Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Food Irradiation - " Protecting " Us? By Citizens for Health Vice President and Senior Policy Analyst, James Gormley Editor's Note: With irradiation once again in the news and irradiation of herbs now under consideration, this editorial is more timely than ever. The recent mass-media coverage of food irradiation has obscured the real issues. In truth: * The answer to a safe food supply depends on whether the mainstream food industry accepts its responsibility to clean up its act for good; * The fact that irradiation doesn't turn our food radioactive is not a relief considering its real dangers; and * The public is rightfully suspicious of this bizarre solution to very real problems with our food supply. Toxicologist Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., chaired a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee that investigated 441 studies on irradiated foods in the 1980s. In 1993, Dr. van Gemert issued a statement outlining why " those studies were inadequate to evaluate the safety of irradiated foods. " These are the studies which underpin the FDA's decision approving the irradiation of red meat: A 1975 clinical study in India, which appeared in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, looked at 15 malnourished children who were fed either irradiated or non-irradiated food. Eighty percent of the children fed irradiated food developed a pre-cancerous chromosomal disorder called polyploidy. A more recent study on 70 students in China (Chinese Medical Journal, 1987) also showed an increased rate of chromosomal abnormalities. In addition, the " unique radiolytic products " (URP's), or toxins, produced through irradiation include: known carcinogens such as formaldehyde (used in embalming) and naphthalene (used in moth repellents), and others. If this were not enough, essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids are also destroyed at varying levels. And what about long-term effects? With carcinogens like formaldehyde, " It will take 30 years before you see increases in neoplasias -- leukemias and lymphomas, " warned George Tritsch, Ph.D., retired researcher from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and the New York State Department of Health. Whether it's Olestra yesterday, or irradiated food today, the FDA is sending a message to consumers that the public is not trusted to exercise personal responsibility or to observe the most basic food- preparation hygiene practices, respectively. More ominously, food processors will see this as the green light to continue to run filthy plants, to ignore sanitary food-preparation regulations, and to use their record of tragic poisonings and fatalities to force widespread irradiation on us. If public " demand " is in question, a CBS News poll found that, nationwide, 73 percent of those polled oppose food irradiation, and 77 percent say they would not eat irradiated food. So what will irradiation accomplish? 1) It will offer short-term litigation " protection " to food- processors, and will help them win huge food-chain contracts, 2) It will make irradiation companies very happy; and 3) It will fulfill the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) stated goal, through its Byproducts Utilization Program, to unload its stockpile of radioactive cesium 137 in order to drive Canadian cobalt 60 out of the market. " Irradiation of food is not a story of protection of the American public, " said Gary Gibbs, D.O., in his prophetic 1993 book, The Food That Would Last Forever: Understanding the Dangers of Food Irradiation (Avery Publishing, phone: 1-800-548-5757). " Rather it is a story of money, politics, and the embalming of the American diet. Food irradiation is a toxic time bomb. " http://citizens.org/consumer-corner/food-irradiation-protecting-us `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````` Please fight to keep our food from being irradiated~!! Just say NO to irradiated food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 How much of the research on this is " junk science? " Found this article while surfing: Killers of the Consumer Movement By Larry Katzenstein Our recent brush with anthrax-tainted mail, and the well-publicized use of irradiation to disinfect it, has had one salutary effect: Americans now realize that irradiation can safeguard not only their mail but their food supply as well. After long being leery of food irradiation, people are demanding it - which could mean far fewer illnesses and deaths from E. coli, Salmonella and other foodborne microbes. In 2000, a national survey by the public-relations firm Porter-Novelli found that only 11 percent of consumers said they would buy irradiated foods. But in a follow-up national survey last November, shortly after the anthrax mailings, 52 percent of consumers said that the federal government