Start A Petition

Codex Alimentarius: Population Control Under the Guise of Consumer Protection


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: abuse, corruption, food, supplements, vitamins, health )

Alf
- 3662 days ago - naturalnews.com
The most dominant country behind the agenda of Codex is the United States whose sole purpose is to benefit multinational interests like Big Pharma, Big Agribusiness, Big Chema and the like.



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kim Moore (61)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 7:19 am
THE AGENDA IS TO GET RID OF YOU AND I.........WHAT BETTER WAY?
IT'S FOR OUR OWN GOOD DON'T YOU KNOW?
STAND UP TO THEM AND DON'T REMAIN SILENT!
SILENCE IS AGREEMENT
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 7:25 am
Since this article makes some outrageous claims I checked out the citations at the bottom which are what the conclusions are based upon.

First this article comes to us courtesy of “Natural News.com” and its disclaimer says it is part of the “Natural News Network”. Both organizations exist to promote “natural alternatives”. Therefore, we are starting out with a potential bias.

The article makes the claim that “ALL nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from ALL food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease.” That is a ridiculous statement. First they’re talking about food – then they’re talking about medications.

I checked out what Codex says on natural vitamins/minerals: “Most people who have access to a balanced diet can usually obtain all the nutrients they require from their normal diet. Because foods contain many substances that promote health, people should therefore be encouraged to select a balanced diet from food before considering any vitamin and mineral supplement. In cases where the intake from the diet is insufficient or where consumers consider their diet requires supplementation, vitamin and mineral food supplements serve to supplement the daily diet.” This is from the document cited as (3) at the bottom of the article. Obviously, therefore, Codex does not require that “ALL nutrients….are to be removed from ALL food….” It clearly promotes getting vitamins and minerals from food as part of a balanced diet. Codex is talking about regulating nutrients in medicines which claim to “prevent, treat, or cure any condition or disease.” And, guess what – the FDA in our own country already requires this. That’s why most natural supplements, vitamins, etc. have a specific disclaimer that they don’t claim to prevent, treat, or cure any condition or disease. Because they don’t want to have to prove those claims and be regulated in a stronger fashion. So this statement is out and out false.

The article says, “All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans' health [3].”

Again, the document cited does not say this (read it for yourself - #3 on the citations list). Therefore, another out and out lie. And an incredibly stupid lie.

Three of the eight citations come from the Natural Solutions Foundation, an organization clearly and openly promoting “natural alternatives.” Therefore, again a strong potential for bias. And another of the citations, as noted above, doesn’t say what they actually claim it says.

The article is clearly very deceptive and I wouldn't personally trust much of anything it says. It is promoting an agenda and doesn't hesitate to lie to try and make its point.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 7:39 am
Also, concerning the Natural Solutions Foundation, which is the most frequent citation, three people are listed as Trustees. Its President is Maj. Gen. Albert N Stubblebine III (US Army, Ret.). His resume is located on another website (http://www.canadiansub.com/Board.html) and shows that his degree is in Industrial Chemistry - not medicine. Rima E Laibow, MD is its medical director and trustee - she is a psychiatrist. Her resume is also listed on the above website. The other Trustee is a lawyer, Ralph Fucetola JD, obviously not a medical professional. And strangely enough, both the retired general and Dr. Laibow are also directors of Canadian Submarine Technologies, which is the website listed above which gives their resumes.

So this frequently cited organization on health and nutrition is run by a retired general whose specialty is industrial chemicals, a psychiatrist, and a lawyer. None of these people is in any way an expert in nutrition or anything related to nutrition.

http://www.canadiansub.com/Board.html
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 8:01 am
Whenever an article makes highly unusual claims like this and provides citations at the bottom supposedly supporting its position, I would strongly urge everyone to always check out the citations. Those lists of cites look very impressive and most people just assume they support the writer's position; however, a lot of frauds count on the fact that most people just won't bother to check the cites and therefore feel free to misquote their own cited sources. And, of course, it isn't always possible to even FIND all the citations (one of the cites in this article couldn't be located on the Internet).
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 8:06 am
And, it is also important to note that the writer of this ridiculous article is the following person (taken directly from the website of his own organization):

Gregory Damato, B.A, M.Sc,. Ph.D.
Certified Biofeedback Therapist, Sport Psychology Consultant, Registered Psychologist in Western Australia. Specialty areas include, performance enhancement, depression, anxiety, autism, ADHD, and Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP).

Exactly where in that resume does it list that he is a medical doctor, a pharmacologist, a nutrition expert, etc. He's a psychologist. So his credentials obviously are deficient concerning the subject at hand.
 

H Nick H (1826)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 8:20 am
Big pharmacuticals have already had the FDA pass a law that says, "Only a perscription drug can heal a patient." Now, for example, if you tell a friend who has scurvy to eat lemons, you are practicing medicin without a license, and can be and will be sent to jail for 10 years.

I don't know all about this, but resist any changes to these laws. I take vitimies and heabal supliments myself, and they work.

And if you think the FDA is here to help the citizen, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 8:29 am
Nick, could you tell me exactly where you found the statement that the FDA passed a law saying that only prescription drugs "can heal a patient"? That isn't true. Over-the-counter medications can indeed make claims to treat symptoms and conditions. However, if they make those claims, they must be able to back them up with medical studies. If an herb or supplement is, however, is not subjected to standard testing to determine is efficacy, side effects, recommended dosages, etc. that it can't make statements that it cures or treats diseases or symptoms. Otherwise, anyone could market anything and falsely claim it treats disease. That's called "snake oil." It doesn't meant that herbs and supplements aren't sometimes useful in treating disease - it just means that they can't legally claim to do so unless they can back it up with evidence. I think that is profoundly reasonable.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:02 am
There are already laws saying that the label and the contents of the pkg have to match. That and enforcing good manufacturing practices is all that's needed for natural health products. Anything else is Fascism in disguise.

Norway is a good example of what we could expect under Codex. Vitamins are viewed as drugs, so if you have tablets containing more than the amount allowable of Vit C...100mg.
they send the Drug Squad after you. Do you r3ally look forward to having your door broken down in the middle of the night by guys with machine guns?

I'm not joking. It happened to a man selling supplements in Norway in the early 90s.

We just narrowly escaped having Codex rules enforced on us in Canada in the guise of Bills 51 & 52. Luckily, the gov. called an election and they died.

A British take on Codex
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5800206429960925518&hl=en
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:09 am
What I was saying, Judy, was that they shouldn't be able to claim that their product cures, treats, etc. any disease or condition unless there is actually real evidence that it DOES cure or treat a disease or condition.

Anything else is fraud. Under your scenario, I could market a product which claims to cure cancer. So long as I accurately listed the ingredients and my manufacturing standards are OK, you seem to be saying that my claim that it cures cancer (absent ANY testing) is all right.

I say that when any seller makes a claim about his product's effectiveness that claim needs to be backed up by testing. Otherwise, how can he know that his claim is accurate? And how can he sell to unsuspecting people who are bamboozled into thinking the medicine will work?

And if he doesn't want to do the testing, then he can still sell the product - he just can't claim it cures cancer.

It's all about protecting the consumer.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:14 am
And, too, Judy - wouldn't you prefer to know that the drug you are taking causes birth defects in a certain known percentage of pregnant women who took it? Or that a particular drug shouldn't be taken in combination with other specific drugs because it may cause a heart attack or other bad interactions?

If appropriate testing isn't done, we have no way of knowing these things.

And, the overall issue is about the article in question - and the fact that this writer flat-out lied when making his claims. Which is proven through quoting his own citations. Just like "snake-oil" salesmen who sell products that aren't proven to help any condition, the writer is trying to sell us on ideas that have no foundation.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:24 am
Is there anyone out there who actually believes that the Codex regulations are specifically and deliberately designed to cause about 3/4 of the world's population to die of malnutrition? And that every physician, medical association, etc. in the world wouldn't be up in arms and screaming about that if it happened to be true?
 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:25 am
If clear labeling and no unsupported claims by manufacturers were the only thing the FDA, Canada's Health Protection Branch or Codex were trying to accomplish, that would be alright. But it goes far beyond that.

Herbs do have hundreds of years of beneficial use behind them and much in the way of scientific investigation of the individual components. They are trying to pretend that herbs are terra incognita. They are well researched on an ongoing basis by many. Here is just one resource. http://abc.herbalgram.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Herbal_Library

This move is especially galling in light of the real damage done by pharmceuticals. Want to compare Vioxx to white willow?

Codex is overkill done at the behest of Big Pharma.
Watch the video.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:32 am
I never said anywhere at any time that herbs don't have beneficial uses. In fact, many of today's pharmaceuticals are based upon traditional herbal medications. And people are, and should be, free to use herbs. And "natural" companies are free to sell them.

And you seem to agree that those companies shouldn't make any unsuppored claims. Great. Then we are in agreement.

And if you have problems with any other part of the Codex regulations - that's fine. Just state them.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:37 am
I didn't say you did. But there is no doubt that Codex is backed by Big Pharma which wants herbs put under the same restrictions as its products. They want prescription herbs and little available over the counter AND the ability to confiscate what is on your shelf or growing in your garden.

 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:45 am
I looked through my emails and found this.

Watch out for CODEX dis - information moles

From John Hammell

Rima Laibow is causing huge harm to our cause by saying all kinds of grossly inaccurate things both in her emails and on her website and she refuses to remove them. I have nothing to do with her as a result. Her inaccurate information will be used against us by the other side. She and her husband both also have CIA ties- her husband is former army General Albert Stubblebine see: http://www.canadiansub.com/Board.html http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/cosmic_cointelpro_1981.htm I was on a conference call with them and with Kevin Miller. She got in his face and gave me a ration of shit. I don't trust her at all. Laibow says all kinds of things that are not true just to be sensationalistic. She either doesn't realize the harm that can cause us or she WANTS to cause us harm, but either way, she's having the same negative effect. She's publicly saying that codex has "already passed into law in Australia, Canada, Norway, and Germany." This is simply not true, and when someone says things like this, it provides the other side with a target the size of a barn door to shoot us all down with.

