Talk:Food irradiation/Archive 2

Fresh start
After some heated debate I tried to give this a fresh start. I removed all statemens endorsing or opposing food irradiation from the technical sections which was the one consensus we were able to reach from mediation. I simplified the health issue section putting due weight on scientific consensus clearly mentioning the minority opinion. I also cleaned up the the economics section as there was a lot of information in there that was either incorrect or not directly economics related. Lastly I provided some review studies for the consumer acceptance area.

I hope that these edits are seen as good faith attemtps to move this towards consensus. Lets use this as a base line to improve on. RayosMcQueen 18:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and archived the talk page to continue the concept of this new start. Just remember, play nice everyone.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user "74.78.136.142" has changed last night (27.Nov.) lines 12 and 29 of the main text and deleted some valuable information. Furthermore some text has become scrambled. As I was about to arrange this article in order to qualify for 'GA', this action is not really helpful Dieter E (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

'electronic' pasteurization
This new terminology is not suitable and on top of all misleading: nothing is 'electronic' when food is processed by ionizing radiation. The term was coined by the former company Surebeam, now bankrupt. The company provided hamburger meat processed by electrons. The new terminology was intended to avoid the informative terminology of 'irradiation' which causes some concern for conscious consumers. The given reference no.2 to a consumer journal is not helpful and does not explain the case. I propose to delete this terminology after thorough discussion. The variety of terminologies as rudurization etc might be covered elsewhere. Dieter E 13:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that the terminology is misleading. FDA, however, is currently in process of finalizing rulemaking that might allow processors to utilized the term if the outcome of the treatment is comparable to pasteurization. My suggestion would be to mention the term but mention that it is controversial. As to the other terms like rapperdization I was wondering who actually still uses them. I certainly haven't heard them in a while. Maybe we should delete those and focus on the different treatment goals. Let's discuss this. Arved Deecke 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA is NOT the US situation! For this reason the entries need to be international; there might be a niche to mention certain specialities and variances in the US that are not relevant for the 'rest' of the world. Furthermore 'processed by electron' would be factual; 'electronically' would refer to electronics/electronic circuits what is clearly misleading. Dieter E 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You clearly have a point here, Dieter. I did not bring up the FDA proposed rule to endorse the term, which personally I strongly dislike for several reasons, but rather to suggest that there might be more people in the future coming to Wikipedia trying to understand what cold pasteurization or electronic pasteurization is. I think the best service is to clearly let them know that we are really talking about food irradiation but raise the term to help them make the link. Arved Deecke 05:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The REFERENCES given for 'electronic' as well as for 'cold' pasteurization are not really useful. This INTERNET-arcticle mentioning cold pasteurization is not a really basic one like in some monography. The article mentioning electronic pasteurization is not in the public domain, but in an obscure, not internationally accessible journal. PLEASE provide more pertinent references! Dieter E 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Radurization, Radappertization and Radurization
In my experience I have not heard any usage of these terms in recent publications or symposia. It seems that they never quite caught on. I would be interested to know, if you feel that we should focus on actual treatment goals and doses in gray rather than this specific nomenclature. I did a google query on these terms and there are thousands of websites who use them, so I might be off, as well. Arved Deecke 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the terms are not that common. I could do this either way. RayosMcQueen 15:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC).


 * I have now restructured the article according to low, medium and high dose applications but give some basic definition for radurization, radappertization and radurization. Let me know if you think this is an improvement. RayosMcQueen 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In order to maintain the readeability of the article I have moved user:Dieter E's background information on radurization, radappertization and radurization to dedicated articles.Arved Deecke 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I had asked RayosMcQueen to move all (my original) contribution on RADURA and the RAD-terminology into a single entry in order to enable the reader to enjoy a full and comprehensive article. Unfortunately no response yet. Dieter E 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Structure of sociological aspects
I went over the Issues and Concerns section and broke them out into a market and a safety section. Let me know what your thoughts are. RayosMcQueen 15:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives section
I also tried to clean up the alternatives section. I am sure the list of alternatives is incomplete. Who can help? RayosMcQueen 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

SOMEONE had added the following text:
 * 'The issue with this is that children who are not exposed to any of the normal bacteria present in these foods will not develop any natural resistance to those bacteria which might be harmful, potentially leaving them vulnerable to infection if they should encounter such bacteria elsewhere.'.

This sentence has no foundation in sound science! This might be the reason that the contributor was unable to provide a reference. As not all food will be irradiated or treated by any other method of food processing to sterility, the situation depicted, that children will never be exposed to the normal bacteria, will never occur. For such reasons it will be deleted.Dieter E (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Also it should be noted that HACCP is a generalized, preventive approach to reduce the load of food by pathogen microorganisms below a critical level so that any health hazard to the consumer is eliminated. Dieter E (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dosimetry and Dose
I included sections for dosimetry and dose. An expert should review this to make sure its accurate. RayosMcQueen 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried already to add a little bit. Dieter E 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Food irradiation - second entry
The situation of the European Community is false and totally scrambled; I will try to provide a correct report with appropriate references. Ref.6 is a secondary source; ref. 7 & 8 give only a limited view of the whole picture! Dieter E 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be very interesting Arved Deecke 03:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now revised the article and rewritten the section on the EU situation. Dieter E 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

references and notes
It is ultimately necessary to verify any reference and the accessibility of the document; for a number of references the correct and complete bibliographic data need to be provided/amended. As the references under 'notes' are mainly URLs, it is indispensable to check the respective availability and to add as a proof 'last accessed at ...'. For the purpose of an article in WIKIPEDIA it might be disputable to use references to ordinary newspaper articles, except when it refers to a political or emotional action. Dieter E 17:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of replications in the list of cited references (eg. search for 'blackwell'). Is there any technique with the WIKI-markup-language to convert those into a single refence number? Please assist! Dieter E 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * this issue has been resolved meanwhile! Dieter E (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Some references (eg. search for 'blackwell') do not lead to any information, but to a list of thousands of pages. This is not acceptable by the principle and needs to be replaced by a puctual reference to the page and the document where the cited information can be accessed. Dieter E 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * no reaction has been observed; no-one is willing to defend the 'blackwell'-reference. I have replaced it by the citation of the only available monography by JF Diehl. Dieter E (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Radura
I moved some of the excellent background information on the Radura provided by User:Dieter E to its dedicated article as I found that the inclusion in the food irradiation article impaired readeability.Arved Deecke 03:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the several entries with background information (cf. RADURA, Radurization, Radappertization, Radicidation) have been extracted and moved to separate and independent entries of WIKIPEDIA. However, now some readers propose to shift such materials back into the original main article, for the reason that the isolated text pieces are just a 'nut-shell' for a reasonable article. Who is willing to help? Dieter E (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some principalist has removed the 'true' RADURA-logo as uploaded by myself because of some obscure 'copyright exspiration'. There is no copyright for the RADURA as explained in my contribution. And WIKIPEDIA has no 'public domain'-tag for the situation of no existing copyright. I had asked for support about this problem through WIKI-provisions. But not yet received any suggestion.

For this reason I have restored the situation before my upload, which is the US-FDA version of the logo which is NOT the international version as fianlly implemented in CODEX ALIMENTARIUS.

Dieter E (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE ALSO: The RADURA-logo provided (the jpg-file, with filled 'leaves') is the international one; US use a different design (the svg-file, with empty 'leaves'). Dieter E (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My article about the RADURA-terminology is now out of print: D.A.E. Ehlermann, The RADURA-terminology and food irradiation, Food Control 20 (2009), 526-528, doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.07.023; it is also referenced in the main article. Dieter E (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominate for GOOD Article

 * PLEASE! do not change the title of a section which had been originally created to nominate for a 'good article' according to WIKI-procedures. Dieter E (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (Explanation for the today reader: Palomaris had changed the headline for this section to read "Nominate for BAD Article". Dieter E (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Palomaris! You have changed again the title of this section! The original proposal had been, to nominate this article for GA within WIKI-rules. As far as I know, there are no WIKI-criteria for 'bad article'. Hence abstain from changing this section title, I consider it vandalism. You are free to insert a new section with your ideas about 'bad article' and to find the lines along WIKI-rules to come to such judgement. Dieter E (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the new found stability and quality of the Article I nominate this article to be classified as a Good Article.


