In August of last year, an outbreak of Escherichia coli caused the recall of "25 million pounds of beef patties." Escherichia coli, commonly known as E. coli, is a disease-causing bacteria. The beef originated in a processing plant located in Columbus, Nebraska. This recall is the largest ever recorded in the nation’s history, and it stimulated a debate over various food preservation techniques and their safety and effectiveness (Golden 1). Originally, food was preserved by curing or refrigerating. During the past century, additional methods have been used. "Canning, pasteurization, and deep freezing" have all been successful methods (Hayes 3) as well as heating and Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP), also known as vacuum packaging . Although these methods are effective, they all have certain drawbacks. They can have negative effects on the quality of food and they are only effective when used under specific conditions. The flavor and texture of food can be compromised with these older methods. The newest food preservation technique is the irradiation of food using ionizing radiation. Irradiation occurs when specific energy levels are imparted on the food, resulting in changes in the food at the atomic level. The irradiating of food has received more attention than ever, and it remains a topic of strong controversy. Terry Roberts, former head of Microbiology at the Institute of Food Research, Reading Laboratory, United Kingdom states that, "Food irradiation is perhaps the most thoroughly investigated food processing technology" (qtd. in Key 1). As stated in the Journal of Nutritional Medicine, when ionizing radiation is used for food preservation it has three main purposes: to act as a pesticide, to act as a preservative, and to act as a disinfectant (Bloomfield 1). It is a more thorough and safer method, and it is becoming more popular every year. Irradiation may also be used in conjunction with the other methods and it is highly effective when done so. While the use of ionizing radiation to preserve food is not without opposition, the benefits gained clearly outweigh the negative aspects.

To understand the controversy over food irradiation, one must first understand the basic concept of how the process works. As stated by Stewart C. Bushong, "Ionization is a reaction in which radiation interacts with matter" (5). When this interaction occurs, an atom’s orbital electron may be given enough energy to be dislodged and become a free electron. This is an unstable state for the atom to be in. The free electron may interact with other atoms, causing further instability. This reaction is potentially damaging to some matter, for example, human body cells. There are only two forms of electromagnetic radiation that contain sufficient energy to create this reaction: x-rays and gamma rays (Bushong 5).

Consumers may be turned off to the idea of irradiation because of the negative attention that the media generally gives it. Many headlines use language to sway consumers against irradiation, before they even have all the details. For example, Time presented an article titled, "’Nuking’ Your Burgers?" The word "Nuking" is used to refer to the irradiation used. The arguments that the opposition uses in articles such as these are weak and are not necessarily based on facts or research, but more on emotions. The public generally has a fear of the word "irradiation," (Webb xiii) and they distrust anything related to the nuclear industry.

While some critics of food irradiation fear the potential damage that may occur with ionizing radiation, it must be understood that there are sources of ionizing radiation that occur naturally in the environment every day. As Bushong explains, the sun emits cosmic rays. There are also various radioactive substances that are found in the earth, for example: uranium and thorium. These are known as terrestrial sources. Certain building sources contain radon, commonly found in brick or concrete. Radon is the "largest component of terrestrial radiation." In addition, humans contribute to the production of ionizing radiation in the forms of medical x-rays, "nuclear power plants, and industrial sources" (Bushong 5-6).

Ionizing radiation should not be feared; once understood, the effects of ionizing radiation can be beneficial, especially in the treatment of bacteria in food. Inherently, all foods contain certain bacteria. As explained in Food Irradiation: A Sourcebook, bacteria is a microorganism. There are three types of bacteria: "useful bacteria, spoilage bacteria, and pathogenic bacteria." Useful bacteria is used in the production of various dairy products, and it is added to milk to assist in digestion by lactose-intolerant people. Spoilage bacteria is often found on food that has been refrigerated too long, and it can result in changes such as odor or appearance. The pathogenic bacteria is known as "disease-causing." An example is Salmonella enteritidis, which is commonly found in eggs. Also, as previously stated, E. coli, which is generally found in beef. Most "food-borne illnesses in the United States" are caused by pathogenic bacteria (Hayes 29-31). When food is irradiated, the molecular structure of the bacterial cells is disrupted. The damage done to the bacterial cells is irreparable; the cell’s DNA is damaged, therefore, the cell can not replicate (Hayes 41). This stops the spread of the bacteria. In the article, "Fighting foodborne diseases with radiation," Consumers’ ResearchMagazine explains how ionizing radiation can dramatically decrease the quantity of bacteria in food. In some instances, the bacteria can be destroyed completely. Because of the reduction or elimination of dangerous pathogens, the cause of thousands of cases of food poisoning deaths can be reduced (Golden 1). By killing the pathogens at the start, it also prevents cross contamination of other products during meal prep. Because the bacteria is reduced, the shelf-life of the food is increased. Golden adds, "as a side benefit, it also eliminates the need for fumigants" (1). There are, however, factors that change how radiosensitive the pathogens will be. The quantity of water present and the temperature of the food will have an effect on how easily the pathogens may be killed. As the temperature decreases, less water is available, so more radiation would be needed to kill the pathogen. The length of time that irradiation is given will cause the effectiveness to vary, as does the dose of radiation that is given. Salt and oxygen content will also cause variables ("Fighting" 2-3).