Codex has not been passed into law anywhere in the world for the simple reason that the vitamin standard hasn't yet been ratified, and even after it IS ratified, it won't be forced on countries immediately the way she says it will. It won't be ratified til July. By crying that "the sky is falling and its going to fall in (fill in the blank, July, August, whatever) she is setting us all up for a fall because they will only be ratifying a FRAMEWORK with the blanks to be filled in AFTER THE FACT (after they figure all of us will have been discredited by claiming that the sky is falling, such that by then no one would listen to a thing we say, so no one would be paying any ongoing attention.) Read this from the WHO and you will see that they are only creating a FRAMEWORK right now, this is part and parcel with their incrementalism which has been their PATTERN all along: http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientraproject/en/

What has happened in Australia, Canada, Germany and Norway is that restrictive laws have been put into effect which take things in the direction they're trying to go world wide via Codex, but that is NOT CODEX, and to say it is is factually incorrect.

You can still buy a LOT of good products in Australia and Canada especially. Hell, Rob Verkerk has a favorite product that he BUYS from Australia.

There is NOTHING in Codex at all which specifically addresses alternative modalities such as acupuncture, reiki, etc, that is a sheer fabrication.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 11:58 am
Thanks for the info, Judy. Rima Laibow is one of the Trustees of the Natural Solutions Foundation, which is the main source of citations for the news article we're discussing here. That lady has been a busy and deceptive little beaver, hasn't she?
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 1:11 pm
Nice warning sign.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 1:15 pm
Yeah - the sign is a bit overkill. And ridiculous.

But I guess it does grab the attention.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 3:53 pm
Actually, I think the sign is dead on. Look up Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome.

Population reduction is a definite goal.
The NWO isn't a joke. Bush the First didn't just use the phrase just because it sounded cute.

http://www.livingnutrition.com/articles/codex.html
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 4:13 pm
I did not see one word in the link you gave above about population reduction.

And certainly nothing concerning the claims made in the news article that is the topic of this thread - that the proponents of Codex are deliberately and with malice aforethought planning to implement measures that will guarantee the deaths of 3/4 of the world's population due to malnutrition just to get the population down.

I can't quite understand your position on this, Judy. Would you please answer the question specifically: are you saying that the proponents of Codex are deliberately trying to kill 3/4 of the world's population through forced malnutrition for population control reasons?

Or are you just saying that like any rational people, those proponents advocate lowering our population to more sustainable levels through ordinary means, such as better access to birth control?

Which is it?
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 4:18 pm
And, Judy, would you mind quoting the provision in the Codex proposed regulations that deal with forced population control in any manner? I can't seem to find that quotation anywhere.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 6:17 pm
It is part of "The Law of (UN) Intended Consequences."

Cogs in a machine seldom understand their function and remember about good intentions and the road to hell.

I have no problem with individual decisions to limit their own contributions to population.

I do have problems with things like vaccination programs in Brazil, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines to sterilize women without their knowledge by means of tetanus shots. Eugenics programs that continued into the 60s or 80s sterilizing "undesirables". they are things one has to remember when bureaucracies attempt power grabs in the name of health or helping.
http://www.whale.to/m/sterile.html

Codex started simply, but will be used to enforce standards which are more to the liking of Big Pharma, Agrobusiness, the Nuclear Industry (food irradiation) and Biotech.

The European Union saw standards imposed that Codex will take further and wider.

Frankly, if I didn't have access to vitamin supplements, I would not function as well and would probably die much earlier. As society loses people who remember history, it winds up repeating it.

No Codex doesn't have the plan laid out for me to point to, but when one has watched the game as I have for close to fifty years, one learns to recognize the symptoms of totalitarianism.



 

. (0)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 6:22 pm
Oh, I see - there is no evidence to support that belief - but it MUST be true anyway.

Just like the right's assertion that removing school-sponsored prayer will send the United States down the road to fiery perdition. No evidence to support that, either - but, according to them, MUST be true.

 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday September 16, 2008, 7:07 pm
Look, we could play this game forever, but we just dodged a bullet in Canada when an election was called and Bills C51&52 died.
What they portended was a taste of what Codex would regulate at an international level.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 3:21 am
A comment for Lindsey-
I am guessing you are nurse or some other allopathic health care associate as you think most of the info I provide is false. If this it true, then please elucidate me on why I would be doing this?

The article was meant as a wake up call for all those who have never heard of Codex and don't understand how powerful this trade organization (run by Big Pharma) has become. The details of the article are from several sources which are indicated in the references section. I am unsure how you can claim that the information is false when you yourself admitted you were unable to pull some of the peer-reviewed empirical journal articles which Dr. Laibow and others base the information on. The vitamin and mineral guideline (July 4, 2005, Italy) does make note that vitamins and mineral are considered toxins (has nothing to do with medication) and that fallacious Risk Assessment utilized to test the toxicity level of certain substance (certainly not foods) will be used to determine upper-levels of vitamin and mineral consumption. This is and has been ongoing and the levels are yet to be determined. The levels I use in the article are examples that may come out of Codex after the risk assessment procedures are completed). These examples are based on the present EU system (mainly the EU Supplement Directive).

Under Codex, all nutrients will be removed from food via radiation. The mainstream media will brainwash people into believing that it is in the name of health (presently, e.g., USDA certified organic almond, spinach and lettuce as of Aug. 08). The current radiation policy of the FDA and USDA is the precursor to Codex.

No vitamin can claim to cure, treat or prevent any disease. This is left up to the real medicine (i.e., pharmaceutical), which cause well over 100,000 documented deaths per year in the US alone by taking properly prescribed medication in the correct dose. The 15% is an absolute affront to the health of a society. Tell me what the RDA of vitamin c is presently? Also, tell me what 15% of that is? Then please tell me what empirical article states on how effective these levels will be on human health? The answer is non-existent. Hence, the point is that no amount of nutrition that will have any beneficial health effect on the body will be allowed in the food supply. The result: 3 billion estimated deaths.

If you want a little information on population control strategies via food control, I suggest you read, Seeds of Destruction. The policy of Henry Kissinger and others clearly delineates the threats to us all. Those who are asleep (i.e, you) will not survive because they will continue to eat the poisoned, genetically modified and radiation nutrient-deficient food all the while rationalizing that articles like this are for some sereptitious agenda. That is your choice as well as others to do so. I have no problem with that.

I am also not sure who you would consider an expert on Codex. Clearly not someone with a research doctorate or an MD or a lawyer. You clearly like to argue with people when you are outgunned, but your agenda remains equally guised. I suggest you do a bit more research on Codex and what it represents before you make your outrageous claims. If you would like an updated version of this article, please the Nexus magazine Dec/Jan 09 issue. The good news on the Codex front is that mandatory implementation is no longer. Countries can now choose other international standards (called Private Standards) over Codex. The implementation date of Dec. 31, 2009 has also been eliminated due to the current infighting other countries' representatives. There is presently no implementation date proposed for the Codex Alimentarius Commission. This is due to the pressure articles like mine and others put on politicians and government officials. We need to come together before the examples utilized in my article come to fruition.
In health,
Dr. Gregory Damato

 

Prince Akeem (1)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 3:28 am
Population control will in no way be forced. Similar to 9/11, the people will ask for their rights to be taken away based on the false flag operation. Radiation of crops, as presently being undertaken in the US will be done to help protect people (if you listen to the media) against Salmonella and E.Coli. Population control? Yes, forced? They don't need to force anything on us if they fill us with enough fear that we demand it. This is where a psychologist is very adept at determining the real agenda that you need to quickly wake up to. (:

In light,
Dr. GD
 

Alf I (246)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 3:34 am
I see I have no need to comment. Judy and Gregory have said it all very eloquently. And for peoples information Lyndsey is also pro-vivisection.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 5:10 am
No, Alf, I am not "pro-vivisection." Just as I am not pro-abortion. I'm pro choice rgarding abortion. And I accept vivisection in cases where I believe it to be necessary. As you are undoubtedly aware, I have called it the lesser of two evils.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 5:19 am
Ah, Dr. Damato. Making inaccurate statements again, are we? I clearly and unequivocally said that I could not find ONE citation. I quoted passages from another, which clearly said exactly the opposite of what you claimed. That was my point, of course.

And, no - I do not work in the healthcare field at all. And I made no claim to expertise at all - and no statements which would require medical expertise. I simply pointed out distortions and lies made by you as well as the incredible logical fallacies in that article.

And, for all you conspiracy theorists out there who are always talking about the military-industrial complex, I imagine you find Dr. Laibow and the retired General (her husband, by the way) being directors of the Canadian Submarine Corporation a little alarming (talk about being part of the military-industrial complex!)
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 5:30 am
And, no Dr. Damato - I also never claimed that someone had to be an expert at anything in order to quote Codex. I did, however, point out that an organization promoting nutritional matters might choose to have someone on its board who is actually a specialist in that area (Dr. Laibow, as I pointed out is a psychiatrist - I don't know about you but if I had a nutritional deficiency I normally wouldn't look in the phone book and pick out a psychiatrist to consult.)

And nothing I said involved making a medical claim. I didn't have to. It's very easy for a layperson to state the case against such nonsense just by quoting the facts and the source material YOU provided in the citations.

And your claim that irradiation, as used to make food safer, destroys ALL of the vitamins and minerals is also false. I quote a researcher at Auburn University in Alabama: "The contention that irradiation impacts the nutritional value of foods is based on data from studies that were conducted 50 or 60 years ago," Weese said. "Our research indicates that even at the highest levels allowed by the Food and Drug Administration, irradiation has no more impact on nutritional value than heat pasteurization or freezing or grilling or frying or any other method of processing." All legitimate research debunks the cancer link as well, Weese said."

This is absolutely consistent with the statements of all other experts in the field.

http://www.mnbeef.org/Updates/2002/FOOD%20IRRADIATION%20UPDATE%2011.27.02.htm

 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 5:34 am
One may perfectly well disagree with the regulations promulgated through Codex. Many intelligent and sincere people have done so publicly. Most object on the basis of less government intrusion in our lives. And that is a valid point.

But those people don't make false and misleading statements to the public. And they don't take their argument to an absurd level - claiming that some group of shadowy figures is trying to deliberately kill most of the world's population through malnutrition.