 * I nominate this article as a bad article, given its bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.105.69.68 (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither proposal for GOOD nor for BAD article are accompagnied by detailed arguments. The allegation that the present version is bad because of bias is unfounded. The article even makes reference to allegations from opponents to food irradiation. Hence, the reader is enabled to compare arguments and to make up his own position/mind. Dieter E (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be divided into at least two main sections, one for those who just love to eat or sell fundamentally damaged food for fun and/or profit, and one section for those who don't want it forced on them without clear and obvious labeling. Those in the former group should allow the latter to present a case that it is not a wholesome thing and there needs to be clear and obvious labeling of the food as ionized material. The article is biased as there are repeated reassurances to the reader that everything is safe, while poopooing opposing ideas.  Take out all the sentences with "safe" in them and the ionization of food starts to look quite scary.  As far as being able to make up one's mind, recall that a drop of truth will help the lie go down.  The article mentions allegations from opponents but doesn't allow them on the page with the pro arguments, thus forcing the reader elsewhere for a different POV.  The article obviously has a POV that ionization of food is just peachy keen.  Don't force people to eat it without knowing, and please don't force opinions down their throats either.


 * So do it, but do it with references and in an encyclopedic style. So far, every attempt to add opposing viewpoints to this article has been sophomoric and not in keeping with Wikipedia's style. For instance, you haven't even signed your Talk page entry with four tildes nor have you indented your discussion so that it can be visually separated from the preceding one. Please get familiar with Wikipedia's editing style and rally your writing skills to match the tone of what's already here. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OPINIONs are free, but please state them in your contributions as opinions, not as facts.

IN CASE you are at variance with international and national expert bodies, with the 'mainstream of science', please provide evidence and references.

It is ridiculous to propose to divide this article into two sections


 * one for those who just love to eat or sell fundamentally damaged food for fun and/or profit,
 * and one section for those who don't want it forced on them without clear and obvious labeling.

There is no such group of people wanting expressedly to eat food 'fundamentally damaged'. And there is also a clear labelling of irradiated food.No one is forced to eat irradiated food without knowing about the treatment; if you hold for the contrary, please provide evidence.

WHOLESOMENESS of food processed by ionizing radiation has been proved; no other food process ever has been studied with such extension and intensity.

POOPOOING opposing ideas: the point is, that facts based on sound science prove that irradiated food is wholesome; opponents fail to provide evidence and to report scientific results, which can be szudied and reproduced by other groups of researchers.

And please abstain from VANDALISM by inserting a copy from a 2001 pamphlet by 'organicconsumers' repeatedly at varying places into the main text body. (as proven by Revision as of 16:14, 9 May 2008 by 222.105.69.68) Dieter E (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to see your substantiated contributions! Dieter E (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * MEANWHILE, Palomaris is even confessing to vandalize this article. I try to stay calm and to respond exclusively on arguments as far as those become visible. He tried repeatedly to smuggle in material taken from pamphlets by Organic Consumers, destroying the structure of this article, misplacing the text; he damaged references; he did not provide correct bibliographic data for documents from Organic Consumers (what I corrected).


 * Under discussion the comments by Palomaris are welcome: here is the place for dispute. In order to allow the reader to read the original flow of thoughts, I have inserted here only consecutive tag-numbers and my comments are collected below. Palomaris' comments are not on the content of the article, but on the possible vested interests of the contributors.

Dieter E (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I used to think wikipedia was a good source of information [1] until I encountered this page. The good folks who control this page seem to be very knowledgeable [2] about the process of irradiation, seeming to imply that they are involved in the process somehow besides being an average food consumer [3]. As far as sound science and research, it is well known that the researchers have to put bread on their table [4] as well, and it is also interesting to consider the sources of their funding [5]. Confidence is eroded again. To restore confidence in wikipedia, it is hoped that the subtle and not so subtle references to the wholesomeness of the process be eliminated [6], as it is opinion nevertheless [7]. While such exists in the page, it is only inviting alternative input [8]. Please refrain from listing all (all ??) the studies and research [9] because they don't hold complete and true creditability [10]. They CANNOT when funding sources are considered [11]. Please just stick to relating the process itself [12] and do not cite anything about its safety and wholesomeness without allowing alternative studies [13] to be entered. As for going through all the correct wikipedia protocol, please let me know if you will allow a place for some research and scientific references and information that disagree with your programme without being censored [14]. I get the feeling that the good folks who control this page are not very receptive to such, and will always cite some protocol regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palomaris (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as clear labeling goes, please see the following news article [15];

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-04-food-radiation_N.htm

Dieter E (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * and here come the comments by Dieter E:


 * [1] WIKI IS a good source, still and because of the free watch-dogs observing activities, blocking vandalism etc. including such attempts as inserting text stolen from the WEB-pages of Organic Consumers repeatedly at several locations into the WIKI-text.


 * [2] The people who control the activities are not (and need not to be) the experts neither of the process of irradiation nor of food irradiation; they just adhere to a limited numbers of basic rules for WIKIPEDIA.


 * [3] It cannot be the 'average consumer' or the layman who controls the contents of WIKIPEDIA; however, only the volunteer experts. For my contribution, everybody can easily find out about my professional and expert background, and about my funding. But it should not be forgotten, that the readers are the average consumer and the laymen; Hence, such articles must address their needs for information.


 * [4] Of course, there have always been scientists 'modelling' the results of their work to the ideas of their employers; there have been fraudulent and faked publications. But this does not prove that proponents of food irradiation belong to this category; and t does likewise not prove that the opponents have the better and valid arguments.


 * [5] Having worked nearly 40 years in the field, being payed exclusively by the Federal Government of Germany, my funding is known to the public. Now I am retired from Federal service.


 * [6] This allegation is not founded. However, it is obvious that opponents are not ready to consider the full wealth of information available but prefer to restrict themselves to selected information which supposedly supports their position. This can also be observed in the discussion of other disputed topics such as environment, global warming, nuclear power, global trade etc. Confidence need not to be restored here; it depends on the reader to invest enough energy while considering the information presented and to make up his own mind.


 * [7] The crucial question about food irradiation is whether it is wholesome to eat irradiated food. If not, there is the justification to regulate and control the process. Hence, scientific research, published results, founded judgement of national and international, competent expert bodies is the pre-requisite for the regu-latory decisions. And such summaries and judgements are not only opinions, but the only reliable foundation for regulatory decisions. Opponents are free to challenge such decisions by providing new evidence based on sound science. Hence, it is indispensable to provide sufficient references on sound science and not only opinions without clear sources from opponents and consumer activists. This is also one of the principles of WIKIPEDIA discriminating between facts substantiated by references and just opinions and believes. Even opinions expressed and cited need to be proven by pertinent references (who, when and where).


 * [8] There is a fundamental problem, what could be 'alternative input' as proposed. Is opinion opposing the mainstream of science already 'alternative'?


 * [9] There is no way to list 'all studies'; hundred years of research have created ten-thousands of scientific publications, a large portion covering wholesomeness. And there was no attempt to list all studies; those might be found through a number of bibliographies on the topic.


 * [10] It is an unfounded allegation that those publications 'don't hold complete and true creditability'; any proof for this negative judgement is lacking, even no indication is given.


 * [11] As the believe is expressed that funding sources determine the results of scientific research, there is a need to prove this allegation by reliable documentation; and specifically for those studies which are not accepted. For example: who has funded the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on Food Irradiation of 1980, who has paid the participants and how has this influenced the results of this JECFI published in 1981?


 * [12] 'relating to the process itself' essentially can only be to use pertinent references to sound science and abstain from considering 'free-lance' opinions.


 * [13] In science, there are no 'alternative' studies; any study regardless of the results must be considered without discrimination. However, there are always alternative opinions and conclusions at variance with previous conclusions which need to be contrasted with the mainstream of science. And the resulting disputes about the wholesomeness of irradiated food need to be settled in order to come to regulatory decisions. Such disputes are a basic pre-condition for the progress of science. And the outcome of this procedure at present is. that irradiated food is safe to eat without reservation. This is documented for the USA through publications in Fed.Reg.


 * [14] There is no 'censoring' with WIKIPEDIA! However, contributions without giving the traceable source are not acceptable. Repeatedly, vandalism has happened on this page. Even attacks had to be handled previously by WIKI's processes of mediation and arbitration. Such anonymous assaults must not become part of WIKIPEDIA! Putting a lot of my private time and energy into this article about food irradiation, I have tried to convince several recognized consumer organizations to contribute and to co-operate; unfortunately, without success. You, Palomaris and any other person, would be welcome to contribute 'scientific references and information' which are at variance with the present main body of this article. And the arguments explaining and resolving that variance can be exchanged on the discussions-page.


