Narangba Industrial Estate

The result of the 1987 House of Reps Inquiry Into the Use of Ionising Radiation was a 3-year moratorium on irradiated food (IF). Webster’s dictionary definition of moratorium: ‘suspension of activity esp during a period of reconsideration’. All witnesses who made a submission to the Inquiry received a copy of the 1988 Report.

In the 1988 Report the Committee made certain recommendations with regard to:

*Human health

*Environmental impacts

*Adequacy of assessment and regulatory procedures

Of the 25 recommendations made to the Committee, 20 directly related to application after the introduction of food irradiation technology. It was obvious that it was still on the agenda.

Recommendation no 2 requested the World Health Organisation (WHO) to review the safety of IF, produce a report and to identify where further research was required.

According to Tony Webb of the Food Irradiation Network, in his June’93 paper Could Irradiation Deliver Clean-Green Food? the Committee found conflicting evidence in relation to the safety of IF. There was evidence of ‘clear misrepresentation by WHO of the results of studies on irradiated spices’ and that no satisfactory explanation for this misrepresentation had been forthcoming. He goes on to say that in 1991 the government formally commissioned WHO to assess the safety, nutrition and irradiation detection issues. A Provisional Report was received from WHO in Dec ’92. A government body, the National Food Authority (NFA) announced a Proposal for a Food Standard and subsequently invited public comment with a deadline of March ’93. It was then revealed that WHO would not allow NFA to release details of their report prior to the deadline for public comment on the Proposal. Tony Webb: ‘Under public pressure the NFA has allowed limited access to the WHO report in a "lock-up" situation.’ Tony was denied access to photocopying facilities which restricted his ability to provide a critical assessment of the WHO report. In his paper, however, he emphasises that: ‘the conditions set out in the moratorium of 1989 do not appear to have been met’.

On 25/10/97, page 24 of the Northern Star newspaper (Lismore, NSW) ran an add for a Food Regulation Review – NSW Public Hearings (nb: no reference to irradiated or GM foods and no public hearings set down for NSW Nth Coast). This National Review was to investigate regulations at Federal, State, Territory and local government levels ‘concerning food produced for export, import and domestic consumption’ with the aim of ‘protecting public health and safety.’ Review Committee to present report to Health/Primary Industry Ministers at Cth/State levels June ’98.

According to Enuff (Everyone for a Nuclear-Free Future), Brisbane, in its newsletter, "Good News" vol 3 a company, Steritech Pty Ltd, lodged a Development Application for an irradiation facility at Narangba, in the Caboolture Shire north of Brisbane. On 14/7/99 Steritech placed a Public Notice of a Development Application in the Caboolture News and on 31/8/99 the Caboolture Shire Council approved the siting of a Cobalt-60 nuclear powered radiation plant without adequate public consultation. Legal action was taken by a sole appellant: Sol Theo, a concerned citizen. The respondent: Caboolture Shire Council. The co-respondent: Steritech Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane. Late submissions to the hearing closed on 28/8/2000. On 14/9/2000 the judgement was handed down in favour of Caboolture Shire Council. Sol decided not to appeal the Court’s decision on advice from the Environmental Defender’s Office that he would lose an appeal on a point of law. As the appeal would move to the Supreme Court, he would be liable for all costs in the event that the decision for Caboolture Council was upheld. In the Planning and Environment Court unless a case is regarded as ‘frivolous’, each party bears its own costs. The issues will now move to State level. Steritech will need to apply for a license to irradiate food and Labor factions have opposed any introduction of the nuclear industry into Queensland. Premier Beattie’s Health Minister, the Hon Wendy Edmond, however, has been quoted as saying she thinks food irradiation is safe. She is one of the ANZFA Health Ministers.

The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) has replaced the NFA as the mandatory body in relation to the Food Standard. On 3/8/99 the New Zealand Health Minister and Australian Health Ministers at all levels (including the Hon Wendy Edmond) met as the Aust/NZ Food Standards Council and agreement was reached on how to implement new food standards. As part of that agreement, it is noted that the Council recognised that there was, in some cases, ‘…no other feasible and safe alternative to irradiated food.’ On the ANZFA web site the public are invited to make submissions to Proposals for new food standards.

