HL Deb 05 February 1990 vol 515 cc579-604

7.18 p.m.

Lord Middleton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Irradiation of Foodstuffs (4th Report, HL Paper 13).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to take note of the Select Committee's report on irradiation of foodstuffs I am well aware that we are moving on to ground that has been well trodden. Of 23 noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading debate on the Food Safety Bill, 15 spoke about irradiation although the word did not appear in the text of the Bill. When the House was in Committee on the Bill on 18th January discussion on that subject filled no fewer than 25 columns of the Official Report. From the attention it has received both in this House and outside, it is clear that, like all matters of food safety, it is exercising the minds of many noble Lords and of the public generally.

During the past few weeks, my noble friends Lady Hooper and Lady Trumpington have spoken fully and frequently in this House, explaining and justifying the Government's plans for legalising irradiation.

Before I deal with the report itself, I should like to refer to the research which lies behind the Commission's proposals regarding the use of irradiation in the European Community. Running through the debates in this House and outside is the charge that not sufficient scientific work has been done to justify establishing the process in the United Kingdom as a means of enhancing food safety. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that it was, not desirable at this stage to proceed with the introduction of irradiated food until there has been an independent scientific survey". —[Official Report, 18/1/90; col. 763.]

On the same day in col. 764 the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said: We do not seek to ban irradiation. We say, please do some work on it".

As we say in Part 2 of the report, ionising radiation was first suggested in 1896. In the 1950s studies were made here and in the United States with laboratory animals. In the 1970s research was carried out under the aegis of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Authority which led to reports on the wholesomeness of irradiated foods in 1976 and 1980. After considerable work, the Commission's own scientific Committee on Food reported in 1987. In 1982 our own Government set up the independent Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods, which reported in 1986, agreeing with the findings of the FAO, the WHO and the IAEA Committee. In 1987 they reported again. Research into methods of detecting irradiated food are in progress now. That adds up to a substantial amount of scientific work —more, I have heard it said, than has gone into any other form of food treatment.

Sub-Committee D began its inquiry into the Commission's draft directive last summer and during the whole of our work we had the benefit of the great knowledge and experience of our specialist adviser, Professor Bevan Moseley, head of the Reading Laboratory at the AFRC Institute of Food Research. In addition to hearing witnesses here, we also visited Holland where we spoke to food scientists and to Dutch Government officials. We visited a Dutch irradiation plant in action. The sub-committee also visited the British food manufacturing industry's research laboratories in Leatherhead where members tasted a number of samples of irradiated food.

The main thrust of our report is to give cautious support to the use of food irradiation. As I have said, the process has been extensively researched and the general consensus of the research is that it is safe. We accept that consensus, though we are conscious of the need to assure the consumer of that fact. We therefore stress the need for further research in some areas and for continuing monitoring of the process, particularly of its nutritional effects since, like most other forms of food processing, irradiation increases the loss of nutrients in foods.

I do not agree with the argument that calling, as we do, for further work is inconsistent with accepting the overwhelming weight of evidence that irradiation of food on the limited basis proposed by the Commission is safe. As we say, the process must remain subject to constant scrutiny and re-evaluation like any other technique".

Irradiation has several purposes, but the main effects are to decontaminate foods by killing potentially dangerous bacteria such as salmonella, listeria or campylobacter, and to extend the shelf or storage life of foods by killing insects and spoilage organisms.

Some witnesses have argued that irradiation is not really needed to reduce the level of bacteria in foods. According to that reasoning, bacteria are only present because of sloppy production and processing standards. It is said that irradiation would merely allow manufacturers to continue to evade their responsibility by cleaning up what was a sub-standard product. Other witnesses pointed out that there is little enthusiasm amongst anyone for the use of irradiation to extend storage or shelf-life, and that the freshness of food is a major selling point.

We agree with the second point of view, but not with the first. We think that it is an unavoidable fact that modern food processing techniques will lead to some products containing potentially high levels of contamination. We therefore support the use of irradiation as an additional means of raising food safety. To the charge that such a state of affairs means that food processing techniques should be improved, we say that that is precisely what irradiation would do. Its introduction would be a means of improving food processing technology. However, as we say, irradiation must not be used as an excuse for any relaxation of the present hygiene and handling requirements in food manufacturing or processing.

We think that there is a public health justification for the introduction of irradiation. We do not however think that irradiation should be allowed without specific criteria for the approval of each food which manufacturers wish to irradiate. We think that those criteria must involve the evaluation of other methods of food processing and that irradiation should be approved only if it represents an advantage to the consumer over those other methods.

Because irradiation in small doses affects the appearance and texture of some foods so little, it is extremely difficult to detect whether a food has been irradiated. Research on that point is continuing and detection methods may be available within a few years, or less. Nevertheless, the absence of such a method makes consumers—already probably wary of a process which involves irradiation —very suspicious of the process. We therefore emphasise that if irradiation is allowed its use must be closely controlled. These controls should include the stipulation of maximum and minimum dosage levels, the banning of reirradiation, except for ingredients included in compound foods, and requirements over the use of packaging materials.

The Commission has proposed controls on irradiation plants based on the internationally accepted Codex Alimentarius recommended standards. We endorse those and we attach a great deal of importance to that area of control. We support the Commission's proposals that irradiated foods should be labelled as such from the moment they leave the irradiation plant. We recommend that irradiated ingredients should also be labelled, whether or not they are currently required to be listed on product labels. We think that the most pressing applications of irradiation are for herbs and spices, poultrymeat and shrimps and prawns.

The Commission suggested that initially irradiation should be approved for eight classes of foodstuffs, including herbs and spices, shrimps and prawns and deboned poultrymeat. The committee makes the comment that there is no scientific justification for such a limitation, and recommends that "all poultrymeat" is substituted for "deboned poultrymeat". But on the whole we thought that an initial limitation on the use of irradiation would be a good thing. It would help consumers to get used to the process and enable the control and regulatory framework to be established.

Lastly, we examined the consequences of permitting irradiation. The committee considers that it is unlikely that irradiation will be widely used for some time because of its great expense and doubts about the likely demand from consumers. However, irrespective of that fact, we think that it would be desirable for the Government to try to ensure that consumers are better educated about the issues. The Government have said that they will talk to consumer groups about developing an education programme. The committee endorses that approach.

On the matter of timing, it was noted that the Government are still maintaining the option to permit irradiation in this country before the Council agrees the draft directive. In accordance with the committee's cautious approach, we believe that it is essential to have a Community framework for the regulation of irradiation. The committee therefore concludes by recommending that the Government postpone their detailed plans for allowing and regulating the process until the directive is agreed. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Irradiation of Foodstuffs (4th Report, H.L. Paper 13). —(Lord Middleton.)

