Mark Bittman, “Irradiation and the ‘Ick Factor,’” The New York Times, July 26, 2011

“The big question is this: How do we get the safest and most ethical food system
possible while adequately feeding ourselves?,” asks New York Times columnist
Mark Bittman in this latest opinion piece supporting “a massive overhaul of the
food system.” Discussing recent E. coli outbreaks in Europe, Bittman concedes
that the controversial process known as irradiation “could be a useful tool” in controlling bacteria and other foodborne illnesses, but warns that it should not be viewed as a panacea or replacement for other measures. “The answer will come in steps,” he writes. “[B]etter regulation and inspection of food production; stricter labor laws; more rigorous testing for pathogens, to name just a few— and eventually those steps may lead to a point where irradiation is unnecessary.”

Bittman urges lawmakers to adequately fund the Food and Drug Administration’s Food Safety Modernization Act, even while citing “the ironies” inherent in a system that insists on labeling safely irradiated products but not labeling “meat from animals routinely fed antibiotics,” genetically modified ingredients or produce raised with chemical pesticides. “If irradiation were called ‘cold pasteurization’—as it sometimes is—it wouldn’t have the ‘ick factor,’ and we might be more accepting of it,” Bittman concludes. “People just don’t like the sound of it— it’s not going to get re-labeled cold pasteurization—and it’s expensive. (Still, if there were another massive E. coli outbreak here, there could be a groundswell).”