Risalah Seminar Nasional Pengawetan Makanan Dengan Iradiasi, Jakarta, 6 - 8 Juni 1983

TECHNO-ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL FEASIDILITY OF GOOFIRRADIATION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES

P. Sudarsan *

ABSfRAK - ABSTRACT

Tekno-ekonomi dan studi kelayakan komersial radiasi makanan dengan tekanan padanegara berkembang. Sebelum memulai penelitian terapan, adalah perlu dilakukan survei kela­yakan. Studi kelayakan komersial dan tekno ekonomi penting dalam bidang seperti iradiasi ma­makanan. Perbedaan dalam prospek dan masalah antara negara berkembang dengan negara majudibicarakan. Garis besar studi kelayakan untuk radiasi kentang, buah tropis dan makanan laut dinegara berkembang dibicarakan.

Techno-economic and commercial feasibility of food irradiation with special refe­rence to developing countries. Before commencing applied research it is necessary a prelimi­nary feasibility survey be carried out. Detailed techno-economic and commercial feasibilitystudies may be more important in a field such as food irradiation. The differences in the pros­pects and problems between developed and developing countries are addressed. Brief outlinesof practical feasibility aspect for radiation preservation of potatoes, tropical fruits and sea-foodsin developing countries, are given.

INTRODUCTION

This lecture is about various aspects of techno-economic, socio-economic andcommercial feasibility of food irradiation. An attempt has been made to draw spe­cial reference to the problems and prospects for radiation preservation in develop­ing countries, of relevance to practical feasibility.

Firstly, the need for various techno-economic and commercial feasibility analy­ses is discussed. The necessity of preliminary feasibility survey before commencing

applied research, detailed cost benefit studies for each major project, the role offeasibility studies in project planning itself, and in obtaining the commitment of theR & D programme personnel, are explained. Next we discuss why careful and de~tailed techno-economic and commercial feasibility studies may be more importantin a field such as food irradiation, in view of its special factors, long gestation bet­ween R & D and practical applications, and insufficiency of feasibility studies.

The differences in the prospects and problems between developed and deve­loping countries are addressed. Differences indicating greater need/prospects indeveloping countries as well as differences indicating" lesser prospects' or slower de­velopment of food irradiation in developing countries are touched upon in somedetail.

The various product-oriented parameters, plant system, location, and generalparameters of techno-economic and commercial feasibility, particularly those ofspecial relevance to food irradiation in developing countries are detailed. Subse­quently, in describing the feature of cost-benefit analysis, the types of benefits andbeneficiaries, their interrelationships, assessment of investment and running costs

• Indian Space Research Cauvery Bhawan, Bangalore, India

47

~fmm~tW~m~oow~tW~m~m~,~M ~~~~mrmt ~~m~~m~~~mnm~m~~MIDexamples.

Finally, brief outlines of practical feasibility aspects for typical radiation pre:servation processes in developing countries are given - for preservation of potatoes,tropical fruits and sea-foods/fish.

TECHNO-ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

Necessity of Preliminary Feasibility Survey Before Commencing R&D. Re­search and development in the field of food irradiation and subsequent practicalapplication require considerable effort & technical/financial/manpower resources.It demands much coordination between various scientific/technical disciplines (amulti-disciplinary approach), significant interactions with government, trade & in­dustry, public, the agricultural/fisheries, public health sectors of the economy, etc.Each country or group of countries must carefully assess whether it is worthmaking such efforts and initiating or committing itself to a food irradiation pro­gramme. The prospects and problems of introducing food irradiation can differsignificantly from country to country and region to region. To the costs of the di­rect R&D effort, market surveys, test marketing, public opinion moulding, etc.,which must precede the setting up of semi-commercial/commercial plants, we mustadd the high costs of wholesomeness/animar feeding studies required for regulatoryhealth approvals. How can we be sure or even reasonably confident that this effortis worthwhile and the benefits will exceed the cost? The benefits and costs may beeconomic, socio-economic or commercial or, as is likely, a mix of the three. It isobvious that before plunging into a serious R&D programme, at least a preliminarybut careful techno-economic, socio-economic and commercial feasibility survey andstudy are made. Such a study could in fact indicate the priorities for R&D and alsothrow up the need for some R&D not envisaged earlier.

