Hi Darlene, Sorry to hear about your husband, that sucks. I know it is different to some degree in the US, especially where healthcare is concerned. I used to live there and my wife is American. I also don't get all my info from Government agencies, but they are useful to check for the facts on the official rules and regulations that supermarkets and food processors have to adhere to. I also check what quality of public information they offer and may write to them if I think it is inadequate or misleading.

I am a professional molecular biologist and immunologist (BSc 1st class hons and PhD) by training and I always try to get the most authoritative and unbiased evidence I can i.e. from real scientists and research, and not at face value from journalists or lobbyists (on either side). It is a learning process and I am happy that I have learned more on this subject thanks to this article and discussion. That is why I get so frustrated when some people trot out unsubstantiated or downright wrong claims as if they were facts. I will look up what Dr. Ted Broer has to say, thanks for the suggestion.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Hey Tom G....I really hope you take my suggestion about contacting Dr. Ted Broer. I believe he holds 2-3 degrees. He has dedicated his life to find out how the body reacts to different substances. I think things are a lot different in the US than the UK. There is a lot more money in sick people. My husband has brain cancer and he doesn't believe in healthy solutions and never has thought it a big deal to worry about. He has almost topped the million dollar mark in medical bills. If you were over here and did the research of what they put in our food and do to it you would have a different view point. Here it is all about the money....big money. Not just supermarkets. Please get information from other sources as well not just government agencies. Get the whole picture because your life depends on it.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Darlene Delco: Please read what I actually wrote. I never said I was not willing to eat it, and I am certainly not trying to"sell you on it" - I was just taking a rational stance and said I would not choose to eat IR food if given the choice, but I don't think it would harm me. I would have no particular problem with eating IR food every now and then, it's just that it contains less nutrition and supports long-distance food transport chains and dubious cleaning processes etc, as the article points out. I would rather not support that. But buying a 2-week old mango or banana picked green and flown from Thailand then stored in your fridge or fruit-bowl for another week or two will not be very nutritious either, with or without irradiation, but people do just that all the time.

We are on the same side here, in case you hadn't noticed. I even wrote to our Food Standards Agency asking them to make it clearer on their website that there are negative aspects to food irradiation, quoting scientific sources.

And as for follow the money- UK supermarkets have done just that in deciding not to stock irradiated foods- because their customers do not want it. Organic food provision in our supermarkets has been growing and growing, and many do not sell GM either. So yes, there is money in healthy and informed people, and with our taxpayer funded health service there is also a good incentive for the government to support good health, as it is much cheaper to keep people well and healt

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Well I have to comment on some of Tom G comments. If you are not willing to eat irradiated food don't try to sell us on it being ok...if you would like to debate it farther contact Dr. Ted Broer (Healthmasters.com) he would be more than happy to enlighten you I am sure. You also need to follow the money! There is no money in healthy people.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Kai J: I don't actually believe that irradiation is beneficial for health, quite the opposite- as you point out, it is well documented that vitamins (esp C and Thiamine) are degraded. Reading further into this has strengthened this view.

My main reason for writing here was to counteract the more irrational comments and an attack on healthcare professionals and scientists (the very people who do the proper controlled research that show up the problems we are discussing, as well as the lack of evidence that IR food will kill you). Irradiated food is nutritionally poorer, but is *unlikely* to actually cause you direct harm- but this is a hard thing to prove. I would choose not to buy it myself given the choice.

However, suggesting that food irradiation has any significant causative effect on soaring rates of cancer, heart disease etc since 1940 is disingenuous and totally unscientific. You well know that the main causes of these diseases are smoking, alcohol, massive increases in the amount of sugar, fatty and fast/processed foods in the average American diet, and lack of exercise. Not, I suspect, eating some irradiated food in recent years. It is these sorts of wild and unfounded claims that weaken the whole debate and the reason I responded in the first place.

