Food Irradiation is still a contentious issue for consumers and food processors alike, despite its many benefits for food safety. As in Europe, the food industry in the US has never embraced the technology in fear of a consumer backlash. Pam Ahlberg reports on how the US is tackling the issue.
Having overcome both FDA and USDA regulatory hurdles, food irradiation technologies are now available to US meat, poultry and food processors as a weapon against microbial pathogens including E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria. In addition to controlling pathogens, irradiation can also extend the shelf life of raw meat, delay spoilage of fresh foods, delay ripening of certain fruits, or inhibit sprouting of certain vegetables.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Yet despite its benefits and government approval, neither consumers nor food processors have fully embraced the technology.
According to a 2000 survey by the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), only half of US consumers were willing to buy irradiated ground beef or chicken, and only a fourth were willing to pay a premium for the products. Those who would not buy those products cited several reasons – including insufficient information about risks and benefits, and safety concerns.
At a conference on Food Irradiation in Washington DC in February, Dr. Paul Franzen, a demographer with the USDA’s Economic Research Service, said that more than half of FoodNet respondents had never even heard of food irradiation.
As for food manufacturers, the problem is twofold: the high capital costs of irradiation equipment and the fear that few consumers will buy the finished product. Retailers too are weary of irradiated products, fearing that those who oppose the technology will bring negative attention to their stores.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalData |
| Jeffrey Barach, a vice president with the National Food Processors Association (NFPA), says that when consumers read a statement that a food product has been treated by irradiation they see a radura, which means the product has been treated with “a little radioactivity.” |
Food industry groups attribute most consumer discomfort to the current Federal law requiring that irradiated food be labelled “Treated by Irradiation” and feature a radura symbol on the package.
The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) believe that the symbol actively dissuades purchase: “Current irradiation labels look like warnings, which discourage consumers from purchasing irradiated foods. If consumers will not buy irradiated foods, food producers will not sell them.”
The NFPA, GMA and other industry groups are lobbying the FDA and Congress to allow irradiated food to be labelled “electronically pasteurized” or “cold pasteurized.” But consumer groups oppose the change, saying that “cold” or “electronic pasteurization” is a euphemism that does not accurately describe the irradiation process.
The group Public Citizen recently filed a false advertising complaint with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Minnesota-based Huisken Meats Inc., whose Web site had described its ground beef products as having been “electronically pasteurized” instead of irradiated.
Beyond wording, some consumer groups mistrust the technology itself, claiming that irradiation destroys vitamins, essential fatty acids and amino acids.
Speaking at the same Food Irradiation conference in February, Public Citizen’s Wenonah Hauter shared results from a German study that showed that exposing food to ionizing radiation can lead to the formation of new chemicals called “unique radiolytic products,” which the group claims can cause serious health problems.
Other groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), are concerned that the food industry will come to rely upon irradiation as a “silver bullet,” at the expense of other pathogen-control measures and sanitation procedures.
And then there is the matter of cost. While it is unclear exactly how much irradiation would raise the price of a particular food product, no one argues that irradiated foods would cost more. For raw ground beef, the increase is generally estimated at between 2.2 cents and 6.2 cents per pound.
Irradiation technology moves forward
But despite discouraging surveys, loud opposition, and higher retail prices, food irradiation companies continue to move ahead to develop and refine the technology.
SureBeam Corporation, a developer of electronic irradiation systems, last month announced that it is expanding its irradiation capacity with a new facility in Chicago, Illinois, expected to process in excess of 250m pounds of meat, other fresh and frozen food products and spices annually.
In addition, SureBeam’s majority owner, The Titan Corporation, recently announced SureBeam’s initial public offering. The company said it will use the proceeds from the offering “to build new SureBeam systems and service centers, expand manufacturing capacity, increase marketing activities, pursue strategic relationships and acquisition opportunities.”
And SureBeam is not the only irradiation company with expansion plans. In January, IBA Food Safety Division, in an agreement with AmeriCold Logistics, announced that it was constructing an X-ray food irradiation facility in Carthage, Missouri to irradiate meat, poultry, fruits, vegetables and other perishable foods.
But despite the hopes and ambitions of food irradiation companies, acceptance of the technology remains uncertain. Whether a change in labelling, approval of irradiation for ready-to-eat meats, more consumer education, or greater marketing efforts will make any difference is also uncertain.
Perhaps consumers, bombarded with news of more and greater foodborne threats, will someday welcome and pay more for any and all food safety offerings, including irradiation. But that day has yet to come.
By Pam Ahlberg
Pam can be reached by email at: pahlberg@bellatlantic.net
