Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

How Much of Your Food is Being Nuked Before it Hits the Shelf?

By Brita Belli, E Magazine. Posted July 5, 2007.


From fruit to spices to meat, contamination fears and market possibilities are spurring a food irradiation revival. But how safe is the practice?
Advertisement

India alone grows 1,000 varieties of mangoes in such delectable variations as the sweet, orange-skinned Alphonso, the Bombay Green and the Bangalora. Here in the U.S., we rarely see more than one lonely variety at the local supermarket, but that's all about to change. Soon consumers will be able to sample the sweet and tart nectars of many more imported fruits and vegetables from Thailand, India and Mexico piled high in the produce section. But there's a catch: this fruit will arrive irradiated.

Shoppers may not be the wiser. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules in place since 1986 have required the radura -- a symbol for irradiation that resembles a flower in a broken circle -- on placards in front of produce displays or on packaged food like ground beef, along with the statement: "treated with radiation" or "treated by irradiation."

But last April, the FDA proposed a revision to those rules. Food which had undergone irradiation, but not "material change," would no longer have to bear the radura logo and companies could replace the word "irradiation" with the more consumer-friendly "pasteurized" or something else innocuous. Public comment on the current proposed change closes in early July.

Industry insiders argue that irradiation is a necessary answer to food-borne illness such as last year's E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak in California-grown spinach, which left three dead and sickened 200 others. It was the 20th such outbreak in lettuce or spinach since 1995. "I look at it from a unique perspective," says Dennis Olson, the director of the irradiation program at Iowa State University.

"All of our bagged spinach and lettuce and fresh-cut produce goes through a metal detector. How common is it to find metal? It almost never happens. How often does E. coli 0157:H7 happen? Almost never. [But] if that produce had been irradiated there would have been none."

A commitment to public health is certainly in the best interests of consumer and industry, but a burgeoning worldwide market plays an equally important role in the sudden interest in irradiation. One third of commercial spices in the U.S. are already subject to irradiation -- treatment by gamma rays or electron beams to kill pathogens -- as are some 15 to 18 million pounds of ground beef, according to Ron Eustice, executive director of the Minnesota Beef Council.

In 2000, the FDA reported that 97 million pounds of food products were irradiated annually. But, excluding spices, these products are only available in limited quantity: the occasional hospital meal or the odd chicken breast in a Florida supermarket. Irradiation in the world of fresh produce is still something new, and it's opening the door to American imports of litchi (a red fruit similar to a grape) and longan (a round fruit resembling an eyeball when shelled) from Thailand as well as new mangoes from India.

"I was just in India," says Eustice, "and there are close to 20 irradiation facilities going up [across Asia] in the next 12 months. That may be a conservative estimate." In March of 2006, when President Bush was in India cementing a civilian nuclear agreement, he found time to promote the import of Indian mangoes. Both decisions are likely hinged on the rocketing Indian economy, the fastest-growing in the world according to Goldman Sachs. And irradiation is the strange mistress in the middle.

At a press conference in New Delhi, Bush spoke out in favor of lifting the 17-year ban on mango imports from India, imposed because of heavy pesticide concerns. "The U.S. is looking forward to eating Indian mangoes," he said. It's also looking forward to exporting its own beans, like lentils and chickpeas, to India, as part of the trade agreement.

The market for more exotic foods is exploding, in part because America is home to such a large number of immigrants and because consumers, influenced by their travels and cultural experiences, are demanding more variety.

But traditional bananas and pineapples will cross the borders, too, thanks to irradiation. It's cheaper for American companies to import produce, says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. In Latin America where an increasing amount of the American food supply is grown, "you can use pesticides that are illegal in the U.S. and there are [fewer] environmental standards," Hauter says. "The food industry's plan is moving to the global south."

Irradiation would help that plan along immensely, by delaying ripening in fruits like bananas and avocados and inhibiting sprouting in root vegetables, such as onions and potatoes. Irradiation prevents mushroom caps from opening, and even delicate fruits like strawberries benefit from radioactive zapping, according to information offered by the Food Irradiation Processing Alliance.

