Food irradiation, Health risks, Misleading consumers, Misuse of the technology
Main Category: Infectious Diseases / Bacteria / VirusesArticle Date: 18 Jun 2004 - 1:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
3.56 (16 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
2.86 (7 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
Food irradiation is being promoted by some international bodies and industry groups as the answer to the growing problem of food poisoning, and as a means to combat world hunger by reducing spoilage and extending food shelf life.A proposal to relax the global standards governing food irradiation, including the removal of the current maximum irradiation dose limit, is now under discussion.
The European Commission is also deliberating over whether to extend its list of foods permitted for irradiation in all EU member states. The current list includes only herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings, but the possible extension would mean many other foods could be irradiated in all member states. Yet consumer concerns persist over the numerous potential negative impacts of irradiating food.
HEALTH RISKS
-- Food irradiation can result in loss of nutrients, for example vitamin E levels can be reduced by 25% after irradiation and vitamin C by 5-10%. This is compounded by the longer storage times of irradiated foods, and by loss of nutrients during cooking, which can result in the food finally eaten by the consumer to contain little more than 'empty calories'. This is potentially damaging to the long and short-term health of consumers, particularly for sections of society already failing to obtain adequate nutrition.
-- When food is exposed to high doses of ionising radiation, the chemical composition and nutritional content of food can change. Radiolytic by-products are often formed in irradiated food. Very few of these chemicals have been adequately studied for toxicity. One such chemical - 2-DCB - can cause DNA damage in rat colon cells at high doses.
-- Food irradiation does not inactivate dangerous toxins which have already been produced by bacteria prior to irradiation. In some cases, such as C. botulinum, it is the toxin produced by the bacteria, rather than the bacteria itself, which poses the health hazard.
-- Extension of the EU list of foods permitted for irradiation could mean that in future a significant part of the diet of consumers will consist of irradiated foods. The long-term impacts of this to health remain unknown. Far more research is required prior to exposing populations to such a diet.
-- Irradiating products such as mechanically recovered chicken meat, offal and egg white, could mislead consumers into thinking these are safer. There is therefore a risk that consumers will fail to take necessary measures to prevent cross-contamination. The risk of recontamination of food after irradiation is very serious as a near sterile food is an ideal medium for very rapid growth of re-introduced bacteria. Irradiated food must therefore be handled with even greater care in homes and restaurants.
-- Irradiation can cause mutations in bacteria and viruses leading to potentially resistant strains.
-- Irradiating fruit and vegetables to extend their shelf life can mislead consumers by making 'old' food look 'fresh'. The greater the age of fruit and vegetables, the lower their nutritional value, not to mention the effects of ageing on their tastes and flavours.
-- Consumers may be dangerously misled because irradiation also unavoidably kills off bacteria that produce warning smells indicating that the food is going 'off'.
-- The irradiation of some products, such as dried fruit and flakes or germs of cereal, often considered as health foods (eg. muesli), could lead them to become misperceived by consumers as inherently contaminated food types.
MISUSE OF THE TECHNOLOGY
-- Food irradiation can and has been used to mask poor hygiene practices in food production. With irradiation, contamination can be sterilised. This reduces the incentive to clean up sloppy food processing operations - the industry is provided with a 'quick fix' as an alternative to dealing with the sources of the problem. The consumer has a right to expect clean food, yet irradiation can lead to the increased production of food contaminated with dirt -'clean' dirt.
-- Irradiation can be used to maintain or even worsen poor standards of animal husbandry. Overcrowding of animals whist rearing and prior to slaughter, as well as the use of cheap but inappropriate feeds, all contribute to contamination of animal products such as meat, poultry and eggs. Cleaning up these products at the end of the production line removes the incentive to improve animal welfare.
-- Breaches of existing labelling legislation have occurred in European countries, with the sale of unlabelled irradiated foods. This was recently discovered to be occurring again by a UK government detection survey which found that nearly half the food supplements sampled were illegally irradiated and unlabelled (see press releases). Under these circumstances the consumers' right to choice is flouted. Relaxation of irradiation standards could worsen this situation.
-- If they succeed, on-going industry efforts in the US to substitute the term 'irradiation' on irradiated food labels with terms such as 'cold pasteurisation' could serve to confuse and mislead consumers.
THE SAFETY OF WORKERS
-- Workers risk accidental exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, particularly at irradiation plants using radioactive sources.
-- The use of irradiation to sterilise meat at the end of the production line allows slaughter lines to be run at dangerously high speeds, since the greater contamination that occurs during high speed carving of carcasses can be 'cleaned up' at the end of the line. This approach increases the risk of accidents and fatalities by forcing meat packers to work faster than ever.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC COSTS
-- Food irradiation is not a low-cost method. Irradiation plants are expensive and could help large multinationals to eliminate smaller and more local producers. Requirements for improved security measures at all facilities holding radioactive materials, are likely to increase the costs of irradiation plants, leading to an increase in the prices of irradiated foods.
-- Irradiation supports greater globalisation of food production and supply, threatening local farmers and food processors.
SECURITY RISKS
-- It has been reported that numerous unrecovered losses and thefts of radioactive materials occur each year. Recent events have raised concerns over the potential for terrorists to obtain these materials for use in 'dirty bombs'. A dirty bomb uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. Such an attack could cause radiation contamination over several city blocks, but probably no deaths from radiation because of the low doses as the material is dispersed. Such an attack could spread panic and have significant economic impacts. It would require lengthy cleanup operations, although these materials are fairly easily detected.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
-- Accidents at radioactive irradiation plants have already led to radioactive spills and contamination of surrounding land and water resources. This could happen again.
-- The construction of more irradiation plants could necessitate more transportation of radioactive materials, entailing risks of accidents and radioactive leaks over a wider area.
