Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Any scientist invited to speak at a conference might be a little miffed
to find the paper missing from the official account of the meeting. Frank
Peters, whose paper criticising food irradiation has been expunged from
the proceedings of a conference he was asked to speak at last September
believes that his paper was dropped because he made critical remarks about
the International Atomic Energy Agency, which sponsored the conference.
But Peters, a longstanding critic of food irradiation, has been accused
of ‘stirring up trouble’ and presenting a one-sided view.

When asked if it was odd for an invited paper to be left out, co-editor
Arne Miller, said: ‘I would have thought so.’

The controversy surrounding Peters’s paper reflects the highly charged
debate over food irradiation. Its proponents, which include the IAEA, claim
that it can increase the shelf life of food by killing bacteria and other
microorganisms. But Peters and other critics say that it can also be used
to make unwholesome food appear fit for sale.

Last September, Peters and 350 other delegates attended the 8th International
Meeting of Radiation Processing in Peking. Peters was invited by Chen Wenxiu
of Peking Normal University to give a paper entitled ‘The Organised Consumer
Movement’s Views on Food Irradiation’. Peters, former head of Australia’s
Analytical Laboratories, was for many years Australia’s representative on
international bodies dealing with food irradiation. He is now with Canberra
Consumers Incorporated.

In his paper, Peters listed more than 50 studies which he said showed
that food irradiation may have detrimental effects including hastening the
deterioration of food and changing its flavour, odour and colour. ‘The paper
was biased,’ said Ben Selinger, professor of chemistry at the Australian
National University, ‘but that was its intention. It is no more or less
biased than a pro-food irradiation paper.

In a report written for Australia’s National Food Authority, Peters
claims that the conference was presented with ‘false information’ and ‘misinformation’
about Australia’s stance on irradiated food. Australia remains unconvinced
about the value of food irradiation and has a moratorium on the practice.
When the moratorium was introduced three years ago, Australia asked the
WHO to review the safety and nutritional value of food irradiation. The
review was carried out by a group headed by Gary Flamm, who was formerly
with the US Food and Drug Administration.

According to Peters, an IAEA representative told the conference that
Australia accepted the findings of the review – which came down on the side
of food irradiation. But Australia has twice asked for substantial modifications
to the review and has yet to see the final version. Gae Pincus, chair of
the National Food Authority, says there were ‘serious deficiencies’ with
the first version and ‘problems’ with the second.

Peters claims that his paper was the only one not included in the conference
proceedings which were published recently in the journal Radiation Physics
and Chemistry. The proceedings were edited by Miller, who works at the Riso
National Laboratories in Denmark and Wu Jilan from Peking University. Miller
says that Peters’s paper was not the only one left out.

In a letter to Arthur Charlesby, the editor-in-chief of Radiation Physics
and Chemistry, Peters says that the omission of the paper was ‘most embarrassing’
as he had cited it in other works and he had already received 49 requests
for reprints. The omission ‘reflected on his scientific and professional
integrity’, he says.

Peters has asked Charlesby to consider publishing the paper in another
issue, but that is unlikely. Charlesby sent it to four ‘impartial’ referees
in Europe and Britain. The three who have replied rejected it. ‘If Peters
produces a paper covering both sides of the issue, I will consider it,’
says Charlesby. Peters, he says, is ‘causing himself and others an awful
lot of trouble.’