Because the process "reduces spoilage bacteria and molds ... irradiated strawberries can last a week in the refrigerator without developing mold." Companies could also use cheaper, slower means of transportation to get their perishable items to grocery stores.

And the FDA says there is no reason why irradiated foods shouldn't become the norm. The process is allowed in nearly 40 countries and is endorsed by the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Medical Association.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: food, nuke

Brita Belli is managing editor of E Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Irradiation doesn't scare me
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 5, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I know very little about the subject, despite having studied it a little. If it is as harmless as advertised, it could be an improvement over processes already in near universal use. From my position (of admitted ignorance) I would be willing to make the trade-off, after some questions have been answered. I would like to see someone I trust (like PBS's NOVA) examine the questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do we send comments to the FDA?
Posted by: louisdahe on Jul 5, 2007 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would be nice to know how we can comment on this proposed rule change. I couldn't easily find it on the FDA site or using google.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

royoinfobabe
Posted by: royoinfobabe on Jul 5, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What really would have been nice would have been for AlterNet to run this story before the deadline for comments, which was July 3, 2007, two days before the article was posted. So it's now too late for AlterNet readers to have any input into this decision.

When federal agencies propose changes, they're published in a daily periodical, called the Federal Register. The FR gives a summary of the proposal (including the law it's based on, intent, cost/benefit analysis, who it would impact, etc; & tells how to comment. This proposal was announced in the April 4, 2007 issue.
FR is available online, and in print by subscription or ar many federal depository libraries, which are spread throughout the country. Even if the library just gets it online, not in print, they've got a specific librarian who can help you to use it & other gov't info, as we all know the feds are especially good at making info hard to find & interpret.

there's also a website, regulations.gov, that lists regulations being considered & up for comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bigger fish to fry
Posted by: Lou1995 on Jul 5, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is generally nothing I do not agree with on this web site. But fighting food irradiation is wrong for many reasons. As is pointed out, irradiation is used to sterilize medical equipment. Its used to fight cancer. Are there risks? -Sure, but those risks are potentially to the workers in the irradiation facilities. In countries like India, we can only hope there is worker regulation to protect those in the irradiation plants. Cobalt-60 is used all over the world for medical and engineering purposes. When handled correctly, it is safe.

Radiation preserves food by killing the bacteria that denature and decay foods. There is NO radiation 'left' in the foods at all-none, zippo, absolute, 100%. The issue of pesticides and preservatives and genetics are quantum levels more concerning than irradiation. Perhaps one potential issue about irradiation is that food distributors will become lax in how they handle the food knowing there is less risk of rot. But thats only a potential issue.

We are all sensitive to the term 'radiation' and rightly so. Its dangerous stuff. But when applied to enhance not only the shelf life, but safety of our food source its a major win for us in so-called developed countries and in non-developed countries where food distribution is less sanitary and delayed.

Lets get back to the bigger issues of food production: Pesticides, local versus international distribution, false hopes of bio-fuels (and the waste associated with them) and the like. On irradiation, we should educate, not scare the the population as the benefits of this treatment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Non-science from people who should know better.
Posted by: carlon on Jul 5, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article starts out largely factually, but then descends into irrational nonsense, trying to find a "balance" between opposing viewpoints. As far as I'm concerned, this is just as bad as climate-change articles that try so hard to find "balance" by quoting industry shills that the science and truth are distorted. In this case, the anti-irradationists aren't bought and paid for, but that doesn't make their anti-science any less objectionable.

As far as I'm concerned, we need more irradiation in the US, both for public health and environmental reasons. For example, imagine how many tons of CO2 would not be expelled into the atmosphere every year if supermarkets didn't need to waste so much energy refrigerating milk products? If irradiated, as in Europe, unopened milk wouldn't need such fiscally and environmentally costly protective measures.

Or what if nobody died again from E. coli or Salmonella from tainted meat -- meat that could have been cheaply and effectively protected by irradiation? (Which would also increase the shelf-life, decreasing spoiling and the waste of large amounts of food.)