Detailed Cost-Benefit Study For Each Major Investment. When a special foodirradiation scheme has been identified, obtaining sponsorship for the project, go­vernment approvals & funds from banks, etc., will be possible only with somewhatdetailed feasibility and cost-benefit studies. The food industry/banks/government/cooperatives cannot be convinced about the viability of the scheme without suchanalyses and reports.

Role of Feasibility Study in Better Project Planning. A careful feasibility studywill help shape the project properly and bring out requirements/problems/solutionsnot envisaged earlier. The product-mix, capacity, plan of operations, working ca·pital requirements, type of irradiator most suitable, etc., can be detected onlythrough such analyses.

Need to Obtain the Commitment of Programme Personnel. Every person di­rectly or indirectly associated with the programme-researchers, health authorities,technologists, managers, etc., must feel confident that their efforts will bring tang­ible results in due course, and successful applications can be realised. They musthave a clear idea that the techno-economic viability and commercial prospects ofthe scheme are good, i.e. that there are bright chances of government/insudtry/coo­peratives/consumers benefitting from their coordinated efforts. Techno-economic

48

and commercial feasibility must therefore be explained to the people in the pro­gramme itself. Thereby we can also see that mistakes that result in loss of money/time are avoided and our efforts get concentrated where the ultimate chax;ces ofsuccess are more.

The above reasons highlighting the importance of feasibility studies are appli­cable to any field of applied research and development - not just Food Irradiation.

PROBLEM IN THE FIELD OF FOOD IRRADIATION

Burden of Slow Progress in Practical Application. Considerable R&D by manycountries and agencies spanning 3 decades has yielded few actual commercial appli­cations so far, though the potential is widely recognised as great.

Gaps in Establishing Practical Feasibility. A number of technically feasible pro­cesses have been developed for preservation of a wide range of foods, but as yet thesocio-economic and commercial feasibility of these processes remain to be clearlydemonstrated. This is one of the challenges of food irradiation yet to be resolved.

Burden of Psychological Inhibitions. Public health acceptance has been slowand reluctant. This is primarily or at least partly due to psychological inhibitionsabout radiation. It is not enough to demonstrate the absolute safety of each foodirradiation process, it is necessary to show that the socio-economic and commercialbenefits far outweigh the costs and therefore provide an incentive to overcome theinhibitions and, instead, develop confidence in radiation preservation. We can drawsatisfaction from the fact that Japan, which more than any other country, has rea­sons to feel inhibited about radiation effects, was the first to successfully commer­cialise a food irradiation process.

COMMERCIAL PROSPECT AND PROBLEM AMONG DEVELOPING COUN­

TRIES, AS COMPARED TO DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Most developing countries are in the tropical region. High humidities and tem­peratures promote greater and faster spoilage and losses of food items. The need foreffective food preservation and conservation is therefore more.

Developing countries general lack and cannot afford costly preservation me­thods like freezing and canning, the former requiring a network of facilities fromcatch/harvest to consumption and the latter requiring import of costly tinplate.Such methods also consume much commercial energy which most developing coun­tries are already net importers. Moreover only a small fraction of the populationcan afford frozen/canned food - or processed foods in general. Food irradiationwith its better energy-economics and lower need for special distribution infrastruc­ture (being a "one-shot" process) offers an attractive alternative for such countriesto "leap-frog" into a more modern and relevant technology. For the developedcountries, however, it may be difficult to displace the considerable infrastructure in"conventional" food preservation/distribution already set up, with strong commer­cial interests.