should require irradiation to help protect the food supply. Many foods can be irradiated, including fruits and vegetables, poultry, eggs and red meat, but you'll have a hard time finding any of them in stores. Since 1986, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first permitted food irradiation, America's leading consumer groups have waged a smear campaign that has prevented the public from accepting the process and the food industry from using it. With surveys now showing irradiation winning favor, opponents are stepping up efforts to vilify it. Those who demonize food irradiation play on two of our deepest concerns: anxiety over food safety and, especially after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, mistrust of anything involving radiation. Opponents claim that irradiation makes foods radioactive, taints food with cancer-causing chemicals, offers the nuclear industry a way to recycle radioactive wastes and-quoting from a Public Citizen statement issued last year-allows companies to sell meat coated with " feces, urine, pus and vomit. " All those accusations are false. What irradiation does is " cold-pasteurize " food by exposing it to ionizing radiation (gamma rays, electrons, or x-rays) that disrupts the DNA of contaminating microbes. Since irradiation doesn't heat foods, it largely preserves their taste, texture and appearance while reducing bacterial levels by at least 99.9 percent. So a hamburger made from irradiated ground beef tastes just as good as an ordinary burger but can be eaten rare, with virtually no risk of illness and no danger from the treatment itself. Scores of studies over the past 50 years have affirmed irradiation's safety, and many health organizations have endorsed the technology, including the U.S. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association and World Health Organization. Public-health experts say that irradiation could be as important as pasteurization and chlorination in preventing illness and death. Consumer activists are well aware of the scientific support for irradiation's effectiveness and safety. But with their mindless opposition to all things nuclear, they've chosen to ignore such evidence-and to sacrifice thousands of lives every year rather than allow a technology that uses radiation to become successful. The irony, of course, is that " cynical disregard for human life " is the accusation activists love to level against Big Business. But when it comes to killing, the consumer movement's success in stifling irradiation makes corporations look like pikers. The CDC recently estimated that foodborne illness strikes 76 million Americans each year and causes nearly 5,200 deaths. " At least half those deaths could be prevented by widespread use of irradiation on red meat, poultry and selected produce, " says Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, a University of Minnesota bioterrorism expert and food-irradiation proponent. " So over the past 10 years, " says Osterholm, " it's very fair to say that irradiation could have prevented 25,000 deaths. " Contrast those thousands of unnecessary deaths with the activists' favorite example of corporate manslaughter: the exploding Ford Pinto gas tank, which Ralph Nader plans to feature in his American Museum of Tort Law. According to " The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, " published in the Rutgers Law Review in 1991 by the late UCLA law professor Gary Schwartz, a total of 27 deaths resulted. Several consumer leaders deserve special mention for their role in depriving Americans of safe food: Ralph Nader. Good judgment and Ralph Nader rarely intersect. During his 2000 presidential campaign he came out against fluoridation, which the CDC has called one of the 10 greatest public-health achievements of the twentieth century. So it's no surprise that Mr. Nader - coauthor of The Menace of Atomic Energy - staunchly opposes food irradiation, which he recently called an " unproven and dangerous technology. " More than anyone else, he is responsible for the consumer movement's rigid opposition to new technologies, especially those using radiation. Sidney Wolfe. Most physicians favor measures that prevent illness but not Sidney Wolfe, one of the only healthcare professionals on record as opposing food irradiation. As director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, Wolfe is best known for bashing the pharmaceutical industry. But like his mentor Mr. Nader, Wolfe is rabidly antinuclear. In 1976, in one of the consumer movement's more embarrassing moments, Wolfe demanded an immediate ban on the sale of smoke detectors, calling them " a mindless and dangerous technology " because they contain minute amounts of a radioactive material, americium 241. He takes a similarly misguided view of food irradiation, routinely filing protests with the FDA when the agency allows new