Summary: Irradiated food will almost certainly become a larger and larger part of our supermarket food scape, although not all foods are suitable for irradiation. It is entirely safe with regard to presence of radioactive particles, as the food is effectively being x-rayed-not having uranium sprinkled on it! The high energy particle passing through the food kill bacteria, enhancing food safety and extending the shelf life. Scientific studies are conflicting on whether food chemistry changes are of any great significance. Irradiation diminishes some vitamin levels to variable degrees. So long as irradiated food is labeled, we can chose ourselves whether to buy it. If the government chooses for us by refusing to mandate compulsory labeling, consumers will have to 'shut up and eat it', or turn to de facto standards such as 'organic' produce.
In the end, we have to rely on rat studies, and well peer reviewed science. With the commercialization of science, it is less likely that long term studies will be done to establish long term effects of various compounds. In the end, it is up to the individual consumer to decide how much faith they have in government agencies pronouncements on safety.
These agencies very often rely on reviewing existing scientific studies. None of us have the time, and few of us the expertise, to find these studies, and critically read them ourselves. It is up to the government to find them; decide if the areas of concern have been investigated at all; if good and independent science has been done (read the reported results very critically); and decide if the results are clear and unequivocal enough to say that a chemical or process has no adverse effects on human health. And if there are minor effects, to say clearly what they are. And if it is unknown, say so.
And then it is up to us, the consumers, to make sure food containing
such chemicals or so processed, is clearly labeled. Then we have the
to make informed choice. The accepting risk is a personal decision, not
a governmental or industry enforced 'choice'.
Practically, it means passing food on a conveyor underneath a strong
x-ray or gamma ray source . This is equivalent to the use of x-rays in
medicine. The source must be a lot more powerful (100,000 to 3 million
times the strength of a chest x-ray, for example), which means larger
of radioactive material must be used.
People talk of 'radioactive food', or 'nuked' food. In the mind of some, the food becomes radioactive by going through this process. This is dead flat wrong. The food is exposed to high energy rays from a radioactive source, but the rays pass right on thru and keep going. The source material is not applied to, sprinkled on, or in any way contaminating, the food. In the same way as you are not contaminated with radio active material when you have an x-ray, the food is also uncontaminated. You don't 'glow in the dark' after an x-ray, and neither does the food! The possibility of 'radioactive food' is an impossibility, a non-issue.
Taking the last issue first, the argument is that if irradiation plants proliferate-especially if they become a virtual requirement for meat packing plants, for instance, there will be a problem safely disposing of the semi spent radio nucleotides. Because of the long life of these materials, safe storage will be a burden on society for many generations to come, and therefore responsibility for safe storage falls on the government, and such care is a subsidy to the plant operator (the operator doesn't have to bear the long term cost of securely storing the material until it is safe). In effect, because of the extraordinarily long life of the dangerous material and the relatively short life of most businesses, the business is able to avoid paying the true cost of doing business, but 'socializes' the cost of long term storeage-passes it on to present and future members of society. You can reasonably argue that the 'socialization' of some of the costs of doing business is relatively widespread, depending on the type of business and local environmental laws. The difference here is the long time horizon, stretching into generations.
Bacteria are living cells. How can they be lethally affected-killed-and the cells of the food on which the bacteria may be living remain unaffected? Logically, we must assume all living cells are affected by high energy radiation. But what are those affects? And are any of the affects dangerous to human health?
Here the water gets decidedly murky. There appears to be relatively
little substantive body of peer reviewed and tightly scrutinized
one way or the other. A lot hinges on following animals (non-human
fed diets of foods that have been irradiated. There is never any
and obvious bad effect. The question then becomes the effect over
long term, slowly developing effect. The numerous studies done on rats
and mice have shown, in some cases, lower birth weights, slower growth,
chromosomal damage and the like, and in others, no effect at all. And
there appear to have been no long term studies on humans at all. Short
term studies on human volunteers did not discover any adverse effect.
The most frequently repeated argument is that the high energy gamma rays create 'free radicals' in the cells they penetrate. Free radicals are implicated in heart disease. Antioxidants in fruit, vegetables, whole nuts and seeds protect against free radicals, as do supplements with vitamin E. However, the 'standard western diet' is very deficient in antioxidants compared to even an urban version of a natural gatherer-hunter diet. And the standard western diet increases the requirement for antioxidants. As does the stressful western industrial/urban lifestyle.
The counter argument is that our physiology is so challenged by vitamin and mineral deficient highly processed food, environmental chemicals from a huge number of sources, stress of all kinds, lack of exercise, and lack of whole natural fruit, vegetables, organ meats, sea foods, seeds, and nuts that we need to take protective supplements anyway. Even a few more free radicals can be dealt to by our vitamin E supplementation.
Another argument is that sometimes new compounds are formed, called 'radiolytic products'. Some argue that because these new compounds have not been encountered by the human organism before, we do not know if they could perhaps be toxic to some degree, or possibly even carcinogenic.
The counter argument says that somewhat similar compounds are
in some other processed foods, and that any form of processing,
cooking, produces compounds not formerly present in the food.
The effect of irradiation on the vitamin content of food is also in question. Some of the B group vitamins, and vitamins A, C, E, and K are destroyed, depending on the dose rate and the susceptibility of the particular vitamin. And to that has to be added storage time (vitamins in fruit and vegetables, in particular, decline with time after harvest), and the usual vitamin loss in preparation (shredding, dicing etc.) and cooking.