Undernourishment and malnourishment are basic problems retarding develop­

ment of the 3rd world countries. These are due to deficits in food production aswell as uneven/poor distribution. It is therefore not only vitally important to con-

49

serve better whatever is produced but enable the commodities to reach consumersin edible condition with minimum losses despite delays and bottlenecks in the fooddistribution system. For example, fish is potentially the cheapest source of animal

protein in developing countries. Often the catch from the coast cannot reach themarkets in the hinterland where it is needed most, because of the poor distribution

system and heavy losses in transit. However even a few days improvement in shelf­life, say by low dose radurization, can dramatically change the situation and openup new markets for the coastal surpluses. Costly methods like freezing are not re­

. quired for the internal market.Unscientific and unhygienic handling from harvest/catch to consumption pro­

mote further losses as well as quality deterioration and health hazards. Here againthe need for better preservation/shelf-life improvement as well as techniques for"sanitizing" the commodities (by radicidation) would be important. While preven­tion is better than cure, absence of both prevention and cure is worse.

Traditional food consumption and culinary practices in developing countries

call for preservation methods like food irradiation which keep food in the "original& fresh" state unlike canned/frozen foods.

Food irradiation processes, to be effective, require some basic infrastructureand improvements in the handling/distribution system, for example:a) Minimum manual handling, to reduce damage of irradiated potatoes. Need for

irradiation, storage and handling in the same container, preverably pallet boxesrather than jute bags.

b) Post-irradiation cool storage (10-1 5°C) for potatoes.c) Post-irradiation insect-proof storage of grain and dried fish to prevent reinfes­

tation - hermetically sealed silos or insect-proof bags are indicated.d) Post-irradiation storage and transportation of radurized fish at 0 to 3°C for

technical efficiency arid also to eliminate the remotest possibility of any botu­lism hazard.

e) Pre-irradiation quality control (grading etc.)In many developing countries basic infrastructure for the above, which are

sometimes preconditions for the introduction of food irradiation processes, areeither grossly inadequate or totally lacking. Also we are repeatedly asked: "Shouldnot the government develop basic infrastructural facilities rather than promote"fancy" technologies like food irradiation?"

Successful practical introduction of food irradiation requires intense and coor­dinated efforts. Techno-economic feasibility studies, test-marketing to assess con­sumer acceptability, education of the trade, public acceptance, support of thehealth regulatory authorities, interest and commitment of the food industry - allthese have to be progressed and secured. Such efforts call for conscious allocationof scarce financial and manpower resources. Skilled scientist, technologist, marketresearch and financial analysts, psychologists, sociologist, and managers must parti­cipate in the team-work. Developing countries often find it difficult to marshallthese resources them-selves in a speedy and efficient manner.

The fo()d-processing and distribution industry, should be the logical promoterand user of radiation preservation. The food industry is however in its infancy in

50

most developing countries, and existing food processing units like those for freezingof shrimp are oriented towards the export market, not so much for internal distri­bution.

Technology development and application in developing countries lags conside­rably behind developed countries - otherwise there will be no distinction betweenthem! The limited practical application of Food Irradiation even today in the deve­loped world has had a natural inhibiting effect in the third world. This is unfortu­nate in the context of the acknowledged greater need for effective, economical andmore relevant food preservation methods in developing countries.

Due to lack of an adequate industrial base, limited internal market and chronicforeign exchange and every deficits, many items that may be required for practicalfood irradiation applications, such as plastic film packaging materials, process/hand­ling equipment, and modern building material, are more expensive than in deve­loped countries, or require to be imported with heavy duties and taxes. At the sometime the foods themselves are generally cheaper. As a result, developing countriesmay have to incur larger investments and operating costs to preserve lower valueproducts! Often the entire irradiator with radiation source may have to be im·ported at high cost. Contemporary designs of food irradiation plants are often moresuited for conditions in developed countries for whom they were originally meant.A few developing countries have developed low-cost irradiators suitable for theirconditions and needs. These attempt to economise on capital and increase the la­bour element. They are good examples of relevant technology for third world

. countries which are short of capital for investment (high cost of capital) and surplusin labour for employment (low manpower costs). However, much remains to bedone.