 * [15] An article from a newspaper - as proposed by Palomaris - can be interesting; in this case about some development in USA. But this article does not provide any evidence or information, what the real world-wide situation could be. However, please consider that USA is not the navel of the world. As it regards labelling of irradiated food, Codex Alimentarius is the fundamental standard which was established in world-wide consent including USA. However, USA has not implemented this standard nationally; USA has also not implemented the Codex Alimentarius General Standard on food irradiation which allows for any kind of food without any upper dose limit. Also the European Union has not adopted this standard on food irradiation, but implemented the standard on labelling without exemption: consequently, even irradiated ingredients must be labelled in dilutions down to the last molecule. And the EU has implemented food control procedures, the results are annually published in the Official Journal. Many other countries world-wide have differing regulations and labelling rules. All this complex situation has to covered in a WIKI-PEDIA article on food irradiation which is not confined to the situation in USA.


 * Dieter E (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, wikipedia is a good vehicle for knowledgeable folks like Mr Dieter to inform the public. And indeed, the US should not be regarded as the navel of the world, but there is a German wikipedia that Mr Dieter can write on to all Germans, although it would be a shame as well that they should be told food irradiation is God's gift to mankind. Mr Dieter should realize that many people do not agree with his repeated assurances that irradiated food is safe to eat without reservations. Scientific studies like his citations are often just "expert opinions" that are bought and paid for by someone with something to sell. Surely one could find some dated expert opinions that thalidomide is perfectly safe. Otherwise it would not have been given out so readily and so much misfortune caused. Why can't someone describe the irradiation process without citing all the expert opinions that reassure us of its complete safety? Why? Because the process in and of itself doesn't sound wholesome without some expert telling us that it is. Even then it does not seem wholesome, because all one has to do is to look at some bubble chamber images of atoms being disemboweled with ionizing radiation to see that it is not the most wholesome thing to do to what people have to eat. Consider a cow who is irradiated while alive and healthy. The poor animal would become sick and grotesque through and through, and would anyone think of eating meat from the cow then? A: No, not unless you were starving. Plants might fare slightly better because they are simpler organisms, but even still, irradiating plants while they are alive makes them sick. Here is a quick quote about irradiating rice plants..."Dose-dependent growth suppression was seen three days post-irradiation (PI), and all the irradiated plants died by 15 days" Is irradiating plant and animal tissue after cultivation or slaughter any better? Common sense would tell anyone that given a choice, one would go with non-ionized foods.

It is fine for Mr Dieter that the industry has been kind to him and allowed him to retire, but he and others in the industry are a very, very, very small minority, and everyone else will not be able to make a career out of and retire on careers pertaining to radiation of foods. Furthermore, Mr Dieter probably didn't have to eat ionized foods when growing up. Mr Dieter probably knows which items on the grocery shelves are irradiated, but most others have to remain more or less clueless and uninformed. In the wikipedia article Mr Dieter sounds excited by the prospect of lessening restrictions on labeling. Maybe he can come around to the fact that not everyone shares his enthusiasm, and may resent his patronizing attitude on the issue.

So, Mr Dieter's article would be fine if he left out all the assurances to the reader that ionizing the food supply is the most wholesome thing, as well as all the citations to the expert opinions which are called scientific study. Why not leave that material out of the wiki article and publish it all a work in a journal under his name about why irradiation is wonderful. His knowledge about the process itself is appreciated, but his patronizing attitude about its wholesomeness is not. It's all about erosion of clear labeling that is worrisome and wondering what on the shelves has been ionized. Finally, it would be satisfactory if Mr Dieter removed the bias for the wholesomeness of ionization and let the details of the ionization process involved stand alone on its merits, and let the readers formulate their opinions themselves if they want to eat such foods or if they don't care. For millions of years people have had to eat food with insects, mold, and bacteria in it. But only for a very short time have people begun to consume ionized foods. It is impossible to have an expert opinion on the subject. I will stick with the insects and bacteria and mold, and I would like to have a choice in and information on what I am buying at the supermarket. Palomaris (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Any time you find solid supporting arguments for your beliefs you'll be able to put them into the article. The more you do that, the more it will become everybody's article (rather than Dieter E's)
 * it was never 'my article'; many others before me have introduced and expanded this text; and this article has seen several attempts of vandalism; I joined only some time ago; see the history! Dieter E (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * and the less you'll feel the need to post inane rantings about completely unrelated subjects such as the effects of radiation applied to living plants and animals. This article is about food. Please limit your talk entries to the topic of discussion. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Inane rantings? In case one hasn't noticed, the scientific community now tells us that through research it is found that we as humans have a symbiotic relationship with organisms such as bacteria, and when missing, can cause imbalances in metabolism.
 * true, so far

You are talking about eliminating all these beneficial bacteria, as they would die off much quicker in ionization processes than the harmful bacteria.
 * FALSE, by the principle; only sterilization is about complete elimination!

Humans have lived and evolved in parallel with such bacteria for millions of years. Some folks controlling the food ionization page are slightly behind the times scientifically. Imagine yogurt, cheeses, vinegars, beers, wines, etc, all ionized.
 * MISLEADING, not 'all' food can and may be irradiated.

Not only have the beneficial bacteria been killed off, leaving the resistant bad bacteria, the atoms and complex molecules of the substance have had their guts
 * atoms and molecules don't have 'guts'. Dieter E (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

splattered all over from high energy radiation.

It is well known that the longer the shelf life of a food, the lesser the nutrition and the greater potential for harm.
 * NOT TRUE, no proof given.

Perfect examples are saturated and hydrogenated oils and fats.
 * food irradiation has nothing to do with trans-fats. misleading argument again. Dieter E (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

New York has banned trans fat oils from restaurants. Are there studies that say trans fats are safe? Of course there are.

It is naive of the previous writer to distinguish between living things and food, as they are obviously the same.
 * OKAY: but only some food are 'living', ie the organs of plants as fruit and vegetable. Any prepared or processed food is no longer such 'living entity'! Is a fried chicken wing living? Is a hamburger patty before frying still living? Are alcoholic drinks living?

But the good folks that control the page keep missing the main point.
 * Your argument is not the 'main point'; further, it is not overlooked in the discussion.

If I don't want to eat sugar or salt it is possible to look at the label. Are sugar and salt completely safe? A: No.
 * NOTE: only dose makes a poison, PARACELSUS.

We know they are not, and many should avoid them. Can you show they are safe and wholesome through a scientific study? A: of course, just feed them in large quantities to some animals for awhile and then analyze them before they develop sugar and salt diseases.
 * NOTE: this is the only available approach of science to determine 'no-effect levels' as the foundation of regulations.

I am not asking for anyone to stop food ionization, just like I am not asking anyone to stop putting sugar and salt into canned goods. I just want a clear and consistent way of being able to identify foods that have been ionized and for no one to try to patronize me about how wholesome they are. It is sad to see the wikipedia abused and exploited by propaganda from the industry.
 * NO PROOF is given for the accusation that industry abuses this WIKI-page. Dieter E (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Palomaris (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE, adhere to the principles of WIKIPEDIA, contribute and give appropriate references. Dieter E (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody in the health industry is unaware of bacteria's role in human physiology. I'd love to see studies that examine the health of individuals who begin to eat a wholly sterile diet--I imagine that their internal flora (bacteria in the bowels) would continue to thrive in place for quite some time. But who would ever be subjected to such a diet? Not even astronauts... By far the majority of people will be ingesting microbes from food preparation surfaces, utensils and their fingers along with a tiny amount from the air when they eat their newly-opened package of irradiated food. There could even be bacteria on the outside of the food package. It's virtually impossible to completely eliminate bacteria from the diet. Aiding the shelf life of food by reducing bacteria within that food package will never reduce the number of bacteria within you.


 * At any rate, we're still waving ideas around without having them supported by studies. It would be very interesting to see "guts splattered" studies looking at what ionization artifacts are created and what those do to one's health. Until such studies are found, the discussion is conjecture. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have copied here the contribution by Palomaris dated 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (in order not to break the flow of his considerations) and inserted, marked by indention, my comments:

Indeed, wikipedia is a good vehicle for knowledgeable folks like Mr Dieter to inform the public.
 * my code-name for WIKI is "Dieter E"; please respect this; and not only folks like me, but everybody is invited to contribute!

And indeed, the US should not be regarded as the navel of the world, but there is a German wikipedia that Mr Dieter can write on to all Germans,
 * there is already a German-wiki article, introduced by other people and amended by my contributions. However, I am a scientist and internationally recognized, hence I am qualified to write not only to Germans, but to the world-wide community. WIKIPEDIA is international regardless of the language used! And it is missing respect for me and my efforts to propose that my contributions could be good enough for Germans, but not for the international community. (respect the rules of WIKIPEDIA!)

although it would be a shame as well that they should be told food irradiation is God's gift to mankind.
 * it is never a 'shame' to report about the truth and the facts! I have never stated that "food irradiation is God's gift to mankind". Do not fake my statements or intentions!