You, sir, are ridiculous.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 5:55 am
And I point out Dr. Damato's resume again:

Gregory Damato, B.A, M.Sc,. Ph.D.
Certified Biofeedback Therapist, Sport Psychology Consultant, Registered Psychologist in Western Australia. Specialty areas include, performance enhancement, depression, anxiety, autism, ADHD, and Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP).

Does anyone see anything there which even remotely mentions training or a specialty in nutrition? Dr. Damato is a psychologist. Psychologists are not nutritional experts.

But, then, most "fringe scientists" aren't scientists at all. Just fear-mongers who spread lies and distortions to people who don't bother to look into their credentials in the beginning and unfortunately take their word for things on which their word is meaningless.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:01 am
I overlooked responding to one of your questions, Dr. Damato. You asked why I claim you are doing this?

Why do people claim that man has never set foot on the moon? Why do people claim that they have been abducted by aliens? Why do people claim to have seen fairies? Why do people claim that everyone is controlled by aliens from outer space? Why do people claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Many reasons. Publicity. Enjoyment gotten out of making a buzz. Stupidity. Paranoia. A desire to screw the system. Lots of reasons. And seldom do those reasons involve any form of logic or scientific evidence whatsoever.
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:09 am
WOW! I know a great psychologist if you are ready to take the first step. (:

I am sending you lots of love and enlightenment on your journey of knowledge and truth. Good luck.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 6:14 am
So you're sending "love and enlightenment" rather than citations for recent scientific studies showing that irradiation does (according to you) destroy all nutrients when performed at FDA-approved levels?

Actually, I'd prefer to have the citations. Good wishes and hopes for love and enlightenment don't do a great deal to illuminate any scientific area.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 7:15 am
List of just SOME of the organizations which endorse food irradiation:

• American Dietetic Association
• American Council on Science and Health
• American Medical Association
• American Veterinary Medical Association
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Food and Drug Administration
• Food Safety and Inspection Service
• World Health Organization

More information on the fact that food irradiation under FDA-approved guidelines does not destroy all nutrients (and there are many, many other articles out there):

From the University of Michigan: http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/food.htm
From Idaho State University: http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm
From the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (The Journal of the American Dietetic Association is the most widely-read, peer-reviewed periodical in the dietetics field. Published monthly, it brings original research, critical reviews and reports, authoritative information and expert commentary to nutrition and dietetics professionals throughout the world): http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Irradiation-Position-ADA.htm
http://www.healthcastle.com/food_irradiation.shtml
From the American Council on Science and Health: http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Irradref.html

I am awaiting Dr. Damato's citations to support his own explicit statement that irradiation destroys ALL nutrients in foods. If the claim is made, it must be backed up with scientific studies. If it cannot be backed up it is nothing more than individual belief.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 7:42 am
And even Dr. Damato’s own peers don’t agree with his claim that irradiation destroys ALL nutrients in ALL food. Below are links to websites with articles by groups that are fighting irradiation and don’t believe that it is beneficial – but admit that it doesn’t destroy ALL nutrients:

“If you have nutrient loss when food is irradiated, and then you have more nutrient loss when you cook your food, it stands to reason that you would have twice the nutrient loss with irradiated food.” http://www.sunherb.com/food_irradiation.htm

“Some vitamins, like A, C, E, K and some B complex vitamins, are damaged. From 5% up to 80%, depending on how long the food is stored.” http://www.purefood.org/irrad/irradfaq.cfm

“Irradiation destroys vitamins, nutrients and essential fatty acids, including up to 95 percent of vitamin A in chicken and 86 percent of vitamin B in oats. In some foods, irradiation can actually intensify the vitamin and nutrient loss caused by cooking.” http://www.livingtreecommunity.com/store2/articles/food_irradiation_faqs.asp

So, obviously, even though these groups oppose irradiation, even they don't support Dr. Damato's claim. And there are many more of them out there which can be looked up.

I'm not advocating the views of these organization - I'm just using it as an example that even opponents of irradiation mostly don't agree with the statements in Dr. Damato's news article under discussion here.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 10:14 am
The experiments done in the 1960's in the UK, Canada and the US showed that some nutrients were more prone to immediate destruction than others, and that irradiated food showed far more loss of nutrients during storage than did the controls.

I'm constantly surprised by the need for some to defend the indefensible.

Research done later by countries still behind the Iron Curtain showed that unless the test animals were fed ethoxyquin, an artificial antioxidant, there were shortened life spans, lowered numbers in the litters that were produced, and more birth defects .

I saw the original documentation after two Access to Information requests to Health Canada and Agriculture Canada. It took over two years to get the information out of them.

There is no valid use for irradiation of food. There are better, cheaper ways of providing safety.

Food irradiation was the brainchild of the "Atoms for Peace" program set up by the Department of Energy (was the Atomic Energy Agency) during the Eisenhower Administration. It was the nuclear industry looking for a job.

As for the "endorsements", each of those organizations had a committee which made the recommendations and was not a result of polling the members.

I fought this stuff and was immersed in the details for years during the late 1980s. We won that round and got irradiation delayed, but when dealing with a government agenda, they have all the money and can afford to wait it out.

Most of the people I worked with on irradiation are too old to be active in the latest fight.
Luckily, Public Citizen maintains an internet library of information on the topic.

I don't know who you are or why you are defending something so stupid and destructive.
if you are sincere and not a shill, you will educate yourself.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety/food_irrad/index.cfm?ID=5254&relatedpages=1&catID=114&secID=1269
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 10:24 am
Judy, if you'll read my comments more carefully you'll see that what I am discussing is Dr. Domato's claim that ALL nutrients will be removed from ALL foods. Not that irradiation does, in fact, remove SOME nutrients in varying amounts. That is completely true. And I never claimed it wasn't.

And I'm arguing that Dr. Domato is making his claims without any evidence to back them up. And, so far, he has failed to provide any back-up.

And I'm arguing that he has no evidence to back up his claim that all of this is happening to deliberately kill most of the world's population. In fact, he even admits that isn't based on evidence - just on his personal beliefs that it WILL happen.

Before you criticize, at least read what was written. Many of the links I posted were to articles which agree that SOME nutrients, to a greater or lesser degree, will be lost. So you are agreeing with me, not opposing me.

And I was not arguing that irradiation is necessarily good. Or bad. I wasn't discussing the overall argument of whether or not it should be done. I was specifically discussing the claims made in the news article in question. That's what this thread is about. That particular news article. And whether or not certain specific claims can be backed up by the writer.

All you're doing is REACTING - rather than actually reading and thinking about what you're reading. That's what happens so often with theories like Dr. Donato's. People just react without actually doing a little research to see if the claim is believable. And, then (God help me) when evidence is presented to the contrary, not a single one of you is willing to admit that the evidence against his claims exists. You just go right on reacting. That isn't logical. Or reasonable.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 10:33 am
Come on, get past the nit picking to save face.

Just read that page of research done by Nader's group, then we'll talk. I don't have time for the games.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety/food_irrad/index.cfm?ID=5254&relatedpages=1&catID=114&secID=1269
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 10:38 am
It isn't "nit-picking", Judy. You were attributing statements to me that I never made. You were arguing an entirely different subject than I was talking about. That the whole issue.

Again, do you agree with the article's contention that ALL nutrients will be removed from food if it is irradiated with FDA-approved levels of radiation? And that this is one of the ways in which the big corporations are trying to literally and deliberately cause most of the world's population to die of malnutrition?

Those are the claims made in the article. That is what I was discussing.

You're the one playing games - when presented with actual evidence refuting the statements in the article, you start complaining about "nit-picking" and start discussing generalities rather than specifics. I'm not talking about generalities. I'm talking about the ridiculous and untrue statements made in THIS ARTICLE.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 11:21 am
I'm finding this truly fascinating. So many of you were agreeing with the article - until good, solid evidence was presented refuting some specific claims. Then, suddenly - either you're silent or you change the subject entirely.

Just because some of what Dr. Donato says is obviously false doesn't mean that you also have to admit that irradiation is a wonderful thing. It doesn't weaken the argument against irradiation at all. It just means that you have to discuss irradiation on its own merits and without the support of false statements.

I'll ask again: is there anyone here who is willing to admit that irradiation does NOT cause the TOTAL REMOVAL OF ALL NUTRIENTS from food? And is willing to admit that there is no evidence of a great conspiracy to kill off most of the world's population through deliberate malnutrition?

If not, then I find that silence conclusive. Because silence implies assent.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 1:22 pm
Lindsay, when something is know to be detrimental and it it pushed to be allowed in international food trade, experience tells a person who has been in the trenches long enough, that the fix is in. Unless you wanted to do damage, why would it be allowed?

I said if you recall, that no, not all nutrients are destroyed at once, but that upon storage irradiated food lost more nutrients.

As I also said, the work on nutrition and food irradiation was originally done in the 1960s.

It was then REDONE in Poland & Hungary, among others, when they understood that it was free radicals doing the damage. They then used tactics to mitigate damage, like freezing the food before irradiation and feeding ethoxyquin.

I don't care whether you get it or not, there is a population reduction agenda going on that is not all sweetness and light.

You want to pretend there isn't a nasty plan and you have caught us all by use of LOGIC. No, you just haven't been looking at the problem long enough or have read enough to understand that it is the death by a thousand cuts. Malnutrition is just one of the weapons, deliberate poisoning is another. Just look at the anti-fluoride, msg, aspartame and sucralose literature. How about barium in a polymer matrix spread by chemtrails?
Think it's good for you?

Did you even look at the public citizen?

I do have a life, and I don't assent merely because I can't answer you due to circumstances.

Read first, then we'll talk. Got to go.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 1:36 pm
Judy, I don't care enough about the issue of food irradiation to do any in-depth analysis of the main issue itself. On the larger issue, I'm content to accept the findings of mainstream science. Not that I believe mainstream science is right 100% of the time - it isn't. But because it stands a much better chance of being right than non-mainstream science. Since I'm not an expert in any scientific discipline, most of the time I (like others) must choose which experts I trust and which I don't. And mainstream scientists tend to be a heck of a lot more historically trustworthy on the whole than their counterparts (always remembering that science is inherently self-correcting and the mainstream will usually accept new knowledge which undercuts the old if credible evidence is presented). And since the issue of irradiation of food itself doesn't interest me, I don't worry much about it.

