Re: Thoughts on food irradiation
The following information is excerpted from an article in Indiana Agrinews,
March 14, 1997. USDA has signed a Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement with Gray Star, Inc., a private company in Mt. Arlington NJ to
evaluate the firm's irradiator for killing foodborne pathogens like E. coli
0157:H7 on meat, poultry, and other agricultural products....
Donald W. Thayer, a research chemist with ARS at Windmoor PA will conduct
the studies to evaluate the irradiator. Thayer has earned an international
reputation for his research on the safety and efficacy of using irradiation
to control food pathogens in poultry and red meat without significant change
to the nutritional quality....
The irradiator is transportable and can be delivered to the packinghouse or
production site where food is being processed for shipment. Foods can be
prepackaged and a standard pallet of product can be processed at once,
handling up to 10,000 pounds of produce an hour per unit....The irradiator
can be used to control quarantine pests as well as food pathogens...
Dynamic Industries, Inc., of Cincinnati will manufacture the irradiation
units for Gray Star using cesium-137 radioactive isotopes from Babcock and
Wilcox of Lynchburg VA. Several units have already been ordered by private
companies, primarily for quarantine disinfestation of fruits and vegetables....
The Food and Drug Administration has approved irradiation to control
microorganisms in poultry and trichinosis in pork, and is currently
reviewing a petition to irradiate beef. FDA has also approved irradiation
use on fruits and vegetables.
Food irradiation is endorsed by the American Medical Association, World
Health Organization, Institute of Food Technologists, , American Council on
Science and Health, Council on Agricultural Science and Technology, and the
American Veterinary Medical Association.
I understand the arguments for irradiation, but still disagree with the use
of this technology. It, once again, is a use of technology to treat symptoms
without addressing the root cause -- in this case, food contaminated with
fecal matter-- which is best addressed through good management. Why do we
have government food inspectors to detect contamination. Are they not
effective? Will irradiation replace the need for these inspectors? (Now
there's a double edged sword in action).
This approach to food safety is reductionist science to the max. It
generates a measureable reduction of pathogenic organisms (good science),
while relying on an absence of indicators of detrimental effects on health
and nutrition (bad science). That is, since ionizing radiation denatures
(deactivates) DNA and proteins (enzymes, etc.) to kill living organisms, it
obviously denatures other proteins in plant and animal tissue. Are
nutritional factors altered by this process? Undoubtably. It is not known
how irradiation will affect nutrition, in spite of Dr. Thayer's and others'
Approval of irradiating food is bad policy. The technology favors large
processors (because of its expense) and becomes a barrier for small
processors if irradiation becomes mandatory. This in turn adversely impacts
small and medium sized farmers and becomes another barrier in the
development of local and regional food systems. It is especially bad policy
that USDA is promoting the technology and paying for evaluation research,
once again generating disadvantage to a substantial portion of the population.
Bad science and bad policy seems something worth opposing vigorously.
Steve Bonney, President
Indiana Sustainable Agriculture Association
100 Georgton Ct.
W. Lafayette IN 47906
(317) 463-9366, fax (317) 497-0164