Model Wellness Policies

The Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act in 2004 requires every school district that participates in federal school meals programs to pass a Local Wellness Policy (LWP) by the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year (Public Law 108-265 Section 204). The Local Wellness Policy is a significant development in education and health policy because it requires schools to address nutrition and physical activity, as well as creates an opportunity for greater public input into health in the school environment. 

What must be addressed in the LWP?

• 
  
  Set goals for nutrition education, physical activity, and other school-based activities that promote health
  
  
• 
  
  Provide guidelines for all foods available in schools during the school day
  
  
• 
  
  Be no less restrictive than federal guidelines for school meals
  
  
• 
  
  Establish a way to measure the implementation of the LWP

Who should be involved in creating the LWP?

• 
  
  Parents, students, school food service representatives, the school board, school administrators, and the general public.

The Local Wellness Policy is an excellent opportunity to address the issue of serving irradiated food in school meals.

Irradiation – A Toxic Technology

Irradiation is a technology that exposes food to high doses of ionizing radiation to kill bacteria. In the process, irradiation depletes vitamins and nutrients and causes the creation of new chemicals – some of which do not naturally occur in food and have never been studied for safety by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Some of the byproducts of irradiating food may promote cancer development and cause genetic damage to cells. Moreover, there is scarce research on the long-term health effects on children who are exposed to toxic chemicals in foods.  Existing studies indicate that children are more susceptible to environmental toxins because their bodies are still developing and they proportionally consume more food, water, and oxygen than adults.

Irradiated Foods in School Meals

Nationwide, schools are taking a greater interest in the nutritional standards and wholesomeness of food being served to children at school.  In addition to fat and calorie content, the level of environmental toxins in food is of increasing concern to parents, teachers and school board officials.  A 2003 decision to allow irradiated ground beef into the National School Lunch Program was met with tremendous opposition from the public.  Since then, school districts across the country have debated whether serving this food to school children is appropriate, and 11 school districts, including Los Angeles and the District of Columbia, have banned irradiated foods from their meal programs.

Sample Policy Requirements for the Model Local Wellness Policy

1. Ban irradiated foods:  Eleven school districts have banned irradiated foods from being served in their school meal programs.  This measure can be included as a separate section of a Local Wellness Policy (see Appendix I) or as part of a nutrition component of a Local Wellness Policy (see Appendix II)

2. Right-to-Know Requirement:  The public has overwhelmingly opposed the inclusion of irradiated foods in school lunches, despite the recent decision to allow irradiated ground beef in the National School Lunch Program.  In school meals, irradiated food does not have to be labeled. Require school board approval, parental notification, and labeling for irradiated food prior to it being served to students.

Additional Resources

Food Irradiation

• 
  
  Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
  http://www.safelunch.org
  
  
• 
  
  The Cancer Prevention Coalition
  http://www.preventcancer.com
  
  
• 
  
  Minnesota Voices for Choices
  http://www.mnvoicesforchoices.org

Model Local Wellness Policies

• 
  
  USDA’s Team Nutrition Website, Basic Information on the Law:
  http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/Healthy/wellnesspolicy.html
  
  
• 
  
  Food Research & Action Center, General Information   http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/cnreauthor/wellness_policies.htm
  
  
• 
  
  Center for Ecoliteracy, Rethinking School Lunch
  http://www.ecoliteracy.org/programs/rsl.html
  
  
• 
  
  Community Food Security Coalition, Farm-to-School Programs
  http://www.foodsecurity.org/farm_to_school.html
  
  
• 
  
  National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, Model School Wellness Policy
  http://www.schoolwellnesspolicies.org

APPENDIX 1

Respectfully Submitted to the [DISTRICT NAME] District School Board on [DATE]

A Resolution in Support of Keeping Food Safe for All Students

Submitted by: [Group or Individual Name]

WHEREAS: Each day, [DISTRICT NAME] school district students trust that the foods they eat in cafeterias are wholesome and safe; and

WHEREAS: The school board is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of foods provided at schools within the [DISTRICT NAME] school district for human consumption; and

