Talk:Food irradiation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Request for arbitration

After failure of mediation of this article through the Mediation Cabal without subsequent activity towards formal mediation and since there seems agreement on MrArt's talk page that formal mediation is not more promsing than efforts already undertaken by the Mediation Cabal I am in the process of requesting formal arbitration of the issue. Please provide any comments you might have about this proposal on the Arbitration section of the Mediation talk page. RayosMcQueen 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation of this article through the Mediation Cabal was abandoned and is considered failed

After a request to the Wikipedia Mediation Cabal, mediated discussions are going on between the interested editors. This discussion is here:

Main page: Talk:Food irradiation/Mediation discussion

The mediation status page is at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-07-17_Food_irradiation

Mediation was abandoned by MonstretM due to concerns with process and mediator bias and the case is now closed. A request of formal arbitration is in the process. RayosMcQueen 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The RADURA-logo

The international version of the Radura logo as defined by Codex Alimentarius has all elements filled; it is only a few instances, as the USA, where the 'leaves' are not-filled. See also Google for a collection of versions and origins.

Dieter E 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

citation to Tony Webb removed; not valid for 'raduara logo' Dieter E 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

URL to the Labelling Standard of Codex Alimentarius is available through FAO; who has the time to find out the complete link and the relevant paragraph within the Standard? Dieter E 12:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

DNA

The following text was removed because it belongs, if anywhere, in radiation:

Ionizing radiation in sufficient doses will disrupt or destroy the chemical bonds that make up the molecules of a living thing. Some forms of radiation, such as gamma rays, have very high penetrating capabilities, and so can destroy or change crucial molecules in the body, such as those making up DNA molecules. If the DNA is disrupted it may form a cancerous cell by causing mutations to the DNA. Conversely, radiation from space and the sun (Cosmic Background Radiation), as well as background radiation from the earth is responsible for many mutations that help to drive evolution.

--Andrew 17:39, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

How many tons (or annual yields or fractions thereof) of fruit (or, e.g. how many fruit flies) does science predict need to be radicided (sp?, i.e. typical fruit irradiation dosage) before a contaminant organism survives with a heritable mutation? Anyone have information that would be needed to guesstimate an answer?

--Arved Deecke 12:28, Jul 5.2006 (UTC)

I'll have a shot at answering that question: Typical probit 9 protocoll requires statistical demonstration of 99.999968% prevention of emergence of adult fruit fly. Note that this is not sterility, but death during pupation. This means that the doses are set to a level where after irradiation of 68'000 larvae there is no emergence any adults after pupation. At doses below that you might begin to observe viable adults. Those would, however, be steril unless irradiated below 15Gy (Anastrepha Ludens) Below those 15Gy you might encounter the heritable mutations that you are asking about.

An idustrial irradiation facility can tipically hold a dose uniformity of 3 to 1 on a pallet level and will therefore overdose any but the inner say 5% of the pallet volume. Such facilities hold a repeataility of 10Gy on a one sigma level and therefore overdose by 20Gy to get statitiscal process control. A target dose for Anastrepha Ludens is therefore set at 90gy (20Gy beyond the 70Gy required by 7CFR305.56). to get down to the 15Gy required for heretable mutants we are observing an offset of 7.5 standard deviations or a probability of one pallet in 3*10^13 being treated below critical dose of 15Gy. Standard protocoll asks for a level of larvation below 0.5% to be demonstrated through inspection for a product to be viable for treatment. A pallet of mangos has 230 boxes with 1.15 fruit fly larvae on average within the pallet. Statistically 5% of these larvae will fall within the inner zone of the pallet where undertreatment would be manifested. This means that an average 0.0575 larvae will be present within the critical area of any average pallet. So the combined probability of 1/3*10^13 pallets being treated insufficiently and that pallet having larvae in the critical zone is 1.8*10^15. A pallet weighs 900kg so you could comfortably irradiate 5*10^15 tons or the anual American consumption of mango for the next 2452633232 years. And this is not even trying to stab at the probability that any given heredetable mutation might harbour darwinistic advantages over the non mutated poulation that would leading to propagation.

Spontaneous mutation due to cosmic radiation in the field probably happens several times a minute across the world, so irradiation certainly won't add to the number of mutant fruitflies in any significant way.

-- Dieter E 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The removed text was correct in describing the effect of radiation to DNA, responsible for any biological effect, including insect disinfestation. Doses for this application are low; FDA set a generic dose of 500 Gy for any insect; for the Mediterranean fruit fly even 150 Gy might be acceptable providing the respective proof to FDA.

As the insects are made incapable of proliferation, there will not be any heritable mutation. The terminology of 'radicidation' is reserved to the elimination of pathogen microorganisms.

The amount of fruit irradiated for quarantine requirements is still small; one facility working on Hawaii; and a number of developing countries just establishing agreements with FDA for such imports.

