10 Reasons to Condemn Food Irradiation

You will find that the mainstream media, academia, the food industry and government health agencies proudly and eagerly defend food irradiation.  For some reason, they seem to only be able to notice the many benefits they claim food irradiation imparts.

While it's true that food irradiation may impart some minor benefits, the reality is that the downside of these so-called "benefits" clearly presents significant problems only people without either a conscience or good scientific reasoning can possibly cogently deny or defend.  To make a potentially long story short, here are 10 solid reasons to condemn food irradiation:

1.  Most consumers can't tell what foods have been irradiated.  Actually, many consumers don't even know what food irradiation is--never mind keeping up with the special designations and labels that are supposed to accompany the practice.  This clearly presents a problem from a perspective of "right to know" policies and laws already in place. 

As a general rule, consumers are supposed to be provided with information about products (especially edible products) so that they can make intelligent, well-informed decisions.  It can be argued, however, that food irradiation isn't well-know enough and isn't being used as openly and transparently as it needs to be, if it were as safe and useful as those who promote it claim it is.

2.  Its safety hasn't yet been conclusively proven or established for human beings.  Some of the studies that have been conducted, for the record, were not long enough (lasting 5 years or more), used animals rather than humans, and in some cases didn't use suitable "controls" (i.e., subjects that were not subjected to irradiated foods). 

While animal studies can indeed provide adequate feedback as to whether something is safe for human beings, they simply aren't enough--which is why the pharmaceutical industry (which conducts the most intense clinical safety studies) uses human subjects in order to confirm or reject results of studies using animals. 

In general, food irradiation hasn't been subjected to the type of readily-available, verifiable, and conducted-by-non-conflicted-scientists long-term safety studies that are the only way to tell whether something is safe (especially in terms of carcinogenicity and teratogenicity) or not.

3.  It is too often deliberately hidden from the public.  The food industry plays the same puerile games with things like monosodium glutamate and GMOs; although they know (or should know) how toxic these things can be, they hide their presence either by giving them deceptive names or by refusing to clearly reveal their presence in foods.  Well, the same games are being played with food irradiation. 

How many people, for example, know that "electronically pasteurized" foods have been subjected to cancer-causing ionizing radiation?  And who is to say that countries shipping foods to the US are complying with US laws regarding food irradiation?

4.  It's too easy for food packagers/manufacturers to exceed irradiation limits and/or to violate any of the rules, regulations and limitations that are (for the sake of safety) imposed by government agencies.  It's assumed, for example, that foods in question are subjected to irradiation amounts that are not supposed to be exceeded; it's also assumed that the equipment being used is working well (thereby, in theory, delivering only the non-heat-producing dosages of gamma, X-ray and electron beam radiation needed or expected). 

It has also been claimed by some food irradiation proponents that this process doesn't change the nature of food much--something which we now know is false, as the unforeseen (and potentially harmful) production of 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs) and furan has proven.  For the record, food irradiation poses many legitimate health concerns.

5.  It's impossible to guarantee that foods won't pick up and exhibit residual radioactivity.  Of course, the food industry may have safety targets and may take all kinds of precautions but, when it comes to ionizing radiation, there are no guarantees. 

Just as no one can say that there is any amount of low-dose radiation that is perfectly safe (for, indeed, any exposure to radiation can, in theory, lead to disease or injury), there is no way to guarantee that exposure to gamma (X-rays or electron beams) radiation can ever be perfectly controlled or limited.

6.  Irradiation can alter or reduce the nutritional quality/value of foods.  To what extent food irradiation damages nutritional quality simply isn't known but this is definitely one of the potential problems/deficiencies of food irradiation.  Already, modern food is dangerously deficient in essential nutrients--this isn't up for debate. 

We know that this is especially true for meat products from animals grown in factory farms, for most packaged/processed foods, for fried foods, for microwaved foods, for fast food, etc.  The last thing we need is to expose foods to something that may further strip food of the very few nutrients we may still find in most foods people eat (especially in urban areas) these days. 