I think the article, before it slays itself in search of a nonexistent "balance", says it best: "The process is allowed in nearly 40 countries and is endorsed by the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Medical Association."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Book Recommedation
Posted by: starbird on Jul 5, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Petkau Effect
The Devastating Effect of Nuclear Radiation on Human Health and the Environment
Introduction by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass.
Revised Edition. "The Petkau Effect is really a paradigm for the unknown havoc we stir into action when we blindly pursue industrial advance. No one who reads this book will come away having learned nothing. No one could be left unaffected." — the San Diego Review.
250 pages | nonfiction | illustrated with maps and graphs
$14.95 (paper) ISBN: 1-56858-019-3

wikipedia:The Petkau Effect

Basically, Dr. Petkau discovered the biological effects of ionizing radiation are non-linear, i.e. much lower dosages over long periods have far greater effect than previously thought, for example, when the government's exposure-level limits were devised...

your local independent bookstore will love to order it for you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Think Green, buy local
Posted by: woser on Jul 5, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more food that is irradiated, the more food that will be shipped around the world with petro chemicals. Wrong direction for our future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Think Green, buy local Posted by: carlon
» RE: Think Green, buy local Posted by: EncinoM
What's the problem?
Posted by: dkm on Jul 5, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad that so many of the people responding realize that this is really a nonissue as far as the safety of the food that was irradiated goes. While the tone of the article was definitely antiradiation, I looked in vain for any real reason why. The pseudoreasons given were all political, not a single scientifically tested fact among them. This is just another example of what an author whose name escapes me at the moment was commenting on several days ago about how Americans have totally lost connection with how their food is produced and have substituted a bunch of boogeymen and bumper stickers for reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's the problem? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: What's the problem? Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Don't legitimize ANY use of nuclear materials
Posted by: woser on Jul 5, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every use of radioactive materials serves to legitimize the use of nuclear materials as military weapons, energy, and terrorism. We have to give up totally the beliefe that we can use radioactive materials as a resource (with the possible exception of the very shor-lived ones used in medicine). Don't make it, don't use it ,don't move it, don't abndon then forget it. Most genetic changed cause by radiation for not the the better. 240,000,000 years is a long time to be messing with our genes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So where are the studies showing irradiation is harmless?
Posted by: heid on Jul 5, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading comment after comment lauding the use of irradiation on foods and ignoring the idea that people surely have a right to know when such things are done - at least to allow them to make their own choices - there is one thing not one of these people considers:

What studies have demonstrated safety for this procedure? It seems that so many things are accepted as okay based on some claims of benefit without any consideration given to potential harm, without any studies demonstrating that there is no harm.

It seems obvious to me that the companies doing irradiation and the ones having it done are not doing it for the benefit of the public, but are doing it for the benefit of their bottom lines. Before that's allowed, I want good unbiased (meaning not paid for by the companies themselves) studies showing both the safety and the efficacy of the procedure.

We've seen over and over that the corporate world does nothing for the benefit of people. It does everything it can to hide harm done. Why should we believe their claims that food irradiation is harmless?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Questions
Posted by: DefeatBush on Jul 5, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What effect does irradiation have on (live) enzymes, vitamins and other nutrient elements in foods?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Questions Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
Where are the studies? ALL OVER.
Posted by: carlon on Jul 5, 2007 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Half-baked comments like "where are the studies demonstrating safety" -- with an insinuating implication that they do not exist -- serve no purpose. Even a basic internet search would produce a lot of information about a lot of studies conducted by both academic and commercial groups about the possible harms from irradiation, and their minimal magnitude. (The Wikipedia page is a great resource, for goodness sake!) And if you don't believe me, why not believe the AMA, CDC, WHO, or any of the other numerous health agencies which have evaluated the science and come out in favor of irradiation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where are the studies? ALL OVER. Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Where are the studies? ALL OVER. Posted by: Logic's Edge
Canada must be scientifically impaired since it banned food irradition long ago
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jul 5, 2007 2:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But everyone knows Canada has lower standards than we do nowadays, and more corruption in its institutions.

Heck, those crazy Canucks banned GMO's. And we also know their cheap prescription drugs that we Americans wish we could have are horribly, horribly unsafe.