It must also be acknowledged that even in purely scientific and techno-econo­mic matters, decision-making is frequently infected with an overdose of politics inthird world countries - this tends to push objective considerations somewhat intothe background.

PARAMETERS OF TECHNO-ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY

OF FOOD IRRADIATION

Product Oriented Parameters.

1. Irradiation objectives. Loss reduction, shelf-life and market extension, qualityimprovement, sanitization, price stability, socio-econoimc and commercialobjectives.

2. Production trend (at national, regional and micro-region levels). Increasing/decreasing? At what rate and why? Fluctuating? Why?

3. Production seasonality. One, two or three crops a year? Monthly/weekly ave­rage production and market arrivals during harvest/catch seasons. Any long­term trends?

4. Price fluctuations. Fluctuations at farm, wholesale and retail level, and reasons

for such fluctuations. Any long-term trends?S. Varietal distribution and differences. Percentage contributions of the impor­

tant varieties and their significant differences in marketing/consumption cha-

51

I I 11 I I I I 1 I ' rl' t'ractenstlcs, radIatIOn dose requIremenls aA~ I!!~~AUf~ tmum W~.6. Demand pattern. Uniform? Seasonal? Price-elastic or inelastic? What factors

influence demand? Distribution of demand by end-use - how much for pro­cessing/direct consumption? What portion of production needs irradiation?Estimated montWy/weekly distribution of demand for radiation preservation.

7. Export potential. With and without radiation preservation.8. Commodity flow pattern. Directions and volumes of product flow from pro­

duction to consumption centres.9. Harvesting/distribution/marketing system & practices. How well organised?

What are their special features from harvest/catch to consumer? How relevantare these to irradiation?

10. Irradiation and pre-/post-irradiation requirements. Minimum dose and allow­able overdose. Timing of irradiation (e.g. soon after catch/harvesting for mostcommodities, after wound healing and before dormancy break for potatoes;soon after harvest & soundrying as well as before growth of internal sprouts

st~rt for onions). Pre- and post-irradiation handling/storage/stansportation/packaging requirements. It is a combination (say, ~eat plus irradia(ion) process.

11. Food processing, consumption and culinary practices. Do these practices re­veal changes such as after-cooking darkening and growth centre discolorationin irradiated potatoes and onions or do they mask such changes? Are onlywell-cooked fish consumed in the country/region? (If so, worries about botu­lism can be ruled out and radurization would have better potential).

12. Alternative preservation methods. What are the advantages and disadvantagesof possible alternative methods, in comparison with the radiation preservationprocess? Are there significant overall advantages of the radiation preservationmethod for this commodity?

13. Status of field and market trials. Are further storage/transportation/test-mar­keting trials required?

14. Status of process development. Has the radiation preservation (or combinationtreatment) process been optimised for the above products-specific parameters?Is a pilot or semi-commercial demonstration plant required first?

15. Commercial/socio-economic viability. Do benefits significantly exceed thecosts of the radiation preservation technique?

16. Commercial/governmental interest. How interested are the user agencies? Willthe radiation preservation process compete with or complement existing foodpreservation industries and infrastructure? Do strong incentives exist for over­coming inhibitors regarding irradiation and introducing the new process?

Plant System and Location Parameters.1. Plant characteristics. Single product or multi-product plant? Mobile or fixed

irradiator? Is source sharing between multiple installations feasible and desir­able? Should the irradiator be designed to cater to peak demands thereby sa­crificing capacity utilization to some extend? What should be the hourlythroughout capacity? Are pre- and post-irradiation storage/warehousing faci­lities to be provided in the plant?

2. Optimal location. Should the plant be located in a consumption or production

52

or a transhipment centre? What is the optimal location with respect to logistics,availability of infrastructure. Utilization and marketing.

General Parameters.