Mr Dieter should realize that many people do not agree with his repeated assurances that irradiated food is safe to eat without reservations.
 * I know well that certain people (not many, but especially aggressive ones) for reasons based on ideology and believes but not on facts cannot agree with facts and conclusions based on sound science. They are free to do so, but they are not free to control the general community, to enforce their opinions on everybody and to prevent other people from enjoying the fruits of research and development, including irradiated food.

Scientific studies like his citations are often just "expert opinions"
 * scientific work is never just opinion; conclusions drawn from the experimental results, of course, are expert opinions, but with sound foundation. And those conclusions have to stand the dispute within the scientific community. But should we rely on laymen's pre-occupations and on activists' ideologies, instead?

that are bought and paid for by someone with something to sell.
 * this allegation is unproven: who is paid, by whom and for what?? and how did this influence the results??

Surely one could find some dated expert opinions that thalidomide is perfectly safe. Otherwise it would not have been given out so readily and so much misfortune caused.
 * this is not the place to discuss the thalidomide-issue. However, you must note that the story was quite different.

Why can't someone describe the irradiation process without citing all the expert opinions that reassure us of its complete safety? Why?
 * everybody is free to describe food irradiation or the irradiation process (ie industrial methods of radiation processing of a wide range of goods and objects) without referring to its 'complete safety'. There is no such technology which is completely free of hazards and risks. The essential point is the judgement of the balance between benefits and risks. And the judgement by the mainstream of science and competence is that the benefits of food irradiation by far outweigh the possible risks.

Because the process in and of itself doesn't sound wholesome
 * the measure can never be how a process (more exactly the name of a process) 'sounds' to the layman but what its proven properties are.

without some expert telling us that it is. Even then it does not seem wholesome, because all one has to do is to look at some bubble chamber images of atoms
 * a bubble chamber does not provide any images of atoms; instead it makes visible the process of ionization and the energy transfer along the trace of high-energy particles.

being disemboweled
 * there are no 'bowels' with matter and atomic structure.

with ionizing radiation to see that it is not the most wholesome thing
 * the wholesomeness of processed food does not depend on the principle of energy transfer but on the chemical changes induced. For such reasons a classical barbecue is always rich in newly formed cancerogene chemicals! but accepted without any concern because of the good taste generated while they are formed.

to do to what people have to eat. Consider a cow who is irradiated while alive and healthy.
 * no-one would do such experiments; however, life microorganisms, insects and parasites can be eliminated by such effects without impairing the nutritional quality of the food they live on.

The poor animal would become sick and grotesque through and through, and would anyone think of eating meat from the cow then? A: No, not unless you were starving. Plants might fare slightly better because they are simpler organisms, but even still, irradiating plants while they are alive makes them sick.
 * mutation breeding of plants is an established technology, and one of the tools is small doses of ionizing radiation. Doses needed to eliminate insects, parasites and microorganisms would kill a man immediately; however, what is the argument.

Here is a quick quote about irradiating rice plants... "Dose-dependent growth suppression was seen three days post-irradiation (PI), and all the irradiated plants died by 15 days" Is irradiating plant and animal tissue after cultivation or slaughter any better? Common sense would tell anyone that given a choice, one would go with non-ionized foods.
 * unfortunately, the source for this citation is missing! I would be interested to learn what the experimental details have been, in particular about doses applied, and about the purpose of this study.

It is fine for Mr Dieter that the industry has been kind to him and allowed him to retire,
 * it is an offence to me to impute that 'industry' is paying my pension; it is the Federal Government of Germany as communicated previously and, hence, the community of tax-payers. But if paid by industry and enterprizes, I would not see this as a disadvantage.

but he and others in the industry are a very, very, very small minority, and everyone else will not be able to make a career out of and retire on careers pertaining to radiation of foods. Furthermore, Mr Dieter probably didn't have to eat ionized foods when growing up.
 * this is true: when I was a child, food irradiation was not yet available. However, what is the argument?

Mr Dieter probably knows which items on the grocery shelves are irradiated, but most others have to remain more or less clueless and uninformed.
 * there are clear labelling rules which are also enforced by food authorities; controls are extremely tight at least within the European Communities. Hence, I rely on labelling as any other consumer.

In the wikipedia article Mr Dieter sounds excited by the prospect of lessening restrictions on labeling.
 * lessening restrictions on labelling is not yet really a topic of the WIKI-article. There is not yet any discussion about the need for which extent of labelling in WIKIPEDIA; it is true that US-FDA is considering this topic. The principal rules by Codex Alimentarius are, that labelling is only needed if the identity of a food is changed by the process, for example from raw to cooked. Irradiated food will remain fresh, uncooked, palatable, full of nutrients; so for what change in identity should it be labelled. This needs to be disputed.

Maybe he can come around to the fact that not everyone shares his enthusiasm, and may resent his patronizing attitude on the issue.
 * it is well known that an extremely small community of consumer activists opposing food irradiation has won the attention of the general public and of the political decision-makers. But this does not at all prove that the arguments are true and valid.

So, Mr Dieter's article would be fine if he left out all the assurances to the reader that ionizing the food supply is the most wholesome thing, as well as all the citations to the expert opinions which are called scientific study. Why not leave that material out of the wiki article and publish it all a work in a journal under his name about why irradiation is wonderful.
 * there are many publications on the topic under my name; there are abundant publications by many others; alone the online-bibliography at Karlsruhe (see 'External Links' in the main article) lists over 16,000 entries.

His knowledge about the process itself is appreciated, but his patronizing attitude
 * there is no 'patronizing'; contributing to a WIKI-article I have just to report the facts and to provide evidence and references. This are the rules.

about its wholesomeness is not. It's all about erosion of clear labeling that is worrisome and wondering what on the shelves has been ionized.
 * a basic error by Palomaris: labelling is not because some food is not safe to eat and a warning to the consumer; labelling conveys a range of valuable information. For example, labelling 'organic' does not warn the consumer. Labelling pasteurized, homogenized, sterilized, re-thawn is no warning. And allergics appreciate the specific warning as 'may contain traces of nuts' what is no concern for the average consumer.

Finally, it would be satisfactory if Mr Dieter removed the bias for the wholesomeness of ionization and let the details of the ionization process involved stand alone
 * it is not the 'details of the ionization process' which are under dispute; in the contrary it is about the effects induced and the consequences for wholesomeness. Hence, the report on such facts can never be omitted from a comprehensive report.

on its merits, and let the readers formulate their opinions
 * no opinions are imposed on the readers; the facts are reported and readers are left to make up their own opinion and final judgement before they buy.

themselves if they want to eat such foods or if they don't care. For millions of years people have had to eat food with insects, mold, and bacteria in it. But only for a very short time have people begun to consume ionized foods. It is impossible to have an expert opinion on the subject. I will stick with the insects and bacteria and mold, and I would like to have a choice in and information on what I am buying at the supermarket.

As submitted by Palomaris (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * so far my comments. Dieter E (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Palomaris and others would be free, even welcome, to contribute arguments against food irradiation based on sound science and to confirm them by appropriate references. Until today, opponents have failed to do so; and a few references to opponents' opinions are even given in the actual version of the article.
 * please note also, I would like to find such arguments documented and contributed; however, it cannot be my task to write extensively about the arguments from opponents and to search for their documentation and publications.
 * it would be great if Organic Consumers and others, in particular consumer groups from outside the USA would contribute. As stated previously, I have been unable to motivate several consumer groups; and on my inquiries I have never received any response and also no position paper.
 * did you notice that all your arguments above are not relating to food irradiation, but are some fundamental criticism of science and research, which you personally cannot consider objective but take for opinions bought by some industry through vested interests.
 * shouldn't we stop such philosophical dispute and return to the main article, to improve, expand and complete it in order that it finally fulfils the formal criteria of WIKIPEDIA for a 'good article'?
 * so far my proposal to give up with inane and ridiculous disputes, but to return to the main article and to continue work. Dieter E (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dieter E, your tenacity is admirable concerning the infallibility of scientific publications. A. Einstein said that one observation could prove the theory of relativity wrong. Unfortunately, what occurs when ingesting ionized material is much more complicated than the theory of relativity, as one cannot write down any formulas concerning such, except statistical arguments. There is no clear cut evidence either way in this case, so it seems to undermine Dieter E's credibility when continually espousing the safety and wholesomeness of ionization of food when many disagree with his platform. If one left out the continual references to studies supporting the safety and wholesomeness of the process, the article would be acceptable. There is mention of opposing arguments, but then usually there immediately follows a qualifying statement that seems to undermine them.