NPOV

I really don't like articles that are all "he said, she said" with a paragraph for the opponents and another for the proponents. It just serves to polarize the debate. I've made it that way to get some points in there quickly, but please feel free to restructure the article. Each issue should be handled on its own in a NPOV manner. Saying “consumers are simply afraid of radiation” has certainly not come from researching opponents’ views and concerns. Also saying there is scientific evidence that irradiated food is “wholesome” is pretty poor when there is no scientific definition for wholesome. Let’s try to make this a factual NPOV article that discusses the issues to find a factual middle ground that considers the arguments from both sides, cites research and its source, and includes all the minor issues too like food labelling.

By the way, ionizing radiation is the radiation used in irradiation

Move to food irradiation?

This article is not about the (very generic) process of irradiation. I'll move it to food irradiation. --Andrew 05:50, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims

I removed several passages that made statements without a reference. If they are reinstated please supply a link so that the statement can be checked. Thanks. DV8 2XL 01:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I have found no information on this page, why the neutrality of this article is disputed and who disputes it. It would be very helpful to clarify this quickly so that any issues may be addressed. Furthermore I would like to comment that the version history of this article has been grossly truncated for some reason.

regards

Arved Deecke 15:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This article appears pro-irradiation. Views of opponents are not sufficiently described, controversy around the issue is not explained. The article is heavily biased in favor of irradiation, and hence I dispute its neutrality. Echino 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of mention of the different controversies that surround the topic and official positions are duely cited and referenced. At this point I am not aware of any scientific organization that opposes food irradiation for technical, safety or toxicological reasons, but would love to learn more, should such an organization exist. I am aware of organizations like Public Citizen, the Practical Hippie or Organic Consumers, but do not see how their opinion should offset FDA, WHO, FAO and many others. Maybe we should look at the root of the issue that these organizations have which is one of globalization, aknowledge the fact that irradiation may accelerate globalization and deal with those concerns on an ideological level rather than technical. I have also reviewed the article again and find that it duely cites its references. I have therefore removed the NPV and reference issue and suggest that those who continue to feel that this article is biased, provide good science based information.

Arved Deecke 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

The studies that the FDA chose to evaluate were not valid and were misinterpreted by the FDA. It would seem very biased to claim that food irradiation has been proven to be safe by FDA and WHO.

Sorry you have got to keep an NPOV when editing an article DV8 2XL 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I did. And I would be hard-pressed to say that the current version of the article is NPOV - in fact, it is very pro-irradiation. I even provided sources, yet you deleted my changes.84.231.173.52 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-edited it a bit. Note that there are sources; please read them before reverting back to an old version. Also, if the old version was written by you, please provide links to your claims about the safety of irradiation. 84.231.173.52 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not write this article. How can you remove a statmente like:"Both scientists have repeatedly asked that their work not be misinterpreted in a form that suggests that irradiated food poses any health risks to the consumer." and replace it with a loaded one like: "causes toxic health side effects such as premature death, fatal internal bleeding, cancer, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, mutations and genetic damage, organ malfunction, stunted growth and vitamin deficiencies" and claim NPOV? This is highly loaded propaganda, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. DV8 2XL 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Because those two scientists are NOT the only ones who have written on this subject, as it was implied in the older version. There are more than 400 studies, and to claim that most of them were written by these two is incorrect. I wrote that those health side effects have been suggested in the studies and provided a source where those statements can be found. How could it be POV when I'm referring to scientific studies? Your attempt to protect this pro-irradiation version is propaganda if anything.

Also, where have they "repeatedly asked that their work not be misinterpreted"? If you wish to include that statement, please do, but provide a source for your claim. You were the one who asked for sources. And if you disagree with the things I wrote, I ask you to edit them to a more neutral form, not revert back to an old version. It'll only end up in me reverting as well.

sources are: http://www.mnbeef.org/statement_to%20public%20citizen.delincee.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/99f4372/99f-4372-bkg0001-Tab-56-Delincee.pdf

• I suggest you get an account on Wikipedia, the read the rules and policies that are in place. When you have done this log on and we will get to work on this article if you want. Threats of an edit war are NOT the way things are done here. I strongly suggest you start with this page DV8 2XL 21:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read that page and other policies before, but I did create an account as you asked. I didn't threat you with an edit war, I was suggesting that you could've edited my post to a more neutral version if you thought it was not NPOV instead of reverting back, since it took some time to write it. To me, POV is when one makes a claim without any source reference.

Some of the wording in this article bothers me, since it is mostly FDA, WHO and IAEA who are saying that this is a completely safe method, yet it is made to sound like that is the consensus around the globe. I tried to mention some of the health hazards that scientific studies have shown and provided a source to keep, or should I say make it NPOV. Funeralprogression 12:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You had a valid point about the bias of the article being shaded toward the pro, however the cure for that is not 'counterbalacing' with rhetoric from the other side. Phrasing that includes lists of fuzzy terms like 'organ failure' and loaded language using the words 'feces' and 'urine' out of contex does not balance an article. Also you should know, (or you soon will,if you hang around) hit-and-run editing by folks with an agenda working from annon. I.P.s are a bit of a pest and it is sometime hard to sort out the ligitimate editors from the vandals, and yes when there is a lot of it going on maybe I react a bit too fast.

