The Scientists Speak Out on Irradiation

[Guest guest]

Scientists Speak Out--

 

Many in the scientific community are opposed to irradiation.

Here is a sampling of what they have to say.

 

Yes, gamma rays can kill harmful bacteria in food, but one big

problem is that they kill the helpful microflora, too. Bacteria are

not just agents of disease.... One need not be a Luddite to

recognize the cult of nuclear idolatry.

 

Geoffrey Sea, Director

Atomic Reclamation and

Conversion Project

 

There are potentially serious concerns about the issues of waste

disposal, engineering safety, transport of radioactive material,

production of new isotopes, handling by poorly trained personnel,

and others we havenÕt even thought of yet.

 

Sheldon Margen, M.D.

Professor Emeritus

University of California, Berkeley

 

I am opposed to food irradiation because it is clear that this

process increases the levels of mutagens and carcinogens in the

food. The inevitable consequence of this is that in two to five

decades in the future, the incidence of cancer will increase from

what we see now, in direct proportion to the amounts of irradiated

food consumed.... Thus, food irradiation becomes very expensive both

in terms of human lives, as well as health care costs....

 

George L. Tritsch, Ph.D.

Roswell Park Cancer Institute

Buffalo, NY

 

It is distressing to me that despite all the studies, many favorable

and many unfavorable, the FDA utilized only five safety studies....

 

I looked in detail at two of those studies. Each raises considerable

question. In one, the irradiated food was obtained from some other

group and we are never actually given any data to show that the food

was irradiated properly or even irradiated at all. Additionally, the

authors note an increase in abnormalities in dogs at autopsy and

then seem to feel that the abnormalities they found were meaningless

and should be ignored. In the other study from England, in the group

receiving the food irradiated most, there were increased deaths in

the offspring and this is completely ignored even though the authors

say there is no explanation for it.

 

To me, it is somewhat amazing that these are listed as two of the

five studies that are considered impeccable enough to be evaluated

for safety. Those studies have considerable imperfections. For the

FDA to selectively choose the five is, I believe, improper for

deciding safety....

 

Donald B. Louria, M.D.

University of Medicine & Dentistry

of New Jersey

 

I am not against food irradiation. I am opposed to the hype, some of

which is voiced by people who should know better and therefore

appear to be deliberate falsehoods.... I and others worked very hard

trying to find a useful place for irradiation during the Atoms for

Peace program. Unfortunately, we were not able to find it.

 

Noel F. Sommer, Ph.D., Emeritus

Postharvest Pathologist

University of California, Davis

 

The large scale irradiation of food, as proposed by the industry and

administration, represents the largest prospective toxicological

experiment in human populations in the history of public health.

 

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Professor of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine,

The University of Illinois at Chicago

 

What we do know with certainty is that irradiation causes a host of

unnatural and sometimes unidentifiable chemicals to be formed within

the irradiated foods, and that the number, kind, and permanence of

these foreign chemical compounds depend on the food itself and the

dose of radiation. Our ignorance about these foreign compounds makes

it simply a fraud to tell the public that Òwe knowÓ irradiated foods

would be safe to eat....it is dishonorable to trick people into

buying irradiated foods ... because such behavior is a violation of

the basic human right.

 

John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.

University of California, Berkeley

 

It has been shown repeatedly that mutagenic doses of formaldehyde

are formed during irradiation of carbohydrate. [Meat, although

protein, also contains carbohydrates.]....Anyone can choose not to

eat saturated fats and cholesterol, but once the food supply is

supplemented with mutagens, it will take massive efforts to dislodge

a well entrenched and financed industry which will deny to the end

that it is responsible for the inevitable increase in neoplasia

which in effect it has caused. Furthermore, the organisms remaining

in the irradiated food are by definition radiation resistant, and no

work whatever has been done on what these new organisms populating

the gastrointestinal tract and their progeny will do to man and the

environment....

 

George L. Tritsch, Ph.D.

Roswell Park Cancer Institute

Buffalo, NY

 

First, since we do not know what we are seeking in the experiments,

though they are designed with the best toxicological techniques

available, they can not prove the safety of the [irradiated] food in

question, but merely give us a measure of confidence that it is

safe. The ultimate test will be in the human after lifetimes or

generations of consumption.

 

Dr. Jacqueline Verrett

former FDA toxicologist

 

These studies reviewed in the 1982 memo from the FDA were not

adequate by 1982 standards, and are even less adequate by 1993

standards to evaluate the safety of any product, especially a food

product such as irradiated foods.

 

Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D.

Toxicologist and former chair

of an FDA irradiation committee

 

Radiation is a carcinogen, mutagen, and teratogen. At doses of

100,000 rads to fruits and vegetables, the cells of the fruits and

vegetables will be destroyed, but fungi, bacteria, and viruses

growing on the fruits and vegetables will not all be killed or

inactivated at these doses. They will be mutated, possibly leading

to more virulent contaminants. Has anyone addressed this problem?

 

Geraldine Dettman, Ph.D.

Radiation Safety Officer,

Biosafety Officer, Brown University

 

http://www.wildmatters.org/primer/scientists.htm