Re: About Food irradiation

Daniel D. Worley (dan.worley@juno.com)
Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:21:45 AST

Patricia,

I am the person who asked about food irradiation. Thanks for posting
the E-Mail note you received. I have since (just yesterday as a matter
of fact) found another source of limited information on the subject. The
source I found can be seen by anyone with a Internet account and browser
at: http://www.milcom.com/fintrac/tpm/spr95/irradiat.html

This source gives a more balanced report on the subject than the note
you posted in that it appears at least to tell both sides of the story.
It is an extract from another source to which I do not have access.
Below are a few "Fair Use" quotes from it:

from Tropical Produce Marketing News, Spring 1995

"Food irradiation has been approved by both the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since
1988 for the treatment of selected edible goods, although its use is not
widespread."

"Irradiation, which uses ionizing radiation to kill pathogens,
effectively destroys salmonella, campylobacteria, listeria, other
bacteria, yeasts, molds, insects (including the mango seed weevil,
previously untreatable) and other pathogens. It has the added advantage
of ensuring and stabilizing product quality and, with some products, it
actually improves shelf life."

"...only 1 percent of consumers named irradiation as a fresh produce
safety concern, reflecting unfamiliarity with the treatment by the
general population.There are three common, yet unfounded, fears
associated with irradiation: fear of radioactive food, fear of
irradiation facilities melting down, and to a lesser extent, fear that
irradiation treatment will enable retailers to sell consumers spoiled
goods. In reality, irradiation proponents point out, irradiation does
not make product radioactive because the cobalt source is ‘neutron less’.
Fission (nuclear chain reactions) does not occur during irradiation,
rendering meltdowns impossible. However poor building design could allow
for some seepage into the local environment."

And, finally:

Most radiolytic particles are identifiable as known substances (carbon
dioxide, acetone, toluene, and formaldehyde), but others are unique and
unidentified. It follows that these unidentified compounds may have
unidentified effects on health. In an effort to minimize risk associated
with these compounds, exposure guidelines designed to minimize these
radiolytic particles have been instated.

Further quoting would go beyond the "Fair Use" doctrine. I would
however, encourage all who intend to get involved in this fray, or who
are thinking of doing so, to visit that Web site and read the entire
document.

The total amount of radiolytic particles created in the process is
quite small and it is my opinion that it poses no appreciable risk to
human consumption of treated foods. I have a bit more general knowledge
about radiation and its effects than the average person due to my 20 year
military career and although I am seriously concerned about the harmful
effects of certain forms of radiation, I am appalled at the near
hysterical, and sometimes totally hysterical responses I see when ever
the words radiation, nuclear, atomic, fusion, and fission are even
whispered. A individuals living in the United States (unless you live in
a cave under the wide open spaces of Montana or adjoining areas) each of
you are exposed to much higher levels of radiation on a daily basis from
the radio and TV broadcast signals that are transmitted all the time, not
to mention the sun.

I for one would much rather be able to buy fresh tropical fruits on the
mainland that are free of tropical fruit fly eggs and other insects than
take a chance on even one of them getting through. `Course I personally
can get all the tropical fruit I want right here. <g>

--Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--