-- Irradiation allows food to be transported over greater distances, leading to greater air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming.
THE FOOD IRRADIATION CAMPAIGN BELIEVES THAT:
-- the precautionary principle should be asserted until chemical by-products formed in irradiated foods have been adequately studied for toxicity in compliance with modern scientific protocols, and are proven safe for consumption.
-- food irradiation is no solution for cleaning up foods that are contaminated due to unhygienic production lines.
-- priority should focus on improving production, storage, and processing, rather than on killing off contamination at the last stage.
-- food irradiation benefits the industry rather than consumers, and large multinational companies rather than local and small-scale producers.
-- food irradiation works against local food supplies and its application for mass commodities is likely to undermine sustainability.
-- good food doesn't need irradiating.
This article comes from The Food Commission, UK
Visit our infectious diseases / bacteria / viruses section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/9620.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/9620.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
The Facts -- Not the Myths -- About Irradiation
posted by Jane M. Berg on 28 Jun 2004 at 10:04 pmThe article "Food irradiation, Health Risks, Misleading Consumers, Misuse of Technology" is riddled with errors. Starting with the first sentence, international bodies and industry groups do not promote irradiation as the answer to the growing problem of food poisoning. Food irradiation is one more tool that can effectively reduce the incidence of foodborne illness. It is not, and will never be, a silver bullet.
Food irradiation has been researched for more than 40 years and has broad-based support in the science, health, and government communities. Endorsements come from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dietetic Association, American Medical Association, International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and others.
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot use a risk-benefit analysis to approve food irradaion, i.e. the benefit of preventing foodborne illness through irradiation versus the risk of an adverse health consequence from consuming irradiated food. Rather, food irradiation must meet a "no detectable adverse health consequence" standard before it can be approved.
This rebuttal will provide the facts, and not the myths, about food irradiation.
Health Risks:
· While it is true that some nutrient levels are reduced when food is irradiated, the reduction is generally less than that experienced with canning, drying, heat pasteurization, or sterilization. Proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are not appreciably altered by irradiation at pasteurizing doses. These are the doses at which most food is currently irradiated.
· Even in the unlikely event that irradiated foods made up a large portion of a person's diet, there is unlikely to be any adverse nutritional effect. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for instance, measured dietary thiamin levels in an "extreme case" where all meat, poultry, and fish consumed had been irradiated at the maximum possible dose. These unlikely circumstances still allowed for thiamin intake above the Recommended Dietary Allowance.
· The relevance of C. botulinum to food irradiation remains to be established. C. botulinum is most likely to be found in low-acid foods that have been canned. Canned foods are not irradiated, and irradiated meat and poultry (like non-irradiated meat and poultry) are stored in frozen or refrigerated conditions where C. botulinum does not grow. Further, the spoilage bacteria that remain present in irradiated food would cause the food to spoil, alerting the consumer that the food should not be consumed before botulism-causing bacteria can produce toxins.
· Suggesting that irradiated foods could still become contaminated is stating the obvious. Like any food, irradiated foods can become contaminated through improper handling or cross contamination, which is why irradiation proponents repeatedly stress that irradiation is not a substitute for hygienic practices.
On the other hand, irradiated foods do not pose the same cross contamination risk as non-irradiated foods. Having irradiated foods in the kitchen provides an extra level of safety to all foods that may come in contact with the irradiated products.
Misleading Consumers
· Irradiation cannot make an "old" food "fresh" again. No irradiation proponent would claim that it can. Irradiation cannot reverse the spoilage process. If food looks, smells, or tastes bad it is spoiled. Irradiation cannot change that.
· Irradiation kills SOME of the bacteria that alert consumers when a product is spoiling, but not all of those warning bacteria. Therefore, spoilage of irradiated foods will be detected by consumers the same way they can detect spoilage in non-irradiated foods.
Misuse of the Technology
· Irradiation is not a substitute for safe and sanitary food processing and manufacturing. It is another tool in our food safety arsenal. Irradiation is not and cannot be used to mask an unsanitary product. Irradiating a dirty product is illegal, and it does not result in a pleasing product. Irradiation kills bacteria; it does not remove or mask feces, dirt, grime, or any other food contaminant.
The Safety of Workers
· There are numerous safeguards in place to prevent injuries to workers at irradiation facilities. The potential exposure to radioactive materials for these workers is similar to what it would be for an x-ray technician or dental hygienist -- virtually nil.
Security Risks
· The irradiation facilities that do use radioactive isotopes (currently Cobalt 60) often store the irradiating "pencils" in water when the irradiator is idle. These cooling ponds would be nearly impossible for people to access. Therefore, those people with evil intentions would have a difficult time getting radioactive materials from an irradiation facility. Facilities that do not store the irradiating rods in water secure them in ways that would be equally difficult to access.
· It is important to recognize that most irradiation facilities that use isotopes are not “food irradiation” facilities, but rather facilities that sterilize primarily consumer and medical products. Since we are not about to stop sterilizing those items, we should stop talking about the risk of theft of radioactive materials as though it were a problem unique to the food irradiation industry. Rather, no radiation source should go unguarded, and irradiation facilities have the same responsibilities as power plants, hospitals, and other industries to secure their sources.
Environmental Impacts
· There have been few accidents that have caused great bodily harm or death in the last 25 years at irradiation facilities. In most cases, workers did not follow the safety procedures that were in place and willfully tampered with safeguards.
· If new irradiation facilities were built, they would not necessarily be gamma ray facilities. Most of the new facilities being planned and built are x-ray and e-beam units with no radioactive isotope sources, thus the argument that the construction of more irradiation plants would lead to more transportation of radioactive materials is simply flawed logic.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