I reworked the article with NPOV in mind and took out much of the loaded wording from both sides. DV8 2XL 15:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest, that we include any reference that one might have with regards to any potential issues associated with food irradiation as long as they present sound, peer reviewed science. I would lead by good example, but I feel that Dr. Delincee's work is really the only thing out there that might qualify, and that reference is already included together with subsequent work resulting from the findings. I feel that we are dealing with not so much an issue of neutrality or bias, rather than an ideological dispute and an encyclopedia may not be the right forum for this. FDA, WHO, IAEA, USDA, FAO, CDC and many other organizations agree with the toxicological assessment of food irradiation as displayed in the article in its current, disputed form. The controversy is duly noted in the article, but that should not impact the existing overwhelming scientific content. At this point a serious encyclopedia should assume that consensus be reached and move on. I motion that the neutrality of this article be restored and if possible the article be finalized. Arved Deecke 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following, very POV:

However, there is a big BUT in all of this. If any food needed to be irradiated consumers might want to ask what was wrong with it in the first place? Bacterial contamination for example is a sign of bad handling and storage - and there have been some notorious cases of food companies using irradiation to cover up such contamination (cases uncovered by the London Food Commission and documented in "Food Irradiation the Myth and the reality" Tony Webb and Tim Lang, Thorsons 1990) Even irradiation of spices is questionable. How did such spices get so badly contaminated that they needed this 'sterilisation'? Many attempts have been made to paint this as an approved process (see the link below) but the reality is that the technology has little use, is generally rejected by consumers, severely limited in most European and Asian and Australasian countries and - unfortunately - has more to do with the failing nuclear industry trying to find a rationale for its byproducts (and nuclear wastes) than anything to do with food safety.

Article now needs some explanation of what the controversy actually is; I don't understand it well.

The reference to Tony Web and and Tim Lang, 1990 is not appropriate; their 'pamphlet' purposefully ingnores the mainstream of science. The allegation that radiation treatment is being used as a final cleanup for otherwise filthy and spoiled food is not true. For example a spoiled fish will continue to stink after radiation sterilization; however, the health risk from pathogen microorganisms will be eliminated. The point with the reduction of the microbial load of spices is a different one: if spices have a too high content in microorganisms the food in which the spice is only an ingredient marginal by quantity can carry a load of pathogen microorganisms being a risk to the consumer and may carry a load of spoilage causing microorganisms imparing the shelf-life of the product. Furthermore, another controversy is about 'Unique Radiolytic Products' (see also below in the article) which were not yet a matter of dispute in 1990.

--Dieter E 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, neutrality, 'proven safe', 'pro-irradiation' as the mainstream of science:

The discussion here is absurd for the world of science: Basically, any conclusions published by organizations as WHO or FAO must be considered neutral and the result of honest evaluation of the available data. There will always be left a very small number of critics and opponents; but those need to provide arguments which can be verified by scientific methods. This is not done in the discussions here. And who does not provide arguments which can be verified markes himself as unqualified!

A sophisticated argument: the postion of 'mainstream of science' is by its nature POV, the view of the majority of scientists in the field! So, what is the argument??

Dieter E 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Doses

Added some text into the part describing the effects of different dosages, since it depends also on what type of food is being irradiated. Funeralprogression 13:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

200.67.110.198

Hi, 200.67.110.198 some good work done in Food irradiation. Do think about geting an account here it's eazy and it's free, We need editors like you. DV8 2XL 18:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have an account, My name is Arved Deecke and I apologize for having edited without being logged on. Arved Deecke 18:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Disinfest / Disinfect

There seems to be an ongoing edit-war toggling between disinfest and disinfect in the first paragraph of the article. I suggest we discuss this here to find consensus. It is my understanding that disinfestation refers to the elimination of vermins. Irradiation is suitable to disinfest against insects, spiders, mites etc. and the term disinfest seems to be justified to me in the context. Disinfect seems synonymous to sterilization and hence need not be listed separately. Please discuss this here prior to reverting the edit. Arved Deecke 19:14, 13 December 2006

• My apologies, I changed disinfest to disinfect without checking the talkpage, thinking it to be a simple typo. However, as a Med student I can contribute to this by saying that disinfect is NOT the same thing as sterilize, and so it should be considered separately:

• --Sterilize means to completely remove (ie elimination) all transmissible agents (such as bacteria, prions and viruses) from a surface or object.

• --Disinfect (as I understand it from my microbiology lecturers) means to reduce the load of such agents on a surface to a very low level, ie one which is very unlikely to cause disease (eg if someone eats the thing - their immune system mops up any remaining agents). The sterilization article describes disinfecting as removing pathogens only, but I believe this to be simplistic - rather, it is the removal of the ability to produce pathology in most individuals, by reducing microorganism (and hence pathogen) load.

