Did you know irradiated food is creeping into Australia?

Presently it would appear that there are no strict guidelines regarding this, and no requirement to label foods as having an irradiated component.

Reading the Irradiation Free food guide demonstrates we should be demanding to be told just what foods on our supermarket shelves have been irradiated, and that they should be clearly labelled.

Organic food is more expensive, but it would appear to be the only way at present to ensure our families aren't being poisoned.

Workers in this industry have to wear biohazard suiting when processing the food. This should tell us how dangerous is this practice.

Yes even Suschi has preservatives in it to give it a 2 day shelf life.

"Organic food is more expensive, but it would appear to be the only way at present to ensure our families aren't being poisoned."

Poisoned by irradiated food?

What are the poisons that are accumulating in irradiated food?

>>Did you know irradiated food is creeping into Australia?<<

It's not just food that gets irradiated: a lot of medical items - particularly disposable ones - are sterilized by irradiation just like some food. The band-aid you put on a cut, the tongue depressor your GP sticks in your mouth, the syringe you got your last flu jab with: there's a very good chance they've all been zapped with that nasty radiation stuff.

Will you be sticking to nice, healthy, organic leeches for your medical family's medical needs? It is the only way to make sure they aren't being poisoned by sterilized tongue depressors.

>>we should be demanding to be told just what foods on our supermarket shelves have been irradiated, and that they should be clearly labelled.<<

We are:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/foodirradiation/irradiatedfoods.cfm

>>but it would appear to be the only way at present to ensure our families aren't being poisoned.<<

Your family isn't being poisoned by irradiated foods. They are quite safe - probably a lot safer than they would be if they weren't zapped. Irradiated foods are no more radioactive than other foods. They won't give you cancer or radiation poisoning and sadly no matter how much you eat they won't turn you into Banana Man.

Irradiation does cause chemical changes in the food. This is an experiment you can try at home. Take two chicken thighs. Place one half on the bench and allow to come to room temperature. After this time come back and put the other thigh in your very own home food irradiation box TM - more commonly known as a 'microwave oven'. Set it it for an appropriate time and then watch as your chicken is irradiated to juicy tenderness or stringy dryness - the latter being more likely. Microwave irradiation isn't a great way to cook chicken. Still, I bet that irradiated chicken looks more appetizing than the raw bit. And despite all that irradiation it will be much safer to eat than the raw bit.

Cheers,

Tony

Bugsy,

The preferred method for irradiation uses cobalt 60, being cheaper alternative to caseium 137.This is a byproduct of nuclear reactors.

When ingested, most is excreted in faeces. However small amounts are retained in the liver, kidneys and bone tissue.

Spices are allowed to be irradiated up to 30Gy's, but poultry limit is 3 gy's. The theory is that the higher limit for spices is that they are only ingested in small amounts. Guess that depends on your culinary tastes, but our family uses copius amounts.

The Department of Health and Human Services have affirmed that ingested cobalt 60 can cause cancer.

Nowhere have I been able to find over what term one can safely ingest irradiated food until the amount retained in the body would cause cancer. Maybe this is because there have not been any sufficient long term studies?

As with cellular phones, there are plenty of studies showing the benefits, and decrying adverse effects. But for me, the fact that the above department confirms that cobalt 60 causes cancer is enough to convince me to steer clear whenever possible of irradiated food.

Tony,

A microwave oven uses non-ionising radiation, which is a whole different kettle of fish than cobalt 60.

BTW, we rarely use our microwave, and use a pressure cooker quite a lot when we cook to preserve as many nutrients as possible.

We prefer to eat raw food whenever possible which we grow organically. Took a while to get used to it, but as a member of my family has cancer, we try to eat as wholesomely as possible in the hope this will be beneficial. Who knows? Maybe we've left it too late already, but don't think it can do any more harm than has already been done by our past eating habits.

>>The Department of Health and Human Services have affirmed that ingested cobalt 60 can cause cancer.<<

Which might be a problem if you popped along to the food irradiation factory and ate their Co-60.

The Co-60 is used to irradiate the food with gamma rays. It isn't added to the food: that would be dumb. Gamma rays are high energy electromagnetic waves. When you switch off the light do photons stick about and contaminate whatever they were illuminating? It's the same with gamma rays: remove them from the food or the food from them and they're gone. There is no lingering radiation contaminating the food and the only changes have been the sterilization and some minor chemical changes. Unless you think the gamma rays transmute the organic molecules into Co-60 - which would come as news to a lot of nuclear physicists - I really don't see what the known dangers of Co-60 ingestion have to do with the supposed risks of food irradiation.

It isn't sufficient to simply assume that food irradiation is bad because it contains the word 'radiation'. You need to explain how and why these foods are dangerous - instead you've told us that eating industrial radioisotopes is a bad idea. Top marks for stating the obvious, fail for making a convincing argument.

