Food Irradiation

[ChefSwartz]

I am doing a cause and effect paper on the effects of irradiation on food safety and quality. I have a lot of inconclusive information and I was wondering if there are any experts that could comment or point me in the right direction?

[jsolomon]

Have you checked here? The US Center for Disease Control

And of course, everyone's favorite... Google Search string

[andiesenji]

I am not an expert but have been advocating irradiation of foods for several years.

Several years ago a friend who was then working on the development of a machine for commercial treatment of foods right at the source in the fields, irradiated a bunch of my home grown tomatoes. They kept beautifully, right on my kitchen counter for several weeks with no loss of flavor, no breakdown of tissue.

This site has a lot of information.

You can also contact UC Davis. I believe they had a joint study going with Lawrence Livermore Labs in Berkeley regarding this subject.

European countries, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany are marketing more and more irradiated foods every year.

I also beleive Florida had a program to promote irradiated foods.

[TAPrice]

Have you checked here?  The US Center for Disease Control

And of course, everyone's favorite... Google Search string

←

Take a look at Wolke's WHAT EINSTEIN TOLD HIS COOK. The author is a nuclear physicist (or something equally impressive) and writes a food science column for the Washington Post.

He addresses irradiation in the book. If I remember correctly, he mocks the critics for their bad science. He's amused by their claim that irradiation changes the molecular structure of food, since that's what all cooking does. He also thinks it's funny that an argument against irradiation is that the process would kill a human. As he says, they are welcome to step into his 400 degree oven if they think that standard cooking methods aren't lethal.

I'm just recalling his comments from memory. I could find the book if you want more details.

You could probably email Wolke with questions.

[russ parsons]

i've done some reporting on it, but i am far from expert. as i understand it, there are really two main objections that seem to have some credence. the first is that we americans still don't seem to have a good way of disposing of spent radioactive materials, and that this would create far more. the other, and more to the point as far as i'm concerned, is that the food industry resists the idea of any kind of package labeling disclosing that the food was treated. it does seem to me that if they're going to do it, they should give consumers the right to choose (but then, i'm so naive, i think all food should also come with country of origin labels, too).

[jackal10]

I'm not expert, but the irradiated food I've had tastes slightly burnt to me. Not as bad as, say, UHT milk, but a definite flavour.

I'm don't think I buy the disposal point. Irradiation is a wide spread industrial process, used, for example to sterilise medical supplies. Many hazardous processes and wastes are used in food production, sometimes with bad results (Coke's Indian bottling plant, for example). I doubt if irradiating food would add to the hazard.

What worries me more are the "unknown unknowns". Irradiation is an energetic process, and can cause biological changes. What those effects of ingesting irradiated food are in the long term is unknown.

[jsolomon]

What worries me more are the "unknown unknowns". Irradiation is an energetic process, and can cause biological changes. What those effects of ingesting irradiated food are in the long term is unknown.

The irradiation process causes no different chemical changes than leaving it under strong UV light for a period of time. There is painfully little difference than eating something that's been under a tanning lamp for a long time. You're just using more energetic photons.

Edit to add: keep in mind there is another process of irradiation using electrons instead of photons which handily removes the creation of radioactive waste. It's very similar to the process by which X-rays are generated. No cesium, no persistent waste, and no weird storage requirements (aside from the high voltage perspective).

[ChefSwartz]

why dont we just irradiate the planet, then well have nothing to worry about

[slkinsey]

why dont we just irradiate the planet, then well have nothing to worry about :blink

I presume this is a joke (although you can never be sure), because the planet Earth is irradiated every day... by the Sun.

[bkinsey]

i would like to reply to the posts about irradiation of food. Since I worked with radiation for some years, I think I would qualify as an expert. That said, I am completely biased in favor of food irradiation. It kills harmful bacteria and fungi (molds) that can cause diseases, as well as preventing spoilage which can generate many toxic and carcinogenic substances. Much food that could be used to feed starving people is discarded due to spoilage. (Yes, there are still people starving in this world!)

If you Google for irradiation and food, you will find many know-nothing and scare-mongering sites against irradiation, and many of the pro-irradiation sites feature older articles. One good one that seems to be current is the following:

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/foodsafet...eID=25&parent=3

It gives common sense answers to questions about irradiation. I remember that as a child if I drank a glass of milk that had sat out in the sun for awhile, it tasted funny. Try it!

Does that mean it was poisonous? Heavens, it was irradiated!

