The Rural Voice, 1988-10, Page 26diet, the abnormalities went away.
Other feeding studies on animals have
shown a possible link between irradia-
ted food and tumors or chromosomal
abnormalities.
The Standing Committee on
Consumer and Corporate Affairs con-
sidered the questions raised by these
studies serious enough to warrant
further investigation, so it hired an
independent laboratory to assess the
The removal of microbes
that produce "rotten"
smells has led some
unscrupulous dealers in
Europe to radiate spoiled
food and sell it as fresh .. .
methodology and results of the re-
search. The lab rcported that there is
enough reason to be unsure about the
absolute safety of irradiated food.
These negative findings have been
discounted by the majority of science
bodies on the grounds of improper
methodology or because the results
could not be replicated. Critics charge
that scientific groups arc deliberately
suppressing negative information in
order to make the process seem safer
than itis.
Science's inability to state defin-
itively that the RPs created by food
irradiation are safe is not surprising. It
is always possible to create uncertain-
ty by changing some variables in an
experiment. But it is also true that
science is sometimes reluctant to
accept results that do not confirm
orthodox beliefs, finding one reason or
another to pick apart and reject them.
Yet if the process is truly safe, or truly
unsafe, then the confusion will even-
tually resolve itself. The scientific
community believes that this has
already happened. The critics don't.
Another safety concern is the ef-
fect of irradiation on microbes. There
is reason to suspect that the radiation
will induce mutations in bacteria and
lead to new, possibly resistant strains
of organisms. However, according to
New Scientist (19 Feb. 1987), "the
data on mutants induced by radiation
suggest that few will appear in irradi-
ated food. Irradiating food many
times might produce a strain of
pathogens that is immune to further
treatment. This is a slim possibility
because there should be only one
treatment."
A more notable concern with mi-
crobes is how irradiation can change
the species composition on food.
Some bacteria are more resistant to
irradiation treatments than others.
Salmonella is one of these, and the
fear is that a low dose of radiation
which kills normal bacteria may allow
Salmonella to remain alive and flour-
ish on the food in the absence of com-
petition. The bacteria that would be
killed are also responsible for the
rotten smell associated with spoiled
food, so the food would not be recog-
nized as being bad. The Standing
Committee report says that "the con-
cern regarding shifts in microbial ecol-
ogy in foods appears to be warranted."
The removal of microbes that
produce "rotten" smells has led some
unscrupulous dealers in Europe to
radiate spoiled food and sell it as
fresh. A series of letters in New
Scientist begins with a letter from a
shellfish marketer in England who has
seen produce he rejected being impor-
ted after being irradiated in Holland.
Two follow-up letters confirm (and
condemn) the practice but state that
food irradiation is not to blame — any
form of food processing is open to
such abuse. Other proponents of the
technology, like Dr. L'Ecuyer, say
that tighter domestic regulations
would eliminate such abuse.
There are also questions about the
quality of irradiated food. Irradiation
changes the basic components of food,
as Dr. L'Ecuyer says. In chicken, for
example, protein is changed in a way
similar to the way it would be changed
by heat treatment, but not as much.
Dr. L'Ecuyer says that if you smelled
chicken just after treatment it would
smell a bit like it had been cooking,
but the meat is still fresh.
Other changes arc not so benign.
Some journals describe tastes created
during the irradiation of meat as
"goaty" or "wet dog." These tastes
come from RPs created during the
process, and can be minimized by
freezing the meat during treatment.
Much of the research now being con-
ducted on food irradiation explores
ways of minimizing these side effects.
As with all food processing, there
is some vitamin loss. Critics of the
process say that this may be accept-
able in the West, but in some Third
World countries where one food may
form most of a diet the loss of vita-
mins could lead to vitamin deficien-
cies, especially when the treatment
losses are added to cooking losses.
On top of all the health and safety
Dr. L'Ecuyer says that if
you smelled chicken just
after treatment it would
smell a bit like it had been
cooking, but the meat is
still fresh.
concerns surrounding food irradiation,
there are questions about why the
technology is needed and where it
would be used. Dr. L'Ecuyer says
food irradiation will not replace con-
ventional methods of processing in
this country, but will be used select-
ively. It is ideal for treating some
solid foods like spices. And some
foods, like poultry, are heavily con-
taminated with pathogenic bacteria
such as Salmonella, so irradiating
them would eliminate much of the
caution necessary when handling the
product.
The greatest use of the technology,
Dr. L'Ecuyer says, will be in the Third
World, where refrigeration is not
common. Irradiation will help food to
make it to market and allow more ex-
ports. Many documents point out that
the need for irradiation in the Third
World has increased since the U.S.
and Canada banned ethylene dibro-
mide in 1984. This fumigant was used
to treat food shipments into North
America, ensuring they were pest -free.
After the ban, exporting countries
were left with few options, and some
of those may also be banned soon. To
the exporting nations, irradiation looks
like the best way to meet strict quar-
antine requirements and still retain the
quality of their food.
Irene Kock doesn't think irradiated
food will ever make it onto the shelf in
Canadian supermarkets. She says that
she has never seen so much concern in
24 THE RURAL VOICE