All this unsafe safety the Canadians have achieved is reprehensible. I'd trust the idiot commentors here more than the Canadian scientists and government agencies that are more vulnerable to special interest corruption than our pure agencies in the great USA where Katrina proved our govt.'s vigilent in watching out for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But how safe is the practice?
Posted by: jmbarlow on Jul 5, 2007 2:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would make for a shorter article, but I believe the accepted answer is "Very safe, actually."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wikipedia?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jul 5, 2007 2:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone implied that people posting concerns in here should do some reading and shut up. Wikipedia was mentioned.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say under "Food Irradiation".

A diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespans for offspring[10] and chromosome damage in mammals.[11] In the 1960s and 1970s, several studies have suggested the cytotoxic and mutagenetic properties of irradiated food on human cells.[12] In one study, fifteen malnourished children who were given a diet of irradiated wheat developed polyploid cells and other cell abnormalities.[13] A diet of irradiated potatoes led human subjects to have significantly increased haemoglobin values, which persisted even after the subjects were taken off the diet.[14] In another experiment, irradiated sucrose was found to be toxic to human lymphocytes in vitro and also retarded cell division and resulted in severe chromosome damage.[15]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wikipedia? Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Wikipedia? Posted by: heid
» RE: Wikipedia? Posted by: EncinoM
What's this about Europe accepting irradiated foods?
Posted by: heid on Jul 5, 2007 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Europe. The fact is that irradiation of foods is not a routinely accepted practice, and most European nations do not allow it. Here's a link to a recent article documenting this:

http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/
ng.asp?n=77092-irradiation-asia-shelf-life (I had to break it up because it's too long to be accepted by AlterNet, so you can cut and paste it together, if you wish.)

People are making all sorts of comments, often with condescending tones, that imply that Europe does it, so it must be okay, and that those who are against it are vestiges of some irrational cult. That tone and the utter inaccuracy of the statement that irradiation is well accepted in Europe makes one wonder just how good their so-called "facts" of the safety of irradiation could possibly be.

Food irradiation is being pushed by industry. They aren't doing it for our benefit. They're doing it for their bottom lines.

How many people are aware that prepackaged, sealed in gas, so-called fresh foods (including ones that started out as organic) lose most of their nutritional value, though they look fresh and good because of the gas? Food corporations are doing this because it makes it easy to store food for long times, sell stuff that should have rotted, but still looks good, and make profits.

Why would anyone who must eat trust anything these corporations do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

trust us, we're Big Ag and Big Nuke?
Posted by: DeAnander on Jul 5, 2007 5:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's see. they told us DDT was perfectly harmless. they told us that nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter." they told us that HCFS was nutritionally equivalent to sugar. they've told us any number of wonderful lies over the last 50 years and more. and they all come down to one of two things: (a) we have a surplus of something we want to dump on you, so shut up and trust us, it's harmless; (b) in order to pad our profits we want to cut corners, cheesepare, pinch a nickel till it screams, fire a few more people, indulge in most-destructive and most-dangerous practises -- and we need a miracle bandaid to clean up the nasty inferior product that results, at least enough so you'll shut up and trust us.

in this case it's both, on many axes. we want to steal food from the global South where there is no minimum wage, OSHA, or pesticide regulation (cut corners); we want to dump our unsaleable GMO legumes and grains on that captive market in return (and they'll "need" to import food 'cos we will have diverted their more nutritious high-value crops to affluent consumers in the North); we want a miracle bandaid to clean up the dirty end product of slave-labour overseas produce and factory farmed meat (cut corners); and then the nuke industry, a bit depressed over Yucca Flats, is in desperate need of someplace to dump its waste products. they managed to burn up a bunch of hot dirt as DU ammo, sickening hundreds or thousands of US troops and tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process (Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq), but they still have a lot more hot waste that's expensive to store and handle. why not turn it into a profit centre? hey, it's a win/win/win situation!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH FOOD IRRADIATION
Posted by: DefeatBush on Jul 5, 2007 5:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are some of the issues that need to be debated:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/irradfact.cfm

EXCERPT:

Irradiation damages the quality of food.