• --Disinfest is not a term I'm familiar with, but as long as it is not "original research", it sounds like it is separate also (as it deals with macroorganisms, if I understand you correctly, Arved. Can you vouch for it, and ideally reference it? Perhaps a page for it would be good - for example covering the removal of maggots from battlefield wounds, or blowfly larvae from under the skin.
• -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

James, according to the online dictionary of English [disinfest |http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disinfest] means "to rid of vermin" The term "Vermin" seems to include insects and rhodents but can be applied to other multicelular organisms considerd a nusance to mankind. Irradiation is specifically used in insect desinfestation and the term as such represents an important distinct usage of irradiation processing that requires mention. I will create a Wiki stub for the term disinfestation per your suggestion. Furthermore I will change disinfest to "insect disinfestation" in the article and also per your suggestion list sterilize and disinfect separately. Arved Deecke 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another issue with terminology

In the article there is a reference to "partial sterilisation." This makes about as much sense as saying someone is "partially pregnant." I don't know precisely what the editor was trying to say but it is fairly vague. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.80.123.40 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Just guessing, but maybe the point is that a large percentage of planted seeds of spices and herbs might not germinate if irradiated? -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Partial sterilization intends to communicate that although microbial count is reduced often by several logarithms for common pathogens doses required for a complete sterilization including elimination of virus pathogens or even prions is not accomplished. Partial sterilization is not an uncommon term in this context as most sterilization methods do not offer complete sterility. I did, however change the text from "partial sterilization" to "reduced microbial load" in order to accomodate for a wider spectrum of viewpoints.

Arved Deecke 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd remark

"Whenever dealing with nuclear technology, safety is a valid concern."

Safety is a valid concern with almost any technology. So what? 128.165.87.144 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates and locations of studies

I removed the redundant in-text reference to the date of a study since that information is already available in the citations. The in-text reference might also confuse the reader about the dates of all the studies cited in that paragraph. In any case, research from the 1950's is still valid and just as relevant as the more recent research, especially in light of the scant body of objective, scientific research on this subject.--MonstretM 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as relevant - in your opinion. One of those studies was conducted in the USSR, that well-known fount of objective research! I'm putting it back. MrArt 08:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of the studies. But rather than categorically disparaging the entire history of science and research conducted in the USSR, can you give me a specific reason why we should question the objectivity of this one particular study? Or is your bias based on "just your opinion"?MonstretM 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates of studies, as well as locations, are important. It's not the right of any editor to decide that research from the 1950's is still valid and just as relevant as the more recent research, especially in light of the scant body of objective - let the reader decide how much weight to give to old studies. Plus it's bogus to say that "information is available in the citations"; Wikipedia articles need to provide context, otherwise we'd just say something like "Some research as been done: <ref><ref><ref><ref>" . -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what you are reading, Mr. Broughton. Where did I say that dates of studies aren't important? Of course dates of studies are important, which is why we put them in the citations! Hellooo?

As an editor, I have scrupulously followed protocol by putting the dates in the citations. And by the way, research from the 1950's is just as valid and relevant as more recent research until there is ever presented reasonable cause to question the methods or data of such research. Therefore, in conforming to the practices of the scientific community, I am fully right to assume the validity and relevance of such published research and to present such information to the reader without the inclusion of redundant information that might disrupt the flow of the text or confuse/mislead the reader. Furthermore, it is entirely a matter of style as to how to present such information. For example, instead of writing, "In studies of low-dose food irradiation, a diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespan in offspring of rats, and chromosome damage in mice," it would have been just as well to write, "Consumption of irradiated foods may lead to shorter lifespans and cell damage in some mammal species" as long as I provided the citation. In fact, the latter, more fluid but informal method is commonly used in many college science textbooks. Again, the citations are key.

I've also seen many quality Wikipedia articles, in which information is presented with no textual reference at all to the original source, but with an adequate citation.MonstretM 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is clearly a difference of opinion, nothing more. One can say, in the text, "A study found", or "A study in 1950 found", or "A study in the USSR in 1950 found"; there isn't an absolute right or wrong. Saying that the information is in the citation (footnote) isn't sufficient reason to delete it from the text of the article. As always, the issue is what the reader should be most aware of.

I'm going to assert, based on my sense of the world, that (a) the older a study, in general, the less likely it is to be either the most recent, or to be good science (control group, randomization of treatment, double-blinded, etc.), and that (b) most of the editors and readers of the English Wikipedia are familiar with Western science (U.S. and Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand) and not with science (quality, regulations, peer reviews, etc.) from other countries. To the extent that those assertions are true, it's important (I believe) to flag the unexpected so that readers don't automatically give information the same weight. Is this POV or bias? I believe it is not, but simply fact. If someone were to write "The study was done in the USSR in 1950, and is therefore of questionable value", the "therefore" would be bias, and the "of questionable value" should be struck unless it was supported by citing a reliable source.