Cheers,

Tony

Shouldn't vegetarians be more concerned that the foods they eat are irradiated by the sun?

There is only one thing to blame, that's the unrelenting demand for cheaper goods.

What else do we expect when wages are makimg many business suffer, yet, they (wages) are not enough to live on.

Dear worldwatcher,

From my understanding it is almost impossible to
measure specific long term effects of any one
chemical of low toxicity in human studies.

I guess as long as the food is labeled a person can
choose whether to buy it or not (or turn to "organic"
produce).

My understanding was that irradiation was entirely safe.
It killed food bacteria thus enhancing food safety and
extending the shelf life.

I suppose it all depends how much we trust the government
standards on what's safe and what isn't. However, I believe
that food irradiation is here to stay.

Any one who watched the medical show RPA last night would have seen that something once irradiated is perfectly safe to have near your body, or even in it.

A standard procedure was mentioned, where a part of a womans pelvis is to be cut out, irradiated with much higher rate than life can survive to kill a cancer, then put back to rebuild her pelvis cancer free.

Life, in this case the cancer is eradicated by irradiation, this has no long lasting effect in the thing treated.

Hasbeen,

If this was a recent procedure, how are they able to state there will be no long term effect?
As we now know, it can be many years before exposure to asbestos, or over exposure to the sun can manifest.

Give me a week, and I'll check on that. Partner's cancer is back again, and I'll ask the surgeon about that procedure you mentioned when we see him next week.

So worldwatcher, do you think they are sprinkling cobalt90 on our food?

Hi Lexi,

You made a good point about trusting government standards.
Years ago X-rays were deemed safe at a certain level. Later that was adjusted to a much lower and safer level.
Problem is it takes many years for enough research to give definitive answers.

A friend who is an eye surgeon said that although laser treatment has been used to correct vision for years now, he and his colleagues steer clear of it, because he feels there still haven't been enough years to evaluate the long term effects. They stick with wearing glasses.

Yes, irradiation kills some bacteria and improves shelf life. As Tony pointed out it's similar to turning off a light. However, it doesn't alter the fact that the food has been exposed to radiation, and while we are told that there is no residue, and that it is a safe procedure,I find it hard to believe that there is no residual effect, and need more than to be told it's safe.

After reading various articles on the subject of food irradiation, it appears that different countries have established differing 'safe' levels. I don't find that a comforting thought either.
Food irradiation depletes many of the essential vitamins and minerals our bodies need.

Then there is the problem of waste disposal, and the half life of the waste.

It appears that the real beneficiaries of this method are the nuclear energy producers.

Tony,

Irradiation doesn't need to pass toxicity tests as it is classified as a process, not an additive.

There have been adverse findings that irradiation produces free radicals, new chemicals are produced, and in fact it can actually increase clostridium botulinum if it is already present in the food treated this way.
Being non-selective, it destroys all beneficial to our bodies,bacteria too.

It also increases production of toxic aflotoxins [present in nuts, grains, fungi etc.] which are extremely potent carcinogens.

I accept that the medical profession uses irradiation on instuments which occasionally have been used in treatment for some people, but that is rather different than using it on food which we eat on a daily basis.

Many of the vital vitamins and minerals we need are depleted or lost, and studies have shown an increase in stillbirths when subjects were fed irradiated wheat.

As no maximum safe limits have yet been established,is it safe to assume that this is really an experiment on us?

Are the benefits worth it? Well maybe to the nuclear plants who have a way to use some of their waste. And after irradiating our food, what happens to the spent material, which has an extremely long half life?

You are obviously convinced that irradiated food is safe. I am equally convinced that it is harmful, and yes, I do still regard it as poisoning our bodies.

Bugsy,

No, I'm not that much of a whacko.
Maybe the statement should have been amended to say that this is the material used for irradiation. And no, I don't think [in the extremely unlikely event there was a severe accident at the plant] that we are ingesting it. But I do believe that this method of preserving food is harmful, and unnecessary. I've given the reasons in another post.

We have managed to live very well without our food being radiated. I fail to see that the benefits of increased shelf life are great enough to warrant it - forget the increased expense of treating the food this way - passed on to the consumers naturally.

And as we know cobalt 60 is a product of nuclear reactors, I'll also say I'm against those too. Think a lot of Japanese people would now agree with me.

For the ordinary people in Australia and many other western countries, this last century has probably been the best era in recent history, and we've been fortunate to have some new technologies we'd now find it hard to live without. For me, irradiation is not one of them.

WW,

The food that is irradiated never comes in contact with radioactive material, the food is subjected to gamma rays which is like a high engery light beam which sterilizes the food by disrupting the chemical processes in living tissue.

The irradiated food is indistinguishable after the process other than the bacteria being dead. I am certainly unaware of any reputable research indicating any adverse effects.

