Quotable Quotes:

"Food irradiation can be a great help to reducing food-borne illness by killing harmful bacteria and retarding spoilage. It is safe and effective, but much confusion exists in its use. While available in some supermarkets, with greater consumer concerns about food borne illness, we may see these products appearing more regularly. Madelyn Fernstrom, Ph.D., CNS, NBC's Today Show

"Irradiation can do for meat and produce what pasteurization does for milk: Kill bacteria that cause illness and death. It's time for Wisconsin to take a leading role in making irradiation an important part of the nation's food safety strategy." Wisconsin State Journal Editorial

"it's time federal authorities allow use of a proven technology to make food safer. High-energy X-ray and electron acceleration techniques, often referred to as irradiation, can safely do for meat and produce what pasteurization has done for milk. Indianapolis Star Editorial

"The answer to recent E. coli outbreaks and other food-borne illnesses has been sitting on the shelf for decades while hundreds of thousands of Americans have been sickened and thousands have died.

Investors Business Daily

In This Update:

How safe is food irradiation? Killing bacteria may eliminate food-borne illnesses.

Brazil seeks to export irradiated fruits to U.S.

Let irradiation make food safer

Play it safe with irradiated food

Lettuce Irradiate

Disease-Bearing Food: Is Irradiation Really the Answer?

When bad things happen to good food

Lettuce? Blowhard Activists? Zapem Both

Fruit, vegetable irradiation plant to start in February

Irradiation Back on the Table

Food Irradiation Research and Technology text book now available from IFT & Blackwell Publishing

How safe is food irradiation? Killing bacteria may eliminate food-borne illnesses.

By Madelyn Fernstrom, Ph.D., CNS; TODAY diet and nutrition editor; (January 29, 2007):

More than 300,000 people become sick from food-borne illnesses each year in the U.S., and almost 5,000 of those die. Could food irradiation make the food supply safer? In this column, Ill take a closer look at this hotly debated form of cold sterilization.

What is food irradiation?
Food irradiation is the process by which energy is used to kill bacteria, including E. coli, in a variety of foods ranging from meats and poultry, to fruits and vegetables, to spices. It is the same as energy used in microwave ovens. This process, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has been used in this country since 1972. Not only does it kill bacteria, but irradiation can also extend the shelf life of produce, making fruits and vegetables less susceptible to spoilage

Think of irradiation as a method of sterilization, just like pasteurization for milk, which uses heat to kill bacteria. Irradiation uses bands of light energy to kill the bacteria, and thats why its known as cold sterilization. Wed never think of drinking milk that was not pasteurized, but many people are concerned with irradiated foods. Why? Contrary to what it sounds like irradiated food is NOT radioactive. In fact, scientific studies show no safety issues with consuming irradiated food. Astronauts consume irradiated foods in space and so do hospitalized patients who have compromised immune systems.

Is food irradiation safe?
More than 40 years of scientific research show that this process is safe. The radiant energy kills the bacteria in the food, but it does not touch the food directly. Most people do not know that irradiated wheat flour, spices and potatoes have been available in this country for the past 18 years. Food irradiation is a widely studied food processing technology. The FDA has approved irradiation for beef, pork, lamb and poultry, fruits and vegetables, grains, and spices c both to kill bacteria and extend the shelf life of foods.

Does irradiation affect nutrition?
The FDA has approved the use of cold sterilization for a variety of foods. While meats and other protein sources show no change in texture or nutrient content, particular fruits and vegetables can show some change in texture (mushiness), and some reduction in nutrient content. However, the foods flavor appears to be unaffected. Irradiation does not cook food.

What are the concerns?
Some consumer groups believe that the radiant energy used to kill the bacteria in foods alters the food composition and makes it dangerous. More than 40 years of scientific evidence shows that this is not true. (One study showed that nine out of 10 people would try irradiated food, once they understood the process.)

However, other critics contend that the use of this technology will mask the underlying problems in food manufacturing, which produce bacteria in the first place. That is, if food is irradiated, food producers will not pay attention to maximizing food safety in the manufacturing process.

Do irradiated foods make cooking safer?
While bacterial contamination can be largely reduced by cold sterilization, food safety rules still apply in handling raw meats and produce. Thorough hand washing after handling raw foods is a must. Avoid mixing raw and cooked meat products with your hands or with knives. Using a disposable cutting surface (a paper plate) or put your cutting board through the dishwasher. Restaurants have their own inspection regulations to ensure healthy food handling.

