mineral or inorganic salt,
there will be no change in the exposure
to radiolysis products because these
compounds are not impacted by the
direct or secondary effects of irradiation
(Ref. 22). Furthermore, upon assessment
of the organic compounds that were
requested, we determined that these
compounds (i.e., citric acid, citrates,
and calcium disodium EDTA) will react
when irradiated to form products at low
levels (concentrations below the parts
per billion level) that are similar to
products that are formed as a result of
lipid oxidation reactions, such as carbon
dioxide and formic acid. As we stated
in section II.2.c., we have previously
evaluated the safety of the radiolysis
products formed as a result of lipid
6 The term ‘‘spice’’ refers to dried or dehydrated
aromatic vegetable substances that are used in small
amounts solely for flavoring or aroma (e.g., black
pepper, red pepper, and bay leaves). This term is
consistent with the currently regulated use of
‘‘spice’’ in § 179.26(b)(5) (21 CFR 179.26(b)(5)).
7 This regulation addresses the irradiation of
these ‘‘other food ingredients’’ to the extent that
their use in crustaceans is authorized. The use of
other ingredients in crustaceans prior to irradiation
must be consistent with existing food additive
regulations, generally recognized as safe
determinations, and prior sanctions. For example,
calcium disodium EDTA is approved for use under
the conditions specified in 21 CFR 172.120 in
cooked canned shrimp and cooked canned
crabmeat and is not approved for use in other types
of shrimp or crabmeat or in other crustaceans.
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
20774
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
oxidation reactions and have concluded
that these products are not harmful.
Moreover, the addition of these specific
organic compounds to crustaceans prior
to irradiation results in the formation of
these radiolysis products at such low
levels that irradiation of crustaceans
with the proposed additional food
ingredients will not meaningfully
increase exposure to radiolysis products
(ibid.).
Overall, we concluded that the
irradiation of all proposed ingredients
will not increase the exposure to
radiolysis products when used on
crustaceans at levels consistent with
good manufacturing practices (GMP)
and in accordance with other applicable
laws and regulations.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
4. Consideration of Furan as a
Radiolysis Product
During our review of the chemical
effects of irradiation, as a part of the
evaluation of this and other irradiation
petitions, we became aware of a report
that suggested irradiating apple juice
(‘‘apple juice report’’) may produce
furan (Ref. 23). Studies have
demonstrated that furan can cause
tumors in laboratory animals. This
prompted us to initiate research on
whether the apple juice report was
accurate and whether furan was a
common radiolysis product in food. We
confirmed that certain foods form furan
in low quantities when irradiated. Our
studies also show that some foods form
furan when heated and other foods form
furan during storage at refrigeration
temperatures (Ref. 24). Testing of
irradiated raw shrimp and cooked crab
meat show that if furan is formed when
these foods are irradiated, it is formed
at levels that are below the limit of
detection of the available analytical
methods, or below the background
levels of natural furan formation during
storage (Ref. 25). Therefore, because all
crustaceans have similar composition,
we concluded that the consumption of
irradiated crustaceans will not increase
the amount of furan in the diet.
5. Consideration of
2-Alkylcyclobutanones as Radiolysis
Products
A class of radiolysis products derived
from lipids, identified as
2-alkylcyclobutanones (2–ACBs), has
been reported to form in small
quantities when fats are exposed to
ionizing radiation. These compounds
were once considered to be unique
products, formed in small quantities
during the irradiation process; however,
a recent report has demonstrated that 2–
ACBs also can be detected in nonirradiated food (Ref. 26). The type of 2–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
ACBs formed depends on the fatty acid
composition of the food. For example,
2-dodecylcyclobutanone (2–DCB) is a
radiation by-product of triglycerides
with esterified palmitic acid.
Researchers have reported that 2–DCB is
formed in small amounts (less than 1
microgram per gram lipid per kGy) in
irradiated chicken (Ref. 27) and in even
smaller amounts in irradiated ground
beef (Ref. 28). Both of these foods are of
relatively high total fat and palmitic
acid content (Ref. 6).
In the molluscan shellfish rule, we
provided a detailed discussion of the
significance of the formation of 2–DCB
to the safety evaluation of irradiated
molluscan shellfish, a food which, like
chicken, ground beef, and crustaceans,
contains significant amounts of
triglycerides with esterified palmitic
acid (70 FR 48057 at 48065 to 48067).
We concluded that no issues were
raised that had not been previously
considered in the meat and poultry final
rules (70 FR 48057 at 48060 and 48065
to 48067). In our assessment in the meat
rule, we considered all of the available
data and information, including the
results of genotoxicity studies and
previously reviewed studies in which
animals were fed diets containing
irradiated meat, poultry, and fish (62 FR
64107 at 64113). While 2–DCB and
other alkylcyclobutanones would be
expected to be present in these
irradiated foods, we found no evidence
of toxicity attributable to the
consumption of these substances. The
macronutrient composition of
crustaceans (protein, lipid,
carbohydrate) is comparable to other
flesh foods (Ref. 6). Due to the similar
lipid levels, the formation of 2–ACBs in
crustaceans is expected to be similar to
the levels of 2–ACBs produced in other
flesh foods. Therefore, considering all
available data and information, the
formation of 2–ACBs from irradiating
crustaceans under the conditions
proposed in this petition is not a safety
concern.
B. Toxicological Considerations
To adequately evaluate the safety of
irradiated food products, we assessed all
available toxicological data from the
relevant toxicology studies of which we
are aware. For the toxicological
evaluation of irradiated crustaceans, the
relevant studies are those studies
examining flesh-based foods, including
studies on fish high in PUFAs. These
include 24 long-term feeding studies, 10
reproduction/teratology studies, and 15
genotoxicity studies with flesh-based
foods irradiated at doses from 6 to 74
kGy. No toxicologically significant
adverse effects attributable to irradiated
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
flesh foods were observed in any of the
studies, all of which were discussed in
detail in the meat rule (62 FR 64107 at
64112 to 64114). The dose of irradiation
used in the relevant studies was similar
to, or considerably higher than, the
maximum absorbed dose requested in
this petition (6.0 kGy). Therefore, these
data demonstrate that crustaceans
irradiated at levels up to 6.0 kGy will
not present a toxicological hazard (Ref.
7).
In evaluating the safety of irradiated
crustaceans, we also relied upon the
integrated toxicological database
derived from the extensive body of work
reviewed by us (Ref. 29) and by WHO
relevant to the assessment of the
potential toxicity of irradiated foods.
Although these studies are not all of
equal quality or rigor,8 we concluded
that the quantity and breadth of testing,
as well as the number and significance
of endpoints assessed would have
identified any real or meaningful
hazard. The overwhelming majority of
studies showed no evidence of toxicity.
In those few instances where adverse
effects were reported, we found that
those effects have not been consistently
reproduced in related studies conducted
at higher doses or for longer durations,
as would be expected if the effects were
attributable to irradiation (62 FR 64107
at 64112 to 64114).
Similarly, during the early 1980s, a
joint Food and Agriculture
Organization/International Atomic
Energy Agency, World Health
Organization (FAO/IAEA/WHO) Expert
Committee evaluated the toxicological
and microbiological safety and
nutritional adequacy of irradiated foods.
The Expert Committee concluded that
irradiation of any food commodity at an
average dose of up to 10 kGy presents
no toxicological hazard (Ref. 30). In the
1990s, at the request of one of its
member states, FAO/IAEA/WHO
conducted a new review and analysis of
the safety of data on irradiated foods.
This more recent review included all
studies in our files that we considered
as reasonably complete, as well as those
studies that appeared to be acceptable
but had deficiencies interfering with the
interpretation of the data (62 FR 64107
at 64112). The FAO/IAEA/WHO review
also included data from the U.S.
8 For example, the number of animals used in
many of the early studies is smaller than that
commonly used today. Complete histopathology
was not always done or reported. For some studies,
the data are available in only brief summary form.
While many of these studies cannot individually
establish safety for the previously cited reasons,
they still provide important information that,
evaluated collectively, supports a conclusion that
there is no reason to believe that the irradiation of
flesh foods presents a toxicological hazard.
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
from the German Federal Research
Centre for Nutrition at Karlsruhe,
Germany. FAO/IAEA/WHO concluded
that the integrated toxicological
database is sufficiently sensitive to
evaluate safety and that no adverse
toxicological effects due to irradiation
were observed in the dose ranges tested
(Ref. 31).
Therefore, based on the totality of
evidence, we conclude that irradiation
of crustaceans under the conditions
proposed in this petition does not
present a toxicological hazard.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Nutritional Considerations
It has been well established that the
nutritional value of the macronutrients
(proteins, fats, and carbohydrates) in the
diet are not significantly altered by
irradiation at the petitioned doses (Refs.
32 to 34). PUFAs, particularly longchain, omega-3 fatty acids, are generally
considered to be nutritionally important
components of seafood. As noted in
section II.A.2.c., PUFA levels were not
reduced significantly by ionizing
radiation. Thus, we conclude that, as
with molluscan shellfish (70 FR 48057
at 48060), potential losses of PUFAs
from irradiation of crustaceans would be
expected to be minimal and have no
nutritional significance.
We have carefully reviewed the data
and information submitted in the
petition, as well as additional
information available in the scientific
literature, to determine the potential
impact of irradiation at a maximum
absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy on the
nutritional value of crustaceans (Ref.
32). In this review, FDA considered all
nutrients known to be present in
crustaceans, but focused primarily on
those vitamins having an established
sensitivity to radiation and those
vitamins for which at least one of these
foods 9 may be identified, under our
labeling regulations, as either a ‘‘good
source’’ or an ‘‘excellent source,’’ 10 for
contributing more than a trivial amount
to the total dietary intake of that vitamin
(i.e., more than 1 to 2 percent).11
9 Nutrient content data was available from the
USDA Nutrient Database (NDB) for Standard
Reference, version 23 (SR–23) for the following
crustaceans: Crab (blue, king, queen, Dungeness),
shrimp, lobster, and crayfish (see Refs. 6, 32, and
35).
10 To be considered a ‘‘good source’’ a given
vitamin, that particular food must contain 10–19
percent of the Reference Daily Intake (RDI) or Daily
Reference Value (DRV) for that vitamin per
reference amount customarily consumed (RACC)
(21 CFR 101.54(c)). A food containing ≥ 20 percent
of the RDI or DRV per RACC may be labeled as an
‘‘excellent source’’ of that vitamin (21 CFR
101.54(b)).
11 This information is based upon individual food
intake data available from nationwide surveys
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
Irradiation of any food, regardless of
the dose, has no effect on the levels of
minerals that are present in trace
amounts (Ref. 3). Levels of certain
vitamins, on the other hand, may be
reduced as a result of irradiation. The
extent to which a reduction in the level
of a specific vitamin occurs as a result
of food irradiation depends on the
specific vitamin, the type of food, and
the conditions of irradiation. Not all
vitamin loss is nutritionally significant;
however, and the extent to which a
reduction in a specific vitamin level is
significant depends on the relative
contribution of the food in question to
the total dietary intake of the vitamin.
Crustaceans, as a group, show some
variation in vitamin content, but all
crustaceans are excellent sources of
vitamin B12, and certain crustaceans
may be identified as good sources of
folate, niacin, riboflavin, pyridoxine,
pantothenic acid, and vitamin C. Certain
crustaceans (i.e., shrimp and blue crab)
contain vitamin E at levels greater than
10 percent of the current Reference
Daily Allowance per reference amount
customarily consumed (RACC). Of these
vitamins present in crustaceans, only
vitamin C, thiamin, vitamin E, and, to
a lesser extent pyridoxine, are
considered to be sensitive to irradiation
(Ref. 32). Although thiamin is present in
other types of flesh food, crustaceans are
not considered a good source of thiamin
(ibid.). Despite the presence of vitamin
C, pyridoxine, and vitamin E in
crustaceans, they make up a negligible
amount of the dietary intake of these
vitamins in the United States. Based on
data from the USDA Continuing Survey
of Food Intakes of Individuals (Ref. 35),
the entire food category of ‘‘fish/
shellfish (excluding canned tuna)’’
contributes to less than 1 percent of the
vitamin C intake of the U.S. diet and
less than 2 percent of the vitamin E and
pyridoxine intakes of the U.S. diet.
