The New York Times did an editorial on food irradiation that prompted me to do my own research. It was interesting that they mentioned that “NASA has long fed astronauts irradiated beef”.  Anyway, this is an example of a scary word (radiation) attracting far more attention than some other processes without a scary name.

Several hours of research later, here’s what I’ve got:  Critics say it should not be used because of loss of nutrients, quality and potentially harmful chemical byproducts.  The Organic Consumers Association makes the claim:

Eating irradiated food may make “the body more susceptible to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, liver damage, muscular breakdown and other serious problems

There is definitely a yuck factor (”mutations, radiation, etc.”), but is there a danger?

• We lose nutrients when we freeze and can food to preserve it, but nobody is screaming that those processes be disallowed.  Loss of nutrients is no more than, and often less than other methods we use to extend shelf life or make food safer to eat.
• Chemical byproducts seemed to be the most likely real concern to me.  The citations I found that referenced harmful effects of feeding irradiated food were mostly from Japan and Eastern Europe.  The doses of radiation used on the animal feed were one to several orders of magnitude higher than what is used in our food (think Chernobyl and the atomic bomb).  The Institute for Food Technology reviews several research reports on the unique chemical byproducts that may be produced by irradiation.  Even in those that show potential carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effects, the lowest exposure amount at which effects are seen is 8000-10,000 times higher than would be consumed in a normal diet.  Levels of benzene and toluene are lower in irradiated beef than in juch non-irradiated fish.  We produce carcinogens every time we grill or burn food.
• Labelling.  Irradiated food must be labelled in the grocery store, when it is a major component.  Spices, flavorings etc. may be irradiated and included without labelling.  Restaurants are not required to disclose use of irradiated food items.

Irradiation is primarily a process used to increase food safety (lowering risk of bacterial contamination) and secondarily to increase shelf life (fresh strawberries last 2-3 times longer if irradiated).  Although I agree that we need to address food safety on the production level, too, there will always be bacterial contamination and if a process reduces risk of food-borne illness without increasing other risks, why not use it?

My bottom line?  I think irradiation is no more likely to decrease food’s value or increase it’s carcinogenicity than most other cooking and sanitation practices.  The food safety aspects are incontrovertible.
Here’s some links and resources  to help you do your own research.

FSIS document explaining irradiation

Iowa State University fact sheet

Some discussions:  Food Production Daily, Health Castle, Ethicurean, Fresh Talk.   Blogher summarizes many blog posts–lots of gut-level distrust, but no solid scientific reasons to reject it.  A great two-sided discussion follows.

1. A Pretty Mess » Blog Archive » Irradiation–another scary word Says:
   September 14th, 2008 at 8:10pm

   […] the rest of the original post on down to earth […]



2. Bill Harshaw Says:
   September 15th, 2008 at 12:56pm

   There’s always the newness factor. With some reason, the new is a little scary. We know our bodies and our society have evolved with/lived with a set of hazards over the years, so we (think we) know the limits of the hazards. Not so with the new.

   Having said that, I’m reminded of the observation that after 9/11 more people drove, fewer people flew, with the net result more people died in additional traffic accidents than on 9/11.



3. Suzanne Says:
   September 23rd, 2008 at 5:50am

   Irradiation would have spared us the scary tomato/jalapeno mess earlier this summer. And prevented the collapse of the tomato industry in Florida. So there, anti-irradiation folks. Give up on hating a word, and understand what it means.



4. Rebecca T. of HonestMeat Says:
   September 23rd, 2008 at 9:32am

   I’m surprised to see this blog advocating such a ridiculous band aid approach to food safety, and one that is not well studied. We have no idea the cumulative affects of eating irradiated foods on the human body. We also can’t afford to loose more nutrients- we are talking about fresh produce here, not canned or frozen stuff. In some cases, our produce contains 80% less nutrients than it had 50 years ago. Should we eat food without nutrition just as filler and then pop multi-vitamins to round us out?
   Food safety problems have increased with the rise of CAFO animal production, the feeding of distillers grains to ruminants, and the rapid consolidation of the meat packing industry. Let’s start at the source before we start advocating deleterious technologies that do nothing to solve the problem (and only add to it).



5. Sara Says:
   September 24th, 2008 at 7:45am

   I totally agree that food safety problems need to be addressed at the source. Irradiation (or pasteurization or any other processing measure) cannot replace safety at the production level. I don’t see it as an either/or issue.

   For me, the issue came down to relative risk: We know that irradiation can reduce foodborne illness immediately. I spent many hours tracking down research, and my conclusion was that I think the reduction in pathogens was of sufficient benefit to outweigh the potential downside.