Dr. Fernstroms Bottom Line:

Food irradiation can be a great help to reducing food-borne illness by killing harmful bacteria and retarding spoilage. It is safe and effective, but much confusion exists in its use. While available in some supermarkets, with greater consumer concerns about food borne illness, we may see these products appearing more regularly. Watch Video Clip of This Story.

Madelyn Fernstrom, Ph.D., CNS, is the founder and director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers Weight Management Center. An associate professor of psychiatry, epidemiology, and surgery at the University Of Pittsburgh School Of Medicine, Fernstrom is also a board-certified nutrition specialist from the American College of Nutrition.

Brazil seeks to export irradiated fruits to U.S. Produce News: (January 23, 2007) By Joan Murphy

If approved by U.S. authorities, irradiated fruits from Brazil would be economical to ship, since the irradiation benefit of longer shelf life means that shippers could use sea freight rather than more costly air transportation.

George Karski, president of Securefoods Inc., a food irradiation company, is setting up food irradiators in Brazil to treat papayas and mangos for the U.S. market. Despite being a top producer of fruits and vegetables, Brazil's post- harvest losses are significant because of insect infestation and rot, he said.

The New Hampshire firm, formed in 2001 by Brazilian Resources Inc., is hoping to extend shelf life for papayas by replacing hot water dips with cobalt irradiation processes for produce shipped to North America and Europe. Brazilian Resources reached an agreement in last February to purchase five irradiators from New Jersey-based Gray*Star Inc.

In Brazil, the fruit is picked early to correspond with the water treatment technique, but processing the fruit with irradiators located near growing areas could delay harvest time, slow the ripening process and allow better quality fruit to be shipped by sea, said Mr. Karski.

Even so, Brazil has yet to publish final regulations that would clear the way for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to sign a framework equivalency work plan. Three countries -- India, Mexico and Thailand -- have already signed one.

"It's up to Brazil to act," said Paul Gadh of the USDA's Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service. One of the requirements is that a commodity-trading country has regulations in place before a framework agreement can be approved. Brazil recently published draft regulations. It must also have an operational work plan, a compliance agreement with the facility operator and a trust fund agreement. The USDA also requires that importers certify irradiation facilities, protect non-treated fruit and maintain records for at least a year.

The two-year process with Brazil has taken longer than expected, Mr. Gadh said. Last year, the USDA sought public comment on the decision to allow Thailand to export six fruits to the United States, a move that Florida and Hawaii producers strongly oppose.

Under the rule, Thailand could import litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple and rambutan shipped with a phytosanitary certificate saying the fruits had been irradiated.

Three cases of mass food poisoning in the United States in the past four months have sickened hundreds and killed three, including a Wisconsin woman. These incidents highlight a need for America to take a leap forward in food safety by promoting the use of irradiation.

Irradiation can do for meat and produce what pasteurization does for milk: Kill bacteria that cause illness and death. It's time for Wisconsin to take a leading role in making irradiation an important part of the nation's food safety strategy.

TConsumers should demand that irradiated food be offered as a choice in supermarkets and on menus.

TSchool districts should request irradiated meat for their school lunch programs.

TWisconsin's congressional delegation should encourage the federal Food and Drug Administration to pick up the speed with which it evaluates requests to expand the use of irradiation for food safety, particularly a request to irradiate packaged foods such as the E. coli-tainted bagged spinach that caused the death of a 77-year-old Manitowoc woman in September.

Irradiation uses gamma rays to sanitize food. The American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control, the American Dietetic Association and the World Health Organization are among the groups that support irradiation as a safe and effective way to promote food safety.

It's inexpensive, too. Irradiation adds just 2 to 5 cents a pound to the cost of food. As it becomes more widely used, the cost will decline.

Yet irradiation has been slow to spread through the food industry. Only about 1 percent of the meat and produce sold in the United States is irradiated.

A chief barrier has been unfounded fears promoted by anti-irradiation crusaders including the Organic Consumers Association and Public Citizen, founded by Ralph Nader. In the tradition of the irrational groups that protested the pasteurization of milk and fluoridation of water, they rail against the unknown threats from a sinister new technology.