One benefit of irradiated foods is that they maintain nearly all their original quality. Often debated is the effect of radiation on nutrients, such as carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and vitamins. The opposition claims that the nutritional loss associated with irradiation is detrimental. Although carbohydrates and proteins are mildly affected, there is no significant nutritional or functional loss associated with irradiation. Excessive irradiation of lipids can lead to unpleasant odors and can negatively affect the flavor, but this can be controlled by using irradiation under vacuum conditions. Vitamins can be affected by irradiation, but it generally requires a large dose to cause degradation. Irradiation does not have any worse effect on vitamins than normal heating or other preservation techniques do. The effects depend on the conditions in which the food was irradiated. When low doses are used under controlled conditions, the damage to vitamins is kept to a minimum. Vitamins vary in their sensitivity. Certain B vitamins are fairly resistant to irradiation, while others such as "thiamin, and ascorbic acid" are highly sensitive to irradiation (Hayes 65-78).

The opposition is concerned that the availability of this technology will lead to counterfeiting in the food industry. They fear that irradiation would allow low-quality food to be sold as high-quality food. But irradiation "can not mask the off-flavor or odor of spoiled products." Also, regulatory agencies can enforce various standards to prevent abuse by the food industry (Hayes 96). Another concern is that the cost of irradiation will be passed on to the consumer, resulting in excessive food prices. It is estimated that the irradiation of hamburger meat could increase the price of the meat by "five cents a pound" (Spake 1). First, it is impossible to accurately determine what the cost ramifications would be. Second, what is healthy food worth to consumers? The small increase seems minor compared to the comfort of knowing that the food is not contaminated with a potentially deadly disease. In addition to the lives that might by saved, there would be a reduction in the medical costs that are associated with food poisoning and its illnesses. The benefits outweigh the cost.

Although the quality of food is maintained, there are some potential problems that arise with food irradiation. One problem is that currently, there is no single test available to determine if food has been irradiated, and to what dose. Because the free radicals that can be caused by irradiation can also be caused by normal cooking of the food, it is impossible to determine if the food has been irradiated. There are several devices, known as dosimeters, which measure the amount of radiation received by the food. The dosimeters change as a result of radiation, and are read after the treatment is complete. These dosimeters need to be present as the food is being irradiated to be effective (Hayes 23-26). While most pathogens require only a small dose, the approved maximum and minimum doses allowed are highly debated and vary from country to country and according to what type of food is being irradiated. Radiation dose in the food is generally measured in kGy. For example, in France the maximum irradiation of spices is limited to 11 kGy. The maximum limit for spices in Argentina and the U.S. is 30 kGy (Key 2). Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that, "strictly from the scientific point of view, no ceiling should be set for doses greater than the upper level currently recommended . . ." ("Who" 1). This does create a problem of labeling. Consumers have the right to know whether they are buying irradiated food or not (Pear 1). Currently, any irradiated food is required to have a "green radura symbol" on the package. This distinguishes it as food that has been irradiated. In addition, "Treated with Radiation" or "Treated by Irradiation" must be included until the radura symbol becomes well known and understood. In the case of irradiated poultry, the words "Keep Refrigerated" or "Keep Frozen" are also required (Hayes 7). Also, because there may be a potential risk associated with newly irradiated food, there may need to be additional labels such as date of irradiation and a "do not use before" date (Bloomfield 4).

