Irradiated food: whether we like it or not?

Abstract

The Royal Society and the Association of British Science Writers continue with their commendable efforts to improve public under? standing of science. But some responses, such as that of the Guardian's consumer affairs correspondent (Scientists open an atomic cafe), to their latest press briefing on food irradiation suggest that they may have something to learn from the recent tactics of the National History Museum when it comes to a nice resolution of scientific discord. In response to Professor Fred Hoyle's claim that their archae opteryx fossil was a fraud (concocted by a Bavarian medical officer of health from dinosaur bones, concrete, and chicken feathers) the museum dusted off their fake and mounted a display setting out in exhaustive detail the arguments and evidence of the Hoyle lobby. The result is the general conviction that the fossil is genuine. The approach of the Royal Society's panel of seven experts (four of whom were members of the Government advisory committee1 that recommended that the ban on food irradiation in Britain should be lifted) might have benefited from a touch of the archaeopteryx treatment?present the evidence and allow the punters to decide. Expert opinion on the limited use of food irradiation has been reassuring,2 but the chairman of the panel, Professor Paul Turner (Department of Clinical Pharmacology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London) believes that food irradiation has had a bad press, and he and his fellow panelists of food scientists, toxicologists, and microbiologists set about putting the record straight with a vigour that, in the absence of representatives from the other camp, laid them open to the charge of being apologists for this pasteurisation process rather than straightforward educators. Professor D S Robinson (Department of Food Science, University of Leeds) drew attention to the fifteen million cases of food poisoning in Britain each year. Irradiation is one of the means by which the problem could be brought under control, he said. The judiciousAise of irradiation to reduce the pool of salmonellae and other enteric bacteria in poultry and seafood would make a substantial contribution to public health. Other established methods of food preservation are without their hazards and none of them has been tested to the same extent as irradiation said Dr I F Gaunt (British Industrial Biological Research Association). Data suggest? ing that feeding freshly irradiated wheat to four or five malnourished Indian children had increased polyploidy were not enough to damn the process. This evidence has been countered by the results of trial in China, where about 400 people ate irradiated wheatflour for 15 weeks without developing any evidence of chromosomal abnormalities. Dr J C Gould (Director of the Central Microbio? logical Laboratories, Edinburgh) saw the advantages of irradiation as being reduced spoilage of food and increased microbiological safety?provided that (as with other methods of food preservation) there is careful handling after irradiation to ensure no subsequent contamination. Expected legislation