In short, I think that the opinions of other editors is needed, and rough consensus on what should and should not be in the text of the article should be the deciding factor, since this is, at its base, simply editorial judgment. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

"I'm going to assert, based on my sense of the world, that (a) the older a study, in general, the less likely it is to be either the most recent..."

I hope you realize that this is a statement of the totally obvious. However, if you are also blindly assuming or suggesting that more recent studies outweigh or replace older or preceding ones, then that is a dangerously misguided practice to be prescribing and defies both common sense as well as the norms of the scientific community. We refer to older studies, because they continually influence modern thought and knowledge, and precisely because they have withstood decades of scrutiny and the test of time. We cannot say the same of research that has been conducted within the last few years.

You wrote:

"the older a study, in general, the less likely it is to be... good science (control group, randomization of treatment, double-blinded, etc.), and that (b) most of the editors and readers of the English Wikipedia are familiar with Western science (U.S. and Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand) and not with science (quality, regulations, peer reviews, etc.) from other countries."

This statement is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous, and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the history of the sciences. All of our knowledge today, particularly in science, is built upon the foundations of preceding generations' work, regardless of their nationality. Many major contributions, in all branches of science, have been made from scientists and researchers from non-Western countries during the last century. From Russia and the USSR, for example, we have Dmitri Mendeleev, Ivan Pavlov, Nikolay Semyonov, and Pavel Cherenkov, to name but a few. They are as much a part of the "Western" school of science as Einstein and Sagan, and the idea that their country or date of work should raise a red flag is not supported by the realities of academia and modern science.

So yes, your assertions originate from bias and your claims of "unexpected" information are completely unfounded. You would be hard-pressed to find any Western scholar today who would deny that significant contributions have been made in their fields from non-Western scientists in the last century. Therefore, to say that research should be "flagged," simply because it originates from the 1950's or from a non-Western source, and to claim that "Western" research deserves to be weighted more heavily, is ethnocentrism, xenophobia, plain ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader, or all of the above. In any case, it has no place on Wikipedia.MonstretM 01:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If we were talking about the history of sciences such as chemistry or physics, I'd agree with most of your points. My mistake was to fail to make clear that we're talking about (as far as I know) medical/safety issues. One of things I do know is for fields like epidemiology, mathematical methods weren't introduced until the 20th century. I also know that DNA wasn't accurately modeled until 1953. So clearly there are studies older than these two points in time, for example, that are of interest to historians of science but not to readers looking to understand current issues and controversies.

If you're saying that scientific studies, no matter when done or where published (Germany, 1938, for example; see Lysenkoism for another example) should be treated similarly, that's absurd. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the study in question here is not related to epidemiology, so that point is moot. Furthermore, the study on the cytogenetic activity of irradiated potatoes was conducted in 1957, not 1857, not 1947, not 1938. You still have not provided any compelling evidence as to why we should be doubting the merits of this one particular study.

As for your point re:Lysenkoism, we can hardly claim that scientific misconduct is attributable to any one nation or time period. For example, see John Darsee, Eric Poehlman, and http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/

But maybe you are on to something here. Yea, maybe we should be "flagging" all the studies, like those conducted under the auspices of the USDA and FDA? Oh wait a minute, we do that already. It's called using citations.

And thanks for your private message by the way. Unfortunately, I don't agree with you and I intend to continue writing -- just the way that I've been -- for truth and neutrality on Wikipedia.MonstretM 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire section on very selective studies that is in complete disregard overwhelming endorsement of food irradiation by health agencies around the world and the scientific community as such. If we are to include studies we would need to include all and not only those that comply with the specific ideological requirements of the author. As the Wikipedia is not a platform for biased opinion I suggest we define any topic around the scientifc consensus that exists first and only then giving due mention to differing opinions without pretending that they represent the scholastic view on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.106.143 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted you, however, because your new claim had no citations, vs. the old stuff, which did. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To 189.169.106.143: I suggest you heed your own advice. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for your endorsement of food irradiation. Therefore, we need to present both sides of the issue, which your edit clearly failed to accomplish. Thanks to the administrator for reverting the page to the previously edited version.MonstretM 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Colleagues, disputants! We have a principal problem here: OF COURSE and by no dispute it is very essential where and when a study had been conducted. In the early days of research on food irradiation the protocolls were not well developed and standardized, not all of the essential details of the studies were published. Several of the initial studies were repeated by other groups of scientists and researchers, what is the STANDARD in science tzo prove that the results are independent of group ond origin. And most of such studies have failed to arrive at the replicatiopn of the results of the initial study. As a consequence, the experimental protocols have been refined to make studies reproducible by independent groups. With the consequence, the the original findings are to be considered 'refuted'! 212.144.174.123 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I regret, I was not signed in for the above! Dieter E 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that, "In the early days of research on food irradiation the protocolls were not well developed and standardized" is first of all not cited, but more importantly, it is misleading and comes off as yet another attempt to discredit valid research. There is much reason to believe that the early research on food irradiation was more objective and scientifically and methodically sound. According to Food Irradiation Watch in Australia:

"The bulk of genuine food irradiation research was done in the 1950s and 1960s. In November 1968 NATURE ran an Editorial summing up the adverse effects from feeding animals irradiated food and the dissatisfaction of the FDA with these results (3). In 1969 a review outlined the problems and dangers of irradiated food and this was followed by another review in 1971 of similar content (4, 5). So, genuine research on food irradiation ended around this time, except in India."