The technology is neither sinister nor is it without a resume. The FDA's first approvals of irradiation, for wheat and wheat flour, came in 1963. Some spices, potatoes and strawberries have been irradiated for years. Astronauts have eaten irradiated meat since the 1970s.

As for unknown threats, they remain unknown because 50 years of scientific research have found none.

The known risks of failing to use irradiation are far more persuasive. Nationwide, 325,000 Americans are hospitalized with food-borne illnesses each year, and 5,000 die.

Irradiation cannot absolutely guarantee food safety. But along with proper handling and preparation, irradiation can dramatically reduce the cases of illness and death, if it becomes commonplace.

Wisconsin should help make it happen.

For more information on irradiation, consult www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm.

Our position: Irradiation should be approved to make nation's food supply safer.

Good hygiene and greater caution by workers who handle food is the best way to prevent outbreaks of norovirus, a viral gastroenteritis that has plagued Hoosiers in recent weeks. State health officials say the virus has caused 28 suspected and 11 confirmed outbreaks since November in Indiana restaurants, long-term care facilities and hospitals.

But to fight pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella, which can cause far worse than a day or two of misery, it's time federal authorities allow use of a proven technology to make food safer. High-energy X-ray and electron acceleration techniques, often referred to as irradiation, can safely do for meat and produce what pasteurization has done for milk. Irradiation kills 99.9 percent of food-borne diseases hidden in crevices and folds where washing doesn't readily reach.

The Army developed the technology in 1943. It has been used safely in more than 40 countries for years to rid food of bacteria, parasites, mold and fungus. But the sort of fear-mongering that once scared consumers into believing food cooked in microwave ovens was unsafe has prevented the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from approving its use for all but a limited number of products.

Long-term studies by scientists, medical groups and public health agencies have conclusively proven that irradiation is safe. But lobbying by activists with phobias about anything associated with the corporate food industry has cowed federal regulators. A petition to expand use of irradiation has been awaiting review by the FDA for more than seven years.

Meanwhile, 5,000 Americans needlessly die of food-borne illnesses and 325,000 are hospitalized each year.

Given the proven safety of irradiation, the logical path is to expand its use, require labeling of irradiated foods, and allow consumers to choose whether to buy them.

Public Health: The answer to recent E. coli outbreaks and other food-borne illnesses has been sitting on the shelf for decades while hundreds of thousands of Americans have been sickened and thousands have died. Virtually every modern kitchen has a microwave oven that's used to prepare everything from popcorn to the proverbial TV dinner. We do not fear it; we use it without a second thought. Yet a similar technology that can make food safer is feared and remains relatively unused.

That technology is food irradiation. The U.S. Army pioneered its development in 1943, and it has since been commercially used in more than 40 countries, including on a small scale in the U.S. Astronauts on space shuttle missions have eaten irradiated foods, even steak.

Food irradiation uses gamma rays from a solid radioactive source to break up the DNA of, and thus kill, dangerous bacteria, parasites, mold and fungus in and on agricultural products. It does not make food radioactive, any more than getting a dental X-ray or passing through a metal detector at the airport makes you or your teeth glow in the dark.

The recent deaths traced to contaminated produce served at Taco Bell restaurants is reminiscent of the 1993 deaths of children from tainted beef served at Jack in the Box restaurants. Back in 1997 over 25 million pounds of hamburger was recalled by Hudson Foods in Nebraska after it was discovered to be contaminated with E. coli bacteria. All these incidents could have been prevented by food irradiation.

But when you mention "radiation," Americans think of things like Hiroshima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Never mind that the process has been deemed safe by the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association and the Centers for Disease Control.

So-called food-safety advocates warn that irradiation can produce cancer-causing chemicals in foods while depleting them of nutrients. The same fears could be associated with roasting, frying, boiling and broiling, not to mention your backyard barbecue. As the CDC notes: "An overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrates that irradiation does not harm the nutritional value of food, nor does it make the foods unsafe to eat."

The CDC feels that if properly done, food irradiation is no more dangerous than the pasteurization of milk or the fluoridation and chlorination of drinking water, advances in technology that have saved countless lives and prevented countless illnesses. As the CDC said in 2005: "Food irradiation is a logical step to reducing the burden of food borne diseases in the United States."

Three decades ago, the WHO declared: "All the toxicological studies carried out on a large number of irradiated foods, from almost every type of food commodity, have produced no evidence of adverse effects" in irradiation.