· Irradiation damages food by breaking up molecules and creating free radicals. The free radicals kill some bacteria, but they also bounce around in the food, damage vitamins and enzymes, and combine with existing chemicals (like pesticides) in the food to form new chemicals, called unique radiolytic products (URPs).

· Some of these URPs are known toxins (benzene, formaldehyde, lipid peroxides) and some are unique to irradiated foods. Scientists have not studied the long-term effect of these new chemicals in our diet. Therefore, we cannot assume they are safe.

· Irradiated foods can lose 5%-80% of many vitamins (A, C, E, K and B complex). The amount of loss depends on the dose of irradiation and the length of storage time.

· Most of the food in the American diet is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for irradiation: beef, pork, lamb, poultry, wheat, wheat flour, vegetables, fruits, shell eggs, seeds for sprouting, spices, herb teas. (Dairy is already pasteurized). A food industry petition currently before the FDA asks for approval for luncheon meats, salad bar items, sprouts, fresh juices and frozen foods. Another petition before the USDA asks for approval for imported fruits and vegetables.

· Irradiation damages the natural digestive enzymes found in raw foods. This means the body has to work harder to digest them.

· If unlabeled, raw foods that have been irradiated look like fresh foods, but nutritionally they are like cooked foods, with decreased vitamins and enzymes. The FDA allows these foods to be labeled "fresh."

· Irradiated fats tend to become rancid.

· When high-energy electron beams are used, trace amounts of radioactivity may be created in the food.

Science has not proved that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe for human health.

· The longest human feeding study was 15 weeks. No one knows the long-term effects of a life-long diet that includes foods which will be frequently irradiated, such as meat, chicken, vegetables, fruits, salads, sprouts and juices.

· There are no studies on the effects of feeding babies or children diets containing irradiated foods, except a very small and controversial study from India that showed health effects.

· Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Some possible causes are: irradiation-induced vitamin deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes in the food, DNA damage, and toxic radiolytic products in the food.

· The FDA based its approval of irradiation for poultry on only 5 of 441 animal-feeding studies. Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., the toxicologist who chaired the FDA committee that approved irradiation, later said, "These studies reviewed in the 1982 literature from the FDA were not adequate by 1982 standards, and are even less accurate by 1993 standards to evaluate the safety of any product, especially a food product such as irradiated food." The 5 studies are not a good basis for approval of irradiation for humans, because they showed health effects on the animals or were conducted using irradiation at lower energies than those the FDA eventually approved.

· The FDA based its approval of irradiation for fruits and vegetables on a theoretical calculation of the amount of URPs in the diet from one 7.5 oz. serving/day of irradiated food. Considering the different kinds of foods approved for irradiation, this quantity is too small and the calculation is irrelevant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some links to anti-irradiation information and activism.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jul 6, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the Organic Food Consumers Organization website FAQ on irradiation:

"Electrons are knocked off molecules and ricochet around in the food. They break up cell walls, slice and dice chromosomes, kill enzymes, and create free radicals (oxygen atoms missing an electron). These free radicals recombine to form stable compounds, or continue their destructive path. Some of the compounds created are known to be cancer-causing (formaldehyde, benzene, lipid peroxides). Others have never been seen or studied before. These new compounds are called Unique Radiolytic Products (URPs). Scientists have not studied the long-term effects on humans of a diet of irradiated foods containing unknown amounts of URPs. Therefore, we cannot say that URPs have no health effects, or that a diet of irradiated food is safe.
Food irradiation is not the same as microwaving. Gamma rays, x-rays and electron beams carry more energy than microwaves. They also affect the food differently...
The doses permitted by the FDA for food irradiation vary by the food. For fruits and vegetables, a maximum dose of 100,00 rads (1 kiloGray), for poultry, 450,000 rads (4.5 kiloGray), for red meat, 700,000 rads (7 kiloGray), for spices 3,000,000 rads (30 kiloGray). Comparisons to human x-rays vary, but even the 1 kiloGray dose is equivalent to millions of chest x-rays. "

Here's a few other links to start with:

Public Citizen website

Three Mile Island Alert website

That's just for starters when you google for anti irradiation groups. I've studied this issue for years. Once you see how the food is irradiated (there are several different designs, but all are similar) in a picture representation by industry groups, that is enough to know that is not safe. Personally, I wouldn't want to eat anything that had to pass through several containment walls to prevent radiation from reaching the workers in the irradiation factory. But that's just me, many Americans don't care if they eat cancerous Twinkies all day or chickens in such crowded quarters that they're covered in poop or animals fed meal containing their own species or toxic waste, all of which happens daily by the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If It's Better And Food Lasts Longer Why Isn't Food Cheaper?
Posted by: hole11 on Jul 6, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are having problems with all this bacteria and spoilage and irradiation solves so many problems then it should go that irradiated food is cheaper.

I haven't seen prices fall for irradiated food. It's just an excuse not to dispose of nuclear waste. Someone came up with an idea to put these spent rods near our food sources and everyone is happier. Great, I can't wait to bite into a fresh juicy irradiated apple made safe for me to eat by big brother. Let's celebrate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The majority of studies show mutagenic effects, some fatal
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Jul 6, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just spent about 3 hours searching for studies of the effects of irradiation of food. The majority of studies show mutagenic effects in both people and animals that eat them IF the foods aren't stored for a minimum of 12 weeks before eating. Effects include fatal terratogenic effects in fetuses and abnormal cell formation in human bone marrow plus a number of other problems.

That's what I found so far, but I've not been able to read all of them yet. Here's a quote about how the FDA came to it's conclusions, though:

By Donald R Louria, Ph.D.,
Chairman, Department of
Preventive Medicine and Community Health,
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

"It would appear that the FDA gave its approval on the basis of five or six studies on rats and dogs. These were selected as methodologically sound from a pool of over two thousand studies , over four hundred of which appeared potentially good enough for preliminary review. Clearly, there are many potential biases in selecting such a small number of studies on which to base major decisions.
Two of the studies are in English, three in French, and one in German. The two in English were reviewed by five epidemiologists and biostatisticians. Their judgment was that both studies posed substantial problems in interpretation. In one of the two studies, published in 1964, the authors note "in many cases statistical comparisons were not possible. However, examination of the data intuitively suggests that the differences have no real significance."
In actuality, there were differences between controls and those rats given irradiated wheat, but the small number of animals may not have permitted statistically significant differences to be found. There were unexplained stillbirths in the litters of rats given wheat irradiated with twenty thousand rads; recalculation of that stillbirth rate shows a significant increase. This study is hardly an endorsement for the safety of irradiating food. The other study, intensively reviewed, has similar problems with statistical significance, unexplained deaths, and abnormalities in animals given irradiated foods that are treated dississively and virtually ignored."

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been eating irradiated food for almost 35 years.
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Jul 6, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have yet to see a third ear growing out of my forehead.

I just get out a dish, open the door, put it in, close the door, and set the timer. When it dings, my food is piping hot and ready to eat. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

No form of radiation is completely safe, so I suggest everyone wear sunscreen when they go to the beach, but some forms and exposure levels have only very remote risks, so you can skip the sunscreen slather if you are just taking out the garbage. I wouldn't stick my head inside the microwave and turn it on, but you can wave your geiger counter over the hot dog you just took out of it and your reading will be zero. Try the geiger counter on your spice rack as most spices from foriegn countries have been irradiated for many years. Let me know if the needle even twitches. You will probably absorb more radiation on a single plane trip than a lifetime of irradiated spices.

A tempest in a teapot if you ask me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two ways that radiation harms you
Posted by: iforgetwho on Jul 6, 2007 2:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an easy way to think about and remember why eating irradiated food is such a bad idea. There would be two kinds of effects on your body from direct, strong radiation exposure:

1) The radiation would directly disrupt molecules that your cells need to function (RNA, DNA, enzymes, etc.) The cells would then die or malfunction.

2) The radiation would break up normal molecules to create harmful molecules (toxins, free radicals, etc.) which in turn damage the cells, causing them to die or malfunction.

