Promoters of food irradiation claim that they are factual and objective, and cleverly imply that any opposition is emotional, hence irrational. But emotion, in this context, is a response to a threat, which (presumably) proponents do not feel. I would have an emotional reaction if someone pointed a gun at my head, but that would not mean I was irrational.

Irradiation threatens us all. It threatens us as living organisms (through uniquely damaged food and widespread distribution of radioactive substances in processing plants); and it threatens the livelihood of small farmers and business people (because irradiation mainly benefits large scale food producers and marketers). My views are derived from many government and scientific research papers which document various problems including:
the way evidence has been selectively used to support irradiation; the serious adverse effects of eating irradiated food; the disinformation put out by some of those in favor of it; and the questionable value of irradiation compared to other alternatives.

Many people will be influenced by the appealing argument that "harmful bacteria can be completely eliminated by irradiation." Irradiation does not destroy organisms, render insects sterile or dead, eliminate germination or kill mould spores by magic. It achieves these effects by massive rearrangement of the molecules and bonds that form the structure of organic material, including essential nutrients, using energies and mechanisms radically different to processes like thermal cooking. This is why irradiation should be regarded as an additive rather than a process. New substances are added to the food.

It is not factual and objective to imply, as promoters do, that irradiation by gamma rays is much the same as heat treatment (pasteurization, UHT preservation or cooking), or irradiation by ultraviolet light. It is actually totally misleading. We are not concerned with relatively low average energy over a large area, as in cooking. Rather, gamma rays are intrinsically very high energy and produce local effects on the molecular bonds in food that are far more disruptive than the dispersed effect of heating, or the lower energy of ultraviolet rays. This concentrated energy is what causes molecules to shatter at arbitrary places (rather than the weakest links), and then re-form, producing myriads of new substances (unique radiolytic products, or URPs) in fairly low concentrations. There is little control of (or even knowledge of) what is formed, but some of the substances seem to have very dangerous effects, according to the reports of well-qualified scientists.

It is hard to determine whether or not food has been irradiated, not because irradiation is gentle, but because we have very little idea of what new substances to look for, and even if we did, they are in very low concentrations. However, this does not mean they are not biologically active. We know that other substances (e.g. vitamins) are active at similar concentrations. An obvious candidate for comparison is one part in a million fluoride addition used in water fluoridation. Whether you think fluoridation is good or bad, you are assuming that this concentration has some effect. Some estimates have put the combined concentration of all URPs formed in the usual radiation situation at 300 parts per million.

Safety testing of the new substances is impractical because there are too many, and too many of them are unknown, so we simply do not have the means of administering the higher doses required, or for running the large number of controlled experiments needed to establish safety. In any case, with random molecular permutations, we could never be sure that we had covered the relevant possibilities. There are other problems. Experiments have shown the occurrences of mutations in moulds subjected to gamma irradiation that actually made them more toxic. Gamma irradiation seems little more than a Russian roulette game with our food.

Nutrients and enzymes are destroyed. For example, some experiments have shown sufficiently severe vitamin K losses to cause internal bleeding in animals on irradiated diets. Beneficial organisms are killed, while harmful organisms like clostridium botulinum type E (responsible for botulisms) may remain, being resistant to radiation (along with any toxin). Irradiation at doses high enough to guarantee to kill all pathogens is not practical because the food would be ruined, even by the promoters' standards. Any pathogens that remain can multiply, uninhibited by any of the friendly organisms that fight them.

One classic Indian study of the effect of eating irradiated wheat found cell changes, of a kind associated with cancer and mutation, in both human and animal subjects. There were also increased fetal deaths in mice. Some pro-irradiators lied about the circumstances and value of these studies, but the work as subsequently been supported by experiments in other countries, and the true circumstances have been reaffirmed.

Canada, which is a world leader in nuclear exports, furtively changed the rules on the use of irradiation a while back, by Order in Council, when parliament was in recess, and has been pushing irradiation onto third world countries like Thailand, to make it easier for their papayas and mangoes to meet agricultural inspection on import to Canada (Interestingly enough, as of spring 1990, it's not yet legal to import or sell irradiated mangoes or papayas in Canada, so the Canadian International Development Agency and Atomic Energy Canada Ltd seem to be making the law in advance of parliament). Irradiated fruit and vegetables may not rot or sprout, but they will be more susceptible to damage in transit and may have a different taste and texture, quite apart from the problems of irradiation already mentioned.

Irradiated food may be identified (by unobtrusive marks) in countries that have relevant laws and enforce them. But food many be irradiated in bulk at various stages, not necessarily in the country of final sale: to allow substandard food to gain acceptance; to make up for dirty food handling; to cope with excessive transportation delays, and so on.

Food that has been irradiated can be recontaminated. It is only (relatively) sterile when it emerges from the irradiation chamber. Some proponents, who see irradiation as the final step, applied to a product prior to final distribution, in a suitable airtight package think this is alright. Unfortunately, several studies have shown that any actively harmful effects due to eating irradiated food are more likely the more recently the food was irradiated (as opposed to nutrient loss, which increases with time since irradiation). Worse, if food is irradiated at this late stage in distribution, the likelihood that it will be irradiated more than once is increased, since others involved in the distribution chain may also have used irradiation to protect their investment, and as a substitute for better hygiene.

Packaging is not the answer to recontamination anyway. Some of the dangerous organisms continue to multiply even in airtight or refrigerated containers. Moreover, some packaging material may add cancer-causing contaminants to the food under conditions of irradiation.

I find it disturbing that the major committees entrusted with investing the safety of irradiated food include bodies like the International Council on Atomic Energy and Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. Is this not like asking the fox to watch the chicken coop?

Finally, promoters claim that irradiation will solve the problems of food spoilage in third world countries, where up to 30 percent of the food is lost to pests and spoilage. Irradiation will not solve the problems of hunger in third world countries. The problems there are political and economic, not technological.

It should be easy to find inexpensive food that is not sprouted, rotted, contaminated or irradiated. If it isn't, we should treat the causes (like poor food handling) and not just the symptoms. We certainly should not further degrade the quality of our food in ways that we do not understand, but which may be damaging or even (in the long term) lethal. These days, if a treatment or additive is not essential, the wisest course of action is almost certainly to avoid it.

[Lila Parker of the HANS Food Irradiation Alert Committee has sent letters to 85 municipalities and 10 provinces calling for provincial bans on the irradiation of food. You can participate by writing your own mayor and premier and voicing your opposition to food irradiation.]

Want to search for other articles that may interest you?

Readers of this article also enjoyed...