Furthermore, because crustaceans
account for only 40 percent of the entire
category of ‘‘fish/shellfish (excluding
canned tuna),’’ the impact of these
vitamin levels from consuming
crustaceans will be of even less
significance (Ref. 32). Potential losses of
vitamin C, thiamine, vitamin E, and
pyridoxine, as a result of irradiation of
crustaceans at a maximum absorbed
dose of 6.0 kGy, are of minimal to no
consequence to the overall U.S. diet.
conducted by USDA and maintained in the USDA
NDB SR–23. USDA’s surveys were designed to
monitor the types and amounts of foods eaten by
Americans and food consumption patterns in the
U.S. population. FDA routinely uses these data to
estimate exposure to various foods, food
ingredients, and food contaminants (see Refs. 6, 35,
and 36).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20775
Other vitamins present in crustaceans
(i.e., niacin, pantothenic acid, vitamin
B12, and folate) are relatively insensitive
to irradiation, particularly at the doses
requested by this petition. Of these
vitamins, only vitamin B12 is provided
in meaningful amounts to the U.S. diet
from the intake of crustaceans. The
stability of vitamin B12 to irradiation has
been demonstrated in numerous studies
and was previously discussed in the
molluscan shellfish rule (70 FR 48057 at
48062). Molluscan shellfish contain the
highest amounts of vitamin B12 among
foods considered to be fish/shellfish;
therefore, our evaluation and discussion
in the molluscan shellfish rule are
relevant to this petition. Further, in its
review of this petition, we considered
potential B12 losses in crustaceans in
addition to other irradiated foods
containing vitamin B12 (ibid.). We
conclude that any potential losses of
radiation-insensitive vitamins in foods,
irradiated under the conditions
described in this petition, would be
minor and the resulting impact on
nutrient intake in the U.S. diet would be
negligible (ibid.).
We also analyzed the contribution of
crustaceans to vitamin D intake and
found that only 0.30 percent of dietary
vitamin D for U.S. adults (18 years and
older) comes from the consumption of
crustaceans (Ref. 37). Due to this small
contribution of vitamin D from
crustaceans to the overall U.S. dietary
intake, the potential losses of this
vitamin from crustaceans irradiated
under the conditions described in this
regulation would be minor and the
resulting health impact would be
negligible.
Based on review of the available data
and information, we conclude that
irradiation of crustaceans with a
maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy will
not adversely impact the nutritional
adequacy of the diet.
D. Microbiological Considerations
Irradiation at the requested doses will
reduce, but not entirely eliminate, the
number of viable pathogenic (illness
causing) microorganisms in or on
crustaceans. Furthermore, as discussed
in this document, irradiation of
crustaceans is expected to extend the
shelf-life of the treated product by
reducing the number of non-pathogenic
food spoilage microorganisms.
The predominant non-pathogenic
bacterial flora of freshly caught fish or
shellfish are from the Pseudomonas
group, with Acinetobacter and
Moraxella, generally present. As
crustaceans begin to spoil, the bacteria
from the Pseudomonas group can
increase to as much as 90 percent of the
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
20776
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
total flora (Ref. 38). Escherichia coli,
Vibrio spp., Listeria spp., Salmonella
serovars, Staphylococcus aureus, and
Clostridium botulinum were identified
by the petitioner as the human
pathogens of public health concern that
are most likely to be present in or on
crustaceans. The level and route of entry
of the different types of microorganisms
in crustaceans is variable, and this
contamination can result from
harvesting, handling, and transportation
(Ref. 39). Vibrios are naturally present
in marine environments, and
consequently, present in or on
crustaceans. The petitioner provided
data on the potential levels of microbial
pathogens in various crustacean
seafoods. While most observed levels of
microbial pathogens are much lower,
the petitioner states that Listeria could
be present at up to 104 colony forming
units per gram (CFU/g), vibrios at 106
CFU/g, salmonellas, streptococci, and
staphylococci at <10 CFU/g, and C.
botulinum at no more than 0.17 CFU/g.
Yeasts and molds also may be present;
however, these organisms would be
limited by aerobic packaging (i.e.,
oxygen-permeable packaging) and the
presence of normal spoilage bacteria
(Ref. 40).
The petitioner provided reports and
published articles describing the effects
of irradiation on the microorganisms in
or on crustaceans as well as in or on
other seafood. The effectiveness of
irradiation is a function of the
sensitivity of the target microorganisms
to ionizing radiation at a dose that will
retain the organoleptic and nutritional
characteristics of the food. The type and
physical state of the food product, its
temperature, ambient atmosphere, and
the survival of non-pathogens also are
factors that can either enhance or
diminish the survivability of the
organisms treated with ionizing
radiation. Data show that the more
complex the milieu, the greater the level
of radiation necessary to reduce the
level of microorganisms (Ref. 41).
Reports and published articles provide
data on the doses needed to control
several microorganisms of relevance,
including various Salmonella, Vibrio
spp., S. aureus, L. monocytogenes, and
E. coli. Due to organoleptic
considerations, the doses used will vary
depending on the type of crustacean; for
example, absorbed doses greater than
0.7 kGy may affect the texture of nonfrozen lobster meat, whereas other types
of crustaceans tolerate higher doses
without experiencing undesirable
changes.
There is a large body of work
regarding the radiation sensitivities of
non-pathogenic food spoilage
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
microorganisms and pathogenic foodborne microorganisms. Generally, the
common spoilage organisms such as
Pseudomonas and the pathogens of
concern are quite sensitive to the effects
of ionizing radiation. Chen et al.
investigated the microbial quality of
irradiated crab meat products, including
white lump meat, claw, and crab fingers
(Ref. 42). The D10 values 12 for spoilage
bacteria ranged from less than 0.40 to
0.46 kGy. Further, it was determined
that the shelf-life of food products
derived from the claw and finger of
crabs were extended approximately 3
days beyond the unirradiated samples
(ibid.). Following irradiation fresh,
peeled, and deveined tropical shrimps
stored at 10–12 degrees Celsius were
found to have an increase in shelf-life to
10–14 days when irradiated at 1.5 kGy
and 18–21 days when irradiated at 2.5
kGy as compared to the unirradiated
control samples, which spoiled within 4
days (Ref. 43). In a study performed by
Scholz et al., irradiation at 5 kGy
extended the shelf-life of Pacific shrimp
(Pandalus jordani) to 5 weeks when
stored at 3 degrees Celsius (Ref. 44).
Information regarding doses needed
for control of pathogenic organisms in
the petition and other information in
our files show that D10 values for vibrios
can range from less than 0.10 up to 0.75
kGy depending on the crustacean, its
physical state, temperature, and other
factors (Refs. 39, 42, 45, and 46). In
frozen, unpeeled, and uncooked shrimp,
the D10 values for L. monocytogenes
ranged from 0.7 kGy to 0.88 kGy (Refs.
39 and 47) and in crab meat, the D10
value cited in the literature was 0.59
kGy (Ref. 42).13 The D10 values cited in
the published literature for several
Salmonella serotypes in grass prawns
and shrimp homogenate ranged from
0.30 to 0.59 kGy (Refs. 45, 49, and 50).
Thus, irradiation of crustaceans at a
maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy
would be effective at controlling
pertinent pathogens (Ref. 40).
In evaluating the subject petition, we
have carefully considered whether
irradiation of crustaceans under the
conditions proposed in the petition
could result in significantly altered
microbial growth patterns such that
these foods would present a greater
12 D
10 is the absorbed dose of radiation required
to reduce a bacterial population by 90 percent.
13 The petitioner requested a maximum absorbed
dose of 6.0 kGy to achieve a 6-log reduction of L.
monocytogenes. Dividing the treatment dose by the
appropriate D10 value estimates the log reduction
for a given treatment dose (e.g., 6 kGy divided by
0.88 for frozen, unpeeled, uncooked shrimp has the
potential to yield a 6.8 log reduction) (Ref. 48). This
demonstrates that it is possible to achieve a 6-log
reduction of L. monocytogenes with a maximum
absorbed dose of 6 kGy.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
microbiological hazard than comparable
food that had not been irradiated. In
considering this issue, we focused on
whether the proposed irradiation
conditions would increase the
probability of significantly increased
growth of, and subsequent toxin
production by, C. botulinum because
this organism is relatively resistant to
radiation in comparison to non-spore
forming bacteria. We have concluded
that the possibility of increased
microbiological risk from C. botulinum
is extremely remote because: (1) The
conditions of refrigerated storage
necessary to maintain the quality of
crustaceans are not amenable to the
outgrowth and production of toxin by C.
botulinum and (2) sufficient numbers of
spoilage organisms will survive such
that spoilage will occur before
outgrowth and toxin production by C.
botulinum (Refs. 40 and 51).
Based on the available data and
information, we conclude that
irradiation of crustaceans conducted in
accordance with current GMP under 21
CFR 172.5 will reduce bacterial
populations without increased
microbial risk from pathogens that may
survive the irradiation process.
III. Comments
We have received numerous
comments, primarily form letters, from
individuals stating their opinions
regarding the potential dangers and
unacceptability of irradiating food. We
have also received several comments
from individuals or organizations
stating their opinions regarding the
potential benefits of irradiating food and
urging us to approve the petition. None
of these letters contain any substantive
information relevant to a safety
evaluation of irradiated crustaceans.
Additionally, we received several
comments from Public Citizen (PC) and
the Center for Food Safety (CFS)
requesting the denial of this and other
food irradiation petitions, as well as
joint comments from CFS and Food and
Water Watch (FWW).
Overall, the comments were of a
general nature and not specific to the
requests in the individual petitions.
These comments raised a number of
topics, including studies reviewed in
the 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO report on
high-dose irradiation; a review article
that analyzed studies of irradiated foods
performed in the 1950s and 1960s; the
findings of a 1971 study in which rats
were fed irradiated strawberries; the
findings regarding reproductive
performance in a 1954 study in which
mice were fed a special irradiated diet;
issues regarding mutagenicity studies;
certain international opinions; issues
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
related to ACBs, including purported
promotion of colon cancer; the findings
of certain studies conducted by the
Indian Institute of Nutrition in the
1970s; general issues regarding toxicity
data; our purported failure to meet
statutory requirements; data from a 2002
study purportedly showing an
irradiation-induced increase in trans
fatty acids in ground beef; studies
regarding purported elevated
hemoglobin levels and their
significance; and an affidavit describing
the opinions of a scientist regarding the
dangers of irradiation and advocating
the use of alternative methods for
reducing the risk of food-borne disease.
The topics raised in the FWW/CFS
comments included issues with ACBs,
our purported failure to define a list of
foods covered by the petition; general
issues with toxicity data; purported
microbiological resistance; and
purported negative effects on
organoleptic properties.
Many of the comments from PC and
CFS were also submitted to the dockets
for the rulemakings on the irradiation of
molluscan shellfish (Docket No. 1999F–
4372, FAP 9M4682) and on the
irradiation of fresh iceberg lettuce and
fresh spinach (Docket No. FDA–1999–
F–2405, FAP 9M4697). For a detailed
discussion of our responses to the
previously mentioned general
comments, we refer to the molluscan
shellfish rule (70 FR 48057 at 48062 to
48071). For a detailed discussion of our
response to the FWW/CFS comments,
we refer to our fresh iceberg lettuce and
fresh spinach rule (73 FR 49593 at
49600–49601).