7.32 p.m.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, in speaking second I shall try to set a good example of brevity. I do not know whether to congratulate the committee or sympathise with it. I congratulate it on a job well done and sympathise with it for having had to explore so many blind alleys in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Leatherhead food research association and the Scientific Committee on Food were mentioned. What have they been up to for all these years? Why do we have to wait on Europe to have safely irradiated food? Legislation is a batch process from time to time. The process of science and technology is a continuous process and legislation always lags behind science. Knowledge is always ahead of the law.

Is there then no domestic legislation of a subordinate character, by statutory instrument, to enable the present law to implement the recommendations of the committee? If not, I ask the noble Baroness who will reply for the Government whether it is contemplated putting something in the way of an enabling clause into the Food Safety Bill so that food safety can be kept up to date in the light of science without requiring extra legislation and parliamentary time.

There are two matters —to my mind, minor —that I like to think would bring common sense to bear upon the conclusions of the committee. One concerns the fact that packaging materials may acquire a bad smell if they are irradiated. In that case I recommend to noble Lords that they do not buy products in that particular type of packaging. I cannot believe that people would package their product, then irradiate it and give it a bad smell. I do not see a commercial future in that. I should have thought that common sense would come to the rescue there.

My second point relates to a recommendation by the committee that catering outlets should be brought under the scope of the law and have a logo. I may go into a pub and order half a pint of bitter and a ham sandwich. How can one put a logo on a ham sandwich? I simply do not know. No doubt were I to dine at Claridge's every single item on the bill would have a logo on it. From that point of view, I cannot pay much attention to that suggestion.

I have said what I had to say in two minutes. I hope that it will be sufficient.

7.34 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in that the excellent report from the Select Committee of your Lordships' House should be squeezed into such a short time between other business. I came to this Chamber principally to learn. As noble Lords know, we discussed this matter to a certain extent in the preliminary stages of the Government's Food and Safety Bill. Noble Lords held themselves back, if I may use that expression, in order to learn more from the members of the committee. I am disappointed that there should be so few of that committee here tonight. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has introduced the report in a most eloquent and concise way.

I do not exaggerate when I say that there is enormous concern throughout the country. That concern may be misguided and centred on certain parts of our society. I do not assert that everyone goes about business every day with a worry in the back of the mind about the irradiation of food. That certainly is not so. But there are groups of people—particularly, if I am to judge from the amount of correspondence that I have received in the past few weeks, women and women with children —who are especially concerned about the introduction of this technology. However, I have never heard anyone condemn it outright. The general trend is to say, "We just do not know enough about it"

We accept that irradiation has been around for a long time. It has been used satisfactorily in areas other than food. However, the Government now propose to introduce the possibility of irradiated food to be consumed in this country and indeed imported into this country through the mechanisms of the regulation procedures in Parliament. That has given rise to some concern because, in the absence of knowledge about the process, it seems to many people that this way of going about things does not allow for adequate debate.

Most of the questions which people first ask centre around why the process is required in the first place. The Government say that it is based purely on food safety grounds. That is said against a background of fairly alarming developments in this country over recent years culminating in very high levels of food poisoning over the past 18 months.

I do not say that food safety in this country has deteriorated but there is no doubt that patterns of consumption and habits of cooking have changed. I read in one newspaper that we have been transformed from a larder society into a microwave society. The implication is that people pay less attention to buying the ingredients and the preparation of food than they did even 10 or 20 years ago. People are buying convenience foods which are quickly prepared and they rely more on the information on the label of the foods that they buy in supermarkets rather than on the housewife's prudence which is still to be seen in some other countries in Europe. It is to be seen in Italy, for example, where I have observed that the introduction of irradiated food is certainly not something which at this stage would be very welcome, certainly not in the way that it is proposed to be introduced here.

Another matter of concern is how this process can be controlled. The report mentions the lack of a detection test. The committee nevertheless considers that there is every justification for introducing this process without the certainty of a detection test. But how, then, can we avoid the potential for misuse of this process? I do not think that we should take that matter too lightly. I hope that I shall not be accused of being either political or alarmist in mentioning that particular point.

Many people—I dare say they include Members of your Lordships' House —are concerned about the potential for misuse. We are told that it is unlikely that any cheap or reliable test can be developed in the near future. I ask the noble Baroness who will reply to this debate whether the Government are committed to establishing a reliable and economically viable test or whether they regard it as unnecessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said that the consensus of opinion is that this process is safe. That implies that it is not absolutely safe. During the early stages of the Food Safety Bill, I gathered from the noble Baroness on the Government Front Bench that the Government's attitude is that if it is not absolutely safe it is as near safe as can be. I very much welcome further amplification on that. When I turned on my television set last week it was a great pleasure to see the noble Baroness. For some reason she was cut off when she was talking about irradiation. It seemed that the discussion did not develop. Perhaps she was relieved about that. I found it disappointing because I wished for her to amplify the Government's view as I understand it, about the safety of this food.

It is surely absolutely vital for consumers to know whether the food that has been irradiated was, in its initial stage, wholesome. It seems to many people that if food is wholesome one does not need an irradiation process. But what about hidden hazards which irradiation could undoubtedly conceal? Perhaps the Government do not agree with my word "undoubtedly". Many people believe that there is a concern here. Bad fish apparently does not give off its usual warning smell when treated by this process. I am told —perhaps others better informed that I am will mention it —that there is increased risk of botulism. Botulism might flourish in conditions where competing micro-organisms have been destroyed by irradiation. Are the Government certain that the problem has been correctly and thoroughly addressed?

We now move to what is an even more worrying aspect of the condition of food before it is irradiated. I suppose it is certain that irradiated foods will be allowed to be imported into this country. What controls shall we have over imported food, such as sea foods from Asia? There is a well-recorded case that I do not wish to go into in any detail. At the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill I mentioned various cases on record where unsafe foods have been treated with irradiation. Attempts have been made to pass these through stringent tests in order to put them on the market.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)

My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill I asked the noble Viscount for the source of his information. I do not think that he answered me then. He read me a lot of stuff at the end but I do not think he gave me the source. Would he be so good as to do so now?

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I gave the source and it caused a certain amount of exhalation of breath and muttering on the Government Front Bench between the two noble Baronesses. It was the London Food Commission. It has again caused a great deal of mirth and amusement on the Government Front Bench. I do not know what there is about the London Food Commission. However, I have received some fairly sensible-looking papers from this body. Perhaps I am misled about it. Perhaps we are dealing with people who are pretending to be what they are not. However, I have checked the cases that they have given me which have led to court action. They proved to be correct in every case.

I did not mention one well-known British company that had found a consignment of Malaysian prawns to be unsafe. They had been treated in Holland by the irradiation process. It was then sought to market them illegally in the United Kingdom. That was fully admitted. The one case has caused an enormous amount of concern. If this occurs when such importing is not allowed, what will happen when it is perfectly legal to import irradiated food into the country?

