(1) create toxic substances including carcinogens (mmm…cancer-causing agents)

(2) stunt growth in lab animals condemmed to eat the stuff

(3) be associated with colon tumors in lab animals condemmed to eat the stuff

Research also shows that irradiation forms volatile toxic chemicals such as benzene and toluene, chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer and birth defects. Irradiation also causes stunted growth in lab animals fed irradiated foods. An important 2001 study linked colon tumor promotion in lab rats to 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACB’s), a new chemical compound found only in irradiated foods. The FDA has never tested the safety of these byproducts. Irradiation has also been shown to cause the low-level production of furans (similar to cancer-causing dioxins) in fruit juice.

But hey — who cares about a little disease if they can enjoy oyster saliva, right?

From Broken Record:

In the case of irradiated food, the “additive” is comprised of new chemical compounds called radiolytic products that are formed in food when it is exposed to radiation. These chemicals are formed because the type of radiation used in the process is ionizing radiation,

[OMG: there’s that phrase again! - kjm]

… meaning that it has the capacity to dislodge electrons, which can then react with other molecules to form new chemical compounds.

[where have we heard that before? oh - wait - in the post! - kjm]

Early experiments, however, conducted during the 1950s and 1960s by the U.S. Army and Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) made no attempt to measure —- much less identify —- these radiolytic products. Instead, researchers simply irradiated food at very high doses, fed it to lab animals (at times in large quantities), and then went in search of tumors, organ damage, reproductive abnormalities and other problems in the animals.
Though these tests long predated the publication of Toxicological Principles and would not have met most of the document’s requirements, the experiments did reveal some apparent health problems from eating irradiated food. These problems included higher mortality rates among pre-weaned rats, low weight gain among rats and dogs, and malignant tumors in rats, including pituitary carcinomas (described by an FDA official as “a particularly disturbing finding since this is an extremely rare type of malignant tumor”).100

[snip]

FASEB scientists found 35 other chemicals not naturally occurring
in beef. Fifteen others appeared in higher concentrations in irradiated beef than non-irradiated beef. They measured, for example, a 650 percent increase in the concentration of benzene—a “known
human carcinogen” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.106

[mmm…benzene - kjm]

In total, 55 of the 65 chemicals identified either were unique to all food, were unique to beef, or grew in concentration due to irradiation.107 (See Chart 2.)

At the conclusion of the experiment, FASEB scientists became among the first researchers to publicly acknowledge the unlikelihood of identifying every new chemical formed in irradiated food and assessing their potential harm to humans: “Because no analysis, however exhaustive, can exclude the possibility of the presence of undetected constituents, no unequivocal demonstration of safety seems possible from the consideration of the individual radiolytic products alone… The possible presence of undetected substances can never be excluded.”108

Still, FASEB scientists said that more research should be conducted into the radiolytic products that can be identified. In particular, they said, two classes of chemicals formed by the radiation induced degradation of fats should be studied further -— diol diesters and alkylcyclobutanones. Because “insufficient data are available to allow judgment of the effects on health,” FASEB scientists said that “metabolic and toxicological studies of these compounds are desirable.”109

The cited references and charts may be found in Broken Record. I’d paste them in, but my fingers are tired.

I’m tired, too, of the worshippers of untested technologies and their paid (or unwitting) servants falsely assuring the rest of us that — after a century of toxic corporate lies about their toxic products — this time it’s safe to just swallow whatever some Big Toxic Corporation wants to cram down our throats, dump into our water, force into our food, or beam into our schools and homes.

Fuck that noise.

I want decisions about public safety made for all of us, not merely for the megacorps’ bottom line.

I want corporatist rule — the new 21st century term for creeping fascism — overthrown in my lifetime.

And I want that because the rest of us, our descendants, and the rest of the creatures on the planet will live longer — and better — when we two-legs stand up to, expose the lies of, and defeat the megacorps.

Should we fail, our descendants and the rest of the creatures on the planet will be able to curse us…until sometime before the end of this century, when the biosphere becomes too hot for life as we’ve known it to continue.

Selfishly, I also want to to overthrow corporatist rule because the misinformation pushed into the public sphere by the megacorps and their PR empires royally pisses me off.

Don’t accidentally mislead — or deliberately lie — to me or my friends about what we eat and expect me to swallow it.

Ya basta

And Bon Appetit.