foods to be irradiated and attacking food irradiation in the pages of HRG's Health Letter. Michael Jacobson. This former " Nader raider " heads the Center for Science in the Public Interest, famous for sniping at movie-theater popcorn and other fatty foods. With his Ph.D. in microbiology from MIT, Jacobson recognizes the value of food irradiation: " By irradiating chickens we could save hundreds-perhaps thousands-of lives and prevent millions of food-poisoning illnesses, " he wrote in CSPI's newsletter. Yet for many years, Jacobson has done his best to alarm the public about food irradiation, alleging among other things that irradiation " may generate small amounts of toxic chemicals that may contribute to cancer " -and using the technology to scare up money. He has featured irradiation in letters to CSPI members, warning that " zapping factories " may appear in their communities and asking for contributions to " help us halt food irradiation. " Joan Claybrook. Public Citizen, the 150,000-member consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader, describes itself as " a potent countervailing force to the might of Corporate America. " Under its president Joan Claybrook, the group has certainly been a countervailing force to food irradiation. Calling the technology " a highly questionable procedure " in which " the nuclear industry and agribusiness have joined forces, " Claybrook has made Public Citizen the pre-eminent group opposing it. Public Citizen claims that 200 other groups have joined its " national campaign to educate the public about the hazards of irradiated food. " As part of that effort, Public Citizen has organized demonstrations against stores carrying irradiated food and mounted letter-writing campaign when food companies have expressed interest in using irradiation. Mark Worth, who has spearheaded Public Citizen's anti-irradiation effort, told the San Diego Union-Tribune last October that " very strong theological beliefs " help fuel his opposition: " As human beings, we have to accept the hazards of life, and E. coli and Salmonella are part of life, " he said, adding that he also objects to anthrax treatments and vaccines against smallpox and polio. It's hard to tell which is more dangerous for society: the disease-causing microbes in food or the consumer groups that want them to flourish. oleander soup , " Tony " wrote: > > Food Irradiation - " Protecting " Us? > > By Citizens for Health Vice President and Senior Policy Analyst, > James Gormley > > Editor's Note: With irradiation once again in the news and > irradiation of herbs now under consideration, this editorial is more > timely than ever. > > The recent mass-media coverage of food irradiation has obscured the > real issues. In truth: > > * The answer to a safe food supply depends on whether the mainstream > food industry accepts its responsibility to clean up its act for good; > * The fact that irradiation doesn't turn our food radioactive is not > a relief considering its real dangers; and > * The public is rightfully suspicious of this bizarre solution to > very real problems with our food supply. > > Toxicologist Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., chaired a Food and Drug > Administration (FDA) committee that investigated 441 studies on > irradiated foods in the 1980s. In 1993, Dr. van Gemert issued a > statement outlining why " those studies were inadequate to evaluate > the safety of irradiated foods. " > > These are the studies which underpin the FDA's decision approving the > irradiation of red meat: > > A 1975 clinical study in India, which appeared in the American > Journal of Clinical Nutrition, looked at 15 malnourished children who > were fed either irradiated or non-irradiated food. Eighty percent of > the children fed irradiated food developed a pre-cancerous > chromosomal disorder called polyploidy. A more recent study on 70 > students in China (Chinese Medical Journal, 1987) also showed an > increased rate of chromosomal abnormalities. > > In addition, the " unique radiolytic products " (URP's), or toxins, > produced through irradiation include: known carcinogens such as > formaldehyde (used in embalming) and naphthalene (used in moth > repellents), and others. If this were not enough, essential vitamins, > minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids are also destroyed at varying > levels. > > And what about long-term effects? With carcinogens like > formaldehyde, " It will take 30 years before you see increases in > neoplasias -- leukemias and lymphomas, " warned George Tritsch, Ph.D., > retired researcher from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and the > New York State Department of Health. > > Whether it's Olestra yesterday, or irradiated food today, the FDA is > sending a message to consumers that the public is not trusted to > exercise personal responsibility or to