Eating irradiated food doesn't expose you to number one (though if terrorists obtain some of that widely distributed material used for irradiating food then you might see that too) but you are exposing yourself to number two. Think about how much side-effect damage has to be done to a piece of meat to completely disrupt all of the bacteria in and on it. Then think about putting that disrupted stuff in your body.

Personally I say "No thanks!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Irradiation = Death
Posted by: machaventia on Jul 8, 2007 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A hint at the potent destructive forces at work via irradiation are the cessation of Life...seeds stop growing, things stop growing, etc. Great for pathogens, to be sure, but simple treatment with Oxygenated/Ozonated water is safer, more superior, and widely accepted in food processing.
The "Life Force" that is slain means dead food, now flavored sawdust, is offered for sale. This "Force" can be measured quite accurately and is quantifiable.
Known as "Ormes", this Life Force can be chemically extracted via sodium Hydroxide boiling at PH 11...a white powder.
This white powder is in fact a range of 22 metals in "High-Spin State"...missing electrons in the M-shells, which act as transition devices to carry higher, finer energies vital to existance... These act to carry the nutritional valaues through cell walls.
When subjected to the Irradiation process, fills in the missing electrons in the "M" shells & converts them to actual metal fragments...so things like Mercury, etc. are now in their metallic phase (bad enough as poisons) and block the flow of higher energies to the body. The combination at cellular level act as metallic poisons, denyining any real food values, plus toxifying the body.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Irradiation = Death Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Irradiation = Death Posted by: AsteroidMiner
PLEASE GAMMA-RAY MY RASPBERRIES!
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 10, 2007 3:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so tired of all the "fresh" red raspberries in the grocery
store being dark from mold. Red raspberries are supposed
to be light, bright red, not quite pink. Neither the shoppers
nor the grocers know what raspberries are supposed to
look like and taste like. They buy the moldy ones, thinking
that darker means riper. The dark ones lack the tartness
and taste that raspberries are supposed to have.
Raspberries are very high priced because they spoil very
quickly if not frozen. So Please, seal the raspberries in air
tight transparent containers and gamma ray them within 1/2
hour of picking them. I picked and ate wild raspberries as
a child. Thank you, FDA, thank you. Finally. I hope
that at least some of us are overcoming our paranoia
concerning all things nuclear. It has been half a century
too long.

Likewise for strawberries.

A really bad taste thing happens to milk. A lot of the store-
bought milk tastes of the detergent the farmers use to wash
the bulk tank. The detergent is very harsh and
intentionally toxic to kill germs. Detergent is a pseudo-
estrogen. The fact that the detergent is pseudo-estrogen
means that it is a gender bender. It makes boys into girls.
All of the milk that comes in plastic bottles tastes like
plastic. I will not drink it. I have the advantage of
knowing what milk is supposed to taste like, having tasted
milk that was still warm from the cow.

The meat packers will slow down the process line when
they are required to hire legal workers. I agree that meat
does not need to be spiced with manure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eating "dead" food
Posted by: dkm on Jul 11, 2007 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I doubt that many people actually read what they write. We have one poster getting upset about eating dead food. Thank you, but I kind of like my food dead rather than still bleeding and jumping around. We have evolved for millions of years eating dead food and I see no reason to go back to my remote ancestors who ate whatever they caught in a single bite.

Also, there seems to be some ignorance about what an enzyme is. An enzyme is a protein molecule that makes reactions occur more rapidly by acting as a catalyst. The digestive enzymes that you find in your digestive tract, NOT in the food, act to break molecular bonds so that the proteins you eat are degraded to amino acids, the lipids to fatty acids, cholesterol related components, and similar structures, and the carbohydrates to simple sugars. The enzymes in the plants are not digestive enzymes, but some of them do have effects by accelerating the destruction of the tissue of the organism concerned. For instance, fresh produce doesn't stay fresh very long without some sort of enzyme inhibition such as cold, removal of O2 gas, etc. That is why most frozen vegetables are more nutritious than the "fresh" vegetables that are several days away from the field. The frozen vegies were blanched right after harvest to stop enzyme action, whereas the "fresh" vegies have been deteriorating all the way from the field to your home. The enzymes in the food have nothing to do with digesting them for you. They are completely different.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]