Accordingly, because these comments
do not raise issues specific to irradiated
crustaceans and because we have
already responded to these comments
elsewhere, we are not further addressing
these comments in this document.
There were no additional comments
submitted to this docket.
IV. Conclusions
Based on the data and studies
submitted in the petition and other
information in our files, we conclude
that the proposed use of irradiation to
treat chilled or frozen raw, cooked, or
partially cooked crustaceans, or dried
crustaceans, with or without spices,
minerals, inorganic salts, citrates, citric
acid, and/or calcium disodium EDTA
used in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations, is safe, providing that
the absorbed dose does not exceed 6.0
kGy. Therefore, we are amending
§ 179.26 as set forth in this document.
In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR
171.1(h)), the petition and the
documents that we considered and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
relied upon in reaching our decision to
approve the petition are available for
public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in
§ 171.1(h), we will delete from the
documents any materials that are not
available for public disclosure.
V. Environmental Impact
We have previously considered the
environmental effects of this rule as
announced in the notice of filing for
FAP 1M4727 (66 FR 9086). No new
information or comments have been
received that would affect our previous
determination that there is no
significant impact on the human
environment and that an environmental
impact statement is not required.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule contains no collection
of information. Therefore, clearance by
the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 is not required.
VII. Objections
If you will be adversely affected by
one or more provisions of this
regulation, you may file with the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written
objections. You must separately number
each objection, and within each
numbered objection you must specify
with particularity the provision(s) to
which you object and the grounds for
your objection. Within each numbered
objection, you must specifically state
whether you are requesting a hearing on
the particular provision that you specify
in that numbered objection. If you do
not request a hearing for any particular
objection, you waive the right to a
hearing on that objection. If you request
a hearing, your objection must include
a detailed description and analysis of
the specific factual information you
intend to present in support of the
objection in the event that a hearing is
held. If you do not include such a
description and analysis for any
particular objection, you waive the right
to a hearing on the objection.
It is only necessary to send one set of
documents. Identify documents with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Any
objections received in response to the
regulation may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
will be posted to the docket at https://
www.regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20777
VIII. Section 301(ll) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
FDA’s review of this petition was
limited to section 409 of the FD&C Act.
This final rule is not a statement
regarding compliance with other
sections of the FD&C Act. For example,
the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007, which was
signed into law on September 27, 2007,
amended the FD&C Act to, among other
things, add section 301(ll) of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 331(ll)). Section 301(ll) of
the FD&C Act prohibits the introduction
or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of any food that
contains a drug approved under section
505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a
biological product licensed under
section 351 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or a drug or
biological product for which substantial
clinical investigations have been
instituted and their existence has been
made public, unless one of the
exceptions in section 301(ll)(1) to (4) of
the FD&C Act applies. In its review of
this petition, FDA did not consider
whether section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act
or any of its exemptions apply to
irradiated crustaceans. Accordingly, this
final rule should not be construed to be
a statement that irradiated crustaceans,
if introduced or delivered for
introduction into interstate commerce,
would not violate section 301(ll) of the
FD&C Act. Furthermore, this language is
included in all food additive final rules
and therefore, should not be construed
to be a statement of the likelihood that
section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act applies.
IX. References
The following sources are referred to
in this document. References marked
with an asterisk (*) have been placed on
display at the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES) and may
be seen by interested persons between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday. References without asterisks are
not on display; they are available as
published articles and books.
1. Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
Office of Food Safety, ‘‘Fish and Fishery
Products Hazards and Control
Guidance,’’ 4th Ed., November 2011,
Chapters 12 and 14, available at https://
www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/
guidancedocumentsregulatory
information/seafood/ucm2018426.htm.
*2. L. Weddig, National Fisheries Institute,
email message to T. Croce, FDA, August
31, 2012.
3. Diehl, J. F., ‘‘Chemical Effects of Ionizing
Radiation,’’ in Safety of Irradiated Foods,
2nd Ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
pp. 43–88, 1995.
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
20778
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
*4. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from D.
Folmer, FDA, to L. Highbarger, FDA,
August 2, 2002.
5. Diehl, J. F., ‘‘Radiolytic Effects in Foods,’’
in Preservation of Foods By Ionizing
Radiation, vol. 1, E.S. Josephson and
M.S. Peterson, eds., CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 279–357, 1982.
6. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
National Nutrient Database for Standard
Reference, Release 23. Nutrient Data
Laboratory home page, https://www.ars.
usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl.
*7. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from I.
Chen, FDA, to L. Highbarger, FDA, April
7, 2003.
*8. Uderdal, B., J. Nordal, G. Lunde, and B.
Eggum, ‘‘The Effect of Ionizing Radiation
on the Nutritional Value of Fish (Cod)
Protein,’’ Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft
Technologie, 6:90–93, 1973.
9. Adam, S., ‘‘Recent Developments in
Radiation Chemistry of Carbohydrates,’’
in Recent Advances in Food Irradiation,
P.S. Elias and A.J. Cohen, eds., Elsevier
Biomedical, Amsterdam, pp. 149–170,
1983.
*10. Raffi, J., J. P. Agnel, C. Thiery, et al.,
‘‘Study of Gamma Irradiated Starches
Derived From Different Foodstuffs: A
Way for Extrapolating Wholesomeness
Data,’’ Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 29:1227–1232, 1981.
11. WHO, ‘‘Safety and Nutritional Adequacy
of Irradiated Food,’’ World Health
Organization, Geneva, 1994.
*12. Kavalam, J. P. and W. W. Nawar,
‘‘Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Some
Vegetable Fats,’’ Journal of the American
Oil Chemical Society, 46:387–390, 1969.
´
13. Delincee, H., ‘‘Recent Advances in
Radiation Chemistry of Lipids,’’ in
Recent Advances in Food Irradiation,
edited by P.S. Elias and A.J. Cohen,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 89–114, 1983.
14. Nawar, W. W., ‘‘Comparison of Chemical
Consequences of Heat and Irradiation
Treatment of Lipids,’’ in Recent
Advances in Food Irradiation, P. S. Elias
and A. J. Cohen, eds., Elsevier
Biomedical, Amsterdam, pp. 115–127,
1983.
*15. International Consultative Group on
Food Irradiation (ICGFI), ‘‘Monograph on
Irradiation of Fish, Shellfish, and Frog
Legs,’’ Fifteenth Meeting of the ICGFI,
Vienna, 1998.
*16. Adams, S., G. Paul, and D. Ehlerman,
‘‘Influence of Ionizing Radiation on the
Fatty Acid Composition of Herring
Fillets,’’ Radiation Physics Chemistry,
20:289–295, 1982.
*17. Armstrong, S. G., S. G. Wyllie, and D.
N. Leach, ‘‘Effects of Preservation by
Gamma-Irradiation on the Nutritional
Quality of Australian Fish,’’ Food
Chemistry, 50:351–357, 1994.
*18. Sant’Ana, L. S. and J. Mancini-Filho,
‘‘Influence of the Addition of
Antioxidants in Vivo on the Fatty Acid
Composition of Fish Fillets’’ Food
Chemistry, 68:175–178, 2000.
*19. Morehouse, K. M. and Y. Ku, ‘‘Gas
Chromatographic and Electron Spin
Resonance Investigation of Gamma-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
Irradiated Shrimp,’’ Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry,
40(10):1963–1971, 1992.
20. Morehouse, K. M., ‘‘Identification of
Irradiated Seafood,’’ in Detection
Methods for Irradiated Foods: Current
Status, edited by C. H. McMurray, E. M.
Stewart, R. Gray, and J. Pearce, The
Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge,
United Kingdom, pp. 249–258, 1996.
*21. Sinanoglou, V. J., A. Batrinou, S.
Konteles, and K. Sflomos, ‘‘Microbial
Population, Physiochemical Quality, and
Allergenicity of Molluscs and Shrimp
Treated With Cobalt-60 Gamma
Radiation,’’ Journal of Food Protection,
70(4): 958–966, 2007.
22. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from K.
Morehouse, FDA, to T. Croce, FDA, May
30, 2013.
23. Seibersdorf Project Report, International
Programme on Irradiation of Fruit and
Fruit Juices, Chemistry and Isotopes
Department, National Centre for Nuclear
Energy, Madrid, Spain, vol. 8, 1966.
*24. Memorandum for FAP 9M4697 from K.
Morehouse, FDA, to L. Highbarger, FDA,
February 20, 2008.
*25. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from K.
Morehouse, FDA, to T. Croce, FDA,
August 18, 2010.
*26. Variyar, P. S., S. Chatterjee, M. G.
Sajilata, et al., ‘‘Natural Existence of 2Alkylcyclobutanones,’’ Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
56:11817–11823, 2008.
*27. Crone, A. V. J., J. T. G. Hamilton, and
M. H. Stevenson, ‘‘Effect of Storage and
Cooking on the Dose Response of 2Dodecylcyclobutanone, a Potential
Marker for Irradiated Chicken,’’ Journal
of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
58:249–252, 1992.
*28. Gadgil, P., K. A. Hachmeister, J. S.
Smith, and D. H. Kropf, ‘‘2Alkylcyclobutanones as Irradiation Dose
Indicators in Irradiated Ground Beef
Patties,’’ Journal of Agriculture and Food
Chemistry, 50:5746–5750, 2002.
*29. Memorandum to the file, FAP 4M4428,
D. Hattan, Acting Director, Division of
Health Effects Evaluation, November 20,
1997.
30. FAO/IAEA/WHO, ‘‘Wholesomeness of
Irradiated Food: Report of a Joint FAO/
IAEA/WHO Expert Committee,’’ World
Health Organization Technical Report
Series, No. 659, WHO, Geneva, 1981.
31. FAO/IAEA/WHO ‘‘High Dose Irradiation:
Wholesomeness of Food Irradiated with
Doses Above 10kGy: Report of a Joint
FAO/IAEA/WHO Study Group’’ World
Health Organization Technical Report
Series, No. 890, WHO, Geneva, pp. 9–37,
1999.
*32. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from A.
Edwards, FDA, to T. Croce, FDA, April
4, 2011.
*33. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., A. Stratakos, and
E. Mente, ‘‘Impact of Irradiation on Fish
and Seafood Shelf Life: A
Comprehensive Review of Applications
and Irradiation Detection,’’ Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,
49:68–112, 2009.
34. Shamasuzzaman, K., ‘‘Nutritional Aspects
of Irradiated Shrimp: A Review,’’ Atomic
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Energy of Canada Ltd. AECL–10090,
Whiteshell Nuclear Research
Establishment, Pinawa, Manitoba, pp. 1–
40, 1989.
*35. Cotton, P. A., A. F. Subar, J. E. Friday,
and A. Cook, ‘‘Dietary Sources of
Nutrients among U.S. Adults, 1994 to
1996,’’ Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 104:921–930, 2004.
*36. Memorandum for FAP 9M4697 from A.
Edwards, FDA, to L. Highbarger, FDA,
July 16, 2008.
*37. Memorandum for FAP 9M4697 from L.
Brookmire, FDA, to T. Croce, FDA, June
19, 2011.
38. Grodner, R. M. and L. S. Andrews in
‘‘Irradiation,’’ pp. 429–440, in
Microbiology of Marine Food Products,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
1991.
*39. Rashid, H. O., H. Ito, and I. Ishigaki,
‘‘Distribution of Pathogenic Vibrios and
Other Bacteria in Imported Frozen
Shrimps and Their Decontamination by
Gamma-Irradiation,’’ World Journal of
Microbiology and. Biotechnology, 8:494–
499, 1992.
*40. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from R.
Merker, FDA, to T. Croce, FDA, April 11,
2011.
*41. Thayer, D.W., G. Boyd, W.S. Muller, et
al., ‘‘Radiation Resistance of
Salmonella,’’ Journal of Industrial
Microbiology, 5:383–390, 1990.
