FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-V-3-1999
Item
- Title
- FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-V-3-1999
- extracted text
-
wMYTHS
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA____________ Vol V # 3/99____________ INFORMATION BULLETIN
The Nuclear Dietary Regimen:
The Myths of Food Irradiation
^COMMENT
ood irradiation is the new buzz word in the in the lexicon
of food technologists. In involves exposing food to
radioactive material so as to preserve them. It is like giving
X-rays to food. Such food, it is claimed, is safe to consume
and provides a long shelf life to varioucs food products.
After all, humans subject themselves to X-rays so there is
nothing wrong if our food goes through the same process
the proponents claim.
F
cooking to be completed in a matter of minutes. Those who
resist the temptations offered by the micro-wave oven
advertisers arc not spared irradiated food because the
government itself is hooked onto the gimmick with plans
to introduce huge "food preservation centres" where items
arc treated with low-level radiation before being transported
to the super-markets like z\pna Bazaars or Sahakari Bhandars.
Crores worth of public funds arc being spent on importing
costly equipment that preserves and packages food items
using these so-called advanced technologies. Four food
irradiators are already in operation in the country with one in
Vashi, Navi Mumbai and another five are in fabrication.
The supporters of this technology are, however, mirror image
Indeed, food irradiation is seen as an integral and important
of those proponents of the current market—driven
part
of India's stride towards the new millennium, the
development paradigm into which nuclearisation has now
underlying
assumption being that our traditional ways of
been incorporated. This mentality, however, is in direct
food
consumption
and distribution need replacement. For
contrast to the increasing disillusionment the world over
according
to
the
supporters
of this warped perspective the
with this warped perception. In different ways and in different
rational is that "...with
fields,
several
f
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
the onset of global
developments arc
integration
of the
^feiking place that clearly
Indian
economy
in the
^^ndicatc an option fora
emerging post-Gatt
non-consumcrist,
era, Indian farmers and
non-mi 1 i taris ti c
traders in
food
alternative.
materials are on the
Paradoxically, however,
threshold of an
the warped "vision”
unprecedented
continues to prevail
opportunity to reach
and pursued by those
out to the international
"Orders" interested in
markets...the Centre
its maintenance cloaked
was likely to clear eight more food
under claims of "breakthroughs".
products, including fruits, wheat
One such "breakthrough" is the
and rice for irradiation...".1 But arc
investment programme in the food
these new technologies really the
processing industry, viz., the obsession
answer to our all-round
on techniques that preserve and cook
development needs? Is it all that
food through radia.tion. Micro-wave
certain they represent the wave of
ovens have already invaded the market
the future?
and into individual homes to enable
Q — What is wrong with getting '
I a fresh "potato", rather than one |
bombarded with nuclear waste?
I
}
I
A — So it can sit on a shelf and
"appear” fresh?
J
The reference to 'Indian farmers' in the above quote is dearly
not about poor farmers - like those that committed suicide
in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The reference
is rather to those profit-maximisation, big agri-business
farmers integrated into the globalised market. The long shelf
life that irradiation produces in food will, in the not-toodistant future, ensure that traditional farming and
preservation methods etc. will become redundant.
Since its introduction, however, concerned citizens around
the world and in India too arc now alert to the dangers that
irradiated food bring with it giving rise to a number of
movements opposing it whilst simultaneously exposing it
on health and environmental grounds.
<>0^0000
1916
Sweden experiments with irradiation
of strawberries.
1921
Patents taken out in USA.
1930
Patents taken out in France
1953
Food irradiation to be one of the
atoms for peace technologies. US
Army begins research.
1957
Irradiation used on spices in West
Germany.
1958
Food irradiation banned in West •
Germany.
I960
Canada permits irradiation of
potatoes.
1963
USA permits irradiation of wheat,
potatoes and becon
1968
USFDA withdraws permit for bacon.
US Army studies found to indicate
adverse effects and to have been
poorly conducted.
1970s
Research programme taken over by
IBT Ltd IAEA organises 'expert
seminars' and publishers reports on
food irradiation.
1976
IECFI relaxes requirement for testing
of irradiated foods so that radiolytic
products do not have to pass tests
normally required for food additives.
Further permits for foods given by
various countries.
1981
IECFI gives general clearance up to
10 kGy (average dose) and removes
requirement for control of maximum
and minimum doses.
