Food irradiation, as it is practiced in Australia, is the exposure of food to gamma rays from a nuclear source.

Highly radioactive materials such as Cobalt 60 (or Cesium 137, which is a waste product of the nuclear industry) are used to expose foods (or other products) to extremely high levels of ionising radiation.

An irradiation plant, such as the Steritech facility located in Narangba (just north of Brisbane), uses up to 3.5 million curies of radioactivity, as food moves on a conveyor belt through a chamber to receive it’s requisite dose. Treatment times, and radiation doses vary for different foods, depending on their size and properties. Ionising irradiation significantly alters the food exposed because it is of sufficient energy to alter the atomic structure of the food. Electrons are knocked out of their orbit, leaving negatively and positively charged ions in the food, which are chemically very active.

Ionising radiation such as this is NOT similar to microwaves. The radiation dose limit of 30 kilograys allowed for herbs and spices is equivalent to 1 billion chest x-rays. The 10 kilogray limit on remaining foods is equivalent to 330 million chest x-rays. Despite the World Health Organisation’s

(WHO) own recommendations to investigate further the safety of irradiated foods, the pro- irradiation lobby promotes the use of this technology with claims that FI has a role to:

• rid food of microbial contamination;
• rid food of pest infestation;
• prohibit sprouting and/or germination of food or those weed seeds inadvertently present in food; and prolong shelf life (and therefore claimed to alleviate world hunger)
• reduction of the presence of residues in food of chemicals that would otherwise be used to kill microbial contaminants and pests

LEFT: A typical food irradiation plant. The 'storage pool' on the bottom right hand corner is the containment pool in which the nuclear material is kept. At the Steritech site in Qld the containment pool approaches the water table as the Narangba site is located adjacent to paperbark wetlands and a creek running into Moreton Bay.

Is it safe?

Collaborators in the food irradiation field, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, among others, tell us that food irradiation is just another way of preserving food to make it safe and wholesome - like pasteurisation, canning or freezing.Nothing could be further from the truth.You can pasteurise milk on your kitchen stove using a saucepan; heating, canning or freezing do result in some loss of nutrients, but cannot be compared to irradiation.

Exposure of food to specified Standards of irradiation smashes apart its chemical bonds, sending electrons flying. Scientific studies have shown the following results:

• Increased chromosomal damage in animals and human; Increased frequency of cell mutations; Formation of mutant bacteria;
• Increased frequency of tumours, reduced survival rate, and other health problems in animals; Increased carcinogens and other toxins in food, such as: Benzene, Formaldehyde, Octane, Butane, and Methyl Propane. (Benzene and formaldehyde are classified carcinogens); Formation of new and potentially dangerous compounds in foods called Unique Radiolytic Products, which have yet to be enumerated and identified. The higher the dose of radiation, the greater the number of U.R.P.s formed. One of these, 2-DCB, has recently been proven to cause cellular and genetic damage in human and rat cells; and FI causes the formation of free radicals.
  
• Vitamin content is reduced by up to 96% depending upon the food item and other factors. Vitamins affected are A, B, C, E and K. Also, amino acids and polyunsaturated fats can be depleted. *

There have been no studies done on the long term effects of eating irradiated food; further, almost all research on toxicity was done prior to 1980, and did not use modern toxicological methods.

Food irradiation is unnecessary. Contamination could easily be prevented by good manufacturing/processing, transport and hygiene practices, and by suitable, enforceable government regulations. Organic food, produced and sold locally empowers communities, and helps local economies. The huge capital costs of building irradiation plants, the centralisation of food distribution this would entail, the increased costs of food production with profits going only to the irradiation industry, will in no way benefit consumers, nor will it address the world hunger problem. www.citizen.org/cmep

FI, in its use of nuclear materials, contributes towards a reliance on nuclear processes, thereby encouraging radioactive waste on a global scale. Nuclear irradiation company Steritech Pty. Ltd. recently constructed a irradiation facility at the Narangba Industrial Estate, Deception Bay, Queensland. In addition, with organic food production a growing industry in Australia, FI could destroy Australia’s image overseas for good, clean, nutritious food.

