|
e.
<br /> ~e .Mr
<br /> • • v
<br /> "Q 191)•,,199) ~eC~~o~~
<br /> r Covered Irradiation over the Years
<br /> r-
<br /> DONALD E. PSZCZOLA, ASSOCIATE EDTTOR
<br /> 1-
<br /> :e URIlVG THE SECOND WORLD WnR, AMONG THE ITEMS IN- diation preservation of foods is unique." Such an observation
<br /> t, cluded in an American Red Cross package given to pris- may help illustrate the status of food irradiation at that time.
<br /> n oners of war in Europe was irradiated evaporated milk. The 1980s saw a resurgence of articles on food irradiation in
<br /> > The package ]abet (shown in photo), dated February 1942, vividly the magazine-with neazly 30 articles published, including an
<br /> n. illustrates how mature a technology food irradiation actually is. Overview (symposium), "Food Irradiation: A Mast Versatile 20th
<br /> i- ,Two years after the war ended, Food Technology made its de- Century Technology for Tomorrovd' (July 1989); a Scientific Sta-
<br /> r- but. Over the next 50 years, this magazine would publish more tus Summary, "Radiation Preserva-
<br /> than 170 articles on all aspects of food irradiation, including pro lion of Foods" (February 1983);
<br /> " ceasing methods, food safety and wholesomeness, regulatory stn- and an update, "Perspective on
<br /> .e a attitnd
<br /> n and marketingternational trade outlooks, consum- 1987). A numaber of these arti- Sr,N~4,p~
<br /> °0~ R°d
<br /> e diation a ma~
<br /> ems
<br /> fit decade, more than 40 articles on irra- Iles fo
<br /> among
<br /> f~ulmnear~
<br /> = pip~~NB~A~4Q~
<br /> q
<br /> ppe gore doubled in the 1960s. Most of these fades re
<br /> p articles were research studies on fruits (strawberries, grapes, ap- lion. One article, "Consum- ~•y°bi•~.yMeg cF~~,~Op w44NO e ,
<br /> k pies, bananas, cherries, and citrus types); vegetables (carrots, er In-Store Response to Ir- q'•••k""'F. ~ • •~eqj
<br /> broccoli, onions, tomatoes, and green beans); meats (ground beef, radiated Papayas" (Sep- ~~OM i ~ tl
<br /> d pork, ham, and steaks), poultry, and fish and shellfish; milk and tember 1987), reported rl ~ 4; -
<br /> 1_ milk products; beverages (wine, teas, and fruit juices); and a wide on a market trial of ir- "'•vN'i, i
<br /> d .range of other food products, including whole eggs, potatoes, radiated papaya coa-
<br /> .s flours, cake mixes, wheat, and spices. ducted at two South-
<br /> r Types of ionizing radiation used in these studies included ern California su-
<br /> n high-energy electron beams generated by a mechanical means or permazkets on
<br /> p gamma rays from a ceba1tr60 radioisotope. Interestingly, the use Mazch 28, 1987.
<br /> i_ of the former (in pazticulaz, cathode rays, described as artificially The irradiated papa-
<br /> acceleratedelectrons)seemed more prevalent in the'50s. In the yas outsold by more than 10:1
<br /> '60s, gamma rays becaale more commonly used, although various the double-dipped papayas. Other arti- Y
<br /> studies continued with electron radiation. (Today, there is still cles suggested that consumer attitudes toward
<br /> a much discussion about the potential value of lineaz aceelerators, irradiation can be positively influenced by aneducation-
<br /> especially as a way of responding to some of the concerns that al effort.
<br /> ~ food irradiation opponents have.) During this period, opposition to food irradiation by activist
<br /> e Tn 1958, the Food Additives Amendment to the Food, Drug and groups was also heating up. Efforts included picketing super-
<br /> „ Cosmetic Act treated irradiation, a process, as a food additive; markets that were test mazketing irradiated produce, making
<br /> consequently, it required advance approval from the Food and inflammatory demands, pressuring state legislators, and at•
<br /> Drug Administration before any irradiated food could be sold. tempting to derail the efforts of Vindicator, Inc. (now Food Tech-
<br /> Few people could have guessed that it would take another 25 nology Services, Inc.) to build an irradiation facility in Florida.
<br /> d yeazs for approval to be granted for irradiating fresh fruits and Food Technology covered these efforts as well as the reaction by
<br /> vegetables, and still longer for other foods. For example, in the the scentific trommunity.
<br /> ° December 1959 issue, an article,'Potential Economic Impact of In the 1990s, 15 articles on food irradiation have been pub-
<br /> . Food Irradiation," predicted that sales of irradiated foods should lished in Food Technology so faz, including an Overview, "Food
<br /> expand rapidly between 1970 and 1980, and that by 1980, irra- Irradiation: Recent Developments and Future Prospects." In
<br /> ~j diation `can capture an average of 10% of the mazket in those January 1992, V'mdicetor, Inc. began operating its food irradia-
<br /> food groups for which it appears to have promise." Although the lion facility in Florida, and plans are underway for the building
<br />
<br /> e authors guessed the dates wrong, they were correct in noting that of a facility in the state of Washington. Food Technology has re-
<br /> d when irradiated foods are launched in the mazketplace, they ported on the marketing progress of irradiated foods: In 1992, ir-
<br /> wouldbenefit bythe scientific studies that were cazefully done radiated produce were sold at an independent store in Florida
<br /> " over the years. and one in the Chicago area; m 1993, selected stores sold irra-
<br /> ~ During the 1970s, few articles on food irradiation were pub- dialed poultry; and more recently, hospitals, nursing homes, and
<br /> s lished in Food Technology, although more than 60 appeared in other such facilities in Florida are serving irradiated chicken to
<br /> the Journ¢l o(Food Science. One exception, however, was an az- their patients and staff. In the near future, FDAwill begrant-
<br /> ticleentitled, "Sane Perspectives Regarding Radiation Effects," ing approval for irradiating red meat.
<br /> in the March 1970 issue. The author wrote, "Never in the histo- The next step in making irradiated foods available in the maz-
<br /> ry of man has any method of food processing invoked so much ketplace must be taken by the food industry. As Food TechnoG
<br /> comment, induced so great a controversy; nor required such an ogy begins its second 50 years, hopefully it will have the oppor-
<br /> expediture offunds before its use could be permitted even on a tunny to cover that step forwazd.
<br /> limited basis as has the use of ionizing energy. In this respect, ra-
<br /> VoL 51, No. 2, I'-E9RUAAY 1997-FOOD TECHNOLOGY 49
<br />
<br />
|