WHEREAS: Despite the fact that much of the research done on irradiated foods is over twenty years old and expressed the need for more long-term research on the unique radiolytic products created in irradiated food, current US laws regulating the production and retail of irradiated foods are still based on these studies and the FDA has never studied the long-term effects of consuming irradiated food; and

WHEREAS: Recent research in Germany, using more technologically advanced techniques and equipment, has led to the belief by many scientists, here and abroad, that irradiated foods are unsafe; and

WHEREAS: Current federal laws do not require irradiated foods served in schools to be labeled as such, and because schools are increasingly being targeted by the food irradiation industry through such programs as the National School Lunch Program, there is increasing likelihood that children may consume unsafe foods without their knowledge or the consent of their parents; and

WHEREAS: Current federal laws do not require certain irradiated food ingredients to be labeled, there is likelihood that the school district may be unknowingly purchasing irradiated foods.

FURTHER RESOLVED: The [DISTRICT NAME] school district shall not purchase any food products that can be reasonably believed to have been processed using any form of ionizing radiation (irradiation).

APPENDIX 2

September 3, 2004

News Release

Seattle SchoolBoard Approves
Comprehensive Suite of Nutrition Policies

Sales of Sodas and Junk Food Banned on School Campuses

The Seattle School Board has unanimously approved a comprehensive and far-reaching set of nutrition-related policies designed to provide students with healthy food and beverage choices during the school day. Specifically, the policies will ban sales of all foods containing high levels of sugar and fat, improve the quality and appeal of school meal programs, and prohibit contracts with beverage vendors for “exclusive pouring rights.”

These policies are amongst the strongest in the country, and confirm the Board’s commitment to eliminating barriers to learning by creating a healthy nutrition environment in all 100 schools.

“These policies make it clear that we are determined to provide our students with healthy food options,” said School Board Vice-President Brita Butler-Wall. “We are committed to providing an environment at each school that maximizes students’ ability to learn and succeed. That includes ensuring that foods and beverages sold at schools are healthy and nutritious.”

The new policies require all foods and beverages sold and distributed during the school day to meet nutrition guidelines and follow certain portion sizes. This provision will go into effect immediately at elementary and middle schools, and beginning February 1, 2005 at high schools. Exclusive ‘pouring rights’ contracts will be prohibited, and the current exclusive contract with Coca-Cola will be phased out within one year. The policies also give direction to the school meal program and others to offer fresh, local, organic, non-genetically-modified, non-irradiated, unprocessed food, whenever feasible.

Butler-Wall praised Shelley Curtis, Nutrition Director for the Children’s Alliance, for leading the research team that developed the policies over a six-month period. The nutrition sub-committee of the School Board relied on the expertise of more than 60 health and nutrition experts and community members. In adopting these policies, Seattle leads the way on a new state law requiring districts to adopt nutrition policies by 2005.

The new and amended policies include:

Policy E11.00, Food Service , and Procedure E11.01, Breakfast and Lunch Program

Policy E13.00, Food Sales , and Procedure E13.01, Distribution and Sales of Competitive Foods

Procedure C30.01, Advertising and Commercial Activities

The report of the nutrition committee is available on the District’s Web site at http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/committees.xml and School Board Policies are available at http://www.seattleschools.org/area/policies/index.dxml

=========================================

PREVENTING PATHOGENIC FOOD POISONING: SANITATION NOT IRRADIATION

Samuel S. Epstein and Wenonah Hauter

Bacterial food poisoning can be readily prevented by long overdue basic sanitary measures rather than by ultrahazardous irradiation technologies.

The food and nuclear industries, with strong government support, have capitalized on recent outbreaks of pathogenic E.coli 0157 meat poisoning to mobilize public acceptance of large scale food irradiation.  Already, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is allowing the use of high-level radiation to “treat” beef, pork, poultry, eggs, vegetables, fruit, flour and spices, while the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes the imminent irradiation of imported fruit and vegetables.