According to Friends of the Earth (FOE), Brisbane, Steritech has successfully lobbied the Commonwealth government to ‘remove the moratorium on food irradiation.’ They state that in August last year George West, Managing Director of Steritech Pty Ltd, called a meeting of key opponents. When questioned about an ABC radio news story of 13/8/99 concerning the lifting of a 10-year ban on irradiated food, he denied the story stating that the press have ‘got it wrong.’ When directly questioned on Steritech’s position on food irradiation his response was that food was ‘more trouble than it’s worth.’ Steritech’s Narangba brochure, however, clearly targets the agricultural industry for which they predict increased export sales as a result of irradiated fruit and other produce. Steritech’s proposal is to irradiate medical, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and other products.

In the 1988 Report from the Inquiry (above) at page 139, [pg 7.42]: Ansell Steritech Pty Ltd ‘was criticised for failing to include advice of accidents, both at…Dandenong plant and …in NSW…’ At page 180 of the 1988 Report, Mr GC West is listed as General Manager of Ansell Steritech. Food irradiation is on Steritech’s agenda. In George West’s Nov ’98 presentation ‘Food Irradiation – its benefits and limitations’ to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) Symposium: Technology –Australia’s Future, he states:

In Australia, the CSIRO Food Research Quarterly, 3/9/85, reported test results on meats.

‘Severe problems appear to limit the use of irradiation for the treatment of meats. It causes changes in flavour, aroma and colour and these may alter the product significantly to cause problems with consumer acceptance…on opening the packs, atypical odours (described as ‘wet-dog- or ‘fishy’ were noted.) The fat was also noticeably bleached and peroxide accumulated more rapidly in the irradiated than in the untreated fat. Clostridia may grow within meat tissue. To eradicate this very dangerous organism, a sterilising dose is required, but the organoleptic changes (changes to colour and odour) caused by a dose of this magnitude are a problem. They report that ‘commercial sterilisation of beef first requires cooking, then vacuum-packing, freezing to about –40 degrees celsius and then irradiating at 50 kGy (kilogray), which is the equivalent of 150 million chest x-rays.’ The London Food Commission booklet: "Food Irradiation in Britain" noted the use of additives such as Sodium Tripolyphosphate are necessary to prevent discolouration, bleeding and the breakdown of fats in meat. Sodium Tripolyphosphate is a chemical used for cleaning grime off walls.

In a recent issue of Hippocrates Newsletter was an article entitled "Nuked Meat For Sale": ‘It was bound to happen. Wal-Mart Corporation became the first major USA retailer to jump on board the food irradiation bandwagon. This highly predatory retailer began selling nuked beef products in early 2000. It’s a match made in heaven, a kind of industrial nirvana – a peculiarly convenient synergy whereby disease-riddled food, rendered "safe" after undergoing a toxic blast of radiation, is served up to the legions of loonies looking for the next great American bargain. Wal-Mart’s enthusiastic embrace of irradiation was intended to serve as a kind of battering ram against the wall of apprehension that exists between the major food corporations and the controversial irradiation technology. But the irradiation industry’s much-wished-for tidal wave of acceptance has yet to materialise. There has been a handful of smaller stores in a few regions of the USA (Minneapolis, central Florida, and Chicago, for example) that have also accepted irradiation, but it certainly hasn’t amounted to the rush of excitement that the nuclear industry is counting on to pull them out of their doldrums. The media’s response to the first sales of irradiated meat have been predictably positive, giving little, if any, space to opposing points of view. The nuclear industry’s public relations goal has been to get the media to begin using the new nonnuclear technology for irradiation. While there’s still some disagreement in the pro-irradiation camp as to the official new name for the technology, the current favourite seems to be "cold pasteurisation." It’s a sinister attempt to deceive the public by semantically repackaging a highly controversial and unpopular technology. And it’s not surprising that irradiation proponents want to create a fresh start (new name and all!) for a technology with a sordid history. The accidents, mishaps, convictions, lies, and malfeasance intertwined in the short history of food irradiation make it a tough sell to both the food industry and consumers.’

Unscrupulous monopolies have no regard for nutritional losses incurred during re-irradiation or where contaminated foods which don’t meet safe microbiological testing levels are ‘cleaned up’. While irradiation can leave food looking fresh longer, this can be deceptive as it can reduce the bacterial load of foods but will not eliminate the chemical toxins that may have been created by earlier contamination, presenting a very real public health hazard. In his article ‘Out of the Frying Pan’ New Society, 17/1/86, Carl Gardner states that irradiation: ‘…at recommended doses will destroy salmonella bacteria plus many organisms that give bad chicken its putrid odour. But botulism, the bacteria that causes botulism food poisoning, will not be killed thus it could still multiply without the consumer noticing any warning smell.’