*42. Chen, Y. P., L. S. Andrews, and R. M.
Grodner, ‘‘Sensory and Microbial Quality
of Irradiated Crab Meat Products,’’
Journal of Food Science, 61:1239–1242,
1996.
*43. Kumta, U. S., S. S. Mavinkurve, M. S.
Gore, et al., ‘‘Radiation Pasteurization of
Fresh and Blanched Tropical Shrimps,’’
Journal of Food Science, 35:360–363,
1970.
*44. Scholz, D. J., R. O. Sinnhuber, D. M.
East, and A. W. Anderson, ‘‘RadiationPasteurized Shrimp and Crabmeat,’’
Food Technology, 16:118–120, 1962.
*45. Hau, L.-B., M.-H. Liew, and L.-T. Yeh,
‘‘Preservation of Grass Prawns by
Ionizing Radiation,’’ Journal of Food
Protection, 55:198–202, 1992.
*46. Ito, H., P. Adulyatham, N. Sangthong,
and I. Ishigaki, ‘‘Effects of GammaIrradiation on Frozen Shrimps to Reduce
Microbial Contamination,’’ Radiation
and Physical Chemistry, 34:1009–1011,
1989.
*47. Ito, H., H. O. Rashid, N. Sangthong, et
al., ‘‘Effect of Gamma Irradiation on
Frozen Shrimps for Decontamination of
Pathogenic Bacteria,’’ Radiation Physics
and Chemistry, 42:279–282, 1993.
48. Ley, F. J., ‘‘The Effect of Ionizing
Radiation on Bacteria,’’ in Manual on
Radiation Sterilization of Medical and
Biological Materials. IAEA, Vienna, pp.
37–64, 1973.
*49. Nerkar, D. P. and J. R. Bandekar,
‘‘Elimination of Salmonella From Frozen
Shrimp by Gamma Radiation,’’ Journal of
Food Safety, 10:175–180, 1990.
50. Nouchpramool, K., S. Pungsilpa, and P.
Adulyatham, ‘‘Improvement of
Bacteriological Quality of Frozen Shrimp
by Gamma Radiation,’’ Office of Atomic
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Energy for Peace (Bangkok, Thailand).
(023535000; 4868000)), ISBN 974–7399–
29–6, 1985.
51. Jimes, S., ‘‘Clostridium Botulinum Type
E in Gulf Coast Shrimp and Shucked
Oysters and Toxin Products as Affected
by Irradiation Dosage, Temperature,
Storage Time, and Mixed Spore
Concentrations,’’ dissertation submitted
to Louisiana State University, pp. ix and
1, 1967.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 179
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 179 is
amended as follows:
PART 179—IRRADIATION IN THE
PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND
HANDLING OF FOOD
2. Section 179.26 is amended in the
table in paragraph (b) by adding item 14
to read as follows:
■
§ 179.26 Ionizing radiation for the
treatment of food.
*
Use
Limitations
*
*
*
14. For control of food-borne
pathogens in, and extension of the shelf-life of,
chilled or frozen raw,
cooked, or partially cooked
crustaceans or dried crustaceans (water activity less
than 0.85), with or without
spices, minerals, inorganic
salts, citrates, citric acid,
and/or calcium disodium
EDTA.
*
*
Not to exceed
6.0 kGy.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
Dated: April 4, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014–07926 Filed 4–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
Physical Medicine Devices;
Reclassification of Stair-Climbing
Wheelchairs
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final order.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is issuing a final
order to reclassify stair-climbing
wheelchairs, a class III device, into class
II (special controls) based on new
information and subject to premarket
notification, and further clarify the
identification.
SUMMARY:
This order is effective April 14,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 343, 348,
373, 374.
*
[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0568]
2014.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 179 continues to read as follows:
*
21 CFR Part 890
DATES:
■
*
*
(b) * * *
Food and Drug Administration
AGENCY:
Food additives, Food labeling, Food
packaging, Radiation protection,
Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Signs and symbols.
*
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Mike Ryan, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1615, Silver Spring,
MD 20993, 301–796–6283.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background—Regulatory Authorities
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the
Medical Device Amendments of 1976
(the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94–
295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of
1990 (Pub. L. 101–629), the Food and
Drug Administration Modernization Act
of 1997 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105–115), the
Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–
250), the Medical Devices Technical
Corrections Act (Pub. L. 108–214), the
Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–
85), and the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation
Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112–144), among
other amendments, established a
comprehensive system for the regulation
of medical devices intended for human
use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360c) established three categories
(classes) of devices, reflecting the
regulatory controls needed to provide
reasonable assurance of their safety and
effectiveness. The three categories of
devices are class I (general controls),
class II (special controls), and class III
(premarket approval).
Under section 513(d) of the FD&C Act,
devices that were in commercial
distribution before the enactment of the
1976 amendments, May 28, 1976
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20779
(generally referred to as preamendments
devices), are classified after FDA has: (1)
Received a recommendation from a
device classification panel (an FDA
advisory committee); (2) published the
panel’s recommendation for comment,
along with a proposed regulation
classifying the device; and (3) published
a final regulation classifying the device.
FDA has classified most
preamendments devices under these
procedures.
Devices that were not in commercial
distribution prior to May 28, 1976
(generally referred to as
postamendments devices), are
automatically classified by section
513(f) of the FD&C Act into class III
without any FDA rulemaking process.
Those devices remain in class III and
require premarket approval unless, and
until, the device is reclassified into class
I or II or FDA issues an order finding the
device to be substantially equivalent, in
accordance with section 513(i) of the
FD&C Act, to a predicate device that
does not require premarket approval.
The Agency determines whether new
devices are substantially equivalent to
predicate devices by means of
premarket notification procedures in
section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part
807).
On July 9, 2012, FDASIA was enacted.
Section 608(a) of FDASIA amended
section 513(e) of the FD&C Act,
changing the mechanism for
reclassifying a device from rulemaking
to an administrative order.
Section 513(e) of the FD&C Act
governs reclassification of classified
preamendments devices. This section
provides that FDA may, by
administrative order, reclassify a device
based upon ‘‘new information.’’ FDA
can initiate a reclassification under
section 513(e) of the FD&C Act or an
interested person may petition FDA to
reclassify a preamendments device. The
term ‘‘new information,’’ as used in
section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, includes
information developed as a result of a
reevaluation of the data before the
Agency when the device was originally
classified, as well as information not
presented, not available, or not
developed at that time. (See, e.g.,
Holland-Rantos Co. v. United States
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, 587 F.2d 1173, 1174 n.1 (D.C.
Cir. 1978); Upjohn v. Finch, 422 F.2d
944 (6th Cir. 1970); Bell v. Goddard, 366
F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1966).)
Reevaluation of the data previously
before the Agency is an appropriate
basis for subsequent action where the
reevaluation is made in light of newly
available authority (see Bell, 366 F.2d at
E:\FR\FM\14APR1.SGM
14APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20771-20779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07926]
[[Page 20771]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 179
[Docket No. FDA-2001-F-0049 (Formerly Docket No. 01F-0047)]
Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (``FDA'' or ``we'') is
amending the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of
ionizing radiation for control of food-borne pathogens in crustaceans
at a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kiloGray (kGy). This action is in
response to a petition filed by the National Fisheries Institute.
DATES: This rule is effective April 14, 2014. See section VII of this
document for information on the filing of objections. Submit either
electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by May 14,
2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written objections and
requests for a hearing identified by Docket No. FDA-2001-F-0049, by any
of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic objections in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written objections in the following ways:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions):
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. FDA-2001-F-0049 for this rulemaking. All objections
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions
on submitting objections, see the ``Objections'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
objections received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this document,
into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the
Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa A. Croce, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1281.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In a notice published in the Federal Register of February 6, 2001
(66 FR 9086), we announced that a food additive petition (FAP 1M4727)
had been filed by the National Fisheries Institute, 1901 North Fort
Myer Dr., Arlington, VA 22209 (petitioner). The petition proposed that
the food additive regulations in part 179, Irradiation in the
Production, Processing and Handling of Food (21 CFR part 179), be
amended to provide for the safe use of approved sources of ionizing
radiation for control of food-borne pathogens in raw, frozen, cooked,
partially cooked, shelled, or dried \1\ crustaceans or cooked or ready-
to-cook crustaceans processed with batter, breading, spices, or small
amounts of other food ingredients. In a letter dated July 16, 2009, the
petitioner asked FDA to modify the scope of the petition to exclude
consideration of breaded and battered crustaceans. Subsequently, we
published an amended notice of filing for the petition of February 6,
2001, in the Federal Register (74 FR 47592; September 16, 2009),
indicating that the petition proposed to amend the regulations in part
179 to provide for the use of ionizing radiation for the control of
food-borne pathogens in raw, frozen, cooked, partially cooked, shelled,
or dried crustaceans, or cooked or ready-to-cook crustaceans processed
with spices or small amounts of other food ingredients. On August 31,
2012, at our request the petitioner clarified the scope of its amended
petition from 2009 by providing us with a list of the particular
``other food ingredients'' that would be added to the crustaceans prior
to being irradiated (Ref. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dried crustaceans refer to crustaceans with a water activity
(aw) of 0.85 or below (Ref. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner requested a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy to
achieve a 6-log reduction of Listeria monocytogenes.
II. Evaluation of Safety
Under section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(s)), a source of radiation used to treat
food is defined as a food additive.\2\ While the source of radiation is
not literally added to the food, the radiation is used to process or
treat food, such that, analogous to other food processing technologies,
its use can affect the characteristics of the food. In the subject
petition, the intended technical effect is to reduce the microbial load
on and prolong the shelf life of crustaceans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The term ``food additive'' means any substance the intended
use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result,
directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise
affecting the characteristics of any food (including any substance
intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, processing,
preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food; and
including any source of radiation intended for any such use) (21
U.S.C. 321(s)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 409(c)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.348(c)(3)(A)),
a food additive cannot be approved for a particular use unless a fair
evaluation of the evidence establishes that the additive is safe for
that use. Safe or safety in the context of food additives ``means that
there is a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists
that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use.
It is impossible in the present state of scientific knowledge to
establish with complete certainty the absolute harmlessness of the use
of any substance.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 21 CFR 170.3(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FD&C Act does not prescribe the safety tests to be performed
and not all food additives require the same amount or type of testing.
The amount and type of testing required to establish the safety of an
additive will vary depending on the particular additive and its
intended use.
Specifically, in evaluating the safety of a source of radiation to
treat food intended for human consumption, we must identify the various
effects that may result from irradiating the food and assess whether
any of these effects pose a public health concern. In this regard, the
following three areas of possible concern need to be addressed: (1)
Potential toxicity, (2) nutritional adequacy, and (3) potential
microbiological risk from the treated food. Each of these areas is
discussed in detail in this document. We have considered the data and
studies submitted in the subject petition as well as additional data
and information in our possession relevant to safety. This includes our
previous evaluations of the safety of the irradiation of other foods,
including the irradiation of poultry (``poultry rule'') (55 FR 18538;
May 2, 1990), the irradiation of meat (``meat rule'') (62 FR 64107;
December 3, 1997), the irradiation of molluscan shellfish
[[Page 20772]]
(``molluscan shellfish rule'') (70 FR 48057; August 16, 2005), and the
irradiation of fresh iceberg lettuce and fresh spinach (``fresh iceberg
lettuce and fresh spinach rule'') (73 FR 49593; August 22, 2008).
