Irradiation of food - EFR 6-30

Changes that make food safer are always applauded. But in a consumer-based system, the need for making money is always weighed against the incremental increase in food safety, as is shown by the following.

Excerpted from FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS, May 20, 1996, pages 28-30.
This is the second of two EFRs.

In a May meeting entitled "Control of Foodborne Illness: Radiation and Other NonThermal Treatments," cosponsored by the National Center for Food Safety and Technology and the Institute of Food Technologists in cooperation with the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation, speakers indicated that food processing companies are keeping a distance from and appear increasingly disinterested in food irradiation in spite of the fact that the research and regulations needed to support broad commercialization of food irradiation are slowly but steadily falling into place.

Suppliers of exotic fruits, spice wholesalers, processors of ground meat and those in other niche markets were the most likely to actually use irradiation in the commercial marketplace according to some of the speakers.

"There's no economic motivation for big food companies to use irradiation," observed Richard Daniels, a food safety consultant. Daniels surveyed senior R&D executives at food manufacturing companies and "quick service" restaurant companies and found they felt strongly that irradiation did not pose a safety risk to consumers. However, the executives also said that it was not very likely they would be using irradiated ingredients or processing within the next five or ten years, particularly if they were required to label their products accordingly.

Daniels indicated that most executives felt adverse consumer reaction was the primary obstacle to use of irradiation by their companies. This is true in spite of the data which shows the public is increasingly accepting of or neutral on irradiation, and indicates "consumer opinion isn't nearly the issue we made it out to be," according to Daniels. However, companies still perceive it to be a major hurdle in Daniels' opinion.

Daniels predicted that when the right economic incentive comes along, food companies will use food irradiation with consumer concerns handled by marketing, R&D developing new products and engineers creating new and safe equipment and systems.

Food companies do not see a consumer demand for the products, according to another speaker, Don Zink, director of food safety for Nestle USA. "For the most part major food companies will not attempt to move ahead with a controversial technology," he said. Shoppers have to see a value in a product before they will buy it, said Zink. "Consumers buy food; they don't buy process technologies," he said. Zink noted that consumers don't ask for increased shelf life, rather that is what industry is after.

Jim Corrigan, president of Carrot Top, Inc., an upscale produce market in the Chicago area, which has been carrying irradiated items since 1992, felt differently. "You may not be selling shelf life, but the customer is buying shelf life," he said during his presentation. "What we found is that consumers will buy more irradiated strawberries" and be "more comfortable" buying a product if they realize it will last longer and not have to be consumed immediately, he said.

Corrigan felt that the notion of "consumer demand" was a not real. "Marketing creates demand, not consumers....Any retailer who waits for consumer demand is not in business today," Corrigan said.

Food safety concerns, especially with meat and poultry, may be the big issue which causes irradiation technology to take off, according to Zink. Other food industry representatives at the meeting tended to agree with this position.

Paul Hall of Kraft reinforced the food safety aspects, noting, "Risk/benefit will drive the issue, and right now most of the outbreaks are associated with meat and poultry."

The cost of scaling up to use food irradiation was another reason given for its lack of use so far. Hall noted that it was expensive, required a large volume and needed enough improvements in flavor and quality to justify the investment.

Among the most promising niche markets that could commercialize food irradiation are food suppliers to hospitals and nursing homes, where control over pathogens is required and where "you don't need consumer labeling and you could see tremendous benefits," said Jenny Scott of the National Food Processors Association.

Ground beef processors may be another market area for irradiation, said Dr. Dennis Olson, of Iowa State University. Olson noted that it is illegal for raw ground beef to contain E. coli 0157:H7, and a positive finding means a company's full day of production is recalled.

Noting that quality effects such as off-odors, colors and flavors from irradiation of beef are just in the raw ground beef, Olson said, "and once you cook the product you can't tell the difference." So these quality changes may be a concern to a retailer, but may not be a problem for foodservice, he said.