Do not let us forget that the food business is a very large business with large amounts of money changing hands. Even without irradiated food, there is an enourmous amount of petty corruption in every country, not just this country, over which large companies buy what. There is much pressure on people to buy products, and undoubtedly there are inducements for people to favour one product over another. Doubtless I shall be accused of being alarmist. I should be prepared to bet that in the five years one will have several cases of unscrupulous importers of food seeking to sell into this country unwholesome food that has been treated in this manner in an attempt to hide its original state.

I have spoken for very much longer than the noble Earl. However, I feel absolutely justified in doing so because I believe that I am voicing a concern that is growing in the country. The Government may not agree. They may not care that it is growing; but it is. I feel that it would have been irresponsible for me not to cover the aspects that I mentioned.

There have been two television programmes on the subject of irradiated food. Both have left us —the viewers, the public, the consumers—absolutely where we were at the beginning. On Channel 4 one programme went over a number of aspects of food irradiation including some very worrying events in India. Experiments were made on living people—malnourished children —and after a period of weeks it was found that there were some very worrying effects on the children from eating wheat-based products that had been irradiated. The experiments were stopped. The programme on Channel 4 devoted some 10 minutes to that subject. The "Horizon" programme on BBC 2 appeared to take a different stance. It accepted fundamentally the Government's position and proceeded to support that view. We were therefore left in the dark. The Hyderabad affair —to which I have referred —was not mentioned in the BBC 2 programme. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether these experiments, and the results of them, have been completely written off as meaningless by the Government. Can she tell us something on that?

Finally, will the Government take seriously those many organisations which have called for research into the subject of food irradiation? I refer to the British Medical Association, the Consumers' Association, the British Poultry Federation Ltd. and environmental health officers whom I mentioned last time when we spoke on the subject. There are many others, including the European Parliament. How seriously do the Government regard the concerns of these organisations?

I support absolutely the recommendation of the committee which states that it is desirable that the Government wait until we have the European Community directive on this subject. What is the advantage of proceeding before the European Community directive is published? All countries within the European Community can then get together if they feel so inclined, and can proceed in unison. Why do we have to proceed before it is published? I apologise for going over my intended time but I felt that these points had to be made.

7.50 p.m.

Lord Colwyn

My Lords, it had also been my intention to speak on food irradiation during the discussion on Amendment No. 73 of the Food Safety Bill which was before your Lordships' House on 18th January. However, following the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I was persuaded to postpone my remarks until the full debate on the findings of the Select Committee.

Tonight's debate gives me that opportunity, although I too am disappointed that nine members of the Select Committee are not contributing to our debate and I should have wished to hear their opinions. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to take note of our debate this evening, be sufficiently open-minded to reconsider her objection of the argument against irradiation and think again about her statement: I am quite satisfied that there is no need to delay the introduction of the enabling provision for food irradiation for any of the reasons set down by the noble Lords".—[Official Report, 18/1/90; col. 771.] The Select Committee deserves congratulation on its comprehensive analysis and examination of the controvertial problem. I was particularly pleased that they recognised the need for continuing research into and monitoring of the toxicology of irradiated foods. Further, that it recommends that the toxicological implications should be thoroughly investigated before approval is given for the irradiation of any product containing additives.

Among other pro-irradiation statements in the summary of my Members' brief on food irradiation, I see that the WHO and FAO have confirmed that it is a totally safe process. Independent scientists advise that it should be permitted. That may well be the opinion of the WHO and FAO joint expert committees, the UK Government advisory committee and the European Commission's scientific committee on food. However, the advisory committees of the Australian parliament, the Canadian parliament, the European parliament and the Danish parliament's consensus committee and the International Organisation of Consumers' Unions take the opposite view.

It is a fact that chemical changes take place in food which has been irradiated. Although there is controversy about how the changes may affect future generations and the people who now eat the irradiated food, some of the changes that occur are harmful. Everyone knows that high energy radiation is dangerous. It can cause mutations, cancer, atherosclerosis, cross linking (that is the loss of tissue elasticity) brain damage and immune system damage. In fact, that is also a list of the damage caused by ageing. The similarity is not coincidental.

Nearly all high-energy radiation causes its damage by creating dangerous, highly-reactive chemicals called "free radicals". If uncontrolled, free radicals can damage proteins, fats and nucleic acids (that is! DNA and RNA; the master and working copies of our genetic blueprints). The most important sources of the free radicals which cause ageing come from the abnormal oxidation and breakdown of fats and the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide.

A healthy individual has control systems for free radicals which include enzymes and natural free radical scavengers such as vitamins C and E. However, they cannot control the free radicals perfectly. Some of them escape and cause damage which can accumulate over the years. Mutations to DNA caused by free radicals are thought to be a major cause of cancer. Free radicals can make blood clot abnormally in the arteries by destroying the body's ability to make prostaglandin. They are implicated in arthritis and the ageing process which makes our tissues less elastic leading to a loss of flexibility, emphysema of the lungs and cerebral hemorrhage. They also cause a pigment accumulation that slowly chokes brain cells to death and results in brownish age spots in our skin.

The UK advisory committee acknowledges that irradiation produces the hazardous free radicals, and that they initiate a chain reaction leading to peroxidation and epoxidation in polyunsaturated fats. The process often continues for several weeks after irradiation. Free radical damage is preventable with a normal intake of the nutrients which provide protection by virtue of their antioxidant activity. These include vitamins A, C, E, B1, B5 and B6 which are mostly contained in the foods which we are being encouraged to eat; for example, white meats such as chicken and fish, in preference to red meats, whole grains in preference to highly-processed carbohydrates and more fruit and vegetables. Of course, they are the very foods that will be targeted for irradiation and all will undergo some degree of damage to essential nutrients.

It is also admitted that irradiation causes damage to many vitamins. Vitamin A and its precursor beta-carotene, the B vitamins riboflavin, niacin, B6, B12 and folic acid, vitamins C, E and K are all damaged by irradiation. Generally speaking, the more complex the food the less it suffers vitamin loss during irradiation. Research has shown that losses of between 20 and 80 per cent. are not uncommon and there are still many gaps in the available scientific data.

The Select Committee stressed the importance of that in paragraph 50 of its report. In paragraph 51 it continued to say that the nutritional implications of irradiation on vitamins should be monitored by the steering group on food surveillance. It is my opinion that even small losses will be significant for some groups within the population —for example, the elderly, the young, the sick and the poor —many of whose diets are already deficient.

The average European diet contains only about half the vitamin C that the USA recommends as the essential daily intake. When there is not enough fresh fruit in the diet potatoes are the main source of vitamin C. If they are irradiated, as has been suggested, the amount of vitamin C in the diet could be reduced to such significant proportions that the health of those with marginal intakes could be severely compromised.

I know that the Minister will tell me that the vitamin losses caused by irradiation are not significant because they are comparable to those occurring naturally in cooking, storing and other forms of food processing. That is misleading because many of the foods intended for irradiation —such as fruit and vegetables —are eaten fresh and often raw. Comparisons with cooking and storage do not apply.