A. Radiation Chemistry
``Radiation chemistry'' refers to the chemical reactions that occur
as a result of the absorption of ionizing radiation. Numerous studies
regarding the chemical effects of ionizing radiation on different foods
under varied conditions have led to a sound understanding of the
fundamental principles of radiation chemistry.\4\ The knowledge gained
through these studies provided us with a knowledge base from which
general conclusions about irradiated foods can be drawn by
extrapolating from data on particular foods irradiated under specific
conditions to similar types of foods irradiated under different, yet
related, conditions. Overall, the data show that the type and amount of
products generated by the radiation-induced chemical reactions
(``radiolysis products'') are dependent upon the chemical constituents
of the food and the specific conditions under which the food has been
irradiated. The principles of radiation chemistry also govern the
extent of change, if any, in the nutrient level and the microbial load
of irradiated foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Several books provide more detailed discussions of radiation
chemistry with references to the large number of original research
studies, particularly in the area of food irradiation. Sources that
can be consulted for further information include, but are not
limited to: ``Radiation Chemistry of Major Food Components,'' edited
by P.S. Elias and A.J. Cohen, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1977; ``Recent
Advances in Food Irradiation,'' edited by P.S. Elias and A.J. Cohen,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983; and J.F. Diehl, ``Chemical Effects of
Ionizing Radiation,'' Chapter 3 in ``Safety of Irradiated Foods,''
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the pertinent data and information concerning
radiation chemistry as it applies specifically to crustaceans
irradiated at a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy. As described in the
review memoranda, our safety review of the conditions of use generally
focused on the effects of irradiation on the portion that individuals
are most likely to consume, i.e., the meat or flesh of crustaceans.
1. Factors Affecting the Radiation Chemistry of Foods
Along with the chemical composition of the food, the specific
conditions of irradiation are essential to assessing the radiation
chemistry of a given food. The specific conditions include radiation
dose, physical state of the food (e.g, solid or frozen versus liquid or
non-frozen state, dried versus hydrated state), and ambient atmosphere
(e.g., air, reduced oxygen, or vacuum). The radiation dose directly
affects the levels of radiolysis products generated in a particular
food; therefore, we can extrapolate from data obtained at higher
radiation doses to draw conclusions about the amounts of radiolysis
products expected to be generated at lower doses. Generally, the types
of radiolysis products resulting from irradiation are similar to those
products generated by alternative food processing methods, such as
canning and cooking (Refs. 3 and 4).
The extent of chemical change that occurs when food is irradiated
is also determined by the physical state of the food. When the food is
in a frozen state, the initial radiolysis products have a greater
tendency to recombine rather than diffuse throughout the food and react
with other food components. Provided all conditions are the same,
including dose and ambient atmosphere, the extent of chemical change
that occurs in a specific food will be lower if the food is in a frozen
state than a non-frozen state because the radiolysis products are less
mobile in frozen conditions. Likewise, the extent of change in the
dehydrated state is less than the change that occurs in the fully
hydrated state.
Furthermore, the atmosphere can affect the formation of radiolytic
products in a given food, thus having the potential to affect the
chemical composition of the food. Irradiation in oxygenated
environments facilitates the formation of additional oxidation-
reduction (redox) agents as a result of the interaction between oxygen
and the radiolysis products of water (e.g., hydrogen radical, hydroxide
radical, and solvated electrons (a free electron in a solution)).
Because all foods have components that are susceptible to redox
reactions, an atmosphere with high oxygen content increases the
likelihood of such occurrences and therefore, leads to the formation of
a greater number and variety of radiolysis products when compared to an
atmosphere with low oxygen content (Refs. 3 and 5). The final products
of radiation-induced oxidation reactions in foods are similar to those
produced by oxidation reactions induced by other processes (e.g.,
storage or heating in air).
In general, the types of radiolysis products generated by
irradiation are similar to those produced by other food processing
methods (Refs. 3 and 4). Radiation-induced chemical changes, if
sufficiently large, however, may cause changes in the organoleptic or
sensory properties of the food. Because food processors wish to avoid
undesirable effects on taste, odor, color, or texture, there is an
incentive to minimize the extent of these chemical changes in food.
Thus, in most cases, the dosage selected will be the lowest dose
required to achieve the desired effect, and the irradiation will be
conducted under reduced oxygen levels and/or on food held at low
temperatures or in the frozen state.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the case of crustaceans, irradiation would occur under
either chilled or frozen conditions. This temperature requirement is
not necessary for dried crustaceans because they are shelf stable
due to their low water activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Radiation Chemistry of the Major Components of Crustaceans
The major components of crustaceans are water, proteins, and
lipids. Irradiation of water produces reactive hydroxyl and hydrogen
radicals. These radicals are likely to recombine forming water,
hydrogen gas, or hydrogen peroxide; however, they can react with other
components of the irradiated food, in this instance, crustaceans,
forming secondary radiolysis products. While the most significant
effects of irradiation on the protein and lipid components of
crustaceans result from chemical reactions induced by radicals
generated from the radiolysis of water, additional radiolysis products
can result directly from the absorbed radiation. These products form in
very small amounts and are the same as or similar to compounds found in
food that have not been irradiated (Ref. 4).
Because meat is high in protein, lipids, and water, the radiation
chemistry of proteins, lipids, and water (in both liquid and frozen
states) was extensively discussed in the preamble to the meat rule (62
FR 64107 at 64110 to 64111). The radiation chemistry of proteins and
lipids discussed in the meat rule is also relevant to other flesh
foods, including foods such as poultry and fish, that may be referred
to as ``meat'' in common usage, but that do not conform to the
definition of meat in 9 CFR 301.2.
Crustaceans are similar to other flesh foods in that they consist
predominately of protein (up to 21 percent), lipid (approximately 1 to
2 percent), and water (74 to 84 percent). However, they differ from
other flesh food in that they contain lower levels of fat and slightly
higher levels of carbohydrate (up to 2.5 percent) by weight of the raw
edible portion (Ref. 6). While the carbohydrate level in crustaceans is
slightly higher than in other flesh foods, the overall level remains
relatively low.
a. Proteins. We have previously provided a detailed discussion of
[[Page 20773]]
protein radiation chemistry in the meat and molluscan shellfish rules.
Studies conducted with high-protein foods such as meat, poultry, and
seafood, have established that most of the radiolysis products derived
from proteins possess the same amino acid composition and may be
denatured (i.e., only altered in their secondary and tertiary
structures). Although the changes to proteins caused by ionizing
radiation are similar to those that occur as a result of heating, the
changes are far less pronounced and the amounts of reaction products
generated are far lower (Refs. 4 and 7). Studies have established that
there is little change in the amino acid composition of fish irradiated
at doses of 50 kGy and below, which is above the maximum absorbed dose
for crustaceans--6.0 kGy (Ref. 8). Therefore, we conclude that no
significant change in the amino acid composition of crustaceans is
expected to result from the conditions set forth in this regulation.
b. Carbohydrates. The main effects of ionizing radiation on
carbohydrates in foods have been studied extensively and discussed at
length in the scientific literature (Refs. 9 and 10) as well as in
reviews by such bodies as the World Health Organization (WHO) (Ref.
11). In the presence of water, carbohydrates react primarily with the
hydroxyl radicals generated by radiolysis of water resulting in the
abstraction of hydrogen from the carbon-hydrogen bonds of the
carbohydrate, forming water and a carbohydrate radical. Carbohydrate
radicals may result from ionization of monosaccharides such as glucose
or polysaccharides such as starch. In polysaccharides, the glycosidic
linkages between constituent monosaccharide units may be broken,
effectively shortening the polysaccharide chains. Starch may be
degraded into dextrins, maltose, and glucose. Sugar acids, ketones, and
other sugar monosaccharides may also be formed as a result of ionizing
radiation. Various studies have demonstrated that radiation-induced
products formed from starches of different origin are qualitatively
similar. The overall effects of ionizing radiation on carbohydrates are
the same as those caused by cooking and other food processing
treatments, and carbohydrates present as a component of food are less
sensitive to the effects of irradiation than pure carbohydrates (Ref.
3). No significant change in the carbohydrate composition of
crustaceans is expected to occur under the conditions set forth in this
regulation, i.e., at a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy.
c. Lipids. We have previously provided a detailed discussion on the
radiation chemistry of lipids in both the preambles to the meat and
molluscan shellfish rules (62 FR 64107 at 64110 to 64111 and 70 FR
48057 at 48060, respectively). This discussion noted that studies have
identified a variety of radiolysis products derived from lipids. These
include fatty acids, esters, aldehydes, ketones, alkanes, alkenes, and
other hydrocarbons, which are identical or analogous to compounds found
in foods that have not been irradiated, but have been subjected to a
different type of processing (Refs. 12 and 13). Heating food causes the
lipids to produce these types of compounds, but in levels far greater
than the trace amounts produced from irradiating food (Ref. 14).
One major difference between fish (both shellfish and finfish) and
other flesh foods is the predominance of polyunsaturated fatty acids
(PUFAs) in the lipid phase of fish. PUFAs are a subclass of lipids that
have a higher degree of unsaturation in the hydrocarbon chain compared
to saturated (e.g., stearic acid) or monounsaturated (e.g., oleic acid)
fatty acids. The PUFA subclass of lipids is generally more susceptible
to oxidation than saturated fatty acids due to their higher degree of
unsaturation. Therefore, PUFAs could be more radiation-sensitive
compared to the other lipid components, as suggested by some studies on
irradiated oil (Ref. 15). However, evidence from studies in meat
suggests that the protein component of meat may protect lipids from
oxidative damage (Ref. 3).
The effects of irradiation on PUFAs in fish have been described in
several studies we have reviewed, which are also discussed in detail in
the molluscan shellfish rule. These studies show that irradiation is
not likely to have a significant effect on the lipid composition of
seafood. For example, Adams et al. studied the effects of irradiation
on the concentration of PUFAs in herring and showed that irradiation of
herring fillets at sterilizing doses (50 kGy), well above the
petitioned maximum dose for crustaceans, had no effect on the
concentration of PUFAs (Ref. 16). Armstrong et al. conducted a study to
evaluate the effects of ionizing radiation on fatty acid composition in
fish and concluded that no significant changes occurred in the fatty
acid profiles upon irradiation at 1, 2, or 6 kGy (Ref. 17). Sant'Ana
and Mancini-Filho studied the effects of irradiation on the
distribution of fatty acids in fish, evaluating two monounsaturated
fatty acids and seven PUFAs before and after irradiation at 3 kGy (Ref.
18). They observed insignificant changes in the concentration of total
monounsaturated fatty acids and an approximately 13 percent decrease in
total PUFAs at 3 kGy; these losses were largely attributed to a loss of
the long chain PUFAs. Research conducted by FDA on various species of
seafood also demonstrated that the concentrations of PUFAs are not
significantly affected by irradiation (Refs. 19 and 20). More recently,
a study conducted by Sinanoglou et al. reported non-significant changes
in total fat and total fatty acids for mollusks and crustaceans with
irradiation at 4.7 kGy, confirming our earlier conclusions that
irradiation does not significantly affect PUFAs (Ref. 21). Therefore,
based on the totality of evidence, we conclude that no significant loss
of PUFAs is expected to occur in the diet under the conditions of
irradiation set forth in this regulation.
3. Radiation Chemistry of Food Ingredients Added to Crustaceans
The petitioner clarified that the ``other food ingredients''
intended to be added to the crustaceans prior to treatment with
irradiation included spices,\6\ minerals, inorganic salts, citrates,
citric acid, and calcium disodium EDTA (calcium disodium ethylene-
diaminetetraacetate).\7\ We considered the list of compounds and
determined that for any mineral or inorganic salt, there will be no
change in the exposure to radiolysis products because these compounds
are not impacted by the direct or secondary effects of irradiation
(Ref. 22). Furthermore, upon assessment of the organic compounds that
were requested, we determined that these compounds (i.e., citric acid,
citrates, and calcium disodium EDTA) will react when irradiated to form
products at low levels (concentrations below the parts per billion
level) that are similar to products that are formed as a result of
lipid oxidation reactions, such as carbon dioxide and formic acid. As
we stated in section II.2.c., we have previously evaluated the safety
of the radiolysis products formed as a result of lipid
[[Page 20774]]
oxidation reactions and have concluded that these products are not
harmful. Moreover, the addition of these specific organic compounds to
crustaceans prior to irradiation results in the formation of these
radiolysis products at such low levels that irradiation of crustaceans
with the proposed additional food ingredients will not meaningfully
increase exposure to radiolysis products (ibid.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The term ``spice'' refers to dried or dehydrated aromatic
vegetable substances that are used in small amounts solely for
flavoring or aroma (e.g., black pepper, red pepper, and bay leaves).