The safety of irradiated foods is under debate. Consumers’ Research Magazine writes that "multigeneration studies with animals have demonstrated that ingestion of irradiated foods is completely safe and that the nutritive value remains essentially unaltered" (2). The opposition claims that irradiation causes dangerous "free radicals" in foods, which when ingested, could cause cancer (Teitel 1). According to Bushong, "a free radical is an uncharged molecule containing a single unpaired electron in the valence or outermost shell." This is an extremely unstable state and can cause damage to other molecules. In fact, the quantity of free radicals found in irradiated food is no higher than that found in food which has been cooked. Over four decades of scientific research has been done, and has indicated no adverse effects. The only contradictory study was conducted by India’s National Institute of Nutrition." In this recent study, irradiated wheat was fed to malnourished children. Their diet consisted primarily of this wheat. Chromosomal abnormalities were detected in these children, and the irradiation was blamed. Further research showed that these abnormalities were "common in undernourished children" (Hayes 97). This study, therefore, is incomplete and irrelevant. Even the WHO has declared that food irradiation is safe ("Who" 1).

Not only is the safety of the food in question, the safety of the irradiation facility itself, is also in question. There is concern regarding the quantity of radiation received by the workers and surrounding communities (Teitel 1). There are two types of facilities that have been approved for use on food. One uses gamma rays that are given off from a cobalt-60 source. Cobalt-60 is a radioactive source. The food is placed on conveyor belts and is given a specific dose of radiation. Generally, the quantity of radiation received is controlled by the amount of time that the food remains in each section on the conveyor belt (Hayes 3-17). While radiation is indeed used, no radioactivity of food actually occurs ("Fighting" 1). Even the opposition is in agreement with this fact. The second type of facility uses an "electron beam accelerator." Under vacuum conditions, electrons are accelerated with extremely high energies which are then absorbed into the food. The dose is controlled both by the length of time it is irradiated and by the electron energy. There are safety features built into the facilities. The conveyor belts are completely enclosed in concrete to prevent any radiation from escaping and exposing the workers. The concrete is at least six-feet thick. There are many systems designed to prevent the workers from being exposed inadvertently. There are "sensors, detectors, warning lights and alarms." There are also several hundred safety features that cause the system to shut down in case of malfunction (Valenti 4-6). In the gamma facilities, the cobalt-60 source is stored under water when not in use. The electron accelerator is simply disconnected to electricity (Hayes 3-17).The opposition claims that the addition of large facilities necessary to irradiate mass quantities of food would create a higher potential for mismanagement or accidents. They are also concerned that accidents could occur on highways when radioactive materials are being transferred. While the concern is valid, opponents must realize that "facilities have been irradiating medical supplies safely for over 20 years" (Hayes 96). Also, equipment used, such as linear accelerators, have no active radiation source. They do not contain radioactive material, therefore they pose no risk of contaminating workers or the environment. Opponents seem to ignore this information (Hayes 97).

Despite the overwhelming benefits, public acceptance is varied. Opinion polls show that public awareness has increased, but more education of consumers is needed. Initially, the majority of consumers are uncertain, but very few are opposed. Market tests show that if irradiated foods were readily available, consumers would be willing to try them (Hayes 103-4). The public is influenced by opinions of respectable agencies, and the acceptance by the American Medical Association (AMA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the USDA has gone a long way in convincing the public of the benefits and safety of food irradiation. The irradiation of "pork, poultry, fruits, vegetables, spices, dry vegetable seasonings, wheat, and wheat flour" have been approved by the FDA. Also, approval of "pork, poultry, and papaya fruit" comes from the USDA ("Fighting" 5). Currently, 30 countries are using irradiation for food preservation ("Who" 2). While many irradiated foods are not readily available on the market yet, there are many non-food products currently on the market in he U.S. Some of these include: "baby-bottle nipples, cosmetics, bandages, tampons, contact-lens cleaning fluids, juice and milk cartons, and wine corks" (Golden 2).

Food irradiation should not be considered the "fix-all" to the food contamination problem. Although it does correct many of the issues, the reasons for needing this technology should also be addressed. Irradiation should not be used in place of safe handling procedures, rather "a complement to, not a replacement for, proper food-handling practices by producers, processors, and consumers" (Nightingale 1). Leah Bloomfield and Tony Webb add, "Public health professionals need to question why food irradiation is being so heavily promoted . . . and also the conflict between the promotion of irradiation and the need to improve food hygiene to deal with food poisoning" (4). Michael Colby writes that in order to create substantial change, consumers must become more involved in the process of food production; "it means putting the people and the culture back into agriculture" (3). Clearly, the benefits of irradiated food outweigh the negative aspects. There may never be a "perfect" preservation method, but irradiation is currently the most effective. Public acceptance will come in time, as research and education is furthered.