Scary word trumps reason

Does America have labeling requirements where as other countries do not?
 
Rolfe said:
I have heard of reasonable arguments against irradiating food, such as MRC Hans mentions. Including that irradiation doesn't get rid of toxins. However, the present debate doesn't seem to be being conducted on those grounds.

Reminds me of an SF novel set in a post-apocalyptic society (might have been John Wyndham's Chocky) where one of the things that was banned as "Anything suspected of being composed of atoms".

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Why exactly is not getting rid of toxins a reasonable argument against irradiation when the purpose of irradiation is purely to kill any micro-organisms that may be present? That is sort of like saying you shouldn't mow the lawn because you can't get rid of molehills that way...
 
Rolfe said:
Reminds me of an SF novel set in a post-apocalyptic society (might have been John Wyndham's Chocky) where one of the things that was banned as "Anything suspected of being composed of atoms".
Click to expand...


Well, it's chemicals innit?
 
One of Norway's larges E.Coli outbreaks in modern times came because a food producer caved to public demand and stopped using irradiated spices.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I could not find any recent polls on the topic, but I bet that if asked whether they would prefer irradiation over pathogens in their food, the vast majority would say yes.
Click to expand...

It might be a jump to believe that the majority of adult Americans can correctly define (food) irradiation and pathogens.

Furthermore, please note we are talking about a population that, according to JAMA https://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1835348 contains folks with the following beliefs

--37 percent believe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is preventing access to natural cures for cancer and other diseases because of pressure from drug companies.

--20 percent believe doctors and the federal government continue to push vaccinations even though they know they cause autism and other psychological disorders.

--20 percent believe health officials know cell phones cause cancer but are doing nothing because large corporations won’t let them.
 
Speaking mostly from ignorance, my thought is that there is beneficial bacteria in whatever is being treated, and the effects of those being destroyed also has not been determined.
 
I think that, no matter how many people are actually afraid of irradiation (or even understand it), that there are enough groups spreading scare stories about it that it would be difficult to convince food producers to adopt it widely. The same problem is affecting the wider adoption of GMOs and nuclear power. It isn't the individual American; it's lobbying groups.
 
We call infrared and UV "light" even though we can't see them. Radio and microwaves and all that are exactly the same thing. We could just call it all "light" to get away from the scary word, and leave radiation for alpha and beta particles.
 
You might think, "Hey, this is great, we'll get some X-Men," but there's a flipside: super-villains.
 
Ladewig said:
--37 percent believe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is preventing access to natural cures for cancer and other diseases because of pressure from drug companies.

--20 percent believe doctors and the federal government continue to push vaccinations even though they know they cause autism and other psychological disorders.

--20 percent believe health officials know cell phones cause cancer but are doing nothing because large corporations won’t let them.
Click to expand...
...and 70% believe in a magical sky pixie that grants wishes. But what percentage believe that irradiated food is radioactive?

casebro said:
Does America have labeling requirements where as other countries do not?
Click to expand...
Yes, the US is among those countries that require labeling of irradiated foods.

How Will I Know if My Food Has Been Irradiated?
FDA requires that irradiated foods bear the international symbol for irradiation. Look for the Radura symbol along with the statement "Treated with radiation" or "Treated by irradiation" on the food label. Bulk foods, such as fruits and vegetables, are required to be individually labeled or to have a label next to the sale container. FDA does not require that individual ingredients in multi-ingredient foods (e.g., spices) be labeled.
Click to expand...
However this tells us nothing about consumer resistance. I bet that the majority of consumers simply ignore the labeling, and most probably don't even know what the international irradiation logo represents. I welcome anybody to show otherwise.
 
Aepervius said:
You must be eating very evry RAW sushi for it to get cancer. All my food is dead by the time it reach my plate (barring yoghurt and similar stuff).
Click to expand...

But this kind of radiation kills by breaking DNA strands. It doesn't heat up your food and cook it. If you were going to cook it anyway, why irradiate? Isn't the reason to prevent spoilage? Something is living in there.

Face it. This plan is just going to produce mutants. There's no way to know what dangerous (or beneficial!) properties will be created. Once again, man attempts to play God and fails miserably.

I can't see the public buying cans full of radiation, at least when there's an alternative.
 
Rolfe said:
Reminds me of an SF novel set in a post-apocalyptic society (might have been John Wyndham's Chocky) where one of the things that was banned as "Anything suspected of being composed of atoms"
Click to expand...

Chocky wasn't post-apocalyptic. The Chrysalids was, but I don't think atoms ever came up in that book.

MRC_Hans said:
BTW, the comparison with micro-wave ovens is nonsense: The radiation in microwave ovens is ... drumroll ... microwaves. Microwaves are non-ionizing wavelengths. The ionizing wavelengths used in sterilization are a different ball-game, but there is absolutely no data to support that they should leave anything harmful in foodstuffs.
Click to expand...

True, particularly since there *are* people who refuse to use microwaves because of fears of radiation. A slightly better analogy would be those other methods of cooking which use infrared radiation to cook food...whaddya call'em...ovens and toasters!
 
I'm worried about this, we know that radiation kills the "good bacteria" too. The slaughter of billions of helpful bacteria just to kill the bad bacteria is like the drone strikes that will cause another 911. In the end, you're just making it easier for the bad bacteria to thrive.
 
ehcks said:
We call infrared and UV "light" even though we can't see them. Radio and microwaves and all that are exactly the same thing. We could just call it all "light" to get away from the scary word, and leave radiation for alpha and beta particles.
Click to expand...
But we don't call X-rays 'light' - for good reason. X-rays and gamma rays are potentially deadly at relatively low levels, and they are invisible so you don't know that you have exposed until it's too late. The fact they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation is irrelevant.

Changing the name might help, but there will always be a hard core of nutcases who won't believe it's safe anyway, if for no other reason than that the authorities are saying it is. The real question is what do consumers as a whole think of it, and does it influence their purchasing decisions? I bet that after recent outbreaks of food poisoning most people would want irradiation treatment of at-risk foods, so producers should be making them aware of its benefits.

MRC_Hans said:
The ionizing wavelengths used in sterilization are a different ball-game, but there is absolutely no data to support that they should leave anything harmful in foodstuffs.
Click to expand...
Actually that's not quite true. High levels of irradiation can damage food, reducing it's nutrient value or even making it toxic. Of course like most treatments it is quite safe when applied correctly, which is why it needs to be regulated and monitored.
 
Several people seem to saying we can't know the effects of such treatment, what with unintended consequences and killing good bugs and such. But haven't other countries been using this for decades?

I remember buying irradiated milk in the Caribbean over twenty years ago and assumed that Europe was in the same boat. Am I wrong on that assumption?

ETA: How long should we let the rest of the world run the experiment before we accept it may save some lives here?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Several people seem to saying we can't know the effects of such treatment, what with unintended consequences and killing good bugs and such. But haven't other countries been using this for decades?

I remember buying irradiated milk in the Caribbean over twenty years ago and assumed that Europe was in the same boat. Am I wrong on that assumption?

ETA: How long should we let the rest of the world run the experiment before we accept it may save some lives here?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought. What lives have been lost without it? I didn't realize the lack of irradiated food was a public health concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom