Irradiated foods

Irradiation of food is used for making food last longer, by getting rid of all the harmful bacteria and the contaminated particles from inside of it. Irradiation is used on many different kinds of foods, which were approved by the FDA, and those include wheat, as well as red meats and some vegetables. Foods are made safe to eat, and uncontaminated, by using gamma rays or any kind of similar radiation to kill the poisoned particles/cells that are making the food spoiled. However, scientists are still debating over whether eating radiated food is safe or not. No one knows for sure whether the radiation could have long-term health affects on the people who have eaten the treated food. That is why we have opened a debate in class, where half of the class was for, and half of the class against food irradiation. We had to come up with points, reasons and facts that would support our ideas and opinions on food irradiation. After a long debate, we had to come up with a compromise about food irradiation, and find the happy medium. Then, we were supposed to talk about our poroposition to the class.



As I said above, despote the numerous benefits, there are dangers or limitations of irradiated food. One of the limitations is that radiation is considered very harmful for human beings, and some people believe that irradiated food can have serious health effects on the people eating it. Another limitation is that irradiated food could, in fact, kill some of the nutrients and vitamins that are good for your body, and are actually healthy. Some people also believe that irradiation changes the taste, look and smell of the food.

What are the pros and cons of food irradiation?

There are many pros, but also numerous cons for this type of food treatment. I will start off by naming some of the pros. Firstly, irradiated food eliminated contaminated, spoiled particles, and enables food to last longer. This can help when shipping food to different places, keeeping the food in supermarkets longer, etc. Irradiation helps feed more people, and makes less food go to waste. Irradiation saves food, without harming the people who work around it. While a certain food is being irradiated, the people working at the plant are in no risk of getting nuclear poisoning, or anything similar, because the gamma ray supply source cannot blow up, and gamma radiation cannot escape the source, and harm the workers. Also, all the workers wear protective gear, and, so far, in around 60 years of experience, there were no cases of severe poisoning during food irradiation. Another benefit is that irradiated food not only gets rid of the contaminated bacteria, it also eliminates the risk of someone getting E.coli or salmonella, which are very dangerous diseases.

Some of the cons of irradiated foods is that they can have a health impact on people who eat them, because of the nuclear radiation. Also, radiation kills any living cells that exist in the food, which means that there is a risk it can kill some of the vitamines and nutrients that are healthy for you. However, it can be argued that some of the nutrients in the foods are already destroyed. Another con is that food irradiation cannot kill absolutely all the bacteria in the food. Another point against irradiated food is that not all foods can be irradiated. Freshly produced foods such as lettuce and cucumbers change texture when they are spoiled, and turn all mushy, which means that irradiation cannot really help.



What was the proposal your group gave? 

Our group agreed that we need to do research in order to start selling irradiated food. The research cannot be short-term, though, we need to test long term effects of irradiated food. If it is proven that irridiation doesn't cause any serious health damage, then the governemnt should legalize selling it, but only if the food is labelled, so that people can know what they are buying, and that they are still exposed to some kind of risk from the radiation. We also made a decision that not all food should be irradiated, but people should have a choice of whether they would like to biu fresh, untreated food, or irradiated food.

How was science used to address a global food problem with irradiation?  Is it effective in solving the global food problem?  Why or why not? 

World hunger is one of the most controversial and one fo the most biggest problems that face humans today. Millions of people are starving all around the world, and despite the horrifying statistics, we still continue to waste food, and produce way more then we could eat, so a lot of food is left contaminatated and uneaten. In the U.S. alone, 25% of food is waste and 5-17 billion dollars are lost annualy! In the last few years, we also had lots of natural disasters, from tsunamis a to earthquakes, and a lot fo people were left hungry and without food. So, other countries had to start shipping more food to the countries affected by natural disasters, and also put the prices down. With irradiation, food can last longer, and therefore, it can be shipped to many different places that need it. I think that iradiation is effective in some ways, but in some it is not. Firstly, if you were shipping irradiated food to places affected by a natural disaster, that wouldn't be too effective, because irradiated food is much more expensive then regular foods that can spoil easily. However, it is effective in some ways because, thanks to irradiation, food can get delivered to hungry people without getting contaminated.

Are there any moral, ethical, or environmental implications of the use of irradiation to solve global food issues?  If you think there are, what are they and why do you think so?

I think that science should start working more on using irradiation with more different types of foods. The more foods we can irradiate without any harm to the people eating it, the less food will go to waste. Scientists should start doing tests and research on foods that were, up until now, believed not to be appropriate and safe for irradiation. Of course, if scientists find out that more foods can be irradiated, then they should get their research and their conclusion about the food FDA approved, before they can start seeling the product.Another thing that I believe scientists should start researching is doing irradiation with other substances in types of radiation, not just gamma rays. As we all know, we hardly have any nuclear matter left on our planet, because we are wasting it and using it up too fast. If scientists could figure out a way of treating contaminated food with other forms of waves, that would help not only the food industry, but also help the environement.

You see two containers of a food at the supermarket.  One is irradiated; one is not.  The price is the same.  Which would you buy?  Explain why.

It all depends on where I was, when I was buying the food, etc. If I went to a local food store, I would probably choose the natural food, but I would check the expiration date. If I was buying food here in Belgrade, I would want it to be healthy, and I would want all the nutrients kept within the food, and not ruined by irradiation.  However, if I was in some country where food is hardly ever locally grown, and is mostly imported, I would buy the irradiated food, because that would mean it is not contaminated, and did not spoil during shipping. Also, if I was buying food where there is a huge shortage, or a natural disaster has hit the country, I would buy the irradiated food, because I would want it to last more, and I would want to be able to use it over a longer period of time.

 How did your thinking change throughout the debate, if at all?  How did this type of activity help you to see both sides or at least explore the issues further?  Did you like it?  Why or why not?  

My opinion, from the beginning was undecided, even though I knew that I was supposed to defend irradiation, and make the other side believe that food should be irradiated. There were points from both sides that I agreed to, and it was very ahrd to decide what is my own personal opinion. However, after I did some thinking, I came to the conclusion that irradiation should be allowed, but that people should have the choice of buying natural or irradiated foods, so that they know that they are exposing themnselves to a risk. I really loved the debate, especially isnce it was something we never did before, and it was a type of activity where you could include your opinion, as well as pure facts. As the debate progressed, new ideas came about, and we started talking about points that I overlooked before, thought were unimportant, etc. The debate helped looked at an issue from both sides, and realize that both sides had very valid reasons to have the opinion that they had. Overall, I really loved this small project/activity, and I wish that we could do this again for some other topic in the future.