Irradiated Food:
Facing Pseudoscience and Toxic Terrorism in New Jersey
by Dr. Edward G. Remmers

Editor's Note: This is an update of an article on food irradiation that appeared in ACSH's Winter 1989 issue of Priorities.

In New Jersey and several other states, science is struggling against fear, emotion, toxic terrorism, and pseudoscience over the fate of food irradiation. Nowhere is this struggle more apparent than in New Jersey where anti-nuclear activists have succeeded in lobbying two state legislators to sponsor a bill not to delay, but to permanently ban the sale and distribution of irradiated food in the state.

The proposed bill contains the following language highly offensive to the scientific/medical community:

By imposing a permanent ban on the distribution and sale of irradiated food, this bill resolves legislatively (emphasis added) the continuing controversy over the health effects of consuming irradiated food...

The sponsors of this bill are operating on at least two very serious fallacies. First, the sponsors, probably having little or no scientific background, believe that scientific issues can be resolved legislatively. This type of "resolution" completely ignores the scientific procedure of collecting additional evidence, subjecting it to peer review, and arriving at a position by consensus. (Yes! Science moves forward by consensus, not by legislative decree.)

The New Jersey legislature should ask those who allege that there are valid concerns about the safety of irradiated food to submit additional experimental data for peer-review. Are the skeptics/critics of irradiated food afraid to perform scientific/clinical studies and then subject them to peer-review and monitoring by impartial observers? It seems so.

The second major fallacy concerns the so-called "controversy" over irradiated food. Valid scientific controversy over this issue no longer exists. Food irradiation has been approved by 37 countries including the U.S. Twenty-four countries have successfully adopted this technology since 1958, and the number is growing by two to three countries per year.

When will we have access to irradiated food?

Our country's first "grass roots" commercial food irradiation plant is under construction in Florida. By the time readers see this article, very likely most proponents of irradiated food will be able to exercise their legal rights to receive its benefits of shelf-life extension and control of foodborne disease-producing organisms (unless you live in one of several states that have placed a moratorium on its adoption). Please note that proponents of irradiated food are not forcing skeptics/critics to eat it since it will be clearly labeled. In contrast, opponents are trying to deny proponents their legal rights, a highly offensive action in a democratic country. Those who favor irradiation do not want to be protected from irradiated food by a group of misinformed, misguided pseudoscientists.

A New Jersey anti-nuclear, osteopath-led group is trying to close down the Florida plant by conducting an advertising blitz on 57 Florida radio stations. The radio spot plays on public fear about radioactivity by alleging that irradiated food causes cancer and birth defects. Fortunately, the advertising man who created the spot (who also is well known for his "guerrilla media" techniques) has retracted his support for the ad he prepared several years ago.

So far, this offensive advertisement has created a backlash against its sponsor. A major newspaper reports that the president of the opposition group acknowledges the use of "poetic license" in stating that eating irradiated fruits and vegetables "might kill you." "We did this stuff because we're desperate." This latter statement is one of the very few truths to emanate from this fanatic group.

On a more positive side, the U.S. Army has reaffirmed its interest in using irradiated food in the field. As part of its post-Persian Gulf War review, General William Tuttle, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Army Materiel Command, has notified the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the Army wishes to incorporate irradiated foods into the military subsistence system. General Tuttle indicates that the Army is planning a program for securing FDA approvals to extend the current approval of fresh poultry to other fresh meats and fish, to inhibit pests in fruits, and, most importantly to obtain approval for radiation sterilized meats, poultry and fish. General Tuttle stresses that the need of the soldier in the field to have maximum access to meals that are nutritious and morale-enhancing has prompted a renewed military interest in irradiated foods.

Can New Jersey shake loose its anti-science mentality? The following facts raise serious doubts:

• New Jersey, the 9th most populous state, did not have a medical school until the late 1920s — many decades after adjoining progressive states — due in part to restrictive anti-science legislation. This delay has seriously impeded medical education and care in the state, with many residents preferring to go out-of-state for serious medical conditions.
• The pharmaceutical industry started slowly in New Jersey because legal restrictions limited the types of biomedical research that could be carried out. As a result, some pharmaceutical firms moved to states having more positive attitudes towards science.
• The present New Jersey Governor some 12Ð13 years ago labeled his state "Cancer Alley" during a political campaign. Epidemiological data did not support his position. (One of ACSH's very first publications investigated the allegations of "Cancer Alley" and found them to be completely unsubstantiated.)
• Now the New Jersey legislature proposes a permanent ban on irradiated food.

With the low-level of scientific literacy in the U.S., anti-science legislation flourishes. New Jersey residents deserve significantly better performance from their legislators when scientific issues are involved.

Edward G. Remmers, Sc.D. is Vice-President of the American Council on Science and Health, Inc.