This document discusses food irradiation as a method of food preservation. It outlines the safety and benefits of food irradiation, which include preventing foodborne illness without using chemicals. However, barriers to greater adoption include public association with radioactivity, added costs, and consumer acceptance issues. Overcoming resistance will require focusing on health benefits rather than innovation, positive labeling, and international cooperation to remove unofficial barriers. Overall, commercial use of irradiated food has been slowly increasing in recent decades without incident.

1. It is safe, a type of
Food Preservation

2.  1. Introduction
 2. Safety and Security
 3. Global use of food irradiation
 4. Barriers to the greater use of irradiation
 4.1 Association with radioactivity
 4.2 Added Costs
 4.3 Nutritional Losses
 4.4 Consumer Acceptance
 4.5 Labeling
 4.6 Retail and food industry inertia
 5. Overcoming the industry resistance
 6. Conclusion

3. Irradiated food came up with beneficial factors in
several ways, the concept has been considered
for a century until the 1960s, the concept was
firstly initiated. By the past there were many
ways of food preservation, but food irradiation
was meant to replace military, astronauts’ and
patient meals. Afterward, the lower dose
(shown in the diagram on the next slide)
became more well-improve practical and safe
in food industry.

4. Dose
range in
kGy
0.1-1
1-10
Above
10

5.  Versatile
 Highly effective and efficient
 A cold process
 No problem of transportation
 Solid raw foods can be treated
 Treatment does not involve with chemicals and
chemical residues
 The process is relatively easy to control
 Food can be instantly distributed after
treatment

6.  Since 1960s with thousands of researches, it has
been proven that food irradiation was
concluded that the was no or at least risk in
minimal.
 In 1981, Joint Expert Committee on Food
Irradiation (JECFI) concluded that average
dose of 10 kGy had no toxicological,
harzardous, nutritional and microbiological
appearances.
 Doubts=Fix with newly updated analytical
methods at ppb level.
 2-alkylcyclobutanones=‘new’ radiolytic
product, naturally appears in nuts.

7.  In 2003, revision of irradiation standard from
1981 conclusion of JECFI also conducted.
 More than 50 nations have agreed that the
amount of food irradiation can be used in
maximum, depending on the purposes of
treatment.
 Around 30 nations have certain facilities for
production and many have only for
research&development and pilot scale
quantities.

8.  The difficulty began in 1980s when the large
volumes of grain were produced in Ukraine at
a single facility was defunct.
 In 2005 and 2010, it was apparent that the food
radiation was lowering in Europe, increasing in
Asia, particularly in China, and increasing
slowly in USA, Australasia and other regions.
In survey of 2010, the food was produced in
400 kilotons, but some said nearly a megaton.
 Most of the food is consumed domestically, the
main of international export is fruit. However,
the irradiated food exportation is increasing
slowly.

9.  Many barriers and resistances were often begat
in informally trend.

10.  Radioactive Cobalt-60 has been practically and
only used as a radiation source very recently
when reliable electron beam and X-ray sources
came to market.
 Public generally associate irradiation with
influencing radioactivity of food, so no reason
for rejection.
 Additionally, the food irradiation and medical
irradiation were similar method, and patients
accept it; therefore, there is no sophisticated
reason for the resistance to food irradiation.

11.  The net cost of a construction of new
irradiation facility is around 5 to 12 millions
dollar which is high but operational costs are
comparatively low.

12.  Due to the cost the resistance from food
producers will not want the capital outlay and
the treatment costs will pass to the consumers.
 The treatment costs are depending on the dose,
but it costs generally around 2 to 40 US cents
for a kilogram. This is not an important cost,
but the price of raw materials has a higher gap

13.  Food-borne diseases annually cost the US
around 48 million illnesses, 3000 deaths and 78
billion dollar and even New Zealand cost 135
million dollar.
 Comparatively small contribution from
irradiation can lowering economic costs of
food-borne diseases

14.  The is a statement said “irradiation destroys
vitamins” which is generally used for
convincing consumers that irradiation debases
food nutrition. It is partly true because some
nutrition, some vitamins, are somewhat
responsive to radiation if compared to
carbohydrates, proteins, fat and minerals
which are more adequate for nutritional
irradiation.
 Moreover, the degradation of nutrition is vastly
depending on the factors of growth and
harvest of agricultural processes before
shipment for irradiation treatment

15.  The Food Safety Australia-New Zealand
organization reviewed that the maximum legal
dose of irradiation for tomatoes, capsicums and
10 other tropical fruits is 1 kGy, only in
Australia and New Zealand. For exportation,
the biosecurity agencies have limited on 250 to
400 Gy.
 All in all, consumers will have more than 2% of
the sensitive vitamins less than fresh fruits

16.  The majority of food irradiation opposition will
not usually buy irradiated food, of course.
Actually, the majority of the oppositions is
getting small due to the explanation the food
irradiation has nothing to do with chemicals or
chemical residues.
 Even though, if compare to other preserved
food, irradiated food still sold in small volume,
in the US, irradiated hamburger, Hawaiian
papaya and sweet potato have been
successfully sold for at least a decade as well as
exotic fruits from Mexico and Asian nations
became available.

17.  Internationally beside the US, there are some
examples around the globe where irradiated
food became successful.
 New Zealand: irradiated mango and litchi have been
imported and sold since 2005
 France and Belgium: irradiated frog legs
 Thailand: irradiated fermented sausage
 China: irradiated spicy chicken feet
 Based on the author’s personal surveys, there 2
minorities which one of them just reject the
food and another one is actively interesting in
the food. The majority’s decisions are
depending on several factors

18.  There are only 2 main different requirement of
labeling in the world between USA and New
Zealand
 USA: the labeling is not required for irradiated
ingredients unless the whole contents are irradiated.
 New Zealand: the labeling is required for all
components that are irradiated. As the result,
oppositions of irradiated are decreasing due to the
label.

19.  Mainly, the cause of inertia of food irradiation
is because people still lack of understand the
facts of irradiation with fear and not knowing
the beneficial outcomes of versatile food
irradiation. This is why food irradiation
industry cannot become the first choice of
majority.

20.  Focusing on the benefits of the food rather than
the smartness of the innovation
 Positively use labeling
 Discuss over-strict labeling requirements with
regulators
 Realize that food is somewhat perishable
 Become a greater partner with the food
industry

21. Over the last decade, the rate of commercial retail
of irradiated food has been slowly increasing
without any damage which is a good news.
This topic should be discussed on the
international stage for a better reputation and
selling of irradiated food as well as removing
unwarranted or unofficial barriers in order to
world widen the adoption of well-qualified
innovation.