1. Overall project viability. What are the estimated commercial profitability andnet sOcIo-economic benefits? What are the crucial assumption and the sensiti­vity of the benefit/cost analysis to changes in these assumptions.

2. Nature of facility. Will it be a service irradiator or an in-house plant for captiveuse by a food processing complex or a "buy-irradiate-sell" enterprise?

BENEFIT -COST ANALYSIS OF FOOD IRRADIATION SCHEMES

Types of Benefits. Monetary and social benefits from a food irradiation pro­cess/plant can :arise through reduction in commodity losses, improvement in qua­lity or hygienic status, extension of market-life and enhancement of market poten­tial, reduction in consumer prices and reduction in price fluctuations for producersand consumers alike. It would difficult to quantify and assign monetary values toall benefits, especially the social, product quality and public health benefits. Theyare nevertheless vitally important.

Types of Beneficiaries. Benefits could accrue to (a) the users or customers(farmers & traders) of a service irradiator through lesser losses, better prices and in­creased market for their commodities; (b) the owners of the facility (enterpreneursor traders or cooperatives) through reveneus & profits from sale of irradiation ser­vices or from purchasing, irradiating and selling the commodities themselves; (c)the owners of an "in-house" captive irradiator for supplying raw material to theirown food processing plant; (d) the consumers by way of better quality & safety,lower price and increased availability of the commodity; (e) the country as a wholeand the government by way of increased national income from the commodity, re­duction in import or increase in export earnings (thereby improving the trade ba­lance and foreign exchange situation), stabler prices (thereby reducing the outlayon price support operations), energy economies, income from taxes and increasedemployment.

Assessment of Costs. They are the investment in (cost of setting up) the radia­tion preservation facility and its running costs (annual operating costs). Appendix-Idescribes a suggested fish irradiator for Bangladesh, and gives preliminary estimatesof its investment and annual operating costs, under various assumptions. Based onthese estimates the radurization cost per kg of fish is also calculated. This is asimple example of cost estimates for food irradiation plants.

Benefit-Cost Analysis.1. An':investment made today results in annual benefits and costs in the future.

We khow that a dollar earned thi~ year is worth more than a dollar earned nextyear (we can deposit this year's dollar in the bank to earn interest next year).So we need to take care of the "time value of money' in benefit-cost com­parisons. The modern method to do this is by calculating the 'Internal Rate ofReturn' (IRR) of the project. This can be illustrated by a highly simplifiedexample:

53

$ 75,000- $ 25,000

$ 50,000

~uestlonThe total investment in a service irradiator for agricultural commodities is$ 200,000 to be fully spent in 1980. From 1981 onwards the irradiator is es­timated to operate at maximum practical capacity, earning an annual totalrevenue of $ 75,000 from irradiation service charges to customers. The totalannual operating costs are estimated at $ 25 ,000 (excluding depreciation andinterest ).The plant is expected to have an economic life of 10 years only, at the end ofwhich it is assumed to have zero residual value. What is the estimated pre-tax

IRR of this project?(The IRR is defined as that discount rate at which the 'present value' of netcash inflows over the life of a project is equal to the 'present' value of the in­

vestment.)

AnswerNet annual cash inflows

(from 1981 to 1990) froman investment of $ 200,000

per annum

Proportionate investment fornet annual cash inflow of $ 1 = $ 4

Present value (1980) of $ 1/- per yearfrom 1.981 to 1990 (ten years)

@ 10% discount rate = $ 6.145@ 15% discount rate = $ 5.019@ 20% discount rate = $ 4.192@ 22% discount rate = $ 3.923@ 25% discount rate = $ 3.571

from

presentvaluetables

2. The IRR computations can be refined by making more realistic estimates suchas non-uniform annual net cash inflows, spreading the investment cost overmore than one year depending on the schedule for setting up the plant, provid­ing for a 'salvage' or residual value for the plant, building and equipment atthe end of its economic life, etc. For commercial enterprises which need to

pay income tax on annual profits, it would be more relevant to calculate theafter-tax IRR.