See http://foodirradiationinfo.org/pdf/fiandfakeresearch2.pdf

PLEASE note: your citation is an article by Epstein and Hauter, two well known activist against food irradiation, not holding any scientific publication in the field, but giving only speculative criticism. Of course, I did know the article since it was published. The list of their only 18 references proves that they do not know or take into account the respective original publication and a number of scientific reviews of the topic. Their article is also focussed on the US situation; a future article in wikipedia should describe the full world-wide picture. And again, relying on 'old' publications ignores the basic evolution in science, when other and independent researchers try to repeat a publication but fail with their experiments or evemn prove the contrary of the first publication. This occured in so many cases, but opponents frequently fail to give the full picture of the state of the art. Dieter E 13:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the bulk of your comments to be absolutely ridiculous, and they are not cited anyway. You are not fooling anyone. MonstretM 22:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM, can you acknowldege the fact that we are on the talk page and are not required to cite every piece of information we provide? Please consider using lese offensive language as insulting people based on a difference in opinion is frowned upon in many parts of the world. You may consider reviewing Wikiquette and ask for an Editor Review if you would like feedback on possible behavioural issues. If you review DieterE's credentials, you will see that he is very competent to talk about the history of food irradiation research as a well published scientist and can easily speak for himself. Now if you feel that genuine research long ended everwhere outside India, please also acknowledge the fact that all relevant Indian government agencies like the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology (BRIT) the Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI), and the Agricultural & Processed Foods Export Development Authority (APEDA) endorse food irradiation for many of the food groups that you claim to be unsafe.

Since we are talking about information that potentially affects the content of the article, it is necessary and practical to ask for citations before we consider such information. I do not see any problem with my language as I have not insulted anyone. As for credentials, they do not always mean the same things to all people. I will leave it at that.

Regarding scientific research and government agencies, please reread my comments:

As I stated before, I and other US citizens would disagree with your claim that the majority view is expressed by the FDA and other institutions. Many of these organizations do have agendas. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) mission, for example, is to promote nuclear technology, while there are well-documented conflict of interest problems within FDA. See http://www.forbes.com/home/healthcare/2005/02/24/cx_mh_0224fda.html and http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/

The "vast majority" of "expert bodies" is hardly the final word on food irradiation. First of all, international organizations like WHO do not represent the majority opinion of the scientific community, and secondly, organizations like WHO are well-known for corruption. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Controversies

Therefore, I request that you stop trying to mislead readers by implying that government agencies and the scientific community are one and the same. This is often not the case. Politics often trumps good science. For example, see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/opinion/12thu1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carmona#Congressional_Testimony

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D13FF355B0C7A8EDDA80894DE404482 MonstretM 15:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

THANKS: However, I can stand the insinuation of MonstretM and others; I have my credentials and MonstretM might show his on in this field. There will be always disputes and the repeated allegations that organizations as WHO do not represent the mainstream of science. However, do individuals opposing WHO-findings represent the majority of science? Are they professionally qualified for such discussions?

Of course, WIKIPEDIA does not check any contributor for his qualification. This is a BASIC advantage of the system, but also a difficulty to settle scientific disputes.

And MonstretM please let us know if WHO is not representing the "the majority opinion of the scientific community" who else would be in such position. Your argument that WHO is basically 'corrupt' is an imputation for which MonstretM should be excluded from participation in this discussion.

Dieter E 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Majority = 51% or more of the entire scientific community, including independent researchers at think tanks, universities, and other institutions. MonstretM 04:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here is absurd for the world of science: Basically, any conclusions published by organizations as WHO or FAO must be considered neutral and the result of honest evaluation of the available data. There will always be left a very small number of critics and opponents; but those need to provide arguments which can be verified by scientific methods. This is not done in the discussions here. And who does not provide arguments which can be verified markes himself as unqualified!

