After some years of relative calm, the controversial issue of irradiation is moving back on to the agenda of the world food industry. Alan Osborn explains why, and predicts the outcome of debate between industry, regulators and consumer representatives in the EU and US.
Go deeper with GlobalData
The changing landscape is partly due to developments in the US where the authorities are being bombarded by farmers and manufacturers with demands for new approvals and softer labelling laws. According to Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen campaign group, if every request were granted more than 90% of the typical American diet would be eligible for irradiation. But pressure is also coming from countries like China and Russia where irradiation is just as commonplace and who want international bodies to relax their standards in order to promote more global food trade.
Irradiation means the exposure of foods – in bulk or packaged form – to a radiant energy source such as gamma rays or electron beams. This is not a substitute for other safety precautions but, according to the US Food and Drug Administration, it can kill harmful bacteria, reduce spoilage and delay natural decaying processes in certain fruits and vegetables; irradiated strawberries, for example, stay unspoiled for up to three weeks compared to three to five days for untreated berries.
Against this, says the London-based Food Irradiation Campaign (FIC), the process can mean the loss of nutrients, may create radiolytic contamination and could cover up poor hygiene practices, among other things.
US – EU divide
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 GlobalDataAs with GM food, US consumers seem largely indifferent to the hazards. A recent survey by Kansas State University showed that 60% of consumers participating were willing to purchase irradiated beef burgers or ground beef if they cost the same as non-irradiated. No doubt the anthrax scare played its part here. But things are a lot different in Europe.
For starters, there seems to be no great pressure from the European food industry to introduce the technology. An FIC survey of meat, dairy, fruit, fish and other food organisations in the EU revealed little enthusiasm for the process and in some cases, especially at the retail end, downright hostility. There is little or no public demand for irradiation and consumer organisations are almost universally against it.
Irradiation: “effective and safe”
By contrast, the International Association for Industrial Irradiation urges extension of the EU approved list to all foods approved by the EU’s Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) and the Panel of Gamma and Electron Irradiation, representing industry and governments, says that “irradiation is an effective and safe process with potential benefits for human health.”
At present EU food irradiation legislation is a matter for national governments but in 1999 the European Commission introduced a directive to harmonise the laws. The directive notes the seven products approved by the SCF, including fruit, vegetables, cereals, fish and poultry, but actually authorises licences only for dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings.
Even there the take-up is minimal. Robert Hook, sales and marketing manager at Isotron, the only British licence-holder, told just-food.com that the firm hasn’t irradiated anything since it got the go-ahead in 1995. “We keep the licence current because if it does happen, then we’re in a position to do something about it,” Hook said.
Strict criteria in EU
Under present EU legislation, Member States may only authorise irradiation if there is a reasonable technological need, it presents no health hazard, is of benefit to the consumer, and is not used as a substitute for hygiene and health practices. Almost identical conditions are set by the FDA in the US yet the difference in approach between the gung-ho Americans and the circumspect Europeans could hardly be more pointed. This seems to apply in industry and farming as much as at the law-making level.
But pressure from US food exporters to get the EU to loosen up is not thought serious at present. Irradiated food costs more than untreated food and so long as European supermarkets remain sceptical, the market for the Americans does not look an easy one. More likely is that other countries will badger the EU.
Irradiated food volumes growing fast
At present over 30 countries have approved applications to irradiate approximately 40 different foods and more than half a million tonnes of food is now irradiated throughout the world every year. This is only a fraction of food consumed annually but it is growing rapidly for three main reasons: loss of food to infestation and spoilage, rising concerns over food health and the growing international trade in food.
These factors are now clearly showing up in the attitudes towards food irradiation taken by a number of key international agencies. Merav Shub, FIC co-ordinator, notes that under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures developed by the World Trade Organisation, countries will have no choice over the importation of irradiated food; rather they will have to justify on scientific grounds why a product should be excluded.
Similarly the world food standards agency Codex Alimentarius is proposing an increase in the maximum food irradiation dose along with other changes in wording that will have the effect of “encouraging” rather than “obliging” companies to comply with its standards. These standards, says Shub, “are far less strict than those governing food irradiation in the US” and this raises the prospect that America could be challenged in the WTO on the grounds that its laws constituted a trade barrier.
Clearly the EU would be an even easier target in this situation. It’s reasonable to suppose that the Commission is aware of the challenge as it prepares new irradiation laws but it can hardly ignore public and business opinion among its own members. The pressures from both directions will be powerful and the outcome is not at all easy to call.
By Alan Osborn, just-food.com correspondent