This term is consistent with the currently regulated use of
``spice'' in Sec. 179.26(b)(5) (21 CFR 179.26(b)(5)).
\7\ This regulation addresses the irradiation of these ``other
food ingredients'' to the extent that their use in crustaceans is
authorized. The use of other ingredients in crustaceans prior to
irradiation must be consistent with existing food additive
regulations, generally recognized as safe determinations, and prior
sanctions. For example, calcium disodium EDTA is approved for use
under the conditions specified in 21 CFR 172.120 in cooked canned
shrimp and cooked canned crabmeat and is not approved for use in
other types of shrimp or crabmeat or in other crustaceans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, we concluded that the irradiation of all proposed
ingredients will not increase the exposure to radiolysis products when
used on crustaceans at levels consistent with good manufacturing
practices (GMP) and in accordance with other applicable laws and
regulations.
4. Consideration of Furan as a Radiolysis Product
During our review of the chemical effects of irradiation, as a part
of the evaluation of this and other irradiation petitions, we became
aware of a report that suggested irradiating apple juice (``apple juice
report'') may produce furan (Ref. 23). Studies have demonstrated that
furan can cause tumors in laboratory animals. This prompted us to
initiate research on whether the apple juice report was accurate and
whether furan was a common radiolysis product in food. We confirmed
that certain foods form furan in low quantities when irradiated. Our
studies also show that some foods form furan when heated and other
foods form furan during storage at refrigeration temperatures (Ref.
24). Testing of irradiated raw shrimp and cooked crab meat show that if
furan is formed when these foods are irradiated, it is formed at levels
that are below the limit of detection of the available analytical
methods, or below the background levels of natural furan formation
during storage (Ref. 25). Therefore, because all crustaceans have
similar composition, we concluded that the consumption of irradiated
crustaceans will not increase the amount of furan in the diet.
5. Consideration of 2-Alkylcyclobutanones as Radiolysis Products
A class of radiolysis products derived from lipids, identified as
2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs), has been reported to form in small
quantities when fats are exposed to ionizing radiation. These compounds
were once considered to be unique products, formed in small quantities
during the irradiation process; however, a recent report has
demonstrated that 2-ACBs also can be detected in non-irradiated food
(Ref. 26). The type of 2-ACBs formed depends on the fatty acid
composition of the food. For example, 2-dodecylcyclobutanone (2-DCB) is
a radiation by-product of triglycerides with esterified palmitic acid.
Researchers have reported that 2-DCB is formed in small amounts (less
than 1 microgram per gram lipid per kGy) in irradiated chicken (Ref.
27) and in even smaller amounts in irradiated ground beef (Ref. 28).
Both of these foods are of relatively high total fat and palmitic acid
content (Ref. 6).
In the molluscan shellfish rule, we provided a detailed discussion
of the significance of the formation of 2-DCB to the safety evaluation
of irradiated molluscan shellfish, a food which, like chicken, ground
beef, and crustaceans, contains significant amounts of triglycerides
with esterified palmitic acid (70 FR 48057 at 48065 to 48067). We
concluded that no issues were raised that had not been previously
considered in the meat and poultry final rules (70 FR 48057 at 48060
and 48065 to 48067). In our assessment in the meat rule, we considered
all of the available data and information, including the results of
genotoxicity studies and previously reviewed studies in which animals
were fed diets containing irradiated meat, poultry, and fish (62 FR
64107 at 64113). While 2-DCB and other alkylcyclobutanones would be
expected to be present in these irradiated foods, we found no evidence
of toxicity attributable to the consumption of these substances. The
macronutrient composition of crustaceans (protein, lipid, carbohydrate)
is comparable to other flesh foods (Ref. 6). Due to the similar lipid
levels, the formation of 2-ACBs in crustaceans is expected to be
similar to the levels of 2-ACBs produced in other flesh foods.
Therefore, considering all available data and information, the
formation of 2-ACBs from irradiating crustaceans under the conditions
proposed in this petition is not a safety concern.
B. Toxicological Considerations
To adequately evaluate the safety of irradiated food products, we
assessed all available toxicological data from the relevant toxicology
studies of which we are aware. For the toxicological evaluation of
irradiated crustaceans, the relevant studies are those studies
examining flesh-based foods, including studies on fish high in PUFAs.
These include 24 long-term feeding studies, 10 reproduction/teratology
studies, and 15 genotoxicity studies with flesh-based foods irradiated
at doses from 6 to 74 kGy. No toxicologically significant adverse
effects attributable to irradiated flesh foods were observed in any of
the studies, all of which were discussed in detail in the meat rule (62
FR 64107 at 64112 to 64114). The dose of irradiation used in the
relevant studies was similar to, or considerably higher than, the
maximum absorbed dose requested in this petition (6.0 kGy). Therefore,
these data demonstrate that crustaceans irradiated at levels up to 6.0
kGy will not present a toxicological hazard (Ref. 7).
In evaluating the safety of irradiated crustaceans, we also relied
upon the integrated toxicological database derived from the extensive
body of work reviewed by us (Ref. 29) and by WHO relevant to the
assessment of the potential toxicity of irradiated foods. Although
these studies are not all of equal quality or rigor,\8\ we concluded
that the quantity and breadth of testing, as well as the number and
significance of endpoints assessed would have identified any real or
meaningful hazard. The overwhelming majority of studies showed no
evidence of toxicity. In those few instances where adverse effects were
reported, we found that those effects have not been consistently
reproduced in related studies conducted at higher doses or for longer
durations, as would be expected if the effects were attributable to
irradiation (62 FR 64107 at 64112 to 64114).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For example, the number of animals used in many of the early
studies is smaller than that commonly used today. Complete
histopathology was not always done or reported. For some studies,
the data are available in only brief summary form. While many of
these studies cannot individually establish safety for the
previously cited reasons, they still provide important information
that, evaluated collectively, supports a conclusion that there is no
reason to believe that the irradiation of flesh foods presents a
toxicological hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, during the early 1980s, a joint Food and Agriculture
Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health
Organization (FAO/IAEA/WHO) Expert Committee evaluated the
toxicological and microbiological safety and nutritional adequacy of
irradiated foods. The Expert Committee concluded that irradiation of
any food commodity at an average dose of up to 10 kGy presents no
toxicological hazard (Ref. 30). In the 1990s, at the request of one of
its member states, FAO/IAEA/WHO conducted a new review and analysis of
the safety of data on irradiated foods. This more recent review
included all studies in our files that we considered as reasonably
complete, as well as those studies that appeared to be acceptable but
had deficiencies interfering with the interpretation of the data (62 FR
64107 at 64112). The FAO/IAEA/WHO review also included data from the
U.S.
[[Page 20775]]
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and from the German Federal Research
Centre for Nutrition at Karlsruhe, Germany. FAO/IAEA/WHO concluded that
the integrated toxicological database is sufficiently sensitive to
evaluate safety and that no adverse toxicological effects due to
irradiation were observed in the dose ranges tested (Ref. 31).
Therefore, based on the totality of evidence, we conclude that
irradiation of crustaceans under the conditions proposed in this
petition does not present a toxicological hazard.
C. Nutritional Considerations
It has been well established that the nutritional value of the
macronutrients (proteins, fats, and carbohydrates) in the diet are not
significantly altered by irradiation at the petitioned doses (Refs. 32
to 34). PUFAs, particularly long-chain, omega-3 fatty acids, are
generally considered to be nutritionally important components of
seafood. As noted in section II.A.2.c., PUFA levels were not reduced
significantly by ionizing radiation. Thus, we conclude that, as with
molluscan shellfish (70 FR 48057 at 48060), potential losses of PUFAs
from irradiation of crustaceans would be expected to be minimal and
have no nutritional significance.
We have carefully reviewed the data and information submitted in
the petition, as well as additional information available in the
scientific literature, to determine the potential impact of irradiation
at a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy on the nutritional value of
crustaceans (Ref. 32). In this review, FDA considered all nutrients
known to be present in crustaceans, but focused primarily on those
vitamins having an established sensitivity to radiation and those
vitamins for which at least one of these foods \9\ may be identified,
under our labeling regulations, as either a ``good source'' or an
``excellent source,'' \10\ for contributing more than a trivial amount
to the total dietary intake of that vitamin (i.e., more than 1 to 2
percent).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Nutrient content data was available from the USDA Nutrient
Database (NDB) for Standard Reference, version 23 (SR-23) for the
following crustaceans: Crab (blue, king, queen, Dungeness), shrimp,
lobster, and crayfish (see Refs. 6, 32, and 35).
\10\ To be considered a ``good source'' a given vitamin, that
particular food must contain 10-19 percent of the Reference Daily
Intake (RDI) or Daily Reference Value (DRV) for that vitamin per
reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) (21 CFR 101.54(c)). A
food containing >= 20 percent of the RDI or DRV per RACC may be
labeled as an ``excellent source'' of that vitamin (21 CFR
101.54(b)).
\11\ This information is based upon individual food intake data
available from nationwide surveys conducted by USDA and maintained
in the USDA NDB SR-23. USDA's surveys were designed to monitor the
types and amounts of foods eaten by Americans and food consumption
patterns in the U.S. population. FDA routinely uses these data to
estimate exposure to various foods, food ingredients, and food
contaminants (see Refs. 6, 35, and 36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irradiation of any food, regardless of the dose, has no effect on
the levels of minerals that are present in trace amounts (Ref. 3).
Levels of certain vitamins, on the other hand, may be reduced as a
result of irradiation. The extent to which a reduction in the level of
a specific vitamin occurs as a result of food irradiation depends on
the specific vitamin, the type of food, and the conditions of
irradiation. Not all vitamin loss is nutritionally significant;
however, and the extent to which a reduction in a specific vitamin
level is significant depends on the relative contribution of the food
in question to the total dietary intake of the vitamin.
Crustaceans, as a group, show some variation in vitamin content,
but all crustaceans are excellent sources of vitamin B12,
and certain crustaceans may be identified as good sources of folate,
niacin, riboflavin, pyridoxine, pantothenic acid, and vitamin C.
Certain crustaceans (i.e., shrimp and blue crab) contain vitamin E at
levels greater than 10 percent of the current Reference Daily Allowance
per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC). Of these vitamins
present in crustaceans, only vitamin C, thiamin, vitamin E, and, to a
lesser extent pyridoxine, are considered to be sensitive to irradiation
(Ref. 32). Although thiamin is present in other types of flesh food,
crustaceans are not considered a good source of thiamin (ibid.).
Despite the presence of vitamin C, pyridoxine, and vitamin E in
crustaceans, they make up a negligible amount of the dietary intake of
these vitamins in the United States. Based on data from the USDA
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes of Individuals (Ref. 35), the entire
food category of ``fish/shellfish (excluding canned tuna)'' contributes
to less than 1 percent of the vitamin C intake of the U.S. diet and
less than 2 percent of the vitamin E and pyridoxine intakes of the U.S.
diet. Furthermore, because crustaceans account for only 40 percent of
the entire category of ``fish/shellfish (excluding canned tuna),'' the
impact of these vitamin levels from consuming crustaceans will be of
even less significance (Ref. 32). Potential losses of vitamin C,
thiamine, vitamin E, and pyridoxine, as a result of irradiation of
crustaceans at a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy, are of minimal to no
consequence to the overall U.S. diet.