My interest is in making sure that when accepted scientific knowledge is questioned that it be questioned honestly, without false statements and misrepresentations such as some of those made by Dr. Damato. Because I believe that to be part of a much larger problem - that of our society's general lack of critical thought when it comes to new and radical ideas. The habit of so many of uncritically accepting the statements made by non-experts on matters not generally accepted by the scientific community. And that is a far more fundamental and important problem than most specific "causes" themselves.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 5:05 pm
65% of us are conformist.

What I am talking about with food irradiation is the investigation and cover-up of the experimental findings which were detrimental.

Then, the establishment of a false consensus using small committees of hand-picked people ln big organizations.

The MO is often the same, no matter what public con we are talking about whether it is food irradiation or global warming.

So whether you care about irradiation or not, reading through the Public Citizen collection is instructive on how differently things work from what we imagine when large sums of $ are involved and the Military/Industrial is pushing it.

When talking about "mainstream science", think "consensus".

In light of the various scandals in the relationship between Big Pharma and the regulatory agencies....FDA, Health Canada, relying on "mainstream" knowledge can be dangerous to your health.

Although talking about the AGW/CC scam, Crichton's remarks are to be understood to apply to every time science and politics overlap.

Aliens Cause Global Warming
by Michael Crichton

"My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.

But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

But let's look at how it came to pass..."

(I can't resist giving you this kernel in the middle of his lecture, in which he reminds us:)

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 5:28 pm
"....results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results."

I fully agree with the above quote you gave. That is why I choose to rely upon mainstream science rather than fringe science. When something has been reproduced many times and where there is good evidence for its truth, it nearly always becomes mainstream. Any new idea must prove itself. Once the evidence is in place, if that evidence is good enough, it should become part of the mainstream.

As I've said before, mainstream science is not 100% accurate all of the time. Sometimes that is due to the simple lack of knowledge - which increases every year (once upon a time any scientific mind would have agreed that the earth was flat - it looked flat - and there were no instruments to tell them otherwise). And science corrects itself when new knowledge becomes available. Sometimes it is due to external forces (early scientists who believed the earth circled the sun ran the risk of being burned at the stake, as Bruno was, or imprisoned, as Galileo was, if they promulgated that belief - or dismissed by a political hack like Bush who doesn't want to acknowledge that climate change just might be caused by the actions of mankind.)

But the quote above which says, "If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." is misleading. Obviously the writer can't be saying that if most scientists agree on something it MUST be wrong. That would be ridiculous. It's clear what is being said is that just because most scientists agree on something doesn't make it true just because of the consensus. There have to be other factors when evaluating individual claims.

But, I'm talking about overall. Overall, conventional science works very, very well. It has given us absolutely enormous advances in just our time alone. And because I am not an expert on any scientific matter, I have to decide who and what to trust. Unless something can be evaluated based upon simple logic alone, expertise is absolutely required. And I choose to accept the evaluation and conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists, researchers, physicians, etc. Because, statistically, on any given matter, they are more likely to be correct than is a tiny group of individuals promoting an alternative theory. Note that I said "statistically" - there are always exceptions. But more often than not science gets it right. And if something new takes time to "take hold" - that happens sometimes too, for varying reasons. But, in the end, it is accepted. After all, although Bruno was burned at the stake and Galileo imprisoned for their theories - science has long since accepted that the earth is not the center of the universe.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 7:04 pm
There is no such thing as "mainstream science". This is frankly a silly argument. You argue for consensus and say that's where you feel comfortable. Fine. That's the way you choose to live your life.

I say be on guard. i've seen how the phony consensus works in both science and politics. That's what advertising is about. That is what public relations is all about. How to establish a phony consensus....so that the answer, "Everybody knows that", is sufficient.


 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 7:19 pm
It isn't a question of "comfort". It's a question of reliability.

And, yes there is such a thing as "mainstream" science. It simply means that body of knowledge which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. A body of knowledge which has grown over thousands of years and been added to by each succeeding generation of scientists. A body of knowledge obtained through the scientific method, which requires certain things before any conclusion can be reached. A body of knowledge which does not accept anything on faith or unsupported testimony. A body of knowledge which has resulted in astonishingly longer lifespans for humanity and which has allowed us to reach the moon.

Evolution is mainstream; intelligent design is not. The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific organizations accept evolution as valid (although there can be differences of opinion in the details); intelligent design, on the other hand, is accepted by remarkably few scientists, and I don't know of any scientist who accepts it who isn't also religious.

And "everybody knows that" has nothing to do with it. Because everybody includes people who don't have the faintest idea of what science is about. A surprisingly large percentage of Americans believe in ghosts and ESP. Mainstream science, on the other hand, reserves judgment on those things because there is no credible evidence (certainly not as of yet).

Why should I believe the word of a handful of scientists rather than the conclusions of hundreds of thousands? Statistically speaking, that makes zero sense. If ten doctors tell me I have stage one cancer and one tells me I have stage two - unless I have some expertise in the area shouldn't I choose to accept the conclusions of the ten? Always assuming, of course, that all are expert oncologists. Otherwise, I'd be a fool.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 7:42 pm
You know that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about negative peer-reviewd science being ignored. I'm talking about instances of fakery.

I didn't bring up that red herring :intelligent design"

"Educated" people are often those most likely to be prey to corporate manipulation through PR and advertising. When only five companies control all of the media, including publishing houses, relying on consensus instead of checking things out yourself is naive in the extreme.

You are assuming that the "hundreds of thousands" of scientists did come to conclusions on their own. Medical education is run like the military. It is too often indoctrination. One med school I know of starts the day by reminding the students how smart and "special" they are.

Question everything.


 

. (0)
Wednesday September 17, 2008, 8:02 pm
The "intelligent design" statement was no red herring - it was an example. I don't bother with red herrings. If my ideas can't stand on their own honestly then I don't deserve to hold those ideas.

And negative peer review is an important factor in determining what is accepted, and what isn't. Sometimes those peer reviewers are wrong. But more often it is valuable tool for sorting out the sense from the nonsense.

And, yes - fakery does exist in mainstream science. And it exists in fringe science as well (remember that duo who claimed to have achieved cold fusion?)

And there isn't enough time in the day for an individual to "question everything" in the practical sense of that phrase. Of course every conclusion in science is to be questioned. And examined. And tested. And replicated. And challenged. That is how we gain confidence in the conclusions of science. That's the scientific method. But most of the things in life that an individual encounters can't be questioned inch by inch - no one has that much expertise or that much time. That's why we all have to rely on the expertise of others.

I rely on my car brakes to protect me. I use them throughout each and every day. But I haven't done any research into their design and whether or not safety standards for brakes are adequate, and which groups may say this particular design is bad and which say, no - this other design is bad. And I've never had any reason to question whether or not brake manufacturers are in league with "Big Pharm" to cause brakes to deliberately malfunction and cause injury just so I'll spend more in medical expenses (which I'm sure some conspiracy theorist somewhere probably would latch onto as yet another way in which big business is out to get us all - and no, I'm not accusing you of holding that view.) I accept that the safety standards in place are adequate. Sometimes that trust may be misplaced - but most of the time it isn't. My brakes haven't failed me yet. But, if I have to start questioning everything and researching everything - I will spend my entire life in front of the computer doing research. And I STILL wouldn't be able to research even a fraction of everything I come into contact with. I expect scientists and technologists in various fields to do the questioning for me in the majority of cases. As do we all.
 

Alf I (246)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 3:01 am
One radiation absorbed dose, or RAD, represents the amount of radiation absorbed by a person from one X-ray. The amount of radiation used on products is measured in kiloGrays. One kiloGray (kG) equals 100,000 RADs.

Most fresh foods receive a dosage of one kG, meats up to seven kG, while herbs, spices and medical supplies are bombarded with 30 kG–10,000 times the lethal dose of 50 percent of the human population!

The larger the genetic structure of unwanted organisms, the more susceptible they are to irradiation. Fungi and parasites are more susceptible than bacteria, which in turn are more susceptible than viruses. Most unwanted organisms, including salmonella and E. coli 0157, die at levels ranging from 140–600 RADs, making it unclear why herbs and spices require three million RADs. Prions, the organisms responsible for mad cow disease, are resistant at dosages used for irradiating food!

During irradiation, cell membranes and DNA strands within microbes are broken. Chromosomes mutate when the broken shards recombine. There are no studies available on the effects of consuming large amounts of mutated microorganisms over time on the microbiology of the human digestive system or on the resulting human physiology.

In addition, irradiation does not eliminate all bacteria. Some are not affected by dosage levels used on foods. These include the botulism-causing Clostridium and Deinococcus radiodurans, which actually repairs its own DNA after exposure. Surviving bacteria pose a concern because they inevitably produce resistant generations until irradiation becomes an ineffective method of sterility.
In addition to the above considerations, food irradiation further affects the nutritional value of food. Free radicals, precursors to cancer, and other carcinogens including formaldehyde, benzene and lipid peroxides are formed.

Free radicals combine with pesticides and food additives to form new chemicals called "unknown radiolytic compounds" (URPs). Promoters of food irradiation have theoretically dismissed concerns about URPs based on conservative estimates of chemicals present and the amount of irradiated food consumed. The long-term effects of these newly-produced chemicals have not even been researched.

Vitamins neutralize free radicals, but nutritional losses of vitamins A, C, E, K, B1, B2, B3, B4 and folic acid can occur in irradiated foods–up to 80 percent of pre-irradiation levels. Losses of essential fatty acids to oxidation also occur. Irradiated fats tend to become rancid quickly; carbohydrates are hydrolyzed, reducing starches to simple sugars. Officials consider the impact on protein minimal; however, as is the case with microbes, the DNA content is damaged and the digestive and assimilative effects on humans over time have not been researched.

The most profound oversight of nutritional impact rests with the effect of irradiation on the mineral content of foods, herbs and spices in particular, since they receive the highest doses of radiation. All minerals are capable of becoming a "radioisotope," which is their radioactive counterpart.

