In December's Meat Marketing & Technology, a group of scientists stated their support for AMI's research into irradiation to help produce a safer supply of meat. The scientists also criticized the group Food & Water Inc. for spreading unfounded fears among consumers about the irradiation process. Here is Food & Water's response.
As the meat industry navigates through the minefields of food safety concerns and regulatory reform, irradiation is the largest mine to be avoided.
If James Marsden (president of the AMI Foundation) continues his reckless promotion of the controversial technology, the meat industry could be devastated.
There are four simple reasons why the meat industry should avoid radiation-exposed meats: safety (food and environmental), taste, costs and consumer opposition.
The promotion of irradiation in the food industry is nothing new. But the irradiation industry has struck out in its attempts to gain acceptance.
First, Florida produce was the prime target, but the Florida produce industry wanted nothing to do with irradiation.
Next, irradiation promoters tried the poultry industry, which gave a resounding "no thank-you." Several top poultry companies, including Tyson Foods Inc, Perdue Farms Inc. and Gold Kist Inc., have given Food & Water a statement assuring consumers that they will not use radiation treatment on their chickens.
Red meat's turn
Being the last choice of a desperate industry is nothing to be flattered about.
The irradiation industry did not choose meat because it wanted to, it chose meat because it had to.
Imagine the glee of irradiation industry members to finally find someone-Marsden-in the food industry willing to listen to them after having so many doors slammed on them.
Marsden's courtship with the irradiation industry could seriously undermine consumer confidence in the safety of meat products.
Regarding the safety of radiation-exposed foods, Ken Partch, editor of Supermarket Business, said in an editorial: "[Irradiated meat] might contain some things that were not there before irradiation. Are they harmful things? Some say yes, some say no. Most say they don't know."
Partch also noted that Marcia van Gemert, former head toxicologist of FDA's review panel on the safety of irradiated foods, concluded that the studies the agency relied on when it approved irradiation do not prove safety.
What's the alternative?
"There are many existing conditions within meat plants that need to be cleaned up through programs such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point," Partch wrote.
Taste is another factor the meat industry needs to consider when contemplating irradiation.
According to a recent article in the British magazine Economist, a leading meat scientist reported that meat irradiation taste tests are failing.
In every instance, consumers were able to distinguish the irradiated meat from non-irradiated meat.
Worse, taste tests indicate that irradiation leaves an off-flavor in meat products that resembles a burnt hair taste, according to researchers.
Try selling that burger.
And who will pay for $10 million irradiation facilities? Consumers won't be too happy about spending more money for meat products that have been exposed to the equivalent of 30 million to 70 million chest X-rays, are lower in nutritional quality, and contain new chemical residues.
The opposition
The biggest hurdle to irradiation is consumer opposition. To combat that opposition, AMI is employing a "once-educated" strategy.
AMI is trying to convince the industry that consumers, once educated, will probably accept irradiation. And once educated, people might again believe that the world is flat.
The "once-educated" strategy is an attempt to avoid discussing polls that indicate widespread consumer opposition to radiation-exposed foods.
An October 1993 AMI-Gallup Poll showed that 72 percent of consumers expressed concern about use of the technology. And a recent Food Marketing Institute poll showed that 59 percent of consumers were unlikely to purchase irradiated foods.
The meat industry is being given a clear choice: Adopt irradiation and send a signal to consumers that the industry is giving up its efforts to clean up and honestly handle meat safety questions; or reject irradiation and work with consumers to effectively address safety issues.
One thing for sure: Consumers will always understand that only dirty meat is in need of radiation treatment.
That is not too appetizing.
.