Food irradiation needs informed debate — claim

Press, 23 May 1988, Page 33

Food irradiation needs informed debate — claim

NZPA Sydney Factual educational programmes are needed to overcome misinformation about food irradiation, an Australian researcher says. She said that, if irradiated food went on supermarket shelves in Australia, it would not happen overnight and it would involve only a few products. “Meaningful and truthful educational programmes are needed if consumers are to make informed choices in the marketplace.” Ms Wills said the advantages of food irradiation were that it was an alternative to hazardous post-harvest chemicals, it reduced dependence on insecticides, reduced the risk of food poisoning and

could extend the life of some meat and fruit. It could also reduce post harvest losses and stabilise prices. Ms Pamela Wills, of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said that, given the emotive effect of the word “irradiation,” there was natural concern in the community about its possible introduction. However, she told the centenary congress in Sydney of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science that the public had been able to get only misinformation “If people who get signatures for petitions said to me, ‘Eating irradiated food gives you cancer’, I would also sign a petition,” she said.

Food irradiation was a proved technology with accepted application in certain countries. The disadvantages were that it was not suitable for all foods because flavour, smell and texture might be altered. It also involved high initial cost, which meant plants had to be in central areas and the ’ produce transported to it. There was the question of acceptabiity by consumers, trading partners and the food industry. Ms Wills said expert committees in several countries had published reports concluding that, if guidelines were followed, food irradiation did not pose toxilogical, biological or health risks beyond those of normal methods of treating food.