The economics of using a commercial irradiation facility vs. building an in-plant system are discussed, as well as activist concerns on irradiated food in the second part of a two-part series
by David R. Stone
In the old West, there was never a gray area in a controversial business matter. Businessmen were either for it or against it.
Times have changed. Controversies in today's meat industry can be complicated, particularly in the area of evolving science. A look at the top of the high fence surrounding the irradiation controversy reveals that many meat packers and processors are sitting there trying to sort out the facts.
Despite assurances from experts and scientific organizations that irradiation is safe and irradiated food is safe to eat, some meat companies remain concerned about what irradiation might do to their bottom lines.
The National Pork Producers Council would like to have irradiation "as one tool in its arsenal of food safety," according to David Meeker, vice president of research and education. But NPPC is also investigating the effects of irradiation on pork palatability, cooking times and other factors.
"We know that pork is a lot more palatable at lower cooking temperatures," Meeker adds.
Research may determine what temperature is safe with irradiated foods. On the other hand, there may be a downside if irradiation produces off-flavors, the subject of ongoing research.
Safety concerns have been raised by public activists, particularly the anti-food irradiation group Food & Water Inc. Michael Colby, executive director of the Marshfield, Vt.-based organization, attacked irradiation and irradiated products as unsafe during a news conference at the September AMI convention in San Francisco. He urged industry officials against using irradiation to combat E. coli 0157:H7 in ground beef.
Colby tells Meat Marketing & Technology that while FDA looked at 441 case studies before approving irradiation, only five met all scientific standards. Colby adds that irradiation not only kills microbes, but it causes chemical changes in meat-destroying some vitamins and leaving a radiolytic residue (a chemical decomposition by the action of radiation), which he claims has not been studied as much as toxicological standards require.
"I haven't heard that one before," points out J.O. "Bo" Reagan, director of product technology research for the National Live Stock & Meat Board. "If [leaving a radiolytic residue] was the case, irradiation would never have been approved. We have concerns about [irradiation] from a quality standpoint, but not from a food safety standpoint."
He points out that The Blue Ribbon Task Force On E. coli [consisting of industry, government and university food safety experts] supports irradiation, and has recommended that USDA approve it for red meat.
Colby claims use of irradiation may give the industry a negative public image. "How will the meat industry's image survive being associated with nuclear accidents?" he asks.
Irradiation facilities do not exist in U.S. meat plants.
Presently, Plant City, Fla.-based Food Technology Service is the only facility in the United States commercially irradiating food. Food Technology Service uses cobalt-60 as its irradiation source. X-ray and electron beam irradiation have been tested and both are being further developed. Other commercial irradiation facilities are planning to enter the market.
Food & Water fears accidents may happen at irradiation facilities or during cobalt-60 transportation to and from an irradiation facility, Colby notes.
Proponents, however, dismiss these fears by pointing to the long-standing safety records of irradiation facilities that operate for the medical supplies industry.
Kanata, Ontario-based Nordion International Inc., is an international irradiation systems' supplier. Its officials say that cobalt-60 is easily handled and decays naturally to non-radioactive nickel. With a half-life of 5.3 years, cobalt-60 loses about 1 percent of its radioactivity monthly. Nordion takes back the depleted rods for reprocessing.
How much public opposition has there been to food irradiation? It was intense in the mid 1980s as a small but loud group of activists drove the food irradiation movement underground.
When the Vindicator/Food Technology Service plant was being built in the early 1990s, activist groups pressured government officials in charge of licensing the plant, delaying its start-up for several months.
But in recent years, meat industry and irradiation supplier officials say they have seen little public opposition to the process. A Gallup Poll survey presented during the 1993 AMI convention showed consumers who are educated about irradiation will be more likely to accept it.
Irradiation options
Meat companies wanting to irradiate products can either use an outside commercial irradiation facility or have their own in-plant irradiation facility. Which approach makes the most economic sense depends on a company's meat production volume.
To build and equip a large, stand-alone irradiation facility could require an investment of $4 million to $6 million, according to Grace Masefield, director of market studies and development for Whippany, N.J.-based Isomedix Inc., which operates 10 irradiation plants in the United States and one in Canada, primarily sterilizing medical supplies. The company has conducted tests on food irradiation, and its officials have held talks with meat industry executives on irradiating meat.
The cost of cobalt-60 rods used for irradiation could add more than $1 million to the total bill for an in-plant irradiation system. This is a small part of the total cost of production, so it will only add "a few cents a pound" at the grocery store, Masefield says.
James Cottee, senior market development specialist for Nordion, says a meat company might need a minimum throughput of 40 million to 50 million pounds a year to justify an in-house irradiation facility.
At that volume, the added cost would be less than 1 cent a pound, according to Frank Frazier, Nordion's vice president of market development.
Meat and poultry firms will erect irradiation operations that can run on-line, irradiating product just before it is put onto pallets at existing meat processing plants, Frazier predicts. Disruption at the plant would be minimal because little or no extra staff would be required, the land is paid for, and refrigeration and other food handling equipment is in place.
He and officials at other food irradiation suppliers offer assistance in obtaining Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval for new irradiation facilities. Nordion, for example, offers training for meat plant employees.
Activist groups such as Food & Water are encouraging companies to issue public statements promising not to sell irradiated foods. A&P Supermarkets, McDonald's, Quaker Oats and Perdue Farms Inc. are among those who have reportedly signed a pledge.
Meanwhile, industry support for the process appears to be growing.
AMI is only talking about giving consumers a choice, James L. Marsden, AMI director of scientific and technical affairs, says of the irradiation process. Irradiation allows industry to address the heartbreak caused by food-borne illness, Marsden adds, in reference to the Jack in the Box contaminated meat incident two years ago. "It's a crime not to make it available."
NLS&MB's Reagan cautions: "Some people think irradiation is going to be the 'silver bullet' in controlling pathogens. It's not; it's a tool we can use to control pathogens. There's a market for irradiation."
Few meat companies contacted for this article would issue a statement on irradiation. But a Sara Lee spokesperson declared the company would support any initiative that would contribute to safer, higher-quality food.
While irradiation is being studied further, Sara Lee says it will continue to monitor the process. The company does not currently irradiate any of its products or purchase irradiated ingredients from any of its suppliers.
With so many developments underway, perhaps all meat companies can agree with part of Sara Lee's approach: Irradiation should be monitored.