If one would like to grasp the terrible weakness of scientific articles purporting to prove the safety of marketable processes or goods, see the book titled "Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health", written by David Micheals of G.W. University. Also, one may see the article in the May 2008 Newsweek, page 39, where the writer writes "That science can be bought is hardly news...". The same article goes on to describe how science is manipulated, mercenaried, and sculpted in many ways to suit industries' agenda.

Dieter E's knowledge of the irradiation process should be admired and respected, but the article loses most of its credibility because of its patronizing attitude concerning the safety and wholesomeness of the process. In fact, it makes it appear to be not much more than an advertisement trying to sell food irradiation to the public. This is the important thing that goes against the wikipedia ideal, not that someone is not correctly citing "scientific publications" and following some particular correct format and protocol to support their argument. The article is opinionated. Probably no one would care if all the opposing views were removed as long as all the safety assurances were removed as well, and one stuck to the bare facts. Dieter E reports that no one else wants to play the game of citing scientific studies to support their views, but it is possible that no one else has enough confidence in these studies, either way. Playing with a deck of cards where one can print out the cards one needs is not much of a fair game. Industry has the printing presses but the consumer is just dealt the cards and is not allowed to play any and told everything is fair because this is the way that the game is played.

Encountering this article prompted me to investigate the capacity for wikipedia to be used as a manipulative tool, and indeed it was discovered that there exist many horror stories about industry commandeering wikipedia pages. Palomaris (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I continue to wonder why you choose to joust here on the talk page rather than add supportable statements with references on the article page. If you want to have a lasting influence on the article, find a citation for a study looking at the hazards of ingested ions and put it in. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

paragraphs by Palomaris above; my comments

1st paragraph:
 * You abuse and exhaust my patience! I never claimed 'infallability'! It is not only Einstein, it is according to Popper the only way to ask scientific questions which could be falsified! Consequently, provide evidence that irradiated food is not wholesome and not safe to consume. That's all needed. Instead, you are continuing to provide further suspicions about the 'evil industry'.


 * My credibility exclusively depends on the fact that I refer to sound science and evidence, giving appropriate citations and references. Don't call in question my credibility; this is against the basic rule of WIKIPEDIA and the good faith required while contributing. And it is not that 'many disagree'; in the contrary, the number of opponents is extremely small, however, the noise they make is exorbitant.


 * Opposing arguments with regard to the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated food did not survive the scientific discussion; in any case it has been shown, that the examples could not have durability. All those examples are published and accessible; ample references are found in the main article. For such reason, any report on arguments against food irradiation needs to be accompanied by the information that it had been refuted.

2nd paragraph:
 * I don't know this particular book; however, it is well known that criminals from industry, but also corrupt scientists have faked scientific evidence. Agree, this observation is not new, many times published before Newsweek. But this is no proof, that all science is faked and not credible!

3rd paragraph:
 * Again, my point is falsely cited by 'Dieter E reports that no one else wants to play the game of citing scientific studies to support their views, ...'. 'Their views' relates to the opponents. It are the opponents, who do not support their allegations, positions and conclusions by reference to scientific studies and the state of knowledge. I have tried to convince consumer organizations to contribute their views and the underlying facts; I failed! That's it.

4th paragraph:
 * The allegation is extremely severe! 'Horror stories' is not enough, tales may be told. You have to proof that 'industry (is) commandeering wikipedia pages'. Which industry in relation to food irradiation? If you are unable to do so, this is a severe offence to WIKI-rules of honesty; and it might cost you your right to work on WIKI-pages. You need to provide at least one single example for this allegation!


 * please join our efforts to improve the main article, including representative consumer views supported by renown consumer organizations. Dieter E (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
The article does not meet the current Good Article criteria. There are quite a few issues, mostly lack of referencing in several key sections and hard facts, inconsistent reference formatting, lack of focus and multiple focuses throughout the article, several manual of style issues, and more.


 * accepted! multiple input leads necessarily to inconsistency; to be addressed. Dieter E 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead section is actually not bad, although it could be expanded to become a better and more succinct introduction to the article. The only bolded words in the lead should be the repeated article title. Please see WP:LEAD for more information on improving this section.
 * Many of the inline citations are incorrectly positioned in sentences. The correct position is immediately after the punctuation in the sentence (like this. ), not before it (like this .), or not after it following a space (like this. ).


 * to be addressed! Not all contributors (including myself) are aware of format issues.
 * HOWEVER, some references relate to a word within the sentence; only a few other to the whole sentence (to be referenced after the 'full-stop'). Dieter E 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * External links used as inline citations need to contain more information than just the link. Please include full citation information; author, title, date of publication, publisher, and date the URL was last retrieved/accessed. This is very important, so that, if the link is ever inaccessible or disappears (404 not found), the information in the reference can still be used to track it down, verify content, or allow readers to perform additional research.


 * IMPORTANT POINT: several links contain typing errors, others are no longer available; many links are not pertinent to the topic for which they are referenced. Unfortunately, it is impossible (=extremely difficult) to find out who proposed such links and to ask for supplementing the necessary information. Some input seems to originate from critics of food irradiation; and it would be very important to have their arguments covered and be cross-checked by appropriate links. -- Dieter E (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The items listed under 'references' are not cited directly by the article, so calling them references is misleading. Items not directly cited by the article should be included in a 'further reading' section, immediately following the main 'references' section and immediately before 'external links'. It is inappropriate for an article to have 'general references', which supposedly cite many parts of the article; all sources should be cited directly using inline citations. Inline citations can be used more than once. Also, since every item listed in the 'notes' section is actually a reference and not really a "note", it would be more appropriate to rename this section to 'references'; although keeping it named 'notes' is still acceptable (just not preferred), since the references are still technically "footnotes". See WP:CITE for more details on reference citation formatting.
 * I won't list every instance of where citations are actually lacking in the article, because there's quite a bit of information that is unsourced. As a general rule, any information that is challenged or likely to be challenged, needs to be cited. Also, any hard data and facts and figures, needs to be cited.


 * HERE, we have a fundamental problem, as the few critics to food irradiation have left the work on this WIKI-page. I personally hesitate to eliminate all the input made during previous rounds of discussion and development. However, and quite obvious, many of those arguments lack the provision of reliable references. I have tried to find a few. But I have no success to convince recognised consumer organizations to provide me references to their actual positions! Dieter E 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's lots of issues with section and subsection headers. First, headers should not include the article title, or variants thereof, in the header. So 'safety aspects of food irradiation' should be shortened to 'safety aspects'. Many of the subsection headers are pretty long as well, and they should be shortened to provide a more concise description of their contents.
 * The overall organization of sections, and the content within them, needs to be seriously reexamined. There's a lot of information here, and I think the article, as it stands, is a good collection of notes from many different editors. But it needs to be written and organized to really tell a better "story" and provide a more clear cut description of food irradiation. For example, why are 'irradiated foods in the marketplace' and 'economics' in two separate sections, not even close together in the article? Seems to me like these topics ought to be related somehow.
 * The 'food irradiation' section seems to cover two topics. Aside from the obvious WP:MSH error of duplicating the article title in the header, it seems to cover a brief introduction of the concept, and then talks about policies of various governments in relation to the practice.
 * The 'alternatives' section doesn't even cover the topic! It might be included in a greater article on food preservation, but it really has nothing to do with irradiation.
 * The formatting of the 'external links section is all out of whack. It should be a simple listing of external links, without any internal wikilinks, to other websites that might provide some some additional information or perspectives on the topic. Currently, there's an internal wikilink to Codex Alimentarius at the beginning of the section (not sure what the context is to have this link?), and there's a main section header for the 'Food Irradiation Processing Alliance (FIPA)' website separating the whole external links section. This needs to be fixed. See WP:EL for tips on this section.