Other vitamins present in crustaceans (i.e., niacin, pantothenic
acid, vitamin B12, and folate) are relatively insensitive to
irradiation, particularly at the doses requested by this petition. Of
these vitamins, only vitamin B12 is provided in meaningful
amounts to the U.S. diet from the intake of crustaceans. The stability
of vitamin B12 to irradiation has been demonstrated in
numerous studies and was previously discussed in the molluscan
shellfish rule (70 FR 48057 at 48062). Molluscan shellfish contain the
highest amounts of vitamin B12 among foods considered to be
fish/shellfish; therefore, our evaluation and discussion in the
molluscan shellfish rule are relevant to this petition. Further, in its
review of this petition, we considered potential B12 losses
in crustaceans in addition to other irradiated foods containing vitamin
B12 (ibid.). We conclude that any potential losses of
radiation-insensitive vitamins in foods, irradiated under the
conditions described in this petition, would be minor and the resulting
impact on nutrient intake in the U.S. diet would be negligible (ibid.).
We also analyzed the contribution of crustaceans to vitamin D
intake and found that only 0.30 percent of dietary vitamin D for U.S.
adults (18 years and older) comes from the consumption of crustaceans
(Ref. 37). Due to this small contribution of vitamin D from crustaceans
to the overall U.S. dietary intake, the potential losses of this
vitamin from crustaceans irradiated under the conditions described in
this regulation would be minor and the resulting health impact would be
negligible.
Based on review of the available data and information, we conclude
that irradiation of crustaceans with a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy
will not adversely impact the nutritional adequacy of the diet.
D. Microbiological Considerations
Irradiation at the requested doses will reduce, but not entirely
eliminate, the number of viable pathogenic (illness causing)
microorganisms in or on crustaceans. Furthermore, as discussed in this
document, irradiation of crustaceans is expected to extend the shelf-
life of the treated product by reducing the number of non-pathogenic
food spoilage microorganisms.
The predominant non-pathogenic bacterial flora of freshly caught
fish or shellfish are from the Pseudomonas group, with Acinetobacter
and Moraxella, generally present. As crustaceans begin to spoil, the
bacteria from the Pseudomonas group can increase to as much as 90
percent of the
[[Page 20776]]
total flora (Ref. 38). Escherichia coli, Vibrio spp., Listeria spp.,
Salmonella serovars, Staphylococcus aureus, and Clostridium botulinum
were identified by the petitioner as the human pathogens of public
health concern that are most likely to be present in or on crustaceans.
The level and route of entry of the different types of microorganisms
in crustaceans is variable, and this contamination can result from
harvesting, handling, and transportation (Ref. 39). Vibrios are
naturally present in marine environments, and consequently, present in
or on crustaceans. The petitioner provided data on the potential levels
of microbial pathogens in various crustacean seafoods. While most
observed levels of microbial pathogens are much lower, the petitioner
states that Listeria could be present at up to 10\4\ colony forming
units per gram (CFU/g), vibrios at 10\6\ CFU/g, salmonellas,
streptococci, and staphylococci at <10 CFU/g, and C. botulinum at no
more than 0.17 CFU/g. Yeasts and molds also may be present; however,
these organisms would be limited by aerobic packaging (i.e., oxygen-
permeable packaging) and the presence of normal spoilage bacteria (Ref.
40).
The petitioner provided reports and published articles describing
the effects of irradiation on the microorganisms in or on crustaceans
as well as in or on other seafood. The effectiveness of irradiation is
a function of the sensitivity of the target microorganisms to ionizing
radiation at a dose that will retain the organoleptic and nutritional
characteristics of the food. The type and physical state of the food
product, its temperature, ambient atmosphere, and the survival of non-
pathogens also are factors that can either enhance or diminish the
survivability of the organisms treated with ionizing radiation. Data
show that the more complex the milieu, the greater the level of
radiation necessary to reduce the level of microorganisms (Ref. 41).
Reports and published articles provide data on the doses needed to
control several microorganisms of relevance, including various
Salmonella, Vibrio spp., S. aureus, L. monocytogenes, and E. coli. Due
to organoleptic considerations, the doses used will vary depending on
the type of crustacean; for example, absorbed doses greater than 0.7
kGy may affect the texture of non-frozen lobster meat, whereas other
types of crustaceans tolerate higher doses without experiencing
undesirable changes.
There is a large body of work regarding the radiation sensitivities
of non-pathogenic food spoilage microorganisms and pathogenic food-
borne microorganisms. Generally, the common spoilage organisms such as
Pseudomonas and the pathogens of concern are quite sensitive to the
effects of ionizing radiation. Chen et al. investigated the microbial
quality of irradiated crab meat products, including white lump meat,
claw, and crab fingers (Ref. 42). The D10 values \12\ for
spoilage bacteria ranged from less than 0.40 to 0.46 kGy. Further, it
was determined that the shelf-life of food products derived from the
claw and finger of crabs were extended approximately 3 days beyond the
unirradiated samples (ibid.). Following irradiation fresh, peeled, and
deveined tropical shrimps stored at 10-12 degrees Celsius were found to
have an increase in shelf-life to 10-14 days when irradiated at 1.5 kGy
and 18-21 days when irradiated at 2.5 kGy as compared to the
unirradiated control samples, which spoiled within 4 days (Ref. 43). In
a study performed by Scholz et al., irradiation at 5 kGy extended the
shelf-life of Pacific shrimp (Pandalus jordani) to 5 weeks when stored
at 3 degrees Celsius (Ref. 44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ D10 is the absorbed dose of radiation required
to reduce a bacterial population by 90 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information regarding doses needed for control of pathogenic
organisms in the petition and other information in our files show that
D10 values for vibrios can range from less than 0.10 up to
0.75 kGy depending on the crustacean, its physical state, temperature,
and other factors (Refs. 39, 42, 45, and 46). In frozen, unpeeled, and
uncooked shrimp, the D10 values for L. monocytogenes ranged
from 0.7 kGy to 0.88 kGy (Refs. 39 and 47) and in crab meat, the
D10 value cited in the literature was 0.59 kGy (Ref.
42).\13\ The D10 values cited in the published literature
for several Salmonella serotypes in grass prawns and shrimp homogenate
ranged from 0.30 to 0.59 kGy (Refs. 45, 49, and 50). Thus, irradiation
of crustaceans at a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy would be effective
at controlling pertinent pathogens (Ref. 40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The petitioner requested a maximum absorbed dose of 6.0 kGy
to achieve a 6-log reduction of L. monocytogenes. Dividing the
treatment dose by the appropriate D10 value estimates the
log reduction for a given treatment dose (e.g., 6 kGy divided by
0.88 for frozen, unpeeled, uncooked shrimp has the potential to
yield a 6.8 log reduction) (Ref. 48). This demonstrates that it is
possible to achieve a 6-log reduction of L. monocytogenes with a
maximum absorbed dose of 6 kGy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the subject petition, we have carefully considered
whether irradiation of crustaceans under the conditions proposed in the
petition could result in significantly altered microbial growth
patterns such that these foods would present a greater microbiological
hazard than comparable food that had not been irradiated. In
considering this issue, we focused on whether the proposed irradiation
conditions would increase the probability of significantly increased
growth of, and subsequent toxin production by, C. botulinum because
this organism is relatively resistant to radiation in comparison to
non-spore forming bacteria. We have concluded that the possibility of
increased microbiological risk from C. botulinum is extremely remote
because: (1) The conditions of refrigerated storage necessary to
maintain the quality of crustaceans are not amenable to the outgrowth
and production of toxin by C. botulinum and (2) sufficient numbers of
spoilage organisms will survive such that spoilage will occur before
outgrowth and toxin production by C. botulinum (Refs. 40 and 51).
Based on the available data and information, we conclude that
irradiation of crustaceans conducted in accordance with current GMP
under 21 CFR 172.5 will reduce bacterial populations without increased
microbial risk from pathogens that may survive the irradiation process.
III. Comments
We have received numerous comments, primarily form letters, from
individuals stating their opinions regarding the potential dangers and
unacceptability of irradiating food. We have also received several
comments from individuals or organizations stating their opinions
regarding the potential benefits of irradiating food and urging us to
approve the petition. None of these letters contain any substantive
information relevant to a safety evaluation of irradiated crustaceans.
Additionally, we received several comments from Public Citizen (PC) and
the Center for Food Safety (CFS) requesting the denial of this and
other food irradiation petitions, as well as joint comments from CFS
and Food and Water Watch (FWW).
Overall, the comments were of a general nature and not specific to
the requests in the individual petitions. These comments raised a
number of topics, including studies reviewed in the 1999 FAO/IAEA/WHO
report on high-dose irradiation; a review article that analyzed studies
of irradiated foods performed in the 1950s and 1960s; the findings of a
1971 study in which rats were fed irradiated strawberries; the findings
regarding reproductive performance in a 1954 study in which mice were
fed a special irradiated diet; issues regarding mutagenicity studies;
certain international opinions; issues
[[Page 20777]]
related to ACBs, including purported promotion of colon cancer; the
findings of certain studies conducted by the Indian Institute of
Nutrition in the 1970s; general issues regarding toxicity data; our
purported failure to meet statutory requirements; data from a 2002
study purportedly showing an irradiation-induced increase in trans
fatty acids in ground beef; studies regarding purported elevated
hemoglobin levels and their significance; and an affidavit describing
the opinions of a scientist regarding the dangers of irradiation and
advocating the use of alternative methods for reducing the risk of
food-borne disease. The topics raised in the FWW/CFS comments included
issues with ACBs, our purported failure to define a list of foods
covered by the petition; general issues with toxicity data; purported
microbiological resistance; and purported negative effects on
organoleptic properties.
Many of the comments from PC and CFS were also submitted to the
dockets for the rulemakings on the irradiation of molluscan shellfish
(Docket No. 1999F-4372, FAP 9M4682) and on the irradiation of fresh
iceberg lettuce and fresh spinach (Docket No. FDA-1999-F-2405, FAP
9M4697). For a detailed discussion of our responses to the previously
mentioned general comments, we refer to the molluscan shellfish rule
(70 FR 48057 at 48062 to 48071). For a detailed discussion of our
response to the FWW/CFS comments, we refer to our fresh iceberg lettuce
and fresh spinach rule (73 FR 49593 at 49600-49601).
Accordingly, because these comments do not raise issues specific to
irradiated crustaceans and because we have already responded to these
comments elsewhere, we are not further addressing these comments in
this document.
There were no additional comments submitted to this docket.
IV. Conclusions
Based on the data and studies submitted in the petition and other
information in our files, we conclude that the proposed use of
irradiation to treat chilled or frozen raw, cooked, or partially cooked
crustaceans, or dried crustaceans, with or without spices, minerals,
inorganic salts, citrates, citric acid, and/or calcium disodium EDTA
used in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, is safe,
providing that the absorbed dose does not exceed 6.0 kGy. Therefore, we
are amending Sec. 179.26 as set forth in this document.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our
decision to approve the petition are available for public disclosure
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in Sec. 171.1(h),
we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available
for public disclosure.
V. Environmental Impact
We have previously considered the environmental effects of this
rule as announced in the notice of filing for FAP 1M4727 (66 FR 9086).
No new information or comments have been received that would affect our
previous determination that there is no significant impact on the human
environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
VII. Objections
If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this
regulation, you may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately
number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must
specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object and the
grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must
specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the
particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If
you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive
the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing,
your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the
specific factual information you intend to present in support of the
objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include
such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive
the right to a hearing on the objection.
It is only necessary to send one set of documents. Identify
documents with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at https://www.regulations.gov.
