{"id":167,"date":"2016-03-08T11:22:04","date_gmt":"2016-03-08T11:22:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/foodirradiationwatch.org\/?p=167"},"modified":"2025-12-21T11:33:17","modified_gmt":"2025-12-21T11:33:17","slug":"the-facts-on-food-irradiation-and-labelling-why-you-should-be-concerned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/foodirradiationwatch.org\/index.php\/the-facts-on-food-irradiation-and-labelling-why-you-should-be-concerned\/","title":{"rendered":"The Facts on Food Irradiation and Labelling – Why You Should Be Concerned"},"content":{"rendered":"

What is food irradiation?\"radiation-sign\"<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Irradiation is the process of exposing food ionising\u00a0irradiation to intentionally alter some characteristics of the produce to achieve extended shelf life and\/or pest destruction.<\/p>\n

Numerous scientific studies have exposed the harmful effects of food irradiation. Irradiation causes vitamin and amino acid depletion in food. It changes the molecular structure of food potentially forming toxic chemicals linked to: cancer, organ damage, genetic mutations, immune system disorders, tumors, stunted growth, reproductive problems and nutritional deficiencies.(source: Public Citizen, Questioning Food Irradiation, April 2003, www.citizen.org\/cmep)<\/p>\n

Approved irradiation exposures for the processing of \u2018fresh\u2019 fruits and vegetables (tomatoes, capsicums, persimmons, mangoes, pawpaw, lychees, longan, rambutan, mangosteen, carambola, breadfruit, custard apples) is a minimum of 150Gy (equivalent to 1.5 million x-rays) and a maximum of 1KGy (equivalent to 10 million x-rays).<\/p>\n

These doses are delivered by exposure to fuel rods containing Cobalt 60 from Canadian nuclear reactors. FSANZ acknowledges that irradiation changes the vitamin and nutritional content of food with the potential to create new chemical compounds within the food, which may not be naturally found. Ionising radiation by its nature changes the molecular structure of that which is exposed to it.<\/p>\n

Irradiation is invisible to the consumer though food can be tested to see if it has been irradiated. The test for irradiation is the presence of radiolytic products and free radicals \u2013 showing clearly that irradiation causes compositional changes in food. FSANZ also confirms: “Irradiation potentially causes both macro and micronutrient changes in foods, depending on the irradiation dose, the food\u2019s composition and environmental conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Australia Irradiation approvals are given under Food Standard 1.5.3; irradiation is regulated as a food processing technique.<\/p>\n

\u201cEven where this Standard permits irradiation, food should only be processed by irradiation where such processing fulfils a technological need or is necessary for a purpose associated with food safety. Food should not be processed by irradiation as a substituted procedure for good manufacturing practices.\u201d http:\/\/www.comlaw.gov.au\/Details\/F2009C00895<\/p>\n

Why is irradiated food labelling being reviewed?<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The original call for a \u201creview\u201d of mandatory labelling of irradiated foods came from Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy (2011) aka the \u201cBlewett Report\u201d.<\/p>\n

False premise for Review: Recommendation 34 \u201cthat the requirement for mandatory labelling of irradiated food be reviewed\u201d was premised entirely upon the notion of long-term experience with irradiated foods. \u201cPeople have not had 30 years\u2019 experience of irradiated foods and there appear to be no problems for humans occasioned by the consumption of food treated with this technology.\u201d (pg 94.)<\/p>\n

Two major fallacies underlie this premise:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Irradiated food has only recently been introduced to Australian and New Zealand markets and there is little or no consumer experience with it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    The safety of irradiated food cannot be presumed simply by there \u201cappear[ing] to be no problems.\u201d In fact, no long term studies of consuming an irradiated diet have been conducted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    What is the Review aiming to do?<\/strong><\/h1>\n

    The \u201cReview\u201d process: Despite assertions that the consultation under way is not calling for legislative change, our understanding that is in really a litmus test for further action to remove labelling.<\/p>\n