I am only saying that the compounds arose by the leeway they gained on what was “food” and what was “garbage” by having food that unnaturally did not “spoil”. It wasn’t caused by the ionizing radiation itself. They did too much research on that part of it.

from comment 116 to be false and misleading:

Center For Food Safety and Food & Water Watch’s report:

Food Irradiation: A Gross Failure — The strange, sickening impacts on the smell, taste, color, and texture of food exposed to radiation

Now to the topic of this report — why “A Gross Failure”? Here we document how irradiation can actually ruin the flavor, odor, appearance,
and texture of common foods. Published research on irradiated foods repeatedly finds that they smell ROTTEN, METALLIC, BLOODY, BURNT, GRASSY, and generally off. The taste is described as like SULFUR, SINGED HAIR, BURNT FEATHERS, BURNT OIL, and RANCID FAT. Meats can turn GREEN, BROWN, RED, or YELLOW. Irradiated oysters give off a YELLOW SALIVA-LIKE excretion. Serious questions arise as to whether this food is wholesome enough to eat.

NOTE TO READERS: From here on this report is not based on the opinions of The Center for Food Safety or Food and Water Watch. It is based primarily on quotes found in research reports and on statements by scientists, government officials, and industry representatives, from 1955 to 2005. All instances of emphasis in the quotes, shown here in bold type, are added. Internal literature cites are omitted.

Ruined odor
Irradiating components of beef resulted in a “SWEET BURNT ODOR,” a “STRONG ODOR OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE,” and a “STRONG BURNT ODOR”…. The off-odors in irradiated meat are formed from sulfur-containing compounds.
—Batzer, O.F., and D.M. Doty. 1955. Nature of undesirable odors formed by gamma irradiation of beef. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 3:64-67.

“Irradiation of cured cooked ham resulted in higher OFF-ODOR scores than all other treatments immediately following irradiation thus indicating a change in quality…. Irradiation processing increased lipid oxidation for all treatments (raw uncured, raw-cured, cooked-cured).”
—Houser, T.A., et al. 2003. Effects of irradiation on properties of cured ham. Journal of Food Science, 68:2362-2365.

“The acceptance of the meat odor was consistent with the irradiation odor intensity. As the irradiation odor intensity increased, the preference of meat odor decreased. Most trained panelists rated irradiation odor as an off-odor. [Taste] panelists could easily distinguish between odors of irradiated and nonirradiated meat…. Irradiation and storage of meat in vacuum packaging may be desirable for long-term storage, but may reduce the acceptance of irradiated meat.”
—Ahn, D.U. 2000. Quality characteristics of vacuum-packaged, irradiated normal, PSE, and DFD pork. Swine Research Report, Iowa State University, ASL-R695.

“Irradiation odor intensity increased [in a] dose-dependent manner in frozen pork patties. Irradiation odor lasted longer in frozen than in refrigerated pork patties and some [taste] panels could detect irradiation odor after 3 months of frozen storage. Panels characterized vacuum-packaged irradiated meat odor as ROTTEN EGG, SWEET, BLOODY, COOKED MEAT or BARBECUED CORN, BURNT, SULFUR, METALLIC, ALCOHOL or ACETIC ACID. Those words also were found in other [previous] studies.”
—Ahn, D.U., and C. Jo. 1999. Quality characteristics of vacuum-packaged pork patties irradiated and stored in refrigerated or frozen conditions. Swine Research Report, Iowa State University, ASL-R1712.

“Irradiated meat products can develop a characteristic odor described as ‘BLOODY SWEET’ or ‘BARBECUED CORNLIKE.’[Two researchers] reported that dimethyl trisulphide was the most potent and obnoxious volatile compound from irradiated raw chicken.”
—Zhu, M., et al. 2005. Control of Listeria monocytogenes contamination in ready-to-eat meat products. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 4:34-42.

“Irradiated raw pork, regardless of packaging, produced more volatiles than nonirradiated patties and developed a characteristic aroma shortly after irradiation.”
—Ahn, D.U., et al. 1998. Effect of muscle type, packaging, and irradiation on lipid oxidation, volatile production and color in raw pork patties. Meat Science, 49:27-39, as cited in: D.U. Ahn et al. 1999. Volatiles production and lipid oxidation in irradiated cooked sausage as related to packaging and storage. Journal of Food Science, 64:226-229.

–

[for more truly gross findings, check out the report. Mmm…oyster saliva. - kjm]

Here are some of many reasons I find this statement from comment 116:

The ionization is not what is corrupting the irradiated food.

to be false and misleading:

From Food and Water Watch’s Fact Sheet:

Food Irradiation and Vitamin Loss

How Does Food Irradiation Destroy Vitamins?

