- Email: [email protected]
Food irradiation in perspective
Pergamon
Radiat. Phys. Chem. Vol. 46, No. 4 - 6 , pp. 6 4 7 - 6 5 1 , 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain
0969-806X(95)00235-9
FOOD IRRADIATION IN PERSPECTIVE Y. M.
HENON
GAMMASTER PROVENCE SA Marseille, France ABSTRACT
Food irradiation already has a long history of hopes and disappointments. Nowhere in the world it plays the role that it should have, including in the much needed prevention of foodborne diseases. Irradiated food sold well wherever consumers were given a chance to buy them. Differences between national regulations do not allow the international trade of irradiated foods. While in many countries food irradiation is still illegal, in most others it is regulated as a food additive and based on the knowledge of the sixties. Until 1980, wholesomeness was the big issue. Then the "prerequisite" became detection methods. Large amounts of money have been spent to design and validate tests which, in fact, aim at enforcing unjustified restrictions on the use of the process. In spite of all the difficulties, it is believed that the efforts of various U N o r g a n i z a t i o n s and a growing legitimate demand for food safety should in the end lead to recognition and acceptance. INTRODUCTION
The first patent on food irradiation dates back to 1905. Nearly a century later, the process is still very little used. It can be estimated that the quantity of food that is irradiated yearly is about 60.000 tons, which, averaged over the world population, means a per capita consumption of less than i0 grams per year. It is true that each new food process (canning, freezing, pasteurization) generated criticism. The advantages of the technique are rarely sufficient to speak for a quick adoption of the process. So far, the history of food irradiation has been one of hopes and disappointments. Some very talented people have advocated food irradiation but some of them spent nearly a whole professional life without seeing anything substantial coming out. There were food irradiators that were built but never started operation : in Iskederun in Turkey, at the Fuccino Cooperative in Italy, in C6te d'Ivoire to treat yams. In France, the facility that was built to treat soft cheeses treats anything but cheeses. When the FDA withdrew its permission to irradiate bacon in 1963 or when the European Parliament voted negatively on a project of Directive in 1989, the negative impact was enormous.
647
648
Y. M. H e non
We must recognize that the activists have done a good job confusing people and influencing politicians, and through them food policy makers and food distributors. The most active of them in the USA and Germany have also managed to make it an issue outside their own country. Looking back at some of the issues, we can try to understand what went wrong. ' Why is safety still questionned ? When the Joint Expert Committee on Food Irradiation came to the conclusion that irradiated foods were safe, many thought that the main obstacle was removed and that the day had come for the process. It was not quite so, even if more foods have been irradiated since than before. But after 1980 like before 1980, opponents kept hammering the same questions on long term effects, loss of nutriments, unique radiolysis products, ignoring the data and answers that had been accumulated over nearly forty years and reviewed by the committee. When the World Health Organization repeated its positive standpoints on food irradiation, it was accused of being manipulated. After all these years, we should realize that a number of people will not be convinced by more scientific evidence." The point is that they do not want to be convinced, because they are in the "fear business", and that they make a living from it. Food irradiation is an issue on which they can easily get people on their sides and raise funds. For these reasons, safety should be considered as an issue of the past. Personnally I no longer address it in my lectures, just as it is not addressed when other physical processes are discussed. Are people wary of irradiated foods ? There are two types of acceptance studies. The first ones are an approach of what consumers think about the process; most often they try to give an answer to the question "will people accept irradiation ?", which is mostly irrelevant. The opinion that people have on canned food is not an opinion on thermal processing. The second category of studies deals with what consumers think of irradiated products that are offered for sale. The experience is still very limited, but from what exists, it is striking to see that, wherever irradiated food was openly offered for sale, it sold very well. Consequently, it must be borne in mind that the purpose is to sell irradiated food to consumers, not to sell irradiation.
