Food Irradiation: Are You For or Against It?
April 9th 2008 16:03
It would certainly be a brilliant stroke if we could wave a magic wand over the nation's food supply to make it safe to eat. But since we can't, the next best thing could be food irradiation, which cuts down on illnesses caused by bacteria, such as salmonella and E. coli.
Irradiation is the process of exposing food to low doses of gamma rays, electron beams, or X rays. It inactivates harmful microorganisms, either by killing or sterilizing them, without making the food radioactive.
Health records show that the process dates back to the 1940s, when tests showed that irradiated raw ground beef stayed fresh longer than nonirradiated meat. Records further reveal that in the 1960s, health authorities approved the process for use on potatoes, onions, wheat, and flour. That list was later extended to include herbs and dehydrated seasonings.
It is a fact that astronauts eat irradiated foods, as do some hospital patients who are at increased risk of infection. Yet irradiation hasn't really caught on in the international marketplace, mostly because of public fear about it.
Debate rages on about the safety of food irradiation. More than 50 years of studies have failed to find any direct risk associated with eating irradiated food. For that reason, many health agencies have endorsed the technology. But it isn't without opposition, which includes some giant food manufacturers and retailers who have said they will not use or sell irradiated products. The distrust stems from studies, as yet inconclusive, about health risks incurred when irradiated food is ingested. Proponents argue that the process does create microscopic changes in food, but they are similar to those caused by cooking. In some studies, animals fed irradiated foods over several generations proved no more likely to develop cancer or inherited diseases than those fed nonirradiated food. Separate studies done in England of 60 generations of mice confirmed those results. In China, 400 people who ate irradiated foods for 7 to 15 weeks had no increase in chromosomal damage, a precursor of cancer.
Those who approve of food irradiation say that some vitamins are indeed lost in the process. But they contend that while vitamin C levels may drop 5 to 10 percent, that is no more than is lost in canning or letting fresh produce sit in the produce aisle for a few days. Possibly more disturbing are environmental concerns raised by the prospect of transporting dangerous radioactive materials to food-irradiation centers.
Whether food irradiation ever takes off depends largely on consumer attitudes. A major outbreak of food poisoning might finally tip the scales in its favor. Meanwhile, other methods of making food safer, including the use of steam, light, and ozone, are continuously being developed.
Irradiation is the process of exposing food to low doses of gamma rays, electron beams, or X rays. It inactivates harmful microorganisms, either by killing or sterilizing them, without making the food radioactive.
Health records show that the process dates back to the 1940s, when tests showed that irradiated raw ground beef stayed fresh longer than nonirradiated meat. Records further reveal that in the 1960s, health authorities approved the process for use on potatoes, onions, wheat, and flour. That list was later extended to include herbs and dehydrated seasonings.
It is a fact that astronauts eat irradiated foods, as do some hospital patients who are at increased risk of infection. Yet irradiation hasn't really caught on in the international marketplace, mostly because of public fear about it.
Debate rages on about the safety of food irradiation. More than 50 years of studies have failed to find any direct risk associated with eating irradiated food. For that reason, many health agencies have endorsed the technology. But it isn't without opposition, which includes some giant food manufacturers and retailers who have said they will not use or sell irradiated products. The distrust stems from studies, as yet inconclusive, about health risks incurred when irradiated food is ingested. Proponents argue that the process does create microscopic changes in food, but they are similar to those caused by cooking. In some studies, animals fed irradiated foods over several generations proved no more likely to develop cancer or inherited diseases than those fed nonirradiated food. Separate studies done in England of 60 generations of mice confirmed those results. In China, 400 people who ate irradiated foods for 7 to 15 weeks had no increase in chromosomal damage, a precursor of cancer.
Those who approve of food irradiation say that some vitamins are indeed lost in the process. But they contend that while vitamin C levels may drop 5 to 10 percent, that is no more than is lost in canning or letting fresh produce sit in the produce aisle for a few days. Possibly more disturbing are environmental concerns raised by the prospect of transporting dangerous radioactive materials to food-irradiation centers.
Whether food irradiation ever takes off depends largely on consumer attitudes. A major outbreak of food poisoning might finally tip the scales in its favor. Meanwhile, other methods of making food safer, including the use of steam, light, and ozone, are continuously being developed.
| 47 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