You have provided the most arguments, which cannot be verified... MonstretM 04:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstertM: first of all IDENTIFY

PLEASE provide your list of my arguments which cannot be verified in your opinion! This is a challenge to you, as I rely on scientific methods exclusively! Dieter E 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

2ACB's and Health Concerns

These should be kept in separate sections as they are not quite the same issues. One deals with the known health risks of consuming irradiated foods while the other deals specifically with the formation of exotic chemicals in irradiated foods. Combining the two subjects into one section only obfuscates the issues. MonstretM 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and combined them back into the same section. The underlying concern of 2ACB's were always health issues with the consumer. I understand that seperating the sections creates the illusion of a bigger issue, but you might agree that wikipedia should reflect main stream scientific consensus which is that irradiated food has been demonstrated safe and adequate for human consumption. Arved Deecke 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors strive to maintain NPOV. As much as you want to believe (or want the readers to believe) otherwise, there is not a "mainstream scientific consensus" on food irradiation, given the significant amount of members in the scientific and medical community who advise against irradiating foods. See http://www.ccnr.org/food_irradiation.html

Given the significant diversity of viewpoints that exist on both sides of this issue, I propose that your usage of the term "mainstream" is very inappropriate and subjective, and your usage of the term "consensus" cannot be applied in this case as by definition a consensus implies unanimity, which does not exist on this issue any more than one could say that there is a "mainstream opinion" on abortion (just because it is allowed by law) or a scientific "consensus" on global warming.

Wikipedia policy requires that when significant opposing viewpoints exist on a topic, that both should be presented fairly, and no single opinion can be implied to represent the absolute truth or "correct" viewpoint. In order for the readers to be allowed to make their own judgments, it is important that information be presented fairly. I propose that because you continually try to impose your viewpoint that a "mainstream scientific consensus" exists on the topic of food irradiation, when it clearly doesn't, that your neutrality and motivations in editing this topic are of questionable integrity. MonstretM 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream of Science:

Please note and accept: in science there will be always a diversity of opinions and judgements; this is the basic nature of science. However, some opinions will be at variance with the vast majority, in particular those judgements elaborated by national and international expert bodies. Namely of WHO, of many national bodies, of special expert groups convened to judge actual problems. Some of those expert bodies on food irradiation were the JECFI of 1981 (WHO/FAO/IAEA Joint Exoert Committee on Food Irradiation) and the JSGHDI of 1997 (WHO/FAO/IAEA Joint Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation); the reports are published and accessible easily. No discussion would be valid without reference to those and other well documented findings.

Opponents to food irradiation have failed until today to provide scientific evidence for their judgments and to lay their data before such expert groups. For example, Public Citizen, USA has been requested explicitely to do so by WHO, but this letter has not been answered ever.

Dieter E 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The "vast majority" of "expert bodies" is hardly the final word on food irradiation. First of all, international organizations like WHO do not represent the majority opinion of the scientific community, and secondly, organizations like WHO are well-known for corruption. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#Controversies

"There is pending controversy on the relation between the WHO and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Since May 28, 1959, there has been an agreement between these organizations, confirmed by World Health Assembly resolution WHA12.40. Numerous people, including Michel Fernex (a retired medical doctor from the WHO), have criticized this agreement as preventing the WHO from properly conducting its activities relating to health effects of ionizing radiation."

Secondly, your usage of the term "mainstream of science" is misapplied to food irradiation. There exists neither a "mainstream" view on food irradiation nor a "consensus" within the scientific community. If you read the entire discussion, you will find that it is well-documented that a substantial membership of the scientific community is not convinced of the safety of irradiating foods.

And please start citing your information, otherwise it cannot be taken into consideration. MonstretM 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The information I refer to is in the public domain! After you have read and digested this information you might begin to dispute the conclusions contained there. But only if you provide at the same time scientific evidence from experiments or peer-reviewed reviews supporting your criticism. It is not enough to stae that WHO or others are not at all reliable bodies. Dieter E 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Arveed Deecke, frequent editor of the "food irradiation" page on Wikipedia, should have disclosed that he is the president and CEO of Phytosan and has a vested interest in promoting food irradiation. Once again, I note that his edits have failed to comply with NPOV policy, and I suggest that so long as he is allowed to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform to endorse food irradiation, it will be impossible to maintain the integrity of this page.

From the NY Times: "Facilities in Hawaii and Florida that treat modest quantities of produce have been the primary irradiated sources for the United States so far, but a huge Mexican irradiation facility is expected to start operation in a year. Arved Deecke, general manager of Phytosan, the company building the plant, said irradiation will be cheaper than the hot water dip, and that he plans to treat a quarter of Mexican mango exports by 2012." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/dining/02mang.html?