Some vitamins —for example, B1 and E —actually undergo accelerated losses during storage after irradiation. As one of the objects of irradiation is to increase storage time while retaining the appearance of relative freshness so storage losses will be increased beyond those occurring normally. The food can thus undergo initial losses on irradiation, accelerated losses as a result of longer storage times and then lose further vitamins during cooking. For those consumers who are increasingly conscious about the quality and vitamin contents of fresh foods, irradiation counterfeits freshness and conceals what may be significant losses of essential health-giving nutrients.

There is no dispute that there is a serious problem in the rise in food poisoning outbreaks. There has been a threefold increase in reported cases since 1983 and an estimated 10 to 100 times that number not reported. Even if those defects of irradiation were acceptable the concept of removing microbiological contamination by irradiation rather than preventing it in the first place is illogical.

Much needs to be done to improve hygiene and not only in developing countries. We have recently been reminded of the UK Ministry of Agriculture's meat hygiene division findings: that out of 919 slaughter houses in the UK, the standards in 845 were so low that the meat could not be sold for export to the European Community.

Irradiation is not the answer to those problems. All food has a bacterial content much of which is beneficial. Irradiation does not kill all the different types equally; some are more resistant than others. Therefore, the delicate balance of competing micro-organisms becomes altered. Irradiation destroys yeasts, moulds and the bacteria which give the warning smell when food is going off. Irradiation will create a serious hazard by allowing the more resistant dangerous bacteria to proliferate.

It has been found that, while storage times can be lengthened with increasing doses of irradiation, the time taken for surviving clostridium botulinum to produce dangerous levels of toxins, for example, becomes shorter. The Government must think again. Despite the extensive examination of the scientific evidence, there are still opposing views from highly respected authoritative bodies. Those different conclusions can be expected when much of the evidence is inadequate, incomplete, inconclusive and in conflict.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and hope that he and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will consider further amendments to the Food Safety Bill at its next stage. They can rely on my support when I hope I shall be able to give some of my own selfish reasons for wishing to avoid irradiated food without the guarantee of a reliable and positive test.

8 p.m.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, I thought that we had a somewhat truncated debate on irradiation in Committee on the Food Safety Bill since it was pointed out there that there would be an opportunity to go into the arguments more fully when we discussed the Select Committee's report. Now we find that we are compressed into the dinner hour which is not the ideal time for a subject of such wide-ranging interest. We may be similarly constricted during the one-day Report stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, I shall not take any more time than I have to.

In an attempt to be brief I shall reluctantly skip over the many good features of the report we have before us and say only that I was mostly impressed by its tone and that I agree with a good many of its conclusions. However, I cannot agree with the conclusion that the weight of evidence for the safety of the irradiation process is overwhelming. Since we are short of time I shall concentrate on that one issue. In doing so, I propose to widen the context of the debate.

One of the interesting things to an outside observer of high-powered committees is the extent to which they disagree with each other, both across countries and across time. The Government have convinced themselves that there is no disagreement about the complete safety of irradiated food. My Lords, that is just not so.

An expert committtee reported to the Canadian Parliament in 1987: There are some data indicating unusual and unexplained effects … it would be prudent to resolve the remaining questions before proceeding with widespread application of the technology". In the event, the Canadian Parliament decided not to accept that advice.

In New Zealand in 1987 members of an expert committee were unable to agree among themselves as to the safety of irradiated food. In November 1988 a report of the House of Representatives all-party standing committee to the Australian Government was similarly not prepared to endorse the safety of irradiated food and the government accepted its recommendations in terms to which I shall refer later.

The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has stated that practically all scientific studies admit a considerable degree of uncertainy about the effects on health. The American Food and Drug Administration does not agree with the joint expert committee of the WHO that no further testing is warranted up to to a dosage of 10 kilograys. The British Medical Association's Board of Science still has reservations about long-term implications for health. Are all those doubts of no account?

The Government talk of "independent" committees being unanimous but I am not sure what they mean. Most of those which I quoted are independent enough. For that matter, how independent is a committee whose chairman and technical adviser have directorships in radiation technology firms? I refer to the UK committee which is constantly quoted in support irradiation; that is, the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods which reported in 1986.

The question of unconscious bias is important and not at all peculiar to this particular subject. In Committee the noble Baroness sought at one point to make a distinction between political and scientific decisions. It would be comforting if such a clear distinction would be made but in fact research is riddled with non-scientific considerations which govern, for example, which projects are to be funded, how they are set up, who pays the piper, how the data are interpreted, what is a socially acceptable safety margin and who referees the resulting papers for publication. There have been genuine worries in that area and it is interesting to note that those reports in favour of irradiation have generally been unreferenced, relying on too many papers not subject to peer review and emanating from behind closed doors.

The interpretation of data is of course crucial. Unfortunately, lack of time prevents me from giving examples but there are certain indications that findings in favour of irradiation may have been accepted more uncritically than those against. I am afraid that the purity of science is a myth however much one may wish to believe that scientists shed their human foibles when they don their white coats.

I shall mention two sources of unconscious bias in this case. The first is the close involvement of nuclear interests, most noticeably in the joint committees with the WHO. The other is the simple fact that scientists want to practise their science. To go ahead with the use of this technology represents progress in scientific terms and is almost irresistible. I must stress that I am not impugning people's integrity. These matters are at a very deep level and we are none of us immune.

No review or committee report can be better than the source material on which it is based. Who reads the original safety studies? It is not the Members of the noble Lord's committee I am sure. One would not expect them to. Who does? The answer is that we rely on the diligence, accuracy and freedom from bias of a very few people, and also on the accessibility of a good database.

Again, time prevents me from detailing the worries which still exist but I refer particularly to methodology, which is at the heart of it. You cannot test irradiated food in a controlled way on human populations so it has to be done on animals instead. You cannot irradiate to many times the safe dose in the accepted way of scientific trials because the food would be uneatable even to rats. Therefore, the statistical reliability is lost in safety terms. In giving large vitamin supplements which most of the quoted trials seem to have done in their attempts to isolate the purely toxic effects of irradiation, if any, you confuse the picture so that few valid conclusions can be drawn. I believe if it were generally realised to what extent the methodological tail has had to wag the dog in assessing the safety of the irradiation of food, the cumulative unreliability of the evidence would be plain for all to see.

My final point concerns the database —the repository of all the scientific studies which is located at Karlsruhe in West Germany. That is a shambles. The London Food Commission, which may not be the Government's flavour of the month, took the trouble as serious researchers to go there in an attempt to pull out certain information. It was found impossible to do so. Your Lordships would find their December 1989 report on the visit interesting reading. The former director of Karlsruhe accompanied the visitors and did not disagree with their findings. I only have time for two short quotations: We found the data so disorganised that it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to attempt to review any data other than the data actually submitted to the JECFI", and: It is clear that the database cannot be used in its present form to either re-evaluate the safety data below 10 kilogray or provide information on safety above this level without considerable work by skilled information technologists". Lack of funding is the problem and the London Food Commission is surely right in asking for action here since, in their words: It is after all being promoted as the definitive body of knowledge on what is claimed to be one of the most thoroughly researched food safety issues ever". When there are such doubts about the safety trials themselves, their interpretation and their recording for subsequent use, it is small wonder that review bodies come to different conclusions about them.

If I have strayed from the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, it has been for the sake of addressing the most important of its conclusions; namely, that embodied in paragraph 142. If what I have said is accurate —and I have tried hard to stick to facts rather than opinion —then I suggest that the true position is rather better reflected by the conclusions of the Australian committee which I mentioned earlier, which had a status comparable to your Lordships committee and which over two years had an even more comprehensive look at the evidence. I end by quoting from its report at paragraphs 5.142 and 5.143: The Committee accepts that the majority of studies undertaken suggest that the ingestion of irradiated food will cause no harmful effects. Notwithstanding this comment there are two areas which are of concern to the Committee. First there are some studies which do indicate that irradiated food may be harmful in some instances. Secondly it notes the comments not only by witnesses opposed to food irradiation but also some regulatory authorities such as the FDA which indicate that many of the earlier studies are inadequate to make a judgment either way concerning the safety of irradiated food. In addition the Committee notes that JECFI in its various reports recommended that further studies be conducted. The Committee also notes the views of its advisers that animal feed trials would be unlikely to show adverse effects because cells of all living animals have evolved mechanisms designed to protect against the radiolytic products formed in irradiated foods. Accordingly the Committee recommends that: the Australian Government request the World Health Organisation to: review existing data relating to the safety of irradiated food; produce a fully referenced report on the safety of food irradiation, and identify those areas where further research is required". That is not politics. That is good sense.

8.11 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we should all be immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Middleton and to his committee for the enormous amount of work that they have done; for all the evidence that they have listened to and indeed for the very firm, clear conclusions that they have set out in the report that we are debating briefly this evening. Most of the points —scientific and esoteric —for and against this process of irradiation have been very well made this evening. I wish to raise three or four points which seemed germane to me in scrutinising the report of the committee.

In paragraph 87 at page 21 of the report we find a definite conclusion that irradiation should not be used as a substitute for good manufacturing and agricultural practice. Those of us who are involved in the agricultural industry or who have had responsibility for it in another channel at any time, certainly ought to support that. That is one of the points that should be borne in mind by all of us this evening.

In paragraph 80 at page 20 the report mentions that irradiation can serve as a useful means of reducing the contamination of some foods by certain organisms. That is possibly something quite short taken from one of the conclusions in the report, but it sets the seal on this particular process of irradiation together with what we are discussing this evening, let alone in the Food Safety Bill; that at no time will it be compulsory or obligatory to eat irradiated food. We should consider that against the background of this evening's discussion.

In paragraph 143 of the report, in the conclusions, we find a recommendation that we should continue our present high standards to minimise and indeed defeat the clostridium botulinum which was mentioned both by my noble friend and by the noble Viscount. From paragraph 22 of the evidence —page 16 —and in reply to a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, we find that experts from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it fairly clear that irradiation is no panacea nor indeed a cure for this attractive clostridium botulinum which is well known to my noble friend the Minister. She may remember discussing this with me.

At paragraph 8 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report, page 2, there is one particular fact which is germane to this process of irradiation and to what we are discussing this evening. I have not heard it discussed or denied that approximately 90 per cent. of all food-borne illnesses throughout the world are caused by two particular problems. One is salmonella, though I could not necessarily tell which one of the 1,200 strains. We well recall salmonella enteritidis, which was all the rage late in 1988. The other problem which causes 90 per cent. of food-borne illness is campylobactor. Both are inhibited by irradiation, certainly by the permitted dose. My noble friend mentioned fairly high dosages. I was given to understand in the report that a dosage of 3 kilogray would be sufficient to inhibit, if not entirely to remove, salmonella and campylobactor from chickens and fowl. All of us know that if fowl has been irradiated, they must be clearly labelled.

I was also somewhat startled to see that 20 per cent. of the weekly meat consumption in the United Kingdom is chicken —up to 8 ounces per person per week. That does not include me because I am a red meat addict and doubtless that will give some indication of my rude but normal health.

There are two further aspects to which I briefly draw attention. I refer to page 11 of the report and the Food Science Division of the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This will be germane to what was said by my noble friend Lord Colwyn and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Two studies were carried out at Queen's University in Belfast both to identify irradiated food. The first was to search for lipid radiolysis detection using capillary gas chromatology and mass spectrometry. The second was searching for stable free radicals. Indeed, until my noble friend explained that to me I thought it could have had something to do with the political party of my Swiss friend —the free radicals —with whom I was skiing two weeks ago; but my noble friend explained it well.

I was very pleased that Queen's University seemed to be on the way to attempting to identify irradiated food using those two methods. I was interested to see electronic spin resonance together with thermoluminescence going some way to discovering the sex of chickens in chicken carcases. That is particularly valuable work being carried out in Belfast and I commend the university. I also commend my noble friend's Ministry for what it is doing.

In conclusion, we need only glance at page 85 of the evidence in the report where The Food Safety Advisory Centre states: It is our view that irradiation can be used to reduce or eliminate food spoilage organisms, food poisoning organisms and parasites". However, it goes on to point out that this does not in any way reduce the need for the highest standards of hygiene and good management practice. If we remember that, together with what we are attempting to do with irradiation, it is not a panacea but it is to try to inhibit and perhaps eliminate two of the sources of 90 per cent. of the food poisoning outbreaks in the world, then tonight's debate will have been worthwhile.

8.18 p.m.

The Duke of Somerset

My Lords, it is clear from tonight's debate and from outside discussions that the most important aspect of the proposed introduction of irradiation into the UK is that of safety. If that could be established without argument, other considerations would be of lesser importance.

The committee received a great deal of evidence on this vital point and paragraph 29 of the report sums up succinctly that in its view there is no scientific evidence of danger to the health of the potential consumer. I do not think the time is right to go through that paragraph or reiterate all the evidence, but that was the conclusion. However, there still remain various caveats which are pointed out and certainly many worries in the minds of the public and other organised groups.

A great deal of this concern would evaporate if there was a test for irradiation. We have already heard that despite extensive efforts nothing at all is imminent in this line. That is a pity. I hope that the work in this direction will continue to be funded with the help of the Government. Not enough research has yet been carried out on other aspects such as packaging materials and pesticide residues. In fact, the report specifically recommends further investigation of the toxicological implications. As regards these last points and the Food Safety Bill, I wonder how the Government see this further research being funded.

The other aspect of the safety question is that of the microbiological implications. The great advantage of this process is the killing of the pathogenic bacteria in foods. We have already heard about that as regards salmonella, listeria and campylobacter which are the main targets. The point here is that once these pathogens have been killed it is vital that the foodstuffs are not reinfected by adjacent products. In written evidence, the Co-operative Wholesale Society noted: If an irradiated product is subsequently contaminated with a food poisoning organism it can grow with minimal competition and with great haste. So post-irradiation handling and storage regimes of high quality are vital; in other words, they must receive exactly the same care as other preparation processes demand.

Therefore, I think that the argument about bad food being dressed up in good clothes is a red herring. The eye, nose and the tongue will still detect change caused by spoilage. Microbiological standards can still be tested before irradiation takes place. One or two of your Lordships have alluded to various well-known cases to do with prawns and mussels. The fact that irradiation came to light indicates that the tongue and the nose were not lying and hence the malpractices were discovered. I am glad that the committee was able to conclude that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that irradiation up to the dose of 10 kilograys is safe.

So it is a matter of pity and concern that last November the Commission issued revised proposals for its directive. That reduced the number of the products to be irradiated. In particular the Commission removed from the list all poultry bar deboned poultrymeats. This must be a missed opportunity for it is acknowledged that all raw chicken carcasses are contaminated by campylobacter and many by salmonella and listeria; and perhaps up to 60 per cent. in the last two instances. There would have been an excellent chance here to increase the margin of safety for the consumer. However, by the end of this year the dangerous treatment of herbs and spices by ethylene oxide will be stopped and irradiation substituted.

The crux of this discussion must be individual choice. It is not the intention of any legislation or directive to impose irradiation on consumers. Indeed it is going to add a few pence per kilo to the bill. Everyone will be able to make up their own minds as to whether they wish to avail themselves of this safety belt. That is as long as irradiated food is properly labelled and identified.

I cannot see that this aim should cause undue difficulties. All packaged foods should have their ingredients listed on them and therefore annotated if irradiated. Treated loose products can be marked alongside the price ticket and on restaurant menus it will be easy to inscribe something suitable. All this would be made much easier by the adoption of a single clear logo throughout the trade right down to the consumer.

I trust that the Commission has withdrawn its original logo only to replace it with a more realistic design and that its use will be extended beyond that originally proposed. I believe that the process of irradiation is safe and that, as it is to be authorised, the consumer should feel satisfied and willing to experiment, choosing from well-labelled products. It is a shame that many consumers and retailers have already vociferously come down against irradiation before either studying the implications or sampling the products as the committee was fortunate enough to do during its investigation and also at the Leatherhead food research association. Irradiation must be part of the way forward in food safety.

8.26 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I too was a member of the committee and I greatly enjoyed the proceedings. I learned a great deal. I started with a prejudice against irradiation and finished with a prejudice against it. However, I have to endorse the main finding that irradiation is a safe process subject to a great many qualifications. Our recommendations begin by saying that irradiation is a safe process. However, the result is like a series of rather doubtful accounts: it is heavily qualified with a whole series of conditions which need to be met before the process is satisfactory.

We examined all kinds of people. While I share the doubts of my noble friend and others who are against irradiation, those to whom we spoke and from whom we took evidence were not fly-by-night people. For example, there were able scientists who had investigated their subject. The main fear everyone has is that food will become radioactive and that people will get leukaemia. That fear was completely dispelled in the course of much evidence that we took.

It was particularly interesting when we went to Holland. The politicians there were very wary. There is a research station in Holland where probably more work has been done on the subject than anywhere else. But the politicians were extremely wary about the process. They knew that there was a natural reaction among the public against irradiation. So they wanted to investigate every single aspect. We had to take great note of what was said. The politicians wanted to follow public opinion.

There is one minor point in the report with which I disagree, namely, that the process has no real commercial advantage. For example, I understand that oranges and other fruits can be irradiated at a low level and then picked nearly ripe. On reaching market the orange will taste as though it had just come from the tree. That may be attractive. It is not a procedure that I wish to see happening though there are commercial advantages as regards shelf life.

If the prejudice of the public is overcome I believe that irradiation will have a considerable commercial application. I am not saying whether that will be a good thing or not. The question of what happens when food is irradiated interests me. For example, when we visited our own research station we were shown irradiated eggs. The whites had broken up and the taste I understand, is awful. This means that unexplained processes go on. We were told that a great deal of research needs to be done before every fresh permitted irradiation subject goes on the market.

We must also look at the evidence of our experience in this country. It is true, as several witnesses said, that there is an increase in serious cases of food poisoning. In defence of irradiation some quoted pasteurisation. It is perfectly true that pasteurisation does not make milk taste very good and destroys a number of healthy factors in it but it has done a tremendous amount to cut down tuberculosis in milk. We cannot object entirely to the process but research is needed.

We need also to look at immunity. I do not suggest that we should eat dirt but there is an old saying that a speck of dirt never did anybody any harm. It is true that Egyptians do not get gippy tummy to the same degree as others and that Mexicans do not suffer from what is called Montezuma's Revenge. I was travelling in Mexico with a young vet. We had had a long hard day when we stopped at a roadside stall where a chap with a charcoal brazier was selling food. My companion said, "Oh, I must have something to eat". I said, "What a good idea". He said, "You lay off, you have a delicate stomach", something I had never thought before. He tucked in to the most delicious-looking cooked meat, bread and chillies. However, what he said was perfectly true. He was conditioned. We eat so much clean food that our immunity has been lowered. I do not suggest that we should eat dirty food but we should investigate whether we are destroying our immunity. We are probably now on the back of the tiger: we shall be eating cleaner and cleaner food until soon our food is completely sterile.

One of the most important points made in the report is that the Government must not introduce the legislation until the EC directive is settled. My noble friend referred to switching prawns from Malaysia back to Holland and then back to this country. That point would be covered in the case of EC regulations which apply over the country. Certainly close control has to be kept on the whole process, on the plants themselves and on the product.

The public must have a choice. They must be able to refuse to eat irradiated food if they so wish. Labelling is therefore of supreme importance. I do not suggest that every item on a restaurant menu should indicate whether or not it has been irradiated but any restaurant serving irradiated food should say so. The public must have a choice. But, subject to the precautions in the report, I am afraid that our first conclusion is correct. It is a safe process from the simple point of view. But the results of eating irradiated food over a long period need a great deal of investigation before we can be sure that it is not harmful.

8.34 p.m.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, perhaps I may first of all say to the committee, its chairman and its specialist adviser that they have given us a wonderful report. It is a document of great skill and lucidity for which the House is duly grateful. The position as regards irradiated food has undoubtedly been complicated by the decision of the European Parliament and the provisions of the Single European Act. When we put our hands up so gaily for enacting the Single European Act we did not envisage some of the complications that might flow from it. Certainly such a complication exists as regards this directive.