The counter argument is a bit thin-namely that there is vitamin loss
in all processing and cooking, so why worry about a bit more loss from
an additional process? Fair enough if the west ate all natural food, in
variety. But we don't.
The last argument is that food poisoning bacteria could become resistant to irradiation over time, in the same way that over-prescription of antibiotics have slowly selected for antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. If this happens, the dose of radiation, or length of exposure could be increased. Besides, food poisoning organisms are not controlled within the human body by irradiating people, so it is not as if we are losing a useful medical purpose. If organisms become immune to radiation, it would simply mean that the irradiation process could not be used any more.
There has been one instance, at least, where food rejected as unfit for human consumption due to high levels of contamination has been put into the human food chain after irradiation sterilized it.
The counter argument is that these are regulatory and control issues. That is, there will always be people who will attempt to 'cheat the system', no matter what it is. It is up to government to fund statistically valid sampling, and cunning, effective, and incorruptible third party or government inspectors to uncover such scams.
Irradiation has many benefits for retailers beyond food safety.
life can be doubled. The shelf life of strawberries can be extended by
at least a week, bananas by three weeks, and so on. This means
meat, fruit, and vegetables that had to be discounted because they were
close to the end of their shelf life can be offered at the normal price
For us consumers, it would logically mean that the time over which the vitamin content continues to decrease is longer.
Irradiation is an alternative to fumigation of seeds, nuts, fruits and vegetables that cross national boundaries (quite low doses are sufficient to kill insects). The gas methyl bromide has been the fumigant of choice in the past. It is an excellent insect killer, it is odorless, doesn't explode (unlike other possible fumigant gases), is relatively cheap, is heavier than air, and disperses very quickly after the fumigation time. There are no residues other than occasional small amounts of bromine in oily seeds or nuts. Unfortunately, methyl bromide has been implicated in damage to the ozone layer. While there is still argument about the role of naturally generated methyl bromide from the oceans, methyl bromide gas has never-the-less been placed on a 'soon to be phased out' list worldwide.
Most supply wholesalers automatically fumigate their sacks of peanuts, almonds, sesame seeds, rice and the like as part of good warehouse bug elimination practice. No-one wants to buy bags of nuts and seeds with weevils or moth larvae in them-no matter how nutritious they may be! Irradiation may be an economic alternative to fumigation.
But even countries with a ban on importing irradiated food items make no requirement that imported food sterilized by irradiation be declared as such. In addition, from time to time, some ingredients, especially spices, in prepared food imported into those countries are quite likely to have been sterilized by irradiation.
So we consumers are likely to be buying more and more food items that have been irradiated.
Once again, it comes down to choice. If you have the money to prefer unirradiated food, then you can vote with your wallet if you have concerns about the nutritional diminishment of irradiated food. Equally, you may chose irradiated food preferentially where there are concerns about bacterial contamination in some classes of food.
Corrections, comments, argument and observations are welcome!
1. Third party trade names and trademarks may be identified within the content of this page (e.g., as a brand name of a cultivated fruit or vegetable, as part of an URL, or description of a link). Nothing herein shall be deemed to grant you any license to use any third party trademark or tradename in commerce.
2. All copies of this page must be reproduced in whole AND UNALTERED - except that links to other parts of 'The Natural Food Hub' website (http://www.naturalhub.com) and these terms and conditions may be excluded if you wish - including existing advertising banners, whether distributed (internally or otherwise) or published (made available on the Internet and/or internally over any internal network/intranet or otherwise), and whether distributed or published electronically, on hard copy media or by any other means.
3. You may not use, allow to be used, distribute, or allow to be
this page in modified form i.e., with additions or deletions, including
advertisements in any form or representation.
4. The content may not be displayed or styled in such a way that an ordinary person would be mislead as to the author and copyright holder, THIS SPECIFIC PAGE MUST BE CLEARLY AND EASILY SEEN TO BE A COPYRIGHT WORK OF UHIS AND CLEARLY BE REPRODUCED FROM A WEBSITE ADDRESSED WWW.NATURALHUB.COM
5. The type size, and font may not be changed, except to make the type size larger, in which case all type styles must be increased at the existing ratio on this page..
6. The position and copyright information may not be changed or obscured, or made difficult to see by whatever means or device.
7. Where this page is used as part of a commercial site, or within a commercial organisation, you agree that UHIS has the right to publicly identify you as a user/licensee of this page, and you must notify UHIS by email or in writing that you intend to use this specific page for commercial purposes, and have read, understood, and agree to abide by, these conditions.
8. No Warranty/Use At Your Risk. This work, ie. this specific page titled 'Food Safety-Food treated with Irradiation', is made available for your use at no charge, subject to the above conditions always. Accordingly, the content is provided 'as is' without warranty of any kind. You are soley responsible for your use, reproduction, distribution and publication of this information. The entire risk of using this information is borne by you.
9. Limitation of Liability. In no event shall UHIS or any
allowing use without charge be liable for any indirect, special,
or consequential damages, including, but not limited to, damages for
of goodwill, or any or all commercial damages or losses arising from
use of the content of this page.
10. Free use of this specific page titled 'Food Safety-Food treated with Irradiation' is allowed soley on the above conditions. If you do not agree with them, you have no licence to use them. Use in breach of these conditions is infringement of UHIS copyright, and will be acted on by whatever remedy the law allows.