The next time you pick up a Tyson chicken nugget, think about this: that yummy, bite-sized morsel was probably bombarded with radiation about 200 million times more powerful than a chest x-ray (1). Why? For safety, we are told. This process, called irradiation, is used to kill any growing pathogens present in food so it is sanitized and safer to eat. Indeed, since the 1950s irradiation has been endorsed by the FDA as a viable, harmless method of sanitizing foods for human consumption. However, the truth is quite different. Not only is irradiation not the safe, harmless food treatment most assume, but it covers up a particularly dirty issue.
Literally.
As noted by journalist Mark Worth, food irradiation, though tested as early as the 1920s, did not become a widespread practice until the 1950s when wheat and potatoes were irradiated to hold less bacteria and keep longer in storage(2). Even then, it was used only on select items. The irradiation process involves using either gamma rays, x-rays, or electron beams to zap foods-fully packaged-by passing them through an enclosed chamber where they are exposed to radioactive beams for specific periods of time at precise dosages. By destroying the DNA molecules of harmful organisms, it renders potentially dangerous bacteria in foods harmless (3). Thus foods are safe and everyone is happy.
But that’s not the whole story.
As preliminary results arrived from research of irradiated food, researchers began to realize that irradiation might not be as harmless as they thought. Epstein observed that studies done by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service found irradiation produced significant losses of vitamins, especially the antioxidant vitamins A, C, E, and the energy promoting B vitamins (2). In fact, one source noted the loss of up to 95% of vitamin A in chicken, 86% of B vitamins in oats, and 70% of vitamin C in fruit juices (2). Still sound harmless? As if these figures were high enough, both chicken and oats are usually cooked before we eat them, which further destroys the heat-sensitive vitamin C. What’s left is a food whose nutrition is highly questionable.
Irradiation also destroys all bacteria and molds, including beneficial ones like lactobacillus acidophilus–the healthy bacteria in yogurt–and certain food molds that keep botulism, a deadly bacterium, under control (2). Is it really logical to use preparation practices which damage food quality? Manufacturers certainly seem to think so. If irradiation clearly destroys nutrients, then what’s the consequence of eating these “foods”? The answer is sobering.
A multitude of studies dating back fifty years have tested the biological effects of consuming irradiated foods. With a laundry list of toxic effects a yard long, the evidence is undeniable: irradiated foods are questionable at best and very harmful at worst. Mice fed irradiated food had shorter life spans and more genetic mutations in DNA and offspring than placebo mice (4). Because of vitamin E deficiencies resulting from irradiation, rats and dogs died younger and couldn’t reproduce well (4). Human studies have shown increased levels of DNA mutations after consuming irradiated food (4), a change which dramatically increases the chance of having babies with birth defects. Additionally, irradiation has been shown to produce many harmful chemicals in exposed food, such as benzene, acetone, and methyl ethyl ketone-all connected with increased risks of cancer and birth defects (4). Moreover, irradiation produces powerful compounds known as cyclobutanones that have been shown to promote cancer and genetic damage in rats and human cells (4). The list goes on and on.
Clearly, the risk to humans exists, and irradiation should be further analyzed before it is used on food. As one researcher put it, “any compound causing cellular damage must be considered a potential hazard to any living cell or cell system-including man” (4). Irradiation’s harmful effects cannot be denied.
Yet, disregarding the insidious effect of irradiation on food, there’s another side that’s equally alarming.
In order to irradiate food, special radioactive facilities must exist. with so many food producers using irradiation now, these small factories dot the country. But are they safe? Not if their hazard record means anything. In the last thirty years over forty five major accidents have been recorded at irradiation facilities (2). These included leaking radioactive material into the surrounding environment, exposing workers to harmful levels of radiation, and accumulating almost two hundred safety violations over a period of fifteen years (2). If a government facility had this many violations, they would unquestionably be shut down. But unlike government nuclear facilities, these small, private facilities are not held to the same quality control standards-and disasters result. More disturbingly, these small facilities pose a little-recognized security threat since they contain dangerous radioactive compounds, but inadequate security to protect them from terrorists. Given such a dangerous track record, you would think the FDA would not continue to allow these facilities to operate and put citizens at risk. But ironically, the opposite is the case.