VIII. Section 301(ll) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
FDA's review of this petition was limited to section 409 of the
FD&C Act. This final rule is not a statement regarding compliance with
other sections of the FD&C Act. For example, the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007, which was signed into law on
September 27, 2007, amended the FD&C Act to, among other things, add
section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(ll)). Section 301(ll) of
the FD&C Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of any food that contains a drug approved
under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a biological product
licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
262), or a drug or biological product for which substantial clinical
investigations have been instituted and their existence has been made
public, unless one of the exceptions in section 301(ll)(1) to (4) of
the FD&C Act applies. In its review of this petition, FDA did not
consider whether section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act or any of its
exemptions apply to irradiated crustaceans. Accordingly, this final
rule should not be construed to be a statement that irradiated
crustaceans, if introduced or delivered for introduction into
interstate commerce, would not violate section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act.
Furthermore, this language is included in all food additive final rules
and therefore, should not be construed to be a statement of the
likelihood that section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act applies.
IX. References
The following sources are referred to in this document. References
marked with an asterisk (*) have been placed on display at the Division
of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. References
without asterisks are not on display; they are available as published
articles and books.
1. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Office of Food Safety, ``Fish and Fishery Products
Hazards and Control Guidance,'' 4th Ed., November 2011, Chapters 12
and 14, available at https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/seafood/ucm2018426.htm.
*2. L. Weddig, National Fisheries Institute, email message to T.
Croce, FDA, August 31, 2012.
3. Diehl, J. F., ``Chemical Effects of Ionizing Radiation,'' in
Safety of Irradiated Foods, 2nd Ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
pp. 43-88, 1995.
[[Page 20778]]
*4. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from D. Folmer, FDA, to L. Highbarger,
FDA, August 2, 2002.
5. Diehl, J. F., ``Radiolytic Effects in Foods,'' in Preservation of
Foods By Ionizing Radiation, vol. 1, E.S. Josephson and M.S.
Peterson, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 279-357, 1982.
6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 23.
Nutrient Data Laboratory home page, https://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl.
*7. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from I. Chen, FDA, to L. Highbarger,
FDA, April 7, 2003.
*8. Uderdal, B., J. Nordal, G. Lunde, and B. Eggum, ``The Effect of
Ionizing Radiation on the Nutritional Value of Fish (Cod) Protein,''
Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft Technologie, 6:90-93, 1973.
9. Adam, S., ``Recent Developments in Radiation Chemistry of
Carbohydrates,'' in Recent Advances in Food Irradiation, P.S. Elias
and A.J. Cohen, eds., Elsevier Biomedical, Amsterdam, pp. 149-170,
1983.
*10. Raffi, J., J. P. Agnel, C. Thiery, et al., ``Study of Gamma
Irradiated Starches Derived From Different Foodstuffs: A Way for
Extrapolating Wholesomeness Data,'' Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 29:1227-1232, 1981.
11. WHO, ``Safety and Nutritional Adequacy of Irradiated Food,''
World Health Organization, Geneva, 1994.
*12. Kavalam, J. P. and W. W. Nawar, ``Effects of Ionizing Radiation
on Some Vegetable Fats,'' Journal of the American Oil Chemical
Society, 46:387-390, 1969.
13. Delinc[eacute]e, H., ``Recent Advances in Radiation Chemistry of
Lipids,'' in Recent Advances in Food Irradiation, edited by P.S.
Elias and A.J. Cohen, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 89-114, 1983.
14. Nawar, W. W., ``Comparison of Chemical Consequences of Heat and
Irradiation Treatment of Lipids,'' in Recent Advances in Food
Irradiation, P. S. Elias and A. J. Cohen, eds., Elsevier Biomedical,
Amsterdam, pp. 115-127, 1983.
*15. International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI),
``Monograph on Irradiation of Fish, Shellfish, and Frog Legs,''
Fifteenth Meeting of the ICGFI, Vienna, 1998.
*16. Adams, S., G. Paul, and D. Ehlerman, ``Influence of Ionizing
Radiation on the Fatty Acid Composition of Herring Fillets,''
Radiation Physics Chemistry, 20:289-295, 1982.
*17. Armstrong, S. G., S. G. Wyllie, and D. N. Leach, ``Effects of
Preservation by Gamma-Irradiation on the Nutritional Quality of
Australian Fish,'' Food Chemistry, 50:351-357, 1994.
*18. Sant'Ana, L. S. and J. Mancini-Filho, ``Influence of the
Addition of Antioxidants in Vivo on the Fatty Acid Composition of
Fish Fillets'' Food Chemistry, 68:175-178, 2000.
*19. Morehouse, K. M. and Y. Ku, ``Gas Chromatographic and Electron
Spin Resonance Investigation of Gamma-Irradiated Shrimp,'' Journal
of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 40(10):1963-1971, 1992.
20. Morehouse, K. M., ``Identification of Irradiated Seafood,'' in
Detection Methods for Irradiated Foods: Current Status, edited by C.
H. McMurray, E. M. Stewart, R. Gray, and J. Pearce, The Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 249-258, 1996.
*21. Sinanoglou, V. J., A. Batrinou, S. Konteles, and K. Sflomos,
``Microbial Population, Physiochemical Quality, and Allergenicity of
Molluscs and Shrimp Treated With Cobalt-60 Gamma Radiation,''
Journal of Food Protection, 70(4): 958-966, 2007.
22. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from K. Morehouse, FDA, to T. Croce,
FDA, May 30, 2013.
23. Seibersdorf Project Report, International Programme on
Irradiation of Fruit and Fruit Juices, Chemistry and Isotopes
Department, National Centre for Nuclear Energy, Madrid, Spain, vol.
8, 1966.
*24. Memorandum for FAP 9M4697 from K. Morehouse, FDA, to L.
Highbarger, FDA, February 20, 2008.
*25. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from K. Morehouse, FDA, to T. Croce,
FDA, August 18, 2010.
*26. Variyar, P. S., S. Chatterjee, M. G. Sajilata, et al.,
``Natural Existence of 2-Alkylcyclobutanones,'' Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56:11817-11823, 2008.
*27. Crone, A. V. J., J. T. G. Hamilton, and M. H. Stevenson,
``Effect of Storage and Cooking on the Dose Response of 2-
Dodecylcyclobutanone, a Potential Marker for Irradiated Chicken,''
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 58:249-252, 1992.
*28. Gadgil, P., K. A. Hachmeister, J. S. Smith, and D. H. Kropf,
``2-Alkylcyclobutanones as Irradiation Dose Indicators in Irradiated
Ground Beef Patties,'' Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry,
50:5746-5750, 2002.
*29. Memorandum to the file, FAP 4M4428, D. Hattan, Acting Director,
Division of Health Effects Evaluation, November 20, 1997.
30. FAO/IAEA/WHO, ``Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food: Report of a
Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee,'' World Health Organization
Technical Report Series, No. 659, WHO, Geneva, 1981.
31. FAO/IAEA/WHO ``High Dose Irradiation: Wholesomeness of Food
Irradiated with Doses Above 10kGy: Report of a Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO
Study Group'' World Health Organization Technical Report Series, No.
890, WHO, Geneva, pp. 9-37, 1999.
*32. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from A. Edwards, FDA, to T. Croce,
FDA, April 4, 2011.
*33. Arvanitoyannis, I. S., A. Stratakos, and E. Mente, ``Impact of
Irradiation on Fish and Seafood Shelf Life: A Comprehensive Review
of Applications and Irradiation Detection,'' Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, 49:68-112, 2009.
34. Shamasuzzaman, K., ``Nutritional Aspects of Irradiated Shrimp: A
Review,'' Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. AECL-10090, Whiteshell
Nuclear Research Establishment, Pinawa, Manitoba, pp. 1-40, 1989.
*35. Cotton, P. A., A. F. Subar, J. E. Friday, and A. Cook,
``Dietary Sources of Nutrients among U.S. Adults, 1994 to 1996,''
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104:921-930, 2004.
*36. Memorandum for FAP 9M4697 from A. Edwards, FDA, to L.
Highbarger, FDA, July 16, 2008.
*37. Memorandum for FAP 9M4697 from L. Brookmire, FDA, to T. Croce,
FDA, June 19, 2011.
38. Grodner, R. M. and L. S. Andrews in ``Irradiation,'' pp. 429-
440, in Microbiology of Marine Food Products, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, 1991.
*39. Rashid, H. O., H. Ito, and I. Ishigaki, ``Distribution of
Pathogenic Vibrios and Other Bacteria in Imported Frozen Shrimps and
Their Decontamination by Gamma-Irradiation,'' World Journal of
Microbiology and. Biotechnology, 8:494-499, 1992.
*40. Memorandum for FAP 1M4727 from R. Merker, FDA, to T. Croce,
FDA, April 11, 2011.
*41. Thayer, D.W., G. Boyd, W.S. Muller, et al., ``Radiation
Resistance of Salmonella,'' Journal of Industrial Microbiology,
5:383-390, 1990.
*42. Chen, Y. P., L. S. Andrews, and R. M. Grodner, ``Sensory and
Microbial Quality of Irradiated Crab Meat Products,'' Journal of
Food Science, 61:1239-1242, 1996.
*43. Kumta, U. S., S. S. Mavinkurve, M. S. Gore, et al., ``Radiation
Pasteurization of Fresh and Blanched Tropical Shrimps,'' Journal of
Food Science, 35:360-363, 1970.
*44. Scholz, D. J., R. O. Sinnhuber, D. M. East, and A. W. Anderson,
``Radiation-Pasteurized Shrimp and Crabmeat,'' Food Technology,
16:118-120, 1962.
*45. Hau, L.-B., M.-H. Liew, and L.-T. Yeh, ``Preservation of Grass
Prawns by Ionizing Radiation,'' Journal of Food Protection, 55:198-
202, 1992.
*46. Ito, H., P. Adulyatham, N. Sangthong, and I. Ishigaki,
``Effects of Gamma-Irradiation on Frozen Shrimps to Reduce Microbial
Contamination,'' Radiation and Physical Chemistry, 34:1009-1011,
1989.
*47. Ito, H., H. O. Rashid, N. Sangthong, et al., ``Effect of Gamma
Irradiation on Frozen Shrimps for Decontamination of Pathogenic
Bacteria,'' Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 42:279-282, 1993.
48. Ley, F. J., ``The Effect of Ionizing Radiation on Bacteria,'' in
Manual on Radiation Sterilization of Medical and Biological
Materials. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 37-64, 1973.
*49. Nerkar, D. P. and J. R. Bandekar, ``Elimination of Salmonella
From Frozen Shrimp by Gamma Radiation,'' Journal of Food Safety,
10:175-180, 1990.
50. Nouchpramool, K., S. Pungsilpa, and P. Adulyatham, ``Improvement
of Bacteriological Quality of Frozen Shrimp by Gamma Radiation,''
Office of Atomic
[[Page 20779]]
Energy for Peace (Bangkok, Thailand). (023535000; 4868000)), ISBN
974-7399-29-6, 1985.
51. Jimes, S., ``Clostridium Botulinum Type E in Gulf Coast Shrimp
and Shucked Oysters and Toxin Products as Affected by Irradiation
Dosage, Temperature, Storage Time, and Mixed Spore Concentrations,''
dissertation submitted to Louisiana State University, pp. ix and 1,
1967.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 179
Food additives, Food labeling, Food packaging, Radiation
protection, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Signs and
symbols.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
179 is amended as follows:
PART 179--IRRADIATION IN THE PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND HANDLING OF
FOOD
0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 179 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 343, 348, 373, 374.
0
2. Section 179.26 is amended in the table in paragraph (b) by adding
item 14 to read as follows:
Sec. 179.26 Ionizing radiation for the treatment of food.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
14. For control of food-borne pathogens Not to exceed 6.0 kGy.
in, and extension of the shelf-life of,
chilled or frozen raw, cooked, or
partially cooked crustaceans or dried
crustaceans (water activity less than
0.85), with or without spices, minerals,
inorganic salts, citrates, citric acid,
and/or calcium disodium EDTA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: April 4, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-07926 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P