The current start class assessment by the wikiprojects is probably about appropriate for this article. With a little bit of work, it might be able to be brought up to B class, but it's got a way to go before GA status. Hope these suggestions point editors in the right direction towards improving the article. Good luck! Dr. Cash 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * THANKS for pointing to several formal weeknesses of this article. Dieter E 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

note
papa johns' spice packets that come with your pizza have the radura symbol and 'treated with irradiation' verbiage on the back. 25 nov 2007


 * THANKS, for this information. However, for the international community of WIKI-users a few more details would be valuable: 'Papa Johns' is somewhere in the USA? The pizza is not ready-to-eat from a pizza-service, but it is to be heated at home where the spices from the separate pouch have to be distributed over the pizza? true? Dieter E (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a pizza delivery restaurant in the US Papa Johns It comes with your pizza in a small condiment packet, you sprinkle it on the pizza yourself. I have one here I could snap a picture of it if you wanted it for something. i had never seen it on a US label before i was pretty amazed. (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * THANKS again: This is exactly what is still missing in this article! A few examples how irradiated food items look like for the average consumer. I had a few photos of irradiated hamburgers from SureBeam; however, this company went bankrupt. Can you upload and integrate your observation? Dieter E (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

External links & Categories
I just finished a series of edits aimed at cleaning up the External links section. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than it was. The article was also seriously deficient in terms of Categories. I've just added two batches of three, so six new categories total, and there's probably something I didn't think of yet -- but at least I've got the obvious ones, so more readers will be able to find it through the category system. Cgingold (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article is being vandalized on a consistent basis. I recommend locking against all non-members of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.121.135.108 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This article cries out to be vandalized....I recommend locking against food irradiation interests. Palomaris (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

!! PALOMARIS !! You are confessing here that you are working to vandalize this article! This has been proven for example, as you deleted the words 'and improving the safety of food' from the title of a booklet published by WHO, only to serve your puposes and pre-occupations. It is not honest the change any text in a reference correctly cited. If you disagree with the contents, please let us know your arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter E (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claim
"All these effects are beneficial to the consumer and the food industry, likewise." 74.56.251.5 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) im really not sure we should raise this claim on behalf of this technology. Stopping the natural ripeing and ageing process is only beneficial in certain circumstances.

The full paragraph reads:
 * "The genuine effect of processing food by ionizing radiation relates to damages to the DNA, the basic genetic information for life. Microorganisms can no longer proliferate and continue their malignant or pathogen activities. Spoilage causing micro-organisms cannot continue their activities. Insects do not survive or become incapable of proliferation. Plants cannot continue the natural ripening or aging process. All these effects are beneficial to the consumer and the food industry, likewise."

With other words, a range of beneficial effects is given. And those claims are not unsubstantiated, but general references are given in this introductory paragraph, and expanded in later sections. It is true that stopping natural ripening and aging processes for fruit or vegetableis not in general beneficial; for example, some fruit will need ripening after harvest before it reaches the consumer. There would be no advantange to stop such after-ripening! However, such arguments are not sufficient to give up in general with the application of this possibitlity of radiation treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter E (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) EXCUSE me: if forgot my signature! Dieter E (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

external LINK to MRI
88.134.191.149 (Talk) has contributed a revision of external links as of 21:18, 26 April 2008:


 * Max Rubner-Institute - Federal Research Center for Nutrion and Food: Germany-EU-World BFA

However, this addition is not appropriate for the WIKI-version about food irradiation in English. The reference leads to a collection of articles in German! There is a button to switch to the alternative in English instead: Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ernährung und Lebensmittel in English However, this collection of articles is incomplete, the site is still under construction.

The homepage of MRI, unfortunately, does not lead to information about food irradiation. MRI homepage

Please note also your spelling errors:
 * 1) Federal Research Center for Nutrion and Food should be "Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food" (English spelling!!)
 * 2) Max Rubner-Institute is false, no spelling in English, instead "Max Rubner-Institut" (MRI)
 * 3) the sub-title of MRI has been changed from 'research centre' to 'research institute', ie "Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food"

Thank you for adding a reference to MRI where I had served until my retirement. However, unless the version in English is used and the work there has been completed, such external LINK is not appropriate. Consequently, this entry has been deleted. Dieter E (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The link Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ernährung und Lebensmittel in English has one good article: the history of irradiation. It seems to me that a history section would be appropriate here on this Wikipedia article. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The changes above by Binksternet do not fully resolve the problem: MRI is under administrative restructuring by the Federal government; hence alls access to many WEB-offers is under midification. As it regards food irradiation, the English version is not yet fully developed in parallel to the German version. Because of the many administrative changes also URLs habe been changed, with the result, that proven old URLs are not (hopefully, not yet) correctly redirected; some just direct to the home-page of MRI in German! This is a problem for using this professional material from former FRCNF via URLs in this WIKI-article. Dieter E (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Negative effects
changes by 206.116.158.144 Revision as of 06:49, 28 February 2008 For clarity of the subsequent discussions the changes by unidentified 206.116.158.144 are reproduced here; they had been reverted by others.


 * "Along with these effects however there are also strange and sometimes dangerous effects. The basic issue is that the radiation changes the composition of the food as well as that of the pests. This creates by-products including cancer-causing agents and mutagens. The vitamin content of food put through radiation has also been shown to change. Under high doses the smell and taste of the product is completly ruined. Food that has been "fried" in this way has been described as tasting like " burnt feathers", "sulphur", and "rancid fat". The amount of these chainges ofcourse varies with the amount of raidiation a substence is exposed to.


 * The amount of energy imparted for effective food irradiation is low compared to cooking the same; even at a typical dose of 10 kGy most food, which is (with regard to warming) physically equivalent to water, would warm by only about 2.5 °C. It should also be noted that not all the organisms on food are killed be radiation, and that they can regrow after treatment has been done. you should still cook food that has been irradiated, and take all the normal precausions to avoid ilness. If food has been exposed to enouph ionizing radiation to kill absolutly everything on it, it is most likly not healthy for human consomtion."

My comments:

"... there are also strange and sometimes dangerous effects": nothing is 'strange'; research has identified those effects and we know today more about any effect of processing food by ionizing energy better than for any other food process. Doubtless, any chemical transformation or change has always a component of danger; however, the critical question is whether such changes have any negative effect to the consumer under the most severe circumstances. The answer of science is a clear NO.

"...radiation changes the composition of the food as well as that of the pests": The composition of food is changed by any treatment, even by letting it sit on the shelf! However, all those changes are not relevant for human nutrition. As described in the introduction of this article, the essential changes occur through the DNA. But man is not nourishing on DNA. The same is true for pests which are made imcapable of proliferation but normally not eaten by men (however their nutritional value would not be changed!).

"The vitamin content of food put through radiation has also been shown to change": This is generally true again and for any food process; it is nothing worse. The amount of vitamins offered in a normal, diversified food is sufficient under any condition of processing. Malnutrition commonly is the consequence of the unappropriate composition of the food, not of the preparation.

"smell and taste of the product is completly ruined": This is false; a high-dose treatment is possible in order to achieve sterility without ruining the product.

"...as tasting like " burnt feathers", "sulphur", and "rancid fat"...": By mishandling food by any technique or process you can ruin it; for example by burning your steak to coal.

"...not all the organisms on food are killed be radiation": nobody has claimed this in general; however choosing the appropriate conditions even sterility can be achieved by radiation processing.

"...they can regrow after treatment...": This is generally true for any treatment including radiation processing, as long as sterility has not been achieved, and was not the target of the treatment.

"you should still cook food that has been irradiated": False by the principle; if a fruit has been irradiated to eliminate insects in order to fulfil quarantine requirements (for example for transport from Hawaii to continental US), you should not cook but enjoy the fresh fruit.

"take all the normal precausions to avoid ilness": This is what WHO recommends in their '10 golden rules' for any kind, treatment and preparation of food; it is nothing specific for irradiated food.

"...it is most likly not healthy for human consomtion": It has been shown that any kind of food even treated to the highest doses is wholesome to eat as long as it is palatable and the target of sterility has been met.

Let me leave the reader with those comments for consideration. Dieter E (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

organic consumers
A new text-modul had been added
 * by 15:11, 4 May 2008 Palomaris (Talk | contribs) (50,067 bytes)

in the section about alternatices to food irradiation; which has been deleted by me. The text provided is just an unedited copy of a pamphlet by organic consumers from the WEB. It lacks any reference, is not substantiated and qualifies only for POV.
 * see www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/Irradfact.cfm

This text had been misplaced under 'alternatives' but does not cover such topic. It had been previously deleted by someone else for similar reasons. Dieter E (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Palomaris would be committing plagiarism by adding that text again without citing the source. The only way any portion of that text would work in this article is to say something like "here is what some people believe" followed by a discussion of how their belief is or is not founded in science. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can find the site easily, and you can ask them if they want to press charges for plagiarism. I will turn myself in readily. You can add your quote if you like, just leave the different POV.  P.


 * Nobody's talking about pressing charges. Plagiarism is frowned upon by scholars and not allowed on Wikipedia. "...plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core principles... We must not tolerate plagiarism in the least." — Jimbo Wales.