When food is irradiated, ionizing radiation reacts with water in the food, causing the release of electrons and the formation of highly reactive free radicals. The free radicals interact with vitamins in ways that can alter and degrade their structure and/or activity.4 The extent to which vitamin loss occurs can vary based on a number of factors, including the type of food, temperature of irradiation, and availability of oxygen. Nonetheless, vitamin loss almost always increases with increasing doses of radiation.

The destruction of vitamins continues beyond the time of irradiation. Therefore, when irradiated food is stored, it will experience greater vitamin loss than food that has not been irradiated. Cooking further accelerates vitamin destruction in irradiated food more than in non-irradiated food.5

The very fact that irradiation is used to extend the shelf life of food compounds the issue of vitamin loss. For example, an irradiated mango can sit in a crate for a longer time without rotting, but it will continue losing vitamins for the period after which a non-irradiated mango would have been discarded. Therefore, a direct comparison between the vitamin content of irradiated versus non-irradiated food stored for an equal length of time actually understates the extent of the problem.

What Vitamins Are Affected by Food Irradiation?

Vitamin C, vitamin B1, and, vitamin E are reduced in foods exposed to commercial levels of irradiation (1 kGy – 4.5 kGy). Studies at higher levels of irradiation also have demonstrated the destruction of vitamins A and K in food.18

Vitamin C

Fruits and vegetables, such as oranges and potatoes, are important sources of vitamin C, which is important for healthy gums, teeth, bones, and muscles. It helps to heal wounds, fight infection, and may also reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, and cataracts.

At the low doses of 0.3 to 0.75 kGy, food irradiation has been found to destroy up to 11 percent of vitamin C in fruit before storage, and up to 79 percent of vitamin C after three weeks of storage.19 Additionally, at the limit of its shelf life (270 days) irradiated mango pulp contains 57 percent less vitamin C than non-irradiated mango pulp at the limit of its shelf life (60 days).20

Vitamin B1 (Thiamine)

Whole grains, beans, and meat are important sources of thiamine, which helps convert carbohydrates into energy. It is essential for heart, muscle, and nervous system function. Wheat flour irradiated at the low dose of 0.25 kGy lost up to 20 percent of thiamine initially and 62 percent after three months of storage.25 Beef irradiated at 3.0 kGy, which is below the legal limit, experienced a 19 percent loss of thiamine.26

Vitamin E

Oils, corn, nuts, seeds, and green vegetables are important sources of vitamin E, an antioxidant that protects body tissues and cells. It also may improve the immune system and help fight heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and cataracts. Hazelnuts irradiated at 1.0 kGy lost 17 percent of vitamin E upon irradiation, and 58 percent of vitamin E after three months of storage and 30 minutes of baking.31

(References 4,5,18,20,25,26,31 from this pdf)

4 Murano, Peter. Food Irradiation: A Sourcebook. Ed. Dr. Elsa Murano,
Iowa State University: Blackwell Pub Professional, 1995.

5 Diehl, J.H. “Combined effects of irradiation, storage, and cooking on
the vitamin E and B1 levels of foods.” Food Irradiation, 10: 2-7, April 14,
1967.

18 Stevenson, M.H. “Nutritional and other implications of irradiating
meat.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 53: 317-325, 1994; Metta,
V.C., et al. “Vitamin K deficiency in rats induced by feeding of irradiated
beef.” Journal of Nutrition, 69: 18-21, 1959.

20 Youssef, Bothaina M. et al. “Combined effect of steaming and gamma
irradiation on the quality of mango pulp stored at refrigerated temperature.”
Food Research International, 35: 1-13, 2002.

25 Diehl, J.F. “Combined effects of irradiation, storage and cooking
on the vitamin E and B1 levels of food.” Presented at the 33rd Annual
Meeting of the American Institute of Nutrition, Atlantic City, NJ, Apr.
14, 1969.

26 Wilson, G.M. “The treatment of meats with ionizing radiations. II.
—Observations on the destruction of thiamine.” J. Sci. Food Agric. 10:
295-300, May 1959.

31 (ibid 27) Diehl, J.F. “Combined effects of irradiation, storage and cooking on the vitamin E and B1 levels of food.” Presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Nutrition, Atlantic City, NJ, Apr.
14, 1969.