Dr. Kinsey's advice:

1. Don't let anyone tell you that irradiation causes food to become radioactive!
   
2. Don't let anyone tell you that irradiation causes food to lose its nutritional value!
   
3. Don't let anyone tell you that irradiation creates bad molecules in food! What about broiling? That creates benz[a]pyrene, a known carcinogen. Frying creates acrylamide, also an nasty substance.
   
4. Don't let anyone tell you that irradiation of food causes cancer! Quite the reverse.
   
5. Don't let anyone tell you that irradiation causes all food to taste funny!
   

Safe eating, everyone!

[slbunge]

Just curious, if we irradiate food and kill all of that harmful bacteria, mold, etc. are we not creating the perfect environment for another bacteria, mold, etc to set up shop and colonize uncontested? Has there been any evidence of this being a problem?

As an example, yogurt with active culture lasts far longer than milk for the simple reason that the yogurt has been intentially inoculated with a colony of safe bacteria cultures (e.g. lactobacillus acidophilus) that resist the growth of other 'less safe' bacteria cultures.

Perhaps it is because the irradiation occurs downstream of the picking and packaging where most of the damage occurs making this a moot point.

[jsolomon]

slbunge,

you're right, via irradiation, all you're doing is killing what is already living on the food. That does nothing to stop other things from colonizing again. But, if we rendered the food antiseptic as well as "sterilized" it wouldn't be nutritious or appetizing to people, either. You would have cooked it radiatively to char, essentially.

[slbunge]

slbunge,

you're right, via irradiation, all you're doing is killing what is already living on the food.  That does nothing to stop other things from colonizing again.  But, if we rendered the food antiseptic as well as "sterilized" it wouldn't be nutritious or appetizing to people, either.  You would have cooked it radiatively to char, essentially.

←

I'm not suggesting we autoclave tomatoes (athought it might be fun), however it seems that if the goal is longer shelf life, creating a bacterial vacuum inside of a plump, ripe host might have it's drawbacks.

[rancho_gordo]

My objection is it seems like it will give the corporate food chain free reign to do whatever they want, knowing they can just zap it in the end.

I am apparently somewhat of an extremist around here, but I don't want cheaper meat, I want better meat. Less of it is fine. I'm proud to sit on top of the food chain, but I also believe in humane treatment, genetic diversity and local freshness.

Is it possible if the food was handled right in the first place we wouldn't need to go to such extremes?

[bkinsey]

Just curious, if we irradiate food and kill all of that harmful bacteria, mold, etc. are we not creating the perfect environment for another bacteria, mold, etc to set up shop and colonize uncontested?  Has there been any evidence of this being a problem?

As an example, yogurt with active culture lasts far longer than milk for the simple reason that the yogurt has been intentially inoculated with a colony of safe bacteria cultures (e.g. lactobacillus acidophilus) that resist the growth of other 'less safe' bacteria cultures.

Perhaps it is because the irradiation occurs downstream of the picking and packaging where most of the damage occurs making this a moot point.

←

You would package (or already have it in a package) so that everything is sterile inside the package. Yoghurt, will of course, pick up all kinds of yucky molds and bacteria even if you leave it in the refrigerator after you have opened it. This will happen less fast if you don't open it.

[bkinsey]

slbunge,

you're right, via irradiation, all you're doing is killing what is already living on the food.  That does nothing to stop other things from colonizing again.  But, if we rendered the food antiseptic as well as "sterilized" it wouldn't be nutritious or appetizing to people, either.  You would have cooked it radiatively to char, essentially.

←

Sorry, you are wrong there, no charring necessary. The food would be in a sealed package. My understanding is that most spices have been irradiated to keep nasty things (including insects) from infesting them. When you open the package, all bets are off, however.

[slbunge]

Just curious, if we irradiate food and kill all of that harmful bacteria, mold, etc. are we not creating the perfect environment for another bacteria, mold, etc to set up shop and colonize uncontested?  Has there been any evidence of this being a problem?

As an example, yogurt with active culture lasts far longer than milk for the simple reason that the yogurt has been intentially inoculated with a colony of safe bacteria cultures (e.g. lactobacillus acidophilus) that resist the growth of other 'less safe' bacteria cultures.

Perhaps it is because the irradiation occurs downstream of the picking and packaging where most of the damage occurs making this a moot point.

←

You would package (or already have it in a package) so that everything is sterile inside the package. Yoghurt, will of course, pick up all kinds of yucky molds and bacteria even if you leave it in the refrigerator after you have opened it. This will happen less fast if you don't open it.

←

I was thinking that was probably the case. Thanks for confirming.

