Sunday, February 22, 1998

Kills bacteria; will it spook consumers?

By CURT ANDERSON / AP Farm Writer

GURNEE, Ill. (AP) -- Behind 6-foot-thick concrete walls, slender rods of cobalt-60 cast a bluish glow in a deep underground pool of water, awaiting another batch of medical equipment to sterilize.

The boxes of scalpel blades and sutures rattle into the room in big metal crates hung from tracks in the ceiling. The cobalt-60 rises from its 23-foot depth, emitting gamma rays that silently destroy bacteria.

This plant north of Chicago, run by SteriGenics International Inc., is one of about 50 in the United States using gamma rays or electron beams to decontaminate health care equipment, cosmetic ingredients, spices and some foods.

Now, SteriGenics and other companies want to zap the beef, pork and chicken that wind up on millions of American dinner tables.

But although the federal government's December approval of irradiation in red meat was touted as technology's best weapon against dangerous microbes such as E. coli and salmonella, it appears unlikely the process will be used widely in this country anytime soon, if ever.

"I think it's about 50-50," said Dr. Richard Louria, chairman of the Department of Preventative Medicine at the New Jersey School of Medicine. "Could you potentially save 1,000 or 2,000 deaths? I think you could. But the opponents could persuade people that nuking your food is bad."

At a recent meat industry conference in suburban Chicago, the numerous barriers facing meat companies were apparent. No major meat company has public plans to take the leap, partly out of fear of consumer backlash and protests by anti-nuclear groups.

For similar reasons, irradiation never took off for poultry, which has quietly had approval since 1992.

"They're all waiting to be the best No. 2," said Al Kober, merchandising manager of Clemens Markets, a Pennsylvania grocery chain. "One of the big packers has got to step to the plate. They would set the stage for the rest."

The meat industry is searching for improved safety after last summer's recall of 25 million pounds of ground beef suspected of E. coli contamination.

"There's a resounding demand out there that the food industry clean up its act," said Sheila Courington of the Wirthlin Worldwide polling group.

The federal Food and Drug Administration and numerous other researchers have found no evidence irradiation causes toxic changes or radioactive residue in meat or poultry. However, the process can cause odor and color changes in meat -- pork, for instance, can turn bright red -- although controlling temperature and levels of oxygen can reduce those changes.

Meat is also a prime source of the vitamin thiamin, which is highly sensitive to irradiation. Researchers have documented losses of vitamins A, C, E and B in some irradiated foods, but supporters say a person eating a well-rounded diet would still get enough.

Labeling and marketing problems also remain. FDA rules require all irradiated foods to be clearly noted as such and to include the green international radura symbol.

"There are things inherent just in the word Ôirradiation' that scare people," Courington said.

Research presented at the conference indicates that when consumers believe irradiation makes food safer, they're more willing to buy it, even at higher prices.

Polling indicates it would be a big mistake for meat companies to mask its use by calling it something else -- "cold pasteurization" is one suggested euphemism.

"To change the term provides ammunition to those who oppose the technology because it appears you're hiding something," said Christine Bruhn, director of the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California-Davis.

In addition, meat companies must grapple with whether to build their own on-site facilities for $14 million or more or use existing plants, and how to get needed federal and state nuclear permits. Community or activist opposition is another concern.

Irradiation has advantages for the industry, including a longer shelf life for food. But a company's estimated cost increase from the process ranges from 3 cents to 7 cents a pound. Some of that could be passed on to consumers.

As the industry weighs these factors, many stores and scientists compare the debate to one decades ago about pasteurization of milk, universally accepted today.

"There's plenty of market available to make a major start," contends Dean Cliver, food safety professor at the University of California-Davis.