UN Codex Alimentary Process
initiated.
Permits extended by various
countries.
1982
UK Government Advisory Committee
(ACINF) set up to review evidence on
safety and wholcsomcness.
1983
IBT directors convicted of doing
draudulent research for government
and industry. US loses £ 4 million and
6 years worth of research data.
1986
Scandal over abuse of irradiation by
British food companies using Dutch
and Belgian irradiators to conceal
bacterial contamination on illegal
imports to UK and Sweden.
US approves clearance of irradiation
for fruit and vegetables up to 1 kGy
(and. 30 kGy for spices)
UK ACINF report published —
recommends there arc no special
safely problems from irradiation of
food up to 10 kGy.
MYTH: Food irradiation emerged with the need to help
agriculturalfarmers, groceries and consumers overcome
theirperennialproblem ofmaintainingfreshness in food
crops, e.g. vegetables, fruits, etc., and the advantage ofa
long shelflife.
The impetus for food irradiation has not come
from farmers, retail grocers or even consumers. On the
contrary! Its strongest advocate has been the nuclear industry'!
FACT :
However,the idea of irradiating food is not new. (Sec
Chronology72) Little progress was made until 1953 when the
US President, Eisenhower, announced the so-called Atoms
For Peace programme. (Sec also FAM #6/97) Public attention
was to be diverted away7 from the nuclear weapons project by'
promoting nuclear power and other uses of nuclear
technology' so that the academic and industrial infrastructure
could be developed behind which the project would continue.
It also saw it as an opportunity’ to get rid of nuclear waste.
The main push was made by the International Atomic Energy'
rXgcncy' (IAEA) and the Atomic Energy' Commission. The
Dept, of Energy (DOE), keen to get rid of the radioactive
waste Cesium 137, paid companies to take this waste. These
companies then lobbied US Congress so they' could irradiate
food. Cobalt 60 is currently' the radioactive source for food
irradiation, but the DOE hopes that with the proposed
expansion of food irradiation, Cobalt 60, which is in limited
supply' will run out, and Cesium 137 will again be used.
There arc also some of the large meat processors (three
MNCs control 80% of the market) which instead of cleaning
up their production system, would rather irradiate, as it is
cheaper. The irradiation companies lobby' the processors, the
processors lobby' Congress and the FDA (which has on its
board former and future executive employees of the food
processing and nuclear industries) also lobbies the Congress.
In addition, with all of the news about H. coli and salmonella,
the uninformed American Congressmen think they are
"protecting" the food supply. Furthermore, the food
processing MNCs stand to make billions by' extending the
shelf-life of some foods as also the million S the food
proccsscrs would save by' not having to "clean up their acts"
and the government on its part keen on "dumping"
radioactive waste in the South.Thus.thc issue of food safety'
is basically' a guise.
FACTS against MYTHS
fl
#3’99 3>
Pace 2
Given this rationale, there followed a decade of intensive
research into food irradiation funded and supervised by the
US Department of Defence
Of greater concern, however, is that though irradiation can
kill bacteria on the food, it will not remove the toxins that
have been created by the bacteria at an earlier stage.
Thus, in the early 70s the IAEA held seminars on food
irradiation and established a joint committee of experts
from the IAEA, WHO and FAO. This group, the Joint
Expert Committee on Food Irradiation QECFI) decided in
1976 that the new chemicals called radiolytic products which
reproduced in irradiated foods do not need to pass tests of
toxicity as do other food additives. They declared irradiation
a process — not an additive - although free radicals (highly
reactive molecules) and new chemicals arc produced in the
food. Some of these radiolytic products are the same as
those produced in cooking or thermal process c.g. hydrogen
peroxide and formaldehyde, but they occur in large
proportions in irradiated foods. Others are unique to the
irradiation process.
Increased production of aflatoxins following irradiation was
first found in 1973 and confirmed in 1976 and 1978.
Aflatoxins are powerful agents for causing liver cancer.2 Its
production was found to be stimulated by irradiation at
doses approved by the WHO/IAEA/FAO expert committee
However, the rhetoric of classification of food irradiation as
a process or an additive is not trivial. Food additives must be
^tested for toxicity. Food processes do not require such testing3
MYTH: Food irradiation is like giving X-rays to food.
