• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scary word trumps reason

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,012
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Efforts to zap bacteria in food are slow to catch hold

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of radiation to wipe out pathogens in dozens of food products, and for decades it has been used in other developed countries without reports of human harm.

But it has barely caught on in the United States. The technology — called irradiation — zaps bacteria out of food and is highly effective, but for many consumers it conjures up frightening images of mutant life forms and phosphorescent food.

Benso, who opened Gateway America 18 months ago, also knows his new venture pits him against the nation’s growing buy-local, back-to-nature movement that shuns industrial food processing.

“Those naysayers better throw out their microwaves, because that is irradiation,” Benso said, standing in his 50,000-square-foot irradiation facility.

Dozens of scientific studies have shown that irradiated food is safe for human consumption, and that no radioactive material has leaked outside any U.S. plant, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The three forms of energy that can be used — gamma rays, electron beams and X-rays — can virtually eliminate bacteria in minutes. All this has prompted the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and dozens of other groups to endorse its use.

Scary words trump reason. The worst part is that there are organizations fighting to keep it that way; only because the word radiation is scary. And by the way, people can die as a result:

Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, blames an “anti-science movement” for the public resistance. He is frustrated with the federal government for endorsing irradiation but then not educating the public as it has with childhood immunizations and water fluoridation.

“Not using irradiation is the single greatest public health failure of the last part of the 20th century in America,” said Osterholm, citing CDC estimates that 1 in 6 people will get food poisoning this year and 3,000 will die. “We could have saved so many lives.”

A steadfast team of consumer advocates has successfully campaigned against its use, first at the nonprofit group Public Citizen and then after founding the nonprofit organization Food and Water Watch.

The Washington-based group claims credit for keeping irradiated food out of the National School Lunch Program and blocking efforts to get rid of the federal requirement that all irradiated food in retail establishments carry a Radura label — a green plant in a circle — indicating it has been irradiated.
 
It's ridiculous but in a society where people are concerned that microwaving food may leave it with dangerous radiation, it's not such a surprise. Maybe radiation could be re-branded to give it a natural-sounding name like "light purification" or some such nonsense.
 
I don't want to give my food cancer. And I especially don't want to eat cancer.
 
It's ridiculous but in a society where people are concerned that microwaving food may leave it with dangerous radiation, it's not such a surprise. Maybe radiation could be re-branded to give it a natural-sounding name like "light purification" or some such nonsense.

I have colleagues who cannot believe I play with death by having and using a microwave oven.
However, they love my elderflower jelly.
Should I tell them...
 
It's a testament to how poor science education is. It does not even reqire a "woo" mentality to be concerned about harm from food irradiation, it's just a misunderstanding, and a fairly rational one at that, based on all that people have heard about the danger of being exposed to radiation and the way that objects can become radioactive after exposure to radiation.

I feel that sometimes the efforts to clarify things like this to people are not done in a very effective manner. Too often, people are just told things like what was mentioned in the OP ( to paraphrase), "Oh, well then you'd better throw out your microwave if you're scared of such things, because that's radiation too!"

Such an approach is condescending and ineffective. I would like to see more efforts to actually clearly explain why sometimes radiation can be dangerous and why, in the case of food irradiation, it is not. Instead, concerns are dismissed or glossed over and people are made to feel foolish,for even being worried about it.
 
Last edited:
It's a testament to how poor science education is. It does not even reqire a "woo" mentality to be concerned about harm from food irradiation, it's just a misunderstanding, and a fairly rational one at that, based on all that people have heard about the danger of being exposed to radiation and the way that objects can become radioactive after exposure to radiation.

It could be explained along the lines that the same principle (heat via cooking) which is used to kill germs (and make food taste good) can be harmful to humans, but is perfectly safe if used correctly.
 
I feel that sometimes the efforts to clarify things like this to people are not done in a very effective manner. Too often, people are just told things like what was mentioned in the OP ( to paraphrase), "Oh, well then you'd better throw out your microwave if you're scared of such things, because that's radiation too!"

Such an approach is condescending and ineffective. I would like to see more efforts to actually clearly explain why sometimes radiation can be dangerous and why, in the case of food irradiation, it is not. Instead, concerns are dismissed or glossed over and people are made to feel foolish,for even being worried about it.