observe the most basic food- > preparation hygiene practices, respectively. More ominously, food > processors will see this as the green light to continue to run filthy > plants, to ignore sanitary food-preparation regulations, and to use > their record of tragic poisonings and fatalities to force widespread > irradiation on us. > > If public " demand " is in question, a CBS News poll found that, > nationwide, 73 percent of those polled oppose food irradiation, and > 77 percent say they would not eat irradiated food. > > So what will irradiation accomplish? > > 1) It will offer short-term litigation " protection " to food- > processors, and will help them win huge food-chain contracts, > > 2) It will make irradiation companies very happy; and > > 3) It will fulfill the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) stated goal, > through its Byproducts Utilization Program, to unload its stockpile > of radioactive cesium 137 in order to drive Canadian cobalt 60 out of > the market. > > " Irradiation of food is not a story of protection of the American > public, " said Gary Gibbs, D.O., in his prophetic 1993 book, The Food > That Would Last Forever: Understanding the Dangers of Food > Irradiation (Avery Publishing, phone: 1-800-548-5757). " Rather it is > a story of money, politics, and the embalming of the American diet. > Food irradiation is a toxic time bomb. " > > http://citizens.org/consumer-corner/food-irradiation-protecting-us > > `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > `````````````````` > Please fight to keep our food from being irradiated~!! > Just say NO to irradiated food. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 That's a no-brainer. Larry Katzenstein is a mainstream hack whose website is part of a webring that includes no less than Quackwatch and the thoroughly debunked, discredited and delicensed Doctor, Stephen Barrett. The purpose of that ring is to discredit anything that threatens the profits of mainstream industry and science amd to promote junk and pseudo science that supports those profits. Their sites, collectively, feature articles attacking CAM medicine, defending Aspartame, promoting a list they call The Top Ten Junk Science Stories (most of which are actually true), etc. Among the member sites are: Naturowatch Your skeptical guide to naturopathic history, theories, and current practices. Chirotalk: The Skeptical Chiropractic Discussion Forum ChiroTalk is a skeptical chiropractic discussion forum. The Nutritional Nonsense Blog A skeptical look at some of the questionable health claims and misleading marketing strategies used by Australian food and supplement companies. Does Aspartame Really Kill? This website is an independent rebuttal to the hysterical pseudo- science and conspiracy mongering that propagates across the Internet concerning aspartame, also known as Nutrasweet. Don't Believe in Alternative Medicine A frequently updated list of news stories that give reasons you shouldn't believe in Alternative Medicine. HomeoWatch Your skeptical guide to homeopathic history, theories, and current practices Acupuncture Watch The Skeptical Guide to Acupuncture History, Theories, and Practices. Science, skepticism, medical quackery, animals,evo This site has significant & growing info on medical, veterinary, nutritional quackery. In short, that group is against just about everything that I and this group stand for and I have no use for their self-serving claptrap whatsoever. I have no doubt at all that if ones searches far enough they will find mainstream rebuttals to virtually every thing I have posted here in this forum from day one. That is especially true when it comes to oleander, I might add. Now, as far as irradiation, Katzenstein should have stuck with the main theme of his own site - debunking global warming, where he is perhaps on much firmer ground, although clearly a mainstream tool nevertheless. When it comes to irradiation he is merely parroting the mainstream death givers who value profits more than human life and speaking out his nether end, the same as most of the member websites in that group do. The following is part of a post by one of the most respected members of the CureZone community: " Under the guise of " protecting us " from " microbial contamination " we will be slowly wiped out... Life, We each require a a symbiotic relationship with billions, perhaps trillions of good and neutral microbes (bacteria and yeast), both inside and out to not only keep the bad ones at bay... but to also help us break down absorb and manufacture nutritional substances through the digestive tract and skin... Unfortunately many articles like the following... http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/431698_3 only scratch the surface with " known " symbiotic bacterial relationships... I ask people to remember that " live " soil with healthy bacteria and