Food irradiation has not been satisfactorily proven safe, nor does it seem to work effectively. Problems persist around issues of “safe” dosage levels and the different effects on food of different levels. Higher doses can change the appearance, smell and taste of foods, and irradiators are unlikely to submit food to a level irradiation that would render food un-consumable. So the level of radiation required to effectively decontaminate foods may in some cases be above the approved dose. In some foods irradiation kills the bacteria that gives the warning sign that food is off, so how would consumers know not to eat it? Another problems is that if good food safety and hygiene practices are sacrificed because irradiation can be used as a “cover-up”, then the risk of recontamination after irradiation is therefore increased.

Food irradiation cannot be effectively regulated. There is currently no 100% effective method to detect if food has been irradiated. This means that it cannot be properly regulated. There is then nothing to prevent food companies to engage in ‘dutching’ food that would otherwise be unfit for consumption. This presents the problem that consumers will not know if the food they’re buying has been irradiated or not. The consumer’s right to choose is paramount, and this ability is effectively removed if food irradiation is allowed.

The common view amongst community, consumer and environmental groups throughout the world is that the safety of food irradiation has not been scientifically verified to a degree necessary to allow its consumption. While significant gaps in knowledge exist, it would be prudent that regulatory bodies direct that a technology having potentially serious adverse health consequences not be allowed to proceed commercially.

Scientists speak out against the irradiation of food. Scientific studies since the 1950’s reveal the harmful effects of consuming irradiated food. Scientists speak out.

Effects of feeding irradiated wheat to malnourished children: In 1973 the National Institute of Nutrition in India, initiated studies on the health effects of consumption of irradiated food using mice, rats, monkey and undernourished children. This report was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 28/2/1975 pp 130 to 135. Studies revealed the development of cells with chromosome abnormalities in their bone marrow and an increase in polyploid (abnormal) cells. However, The World Health Organisation (WHO) dismiss the report on the basis that the report’s findings were a ‘chance phenomenon’ and further states that the findings observed ‘occurred by chance’ .
[Reference: WHO Safety & Nutritional Adequacy of Irradiated Food, Section 6. Toxicology, p95]

Testimony of S. G. Srikantia, B. Sc.,.B.B.S.,D.Sc. Professor of Foods and Nutrition, University of Mysore, India on their findings in 1973. To-date the Institute has not withdrawn its findings and stands fully behind its published articles. http://ccnr.org/food_irradiation.html

DNA damage caused by irradiated foods: The Federal Nutrition Research Institute in Karlsruhe, Germany conducted experiments on rats which revealed DNA damage. Genotoxicity of 2-DCB report concluded, ‘The results urge caution, and should provide impetus for further studies’. http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/2dcbrelease.cfm

"Hidden Harm" - A report by Public Citizen and The Centre for Food Safety addresses how the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is ignoring the potential dangers of unique chemicals in irradiated food. www.citizen.org/documents/HiddenHarm_-_PDF.pdf

Irradiation destroys essential vitamins and nutrients: Vitamins 1, B1, B2, B2, B6, B12 folic acid, C, E and K are significantly damaged by irradiation. Essential amino acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids can also be depleted. Numerous food irradiation studies conducted on test animals have indicated that consumption of irradiated food can cause serious health risks with potentially fatal results, for example, cancer, still births, internal hemorrhaging, radioactivity and genetic mutations. Moreover, tests conducted on human cells have shown irradiated foods to be highly toxic and to cause chromosomal damage as discussed above in Genotoxicity of 2-DCB report.

Cancer: “A careful analysis by FDA (Food & Drug Administration) of all data present showed significant adverse effects produced in animals fed irradiated food…What were these adverse effects?…Carcinomas of the pituitary gland, a particularly disturbing finding since this is an extremely rare type of malignant tumor.”
[Spiher, A.T. 1968. Food Irradiation: An FDA report”. FDA Papers]

Still births: “Two groups of 10 male and 50 female mice were fed diet containing 50% wheat flour,…Cytogenic examinations of the developing spermatogonia in 30 mice of each group revealed that cytogenic abnormalities were significantly more frequent in the group fed irradiated flour than in the control group…a large number of litters were born in which noe of the offspring was viable; the incidence of litters so affected was significantly higher in the group fed irradiated flour…on the average the losses were about 35% higher in the test group than in the controls. The life span of mice fed irradiated flour was slightly shorter than in the control mice.”
[Bugyaki, L., et al, “Do irradiated foodstuffs have a radiomimetic effect?”]