3. A project is assessed to be economically viable if the IRR is greater than theaverage cost of the capital required for investment. Investment capital is nor­mally raised through loans from financial institutions and equity (funds in­vested by the entrepreneurs themselves). The more the project's IRR exceedsthe cost of capital, the greater is its economic viabil!ty.

4. It may not be possible to quantify all benefits and costs in terms of monetaryvalue. The feasibility report should clearly specify such non-quantifiable fac­tors and explain their significance and relative importance.

54

OUTLINES OF TECHNO-ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY OFTYPICAL RADIATION PRESERVATION PROCESSES IN DEVELOPING COUN­TRIES

Radiation Preservation of Potatoes.

1. Potato is not a high consumption staple food in most developing countries,unlike the case in the developed world. However, production and consumptionare steadily increasing in the third world. Chemical sprout inhibition is rarelypractised, while cold storage is slowly becoming populer. However, high costsof cold storage limit the usage mainly to seed potatoes which constitute,lessthan a tenth of total production. Cold storage being power-intensive, the severeenergy crisis in most developing ,countries: has posed difficulties for the satis­factory operation of this new industry. Large scale potato processing industryis absent in most developing countries. Its development may be inhibited bythe increased difficulties of cold storage, since processing industries preferround-the-year availability of raw material.

2. With one or, at the most, two crops a year, and limited preservation facilities,prices fluctuate widely and imports from countries where harvest seasons aredifferent, are too expensive. More cold stores are finding it attractive to storetheir own potatoes and sell at high prices during the off-season.

3. The above trends indicate that the time may be ripe to introduce radiation pre­servation of potatoes in developing countries with sizable production in con­centrated areas. The need for controlled post-irradiation storage at lO-15°Ccalls for expensive 'cool' storage capacity. It however appears feasible to usethe idle pre-cooling space of existing cold stores for storage of irradiated pota­toes, at much lower cost. This way potato irradiation need not compete withthe cold storage industry, but can cooperate for mutual benefit.

4. There are a few uncertains.

a. Many popular varieties grown in developing countries are of European ori­gin, like Bintje, which exhibit post-cooking darkening of the flesh. It maybe better to start with varieties which do not show this tendency.

b. Potatoes are generally retailed loose without packaging in developing coun­tries. Retail packing and labelling to differentiate irradiated potatoes maybe difficult and expensive to introduce commercially in the vegetablemarkets. At the most, the containers used by the retail trade can be la­belled.

c. Storage, handling and transportation is in jute bags or cloth sacks whichare handled roughly. This system is probably incompatible with irradia­tion which affects the potatoes wound-healing properties and may therebyincrease rottage. Apart from selecting the best quality potatoes for irra­diation, storage/handling/irradiation in pallet boxes/crates may have to beintroduced. This will cost more than the present handling and transporta­tion practices.

5. For very low dose food irradiation (potatoes, onions, other tubers and bulbs),small pilot plants exist in a number of developing countries. However, no semi­

commercial or commercial scale irradiator has been developed for use in the

55

design was evolved in India some years ago.

Radiotion Preservation of Tropical Fruits.1. Mango, banana and papaya are the tropical fruits for which extensive R&D in

radiation preservation has been done with multiple techno-economic objec­tives. Combination treatments of hot water dip followed by low dose irradia­tion have been developed.Production of these fruits is generally widely dispersed within the developingcountries, though pockets and centres of concentrated production exist. Theyhave a large untapped export potential. The main problems why exportgrowth has been slow are:a. Lack of organised distribution system, scientific packaging and infrastruc­

ture for efficient export marketing. The banana industry and trade in Cen­tral and South America is an exception.

b. Need for costly air transport in view of the limited shelf-life and need formethods to delay ripening so as to extend the market-life inside the im­porting countries.

c. Quarantine restrictions in importing countries and lack of proper quaran­tine control measures in the developing countries, particularly against in­sect infestation.