The Government in consequence seem determined to press ahead with and indeed to go beyond the proposals in the directive. I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to the discussion whether this is now the Government's position. If it is, is MAFF not in danger of destroying any hope of a bipartisan policy for food in this country? If that is the case, and if that is a consequence of precipitate action in this field, the loss will be greater than the gain.

The opinion of scientific advisers is, as the report points out, mainly in accord and in favour. But this does not obscure the fact, as has been brought out in our discussion, that if side effects are possible over the years, particularly as a consequence of over-dosage of irradiation of particular foods, these may not be apparent in our present state of scientific knowledge. At paragraphs 41 to 43 I endorse the committee's recommendations about the need for continuous monitoring of toxicology, including packaging materials. Has thought been given to the disposal of such packaging materials by domestic users, and are they to be included as normal domestic rubbish? If so, what will happen to them? We also need to consider the effect of irradiation on pesticide residues. This point has already been mentioned. Will the Advisory Committee on Pesticide Residues be asked to report?

Nutrition is still a somewhat neglected area in food policy generally in this country; so the committee's recommendation in paragraph 50 is of considerable importance. As regards food quality, the point is rightly made that irradiation cannot improve quality but it can certainly disguise the consequences of prior bad handling. This is dealt with in paragraph 67. The report goes on to emphasise the role of environmental health officers in the inspection of quality prior to irradiation at plants. This is of considerable importance. Will this inspection by environmental health officers readily take place? The Government's thinking on the matter is that a centralised licensing system and operation ought to apply for irradiation. Within that, I should like to know whether the local environmental health officer will have full access as of right to plants. We are reminded in the report that there are 10 irradiation plants in the United Kingdom. Are these existing plants suitable as they stand for the commercial irradiation of food? If new plants are constructed, will they require special planning consent? If so, by whom will that consent be granted?

Safety is dealt with at paragraph 87. The Commission's proposal here is that approval is conditional on the safety of the application being established and on criteria to assure consumers that irradiation is used only where a proper justification has been established. Will the Government endorse these criteria if they decide to go it alone?

I turn now to the approved list of commodities in the directive. If there is no Community initiative in the near future, will the Government follow the original approved list of commodities or widen this list from the outset? Are any limitations of the list envisaged pending practical experience? On minimum dosages, we need also to ask whether the accepted principle, recommended by the committee at paragraph 105, of overall minimum dosages is accepted.

I turn now to the important question of detection. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and others have asked whether the Government are fully committed to research aimed at establishing a simple diagnostic test. This leads me to ask how imports of irradiated food will be tested for dosages and where such tests will be carried out. Who will check the labelling on imports? So far as concerns information, the report stresses —rightly, in my opinion —the importance of a full and thorough information campaign so that consumers are given full information about irradiated food. I should like to make a plea that manufacturers are included in the consultation process about information with a view to ensuring good coverage, a well-co-ordinated information system and the avoidance of duplication.

Can we also be told by the Minister what labelling standards for irradiated food are envisaged for the United Kingdom? On timing, I also support the committee's view that Her Majesty's Government should proceed only in step with the Community on a serious issue which concerns a large section of consumers. If, however, the Government are determined to go it alone, as I believe they are, the affirmative parliamentary procedure should be used. I hope that when we come to that on Monday next the Government will respond sympathetically and positively. Perhaps I may once again congratulate the committee on its report.

8.40 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I have immediately to make apologies because I am under certain timing restrictions. I should like to apologise in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I shall write to him with, I hope, answers to the many questions that he asked.

I listened with the greatest interest to my noble friend Lord Middleton, who as usual spoke in a clear and lucid way in explanation of the well-reasoned and balanced report of his committee. The Government are considering the report, and a formal response will be placed in the Library as soon as possible. I also appreciated the balanced words of my noble friend Lord Lyell and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. I shall try to deal with as many points as I can. I am not surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is confused; neither am I surprised that his lady correspondents are confused. So much biased and misleading information has been published that perhaps on this occasion the noble Viscount will listen to the findings of Sub-Committee D, if not to me.

The World Health Organisation and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation have declared themselves satisfied as to the safety of food irradiation. They recognise its value in killing salmonella, campylobacter and listeria. In other words, they recognise that it has a valuable part to play in combating the bacteria responsible for no less than 90 per cent. of the world's food-borne illness.

Those two world authorities concerned with food safety and public health are encouraging governments to take up the process. The World Health Organisation has, indeed, gone further. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, pointed out during our recent discussions in the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill, their published food safety rules advise consumers to choose irradiated poultrymeat. I think those few comments make crystal clear the position of the leading world bodies on this subject.

As the report of Sub-Committee D states and as my noble friend reminds us, we in this country set up our own independent scientific review of that process, for which we assembled a most distinguished scientific team with expertise in all the branches of science relevant to assess the safety and the wholesomeness of irradiated food. We brought together medical experts, specialists in toxicology, in microbiology, in nutrition and in radiological protection. On the more specialised aspects of its work, the committee consulted other scientific committees with a still greater depth of experience in one aspect or another of the subject, so that in all over 50 individual scientists were involved. The recommendations of those eminent, highly qualified experts are in line with the findings of the scientific backing to which the European Communities Committee has referred in its report.

I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, would care to repeat his allegations and name the member of our expert committee outside this privileged place.

Attempts have been made to cast doubt on the conclusions from certain isolated studies among the mass of scientific data; but the criticisms are mistaken and any doubts entirely misplaced. All the matters that have recently been raised as though they were new have already been carefully considered in the past. The view of the distinguished independent scientific committees is quite clear: no credible evidence of adverse effects has been produced.

I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for forgetting that he had given me the source of his information. The London Food Commission has supplied a document which lists cases where abuse is alleged. In only one case, and that back in 1985, is it demonstrated that an illegal importation of irradiated food was made into the United Kingdom. Three comments are necessary on that case, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, also referred. The produce (prawns) was not substandard. The purpose of the irradiation was to maintain its quality. The import of irradiated produce was, however, in itself an offence.

It is not true to argue, as the London Food Commission frequently does, that no official action was taken. The appropriate authority (Dover Port Health Authority) investigated the matter, took formal statements in the presence of solicitors, and issued a formal warning which was given publicly as a deterrrent to others. If that action is criticised as insufficient, it should be borne in mind that neither the LFC nor anyone else has subsequently suggested that the firm concerned has repeated the offence.

The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about studies on irradiated wheat carried out by the Indian National Institute of Nutrition. The conclusions of those researchers have been rejected by the WHO, FAO, the EC Scientific Committee for Food, expert scientific committees in the United Kingdom, and by the USA FDA, Canada, Denmark and India itself. The verdict of the world-wide scientific community is that the results of the studies do not lead to the conclusions claimed by the researchers.