I majored in atomic chemistry at high school. %99.9 of the populace couldn't even tell you correctly what irradiation of an organic substance means. I get tired and frustrated of people who have complete access to the net, not taking the time to research it fully and draw correct conclusions. Radiation is spontaneous emmision, Irradiation is bombardment of a substance with specific electromagnetic rays designed by frequency to target harmfull organic substances without causing damage to the host of those substances.
I can't wait to buy food that has a shelf of 12 months instead of 12 days and have that food deficient in nutrents of less than %20 - I can live with that.

Well, you know what they say, pepper.

>>I get tired and frustrated of people who have complete access to the net, not taking the time to research it fully and draw correct conclusions.<<

You can lead a horse to water etc...

But clearly, this one ain't drinking.

>>You are obviously convinced that irradiated food is safe. I am equally convinced that it is harmful, and yes, I do still regard it as poisoning our bodies.<<

The good thing about statements like that, is that in order to make them, you don't actually need explanation or justification.

Or facts, come to that.

O.K. Pepper and Pericles,

I haven't gotten around to learning how to post links yet, but have some sites you may find interesting to read, and there are many more research papers on this subject too.
Medical News Today
Mindfully.org
Mercola.com

Pepper,
Although we did chemistry in our high school too, I didn't major in atomic chemistry as you did.
BTW, nutrient loss can be 20-80%.

As many others also studied at high school, I think you sell people short with your sweeping statement that 99% don't know the difference between radiation and irradiation.
However, 365 word limit doesn't allow for in depth discussion - that would take at least 1 book covering chromosonal damage, how many rads equal 1 Gy, effect on cell structure, free radicals, nutrient loss etc. etc. A post is not appropriate for a history lesson, so of necessity must be distilled.
Like many others, I am disturbed that when adverse effects have been found [and they have]through various studies and experiments, they are dismissed as negligible when compared to the so-called benefits.
Especially when long term effects are an unknown. Theories so far presented are just that. We should be asking for more facts on adverse findings, and more long term overall studies.

Shadow Minister,

Tuberose.com is a site worth reading. They have no vested financial interest in either promoting or decrying irradiation, but simply present facts.

If this article is correct, the longest study on humans who were given irradiated food is a mere 15 weeks.

To date, I've mainly read articles put forward by proponents of irridation with the assurances that it is safe. The more I read, the warier I become that official reports are not giving us the whole story - some of which they themselves don't presently know, as all the possible changes over the long term have yet to be discovered.
So while I understand the process, the beneficial effects just don't justify using it if there are also adverse effects on the human body, however slight we are told they are.

WW

Tuberose.com "This self-help alternative medicine site offers extensive educational information on the topics of natural healing" clearly has a vested interest in rubbishing anything that is not natural.

Irradiating food is one of the methods of preserving food, which includes Heating, preservatives, salting, pickling. No method leaves the food unaltered.

For a summary of decades of research with all the pros and cons:

http://fri.wisc.edu/docs/pdf/foodirrd.pdf

Shadow Minister,

I agree with you, no method of food preparation leaves the food unaltered, but still maintain that this process has increased potential to harm us when compared to those methods we have been using for many years, and we are fully aware of their effect.
The point I've tried to make is that we haven't to date been fully informed about irradiation because it is still under study. The link you provided was dated 1999 - 14 years ago

So far all the studies I've found appear to have been done prior to 2000, and am currently searching for more recent ones. The study done on malnourished Indian children was discontinued when chromosomal damage was noted. Likewise with the studies done on animals. Again these were terminated when adverse effects were noted.

Yes Tuberose has an interest in promoting alternative medicine, but the points they make have validity, as do others I have read which are offering facts without promoting anything other than awareness. These various organisations do not blindly accept what they are told, and without them we wouldn't hear of the downside of experiments.

Governments and powerful companies tend to skate over anything which may not conform with what they promote. For instance, the jury is still out regarding GM food, but it is already in widespread use. Monsanto is a typical example of a company which has tampered with nature to ensure increased profit.

Worldwatcher, if you truly have an interest in discussing scientific studies, then I invite you to use Google Scholar to find them. You will find plenty of recent studies done on irradiated food, with measurements on nutrient levels etc. There are studies even on aflatoxins and their reduction after irradiation.

I would be happy to discuss anything that is actually in the scientific literature and properly referenced. For a reference, the minimum required is the paper title, author, year published, so that we know which paper we are discussing. References to studies such as "the study done on malnourished Indian children" is not acceptable, as I cannot find what you are talking about.

What I won't do is discuss polemics on websites selling health supplements and 'detox' products.

Anyway, use Scholar and have an interesting time.

WW,

You "still maintain that this process has increased potential to harm us when compared to those methods we have been using for many years"

On what basis? Gut feel, or prejudice? Please feel free to show me how cooking food or preservatives are more harmful.