Why Aren't We Irradiating?

Irradiation is safe and effective. So why aren’t food manufacturers doing more of it?

The authors of an article published in the most recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine ask the same question. They point out that if 50 percent of food were irradiated, there would be 900,000 fewer cases of food-borne illnesses annually and 352 fewer deaths.

Ironically, Europeans, the people who are so frightened of bioengineered foods, have largely embraced food irradiation with open arms. In terms of preventing food-borne illness, the payoffs have been huge.

"Basically, this is a lifesaving technology that is readily available today and, unfortunately, it is being used only in a very sparing way," said article co-author Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease, Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. "This is akin to what we saw in the 1920s and 1930s with milk pasteurization. Today we wouldn't think of providing milk without pasteurizing it."

Posted by Jim Langcuster at April 29, 2004 10:56 AM | TrackBack