Once again, Sue Kedgley has come out, all guns blazing, criticising the NZ Government and, by implication, the food industry. See the link below. In amongst the emotive comments, there are, however, some elements of truth and items of concern to the consumer. Unfortunately, her article is laced with half truths and facts taken out of context. I agree that consumers should be fully informed about their food - where it came from, whats in it, and what has been done to it (though this in itself is more complicated that at first appears). But some of her comments are pure scaremongering. Food irradiation is probably the most completely studied of all the food processes and a number of reputable research organisations, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, and the Word Health Organisation have studied irradiated foods with no evidence that harm can come from its consumption. In this type of study, it is imperative that good experimental design, and appropriate controls are employed, following accepted good scientific practice. As far as I am aware, with one exception, all the chemicals produced in food by ionising radiation are also produced by other methods of food preparation, such as heating. Irradiated food does not become radioactive. Unless very high doses of radiation are used, the food is not sterile; under these circumstances, major changes in sensory characteristics, such as flavour and colour, will occur. The level of irradiation being proposed for fruits is much lower than the destruction of bacteria and viruses - the intention is to destroy insect pests. All this said, Kedgley does have a point. Why would New Zealand take the risk of importing fruit from areas known to have major insect problems? Even if the fruit is suitably irradiated, there is the possibility of insects or larvae entering the supply chain after the irradiation process, with the resultant risk to New Zealands biosecurity. This should also be seen in the context of the Australian resistance to importing apples from New Zealand, where the argument centred on carriage of insect pests. I picked up an interesting anecdote when I was researching food irradiation many years ago: A European supermarket displayed irradiated produce alongside non-irradiated. The products were suitably labelled. The irradiated food was purchased in preference for the non-irradiated produce. Note: The comments above are my own personal views and not necessarily those of NZIFST. See: nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11392092
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:35:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015