    Indications from officials and Ministerial letters suggest that the outcome of this process will likely be cessation of the present requirement to label irradiated fruits and vegetables and other irradiated foods . The review document itself suggests that as labelling is seen as an impediment to the \u201cuptake of the technology.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The removal of mandatory labelling of irradiated foods is also likely to be considered a litmus test for the removal or lack of labelling other novel foods- foods using new technology – such as GMOs or Nanotechnology.<\/p>\n

    What about labelling in other countries?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Labelling is the global norm: It is clear that labelling of irradiated food is the norm. In fact, international standards, our trading partners, and the countries listed as examples in the FSANZ discussion paper, tend to have more stringent labelling regimes than Australia. They call for mandatory labelling \u2013 and, unlike Australia, include prescribed words clearly indicating that the product has been irradiated.<\/p>\n

    What\u2019s being irradiated in Australia?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    So far, FSANZ has approved: herbs, herbal infusions, spices, tomatoes, capsicums, mangoes, pawpaws, mangosteens, carambolas, breadfruit, litchis, rambutans, longans, custard apples, apples, apricots, cherries, nectarines, peaches, plums, honey dews, rockmelons, strawberries, table grapes and zucchini and squash. An application for the irradiation of raspberries and blueberries is currently being processed.<\/p>\n

    Recent approvals for commonly eaten fruits and vegetables significantly increase the proportion of irradiated foods in the average Australian and New Zealand diet, increasing the need for strong labelling laws.<\/p>\n

    It is clear that the industry is keen to increase the amount of food it irradiates and sees labelling as standing in the way to consumer acceptance.<\/p>\n

    The removal of mandatory labelling of irradiated foods is also likely to be considered a litmus test for the removal or lack of labelling other novel foods- foods using new technology – such as GMOs or Nanotechnology.<\/p>\n

    We cannot allow the government\/our food regulator to collude with industry to keep us in the dark re irradiated or other novel foods. We must demand that mandatory labelling remain – and, in fact, be improved.<\/p>\n

    Is irradiation like microwaves?<\/strong><\/h1>\n

    The page http:\/\/www.foodstandards.gov.au\/consumer\/foodtech\/irradiation\/Pages\/default.aspx<\/a> opens stating that irradiation is used in over 50 countries, has been used since the 1950s, is an alternative to pesticides and heat treatment and is safe and effective.<\/p>\n

    FSANZ: Dumbing-down science – telling half-truths \u2013 to promote irradiation:<\/strong>
    \nIt then likens ionising radiation to microwaves and fails to discuss the source or strength of gamma radiation used, rather describing the process in vague and an inaccurate fashion: \u201cThe rays pass through the food just like microwaves in a microwave oven, but the food does not heat up to any significant extent.\u201d<\/p>\n

    This is a far cry from explaining to the public that, in fact, while the radiation exposure levels permitted vary according to the product and the purpose of the irradiation, fruits such as tomatoes and capsicums will be irradiated with anywhere from 150Gy to 1kGy, which is an equivalent to approximately 1.5million \u2013 10,000,000 chest x-rays per exposure \u2013 calculated on the lower end of chest x-ray strength.<\/p>\n

    While there may be irradiation approvals in over 50 countries, the use of irradiation is not widespread, due to consumer resistance and availability of phytosanitary options.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, despite irradiation technology being developed since the 1950s, claims of the safety of irradiated foods and \u201cefficacy\u201d of the process are unsubstantiated and unsubstansiatable \u2013 due to the fact that no long term consumption studies have been conducted.<\/p>\n

    Can irradiation make food safer?<\/strong><\/h1>\n

    Irradiation proponents claim that irradiated food can be safer than non-irradiated food as irradiation can control or neutralise some food-borne pathogens.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Irradiation can kill or control some food-borne pathogens and is used for \u201cmicrobial decontamination\u201d even in Australia and as a biosecurity measure with animal-based (non-food products). Irradiation, however, cannot be a substitute for clean production and handling practices and is not recommended for regular use to \u201cclean up\u201d<\/p>\n

    In Australia Irradiation approvals are given under Food Standard 1.5.3; irradiation is regulated as a food processing technique.<\/p>\n