After all, humans subject themselves to x-rays regularly.
So there is nothing wrong iffood is irradiated.
FACT: Noted
In an x-ray, the dose of radiation is low, in the region of 0.01
rad. Still, there is evidence that such low radiation can damage
body cells (cf. FAM #6,97) as it will become clear below. In
food irradiation the dose is much higher - 5000 to 1 m. rads
for fruits, vegetables and non-vegetables; up to 3 m. rads for
spices. That is like giving upto 3 m. x-rays!
MYTH : Irradiation helps in destroying the deadly
Aflatoxins occur in damp environments on fungus spores
on grains or vegetables. Control.of humidity in storage
becomes even more important in the case of irradiated than
non-irradiated foods.
MYTH : Food irradiation is also an alternative to
chemical additives usedforpreservation, flavoring and
coloring.
FACT: Concerns about food adulteration and the like are
indeed very well founded. However, far from eliminating
additive use, the process of irradiation will itself require use
of number of additives in order to control some of the
undesirable effects of irradiation.
The use of such additives is not be restricted to the high
dose application where the obnoxious radiation flavors
become pronounced but arc also proposed for low dose
uses to prevent discoloration and other undesirable effects
such as bleeding and breakdown of fats in meat.
On the contrary, it has been seen that irradiation has some
disagreeable side-effects. Milk and milk products, fatty and
oily products, certain fish and meats, develop unpalatable
flavors and odors. Onions and garlic shows signs of internal
browning. To counter side-effects like these, chemical
additives have to and will be added anyway.
bacteria in food.It sterilizes the food and this prevents
spoilage. Hence, there is no nutritional loss iffood is
irradiated.
FACT: Irradiation does not kill all of the deadly bacteria in
our food! It still leaves some of it in our meals, making
people still sick. Moreover, studies have shown that
irradiating microorganisms, like H coli and salmonella may
give rise to even more dangerous, radiation-resistant strains
of bacteria. Irradiation of chicken could kill not only the
salmonella bacteria but also the yeasts and moulds that arc the
natural competitors of botulinum, the bacterium that causesbotulism food poisoning. It will also kill the organisms that
cause the putrid odour. Yet, at the doses proposed, the
botulinum
not be killed. Under the right conditions the
botulinum could multiply and become a health hazard without
the consumer having any warning smell. Radiation-resistant
strains of bacteria have been developed under laboratory
conditions and scientists found that one particular bacteria
can survive a radiation dose five times what the FDA will
allow for beef. Scientists exposed this bacteria to 10 and 15
kilograms of radiation for several hours, enough radiation
to kill a person several thousand times over; the bacteria
survived.
Q FACTS against MYTHS
Some foods just cannot be irradiated - they are irreversibly
damaged by the risk of over-radiation — and the benefits of
low doses arc minimal in increasing shelflife. A single rotten
potato or onion in a batch that is irradiated will result in the
spoilage of the entire batch. If all the means currently used
for food preservation have to be used even after irradiation,
not only docs irradiation seem superfluous, it is hardly likely
that the process would be cost-effective.
Irradiation thus fails to eliminate health hazards arising out
of pesticide residues and other chemicals. The claim that it
is an alternative to these chemicals is false. Pre-harvest
pesticides will still be used, and their chemical interaction
with irradiation is unknown.
MYTH: Extensive and rigorous tests, etc., in the West
and elsewhere in the world, over the years, has deemed
food irradiation safe and wholesome. Nor does it make
ourfood radioactive.
FACT: Food irradiation has a long history of over 40 years
of scientific research and testing of food technology before
"approval". Research included wholesomeness, toxicological
and microbiological evaluation. In 1955, the Army Medical
Department of the US began to assess the safety of types of
#3’99~)
Page 3
foods commonly irradiated in the diet. Petition to the Food
& Drug Administration (FDA) — the agency of the US Dept
of Health and Human Services (est.1906) that oversees the
safety of foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical services — for
approval of specific foods for irradiation soon followed.
Later, in the early 70s, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) adopted the process to sterilise
meats for astronauts to consume in space, and this practise
continues today. The first products approved by the FDA
were wheat and white potatoes in the 1960s. During the 80s,
FDA approved petitions for irradiation of spices and
seasonings, pork, fresh fruits and dry or dehydrated
substances. However, the research that was used to obtain
the clearance for can-packed bacon in 1963—clearance that
was subsequently withdrawn in 1986 when the FDA found
the data seriously flawed.