More recently irradiation was given a clean bill of health by Paisan Loaharanu, a former director at the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization, who said: "The safety of irradiated foods is well-established through many toxicological studies. . . . No other food technology has gone through more safety tests than food irradiation."

Despite all the evidence of its safety, only about 1% of our meat and produce is irradiated while 325,000 Americans are hospitalized and 5,000 die each year from food-borne illnesses. How many of those incidents are preventable?

Well, said Dennis Olsen, professor of animal science at Iowa State University, "If the spinach that contained E. coli in the outbreak in September and October had been irradiated, there would not have been 199 cases of illness, 102 hospitalizations and three deaths."

Food for thought.

Disease-Bearing Food: Is Irradiation Really the Answer? Wall Street Journal Letter to the Editor (December 23, 2006):

In regard to your Dec. 18 editorial "E. Coli's Enablers": Thank you for raising awareness about the positive public health aspects of irradiation to sanitize/pasteurize foods of disease-causing organisms. When "Consumer Reports gave credence to ... claims ... suggesting that the chemicals formed in meat as a result of irradiation may cause cancer" then it becomes Consumer Report's burden to prove their thesis. Where are the scientific studies that identify by name the Consumer Reports carcinogenic chemicals of concern? Furthermore, where are the studies that show the carcinogenic chemicals of concern exist in statistically significantly higher levels in irradiated vs. non-irradiated food?

It is shameful and unethical that, each year, hundreds of thousands of people get morbidly ill, and hundreds of people suffer the sequella of permanent disability or death, just because of scaremongering against food irradiation by a few elite critics. I challenge those critics of food irradiation to spend one month with a family of a child who died from E. Coli 0157:H7 renal failure syndrome that could have been prevented by food irradiation.

Finally, an additional advantage of food irradiation not mentioned in the article is the extended shelf-life of the meat, vegetable and/or fruit product. An extended shelf life means we can feed more of the world's people with less food.

Less cases of preventable disease, less world hunger, and less lawsuit jackpots going to the trial lawyers. (This) Sounds like a win-win-win to me. Scott Johns V.M.D. Fairview, Pa.

People in the United States have gotten used to the idea of handling meat like a biohazard t and then eat it.

But until recently, getting sick from salad was something that most Americans didnt even think about unless they were traveling to a poor country. At home, fruits and vegetables have been regarded as clean and safe for as long as most people can remember.

The story says that in a modern country, a rise in disease caused by tainted food seems like a giant step backward in public health. But there hasnt been much public outrage or even disgust at the notion of filth seeping into the food supply.

Dr. Christopher Braden, chief of the outbreak response and surveillance team for enteric diseases at the disease centers, was quoted as saying, "Its gotten more attention this fall, but weve seen these outbreaks due to lettuce and other leafy greens for a long time. We are seeing this on an ongoing basis. Thats not an acceptable outcome. We need to find ways to interrupt that contamination.”

Scientists think most contamination lies on the surface of crops, but studies have shown that it is possible for bacteria to be taken up through root systems and actually wind up inside the plants, where no amount of washing could get rid of it. In any case, E. coli 0157:H7 tends to be sticky and is difficult or impossible to wash off, even when its only on the surface of produce.

Dr. Braden was further cited as saying that over the past 30 years, diseases linked to produce have increased, and the increased ability to detect outbreaks may explain part of the increase, but not all of it, adding, "Were convinced its real in large part. Were seeing an increased number of outbreaks, an increased number of cases in outbreaks, and an increase in the number of types of produce involved. … The way produce is farmed and processed has changed. Its become more centralized, and you have these huge processors and distributors that produce tens of thousands of pounds of a particular produce in a particular day. If something goes wrong with that produce youve got a big problem, whereas with small farmers, if there is a problem its much more limited."

Dr. David W. K. Acheson, chief medical officer at the center for food safety and applied nutrition at the F.D.A., was cited as saying the agency is trying to figure out how close is too close when it comes to cattle and produce, adding, "We know that O157 is a natural contaminant of cow feces. Cow feces, if it gets on fresh produce, is not good. Should there be some limitation as to how close cattle should be to a leafy-greens field? Fifty feet, 5 miles, 50 miles? Whats the science? … Whats really going to work?” Dr. Acheson asked. At this point, there are a lot of unknowns."