Silica, for example, is an trace mineral that is essential for the formation and proper functioning of many body systems. Clear glass made from melted sand, composed of silicon (silica) and oxygen, turns a dark brown color after irradiation due to atomic changes in the silica molecule.

The silicates within spices, grains and fruits are tested by thermoluminescence to determine if they have been irradiated, revealing that authorities are aware of the impact of irradiation on minerals. Discoloration of clear glass is evidence of drastic changes to the mineral and undoubtedly drastic changes to human physiology and function could only be expected over time. However, references on the impact of irradiated silicates and all other essential minerals on bodily processes appear to be non-existent.
Canada considers itself technologically advanced because of its use and control of nuclear power production. Apparently the Canadian government is willing to dispose of its own radioactive waste, and that of other nations, on their own people through food irradiation to maintain that claim.

To justify the use of irradiation, filling the stores with denutrified and mutated food products with extended shelf-life would benefit retailers more than consumers. And spreading the use of radioactive material across the country in privately-owned irradiating facilities only benefits the nuclear power industry and perpetuates their outdated, hazardous methods of energy production.

The United States Department of Agriculture has announced a proposal to irradiate imported fruits and vegetables. The agency wants to use irradiation to kill bugs that could threaten American agriculture, including foreign fruit flies and the mango seed weevil. However other methods exist to control these bugs, such as temperature treatments and stricter cleanliness standards.
 

. (0)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 5:54 am
I note with interest that Dr. Damato, the author of this particular article, has as yet failed to provide the requested evidence of any studies backing up his claim that FDA-approved levels of irradiation destroys all nutrients in food.

He was more than willing to come on this forum to defend his thesis with generalities and personal beliefs. But when asked to back up specific statements which are central to his argument - he has chosen not to do so.

Think maybe that's because they don't exist?
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 6:19 am
Sorry Linds, but we can't all spoon feed you. You need to open that mind of yours and believe that there is more to life than what you have been told. Look above your comment and find the answer you are refusing to see. Or, better yet, do your own REAL research. I am not talking about google searches from your little computer. I am talking about pulling peer-reviewed journal articles with large impact ratings that are not funded by Big Pharma or Monsanto or who use ghost riders pretending the research is true.

You need to go on this journey by yourself because it does not matter whether what people say to you is true or not, all that matters is your perception of the truth. Remember that you are in the 96% of the population that when presented with a new idea or one different from their own pre-existing belief will outright reject it without even considering it to be a possibility. It is time to wake up to the possibility that most of what you have been told by the media, your doctor and your school, is not true.

You can reject everything you hear from everyone on this forum while simultaneously living in your lil cocoon and maintain your self-concept. But that self-concept has been build on monetary agendas, misinformation, bullying of researchers and outright lies.

I have one simple question for you: how do you know that your father is your real father?
The simple answer should elucidate the fact that all of your knowledge has been devoid of personal experience and objective research- it is sadly only what you have been told. Of which may or may not be true. But, truth only exists in those who seek to dig as far as the truth goes. You my friend, are just skating on the surface telling everyone that because you have been told that their is no water under the ice, there mustn't be any. And if you refuse to look at the ice come springtime, you will never know any difference.

I again wish you love on your spiritual journey on truth and knowledge and trust that you find whatever you seek and antithetically, don't find what you refuse to seek.

In health,
Dr. D
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 6:31 am
can anyone identify the heckler in her? the one that never has any of their own contributions to be critique. but is constantly irritating everyone elses.
 

. (0)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 7:23 am
Dr. Damato - again with the generalities? You are the one who made a factual statement in a publicly-published medium. You are the one who is responsible for backing it up by stating where you got those facts. And if they aren't facts, then you are responsible for admitting that your "fact" is merely a conclusion.

And, Mae - that's an unfair statement. If you'll read all my posts on this thread you'll see that I did a substantial amount of research and presented evidence refuting what the author is saying. I don't just "heckle" people - I present logical arguments and actual evidence (if evidence exists - if it doesn't I give my opinion, just like everyone else - but I don't present opinion as fact). I backed up what I was saying. That's my point when criticizing Dr. Damato - he won't present evidence to back up his statement of fact. He can't just say, "Irradiation causes ALL nutrients to be removed from food." and then just expect us to take his word for it, can he? If it is a fact, then he has to provide the citations showing the scientific studies which caused him to form that conclusion. Otherwise it's just his opinion - which is fine, but he doesn't give it as an opinion. He gives it as a fact. And, just like I said, he hasn't presented those citations. Why not? Any legitimate "scientist" would - it's required when publicly publishing any paper, even on an internet site.

Anyone is perfectly free to be critical of anything I say. But before criticizing you might actually read my posts beforehand so you'll see that what you're saying simply isn't accurate.
 

. (0)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 7:30 am
Dr. Damato - I just noticed one of your statements. " ...it does not matter whether what people say to you is true or not, all that matters is your perception of the truth."

Let me get this straight - you made a specific statement of fact which was central to your argument. Are you now saying it doesn't matter whether or not it is true - since all that matters is whether your readers "perceive it" to be true?

If that is your position - then you've just made my case for me. That isn't how the world works, Dr. Damato. And it certainly isn't how scientific research is conducted.
 

. (0)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 8:01 am
"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to DOCUMENT, ARCHIVE and SHARE ALL DATA and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

 

. (0)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 8:06 am
Oh, and the above quotation was taken from the definition of the scientific method on Wikipedia. Hardly a scientific tome - but one of the clearest statements of the definition of the scientific method. And one which accords with generally accepted scientific standards.
 

Alf I (246)
Thursday September 18, 2008, 11:00 am
Some people really do get on yer nerves don't they?
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Friday September 19, 2008, 7:18 am
Some other Codex related stories:

GM Foods: The U.S. Fights Mandatory Labeling in An Untested Human Experiment

Codex Designates GMOs as Contaminants in Food



 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 7:25 am
That still doesn't give us any information whatsoever on the studies on which you based your claim that FDA-approved levels of irradiation will cause ALL nutrients to be removed from foods, Gregory.

Surely you would never have made that claim in the first place if you hadn't read reports of studies which concluded that fact? Would you?
 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 7:29 am
And I would be interested to know why your own peers - people who vehemently oppose irradiation of food at all - do not seem to agree with your statement?
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Friday September 19, 2008, 8:06 am
OK, so how about ALL nutrients which have ANY benefit to the body will be removed from food? Feel better with that? The point of Codex is to limit nutrition to levels negligible to human health. Radiation does just that. Hopefully this will keep you busy for a few hours:

Effects of feeding irradiated wheat to malnourished children: In 1973 the National Institute of Nutrition in India, initiated studies on the health effects of consumption of irradiated food using mice, rats, monkey and undernourished children. This report was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 28/2/1975 pp 130 to 135. Studies revealed the development of cells with chromosome abnormalities in their bone marrow and an increase in polyploid (abnormal) cells. However, The World Health Organisation (WHO) dismiss the report on the basis that the report’s findings were a ‘chance phenomenon’ and further states that the findings observed ‘occurred by chance’ .
[Reference: WHO Safety & Nutritional Adequacy of Irradiated Food, Section 6. Toxicology, p95]

Testimony of S. G. Srikantia, B. Sc.,.B.B.S.,D.Sc. Professor of Foods and Nutrition, University of Mysore, India on their findings in 1973. To-date the Institute has not withdrawn its findings and stands fully behind its published articles. http://ccnr.org/food_irradiation.html

DNA damage caused by irradiated foods: The Federal Nutrition Research Institute in Karlsruhe, Germany conducted experiments on rats which revealed DNA damage. Genotoxicity of 2-DCB report concluded, ‘The results urge caution, and should provide impetus for further studies’. http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/2dcbrelease.cfm

"Hidden Harm" - A report by Public Citizen and The Centre for Food Safety addresses how the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is ignoring the potential dangers of unique chemicals in irradiated food. www.citizen.org/documents/HiddenHarm_-_PDF.pdf

Irradiation destroys essential vitamins and nutrients: Vitamins 1, B1, B2, B2, B6, B12 folic acid, C, E and K are significantly damaged by irradiation. Essential amino acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids can also be depleted. Numerous food irradiation studies conducted on test animals have indicated that consumption of irradiated food can cause serious health risks with potentially fatal results, for example, cancer, still births, internal hemorrhaging, radioactivity and genetic mutations. Moreover, tests conducted on human cells have shown irradiated foods to be highly toxic and to cause chromosomal damage as discussed above in Genotoxicity of 2-DCB report.

Cancer: “A careful analysis by FDA (Food & Drug Administration) of all data present showed significant adverse effects produced in animals fed irradiated food…What were these adverse effects?…Carcinomas of the pituitary gland, a particularly disturbing finding since this is an extremely rare type of malignant tumor.”
[Spiher, A.T. 1968. Food Irradiation: An FDA report”. FDA Papers]

Still births: “Two groups of 10 male and 50 female mice were fed diet containing 50% wheat flour,…Cytogenic examinations of the developing spermatogonia in 30 mice of each group revealed that cytogenic abnormalities were significantly more frequent in the group fed irradiated flour than in the control group…a large number of litters were born in which noe of the offspring was viable; the incidence of litters so affected was significantly higher in the group fed irradiated flour…on the average the losses were about 35% higher in the test group than in the controls. The life span of mice fed irradiated flour was slightly shorter than in the control mice.”
[Bugyaki, L., et al, “Do irradiated foodstuffs have a radiomimetic effect?”]