life is REQUIRED for the best foods as the root systems of plants depend on the symbiotic relationships with bacteria in order to absorb nutrition from the soil... the exchange benefits the plants as well as the microbial life of the soil. This is basic biology\botony\organismal teaching... In turn, our lives depend on our digestive tract being ALIVE with symbiotic microbial life in order to reap the benefits from the foods ingested... Our digestive tracts are analogous to a plants root system... in terms of the symbiotic relationships they have with microbial life that enable life to thrive. IMO ANY sterilization of " life " forms, microbial or not can only be life inhibiting... causing sickness and eventual death for the organisms dependent upon a symbiotic relationship with it. Check out any land that has been sterilized of soil life with herbicides... I REFUSE to use sterilizing washes for my produce, or use any antibiotic, or sterilizing cleaners\ANYTHING, for these very reasons... I know some may be aghast at the previous statement and are concerned with " germs " but understand that these germs not only challenge and stimulate your immune system to react and protect you if bad, they also benefit you greatly with greater health and well being when good. There must be balance... why would we choose to upset it by killing the very thing that enables ALL life to begin with? " I agree with him completely! oleander soup , " ed4soup " <ed4636 wrote: > > How much of the research on this is " junk science? " > Found this article while surfing: > > > Killers of the Consumer Movement > > By Larry Katzenstein > > Our recent brush with anthrax-tainted mail, and the well-publicized > use of irradiation to disinfect it, has had one salutary effect: > Americans now realize that irradiation can safeguard not only their > mail but their food supply as well. After long being leery of food > irradiation, people are demanding it - which could mean far fewer > illnesses and deaths from E. coli, Salmonella and other foodborne > microbes. > > In 2000, a national survey by the public-relations firm Porter- Novelli > found that only 11 percent of consumers said they would buy irradiated > foods. But in a follow-up national survey last November, shortly after > the anthrax mailings, 52 percent of consumers said that the federal > government should require irradiation to help protect the food supply. > > Many foods can be irradiated, including fruits and vegetables, > poultry, eggs and red meat, but you'll have a hard time finding any of > them in stores. Since 1986, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration > first permitted food irradiation, America's leading consumer groups > have waged a smear campaign that has prevented the public from > accepting the process and the food industry from using it. With > surveys now showing irradiation winning favor, opponents are stepping > up efforts to vilify it. > > Those who demonize food irradiation play on two of our deepest > concerns: anxiety over food safety and, especially after Chernobyl and > Three Mile Island, mistrust of anything involving radiation. Opponents > claim that irradiation makes foods radioactive, taints food with > cancer-causing chemicals, offers the nuclear industry a way to recycle > radioactive wastes and-quoting from a Public Citizen statement issued > last year-allows companies to sell meat coated with " feces, urine, pus > and vomit. " > > All those accusations are false. What irradiation does is > " cold-pasteurize " food by exposing it to ionizing radiation (gamma > rays, electrons, or x-rays) that disrupts the DNA of contaminating > microbes. Since irradiation doesn't heat foods, it largely preserves > their taste, texture and appearance while reducing bacterial levels by > at least 99.9 percent. So a hamburger made from irradiated ground beef > tastes just as good as an ordinary burger but can be eaten rare, with > virtually no risk of illness and no danger from the treatment itself. > > Scores of studies over the past 50 years have affirmed irradiation's > safety, and many health organizations have endorsed the technology, > including the U.S. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control > and Prevention (CDC), the American Medical Association, American > Public Health Association and World Health Organization. Public- health > experts say that irradiation could be as important as pasteurization > and chlorination in preventing illness and death. > > Consumer activists are well aware of the scientific support for > irradiation's effectiveness and safety. But with their mindless > opposition to all things nuclear, they've chosen to ignore such > evidence-and to sacrifice thousands of lives every year rather than > allow a technology that uses radiation to become successful. > > The irony, of course, is that " cynical disregard for human life " is > the accusation activists love to level against Big Business. But when > it comes to killing, the consumer movement's success in stifling > irradiation makes corporations look like pikers. > > The CDC recently estimated that foodborne illness strikes 76 million > Americans each year and causes nearly 5,200 deaths. " At least half > those deaths could be prevented by widespread use of irradiation on > red meat, poultry and selected produce, " says Dr. Michael T. > Osterholm, a University of Minnesota bioterrorism expert and > food-irradiation proponent. " So over the past 10 years, " says > Osterholm, " it's very fair to say that irradiation could have > prevented 25,000 deaths. " > > Contrast those thousands of unnecessary deaths with the activists' > favorite example of corporate manslaughter: the exploding Ford Pinto > gas tank, which Ralph Nader plans to feature in his American Museum of > Tort Law. According to " The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, " published in > the Rutgers Law Review in 1991 by the late UCLA law professor Gary > Schwartz, a total of 27 deaths resulted. > > Several consumer leaders deserve special mention for their role in > depriving Americans of safe food: > Ralph Nader. Good judgment and Ralph Nader rarely intersect. During > his 2000 presidential campaign he came out against fluoridation, which > the CDC has called one of the 10 greatest public-health achievements > of the twentieth century. So it's no surprise that Mr. Nader - > coauthor of The Menace of Atomic Energy - staunchly opposes food > irradiation, which he recently called an " unproven and dangerous > technology. " More than anyone else, he is responsible for the consumer > movement's rigid opposition to new technologies, especially those > using radiation. > > Sidney Wolfe. Most physicians favor measures that prevent illness but > not Sidney Wolfe, one of the only healthcare professionals on record > as opposing food irradiation. As director of Public Citizen's Health > Research Group, Wolfe is best known for bashing the pharmaceutical > industry. But like his mentor Mr. Nader, Wolfe is rabidly antinuclear. > In 1976, in one of the consumer movement's more embarrassing moments, > Wolfe demanded an immediate ban on the sale of smoke detectors, > calling them " a mindless and dangerous technology " because they > contain minute amounts of a radioactive material, americium 241. He > takes a similarly misguided view of food irradiation, routinely filing > protests with the FDA when the agency allows new foods to be > irradiated and attacking food irradiation in the pages of HRG's Health > Letter. > > Michael Jacobson. This former " Nader raider " heads the Center for > Science in the Public Interest, famous for sniping at movie-theater > popcorn and other fatty foods. With his Ph.D. in microbiology from > MIT, Jacobson recognizes the value of food irradiation: " By > irradiating chickens we could save hundreds-perhaps thousands-of lives > and prevent millions of food-poisoning illnesses, " he wrote in CSPI's > newsletter. Yet for many years, Jacobson has done his best to alarm > the public about food irradiation, alleging among other things that > irradiation " may generate small amounts of toxic chemicals that may > contribute to cancer " -and using the technology to scare up money. He > has featured irradiation in letters to CSPI members, warning that > " zapping factories " may appear in their communities and asking for > contributions to " help us halt food irradiation. " > > Joan Claybrook. Public Citizen, the 150,000-member consumer advocacy > group founded by Ralph Nader, describes itself as " a potent > countervailing force to the might of Corporate America. " Under its > president Joan Claybrook, the group has certainly been a > countervailing force to food irradiation. Calling the technology " a > highly questionable procedure " in which " the nuclear industry and > agribusiness have joined forces, " Claybrook has made Public Citizen > the pre-eminent group opposing it. > > Public Citizen claims that 200 other groups have joined its " national > campaign to educate the public about the hazards of irradiated food. " > As part of that effort, Public Citizen has organized demonstrations > against stores carrying irradiated food and mounted letter-writing > campaign when food companies have expressed interest in using > irradiation. Mark Worth, who has spearheaded Public Citizen's > anti-irradiation effort, told the San Diego Union-Tribune last October > that " very strong theological beliefs " help fuel his opposition: " As > human beings, we have to accept the hazards of life, and E. coli and > Salmonella are part of life, " he said, adding that he also objects to > anthrax treatments and vaccines against smallpox and polio. > > It's hard to tell which is more dangerous for society: the > disease-causing