Another approach, instead of trying to prevent contamination, is to get rid of it after the fact. Nuts can be heat-treated and juices can be pasteurized. Some experts have recommended irradiating lettuce. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/health/nutrition/02seco.html

Food fascists coast to coast have been quick to place the blame for this year's E.coli outbreaks on their usual public punching bags -- the federal government, "big business," and modern agriculture. Obscured in the finger-pointing frenzy is the fact that the real culprit is in the mirror.

As The Wall Street Journal noted this week, some of the activist world's biggest guns have been fighting against the one tool proven to prevent food-borne illnesses like E.coli: "The technology is known as food 'irradiation,' a process that propels gamma rays into meat, poultry and produce in order to kill most insects and bacteria." Irradiation has been certified safe and effective by a number of prominent food safety agencies, including the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, The American Medical Association, and the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization.

Yet the FDA hasn't approved irradiation for widespread use, primarily because of a campaign run by anti-tech reactionaries like the Organic Consumers Association, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, and the increasingly misguided Consumer Reports. Their charges ultimately amount to an incoherent collection of scare words (e.g., "unnatural," "exotic") without any scientific justification. But, hey, who needs evidence when you've got an agenda and a press release?

The Journal rightly points out that these activist all-stars have been successful at road-blocking food irradiation technology because the media hasn't held them accountable. Even now, when we're seeing the human cost to this neo-Luddite zealotry, most news stories just regurgitate activist-branded solutions, without any mention of the very technology that can make a difference:

[T]he press replays the familiar yarn that the E. coli outbreaks are caused by budget cuts and government collusion with industry. In fact, FDA spending on food safety has increased to $535 million in 2006 from $354 million in 2001, a 51% increase. In any case, such inspections and more regulations can never hope to prevent E. coli as well as irradiation does. The government couldn't possibly hire enough inspectors to track the many sources of fresh produce in the U.S.

DES MOINES: Dennis Olson could only shake his head when he heard about the recent E. coli outbreak in Iowa and Minnesota. He says the technology exists to easily and inexpensively kill the bacteria long before it reaches consumers.

Olson, a professor of animal science at Iowa State University, is an advocate for irradiation of food to kill harmful bacteria. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, has allowed the irradiation of meat since 2000, but does not allow the process for produce.

"It's terrible that we don't have utilization of this very powerful technology. But it's not unlike what we heard a hundred years ago when we started pasteurizing milk," Olson said.

He says irradiation of produce would add just a few cents to the cost and have little, if any, effect on taste.

E. coli was found at a Cedar Falls Taco Johns and at Taco John's locations in southern Minnesota over the last week. Investigators believe the contamination was from green onions that came from a produce supplier for all of the restaurants.

Olson supervises Iowa State's irradiation facility. The concrete box has a 5,000-square-foot footprint, with walls 10 feet thick. Items are placed on a conveyer belt that carries them underneath an electron beam that kills bacteria.

While the Iowa State facility is used mainly for research, a Sioux City company uses the same process for commercial purposes. SADEX Corp. handles ground beef and animal-feed products, but company executives believe there is a market for irradiated produce.

KARACHI: The first fruit and vegetable irradiation plant in Pakistan will start functioning in February in Lahore.

The Export Development Fund (EDF) has approved the establishment of two irradiation plants one each in Karachi and Lahore in order to boost the fruits and vegetables exports.

The traders said on Wednesday that the lack of this technology in Pakistan was not only responsible for losses in fruit and vegetable products by 35 to 40 percent but also hampers the earning of more foreign exchange through exports of horticultural products.

Chairman Pakistan Horticulture Development and Export Board (PHDEB), Saadat Eijaz Qureshi said that the facility would greatly boost horticultural exports by helping the exporters in meeting phyto-sanitary requirements under the WTO agreement.

Mateen Siddiqui, Chairman Fruit and Vegetable Processors and Exporters Association (PFVPEA) said the prime objective of the new technology is to comply with the international quarantine requirements and ensure enhanced shelf life of perishable items.

Two high-profile E. coli outbreaks this year have some in the food business wondering -- once again -- if it's time to go nuclear.

For decades, many food safety experts have argued that irradiation -- zapping food with high-energy rays to kill microorganisms -- could avert hundreds of deaths and perhaps millions of illnesses each year. But for just as long, federal regulators and food retailers have been leery of bringing the technology to market.