Caving in to powerful corporate industry interests, both House and Senate Appropriations Committees have recently proposed to sanitize the FDA’s already weakened labeling requirements for irradiated food by eliminating the word “irradiated” in favor of “electronic pasteurization” (1); this term was proposed by the San Diego based Titan corporation, an erstwhile major defense contractor using highly costly linear accelerator “E-beam” technology, originally designed for President Reagan’s “Star Wars” program, which shoots food with a stream of electrons travelling at the speed of light.  However, the proposed electronic pasteurization label is a euphemistic absurdity, especially since the FDA’s approved meat radiation dosage of 450,000 rads  is approximately 150 million times greater than that of a chest X-ray, besides circumventing consumers’ fundamental right to know.

             Furthermore, the new labeling initiative is reckless.  Irradiated meat is a very different product from cooked meat.  Whether irradiated by linear accelerators or pelletized radioactive isotopes, the resulting ionizing radiation produces highly reactive free radicals and peroxides from unsaturated fats.  U.S. Army analyses in 1977 revealed major differences between volatile chemicals formed during irradiation or cooking meat (2).  Levels of the carcinogen benzene in irradiated beef were found to be some tenfold higher than cooked beef.  Additionally, high concentrations of six poorly characterized “unique radiolytic chemical products”  admittedly “implicated as carcinogens or carcinogenic under certain conditions,”  were also identified (2).

Based on these striking changes in the chemistry of irradiated meat, FDA’s 1980 Irradiated Food Committee explicitly warned that safety testing should be based on concentrated extracts of irradiated foods, rather than on whole foods, to maximize the concentration of radiolytic products (3).  This would enable development of sufficient sensitivity essential for routine safety testing.  In 1984, Epstein and Gofman more specifically urged that “stable radiolytic products could be extracted from irradiated foods by various solvents which could then be concentrated and subsequently tested.  Until such fundamental studies are undertaken, there is little scientific basis for accepting industry’s assurances of safety” (4).  In an accompanying editorial comment, FDA was quoted as admitting that “it is nearly impossible to detect (and test radiolytic products) with current techniques” on the basis of which the agency’s claims of safety and regulatory abdication still persist (5).

While refusing to require standard toxicological and carcinogenicity testing of concentrated extracts of radiolytic products from irradiated meat and other foods, FDA instead has relied on some five studies selected from 441 published prior to the early 1980’s, on which its claims of safety still remain based.  However, the chair of FDA’s Irradiated Food Task Committee which reviewed these studies insisted that none were adequate by 1982 standards (6), and even less so by the 1990’s (7).  Furthermore, detailed analysis of these studies revealed that all were grossly flawed and non-exculpatory (8).

             These results are hardly surprising since a wide range of independent studies prior to 1986 clearly identified mutagenic and carcinogenic radiolytic products in irradiated food, and confirmed evidence of genetic toxicity in tests on irradiated food (9).  Studies in the 1970’s, by India’s National Institute of Nutrition, reported that feeding freshly radiated wheat to monkeys, rats, mice and to a small

group of malnourished children induced gross chromosomal abnormalities in blood or bone marrow cells, and mutational damage in the rodents (10).

             Food irradiation results in major micronutrient losses, particularly vitamins A, C, E, and the B complex (11).  As admitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agriculture Research Service, these losses are synergistically increased by cooking, resulting in “empty calorie” food (12); this is a concern of major importance for malnourished populations.  Radiation has also been used to clean up food unfit for human consumption, such as spoiled fish, by killing odorous contaminating bacteria.

            While the USDA is strongly promoting meat and poultry irradiation, it has been moving to deregulate and privatize the industry by promoting a self-policing Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) control program (13); in late 2000, the agency will start a rulemaking process to privatize meat inspection. Moreover, the Department of Energy (DOE) continues its decades long aggressive promotion of food irradiation as a way of reducing disposal costs of spent military and civilian nuclear fuel by providing a commercial market for cesium nuclear wastes.

Irradiation facilities using pelletized isotopes pose risks of nuclear accidents to communities nationwide from the hundreds of facilities envisaged for the potentially enormous radiation market; in contrast to nuclear power stations, these facilities are small, minimally regulated, unlikely to be secure, and require regular replenishment of cobalt (Co-60) or cesium (Cs-137) isotopes, entailing nationwide transportation hazards.  Furthermore, linear accelerators, besides plants using radioactive isotopes, pose grave hazards to workers and are subject to virtually no regulation (9, 14).