Indeed, there have been over 2000 research papers on food
irradiation since, of which around 400 had been selected by
the FDA in the US for review.1 They chose 6 as "considered
by the Agency to reviewers to be properly conducted, fully
adequate by 1980 toxicological standards, and able to stand
alone in support of safety". Two of the studies were in
English, three in French and one in German. On
investigation on one of the English language papers,
published in 1964, the authors state that here were differences
between the control rats and the rats fed irradiated wheat,
with a statistically significant rise in stillbirth rate among those
fed irradiated wheat Other findings failed to reach significance
because of the small number of animals. This hardly
constitutes strong proof of the safety of food irradiation.
The second English language paper reported unexplained
deaths and abnormalities in animals given irradiated food,
not reaching statistical significance because of the small
Diily Mi«l, MoUjy, Mirth 3, IMA
We broke law
with gamma
ray prawns
says food firm
•y fTtMIU LEAHO. Cm—ir Attain CmtwmAmi
ONE of Britain's biggest
food groups has sold
rudiation*trcatcd prawns in
contravention of health
regulations.
Th* Imperial Group admit*
it broke the law Uat year after
a conai«nmenl of prawns *ror
tayaia failed
Source: Webb2
FACTS against MYTHS
number of animals in the study. One of the studies indicated
negative effects in older animals, but the finding was not
pursued. The food used in the English language studies
had been irradiated at 20 kilorad (0.2 kilogram) well below
tKc proposed level of irradiation of human food — 1,000
kilorads (10 kilogray).
In two of the three French studies, the dose to food was less
than 50 kilorad (0.5 kilogray). No adverse effects were reported;
In the German study animals fed irradiated food weighed
significantly less than controls and had reproductive
abnormalities. Both these effects were mitigated with
vitamins;
Thus, the 'scientific' evidence in support of food irradiation
consists of studies with low irradiation dose, small number
of animals, short follow’-up times, and negative results. No
scientist worth his salt would accept these studies as
establishing the safety of irradiated foods.1
Subsequent American research was turned over to the
Industrial Bio-Test limited (IBT) in the US a firm convicted^
in 1983 of conducting fraudulent research for government"
and industry. Consequently, the government lost about US
S4 million and six years of animal feeding study data on
food irradiation. Some of this discredited work is still used
as part of the "scientific" basis for assurances of the safety of
food irradiation3;
Further investigations, again, showed that such studies cited 'ad infinitum' by its proponents — were highly flawed.
The US government considers irradiation a food additive in
testing food additives for toxicity; laboratory animals are fed
high levels (in comparison to a human diet) of potential
toxins. The results must then be applied to humans with
theoretical models. It is questionable whether the studies
the FDA used to approve food irradiation followed this
process. In fact, the FDA claimed only five of the 441 were
"properly conducted, fully adequate by 1980 toxicological
standards, and able to stand alone in support of safety".
With the shaky assurance of just five studies, the FDA
approved irradiation for the public food supply;
> The Department of Preventive Medicine and Community
Health of the New Jersey Medical School found .that
two of the (five) studies were methodologically flawcd.In
a third study, animals eating a diet of irradiated food
experienced weight loss and miscarriage, almost certainly
due to irradiation-induced Vitamin E dietary deficiency.
The remaining two studies investigated the effects of
diets of food irradiated at doses below the FDAapproved general level of 100,000 rads. Thus, they cannot
be used to justify food irradiation at the levels approved
by the FDA3;
> , In 1986 a big British food company, The Imperial Group,
admitted that when its prawns imported from Malaysia
failed quality tests, it sent them to Holland to be
irradiated, and then sold the prawns to caterers under
the Admiral label.
#3’99 )
Page 4
>
>
Other studies indicate serious health problems
associated with eating irradiated food. A
compilation of 12 studies carried out by Raltcch
Scientific Services, Inc., under 'contract with the
US government examined the effect of feeding
irradiated chicken to several animal species. The
studies indicated the possibility of chromosome
damage, immunotoxicity, greater incidence of
kidney disease, cardiac thrombus, andfibroplasia.
