|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Food irradiation - an invisible threat
You will probably not be able to see, smell or taste the difference between irradiated and non-irradiated food. But that does not mean that they are exactly the same. Irradiated foods have been treated by very strong radioactive substances that can cause profound changes. The technology was relatively new in the early 1990s, when I wrote this article. Today, there is even greater cause for concern with the US Food and Drug Administration announcing in 2007 that labelling for irradiated foods might be relaxed. Certain irradiated foods, such as almonds, might simply be described as "pasteurized". This a totally misleading as there is a very major difference between pasteurization and food irradiation. The former involves brief exposure to high heat, the latter involves exposure to very powerful, and very toxic, radioactive substances. This article was first published in a 1994 issue of The Good Life, which had the theme, Strange foods. Irradiated foods may appear normal, but they are certainly strange.
Food irradiation involves exposing food to radioactive materials, in order to preserve them. It’s like giving x-rays to food. X-rayed food may not seem all that harmful. After all, many of us subject our own bodies to x-rays. So what’s wrong if our food goes through the same process? Well, it is not exactly the same. In an x-ray, the dose of radiation is weak, in the region of 0.01 rad. Still, there is evidence that such weak radiation can damage body cells. In food irradiation, the dose is very much stronger -- from 5,000 to 1 million rads for fruits, vegetables, grains, fish and meat, and up to 3 million rads for spices. That’s like giving up to 300 million x-rays! Why do that? Well, it makes food last longer without chemical preservatives, pesticides, fugimation and other processes which are known to be harmful. Irradiated food is thus claimed to be “healthier”. Irradiation also kills bacteria viruses and other harmful micro organism. So it is seem as a solution to growing problem of food poisoning in meat and seafood. And, irradiation allows food companies to sell old or spoilt food as if it is fresh. Already, there have been cases of abuse. In 1986, a big British food company admitted that when its prawns failed quality tests, it sent them to Holland to be irradiated, and then sold the prawns to restaurants.
Nuclear interests Yet the strongest advocate of food irradiation is not the food industry. It is the nuclear industry. Irradiation is a channel for the nuclear industry to sell its technology. And it helps the industry to get rid of some of its radioactive nuclear waste. Food safety is thus not the real concern of the people who promote food irradiation -- and declare it to be safe. Their real concern is money. Because big money is involved, the food irradiation industry has managed to get many “experts” to support their safety claims. These include the Joint Expert Committee of the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). If we look carefully at what the experts say, however, we will find that most of it is based on opinion, not on scientific fact. There is actually considerable evidence that irradiated food may be harmful to health. What the experts have done is simply ignore or dismiss such evidence. In Food Irradiation: Who Wants It? authors Tony Webb, Tim Lang and Kathleen Tucker present some of the main causes for concern:
Research difficulties It is difficult to study the effects of food irradiation. The chemical reactions caused by irradiation are complex and it is hard to identify and study these chemicals. There were also studies on irradiation that were later found to be flawed, or not conducted properly. In 1983, three officials of a US company involved in irradiation research were convicted conducting fraudulent research. The US government uncovered such problems as failure to conduct routine analyses, faulty record keeping and suppression of unfavourable findings. The government lost $4 million and 6 years’ worth of study data. Yet some of this early discredited work is still used as part of the ‘scientific’ basis for official assurances on food safety. So far, there have been no large-scale, long term human studies. Most of the studies on humans involved only a small number of volunteers who ate irradiated foods for a few weeks or a few months. Studies also produced conflicting results. Some studies found a number of adverse effects, while others found little or no adverse effects. The evidence is therefore inconclusive. Click here for Part II of this article, which looks at other effects of food irradiation, including the formation of toxic chemicals, vitamin losses, mutation of bacteria and viruses, decreased immunity and chromosome defects. Click here for Part III of this article, which examines the issue of irradiation labelling.
|
|||||