Umm, Kirk, not to be a party pooper, but when I was taking Radiation Biophysics, the term ionizing radiation was a synonym, when used to describe irradiating living cells, for dimerizing radiation. As such, it referred to radiation that was high enough energy to cause dimerization of DNA…

But you might check on that ionizing radiation. At least when I studied the stuff, what you say about it wasn’t true.

this was your second statment:

Still, no. The definition of what ionization is, from the WHO site, is correct, but what is considered ionizing radiation varies depending on which molecule you are removing ions from. Their list of ionizing radiation sources is consistent with the definition I gave. In biophysics, as I said, the usual use is to refer to ionization of the constituent molecules (TACG) of the DNA rungs. The rungs then bond along the sides, deleting a “dimer” from the genetic code. In fact, if no reference to any other kind of ionization is explicitly made, most would interpret this to be what is meant.

Your third statement contains a ringing endorsement of food irradiation.

By the merest coincidence, the false definition of “ionizing radiation” foisted upon our readers in your first comment is the basis for your dismissal of extensively documented findings of adverse health and safety c consequences from the food irradiation techonology you celebrate for our readers in your third comment.

Irrespective of whatever the nameless “experts in radiation physics” who apparently misinstructed their students may have professed, neither:

the National Cancer Institute (in the person of:)

Steven L. Simon, Ph.D.
Radiation Epidemiology Branch
Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
National Cancer Institute

nor:

the EPA (as in their official “Ionizing Radiation Fact Book“)

nor:

the International Atomic Energy Agency

nor:

the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety

share the puported opinions of two unnamed and uncited purported “experts”.

Yet I and our readers are asked to take a pseudynonmyous account citing these two “experts” in place of the public, identified, and commonly held views and definitions shared by the National Cancer Institute’s Radiation Epidemiology Branch, the Environmental Protection Agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Canadian Centre For Occupational Health and Safety.

Gee — does that teeter-totter look balanced to you, Ondelette?

One international agency (the one that got Iraq right), two national US Agencies, and one national Canadian agency: they all agree on one definition.

In the other end of the teeter-totter we have…one pseudonymous commenter citing two unnamed (and hence unreviewable) “experts” – with nary a link nor a citation to support their assertions.

Amazingly enough, I’m still persuaded by the NCI / EPA / IAEA / CCOHS, rather than the pseudnonymous commenter citing two unnamed “expert” sources…whose false defintion just happens to produce a Big Industry-friendly — hence profitable — conclusion.

Mere coincidence, no doubt.

Why does this matter?

Well – other than providing a fine example of “when in a hole, stop digging”-

the spurious definition of “ionizing radiation” advanced in your first comment was the pretext for wholesale rejection of extensively documented findings about how irradiation destroys food nutrients while producing toxic by-products.

What economic forces does the false and misleading conclusion (based on the spurious definition the anonymous “experts” purportedly mistaught) in your first comment serve?

Why, the food procesing industry.

Gee – what does this remind me of?

Oh – now I remember.

Raising a tiny detail — usually spurious, false, or simply misleading — regarding real safety risks of extant technologies that profit Big Industry is an effective technique to obscure basic facts about health and safety dangers associated with profitable technologies.

That technique is well described by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in their book “Trust Us, We’re Experts“.

PR Watch and Sourcewatch are replete with examples of the technique — beloved as it is by the PR firms that serve toxic industires and their willing servants in industry, academia, and stink tanks.

In her groundbreaking and incisive work “The Secret History of The War On Cancer“, University of Pittsburgh epidemiologist Devra Davis extensive documented how Big Tobacco manufactured doubt for decades after the nicotine pushers knew their product was deadly. She also documents how corrupt “researchers” like “Richard Doll, Hans-Olav-Adami, and Dimitri Trichopoulos…secretly served as highly paid consultants for the asbestos, chemical, and pesticide industries.”

Amazingly enough, these “eminent” and well-paid scientists’ work “Furthered the manufacure and selling of doubt“.

The false definition of “ionizing radiation” upon which your initial comment rejecting health and safety risks caused by food irradiation is premised futhers “the manufacture and selling of doubt”, Ondellete.

Doubt – now what does that remind me of?

Why – now I rememember! An FDL Book Salon!

Not sure if you happened to see it, Ondelette.

Oddly enough, I’m quite certain every PR shop, stink tank, and other paid servant of those paid for acts that “furthered the manufacture and selling of doubt” heard of the Book Salon..or at least of our guest at the Book Salon.

Why?

