Trade Winds

Hawaii’s Irradiation Scandal

By Michael Moriarty

HAWAII’S PAPAYA industry has been suffering since September 1984, when the United States En vironmental Protection Agency disal lowed the use of ethylene dibromide (EDB) as a post-harvest fumigating agent. This treatment had been used as a measure to kill the larvae and eggs of the Mediterra nean fruit fly, the melon fly and the ori ental fruit fly, preventing their spread to North Amercia and protecting the main land’s billion dollar fruit growing industry.

EDB had been effective, but had also been implicated as a carcinogen and was considered by the Food and Drug Admin istration to be too dangerous; its ban left the industry temporarily unable to export to its main markets in North America and Japan. Shortly thereafter, the use of a “double-dip” hot water bath (a new proc ess) and “vapour heat” treatment (used before EDB) were approved.

Amid the celebration some batches of fruit treated by the double-dip method reached North America carrying the lar vae of the dreaded fruit fly. This problem was eventually overcome, but the situa tion was confused once more by effects on the fruit. In order to withstand the double dip method, papayas had to be picked ear lier and so were not as sweet; the product began to lose the uniform high quality

growers had worked so hard to achieve.

It was soon suggested that irradiation be used as an effective killer of fruit fly lar vae. This it does well: the texture of the fruit is unaffected and picking can occur at the proper time to insure sweetness. The State of Hawaii had been involved in testing ir radiation from 1967 to 1980 in the centre of Honolulu, and evidence has surfaced of an accident involving a leaking Cobalt 60 source, contamination of the facility and the release of radioactive waste water into a public sewer. The incident has had the effect of calling into question the safety of irradiation technology and the credibility of the State of Hawaii’s role as a protector of the public.

The key question is whether such a fa cility, is a safe neighbour. Evidently, quite a few citizens of Hawaii County (where the main papaya industry is located) don’t think so: they formed the “East Hawaii Coalition To Stop Food Irradiation” to oppose construction of an irradiation fa cility in Hawaii County.

The coalition points to the dangers of the facility and questions the safety of ir radiated food; Unique Radiolytic Prod ucts (URPs) are formed in irradiated foods and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences has found more than 1400 adverse effects of food irradiation.

Opponents also point out that the source for the radioactivity is Cobalt 60 from America’s troubled nuclear power industry: those who oppose nuclear power see irradiation as spreading waste the Nu clear Regulatory Commission does not know how to deal with, since hazardous waste disposal sites do not find commu nities queuing to welcome them. But what of the market? Japan understandably wants no part of irradiated fruit after its own horrifying experience of nuclear en ergy in 1945.

Joining the Japanese are England and West Germany, both of which have out lawed the sale of irradiated food. Con sumer acceptance in America seems mixed at best: all 1200 members of the Southern California Grocers’ Association announced they would not sell irradiated papayas and 60 to 75 per cent of Ha waii’s papayas are marketed in Los An geles. The State of Maine has outlawed the sale of irradiated food outright.

Whether it’s safe or otherwise, the mat ter of building an irradiation facility may come down to the political clout each side is able to muster. Realistically, the decid ing factor in whether such a facility is built, may turn out to be whether Americans like the idea of eating food that has been ex posed to nuclear waste. □