The track record of the irradiation industry is, at best, unimpressive.  Robert Alvarez, former DOE Senior Policy Advisor, recently warned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission files are bulging with unreported documents on radioactive spills, worker over-exposure, and off-site radiation leakage (15).  Strangely, the Environmental Protection Agency has still failed to require an Environmental Impact Statement prior to the siting of food irradiation facilities.

The focus of the radiation and agribusiness industries is directed to the highly lucrative cleanup of contaminated food rather than to preventing contamination at its source (16).  However, E. coli 0157 food poisoning can be largely prevented by long overdue improved sanitation.  Feedlot pen sanitation, including reducing overcrowding, drinking water disinfection and fly control, would drastically reduce cattle infection rates.  Moreover, E. coli 0157 infection rates could be virtually eliminated by feeding hay, rather than the standard unhealthy starchy grain diet, for seven days prior to slaughter (17).  Sanitation would also prevent water contamination from feed lot run off, incriminated in the recent outbreak of E. coli 0157 poisoning in Walkerton, Ontario (18); run off will remain a continuing threat even if all meat was irradiated.

Pre-slaughter, post-knocking and post-evisceration sanitation at meat packing plants is highly effective for reducing carcass contamination rates (16).  Testing pooled carcasses for E. coli 0157 and Salmonella contamination is economical, practical, and rapid.  The expense of producing sanitary meat would be trivial compared to the high costs of irradiation, including possible nuclear accidents, which would be passed on to consumers.  Additional high costs are likely to result from an anticipated international ban on the imports of irradiated U.S. food, and also from losses of tourist revenues.

             We charge that support of the “electronically pasteurized” label by the food and radiation industries, governmental agencies, and Congress, is a camouflaged denial of citizen’s fundamental right to know.  Rather than sanitizing the label in response to special interests, Congress should focus on sanitation and not irradiation of the nation’s food supply.

Note – This article is largely based on a June 6, 2000 P.R. Newswire press release by the Cancer Prevention Coalition and Public Citizen.

REFERENCES

1.        Congress Pressures FDA For Softer Labeling Of Irradiated Foods.  FDA Week, p. 9-10, May 12, 2000.

2.        Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Evaluation of The Health Aspects of Certain Compounds Found in Irradiated Beef.  Report to the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, Bethesda, MD, August 1977.

3.        U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Recommendations for Evaluating the Safety of Irradiated Food.  Final Report of FDA’s Irradiated Food Committee.  Washington, D.C.,  July 1980.

4.        Epstein, S. S., and Gofman, J. W.  Irradiation of food.  Science 223:1354, 1984.

5.        Sun, M.  Science 223:1354, 1984.

6.        van Gemert, M.   Memorandum Re: Final Report of the Task Group for the Review of Toxicology Data on Irradiated Food. April 9, 1982.

7.        van Gemert, M.  Letter to New Jersey Assemblyman John Keller, October 19, 1993.

8.        Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program and the Cancer Prevention Coalition.  A Broken Record:  How the FDA Legalized and Continues to Legalize Food Irradiation Without Testing it for Safety.  Special Report, October 2000.

9.        Piccioni, R.  Food irradiation: contaminating our food.  Ecologist 18(2):48-55, 1988.

10.     Vijayalaxmi, and Srikantia, S. G.  A review of the studies on the wholesomeness of irradiated wheat conducted at the National Institute of Nutrition, India.  Radiat. Phys. Chem. 34(6):941-952, 1989.

11.     Murray, D. R.  Biology of Food Irradiation.  RSP Research Studies Press Ltd., Taunton, Somerset, England, 1990.

12.     Food Chemical News, Irradiation compounds vitamin loss from cooking, ARS Reports.  November 10, 1986, p. 42.

13.     USDA Food Safety Inspection Service, Irradiation of Red Meat: A Complication of Technical Data for its Authorization and Control.  International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation, August, 1996.

14.     Trager, E. A.  Review of events at large pool-type irradiators.  Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March, 1989.

