Sunday 23 October 2011

Irradiating Food--- Scary, but Safe?

In "When Precaution Trumps Public Safety" Matt Ridley talks about the regulation of irradiating food to kill germs:

A technology that might have prevented contaminated produce from infecting thousands of Germans with E. coli was vetoed—by Germany—11 years ago for use in the European Union. Irradiating food with high-voltage electrons is a process that can kill bacteria on or in solid objects, just as pasteurization can kill them in liquid foods.

When the European Commission proposed in 2000 that irradiation be allowed for a greater range of foods and at a higher dose, the German government vetoed the measure. In the U.S., food irradiation is used for various products, including ground beef, but most retailers resist the practice, lest the word "irradiated'' on the label scare off customers....

The food-irradiation industry has argued strenuously for decades that its technology is proven to be safe, cannot leave food radioactive and does not taint the taste of food. Yet even in the U.S., legislation requires that irradiation be shown not just to have net benefits but to do no harm at all—no diminution of vitamin content, for example....

The most common means of food irradiation is to use an electron gun of the kind found, until the arrival of flat screens, in every ordinary TV set.


Politically, why do you suppose Germany would ban such an apparently safe technology? Why would U.S. regulators be wary of approving it?

16 comments:

  1. Although not discussed, I would guess that the number one reason that Germany vetoed the measure was due to costs. The EU spends a significantly smaller amount on science and technology policy than does the US, even though subsidiarity tells us that the EU should highly support science. I would assume that this technology is expensive and it would pose unwanted costs to food producers and/or manufacturers, and Germany has determined that these costs are not worth the lives saved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that especially in terms of new technology we can not be to safe as to the harm that it could potentially cause. Remember when everyone thought that asbestos was ok, ask all the people who have cancer how they feel about it...

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems to me that even though the food-irradiation industry has argued their case that irradiation doesn't harm food, people are still generally skeptical. Perhaps not enough time has passed where we can truly understand the long-term effects of the new technology. The German government probably wasn't willing to take the risk on this technology and decided the risk wasn't worth the cost of implementation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the main reason the German didn't allow this new technology into the food-irradiation industry is because of the long-term risks involved. And the US regulators would be wary of approving it if the Germans already have said no. Also cost is another big reason why the government does not

    ReplyDelete
  5. Consumer perception plays a major role in this decision as well. Words like "organic" seem to have positive connotations but knowing that their food has been chemically altered or "irradiated" may just scare consumers as they may not be aware of the high benefits and low risks. It is also important to ensure that the process doesn't take away from the nutritional value of the food in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. E. Coli isn't a large enough threat, nor do people have much personal exposure to the matter, to justify irradiatting the food they injest. There has been a movement towards local farmers markets and organic food to solve the same issue. This should be a consumer/market decision, not government intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Germany most likely banned this because Europe tense to believe in smaller local food gathering, as a whole. This makes them less likely to adopt corporate lever food care. Also, there are historical events that make us weary of all irradiated things. Also, there is a movement, especially in America, to understand where your food comes from, which is why there is opposition here. This technology is also costly because it covers up a symptom of the broken food system that would not be necessary is a sustainable system was set up. We have to find more and more complicated ways to clean our food as we give food corporations more rights to close people out of their factories.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Germany probably issued the ban because of the fact that there is a large burden placed on local farmers. Also, it seems as if the cost would be very high, so that could be another reason for the veto.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that this is a problem whether consumers want it or not. If they don't, the government shouldn't implement this system. The costs of implementing such system will be costly for both food producers and the government. I think that there is too much uncertainty and it might be too complicated to implement this regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Europe is synonymous with ensuring that their food is all natural. Their goal is to have as little preservatives or artificial chemicals in their food. It has become apart of society. If people found out their food was being shot with electron particles there would very well be a huge outcry from the German people

    ReplyDelete
  12. The political issue here was whether food companies would be *allowed* to use irradiation as one way to make food safe by killing germs. Thus, farmers and firms wouldn't be required to use irradiation, though they would be required to reach a certain level of safety in some way.

    I think the word "radiation" is the main driver of the ban. People do not understand scientific studies of safety, or how a particular process works, and they associate the word "radiation" with nuclear weapons. Also, as noted by several commenters, people like the thought of food being natural and they don't consider it "natural" to irradiate. This is a little odd, in that irradiation might be even more useful on organic food than other kinds, but it is part of the thought of using simpler technology.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The question begs two separate responses in my opinion. The germans were quick to ban such a practice because Europeans are extremely conscious of what they put into their bodies. They certainly would never use genetically modified organisms, and this practice has a similar effect on their psyche. For the Europeans it is not about weighing the pros and cons, but it is more about maintaining a centuries old food tradition.

    In the United States, I believe the issue is mostly economical. Americans do not really care what goes into their bodies; however, legislators are afraid that the anti irradiation marketing campaign could easily scare away consumers, and possibly create harm to the food industry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maximilian Roedder2 November 2011 at 12:24

    As a German, I think the ban on this technology in Germany is a result of the German attitude towards science. Germans are very cautios when confronted with new scientific technologies (the same was for example the case with genetically modified products). Until all the effects of a new technology appear to be 100% known, German regulators will not allow it to be used.
    In addition, the consumer protection in Germany is way stronger than the consumer protection in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the ban on this technology in Germany relates more to political power than for the good or harm of the people. As an Amercian, I respect science trying to help cut out negative things from our diets, but as someone who eats mostly organic food I was be cautious of this technology. As professor stated above, Europeans are very conscious of what they put into they're bodies to it's scary to think that this technology is implemented by an 'electron gun'

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think those that have posted before me have covered the most salient points (Germany's conscientious approach towards newer technologies, and the economic reasons in the US). Perhaps the industry should coin a new phrase for irradiating food, something that conjures images of wholesome, cleanliness or safety. Sort of how Chandni has mentioned the organic food movement.

    ReplyDelete