3. Combination (hot water dip followed by low-dose irradiation) treatments holdsignificant promise for solving most of these problems simultaneously. For con­trol of mango seed weevil no other practical method probably exists.

3. The overall commercial feasibility of radiation preservation of fruits, mainly

~or export, appears good and offers potential for practical applications in se­lected countries in Africa, South & South East Asia etc. However, lack of suffi­cient public health clearances in importing and exporting countries continuesto be a hindrance. Low cost irradiators suitable for the tropical countries, .which can probably be adapted to fruit irradiation, have been developed and

operated s~ccessfully.

Sea-Foods / Fish.1. For developing countries with sizable sea fisheries, radiation preservation is

promising for a variety of unfulfilled needs:a. Preservation of dried fish against insect losses - both for export and inter­

nal markets.

b. Extension of internal markets {or fresh fish by low or medium dose radu­rization and transport/marketing at controlled temperature (less than3°C).

c. Reducing the serious quarantine problems being faced now by exporters offrozen sea-foods - shrimp, lobstertails, etc. Lack of salmonella control haslanded many such exporting countries in the developing world into severelosses. Radicidation can playa useful role here.

2. This is potentially the most important application of food irradiation of socio­economic relevance to developing countries, where malnourislllnent is a serious

56

problem, and fish provide the cheapest source of animal protein. In the coastallanding centres losses are sometimes excessive because of infra structural defi­

ciencies preventing quick movement of the commodity to the hinterland wheredemand is unsatisfied. Canning and freezing have little relevance for the inter­nal market.

3. Lack of sufficient health clearances, doubts regarding the practical applicabilityof radurization, and insufficient feasibility studies are however retarding prac­tical application. The Asian Region Fisheries Project of FAO/IAEA is accele­rating the promotion of radiation disinfestation of dried fish.

57

DISKUSI

E.G. SIAGIAN:

I. To make food irradiation more feasible or economical in developing countries,I think mobile irradiator is more favourable, which can visit the farms during_

the harvest seasons, or "on board Ship-Irradiator" for fishery products.2. What is your opinion of this because in your topic, you never mention about

"mobile irradiator".

P. SUDARSAN:

1. If the harvest of a particular crop is simultaneous in most parts of the country,a mobile irradiator would not be practical. For handling different foods har­vested at different periods in the year, it could be useful. Fixed installations indifferent places, sharing a common transportable source and perhaps also atransportable/conveyor system could also be considered. Country roads/bridgesmust be able to accomodate the mobile system. Mobile irradiator are brieflymentioned in the text of any lecture under plant related parameters.

2. In most developing countries, the seafoods catch is predominant from tradi­tional fishing craft and motorized fishing boats. Fishing trawlers are few innumber and generally small in size. Factory ship do not exist. Trawler catchcan be highly variable. The capacity as well as capacity utilization of a trawler­mounted irradiator would be quite low under such circumstances. This is likelyto make such an investment uneconomical, under the present conditions indeveloping countries.

SOEWARDJO ADIKOESOEMO :

I. About feasibility study, how much is the cost benefit ratio in order to acceptthat the project is feasible.

2. Before we start the feasibility study, is that true that we must make an environ­mental studies (in Indonesia we call Analisa Dampak Lingkungan = ANDAL).For our country (Indonesia) the first requirement for erection a project is tomake environmental impact studies.

P. SUDARSAN:

1. This is very much dependent on the objectives of the proposed plant and thenature of the investor. It also varies from country. In purely economic terms,internal rate of return of the project must exceed the cost of capital to makethe investment viable. For government projects purely financial viability is lessrelevant than social cost benefit viability.

2. Since there are no effluents or pollution caused by an irradiation facility, Idon't think a detailed environmental impact study is required. Enrichment/re­placement of the spent source must be obviously done so that no environ­

mental problems are created. This should be done under strict Health Physicssupervision for radiological protection requirements and safety requirements.

58