One landmark study in India found four out
of five children fed irradiated wheat developing
polyploidy, a chromosomal abnormality that is a
good indication of future development.
Reinforcing this stand against food irradiation, G.L.
Tritsch, a cancer research scientist at Roscwcll Park
Memorial Institute,USA, raised the point on the
expression "extensive testing" which he showed to
be rather ambiguous. For instance, to test irradiated
mangoes it is necessary to take an amount required
r consumption in one's lifetime, extract the
lount, and do an Ames Test on it. But merely to
take'a mango and squeeze a few drops of its juice on
an Ames Test plate — to examine if its carcinogenic—
is meaningless. It certainly would not be considered
adequate testing.4
f
The AMES Test4
This is the most commonly used test for
mutagaenic substances - substances that cause
mutatation in the genes. It is well established that
mutagenesis — mutation of the chromosomes
within the cell - leads to cancer. The Test was
developed at the University of California at
Berkeley by Prof. Ames and involves growing
human or bacterial cells in a medium. The material
in question is added — in this case, an extract of
the irradiated food - to the culture medium. Of
course, if too much (irradiated material) is added,
then the cells are destroyed. If very little is added,
then nothing will be observed. So, just enough of
the material must be added that will not destroy
the cell and yet, at the same time, allow the
possibility to clearly observe what mutagenic
effects emerge. It is of paramont importance that
this test is conducted correctly and also to explore
a broad range of concentrations, and in the
microgram (one millionth of a gram) range. Then,
as a control, the same amount of unirradiated
foods needs to be analysed as well.
Another problem with expressions is
"Wholcsomcncss" of Irradiated Food.2 The
expression in English is one that combines the ideas
of nourishing and healthful. There is no similar word in
other languages. TTiis is unfortunate. At international foras,
such as those of the UN, etc., the expression has been debased
so that it now only covers the concept of safety and safety
only narrowly defined as the absence of
a) harmful toxic chemicals
b) harmful microbiological effects
c) significant impacts on nutrition
d) induced radioactivity in the food
use of the term "wholesome" for foods that arc to be •
sold as fresh but, in fact may have been significantly denatured
in the process of irradiation, is wrong. There is a big difference
between stating'safc for human consumption1 and
'wholesome'. This is a distinction the public can and do
make and which they must be allowed to continue to make
as a fundamental right.
, Finally, the related myth that food irradiation docs not make
■ food radioactive begs the question as to why food irradiation .
is then w/safc?
MYTH: Radiation intensity used in irradiating foods is
so low that it does not produce any adverse impact on
food substance vis-a-vis consumers' health.
FACT: As shown elsewhere in this issue, pathogenic micro
organisms (bacteria and viruses) arc highly resilient, and it
takes a lot to overpower them. Consequently, if the so-called
low levels of radiation used arc sufficient to kill these harmful
Q FACTS against MYTHS
microbes, they could certainly destroy the essential vitamins
and enzymes too, thus lowering the nutritive value of foods.
As we showed in the previous issue of this publication, that
with lower doses, cells are damaged and cause havoc to the
body in later years. (Cf. FAM #6/97)
It needs to be reiterated that there is no such phenomena as
"safe limit" of radiation tolerance. As Tony Webb states,"A
little bit of radiation docs not give you just a little bit of
cancer. Any dose, however small, can be the one that does
the damage". Some years ago a British documentary film,
Deadly Experiments, telecast on Channel Four TV, revealed
how the British Government's Medical Research Council
(MRC) devised and secretly conducted experiments in the
late 60s and 70s on Punjabi women to ascertain why Asian
women in particular suffered from widespread iron deficiency
- without seeking their consent. The MRC suspected
problems with the Asian diets and so decided secretly to
track the iron content in 'chapatis'Xsy mixing radio-active iron
salts with the 'alia'. After being fed the 'chapattis' they were
told that the special diet would cure them. Subsequently,at
least one family member of one of the women, who is now
dead, has alleged that her mother died prematurely due to
radiation.
MYTH: Food irradiation is an imperative need today, a
solution to global hunger and starvation.
FACT : However, the patrons and proponents of this
irrelevant technology "have not produced any projection of
#3 '99
Page 5
the actual economic, or other, benefits of
longer shelflife, especially in the rich North
despite ovcr-abundalncc of food”.
