Irradiation. The very word is a bit scary, conjuring up images of

Hiroshima and Chemobyl, x-rays and cancer. Despite its widespread

medical uses, irradiation is inherently hazardous and therefore a source

of great concern.

For most consumers, irradiation of foods has been an issue of

theoretical, not practical, significance. But that s about to change.,

The nuclear industry and segments of the food industry, with assi/"

tance from government agencies, recently gained permission to pre-

serve a wide variety of foods with irradiation. So while right now

a small part of your dinner might have been bombarded with gamma

rays, in the next few years hundreds of foods may be treated.

Zealous proponents paint an attractive picture of the glories of ir-

radiation: more abundant food supplies, reduced use of dangerous

pesticides, fewer hungry people, lower prices. Equally zealous oppo-

nents with health and environmental concerns paint a far grimmer

picture: dangerous new chemicals in food, greater cancer risk, rot-

ten food magically made "fresh."

While the "experts" bandy about such terms as kiloGrays, cobalt

60, and radappertization, the average consumer is left more con-

fused than enlightened. Tony Webb and Tim Lang, of the London

(England) Food Commission, and Kathleen Tucker, of the Washington,

DC-based Health and Energy Institute (both non-profit org~niza-

tions), have written this book for concerned citizens who want to

understand both sides of the argument better.

The irradiation industry contends that "hundreds of studies" prove

irradiation to be a safe and beneficial process. The closer one gets

to those studies, though, the less persuasive they look. The Food

and Drug Administration, which has approved irradiation of many

foods, has faulted a number of the studies because they were poorly

designed or performed by untrustworthy laboratories. The agency