7.  It can damage or alter the enzymes in foods we need to properly digest foods.  Enzymes can be compared to "adaptors" for devices that need electricity to work.  An adaptor allows or makes possible the use of a safe amount of electricity for an appliance/apparatus; by the same token, an enzyme makes it possible for the digestive system to properly process and tap into the special nutrients in different types of foods. 

As such, they act as catalysts without which we wouldn't be able to properly digest most (if not all) foods. 

8.  It can lead to the development of cancer (or other medical problems) in the long run.  Here's the inescapable truth:  any amount of ionizing radiation (regardless of the dosage) can lead to cancer.  Using ionizing radiation to keep foods fresh longer may sound like a good idea on paper but, until we can guarantee that this process doesn't increase the chances of getting cancer, we need to remain wary and cynical.

Actually, you should know that the amount of gamma rays used in food radiation can be very high--the equivalent of 16 million chest X-rays in some cases!  This is not, however, what the public is told.

9.  There are much safer ways to preserve foods.  Look, the reality is that anything that kills microbes and pests (like fruit flies) can, in theory, also kill us . . . maybe not right away but what about in the long run?  Those so-called experts who insist that food irradiation is only dangerous to microbes and pests are, at best, playing the part of crystal ball decipherers. 

We need to stop looking for foods that will never spoil--actually, McDonald's has already made such a thing.  This is already being accomplished with the use of things like hydrogenated oils and lab-produced trans fats. 

While the foods injected with these artificial ingredients and toxic chemicals (i.e., nitrites, hexane, BVO, etc.) may last for a long time on shelves (because bacteria can't digest them or are killed by them), they may also be acting like embalming fluids in our bodies--i.e., they are in essence preparing those who consume them for burial, as outlandish as that may sound to some people.

10.  It is still highly experimental & is being pushed by people more interested in profit (by increasing food longevity) than they are in public safety.  Although food irradiation isn't exactly new to the scene, it is nevertheless "new" in terms of how long humans have been on this planet. 

To be more blunt, food irradiation hasn't been around long enough to conduct the many long-term safety studies that you would think should have been required before the process was given the green light.  Just as we don't really know how GMOs will ultimately affect humanity, we don't know how food irradiation will affect us in the long run.

Meanwhile, we are all basically being subjected, without either our consent or our input, to a very risky, poorly-thought-out Russian-roulette-type of an experiment. 

Conclusion

Even after reading an article like this one, some people will still defend food irradiation.  This should be especially egregious if the person(s) in question either works for the food industry or benefits directly from the technology in question.  In the old days, such a thing used to be called a "conflict of interest."

For your part, take a practical approach when it comes to experimental, mostly-unproven technologies like food irradiation.  Don't be afraid to ask for copies of the clinical studies and formal experiments that allegedly prove or support the fact that irradiated foods are perfectly safe.  Whether you get a copy or not, ask the following questions:

• Did the study/experiment involve just animals and, if so, why weren't humans utilized?
• How long were the studies (studies that don't last for 5, 10, 15, etc. years may simply not be accurate assessors of potential carcinogenicity since it may take that long to develop cancer)?
• Were controls used in the studies?  If no controls were used, the study may be meaningless.
• Is there such a thing as a perfectly safe low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation?
• Why are proponents of food irradiation so suspiciously excited/jubilant about this technology without the readily-available science to back up their seemingly excessive enthusiasm?
• Can you really trust government agencies like the FDA (which has been lobbied to take away package disclosure rules presently in place) to do what's best for consumers and to demand the safety studies that are yet needed?

Better yet, adamantly avoid foods that have been irradiated until the technology has been unquestionably proven to be safe for human beings (not just animals) in the long run.  The food industry is right when they tell us that we can't possibly avoid irradiation.  This is especially true thanks to on-going-ramifications disasters like Fukushima. 

Like it or not, much of our food and water these days is probably at least partially irradiated already.

What that tells me, though, is that the last thing any of us needs right now is further exposure to something we know for sure causes cancer.  There are simply too many questions and legitimate concerns buzzing around the issue of irradiated foods.  Would you rather take the side of caution or is playing Russian roulette with your health your thing? 

That's the question you need to answer ASAP.