Fortunately, here in the UK the question has always been pretty academic, as all our major supermarkets have refused to sell irradiated products for years, as consumers do not want them :-)

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Tom G - There are absolutely NO positive benefits to eating irradiated foods, microwaved anything, or GM crops. 40 years ago the cancer rate in the U.S. stood at 3%. It is now a staggering 33%. In your lifetime you will meet many people who WILL die from cancer, diabetes and heart failure. THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. I LOVE being a conspiracy theorist because I live a happy, healthy life AND am working on the fitness. If you really believe that IRRADIATION is a beneficial process I feel very sorry for you! One cannot correct the system of food distribution coupled with the original sins employed by BIG Agribusiness using chemicals, which are
deemed 'safe' by your criminal FDA. I don't know what your science is but you need to LEARN: "..irradiation damages molecules and digestive enzymes in food and creates free radicals, leading to the destruction of as much as 80% of the vitamins present. The radioactive particles can also combine with existing chemicals in food, including pesticide residue, and create new chemicals
called unique radiolytic products (URPs), which can include toxins such as benzene, formaldehyde, and lipid peroxides."
http://www.naturalnews.com/026600_food_irradiation_food_irradiation.html
END OF STORY

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Pam H "The only people who will be opposed to the public being made aware of these dangers are doctors, certain scientists, pharmacologists and others who profit from human illness."

I think this is a disgraceful and irresponsible thing to say. To accuse doctors, pharmacologists and "certain" scientists, who devote their lives to improving human health, of wanting to profit from human illness is totally outrageous and insulting.

The fact is, these people actually understand the science involved here and you do not, and you would rather follow the ignorant conspiracy theorists who believe everyone is out to get you, rather than researching the facts for yourself.

If there was a genuine health risk involved then these people would be the first to raise it. As it is, there is not considered to be such a health risk. The worst is that there may be a slight reduction in certain vitamins, and this is probably offset by reduced degradation in others and reduced waste. There are many FAR more important things to be worrying about, such as farm animal welfare and energy waste.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Molecular changes start taking place naturally in fruit and veg the moment they are picked, and in meat as soon as the animal is killed (or before of stressed). This is a highly complex process, and by slowing down food breakdown, irradiation can actually result in more nutritious food by the time we get to buy it. As the first comment showed (the only actual research data shown here), some vitamins were reduced and others increased in raw chicken following irradiation. As is the case in all these debates, there is no simple one-size-fits all right and wrong answer.

My preference would be to grow my own organic veg and eat it immediately after harvesting, or get fresh produce from a farmers market. This is unaffordable and impractical for most people (including myself most of the time), so my view is that it is better to have food preserved as well as possible to keep it fresh and nutritious, and save massive amounts of waste due to rotten food in the chain from grower to customer. This may be worth the loss of a small amount of nutritional value that occurs as a direct consequence of irradiation. We live in the real world here, though some comments here would suggest otherwise!

send green star | flag as inappropriate

While this article raises some good and valid points, some of the comments reveal a level of paranoia and misunderstanding of the science. Nburr Furlong is absolutely right in what he says- most plant enzymes (being proteins with very specific operating conditions) will be inactive and/or destroyed in our warm mammalian gut which is full of its own enzymes designed to digest proteins.

Most people will not encounter many useful plant proteolytic enzymes (that could aid digestion) outside of supplements, unless they eat pineapple stems (bromelain) or unripe papayas (papain).

John Miller claims that "A molecular change makes the food unrecognizable by the body, basically make it a toxin to the body." This is hogwash. If this were true then all cooking would make food toxic, as cooking fundamentally changes the molecular nature of food- that is the whole point of the process! Proteins are denatured, tough and indigestible fibres are broken down, and in some cases (eg kidney beans) toxic alkaloids are deactivated. We don't need to 'recognise' particular molecules in order to digest them- digestion is the process of breaking down proteins, starches, fats, sugars etc into simpler molecules that the body can use for energy and for building cells. Vitamins and minerals are taken up as essential cell components.

Tom G PhD (Molecular Biology)

send green star | flag as inappropriate

Kai, standard article format would be to present the dilemma and then follow it with a helpful suggestion and/or possibly a resource for finding out more information. I realize this is a blog post, but that it still the format that many have come to expect. If one is not writing it to help the reader, then write it at all?

It's not as if we all couldn't use a little guidance. If I said to any of the employees in my supermarket produce section, "Excuse me, can you tell me if this broccoli's been irradiated?" guaranteed I'd be met with a blank stare.

send green star | flag as inappropriate