Internal Hemorrhaging: “A significant number of rats consuming irradiated beef died from internal hemorrhage within 46 days, the first death of a male rat coming on the 11th day of feeding….Post-mortem examination showed hemothorax, the blood had not clotted; there was bleeding also in the epididymis.”
[Metta, V.C. et al. 1959. “Vitamin K deficiency in rats induced by feeding of irradiated beef’. Journal of Nutrition, 60: 18-21]

Radioactivity: “…considerable amounts of radioactivity were present in liver, kidney, stomach, gastrointestinal tract, and blood serum of rats sacrificed at 3 and 15 hours….Radioactivity was present in urine and feces samples collected from all animals.”
[A. K. De, et al. 1969. “Biochemical Effects of Irradiated Sucrose Solutions in the Rat” Radiation Research, 37: 202-215]

Genetic Mutations: “Groups of Swiss albino mice (SPF) fed with normal and gamma-irradiated food …were injected intraperitoneally with Salmonella tympphimirium TA 1530 for the host mediated assay test of mutagenesis. The mutation frequency was calculated in terms of the numbers of mutant colonies per unit of surviving cells. The results indicate that there is a significant increase in mutation frequency induced by the 3 Mrad sterilized food.”
[M. Brena-Valle, et al. 1975. “Mutagenicity of irradiated food in the host mediated assay system” Studia Biophysica, Berlin 50: 137-141]

Chromosomal Damage: “Irradiated sucrose solutions…were extremely toxic to human lymphocytes…Degenerated mitoses were observed and the chromosomes were grossly damaged. The chromatin material was clumped or the chromosomes appeared shattered or pulverized…In contrast, treatment with unirradiated sucrose at the same concentration had no apparent effect on the mitotic rate and the chromosomes were not visibly damaged.”
[Shaw, M.W and Hayes, E. 1966. “Effects of irradiated sucrose on the chromosomes of human lymphocytes in vitro”. Nature, 211: 1254-1255]
 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 8:21 am
Essentially you're still saying the same thing. A nutrient is something which nourishes the body. So your statement still says the same thing. That FDA-approved levels of irradiation will remove all things which are capable of nourishing the body. In short - all nutrients. Just a roundabout way of saying exactly what you said before in the article.

Your citations in the above post are about the effects of irradiation itself. I'm not arguing the issue of whether irradiation itself is safe or not. I'm specifically discussing your statement of fact in your news article about all nutrients being removed from food.

And the citations I've already provided don't agree with you that ALL NUTRIENTS WHICH CAN BE OF BENEFIT TO THE BODY WILL BE REMOVED BY FDA-APPROVED LEVELS OF FOOD IRRADIATION. Again, where are the studies which provide evidence of this?

And we're talking about FDA-approved levels of food irradiation. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if you increase the irradiation levels to amounts much higher than allowed by the FDA eventually the food's nutritional value will be utterly destroyed. In fact, you could eventually destroy the piece of food altogether. I'm talking about the issue of FDA-approved levels.

So, again Gregory - where are the studies you originally used as reference material when writing the article? Surely you still have copies in your files? Any good investigator or scientist always keeps things like that to defend or more fully explain his own work.
 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 8:28 am
Your argument is similar to this:

I publish a paper on the internet saying that all men have a genetic abnormality which causes them to want to rape women (I don't believe this, of course.)

You disagree with me and ask to see the scientific evidence which I used to form that conclusion.

I refuse to do that.

I then say, well - what I really meant to say is that all men who are also humans have that genetic abnormality.

Well, since all men are by their very nature human - it's exactly the same argument (just phrased a little differently.)

All nutrients nourish the body. If they don't nourish the body, then they aren't nutrients.
 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 9:23 am
I was surprised to discover, Gregory, that you only received your Ph.D. in psychology (which is the sole source of your title of "Doctor") 2007, little more than a year ago.

Of course, that certainly doesn't mean you can't hold or promote your beliefs on any subject whatsoever. Just thought it might be relevant to mention your lack of experience in the field (since you call yourself "Dr." on your news item quite a few people expect that would imply real experience in the field which gave you your Ph.D.)
 

Judy Cross (83)
Friday September 19, 2008, 9:39 am
Lindsey, you don't know what your talking about.

The FDA cares about us? What dream are you living in?
Your attack on Gregory's PhD is silliness of the first order and places you squarely in the Gatekeeper designation.

The biggest danger of irradiated food, beside the immediate loss of nutrients, and further greater loss during storage is the "radiomimetic" effect.(Having effects on living tissue similar to those produced by radiation: a radiomimetic chemical.) The production of free radicals that continue after the food is eaten. That's why when they re-did the feeding experiments they fed the artificial antioxidant ethoxyquin....and they still got dead puppies.



 

Marcla G (108)
Friday September 19, 2008, 9:44 am
Don't feed the trolls.
 

Alf I (246)
Friday September 19, 2008, 9:55 am
Thankyou Marcla!!! She actually called ME a troll!!
 

Past Member (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 10:46 am
Well isn't it a bit of a HUH, that just cause someone is disagreeing with the story and is being, from what I saw on a level of respect, until she was disrespected, be called a troll. I also have been called such when refuting so called proof that if looked into a bit further isn't there.

I have to ask, with all of the incorrect FDA approved medicines, food's etc, that have been recalled or told that the FDA was wrong in their research, how and why should the FDA be trusted as telling the truth ever?

One thing I am not for is population control. And never will I support it ever. But then this Codex issue is as they say all greek to me and I speak and only speak english-gibberish.
Peace
 

Judy Cross (83)
Friday September 19, 2008, 12:10 pm
I can't understand a supposed Libertarian defending the mandated exposing food to ionizing radiation by a corrupt org. like the FDA.

I tend to think I've seen this style of debate under at least one other name.
 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 12:32 pm
Judy, as I have said over, and over, and over again - I AM NOT discussing whether or not irradiation is good or bad. That is not the issue I have been discussing all along.

I have been discussing SPECIFIC STATEMENTS made in this article. I have been discussing the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE for those specific statements. I have been ASKING FOR THE CITATIONS to back up those SPECIFIC statements about ALL NUTRIENTS being removed from food through FDA-approved levels of irradiation.

I am not advocating that food be irradiated. I am not saying that irradiation doesn't decrease SOME percentage of SOME nutrients in food. I am not arguing the pros and cons of irradiation itself.

You are completely changing the subject.

Dr. Damato made the statement of fact that all nutrients WILL BE removed from food through irradiation. I ask him, as I have asked so many times, show me the evidence of studies which prove that ALL nutrients will be removed from food through FDA-approved levels of irradiation. He made that specific claim in a published paper - he must either back it up or acknowledge that it is merely speculation on his part.
 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 12:35 pm
And thanks for your input, Boty. It's nice to hear a more rational voice on this thread. I have tried to be patient and I have tried to be logical. I have posted links to all the things I found which clearly refuted what Dr. Damato said. I have even posted links to articles written by his peers - who HATE irradiation and are fighting against it - and THEY don't even agree with him on the specific issue at hand.

And everyone keeps changing the subject and talking about how bad irradiation is - when that isn't even the point I'm discussing. And I keep having to say it over and over again. I am so damned frustrated.
 

Alf I (246)
Friday September 19, 2008, 12:59 pm
Yes but this article is about Codex Alimentarius and you Lyndsey have taken it off down a dark alley of tangent to the extreme. Stop nit-picking on one tiny little statement someone made which is frankly irelevant!
 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 1:18 pm

"Someone" didn't make it, Alf. The writer of the article himself made it. And it is not a "tiny" statement. It is a major part of his thesis. Don't you think that the fact "all" nutrients will be removed from "all" foods by irradiation and other means is an extremely important point? That is one of Gregory's MAJOR points.

And if he can't back that up with evidence - then he is presenting speculation as fact. And is lying. Which is another extremely important point. When a writer lies on certain issues then the rest of his statements become suspect as well. He has already admitted that the statements about population control through malnutrition were not actually facts - but were his conclusions. Even though he presented them as fact in his paper.

Those are extremely important issues. And your statement that they are "tiny" and "irrelevant" show that you fully understand he is lying - and, of course, can't openly admit that since it might undercut your position on the evils of irradiation in general.

That isn't logical, fair, or reasonable.
 

. (0)
Friday September 19, 2008, 1:26 pm

Alf, let me explain what the most important issue is for me.

It isn't irradiation of foods.

It isn't the removal of nutrients from foods by irradiation or other means.

It isn't whether or not Codex is an evil documents which will result in the deaths of over 90% of the world's population.

My main concern is this: that so many people, including you, are willing to take the unsupported word of a non-expert who happens to publish a paper on the internet - on ANY subject. That you do not require that non-expert to back his statements up with citations to the studies which supposedly created his conclusion. That even when facts that non-expert presents are proven false you change the subject or state that the issue is now "tiny" and "immaterial."

In short, that many, many people such as you, Alf, are willing to believe anything a stranger says so long as the overall message supports your beliefs. You don't care about the facts; you don't care about logic; you don't care about evidence; you don't care whether or not there is any scientific backing for an idea; you don't even care when the non-expert's own peers (who hate the issue as much as he does) disagree with him; you don't care when the overwhelming majority of legitimate scientists and organizations throughout the world disagree with the non-expert's "facts".

Whether the issue is irradiated foods, intelligent design, the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy to Take Over Civilization, quack medical theories, psychic premonitions, ghosts, fairies, or any other "fringe" item - the issue itself is immaterial. It is the thought processes used by the "believers" that worry me. Because it shows a severe deficiency in logical reasoning. And a total lack of understanding of the scientific process. And a refusal to understand what constitutes scientific evidence. And a tendency to try and obscure the issue, change the subject, etc. when any real proof is offered.

That's what REALLY worries me.
 

Donn M (56)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 2:18 am
My, my, my, that took a long time to get through. I have to say I agree with Lindsey, who puts forth a most logical argument here with a nice summary just above.
I also have to wonder why any corporation which relies on consumers, would be willing to kill off the major portion of their customers. Just how do you make any profit doing that? There may be some legitimate concerns regarding hormones, irradiation, genetic engineering, etc, but the underlying conspiracy theory of population control lays waste to it all.
And to those who cry "troll" because they can't stand to see honest disagreement, a differing opinion, perhaps they should take a good, hard look in the mirror, or at least learn the definition of the word.
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 3:49 am
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm

http://www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html
 

Alf I (246)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 5:11 am
Thanx for that link Gregory. The problem here is that wether irradiated food is harmful or not it IS being forced upon the American people without their consent. Scientists can prove anything is safe if they want to and that is why many do not truest their 'science' any longer. We can postulate on nutrients and so forth but the fact is no-one truly knows the effect it will have until it is too late so those who have faith in pharma-backed pseudo-science can go ahead and be their guinea pigs. Eat the stuff if you so wish! I for one will not and many others who have their eyes open also will not if they have that option. Sadly tho it will be difficult to know what is safe to eat once this stuff is fully unleashed without labelling which is what is going to happen therefore taking away the freedom of choice to eat it or not.
 