 * It's so easy to simply quote the source; I don't understand why this isn't the tack being taken. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why bother with such things when it always gets censored anyway. P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.105.69.68 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. The Cabal at work. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"The quality of a Wikipedia article is proportional to the age of the subject matter".

"You got it right and I'd suggest this to Wikipedia as a guideline. A tag saying, warning: covers topical issues, will reflect last editor's bias and perhaps economic viewpoint of issue". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palomaris (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cited sections
Recent editing efforts by Palomaris resulted in a reference being deleted as well as several referenced sections being taken out. It's best for the article if disagreeing editors work with cited, referenced sections by bringing in opposing statements that are equally well cited. Alternately, a reference itself can be investigated to see if it supports the statements or if it is expert enough for inclusion here. Binksternet (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of radioactivity
My naïve understanding of people's fears about irradiated food is that there is some concern that the food becomes radioactive, perhaps among other issues. This is of course false when the applied radiation is not neutrons; certain frequencies of gamma rays could excite a nucleus, but it would usually remit the energy long before consumption. Shouldn't the article make a point of this? --Tardis (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this comment and question. First of all a view of the underlying physical principles: For any nucleus there is a threshhold value of energy; if exceeded, particles can be expelled from the nucleus. For all atoms and their isotopes there is a wide variation of this threshhold energy. Quite fortunate, the main constituents of food have rather high threshholds. The components C, N and O, for example, have threshholds around 13 MeV. This is the reason that the utilization of electron radiation is limited to a maximum energy of 10 MeV. Furthermore, electrons a charged particles which cannot easily penetrate the electric field of the electrons around the nucleus; consequently, they will not interact directly, but by the X-rays (bremsstrahlung) generated in this field. As C, N, O have a rather low atomic number, the eficiency for bremsstrahlung generation is very low. (note: X-ray generators use high-atomic-number materials as Tungsten for better efficiency.) The photons from gamma-ray emitters as Co-60 or Cs-137 have energies from 0.66 MeV to 1.33 MeV and cannot expell particles from the nucleus. The use of X-rays has been limited to 5 MeV (note: USA recently to 7.5 MeV) in order to take into account the better efficiency to penetrate into the nucleus compared to particulate, charged electrons. As long as it is avoided that any particle is expelled from the nucleus of any isotope, no radioactivity can be induced.


 * It might be a little difficult and also lengthy to explain all this in an article on food irradiation. Dieter E (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

particle versus photon
A recent change had been to eliminate under the subsection 'electron irradiation' the mentioning of the particulate nature of electrons, with the reasoning, that this would be an irrelevant information with regard to penetration ability. I undid this change for the reason that there is an essential difference between particles and photons in penetrating matter: Particles have a definite, maximum penetration depth; behind this no particle can be observed. Photones have no definite penetration depth, in a homogeneous material they are absorbed by equal fractions over equal steps of penetration distance. This should be mentioned. Dieter E (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

food irradiation at home
"A method of performing food irradiation in the home has been recently patented and may lead to consumer's having the ability to process some food in the kitchen to make it more healthy (see US6763085 and US6868136)." as proposed by Cleanerfood Revision as of 17:58, 1 September 2008

I have deleted this text, but moved it into the discussion part; it is a typical example of fundamental misunderstanding. Without cross-checking the US-patents, the proposal is not feasible: a powerful X-ray generator would never be licensed/permitted for home use. Dieter E (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Consumer perception
I am deleting the following sentence:

Some studies suggest that a majority of the public questions the safety of irradiated foods, and if given a choice, will not buy foods that have been irradiated.["Choice", Food Marketing Institute poll 2000]

The reason being that the reference given is not accessible and not in the public domain. No data are available about the technical details of this poll and about the observations. In contrast, other studies referenced in this article have full bibliographic data and refer to reliable observations. Dieter E (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentence not deleted, but rewritten, in the light of other information. Dieter E (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

section to add
The "International and other national markets" part was a section with only "(to be expanded)" on the page. That shouldn't be there, so I deleted it. I'm going to leave an invisisible note for editors to be reminded. I'm also going to place an expansion tag on the next section. This citation was in "International and other national markets": Tealwisp (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this editing activity! Originally, a number of changes and considerable restructuring had been proposed when this article had been proposed for 'good article'. However, since a considerable period I am the only editor developing this article and contributing factual information. Presently, my activity had been restricted to maintaining this article and to react on changes and inquiries. Dieter E (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

irradiated cider in USA ??
The following text had been added by 20:23, 24 October 2008 Tealwisp (Talk | contribs) (41,554 bytes) (→Current U.S. market: added sentence about cider):


 * Unpasteurized Apple cider is often favored for its flavor and quality . E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks forced regulations, and now irradiation is sometimes used to preserve flavor and quality.

This can not be taken as any evidence, that cider treated by ionizing radiation is on the market; cider irradiation would be not effective, too costly, and impairing the sensory quality at the doses needed to eliminate E.coli. The reference to NY Times can not serve as a prove for radiation processing; at the reference to Parmenter's Cider no reference to radiation processing can be found. For this reason this contribution has to be deleted.Dieter E (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't see, I left a note hoping for better citation, but there are irradiated ciders sold locally. The NY Times cite is for the favoring of unpasteurized cider, as used on the cider page of wikipedia.  Also, I noted that there was no mention of pasteurization in the citation, because that's the idea I want to convey.  The way they pasteurize it is through cold pasteurization.  Tealwisp (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're saying that no mention of pasteurization in the Parmenter reference means that they are irradiating the cider, you need a stronger reference, one that states plainly irradiation is taking place. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you say or refer to 'cold pasteurization', this is not at all a prove that ionizing radiation has been applied! True, some people in USA propose to label in future certain applications of processing by ionizing radiation as 'pasteurized' or 'cold pasteurized'. And even 'irradiation' is not a clear allegation: by which type of radiation? even ultra-sound? Processing by ionizing radiation is not effective for fruit juices; necessary doses would impair the flavour. There are other methods of 'cold pasteurization' which are very effective for fruit juices, it is high-pressure treatment which is also a method of 'cold pasteurization'. (Such products can already be found on the market place!) You have to provide the proof that in your example really ionizing radiation has been applied. What would be illegal without clear labelling in the USA. Dieter E (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A simple google search has yielded wonderful results, right at the top. Instead of only tagging, try to find a reference, and leave the tag if there isn't one. Additionally, I cited the label, not the website. The website was only to say that they didn't heat pasteurize it. Tealwisp (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for up-dating your input.

I have checked your references and corrected the main article accordingly. The newspaper reference is on the application of non-ionizing UV-light, which may be used also for pasteurization applications. It might be labelled as 'pasteurized' according to the US regulations. If treated by ionizing radiation the terminology of 'irradiated' together with the RADURA-logo must be used; there are petitions and a proposed FDA rule to change this restriction. Hence, the label of your cider is not about 'processed by ionizing radiation'. Your other reference is an academic study presented at an IFT annual meeting, and it is only to the abstract booklet, not to a 'slide show'. However, this study is not the proof that irradiated cider can be found on the market place. If you assert this, you have to provide evidence!

HENCE: the actual conclusion must be, there is no irradiated cider on the market place in the US!