9th International Meeting on Radiation Processing
Why are the regulations on food irradiation so special ? A survey of all existing regulations on food irradiation shows that the basic principle is to restrict its use. For its misfortune, the process emerged at a time when food additives were the big issue. Since the first hearings in the US Congress in 1958, irradiation h a s b e e n almost universally regulated as a food additive. As a result, it is the only physical process that is limited in applications and in intensity. You may dip your meat in boiling oil or in liquid nitrogen for as long as you want. In very few countries only you are allowed to irradiate it, and if so, it will only be up to a certain dose. The dose that can be allowed is often a matter of national appreciation. The Dutch and the Belgians like their spices with not more than 10 kGy. The French will take them till 11 and the Americans think that they are still OK at 30 kGy. But if an American is caught selling spices irradiated at 15 kGy in France, he will be in serious trouble. The police will call his product "adulterated". In France, whole almonds can be irradiated (up to 1 kGy) but not almond powder. Conversely, cut up or ground poultry can be irradiated but not whole carcasses. Cereal flakes can be irradiated when they go into dairy products, not in other type of products. These restrictions have no technical, toxicological or nutritional basis; but they exist and they are strictly enforced. The reason that is most often heard is tight controls are needed for the consumer to have confidence in the process. One can then ask why is the administration interferring so much with the use of this process and not others ? Why not let the industry and the consumers judge which applications are of interest and which are not, using the usual criteria of justification, efficacy, cost, commercial acceptability ? Good sense indicates that an irradiated food product remains the same food product, and that, as such, it should comply with all the standards applicable to the product, not less not more. But it does not seem to be sufficient. Various lobbies have asked that detection methods e available before irradiated products can be offered on the market. A lot of money is being spent to satisfy them. But once these methods will exist, what will they be used for if not to enforce restrictions on the process ? Is it a coincidence if Germany, the European country with the most vocal opposition to food irradiation, is in the forefront regarding these methods ? One statement that is always heard when food irradiation is discussed is that it should not be used to make up for poor practise. It has become so obsessional that it is generally one of the first things that the promoters themselves say. But how often do we hear that for other processes ? Yet,
649
Y. M. Henon
650
there are quite a few technologies that can be used to inactivate microorganisms. To those who think that irradiation makes miracles, I suggest that they irradiate a rotten fish and try to sell it, or smell it for themselves afterwards. The fear of covering up poor quality went to an extreme in France : there is no standard for the microbiological quality of dried figs except if they are to be irradiated (Arr@t~ of 6 January 1988). As a consequence, a fig containing 2 million moulds and yeasts can be sold as such, but it cannot be irradiated because it is too contaminated ! The recent evolutions of the regulations have mostly been compromises with different lobbies rather than a reflection of the current knowledge on the process. For example, frog legs were removed from the list of authorized products in the project of European Union because some consider frogs as an endangered species. The fact that froglegs are a reservoir of Salmonella was considered less important. All this shows how reason and science have limited power when the issues are emotional enough. What about the labelling ? No talk on food irradiation addressing this topic.
would
be
complete
without
Misleading mentions are a violation of the law in many countries. Everyone agrees that the word "irradiated" is not well understood and will indeed mislead most readers. Why is it then that most regulations make this mention compulsory ? After so many discussion on the issue, I am firmly convinced that irradiated food should b e l a b e l l e d . But the requirements should be reasonnable and the mentions truely informative. There is no reason to have the process indicated in the list of ingredients if this is not required for other processes. Temporary
conclusion
:
After so many years of disappointment and so many obstacles on our way, is it reasonable to keep hope? I definitely think so. Though they often have been criticized, the United Nations organizations such as IAEA, FAO and WHO have been doing a very good job, working on the long term. They took interesting new directions, getting involved not only scientists any more but also journalists and consumers'organizations. Their action will in the end bear fruit. In t h e y e a r s to come, the range of chemicals allowed for food preservation will narrow. Just like dimethyl bromide and ethylen oxide were banned in several countries, methyl
9th International Meeting on Radiation Processing
b r o m i d e is Irradiation
l i k e l y to be b a n n e d too in the n e a r is a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e in m a n y cases.
651
future.
F i n a l l y , the d e m a n d s for s a f e t y w i l l k e e p g r o w i n g . F o o d b o r n e i l l n e s s e s are p r e v e n t a b l e ; i r r a d i a t i o n is one of the w a y s to a c h i e v e this. T h e r e f o r e it w i l l be m o r e a n d m o r e d i f f i c u l t to keep the door closed to a technology that can spare h e a l t h c a r e cost, s u f f e r i n g a n d e v e n lives.
Radiat. Phys. Chem. Vol. 46, No. 4 - 6 , pp. 6 4 7 - 6 5 1 , 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain
0969-806X(95)00235-9
FOOD IRRADIATION IN PERSPECTIVE Y. M.
HENON
GAMMASTER PROVENCE SA Marseille, France ABSTRACT
Food irradiation already has a long history of hopes and disappointments. Nowhere in the world it plays the role that it should have, including in the much needed prevention of foodborne diseases. Irradiated food sold well wherever consumers were given a chance to buy them. Differences between national regulations do not allow the international trade of irradiated foods. While in many countries food irradiation is still illegal, in most others it is regulated as a food additive and based on the knowledge of the sixties. Until 1980, wholesomeness was the big issue. Then the "prerequisite" became detection methods. Large amounts of money have been spent to design and validate tests which, in fact, aim at enforcing unjustified restrictions on the use of the process. In spite of all the difficulties, it is believed that the efforts of various U N o r g a n i z a t i o n s and a growing legitimate demand for food safety should in the end lead to recognition and acceptance. INTRODUCTION
The first patent on food irradiation dates back to 1905. Nearly a century later, the process is still very little used. It can be estimated that the quantity of food that is irradiated yearly is about 60.000 tons, which, averaged over the world population, means a per capita consumption of less than i0 grams per year. It is true that each new food process (canning, freezing, pasteurization) generated criticism. The advantages of the technique are rarely sufficient to speak for a quick adoption of the process. So far, the history of food irradiation has been one of hopes and disappointments. Some very talented people have advocated food irradiation but some of them spent nearly a whole professional life without seeing anything substantial coming out. There were food irradiators that were built but never started operation : in Iskederun in Turkey, at the Fuccino Cooperative in Italy, in C6te d'Ivoire to treat yams. In France, the facility that was built to treat soft cheeses treats anything but cheeses. When the FDA withdrew its permission to irradiate bacon in 1963 or when the European Parliament voted negatively on a project of Directive in 1989, the negative impact was enormous.
647
648
Y. M. H e non
We must recognize that the activists have done a good job confusing people and influencing politicians, and through them food policy makers and food distributors. The most active of them in the USA and Germany have also managed to make it an issue outside their own country. Looking back at some of the issues, we can try to understand what went wrong. ' Why is safety still questionned ? When the Joint Expert Committee on Food Irradiation came to the conclusion that irradiated foods were safe, many thought that the main obstacle was removed and that the day had come for the process. It was not quite so, even if more foods have been irradiated since than before. But after 1980 like before 1980, opponents kept hammering the same questions on long term effects, loss of nutriments, unique radiolysis products, ignoring the data and answers that had been accumulated over nearly forty years and reviewed by the committee. When the World Health Organization repeated its positive standpoints on food irradiation, it was accused of being manipulated. After all these years, we should realize that a number of people will not be convinced by more scientific evidence." The point is that they do not want to be convinced, because they are in the "fear business", and that they make a living from it. Food irradiation is an issue on which they can easily get people on their sides and raise funds. For these reasons, safety should be considered as an issue of the past. Personnally I no longer address it in my lectures, just as it is not addressed when other physical processes are discussed. Are people wary of irradiated foods ? There are two types of acceptance studies. The first ones are an approach of what consumers think about the process; most often they try to give an answer to the question "will people accept irradiation ?", which is mostly irrelevant. The opinion that people have on canned food is not an opinion on thermal processing. The second category of studies deals with what consumers think of irradiated products that are offered for sale. The experience is still very limited, but from what exists, it is striking to see that, wherever irradiated food was openly offered for sale, it sold very well. Consequently, it must be borne in mind that the purpose is to sell irradiated food to consumers, not to sell irradiation.