Well, the guest for that Book Salon was David Michaels – author of Doubt Is Their Product. Oxford University Press seems to have thought well enough of him to have published his book: with 265 pages of text and 71 pages of references.

You know, references as in footnotes — that quaint literary and scientific convention allowing readers to assess the accuracy of alleged/purported “experts”. Like, say, the “experts” who say “trust us”.

References — that quaint convention which your assertions about unnamed “experts in radiation biology” purportedly teaching false definitions of “ionizing radiation” singularly lack.

Anyway, for some reason in reading these comments I recalled New Scientist’s review of “Doubt Is Their Product“

“As David Michaels persuasively argues in Doubt Is Their Product, the tobacco industry’s anti-antismoking campaign has become the template that every company can turn to when its bottom line is threatened by health, safety and environmental laws.”

In conclusion, Ondelette, that term “ionizing radiation” does not mean what you profess to our readers it means…but success in that misrepresentation would have meant a success of the type sought — and richly compensated — by the professional doubt-peddlers in the paid service of the planet’s most toxic and powerful industries.

Mere random chance, no doubt.

The sad thing about the “Doubt Is Their Product” peddlers is that they have been so successfully that even very well-meaning and well intentioned progressives have been misled into adopting the frames and assumptions most favorable to toxic technologies. So I’m willing to accept the inaccurate and false defintion of “ionizing radiation” provided to our readers was offered in good faith — yet I completely reject the false and misleading conclusions that arose from that inaccurate and false definition.

Of course, YMMV.

Bon appetit!

Ionizing radiation is radiation that has enough energy to remove electrons from atoms or molecules (groups of atoms) when it passes through or collides with some material. The loss of an electron with its negative charge causes the atom (or molecule) to become positively charged. The loss (or gain) of an electron is called ionization and a charged atom (or molecule) is called an ion.

Kirk, I’m not quarreling with what the mechanism of ionization is. It is, and will always be that a photon is absorbed by a molecule and results in the removal of a charged part of a molecule. That isn’t an issue, what is considered ionizing radiation is. You can cause breakage of some organic molecules by shining visible light on them if you want, that’s how the cone cells in your eye work. It isn’t considered ionizing radiation unless you are someone who works on the physics of vision.

Therefore, before one can call a particular form of radiation “ionizing” one needs to know what compound is being broken, which ions are being created in order to assess where the boundary between the two types of radiation is. If you just say “ionizing radiation”, and the subject is biological compounds, what I said is the case. Many other biological compounds require very different levels of energy to bust them, seed covers for instance. The charts which show ionizing radiation beginning in the UV range are based on dimerization. They are based on light being “mutagenic”.

The ionization is not what is corrupting the irradiated food. In all cases up to the present, irradiating food is done to preserve the food, because it destroys bacteria and other organisms that cause it to spoil. That means that the food that has been irradiated can be a lot older than food that has not been irradiated (we are talking limits in years as opposed to months). So the compounds within that food break down, or change to other compounds, in a way that is unique due to the fact that no other process allows food that old to be unspoiled. That food changes over time is well known: think of the difference between fresh corn on the cob and corn that has been canned, or even just corn on the cob that was harvested a week or two ago. The sugars in the corn convert to starches making a noticeable change in taste. Other chemicals convert or denature as well, this example is just easily noticeable (so is aging wine).

So now think of the long term effect of allowing the vegetable industry to irradiate fresh vegetables: Vegetables will now be able to be kept far longer without spoilage (once they have the permission there’s no way they will stick to making us safe from E.coli). So it increases the upper limits on the age of “fresh” fruits and vegetables, which can then be harvested even earlier, and ripened in ways that are even more creative than the current ones. And “fresh” fruits that have been kept in cold storage much longer than is currently possible will eventually be on the shelves whenever it suits that inventory and business model of the agribusiness. If you are into fresh fruit, you already know what the difference is between cold stored fruit and truly fresh fruit. If it’s a palatable difference, rest assured the compounds underlying are changed.

You are absolutely right that there are compounds in the food that wouldn’t be there if they were not able to irradiate them. I am only saying that the compounds arose by the leeway they gained on what was “food” and what was “garbage” by having food that unnaturally did not “spoil”. It wasn’t caused by the ionizing radiation itself. They did too much research on that part of it.

When people are trying to eat “local” they should think of it as “local” in space-time, not just in space.

Thanks Kirk for the great post you always bring topics that must be discussed and need to be used as talking points against the Rethugs!!