15.     Alvarez, R.  Food irradiation: 50 years of hollow promises.  Bull. Atom. Sci. 2000, in press.

16.     Elder, R. O. et al.  Correlation of enterohemorrhagic E.coli 0157 prevalence in feces, hides and carcasses of beef cattle during processing.  Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 97(7):2999-3003, 2000.

17.     Diaz-Gonzalez, F. et al.  Science 281:1666-1668, 1998.

18.     Analysis of Ontario E.coli Walkerton pollution disaster.  The Gallon Environmental Letter, Montreal, Quebec, May 2000.

ENDORSEMENTS

Robert Alvarez, Former Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy and Executive

                  Director the STAR Foundation

Kenny Ausubel, Collective Heritage Institute/Bioneers, Santa Fe, NM

Dr. Neal Barnard, President Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, DC

Tewolde Berhan and Sue Edwards, Institute for Sustainable Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Dr. Rosalie Bertell, International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Toronto, Canada

Barbara Brenner, J.D. Executive Director Breast Cancer Action, San Francisco, CA

Dr. Barry Castleman, Environmental Consultant, Baltimore, MD

Vera Chaney, Green Network, Leyden, Colchester, Essex, U.K.

Citizens Concerns, USA

Ronnie Cummins, National Director Organic Consumers Association, Little Marais, MN

Dr. Donald Dahlsten, Professor and Associate Dean, University of California, Berkeley, CA

Dr. Robert Elder, Senior Microbiologist Neogen Co., Lansing, MI, formerly Senior Scientist

                  Agricultural Research Service, USDA

Margarita Florez, Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales (ILSA), Columbia

Dr. John Gofman, Emeritus Professor Molecular and Radiation Biology, University of

                  California, Berkeley, CA

Edward Goldsmith, M.A., Publisher and Editor The Ecologist, London, U.K.

Dr. Jay M. Gould, Director Radiation and Public Health Project, USA

Randall Hayes, President Rainforest Action Network, USA

Luc Hens, M.D., Professor Department of Human Ecology, Brussels Free University, Belgium

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Director Institute of Science in Society, The Open University, Milton

                  Keynes, U.K.

Jeffrey A. Hollender, President Seventh Generation, Burlington, VT

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Professor Pathology, University of Liverpool, U.K.

S. M. Mohamed Idris, President, Consumers’ Association of Penang, Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia) and Institute Masyarakat Berhad, Penang, Malaysia

Martin Khor, Director Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia

Dr. David Kriebel, Professor Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA

Lynn Landes, Founder and Director Zero Waste America, Yardley, PA

Dr. Marvin Legator, Professor Preventive Medicine, University of Texas, Galveston, TX

Rabbi Michael Lerner, Ph.D., Editor TIKKUN Magazine, San Francisco, CA

Dr. William Lijinsky, former Director Chemical Carcinogenesis, Frederick Cancer Research

                  Center, MD

Dr. E. Lichter, Professor Community Medicine, University of Illinois Medical School, Chicago

                  IL

Dr. Donald Louria, Chairman Department Preventive Medicine, New Jersey Medical School,

                  Newark, NJ

Dr. Sheldon Margen, Emeritus Professor Public Health Nutrition, University of California,

                  Berkeley, CA and Chairman of the Berkeley Wellness Letter

George Monbiot, Health and Science Columnist, The Guardian, London, U.K.

Raymond Monbiot, Fellow of the Marketing Society, London, U.K.

Dr.  Vicente Navarro, Professor Health and Public Policy, The Johns Hopkins University,

                  Baltimore, MD, and Professor Political and Social Sciences, University Pompeu Fabra,

                  Spain

Dr. Herbert L. Needleman, Professor Pediatrics and Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh,

                  Pittsburgh, PA

Debbie Ortman, National Field Organizer, Organic Consumers Association, Duluth, MN

Dr. Peter Phillips, Professor Sociology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA

Dr. Robert Rinehart, Emeritus Professor Biology, San Diego State University, CA

Dr. Janette Sherman, Research Associate Radiation and Public Health Project, and Adjunct

                  Professor Department of Sociology, Western Michigan University, MI

Dr. Vandana Shiva, Director Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural

                  Resource Policy, Dehradun, India

Dr. George Tritsch, Cancer Research Scientist, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, New York

                  State Department of Health, NY

Stephen L. Tvedten, CEO Get Set, Inc., President of the Institute of Pest Management, Marne, MI

Dr. Vijayalaxmi, Associate Professor Department Radiation Oncology, University of Texas

                  Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX

Frank D. Wiewel, President People Against Cancer, Otho, IA

Dr. Gesa Staats de Yanes, Professor Fetal and Infant Pathology, University of Liverpool, U.K.