PLEASE note also that it can not be my duty to check the correctness of allegations by other editors and to find out about some references which might support their views. My contribution is only to keep this article on food irradiation factual.Dieter E (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The bit you wrote for uv-radiation seemed inconsistent with the tone of the paragraph, so I've rewritten it slightly. I think we've reached a good consensus here.  Tealwisp (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks fro brushing this short piece of text; I wished other WIKI-editors would take a similar positive attitude. Dieter E (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain, brother or sister. Tealwisp (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Irradiation said to cause death of cats in Australia
What the company says: http://www.championpetfoods.com/australia_consumer_release.pdf and in the news: http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:de:unofficial&client=firefox-a&tab=wn&ncl=1273591042&hl=en&scoring=d --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important enough to be mentioned in the introduction at the beginning, what do you think? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the reference to the company's press release on this issue is not working! I have tried your other reference through GOOGLE; it says:
 * "The company is investigating whether irradiation upon entry into Australia was the source of the contamination."
 * With other words, irradiation is not proven to be the cause of those deaths. Furthermore, it is considered whether 'irradiaton upon entry to Australia' was the cause; in this case it would be easy to find out the port of entrance and to trace whether this product went through any of the few irradiation facilities in Australia. Finally, if iradiation had taken place, it can never be the cause of any 'contamination', neither by radioactivity (which could be easily measured on the product) nor by pathogen microorganisms or chemical pollutants (which can also be easily detected).
 * For those reason I have deleted your cat-issue, but sent an eMail to the company for further clarification. Dieter E (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I found the reference to be up and working. It was updated today, which might be why you couldn't see it when you checked earlier--they might have taken it offline for editing. After looking at the company's press release, I rewrote the cat food death section under the heading of safety. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this help; I will try to access the company's communication again. Of course, any verified report about negative effects of any irradiated food or feed need to be followed. And the voice of opponents to food irradiation referring to such verified effects must be visible on WIKIPEDIA's articles. My early comment before editing your contribution: high-dose irradiation is never 'over-dosing', it is 'radiation sterilization'. Astronauts eat such food regularly. It is well known and documented, that high-dose irradiation can deplete a number of vitamins, and that man or animal eating/feeding exclusively on a single item irradiated at high-doses will suffer from vitamin depletion. Consequently, in case that those cat-owners fed their cats for a prolonged period exclusively on those few items from this particular company the outcome would be predictable! Dieter E (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blinksternet, your edit sounds good, but nevertheless considering the importance don't you think it should be placed more prominent, more visible? Maybe a special section? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want to be guilty of WP:RECENTISM... In spite of my sympathy for affected cat owners in Australia I imagine that the cat food death and paralysis problem will get less and less notice in the news in the next few weeks and that it will silently join the tens of other irradiation accidents that are unnamed in this article when the next food irradiation accident comes along. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here goes deeper (do you say so in english?). First of all it seems not to happend in an accident but the massive irradiation was applied deliberately by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry in Australia. But much more important is the fact that this would be the first time ever death occured during regular irradiation. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about the high dose NOT being an accident. I guess my comprehension of the press release and the two news articles was colored by an assumption. If the dangerously high dose is regulated by the Aussie importation system, then something must change. After this very public problem I think that the Australians will soon set new standards for lower doses of irradiation applied to imported pet foods. Whatever they do, this article should represent the case accurately and with a calm sense of scale and proportion. I still wouldn't put the cat food problem into the lead paragraph, but it doesn't really qualify as a safety violation if the high dose was administered according to government guidelines. I'm not sure how to present this case. Binksternet (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly that's the million dollar question: Is the irradiation really the cause of this catastrophe or is the company just trying to pass the buck to the Australian government? I guess the Aussies will say: "Nope Sir, you are the only one, so something must be wrong with you rather than with our guidelines." --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)PS: Numbers have rosen to over 60 ill and 6 deaths.


 * I have rewritten the paragraph to compare safety accidents with unsafe conditions that can result from strict application of government guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work! Thank you! --84.56.250.106 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me get back to a basic level of discussion: It is really the problem what the proven facts are! First of all, for what justification the Australian Quarantine does require this minimum dose of 50 kGy? Second, it is well known and documented that any diet totally irradiated at elevated doses will cause in the long term deficiencies in vitamins and other nutritients. Hence, who can tell us how long those cats have been fed exclusively on those particular pet food items? Dieter E (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me add this question: How many shipments of Orijen were pulled from shelves. One? A few? All remaining? If every shipment of Orijen was getting high doses all this time, resulting in high free radicals and low vitamin A levels, then pulling one shipment isn't going to be enough of a fix. The customers of Orijen will have to change to some other cat food, or if their brand loyalty is high enough, move to a country that doesn't require such high gamma radiation doses on imported cat food. They could move to Canada and get it fresh! I wonder what the Australian government is actually doing and what conclusions they're drawing for the future... Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As my english is not perfect I have to ask which meaning the word "states" does have in this context: "Five animals have so far had to be put down, although it is believed a number of cats in other states were also destroyed before the link to the Orijen brand of food had been made." Does "state" mean other countries or other states within Australia itself? http://grenfell.yourguide.com.au/news/national/national/general/cat-food-firm-blames-deaths-on-quarantine-controls/1372503.aspx --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume it means geopolitical subdivisions of Australia, such as Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, etc. See States and territories of Australia. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the issue is due to Vit A deficiency caused by irradiation is only that. It is contested by the vet who discovered the link. "There is nothing to suggest any of the cats I have seen are vitamin A deficient … " Even if irradiation destroys vitamins(and from above comments, it seems that way) this should be stated as an effect rather than as a safety issue. --Dodo bird (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE: may someone try to rewrite this and to find out about the facts! It begins with the title of this discussion section: no death was caused by the cat-feed; however, some cats were euthanized, as some report says. What was the truth? For what reason/justification Australian feed imports are mandated to be irradiated or otherwise treated? How does the Australian company come to the argument that vitamin A deficiency and/or free radiacals caused the symptoms with those cats? Dieter E (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WHO (the question is to 'who?' and not the the UN-WHO!) can confirm that the maximum in this particular case has been 61 kGy as stated in the main article. I have been unable to find this value in the referenced articles. And to my knowledge, a treatment within this extremely narrow dose range would be technically difficult for commercial size irradiation facilities and, hence, particularly costly! Dieter E (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Dieter E (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

THIS ISSUE is typical of any discussion about processing food (feed) by ionizing radiation. Some effect has been observed, there is a link to radiation processing, and, hence, negative effects are causually elated to radiation processing.
 * First aspect, AQIS (of Australia) requires severe treatments for imports because of some quarantine requirements. One possible treatment is a minimum of 50 kGy in radiation processing. If a food or pet food is subjected to such extreme treatment, it is with the importer and later seller of this product to find out whether these goods are still suitable for consumption. We lack any information whether those tests have been ever executed. It is well known, that over-treatment, including burning a steak to coal, might have severe side-effects!
 * Second aspect, there are other severe treatments required upon import, which are also likely to deplete vitamins and other nutrients. Has there ever been any link to illness of the pets?

We need facts, not suspicions and hypothesis. If there is a causal links of radiation processing to the illness of those cats, this would be worthwhile of further professional discussion. Dieter E (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have completely re-written this paragraph in the main document, preserving all the previous references, bringing the narration of the facts in a logical sequence. Dieter E (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

'''Revision as of 02:34, 31 March 2009 by 96.42.47.19: (→Safety, security and wholesomeness aspects. Added new study from UW-Madison supporting hypothesis that irradiated foods cause systemic nervous system disorders)''':


 * “A recent study at the University of Wisconsin - Madison showed that when cats were fed only irradiated food, and were also pregnant or recently pregnant, they developed movement disorders, vision loss and paralysis. Researches studying the deceased diseased cats discovered a depletion of myelin, the protective sheath around nerve fibers that degrades in MS and other diseases. Other diseased cats that were kept alive were switched to a regular diet – and gradually recovered from their disorder. After they were killed, studies showed that their myelin had been restored, though it wasn’t as thick than before.”


 * Food Magazine. News. 24 November 2008. STUDY OF CAT DIET LEADS TO KEY NERVOUS SYSTEM REPAIR DISCOVERY. Accessed March 30, 2009


 * I have deleted this particular contribution as copied above; it is completely irrelevant for this issue; the authors in particular state in the referenced article: 'We think it is extremely unlikely that [irradiated food] could become a human health problem.' In particular, this reference is only a secondary information without any experimental details of this study; the results cannot be verified without accessing the original paper. The study is essentially and specifically for cats which suffered from nerveous disorder and which recovered by a special treatment which is also not described in this report. Dieter E (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have deleted this particular text-piece again for the following reason: the reference is not to the original study, but to a press release which does not report the essential experimental details of this study; this press release does not report that those 'cats were fed only irradiated food', instead it reports that some nervous disorders could be repaired by some treatment (not explained); it refers to another study about pregnant cats not giving any traceable reference, consequently the truth cannot be cross-checked; no information is given why and how some company (what business?) tested irradiated diets (what dose, what composition?). It is worthwhile to note that the author of this study states that it is extreely unlikely that irradiated food could become a human health problem; consequently this particular study need not to be reported and discussed in an article about radiation processing of human food. Dieter E (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

accidents in food irradiation facilities
The text copied below was deleted from the main article for the reason there is no traceable reference given. The ‘mindfully.org’ is an anti-nuclear activists’ group citing the US-NRC by hearsay! Furthermore, we are not informed about the kind of those accidents, most of them will probably not be related to radiation but be ‘ordinary’ occupational events.


 * "The US-Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recorded 54 accidents at food irradiation facilities worldwide between 1974 and 2000.Z Magazine. October 2000. John M. LaForge. Food Irradiation & Nuclear Weapons: Safe-guarding the public from human-made radiation (However, this information is not traceable, as the given reference is from an anti-nuclear-weapon activists group and not to the original report!)" Dieter E (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Dieter E (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)