The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked about the Australian Committee of the House of Representatives. That was not a committee of scientists, and its report cannot have the standing of the judgments reached by eminent toxicologists and all the other eminent scientists I have named.

My noble friend Lord Colwyn mentioned various countries or bodies that have come out against food irradiation. None of them has referred the matter for the advice of an independent scientific committee. My noble friend also asked about the danger from vitamin losses. Any process, even cooking, causes vitamin losses. There is no risk to nutrition from the irradiation of any food now being irradiated anywhere in the world. If that were not the case, the process would hardly have the support of the world-wide expert organisations and councils about which I have spoken.

Perhaps we should bear in mind the analogy of the pasteurisation of milk which also reduces the vitamin content; but that effect is clearly outweighed by the elimination from milk of potentially pathogenic bacteria. With irradiation the benefit is clear since, with the low dosage used in food, vitamin losses are in any case small. Nevertheless, the Government will be monitoring the situation, and the Select Committee agreed with the Government's reaction.

My noble friend also spoke about free radical production. Free radicals are continually formed in the human body. The Medical Research Council has commented that they are present in the majority of foodstuffs. A long-term study of that specific issue produced no indication of any harmful effects. Free radicals, I am reliably informed, are present on the surface of toast.

I have to take up the point my noble friend made about this country's slaughterhouses and put him right. The differences in requirements between our slaughterhouses and EC slaughterhouses are purely structural and are not matters of hygiene. It is over structural matters that some of our establishments do not meet EC standards.

The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about a possible increased risk of botulism. In the international arena that risk is discounted by the International Union of Microbiological Societies. In the United Kingdom, the Standing Panel on Hazards from Microbial Contamination of Food took a similar view. Food microbiologists understand very well the procedures necessary to avoid botulism. A combination of irradiation with existing techniques will do this. Irradiation is no different from other processes that do not sterilise. Research into irradiation will continue. Research into a definitive test for irradiated food will also continue, as I said at the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill, and I reassure the noble Duke that that research will be funded by the Government. There may be outside interests also pursuing the same aim, but there will be research by the Government. As to the Government's view of the need for a detection test, as raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the Government stated, as did the Select Committee, that a detection test would indeed be useful but is not necessary.

We are not alone in taking this view. The WHO thinks so and the Codex Alimentarius Commission also thinks so. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, suggested a need for full labelling. I entirely agree, and I repeat the assurances previously given that there will be full and clear labelling so that consumers can exercise that right of choice.

It has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that further research is necessary on additives, pesticide residues and packaging materials. Additives and pesticide residues are two subjects that produce an emotional response out of all proportion to any threat to health that they could possibly cause. We are talking about minuscule quantities—a few parts per billion. To assist your Lordships in visualising that, one part per billion is the equivalent of two grains of salt in a swimming pool. For the benefit of less sporting Members of your Lordships' House, that is about the same as the width of a credit card set alongside a distance of 600 miles. I think that puts the matter in its true perspective.

As for packaging materials, it is open to us in the UK to lay down a precise condition within an individual licence. We certainly accept the importance of close control over the materials that can be used, and we shall reflect carefully on the various alternative ways of achieving that.

Yet again this evening we have heard the tired old argument that irradiation could be misused to make bad food good. On that, let me simply refer the House to the response on the subject made in the recent "Horizon" television programme. The director of Leatherhead Research Association—a man of very wide experience—said that if that was what he wanted to do then irradiation certainly would not be the way he would do it, because that would not work.

Let me turn to the comments that have been made about the products for which the process should be allowed, and the question as to whether it might be reasonable to hold back here in the UK until the EC has acted. It is clear that there no scientific justification to limit the list of products. The Select Committee has underlined that point. It has been suggested that nonetheless there might be benefit in a limited introduction of the process so that experience with it can be steadily built up.

That is just what will happen anyway. We are proposing to introduce a licensing system. Each applicant will have to satisfy the licensing authority as to the technological purpose of treating each product. The authority will need to be fully satisfied that that is a sound use of the technology and that the applicant is competent in every way to meet our detailed requirements. That method of approach will in practice achieve a limited introduction of food irradiation without the need for any artificial restrictions on products. And of course each irradiated food will be clearly labelled at the point of sale.

As for delaying introduction, we certainly concur in the wish to have one harmonised set of rules across the whole EC. But I wonder whether the committee's recommendation on that largely reflected its belief that agreement was close. That has been suggested. However, it would be a brave Minister who would now risk a forecast as to what is likely to happen and when. Let us keep two factors very much in mind. First, the difficulties in Europe are political; they do not concern the safety of the process. Secondly, what we are seeking are public health benefits through enhanced food safety. Let me draw attention to the written evidence of the Medical Research Council to the Select Committee. The council said: The public health implications are substantial, particularly in the case of poultry meat which at the present time is a major source of salmonellosis". The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, asked: why do we have to wait for Europe in order to have safely irradiated food? The noble Earl also asked me whether we could use existing provisions to introduce irradiation now. I must tell him that the powers exist, but they are not sufficient to allow us to introduce the full licensing controls that we and the Select Committee consider necessary. Astronauts have been given irradiated food. In the United Kingdom, irradiated wine corks, irradiated animal bedding and irradiated medical equipment are already permitted and sold here. I see no reason whatever to deny the British consumer clear benefits, which incidentally are already in use in several EC countries, just because of political disagreements in the EC. I suggest to your Lordships that the British consumer should have the opportunity to make his or her own choice.

8.56 p.m.

Lord Middleton

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Several of them have suggested that there remains an element of uncertainty about the effects of irradiation. That may be so, but perhaps your Lordships should consider what is certain. What is certain is that outbreaks of food poisoning are multiplying yearly. Modern mass-produced food can be very unsafe. As we say in our report, up to 60 per cent. of uncooked untreated chicken carcases contain salmonella or listeria or both. That is certain. Recently a number of people in Holland died after eating untreated prawns. That is certain. Those are the kind of certainties that must be considered when making a judgment about whether a very thoroughly researched process should be adopted in aid of food safety, and the judgment that the Select Committee came to is summarised in paragraph 74. I am sorry that some noble Lords are unhappy with it.

The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke with great knowledge. He expressed many of the reservations and doubts of the BMA whose written evidence we were grateful to receive. We agreed with nearly all their recommendations, but we believed that their fears, which are shared by the noble Lord, about radioactivity were not justified. I recommend to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that he looks at the paper submitted by the National Radiological Protection Board, which is printed on pages 112 to 115 of the report, especially the conclusion that they came to on page 115.

Finally, I should like to thank specially my noble friend Lady Trumpington for giving the Government's view. I hope she will feel that, though she has been called upon yet again to speak on food irradiation, she can agree with me that there is a continuing need for the public to be informed about the subject. I hope that she and your Lordships may feel that this report can contribute to that end, so that people can more easily choose, when the time comes, whether they want to have irradiated food or whether they do not.