Despite exhaustive reviews by federal scientists and endorsements by public health and medical groups around the world, irradiation by its very name conjures up images that are anything but wholesome: nuclear fallout, for one. That imagery, combined with some lingering uncertainties about irradiation's effects on food, has helped grass-roots activists make a potent case against it.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved irradiation as a disinfectant for a limited range of foods, including spices and ground beef. But a food industry petition to greatly expand that approval to include many ready-to-eat products -- fresh bagged greens, for instance -- has been awaiting review by the agency for more than seven years. Now, with both government officials and the produce industry feeling pressure to respond to the recent outbreaks, irradiation is again up for debate.

Jeff Barach, vice president of the Food Products Association, the trade group that brought the 1999 irradiation petition, said he had for months been unable to get an audience with FDA officials -- until September's outbreak of E. coli in Salinas Valley spinach.

"We all of a sudden got a meeting" with the head of the department that is evaluating the petition, Barach said. He said that he offered to limit the scope of the request to fewer products -- to focus only on fresh packaged vegetables, lunch meats, and a few other items -- in exchange for a quicker decision from the agency. "I think we've made some good progress," he said.

An FDA spokesman said the agency can't comment on the petition's status.

Members of California's fresh greens industry recently have been discussing irradiation -- among other strategies -- in their ongoing negotiations on food safety standards, according to Trevor Suslow, a specialist in perishable produce at the University of California, Davis, who has been present at some of the sessions.

One appeal of irradiation to the produce industry has to do with the difficulty of pinpointing the source of contamination following a foodborne illness outbreak. By the time someone gets sick, there is a good chance the offending bacteria have died off. So, farmers and food processors -- and federal investigators -- can't tell where safeguards failed.

Irradiation introduces the prospect of a final "kill step," for fresh produce, an additional layer of protection if other precautions fail.

The high-energy rays can penetrate packaging, making it possible to do a final disinfection after, say, spinach leaves have been washed and sealed in a bag. The technology can also kill pathogens nestled where disinfectants like chlorine don't always reach: in a crevice in a leaf of spinach, for instance.

Recent studies have shown that the technology will reduce populations of common foodborne disease pathogens by at least 99.9 percent without hurting the quality of most fresh produce, according to Brendan Niemira, a lead scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Intervention Technologies lab in Pennsylvania.

Irradiation disinfects food by damaging the DNA of microorganisms, rendering them unable to reproduce. The most common irradiation machines employ the high-energy gamma rays produced by radioactive cobalt.

Newer alternatives use X-ray and electron acceleration techniques that do not require radioactive material. Units suitable for mass food processing cost between $4 million and $8 million, according to executives at two U.S. food irradiation firms.

Irradiation was first identified as a food disinfectant in the 1920s. It does not make food radioactive, and its safety is supported by the results of nearly all studies of the technology performed over the past 50 years.

Still, were the irradiation of ready-to-eat produce to be approved, it would likely be the target of fierce campaigning by some public-advocacy groups.

"I would characterize our view on irradiation as calling for a moratorium," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. In 1999, when the USDA was considering whether to allow irradiation and genetic engineering in certified organic foods, Kimbrell's group helped build strong opposition that included 300,000 public comments. The agency decided to keep both technologies out of the production of organic foods.

Kimbrell says that research results don't provide proof of the safety of irradiation. He also argues that its widespread use would lead the food industry to be sloppy in other areas.

Michael Pollan, an influential writer on food and agriculture, raises another objection: If a costly food safety technology like irradiation becomes a standard step in food processing, small producers are likely be hurt more than large ones who are in a better position to absorb major expenses. That's particularly galling, Pollan says, since the national-scale outbreaks of foodborne illness that tend to prompt the use of such technologies are usually linked to big operations.

The average grocery shopper doesn't have much of an opinion one way or the other about irradiation, said Christine Bruhn, a cooperative extension specialist at UC Davis who has studied consumer attitudes toward the technology for more than 20 years. About 15 percent know about the technology and support it, while 10 percent express strong opposition, she said.

While the recent E. coli episodes have again prompted discussion of wider use of irradiation, a major change isn't likely unless the produce industry's troubles continue, she said. "I suspect it's going to take a few more outbreaks," she said.