[bkinsey]

slbunge,

you're right, via irradiation, all you're doing is killing what is already living on the food.  That does nothing to stop other things from colonizing again.  But, if we rendered the food antiseptic as well as "sterilized" it wouldn't be nutritious or appetizing to people, either.  You would have cooked it radiatively to char, essentially.

←

I'm not suggesting we autoclave tomatoes (athought it might be fun), however it seems that if the goal is longer shelf life, creating a bacterial vacuum inside of a plump, ripe host might have it's drawbacks.

←

Autoclaving sterilizes things with heat, basically pressurized steam. Same thing as if you put tomatoes in a pressure cooker with a little water.

[slkinsey]

Just to be clear. . . as far as I know no one is suggesting that things like fresh uncanned (or otherwise unenclosed) tomatoes, such as one finds in the produce section of the grocery store, be irradiated as a matter of course. Right?

[jsolomon]

My objection is it seems like it will give the corporate food chain free reign to do whatever they want, knowing they can just zap it in the end.

←

The FDA has problems with people who act with blatant disregards to bacterial safeguards because they can "filter in quality", or in this case irradiate in quality.

For good reason, too. Clean, well-maintained shops don't drop 10W40 oil into your food, but no amount of irradiation will remove it. Unfortunately, a devil-may-care attitude that fosters lack of proper bacterial hygiene fosters a lack of chemical hygiene, too.

bkinsey, I know, but having a chemistry education gives me a unique privilege to play fast and loose with facts.

[bkinsey]

My objection is it seems like it will give the corporate food chain free reign to do whatever they want, knowing they can just zap it in the end.

That is an old and largely discredited criticism of food irradiation.  We would still need meat inspection.  Meat that had been spoiled before irradiation would smell and taste funky even if it were sterile.

I am apparently somewhat of an extremist around here, but I don't want cheaper meat, I want better meat. Less of it is fine. I'm proud to sit on top of the food chain, but I also believe in humane treatment, genetic diversity and local freshness.

Is it possible if the food was handled right in the first place we wouldn't need to go to such extremes?

←

Sorry, the answer is uh-uh. We are really doing a pretty good job in this country about keeping the food supply safe and clean, even without irradiation. Still, with the best will in the world, bafcteria etc are sneaky little critters that have been learning how to outsmart us for millions of years!

[jsolomon]

Just to be clear. . . as far as I know no one is suggesting that things like fresh uncanned (or otherwise unenclosed) tomatoes, such as one finds in the produce section of the grocery store, be irradiated as a matter of course.  Right?

←

If that means that I don't get something akin in flavor and texture to wet sand, I say irradiate the heck out of the tomatoes!

[andiesenji]

Fruits are "born" so to speak, with a built-in breakdown factor so they will rot and expose their seeds to insure the next generation.

Irradiation stops this process. It also destroys molds and spores and bacteria that get onto the fruit while it is growing and also parasites that colonize fruits, fruit fly eggs that are laid onto the fruit and so on.

It does not, as happens in humans and living plants and animals esposed to radiation, destroy the immune system because that has already shut down at the time the fruit is picked. Therefore the fruit is not more suseceptible to new infestations but can be colonized by new molds, newly laid eggs and etc.

The main thing is that fruits and vegetables can be held and shipped without refrigeration without being destroyed by natural break down of tissue.

What does this mean in the long run?

It means that we can return to growing and shipping HEIRLOOM tomatoes and fruits that have more flavor because they will not need the special handling and growers will not have to grow the tasteless, but nice-looking tomatoes that can be shipped across country and arrive at maket looking good but with no taste.

Now anyone who wants to argue about how irradiation won't make any difference can settle for the tasteless stuff that is now available.

I have been an x-ray tech for more than 40 years. I tell patients all the time, when they say they are worried about too many x-rays, just this.... If you fly across the country you will get more exposure to x-rays in 4 hours than you will from getting a dozen procedures over a 2 year period. X-rays go through aluminum like it isn't there and that is what the skin of aircraft is.

I have been exposed to a lot of radiation over the years and am not worried about using irradiated food. It is safe and a good thing. Good, fresh food can be brought to market cheaper and will last longer and feed more people.

Many of the nut cases who are clamoring against it are the same ones who are against children being vaccinated for diseases. Consider the source!

[slbunge]

Just to be clear. . . as far as I know no one is suggesting that things like fresh uncanned (or otherwise unenclosed) tomatoes, such as one finds in the produce section of the grocery store, be irradiated as a matter of course.  Right?

←

I assumed we were talking about irradiating fresh foods, tomatoes being one lilkely culprit. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Canned foods are essentially sterilized via current production methods.

[slkinsey]

Hmmph. Maybe I'm wrong about that, then. Wouldn't be the first time.