The claim of providing irradiated food to
the starving millions in the South begs
the question, "Do we give the starving
person to eat irradiated food and risk
getting cancer in 10 or 20 years, or do we
let that person starve"? This is indeed a
very hard choice! However, the cold, hard
truth is that this food will actually not
reach the people who arc dying of hunger
and starvation. There is food that is being
thrown away! It is not being sent to the
starving millions in Kosovo, Albania,
North Korea, or Rwanda, etc. Hunger and
starvation is primarily an economic and
political issue. It has nothing to do with
food irradiation!
MYTH : To guarantee the safety of
irradiatedfood a regulatory body ofthe
UN was launched, called the Codex
General Standardfor irradiatedfood
which allows food irradiation as a
quality control measure.
FACT: This UN-initiated yardstick for
quality control has been exploited by vested
interests, the multi-busincss food
industry to conveniently use it to a) mask
bad quality b) improve spoiled foods c)
suppress spoilage indicators like odour
and taste and d) relax GMP regulations.
Irradiated Food is Against Nature - Dr. N. Bengali
Our universe is permeated with electromagnic energies
of various frequencies vibrating in harmony with one
another. Life is essentially a biomagnetic phenomenon.
Every cell (plant, animal and human) has its characteristic
biomagnetic (or bio-energy) field, with a discrete vibratory
rate. Ancient Indian philosophical texts describe this vital
life force as 'prana', The Chinese describe it as 'qi', The
bioenergy field of cellular tissue originates in the cellular
nuclei (that contain the chromosomes). The unique
genetic patterns distinguish each living form from others.
Human and all other life forms (including plants and
animals) live in (bio-magnetic) harmony. There is constant
interaction between ecological, bio-electromagnetic fields
and the bio-magnetic fields of cellular tissue.Ionising
radiations like x-rays and gamma rays interact with the
cellular nuclei of foods, disturbing their natural vibratory
rates (and bioenergy states). Foods do more than meet M)
the bio-chemical needs of our tissue cells. They also
supply our tissue with bio-energy. The bio-energy of
natural foods is in tune with our cellular bio-energy fields
and are hence biochemically and pranically nourishing.
Irradiated foods, on the other hand, alter (abnormal)
bioenergy states and hence likely to disturb the natural
frequencies of our cells.
The bio-energy field is linked with and determines the
genetic makeup of cells. In irradiated foods the genetic
sequence is disturbed. Consuming such foods could alter
the bio-energy condition of our cells, leading to possible
chromosomal anomalies. This explains the finding of the
National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad.
Unlike chemical changes incellular tissue, genetic
aberrations are irreversible. Genetic anomalies disturb
physiological functioning and are responsible for certain
types of cancer, cataract and various congenital disorders,
But this safety measure is anyway not
helpful. Irradiation does not reverse
spoiling processes. It can delay
microbiological spoilage but, at doses
applied in food irradiation, will have
almost no influence on the enzymatic
processes. Investigations with the
Howard-mould test show the same
findings before and after irradiation.
Neither will the process remove nor modify any substance .
from the product. When the product is bad, while GMP is
not applied, it will be just as bad after the irradiation process.
So quality control in food irradiation is not different from
quality control in other food treatments.
Quality control starts at the receipt of the product, when the
condition of product and packing is judged, and the details
of importance are noted on the accompanying papers.
Sometimes a product in bad condition is refused or when
damaged during transport photographs arc taken and in
consultation with the owner return or repacking is arranged.
Depending on the product, temperature measurement is
done and samples are taken for microbiological control. The
quality assurance manager may even delay the time of
treatment until the laboratory report has been received.
Q FACTS against MYTHS
MYTH: Food irradiation plants are also safe and reliable
and workers are not in any danger of suffering any
harmful exposure.
FACT: This is the same argument that nuclcarcrats offer for
justifying the need fo.r nuclear power plants!
However, workers in irradiation plants like those at nuclear
power plants also risk exposure to large doses of radiation
due to equipment failure, leaks and the production,
transportation, storage, installation and replacement of
radiation sources.3 For instance,
x
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recorded
54 accidents at 152 irradiationfacilities worldwide since 1974.