. (0)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 7:11 am
Gregory, you certainly seem to have time to post more articles about population control.

Surprising that you haven’t yet found time to go to your files and pull out copies of the scientific studies which support your contention that FDA-approved levels of irradiation destroy all nutrients in all foods. And to post those citations on the forum.

You don’t seem very willing to defend your thesis with appropriate scientific vigor.

And, the links you cite are, as usual, somewhat deficient.

In one, the implication is that Jacques Cousteau advocated the deliberate killing of hundreds of thousands of people a day, which accords with your view of the proponents of Codex (of course he died long before Codex was promoted.)

And, yet – the article you cited didn’t say that at all (only implied it and implied it very strongly.) The quote from Cousteau in the article did not say that he advocated deliberate genocide. He made the perfectly reasonable statement that in order to stabilize population levels a certain number of people would have to be eliminated from the population. He said not one word about DELIBERATE mass murder. Absent any specific statement by him to the contrary, it is obvious he meant that such elimination would come through the normal course of events – not murder.

And that same article talks about ONE scientist, Dr. Eric Pianka and a few old horrors, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Nazis. There are crackpots in every field, Gregory. Just because there are some idiotic and irrational people who work in the sciences doesn’t mean that mainstream science accepts their conclusions. As it DEFINITELY DOES NOT. And of course our government has done terrible things such as the Syphilis Study. But, again – that doesn’t mean that every pronouncement or action taken by the government is incorrect. If that is your argument – well, then you’re in trouble. Since some of your own pronouncements have been proven incorrect then we must assume that everything you say is a lie.
 

. (0)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 7:26 am
And the second link you provided, Gregory, was to a massive policy statement from the Nixon Administration. And it specifically refutes what you are claiming:

“World policy and programs in the population field should incorporate two major objectives:
• (a) actions to accommodate continued population growth up to 6 billions by the mid-21st century without massive starvation or total frustration of developmental hopes; and
• (b) actions to keep the ultimate level as close as possible to 8 billions rather than permitting it to reach 10 billions, 13 billions, or more.”

You note that it specifically says that policies are to be taken which will handle population control “without massive starvation”.

“c) Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology. This is a vital aspect of any world population program. (1) Family planning information and materials based on present technology should be made fully available as rapidly as possible to the 85% of the populations in key LDCs not now reached, essentially rural poor who have the highest fertility. (2) Fundamental and developmental research should be expanded, aimed at simple, low-cost, effective, safe, long-lasting and acceptable methods of fertility control. Support by all federal agencies for biomedical research in this field should be increased by $60 million annually.”

It also discusses family planning as a “vital aspect” of population programs.

If it is your intent to say that the U.S. government advocates keeping the population of the world down – of course it does. And so does every left-wing organization out there that I’ve seen. A reduced population will help conserve the world’s resources, reduce pollution, reduce the extinction of species, reduce poverty, reduce war…….

And for some unknown reason you have chosen not to quote any part of this particular document showing statements you claim support your position. I would be interested to know exactly what portions of this policy statement you are citing to support your contention that world governments and corporations are trying to deliberately kill off 93% of the world's population.

You are being disingenuous again.
 

. (0)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 7:38 am
I'm curious, Gregory. Since you talk so much about the evils of population control - what is your position on the subject of the general issue?

Do you support measures which will reduce the world's population to a sustainable level - if those measures are comprised of the generally-accepted paradigm of non-coercively promoting birth control and massively educating the public about the need for fewer people through non-coercive and non-murderous means? Which is, of course, the argument used by any reputable scientific organization or government.

Do you believe that overpopulation is depleting our planet's resources, killing off species, helping to ruin the environment, helping to keep people in poverty, helping to cause conflict, etc.?

What is your position on this?
 

. (0)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 7:45 am
Actually, I should modify my statement above. There may indeed be some reputable governments and some reputable scientists who advocate some form of forced birth control as a last-ditch effort towards reducing the population, basing their statements on the overwhelming need to reduce the devastating effects of overpopulation. An issue which I neither specifically agree nor disagree with. The Libertarian part of me recoils at the thought; the environmentalist part of me thinks that maybe forced limitations on the number of children we have might be the only way of avoiding absolute population catastrophe.
 

. (0)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 8:27 am
And Donni makes an excellent point. Why would corporations want to kill off 93% of their own customers?
 

Alf I (246)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 3:12 pm
Aspergers anyone?
 

Alf I (246)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 3:23 pm
http://www.biotech-info.net/irradiated_damage.html
My other problem with this whole irradiation thing is technically the food being sold should be 'off'. It has been given an extra long shelf life but to what effect. It may not smell or look bad but what is really going on inside.
It's well known that fresh food has more nutrients than old, stale food. Effectively they'd be selling food past the sell-by date but with a bit of a face lift. Nice.
 

. (0)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 3:57 pm
The same is true, Alf, for frozen foods we buy at the grocery store. Freezing destroys some nutrients. And prolongs the "shelf life." Just as boiling a potato destroys some of its nutrients. Or baking it in an oven. Or frying it.

One of the points of testing is to determine how long foodstuffs can go without spoilage. I have no doubt whatsoever that appropriate expiration dates will be put on irradiated food just as they are on all other foods. Grocers can't legally sell things past their expiration date.
 

. (0)
Sunday September 21, 2008, 4:01 pm
Oh, dear.....what HAVE I started? I suppose now I'll see threads talking about the evils of frozen foods and how they should be banned because of the loss of nutrients freezing causes! And how Big Pharma and Big Gov are trying to get us all to actually (gasp) COOK our food just so that more nutrients will be lost in the cooking process....
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Monday September 22, 2008, 6:38 am
USDA is looking for (not really but they have to pretend they are) public comments for the next Codex meeting. You can find the document here: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/US_Draft_Positions_CCNFSDU.pdf

I suggest you please send this to everyone you know and have your voice heard. They will only take comments for another 10 days or so. (:
 

. (0)
Monday September 22, 2008, 7:08 am
Good morning, Gregory. Glad to see you again have time to post on our forum.

But have you had time yet to find those citations backing up your statement of fact about FDA-approved levels of irradiation removing all nutrients from all food?
 

Alf I (246)
Monday September 22, 2008, 4:23 pm
Thanx Gregory!
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Monday September 22, 2008, 10:52 pm
Linds- Once you have read through all my references and watched the movie listed (Nutricide), then if you have question about assertions made in the article I will be happy to answer them. Let me know how you go.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 23, 2008, 4:28 am
My main request is the same one I have made since the beginning: the citations for the studies supporting your contention that FDA-approved levels of irradiation will cause 100% of all nutrients to be removed from all foods. That request has nothing to do with asking you to answer anything - it has to do with you acting like a legitimate presenter of scientific facts and providing appropriate citations for your published work.

Your statement would be rather like a cancer researcher at the National Cancer Institute refusing to provide his citations for a research paper on liver cancer until his readers watched a movie on the evils of tobacco.

I'm afraid you're changing the subject again, Gregory. My issue is not with the general field of alternative nutritional theories or irradiation itself - it is with your specific statement made in your article. A statement you seem curiously and dogmatically unwilling to back up.

Thereby proving my contention that you are not, after all, a presenter of scientific facts. But merely an editorialist espousing his own unsupported belief.

 

. (0)
Tuesday September 23, 2008, 5:02 am
I was just reading an article on the various ways in which illogical arguments are presented. Several of the examples include:

• Irrelevant Conclusion (also called Ignoratio Elenchi)--diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. This is sometimes referred to as a "red herring". Subsets include:
o purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
o popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority),
o fear (argumentum ad baculum),

• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Tuesday September 23, 2008, 5:19 am
OK, I will s-p-e-a-k a b-i-t s-l-o-w-e-r. Y-o-u n-e-e-d t-o p-u-l-l m-y s-o-u-r-c-e-s clearly cited in the a-r-t-i-c-l-e. Once you have done that, you need to r-e-a-d them. Once you have read them, if you have any further questions regarding where my information came from I will happy to answer them. Thanks. (:
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 23, 2008, 5:37 am
Are you specifically stating, Gregory, that specific citations to specific studies are somewhere mentioned in the movie or other links? By that I mean, the specific studies proving that 100% of all nutrients are removed from all foods by FDA-approved levels of irradiation? Giving the name of the journal those studies were published in, the date of publication, etc.? Because you didn't mention that fact before.


 

. (0)
Tuesday September 23, 2008, 5:41 am
Oh, and by the way - as I've stated over and over again - there ARE no citations to those studies in the sources you mentioned in the article. That's the whole point of this argument, Gregory.

Once again - trying a little diversionary tactic. And once again with the ad hominem attacks.

And as I also said before, I have READ the citations you provided in your article. That's how I know that they contain no information whatsoever backing up your claim that 100% of all nutrients will be removed from all food through FDA-approved levels of irradiation.

You made the claim - you have to back it up. Period. You haven't done so.
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 23, 2008, 5:48 am
So that you can claim no misunderstanding on the subject at hand:

The issue under discussion is one statement made by you in your published article, namely that all nutrients will be removed from all foods by irradiation.

You failed in that article to cite the studies which proved that statement.

Every study I have found says exactly the opposite.

You have refused multiple times to provide those citations showing what studies back up that specific statement.

You have admitted that you failed to provide those citations, saying that would be "spoon-feeding" the reader.

It is the writer's responsibility to provide appropriate citations to such studies.

That is the issue, Gregory.

 

. (0)
Tuesday September 23, 2008, 5:57 am
And since you don't seem to grasp the concept, Gregory, having apparently missed the class on how to word an appropriate citation when you were working towards your Ph.D., here is an example:

"1974 Quine DB, Konishi M. "Absolute frequency discrimination in the barn owl." J. Comparative Physiology 93: 347-360"

You will note that it gives the author, the year, the exact name of the paper, the journal in which the paper was published, the volume, and the page numbers.

That is an appropriate citation supporting a statement of fact.
 