That may be true for the average consumer, but somehow I don't think it's the case for these organizations that lobby the government to prevent these things from being used. Surely someone at some point tried to reason with them, showed them the scientific studies and everything, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
 
The sensible argument against irradiated food is that the increased durability will be used to stock food longer, and the effects of that is unknown (there will be chemical processes in the stored food). Also, the fact that food was once sterilized is no guarantee that it will stay that way.

One potential problem is that seriously infected foodstuffs might be irradiated and marketed as "clean". The problem is what is called 'bioburden': Even dead bacteria can make you sick because your immune system reacts to the proteines of the dead micro organisms.

Another is that, just like with antibiotics, irresponsible use may lead to resistance: If you don't irradiate effectively enough, the most resistant organisms survive and procreate, thus generating a population of radiation resistant germs. :boggled:

Still, for many foodstuffs, the benefits certainly seem to outweigh the problems. IMO, the pragmatic conclusion is that as long as we cannot ensure that food is not contaminated, irradiation is a sensible remedy.

BTW, the comparison with micro-wave ovens is nonsense: The radiation in microwave ovens is ... drumroll ... microwaves. Microwaves are non-ionizing wavelengths. The ionizing wavelengths used in sterilization are a different ball-game, but there is absolutely no data to support that they should leave anything harmful in foodstuffs.

Hans
 
Last edited:
But it has barely caught on in the United States. The technology — called irradiation — zaps bacteria out of food and is highly effective, but for many consumers it conjures up frightening images of mutant life forms and phosphorescent food.

Scary words trump reason.
Scary word trumps actual statistics.

Please provide evidence that the majority of Americans won't buy irradiated food because they think it's radioactive.
 
Scary word trumps actual statistics.

Please provide evidence that the majority of Americans won't buy irradiated food because they think it's radioactive.

'many' /= 'majority'

I think most suppliers of consumer products would prefer not to scare away even 10% of their customers.

Hans
 
It's a testament to how poor science education is. It does not even reqire a "woo" mentality to be concerned about harm from food irradiation, it's just a misunderstanding, and a fairly rational one at that, based on all that people have heard about the danger of being exposed to radiation and the way that objects can become radioactive after exposure to radiation.

Its very sad that current educational standards are such that the average person does not understand nuclear (particle) radiation and electromagnetic (wave) radiation are not the same thing. Electromagnetic radiation cannot leave things radioactive when they are exposed to it.

I knew the difference by the time I was 15!!
 
It's ridiculous but in a society where people are concerned that microwaving food may leave it with dangerous radiation, it's not such a surprise. Maybe radiation could be re-branded to give it a natural-sounding name like "light purification" or some such nonsense.

Newspeak doesn't go down too well.
 
Well, you don't want to use gamma rays. Or, at least, if you do you need to be very, very careful not to make your food angry. You wouldn't like it when it was angry.
 
'many' /= 'majority'
Correct.

Definition of MANY
1: consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number​

In the context of this thread it's a weasel word - since 'many' could be an insignificant number. Are a significant number of consumers scared of food irradiation? I could not find any recent polls on the topic, but I bet that if asked whether they would prefer irradiation over pathogens in their food, the vast majority would say yes.

I think most suppliers of consumer products would prefer not to scare away even 10% of their customers.
76% of Americans think that fast food is unhealthy, and yet their opinion doesn't seem to be affecting McDonald's bottom line.

The real reason that some producers are holding back on irradiation is the increased cost for little perceived benefit. Customers have to be convinced that the irradiated product is worth paying for, which may be a hard sell when there is no improvement in taste or nutritional value. It is the responsibility of food producers to advertise their products effectively, and if they are not doing that then they only have themselves to blame.
 
I have heard of reasonable arguments against irradiating food, such as MRC Hans mentions. Including that irradiation doesn't get rid of toxins. However, the present debate doesn't seem to be being conducted on those grounds.

Reminds me of an SF novel set in a post-apocalyptic society (might have been John Wyndham's Chocky) where one of the things that was banned as "Anything suspected of being composed of atoms".

Rolfe.
 

Back
Top Bottom