B nt this number is probably low since the NRC has no
information about irradiationfacilities in approx. 30 "agreement
#3 *99
Page 6
states which hare the authority to monitor facilities on their
own;
New Jersey, U.S.A, is home of the highest concentration of
irradiationfacilities, and virtually every NewJerseyplant has a
record of environmental contamination, worker over-exposure,
or regulatory failures;
In 1991, a worker at a Matylandplan in Pennsylvania, USA
suffered criticalinjuries when exposed to ionising radiationfrom
an electron-beam accelerator. The victim developed sores and
blisters on his feet, Jace and scalp, and lost fingers on both
bands;
uncertainties. In Britain, for instance, a large number of
potentially harmful additives arc still approved for us in
food. "Any testing system that is less stringent than the one
that has allowed these additives to slip through the safety
net hardly inspires confidence".2
The argument on storage, is incorrect. Vitamin Bl, for
example, is not only very sensitive to radiation damage but
the further losses during storage are greater than expected
during normal storage of un-irradiated foods. Vitamin E is
not only virtually destroyed in some irradiation processes,
but is destroyed even if it is added as a supplement after
irradiation.
In 198S, Radiation Sterilisers, Inc., (RSI) in Decatur, Georgia,
The argument on cooking too is mis-lcading. It is true that
vitamin losses, particularly of vitamin C, do occur but it is
pool, endangering workers and contaminating the facility.
the grains, meats and some vegetables that arc usually cooked
Workers then carried the radioactirely into their homes and
whereas a large portion of vitamin C is obtained from fresh
cars. Cleanup costs exceeded S30 million and taxpayersfooted
fruits and uncooked vegetables. Depending on the vitamin,
the bill; In 1986, the NRG revoked the license ofa Radiation
the type of food and the dose of radiation, losses commonly
Technology, Inc., (RTI),facility in News Jersey for 32 worker
range from 20% to 80%
safety violations, including throwing
Fruit juices lose more
radiativegarbage out with the trash
vitamins than fruits, which
and bypassing a key safety device.
lose more than vegetables,
As a result of this negligence, one
and grains which, in turn
worker received a near-lethal dose of
lose than meat. (Yz//foods
radiation;
lose more vitamins than
yangfoodsf. Vitamin E, in
In 1982, an accident at the
particular, is so seriously
International Nutronics in Dover,
damaged that even if it is
N.J. contaminated the plant and
replaced as an additive later
forced its closure. Radiation baths
on, it will still get destroyed.
were used to purifygems, chemicals,
This will affect grains and
foodand medicalsupplies;
beans that contain natural
In 1974, an Isomedixfacility in
poly-unsaturated oils.
New Jerseys flushed radio-active
Vitamin E protects these
water down toiletsand contaminated
oils. Without Vitamin E,
pipes leading to sewers. In the same
the oils easily turn rancid Irradiation - Whitewashing Food Problems?
year, a worker received a dose of
and toxic. The loss of also
radiation considered lethalfor 70
Vitamin BI during cooking is again greater when the food
percent of the population. Prompt hospital treatment saved his
has been irradiated.
reported a leak of Cesinmc 137 capsules into the water storage
f
life. In short, the question ofplant safety involves of security,
(the nuclear waste is very lethal), waste disposal, engineering
safety, transport of radio-active material, production of new
isotopes and handling, in some case by poorly trainedpersonnel.
MYTH: Though it is safe some minor effects can occur
in food in the testing ofchemical products ofirradiation
hut these are nutritionally insignificant and seldom occur.
So,there is no need to worry! Such minor effects are no
more serious than what occurs during normal storage,
or, during cooking or heating. And, anyway, its enormous
benefits outweigh its harmful effects.
FACT: The way these effects arc dismissed nonchalantly is
disturbing as also the changes to the rules of testing the
hazards and for limiting the maximum doses to the food.
Obviously, powerful vested interests that want, to believe
food irradiation is safe and who are more concerned to
convince the public than objectively report the problems and
Q FACTS against MYTHS
At another level, it must also be noted that a family in the
North with a normal healthy diet - even, for that matter, the
tiny well-off minority in the South — will not seriously suffer
from major nutritional deficiencies owing to irradiated food.
But what of the majority in the South whose diet is already
deficient? This is far more common than usually appreciated.
Poor eating habits arc often forced upon people by poverty',
or by the pattern of family working that leaves them overdependent on processed 'convenience' or even junk or funky
foods.