Alf I (246)
Wednesday September 24, 2008, 4:14 am
*• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.*
Isn't that exactly what you are doing Lyndsey?????
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 24, 2008, 4:56 am
Hardly, Alf. My "verbiosity" has been straightforward and to the point. I haven't tried to change the subject and talk in circles in order to divert the reader's attention from the fact that I haven't backed up my statements with proof. It isn't the number of words used - it is if they are being used to obscure the fact that the writer doesn't want to admit something openly. Which is exactly what Gregory has done.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 24, 2008, 4:58 am
And, in any event Alf, as I have pointed out again and again - I'm not the writer of the article. It is not my job to provide proof of anything it says (or to disprove it). It is the author's responsibility to prove his point. And that has been the gist of most of my verbiage. Requests for the good doctor to provide appropriate citations.
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Wednesday September 24, 2008, 5:13 am
The article which is clearly cited and apparently I have to spell it out clearer for you Linds is: 2. Laibow, R.E., "Neutraceuticide" and Codex Alimentarius: The death of nutritional medicine. Alternative & Complementary Therapies, 2005. 11(5): p. 223-229.

Do you see the number 2 after this sentence with a colon "Some Codex standards that will take effect on December 31, 2009 and once initiated are completely irrevocable include [2]:"?

The colon means that all statements after the colon (unless cited otherwise) are from that source (including the radiation statement).

This is the citation I suggest you pull and read, again, before you question the author. Thanks.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 24, 2008, 5:28 am
Gregory, as you know and understand very well, the question was: where are the citations for studies which prove your contention that 100% of all nutrients are removed from all foods through irradiation?

The citation you just provided is an article written by Rima Laibow. It is not a citation to a scientific research study on the nutritional effects of food irradiation. It is not a clinical study. It is not a research study at all.

Since you do not seem to understand the concept of a scientific research study for the purposes of this discussion, I will explain. A study performed in a controlled laboratory setting during which various foods are irradiated at FDA-approved levels and, afterwards, their nutritional values are measured to see how much nutritional loss resulted from the irradiation. Dr. Laibow's OPINIONS on the issue of food irradiation do not constitute a scientific study.

Once again you are trying to obscure the issue in an attempt to avoid admitting that no such studies supporting your statement of fact exist.

I ask again: where are the citations to research studies which prove your statement of fact that 100% of all nutrients are removed from all foods through FDA-approved levels of irradiation?
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 24, 2008, 5:39 am
Alf, THIS is an example of what I meant by Gregory's "verbiosity". He says a great deal. However, what he says is designed to divert the reader from the real issue specifically under discussion.

I ask for research studies.

He refuses, saying that would be "spoon-feeding" the reader and says the reader must wade through all the scientific literature out there to try and find them herself.

I ask again.

He writes about movies, opinions, the evils of irradiation itself, and lots of other things - but no citations.

I ask again.

He says he HAS provided the citation all along (after having previously said that he REFUSED to provide the citation - which is it, Gregory?)

Of course, the citation has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific subject at hand.

He's doing his best to try and change the subject. And avoid the issue at hand. He is running around in circles and trying desperately to avoid saying that his "statement of fact" is actually just his opinion. To avoid saying that he, in fact, lied in a published paper.
 

. (0)
Wednesday September 24, 2008, 6:56 am

It just occurred to me, Gregory. You have just conceded my point. You clearly and unequivocally stated that your citation for "proof" of your statement that 100% of all nutrients are removed from all foods by irradiation is Rima Laibow's article in which she states her opinions about food irradiation.

You have therefore admitted that there are no scientific studies proving this so-called "fact".

You have therefore admitted that your statement is not a fact but merely your opinion of Rima Laibow's opinion.

Thank you, Gregory, for your honesty. You could have saved us all a great deal of trouble by simply admitting that in the very beginning.

I trust that you will now remove the offending sentence from your published article and change it to read, "Rima Laibow claims that 100% of all nutrients will be removed from all foods through irradiation."

And, as an honest reporter, you will no doubt include the statement, "There are no published scientific studies in the scientific literature to back up Rima Laibow's opinion."
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Thursday October 2, 2008, 9:18 pm
Dr. Mercola's Comment:

http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/Codex-Alimentarius--Population-Control-Under-the-Guise-of-Consumer-Protection-69765.aspx
 

. (0)
Friday October 3, 2008, 9:33 pm

Hello, Dr. Damato. I see you've changed your avatar. The new one is certainly more colorful (Eddie Murphy, isn't it?) than the old one with what was, I assume, your own photo.

I checked out Dr. Mercola's comment you noted immediately above.

I assume, of course that Dr. Mercola's article was not intended to be a citation for your own work since Dr. Mercola's article was published on September 16, 2008, which was, of course, after publication of your own article on the web on September 10, 2008. Although, in fairness, I do recognize that articles do exist prior to their publication on the internet. Therefore you might, of course, have read his article prior to writing your own. Except, of course, for the fact that Dr. Mercola's article was never mentioned in your list of citations in your own article.

And, of course, Dr. Mercola's article is not a published clinical study, merely his opinion of Codex (just as Dr. Laibow's paper was merely her opinion.)
 

. (0)
Saturday October 4, 2008, 6:33 pm

Dr. Damato, I have found a weblink to the original "citation" you provided (Laibow, R.E., "Neutraceuticide" and Codex Alimentarius: The death of nutritional medicine. Alternative & Complementary Therapies, 2005. 11(5): p. 223-229) as support for your claim that FDA approved levels of irradiation destroy all nutrients in all foods.

It is, of course, not a scientific study. It is an "Op-Ed" piece containing, therefore, Dr. Laibow's own opinion of Codex (and is listed as op-ed in the Journal's own page of contents.) http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/act/11/5
 

Neil Salisbury (0)
Sunday October 12, 2008, 12:21 pm
i dont want to eat food that has been anywhere near radiation,it can't be a good thing,if its so hamless why don't they use micro wave ovens to warm blood for blood transfusions?, reason, because you die because the radiation from the microwave oven changes the blood in some way, thats why i don't use a micro wave ovens for cooking, just search ' dangers of micro wave ovens',if you zap an orange with radiation whos to say it wont screw up the vitamin C so the body can't use it,
 

. (0)
Sunday October 12, 2008, 12:44 pm
Neil,

You mentioned that "they" don't use microwaves to warm blood for transfusions. You're correct. They also don't use ovens, stoves, or regular heaters (and I assume you DO use a stove or an oven to cook). The issue there isn't that a microwave is in and of itself dangerous - it's that blood, when warmed, must be warmed correctly and not allowed to go above a certain temperature.

"WARMING OF BLOOD
It is not necessary to warm blood before transfusion except in unusual circumstances such as (1) massive transfusions, (2) occasionally in exchange transfusion of newborns, or (3) extremely high titer of cold antibody (anti-I) in patient.
If blood must be warmed prior to transfusion, this should be performed by passing the blood through warming coils. Hemolysis may occur if temperature exceeds 40°C. Blood should never be warmed by placing near a radiator, heater, stove, or using a microwave oven. The Blood Bank will make a notation if warming is indicated."

http://www.sh.lsuhsc.edu/policies/policy_manuals_via_ms_word/pathology/PDFS/B1-7.pdf

And if you're worried about your food being exposed to radiation - then you'd better go on a fast immediately. Because radiation is naturally-occurring on this earth and your food is naturally exposed to it all the time.

"Humans are subject to background radiation all the time and the normal levels are well known. There is evidence that unless radiation exposure reaches about ten (10) times that normal level there is no harm to humans from radiation. Furthermore, there is now evidence that radiation at or near the normal background level is beneficial to, and even necessary for, life. People living at elevated-radiation levels are healthier than those who receive the U.S. sea-level background radiation dose."

http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Radiation_and_Radioactivity,Effects_of_Radiation,Low_Levels_of_Radiation

You need to understand that food irradiation does NOT make food radioactive. It doesn't "glow in the dark" and won't set off a geiger counter. However, if you want to object to irradiation of food based upon reasonable concerns, go right ahead. Just don't base your decision on the distortion of facts made by others.
 

Neil Salisbury (0)
Sunday October 12, 2008, 2:17 pm
i did not say food would glow in the dark or that it would set off a geiger counter ,why would you even say that, is it because in the back of your mind thats what YOU think will happen? ,come on now .yes humans are subject to back ground radiation but this radiation is direct (DC),microwave ovens are alternating (AC), they cause frictional heat because they agitate the water molecules millions of times a second (unlike a stove or cooker which is DC) thats why food gets hot ,but it also changes the make up of the food ,like i said before you should search and read " DANGERS OF MICROWAVE OVENS", did you search and read " DANGERS OF MICROWAVE OVENS"? i think everyone with a microwave oven should search and read "DANGERS OF MICROWAVE OVENS", what do other people out there think? 10 mins ish
 

. (0)
Sunday October 12, 2008, 2:46 pm

As I said, if you want to object to food irradiation on reasonable and scientifically-based grounds, go right ahead.

 

sue M (184)
Saturday December 6, 2008, 8:24 pm
The way the food companies work - they fill you up with everything under the sun except for the benefits you need. A few hours after eating you are hungry which then makes you eat more hence more sales. More sales means people are eating more of what has no nutritional value or very little. People get sick if they do not eat foods that have benefits. Hence the Pharmaceutical companies get rich from sickness.
Very easy and simple process.
They have already started to crack down on vitamins and supplements. They are trying their best to get rid of them
Organic food holds all the vitamins we were intended to have providing of course it has no been irradated. People who are overweight lose weight while on organic food and do not get hungry as the body is satisfied.
 

sue M (184)
Saturday December 6, 2008, 9:58 pm
To all on here. The FDA is bad news we know that but for the sake of other people who we are trying to protect, and inform answer the questions please.
Taking offense is not an answer she is asking legitimate questions. She works for a lawyer and in the case of a lawsuit - these are the type of questions that will be asked in a court of law and proof will be asked.
Additionally we want as many people to be informed and alienating someone or not answering their questions is not the way to go - we need as many people as we can behind this knowing what is really going on.
Lindseys questions are not outlandish all she is asking if you look is proof of the findings.
Thank You
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Tuesday March 31, 2009, 10:39 pm
http://www.naturalnews.com/025971.html
 

Prince Akeem (1)
Monday June 1, 2009, 5:19 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.