microbes in food or the consumer groups that want them > to flourish. > > > > oleander soup , " Tony " @> wrote: > > > > Food Irradiation - " Protecting " Us? > > > > By Citizens for Health Vice President and Senior Policy Analyst, > > James Gormley > > > > Editor's Note: With irradiation once again in the news and > > irradiation of herbs now under consideration, this editorial is more > > timely than ever. > > > > The recent mass-media coverage of food irradiation has obscured the > > real issues. In truth: > > > > * The answer to a safe food supply depends on whether the mainstream > > food industry accepts its responsibility to clean up its act for good; > > * The fact that irradiation doesn't turn our food radioactive is not > > a relief considering its real dangers; and > > * The public is rightfully suspicious of this bizarre solution to > > very real problems with our food supply. > > > > Toxicologist Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., chaired a Food and Drug > > Administration (FDA) committee that investigated 441 studies on > > irradiated foods in the 1980s. In 1993, Dr. van Gemert issued a > > statement outlining why " those studies were inadequate to evaluate > > the safety of irradiated foods. " > > > > These are the studies which underpin the FDA's decision approving the > > irradiation of red meat: > > > > A 1975 clinical study in India, which appeared in the American > > Journal of Clinical Nutrition, looked at 15 malnourished children who > > were fed either irradiated or non-irradiated food. Eighty percent of > > the children fed irradiated food developed a pre-cancerous > > chromosomal disorder called polyploidy. A more recent study on 70 > > students in China (Chinese Medical Journal, 1987) also showed an > > increased rate of chromosomal abnormalities. > > > > In addition, the " unique radiolytic products " (URP's), or toxins, > > produced through irradiation include: known carcinogens such as > > formaldehyde (used in embalming) and naphthalene (used in moth > > repellents), and others. If this were not enough, essential vitamins, > > minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids are also destroyed at varying > > levels. > > > > And what about long-term effects? With carcinogens like > > formaldehyde, " It will take 30 years before you see increases in > > neoplasias -- leukemias and lymphomas, " warned George Tritsch, Ph.D., > > retired researcher from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and the > > New York State Department of Health. > > > > Whether it's Olestra yesterday, or irradiated food today, the FDA is > > sending a message to consumers that the public is not trusted to > > exercise personal responsibility or to observe the most basic food- > > preparation hygiene practices, respectively. More ominously, food > > processors will see this as the green light to continue to run filthy > > plants, to ignore sanitary food-preparation regulations, and to use > > their record of tragic poisonings and fatalities to force widespread > > irradiation on us. > > > > If public " demand " is in question, a CBS News poll found that, > > nationwide, 73 percent of those polled oppose food irradiation, and > > 77 percent say they would not eat irradiated food. > > > > So what will irradiation accomplish? > > > > 1) It will offer short-term litigation " protection " to food- > > processors, and will help them win huge food-chain contracts, > > > > 2) It will make irradiation companies very happy; and > > > > 3) It will fulfill the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) stated goal, > > through its Byproducts Utilization Program, to unload its stockpile > > of radioactive cesium 137 in order to drive Canadian cobalt 60 out of > > the market. > > > > " Irradiation of food is not a story of protection of the American > > public, " said Gary Gibbs, D.O., in his prophetic 1993 book, The Food > > That Would Last Forever: Understanding the Dangers of Food > > Irradiation (Avery Publishing, phone: 1-800-548-5757). " Rather it is > > a story of money, politics, and the embalming of the American diet. > > Food irradiation is a toxic time bomb. " > > > > http://citizens.org/consumer-corner/food-irradiation-protecting-us > > > > `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > > `````````````````` > > Please fight to keep our food from being irradiated~!! > > Just say NO to irradiated food. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Having the government and corporations protect us 'for our own good' against mircoorganisms in soil and food is like have Al Quaida protect us from our beliefs in the Bible. Keep your jeans and your genes away from my food! Or, I will resort to the DALEK perspective when you cross my path, "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!"Dr. Goebel Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.