9th International Meeting on Radiation Processing
Why are the regulations on food irradiation so special ? A survey of all existing regulations on food irradiation shows that the basic principle is to restrict its use. For its misfortune, the process emerged at a time when food additives were the big issue. Since the first hearings in the US Congress in 1958, irradiation h a s b e e n almost universally regulated as a food additive. As a result, it is the only physical process that is limited in applications and in intensity. You may dip your meat in boiling oil or in liquid nitrogen for as long as you want. In very few countries only you are allowed to irradiate it, and if so, it will only be up to a certain dose. The dose that can be allowed is often a matter of national appreciation. The Dutch and the Belgians like their spices with not more than 10 kGy. The French will take them till 11 and the Americans think that they are still OK at 30 kGy. But if an American is caught selling spices irradiated at 15 kGy in France, he will be in serious trouble. The police will call his product "adulterated". In France, whole almonds can be irradiated (up to 1 kGy) but not almond powder. Conversely, cut up or ground poultry can be irradiated but not whole carcasses. Cereal flakes can be irradiated when they go into dairy products, not in other type of products. These restrictions have no technical, toxicological or nutritional basis; but they exist and they are strictly enforced. The reason that is most often heard is tight controls are needed for the consumer to have confidence in the process. One can then ask why is the administration interferring so much with the use of this process and not others ? Why not let the industry and the consumers judge which applications are of interest and which are not, using the usual criteria of justification, efficacy, cost, commercial acceptability ? Good sense indicates that an irradiated food product remains the same food product, and that, as such, it should comply with all the standards applicable to the product, not less not more. But it does not seem to be sufficient. Various lobbies have asked that detection methods e available before irradiated products can be offered on the market. A lot of money is being spent to satisfy them. But once these methods will exist, what will they be used for if not to enforce restrictions on the process ? Is it a coincidence if Germany, the European country with the most vocal opposition to food irradiation, is in the forefront regarding these methods ? One statement that is always heard when food irradiation is discussed is that it should not be used to make up for poor practise. It has become so obsessional that it is generally one of the first things that the promoters themselves say. But how often do we hear that for other processes ? Yet,
649
Y. M. Henon
650
there are quite a few technologies that can be used to inactivate microorganisms. To those who think that irradiation makes miracles, I suggest that they irradiate a rotten fish and try to sell it, or smell it for themselves afterwards. The fear of covering up poor quality went to an extreme in France : there is no standard for the microbiological quality of dried figs except if they are to be irradiated (Arr@t~ of 6 January 1988). As a consequence, a fig containing 2 million moulds and yeasts can be sold as such, but it cannot be irradiated because it is too contaminated ! The recent evolutions of the regulations have mostly been compromises with different lobbies rather than a reflection of the current knowledge on the process. For example, frog legs were removed from the list of authorized products in the project of European Union because some consider frogs as an endangered species. The fact that froglegs are a reservoir of Salmonella was considered less important. All this shows how reason and science have limited power when the issues are emotional enough. What about the labelling ? No talk on food irradiation addressing this topic.
would
be
complete
without
Misleading mentions are a violation of the law in many countries. Everyone agrees that the word "irradiated" is not well understood and will indeed mislead most readers. Why is it then that most regulations make this mention compulsory ? After so many discussion on the issue, I am firmly convinced that irradiated food should b e l a b e l l e d . But the requirements should be reasonnable and the mentions truely informative. There is no reason to have the process indicated in the list of ingredients if this is not required for other processes. Temporary
conclusion
:
After so many years of disappointment and so many obstacles on our way, is it reasonable to keep hope? I definitely think so. Though they often have been criticized, the United Nations organizations such as IAEA, FAO and WHO have been doing a very good job, working on the long term. They took interesting new directions, getting involved not only scientists any more but also journalists and consumers'organizations. Their action will in the end bear fruit. In t h e y e a r s to come, the range of chemicals allowed for food preservation will narrow. Just like dimethyl bromide and ethylen oxide were banned in several countries, methyl
9th International Meeting on Radiation Processing
b r o m i d e is Irradiation
l i k e l y to be b a n n e d too in the n e a r is a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e in m a n y cases.
651
future.
F i n a l l y , the d e m a n d s for s a f e t y w i l l k e e p g r o w i n g . F o o d b o r n e i l l n e s s e s are p r e v e n t a b l e ; i r r a d i a t i o n is one of the w a y s to a c h i e v e this. T h e r e f o r e it w i l l be m o r e a n d m o r e d i f f i c u l t to keep the door closed to a technology that can spare h e a l t h c a r e cost, s u f f e r i n g a n d e v e n lives.