Worldwide, there are over 45 bodies that regulate and endorse food irradiation, including the independent body Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). This organisation ensures that, if food manufacturers want to irradiate anything that is not on the current list, they put in an application detailing how this is beneficial and why it is needed. The FSANZ works with internal and external experts and the government to ensure the food reaching every Australian and New Zealander is safe and of the highest quality. There is also required labelling and an internationally recognised symbol that help consumers know that food has been irradiated. In addition, there are international standards that must be met for the facilities at which irradiation is carried out.

Despite the numerous regulations and rules in place, there are nevertheless many outright sceptics or naysayers regarding food irradiation. Surveys by the FSANZ found that, while a majority of Australians and New Zealanders were aware of food irradiation, 48% and 22% respectively were not accepting of it. Then, of course, there are critics who peddle straight up falsehoods through their websites and blogs, blatantly spreading misinformation about food irradiation and the technologies involved. The individuals who publicise these web pages may think they are doing a public service, but, in reality, these websites can be damaging, spreading fear rather than fact.

In fact, there are researchers at institutes the world over, including some in Australia, who are working tirelessly to understand people's attitudes towards food that been altered by radiation, and to potentially change their beliefs. One such researcher is Heather Bray, an agricultural scientist and science communicator at the University of Adelaide. Through her research, Bray tries to understand cultural and social attitudes towards the use of science and technology in food production. “To me,” she says, “the biggest challenge is how do we get through to those people who think that the food that they are eating is poison.”

This does not necessarily mean that we bombard the public with facts and figures. “It's not just about knowledge, it’s not just about information,” says Bray. “We have to give them the tools to trust us. We need to be able to show that we are credible, that we are reliable, that we’re human and that we share their values. That is where science needs to move now.”

Moving forward, Bray says that scientists also need to be more inclusive. “There’s lots of suggestion that we need to create better dialogue; we need to involve the public in making decisions about what gets done, what gets funded, how the results are analysed. The big challenge is to upscale some of that with the community.”

It all comes down to it being more of a dialogue rather than a monologue. The public, scientists and stakeholders — such as you and I — need to be involved. It’s about listening to the various opinions, taking on board people’s concerns and fears, and not keeping science and technology locked up in the ivory towers of academia. Changes in public behaviour will not happen overnight and may take years, but they are possible with the right attitudes on both sides of the table.