Internal Hemorrhaging: “A significant number of rats consuming irradiated beef died from internal hemorrhage within 46 days, the first death of a male rat coming on the 11th day of feeding….Post-mortem examination showed hemothorax, the blood had not clotted; there was bleeding also in the epididymis.”
[Metta, V.C. et al. 1959. “Vitamin K deficiency in rats induced by feeding of irradiated beef’. Journal of Nutrition, 60: 18-21]

Radioactivity: “…considerable amounts of radioactivity were present in liver, kidney, stomach, gastrointestinal tract, and blood serum of rats sacrificed at 3 and 15 hours….Radioactivity was present in urine and feces samples collected from all animals.”
[A. K. De, et al. 1969. “Biochemical Effects of Irradiated Sucrose Solutions in the Rat” Radiation Research, 37: 202-215]

Genetic Mutations: “Groups of Swiss albino mice (SPF) fed with normal and gamma-irradiated food …were injected intraperitoneally with Salmonella tympphimirium TA 1530 for the host mediated assay test of mutagenesis. The mutation frequency was calculated in terms of the numbers of mutant colonies per unit of surviving cells. The results indicate that there is a significant increase in mutation frequency induced by the 3 Mrad sterilized food.”
[M. Brena-Valle, et al. 1975. “Mutagenicity of irradiated food in the host mediated assay system” Studia Biophysica, Berlin 50: 137-141]

Chromosomal Damage: “Irradiated sucrose solutions…were extremely toxic to human lymphocytes…Degenerated mitoses were observed and the chromosomes were grossly damaged. The chromatin material was clumped or the chromosomes appeared shattered or pulverized…In contrast, treatment with unirradiated sucrose at the same concentration had no apparent effect on the mitotic rate and the chromosomes were not visibly damaged.”
[Shaw, M.W and Hayes, E. 1966. “Effects of irradiated sucrose on the chromosomes of human lymphocytes in vitro”. Nature, 211: 1254-1255]

Consumer Choice??

The provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices’. Objective of FSANZ when developing standards. Has FSANZ informed you and your family about food irradiation?

Since consumer acceptance of irradiated food has not been established either in Australia or overseas, it is questionable that a market for irradiated food exists for imported or exported foods. To subject food to irradiation just adds an extra cost and risk if all other measures are in place to ensure that food is good to begin with. It should be the relevant regulatory body’s responsibility to ensure that food regulations reflect the needs of the consumer, not the desires of corporations.

Not only will consumers will pay the price not only in health terms but also in monetary terms. The Explanatory Memorandum of the ANZFA (FSANZ) Amendment Bill 1999 states: · Potential for an increased burden on consumer organizations to disseminate information and coordinate responses on behalf of members. · Potential for cost of food to increase due to industry passing on application charges. more on health effects here

FSANZ admits that the public is genuinely concerned about food irradiation. They see this lack of acceptance as a ‘problem’. For the promoters of food irradiation it certainly is problem, according to a survey by the Australian Consumer Association, 93% of consumers opposed food irradiation when the moratorium was placed in the late 1980s. Consumers seem also just as unaccepting in the UK of food irradiation; In 1989, a survey by the Neilson/Henry Centre for Forecasting showed that 70% of consumers did not want to buy irradiated produce, and a further 20% were uncertain. In the same year, a French supermarket did an experimental promotion of irradiated strawberries highlighting the extended period that the fruit would stay ‘fresh’. From the sales figures, it became clear that 60% of shoppers did not buy the strawberries. Another survey done in 1990 of 200 UK food retailers, caterers and manufacturers revealed that the majority would not handle irradiated food.

Experiments in France to demonstrate the preservation effects of irradiation on strawberries backfired when sales figures indicated more than 60% of consumers did not want to buy them

If Australia follows in the United States footsteps with food irradiation we may see the approval of many more food products such as eggs, vegetables, fruit and fresh meat. Irradiation of meat in the US has lead to opposition from the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals. Vice Chairperson, Mr Arthur Hughes said “The meat industry wants to use irradiation as an excuse to push inspectors out of their facilities”, he also added “Irradiating meat is the meat industry’s answer to filthy meat processing practices that leave meat contaminated with feaces, urine and pus. Consumers will be the losers, because no one will be around to ensure the food supply is safe.” Consumers are also rejecting irradiated meat. More than 80 grocery stores and meat markets in Florida and Wisconsin have stopped selling irradiated meat due to consumer resistance.

Herbs and spices are approved for irradiating within the UK (however, other irradiated products may be imported) but irradiation company Puridec have ceased to supply herbs and spices for general consumption due to the resistance by supermarkets and consumers for irradiated foods.