PUBLIC health experts estimate there are 11 to 13 million cases of food borne illness in Canada every year.
Most cases lead to a simple upset stomach or diarrhea but it also causes hundreds of hospitalizations and dozens of deaths.
Pathogens on food are a worldwide problem and just weeks ago dozens of people were made critically ill and two died from an E. coli outbreak in the northeastern United States.
Most of this tragedy could be eliminated by wide use of irradiation.
During irradiation, food is exposed briefly to a radiant energy source, such as gamma rays or electron beams, that kill harmful microorganisms that cause food-borne illness. As a side benefit the process extends shelf life.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
The World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control endorse the use of irradiation as a safe way to reduce pathogens and insects in food.
Health Canada has also approved it to be safe and effective but has yet to set out regulations to allow its use.
The department published proposed regulations in 2002 and asked for feedback but momentum has stalled and it is still considering that information.
Even where irradiation is approved on certain foods, as in the United States, it is not used widely because of poor consumer acceptance. For many, the word radiation sparks a level of caution.
Some consumers are also swayed by the opposition mounted by organic and health food proponents who argue the process reduces the nutritional value of the treated food. They also allege that irradiation would cover up the sanitation failings of large food processors and so-called factory farms.
But years of scientific studies on irradiated food show there is no basis for these fears. There is no lingering radiation in treated food and the changes to the nutritional composition are not material in the context of an overall human diet.
Also, no health or food regulator proposes irradiation as a replacement for existing food safety requirements. It would be an extra step in the food safety process.
The Centers for Disease Control likens irradiation to the pasteurization of milk, introduced widely in the early 20th century. It too raised unfounded consumer worries, but acceptance grew as the life saving benefits became clear.
Irradiation need not be mandatory. It should be seen as an extra level of safety that may be desirable but not necessary in every situation. For example, the confidence forged in the relationship between producer and consumer in farmgate or farmers market sales maybe such that there is no need to require small producers to undergo the cost of getting an irradiation service.
But generally, it is in the public interest to have the option to buy food protected by irradiation.
As we have seen with the H1N1 flu vaccine, people will put aside their fears if public health experts provide unbiased information and explain the risks and benefits.
The agricultural and food processing sectors should encourage Health Canada to complete its recommendations for safe irradiation and with that in hand, the public health community should explain the merits of the process to consumers.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