Finally, the argument of the advantages of food irradiation
out-weighing its disadvantages is also spurious. It emanates
from the FDA which has a Cost-Benefit Analysis/Risk
Assessment which says, for example, that if onty one person
in 1000,000 gets cancer and only one person in one million
dies from the chemical in a particular food, then the benefits
of the particular chemical may outweigh the "low" loss of
#3 '99 ")
Page 7
life and illness. If this is true then why do they do that? The
answer is short and simple! It all boils down to $S$. The
pesticides manufacturers are incredibly rich and powerful. In
addition, the one person per million death rate is a highly
politicized risk calculation method. This "risk assessment"
has been called a "process, the goal of which is to obtain
permission to kill people".
at chromosomes, any abnormality will surely be missed. The
children had gained weight. Their haemoglobin was fine.
Clinically, they responded well to this irradiated food. On
looking at them the children appear perfectly alright. But on
closer examination of their chromosomes a clear indication
of mutagenesis is observed. Years later, the children might
develop cancer if the polyploidy continued.
Finally, whatever the supposed benefits, is this a risk worth
taking? Arc there any assurances about safeguards taken
against the occurrence of such accidents?
At any rate, whatever the mechanisms involved in the chain
of events from cell damage to cancer and/or genetic damage
there arc few in the medical and biological sciences who
would regard an increase in polyploid cells as a trivial matter.
That this chromosome defect has been found in children
and animals fed irradiated diets is clearly cause for concern
though not of itself proof of a causal link between
consumption of such foods and these very serious long
term effects.2
MYTH: The so-called 1975 NIN study ofHyderabad
has since proved to befaulty and its data contradictory.
Thus, this oft-quoted study negating the relevance of
food irradiation is invalid.
FACT: The study by Drs. C.Bhaskaran and G.Sadasivan of
the National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, on the five
children fed freshly irradiated wheat (75 kilorads or 0.75
kilograys) showed that four of the five children developed a
chronmosomal abnormality called polyploidy. Polyploidy is a
good indication of possible future cancer*. That is, 80%.
However, after the feeding was stopped, the polyploidy
disappeared. The same results were obtained in monkeys.
The result led to the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, to
overrule the DAE’s strong advocacy of food irradiation.
However, the FDA of the US rejected this study based on a
review. But it was later discovered that this rejection was
based on the findings of the "the committee of scientists",
Sukhatmc and Kesavan, who had refused to examine the
NIN animal studies as it was "outside their frame of
reference".
The study was also rejected on the claim that the tests were
carried out on malnourished children. But that is rather
because they were young/ Young children do not have fully
fftftWbpcd DNA repair systems, and for this they arc more
to mulgenesis than adults on whom such
fii^irhiidi^Arc commonly conducted. But unless you look
REFERENCES
7.
2.
Anumukti, Vedchbi, # 6,1995.
Webb,!', & I^ang, Dr.T.,Food Irradiation: The Pacts, Thors^^
Publishing Group, Rochester, Vermont,1987.
3.
Nuclear I jmcb: 'I 'he Dangers And Unknowns of Food Irradiation,
4.
Swede, S. Nuclear Food: How Can It Be Safe?, Better
Wise News Communique,# 486, 1998.
Nutrition,#5,1983.
5.
Seah, RA'be Truth Behind Irradiated Food, Utusan Konsnmer,
Malaysia^April, 1995
6.
Ananthu, T. S., A New Movement Opposes Food Irradiation,
Gandhi Marg, January,1989.
GLOSSARY
Radiation:
Is the process were food are treated try regulated
doses, with radio-active material that are salvaged
from nuclear waste.
Gy Gray:
Unit of received those of radiation.
kGy:
KiloGray
Rad:
Old unit of received dose of radiation.
Rem :
Old unit ofdose measuring biological damage.
5
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against alien
development models, paradigms and false concepts
on caste, creed and gender.
Produced and Published by :
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
D-l Shivdham, 62 Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA
S62 The Secretary
Community Health Cell
No.367 Srinivasa Nilaya
Jakkasandra, 1 Main, I Block
Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034
S : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Fax : 889 8941
Email:
vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
Printed by : Omega Offset, 2/3. Emerald Corner,
Maratha Colony. Tilakwadi, Bclgaum 590 006.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Position: 4374 (2 views)