Dr. Quentin Young, past President American Public Health Association, Chicago, IL

NOTE:  Additional endorsements by activist groups and scientists, nationally and internationally, would be welcome. 

Direct reprint requests and further endorsements to:

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein

Emeritus Professor Environmental Medicine,

and Chairman the Cancer Prevention Coalition

University of Illinois School of Public Health

2121 W. Taylor St., Chicago, IL 60612

Wenonah Hauter

Public Citizen

Critical Mass, Energy and Environment Program

215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C., 20003

식품의약품안전청은  2010년 3월 16일, 한국원자력연구원의 요청을 받아 쇠고기 등 육류에 방사선 조사(照射)를 허용하는 방안을 검토하고 있다고 밝혔습니다.

식약청은 “축산물의 안전을 관리하는 농림수산식품부 등과 협의해 정부 방침을 결정할 계획”이라고 합니다.

현재 국내에서 금지되어 있는 육류의 방사선 조사는 미국 축산업계의 아주 오래된 요구사항입니다.

노무현 정부 당시인 2006년 한미쇠고기 수입위생조건에는 쇠고기의 방사선 조사처리를 금지하는 내용이 명문화(제15)되어 있었습니다.

그러나 이명박 정부가 들어서자마자 체결된 2008년 한미쇠고기 수입위생조건에는 “쇠고기 및 쇠고기 제품은 한국 법규에 따라 이온화 방사선, 자외선 및 연육제로 처리될 수 있다.“는 내용이 슬그머니 들어가서 한국이 국내법을 바꾸기만 하면 방사선 조사처리를 허용하는 내용이 명문화(제18)되도록 변경되었습니다.

한국원자력연구원, 식약청, 농식품부가 육류의 방사선 조사 처리를 허용하는 배경에는 바로 미국 농무부와 미국 축산업계의 오랜 요구사항이 들어 있다고 생각합니다.

=============================
[자료1] 2008년 미국산 쇠고기 수입위생조건

농림수산식품부고시 제2008-15호

「가축전염병예방법」 제34조제2항 및 같은법 시행규칙 제35조에 따라 「미국산 쇠고기 수입위생조건」(농림부 고시 제2006-15호, 2006년 3월 6일)을 다음과 같이 개정 고시합니다.

2008년 6월 일

농림수산식품부 장관

18. 쇠고기 및 쇠고기 제품내의 공중위생상 위해를 일으킬 수 있는 잔류물질(방사능․합성항균제․항생제․중금속․농약․홀몬제 등)과 병원성 미생물은 한국정부가 규정하고 있는 허용기준을 초과하지 아니하여야 한다. 쇠고기 및 쇠고기 제품은 한국 법규에 따라 이온화 방사선, 자외선 및 연육제로 처리될 수 있다.

============================

[자료 2] 2006년 미국산 쇠고기 수입위생조건

농림부고시 제2006-15호

가축전염병예방법 제34조 및 같은법시행규칙 제35조에 따라 미국산 쇠고기 수입위생조건을 다음과 같이 제정고시 합니다.

2006년 3월 6일
농 림 부 장 관

미국산 쇠고기 수입위생조건

15. 수출 쇠고기는 한국정부가 규정하고 있는 공중위생상 위해를 일으키는 잔류물질(방사능·합성항균제·항생제·중금속·농약·홀몬제 등)과 병원성 미생물의 허용기준을 초과하지 아니한 것으로서, 이온화 방사선 또는 자외선으로 처리되어서는 아니되고 연육제가 투여되어서는 아니 된다.