With food borne illnesses on the rise and food supplies more contaminated than ever, the FDA has sought ways to stem the tide. Allowing extensive use of antibiotics in poultry and meat as well as many chemicals in every area of food preparation, the FDA has sought to ensure a safe food supply. When irradiation emerged, they enthusiastically studied it to determine its safety. They concluded it was safe in the 1980s and approved its widespread use on foods, basing their claim on a few studies that seemed to lean in favor of its safety. They had good intentions, but seemed to overlook the vast majority of studies that contradicted them. Just like the case with saccharin in the 1970s-90s, where early studies proclaiming its safety were later refuted by the FDA after careful analysis, irradiation has been mistakenly declared safe. Like saccharin, careful analysis points solidly to its danger. In fact, the FDA’s own researchers declared many of their findings “deficient” (6). With such a wholesale approval of irradiation, one might question the objectivity of the FDA. Because the chief source for irradiation materials comes from a government agency created to dispose of nuclear waste, irradiation seems like just the ticket. Is it conflict of interest? No one knows, but it seems very likely.
In spite of the risks, many believe irradiation is the best method for lowering the amount of food borne pathogens in food. They claim the benefits of less sickness and death outweigh any dangers. Sure, irradiation is undeniably effective: it destroys most or all harmful pathogens in exposed food. Yet, with so many valuable nutrients destroyed, at what cost? Simply cooking food adequately is recognized by food safety experts to be the most effective method of killing any bacteria that could be harmful to humans–eliminating the need for irradiation. While cooking also destroys some vitamins, it does not form the many carcinogenic and genetically harmful compounds that irradiation creates. In essence, irradiation performs a needless step that could be prevented by correct handling and preparation.
In fact, the bigger issue behind irradiation is the lack of adequate preparation of food, or lack of sanitation. By allowing irradiation on a large scale, the FDA essentially covers for food facilities practicing filthy sanitation. Just reading the news uncovers how disgusting food production facilities have become. From disgusting slaughterhouses to the recent outbreak in lettuce in California, there are countless reports of diseased animals and fecal matter being ground into food and of overcrowded feed lots contaminated with wastes(5). Why are these stories in the news? It’s usually because an investigative journalist had the gumption to follow an outbreak of food borne illness to its true source. With such filthy conditions, it’s only logical that such conditions will encourage diseased animals and infected food. The problem lies with profits, essentially. It is cheaper for producers to allow overcrowding, dirty water, bad feed, hasty processing, and sloppy handling to save money, and then “fix” it by nuking the inevitable colonies of bacteria abounding in the meat or poultry.
Even more alarming, most food production facilities are self-regulated because powerful lobbying has gained them this freedom. Consequently, they decide their own level of sanitation with no one to say otherwise. If irradiation allows less sanitation and more profits, so be it. At least that seems to be their attitude. And as would be expected, food giants like Kraft, Tyson, and Wal-Mart are starting to use irradiation for their meats (2). Of course, irradiation has been used on things like imported spices and flour for many years, just not meat and dairy until now. Additionally, many restaurants and cafeterias now serve irradiated foods-and unlike food companies, they don’t have tothem.
Effectively, irradiation is like painting over rotting wood: it looks good, but it doesn’t fix the real problem. The real source of the nation’s epidemic of food borne illnesses lies in the sickening pools of putrid, rotting animal matter that gets ground into the McNuggets and quarter pounders we eat every day.
Irradiation of food is a growing practice supported by many powerful companies and lobbying organizations. In spite of the evidence that shows how dangerous it is to humans, irradiation is both allowed and encouraged. Its safety is questionable and its effectiveness counterproductive. The real problem is clearly inadequate sanitation, but because of bureaucracy and money, irradiation is used as a cheap way to cover an expensive problem. Until better regulations exist to ensure adequate sanitation in the food production, food borne contamination will be a growing concern. In the end, only consumers can effect lasting changes; the power of demand and profit is the only authority food producers will heed. So, remember your choices the next time you eat a slice of from your local grocery store. Chances are, it was nuked.
To find out more about irradiation and sanitation in modern food production facilities and what you can do to help, visit the following links:
Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/index.htm
Public Citizen: http://www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety/food_irrad/index.cfm?ID=6530&relatedpages;=1&catID;=108&secID;=1269
Sustainable Table: http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/processing/
References:
The seaside port town of Portland, Maine is a classic place for a good Irish…
I have been reviewing televisions for quite some time. Throughout this time I have seen…
Toned arms look great in short sleeves, a strapless dress, or in a bathing suit.…
Fish oil capsules are a great source of Omega 3 fatty acids. Even if you…
Actor Jorge Garcia plays Hugo Reyes, aka Hurley, on the hit tv show "Lost." Read…
How much is one billion dollars? Or even a bigger question, how much is one…
This website uses cookies.