You may also do a google search on "Arveed Deecke" for more info. MonstretM 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In terms of disclosure I can not do much more than offer my real name and I might suggest you do the same. I, and others sense an agenda to slander a specific technology regardless of the data and argument that is presented, often eliminating a very mainstream scientific knowledge base which is what Wikipedia users come to expect. Granted there are some who are concerned about this technology on a scientifc level, but you will agree that none of the recent edits have eliminated a valid reference to a specific opinion expressed by you. I and others did provide additional arguments around these opinion which in terms were backed up by valid reference. I feel that this is the way it should be done. Taking this to a personal level will probably not help with the project and I suggest a cool down period to level things out and let some other people contribute. Arved Deecke 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's not personal. The conflict of interest is quite palpable; you're the CEO of an irradiation company; you've made no edits outside the subject of irradiation; and your edits have generally been to promote irradiation, though I'm sure you just consider them to be reporting sourced facts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

'vested interest' is an easy way to discredit a contribution! The fact that the 'accused' Arveed Deecke is employed by an irradiation company does not make at all his arguments invalid or incredible. Or are opponents to food irradiation as for example on the pay-role of Public Citizen are more credible?? Dieter E 19:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but there is a demonstrated conflict of interest when the president of an irradiation company is using Wikipedia as a free public relations tool to endorse food irradiation and mislead readers and furthermore compromise the quality and integrity of Wikipedia's entire body of good work and its honest contributors. As for your question regarding "opponents to food irradiation": this is not a question of credibility, but intention. Please reread Wikipedia's policy on Conflict of Interest. MonstretM 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This comment by MonstretM is not acceptable by the principle! Any person, contribution facts and opinions to WIKIPEDIA is not 'misleading' the readers. Such sentence and accusation is a personal offence which should not appear within the WIKIPEDIA-system. I expect the apologies from MonstretM, in order to be able to take his input as serious arguments.

Of course and undisputable, any person regardless of background must be allowed to endorse the application of food irradiation through WIKIPEDIA, following in the arguments the renown conclusions of WHO and national expert bodies.

In science, 'intention' is not a category; facts and experimental results count, and the dispute can be only about validation and conclusions. The 'mainstream' of science is with WHO and not at all with some oponents and activists.

Dieter E 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the main barrier here is comprehension, since English is obviously not your forte. I don't think you really understood my point. When I was talking about intention, I was referring to the activity of editing on Wikipedia. Our intentions must be truth, selflessness, and neutrality.

And where do you get such claims that the "mainstream of science" is with WHO? You talk about facts and validation, but can you cite your information as a fact? You are coming across as very non-NPOV. MonstretM 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

THANKS MonstretM: I understand enough English to understand your insinuations; it is most polite as you treat my arguments!

I UNDERLINE your points of "truth, selflessness, and neutrality"; but do they apply for you??

FACT is that international and national bodies of high authority have judged food irradiation as 'wholesome'. Do you know the meaning of this term?

Dieter E 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of scientific studies / Copy protection

My proposal for the format of the section on scientific studies is to 1. present the findings of the studies in simple and clear, unbiased terms, and then 2. present the various interpretations in neutral POV. I think it misleads the reader to lead off this section using a non-neutral viewpoint (as was the case in the previous edits), which is why we should first present the findings without POV, and then present the reviews and criticisms of the studies. I streamlined this section in order to preserve clarity and flow. I removed text that was non-neutral, uncited, or nonessential to the point being made or to the article in general. MonstretM 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here I disagree. The Wikipedia user should hear about the majority view first and that is currently expressed by institutions like FDA, CDC, USDA, WHO, CODEX, IAEA and many others as cited on the page. The user is then entitled to learn about the whole spectrum of differing opinions to form his own. Your method targets at creating the illusion that the cocnerns are overwhelming and widely recognized and that just simply is not a valid rendition of reality. One would need to adhere to some sort of conspiracy theory to assume that all these health regulators are conspireing to knowingly push an unsafe technology. If we were to follow your suggestion and present scientific studies, we would clearly need to mention all of the 2500+ studies that did not find any adverse effects of food irradiation on consumer health, and present them jointly with the 6 or seven studies that say the contrary (if they then do, which upon closer scrutiny many do not) You will agree that such a bibliographical list is not the concise format a Wikipedia user should be able to expect. Neither is a biased selection of those few studies that fit into a specific ideological framework that you seem to adhere to.As mentioned earlier a cooldown period and input from other people should be the way to go. We can always hash this out on the talk page first and then move forward jointly Arved Deecke 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, I and other US citizens would disagree with your claim that the majority view is expressed by the FDA and other institutions. Many of these organizations do have agendas. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) mission, for example, is to promote nuclear technology, while there are well-documented conflict of interest problems within FDA. See http://www.forbes.com/home/healthcare/2005/02/24/cx_mh_0224fda.html and http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/

I might agree with you that Wikipedia should present the "majority" view before the less popular viewpoints, but I do not agree that pro-irradiation is the dominant viewpoint with either the American public or the independent scientific community. And of course the readers should be allowed to form their own judgments without any intervening manipulation from either corporate or special interests. I see that we agree on that, but I don't see that manifested at all in your editing. To claim that *I* have an agenda is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. My goal on this page is to present the facts about food irradiation in a way that is clear and neutral, but your edits have continually undermined any attempts at a straightforward and unbiased presentation.

As for the "thousands of scientific studies" that validate irradiated foods as safe, I propose that you include a paragraph with a representative sample of the studies' findings. Perhaps you can refer to the list of studies that the FDA reviewed in its decision to endorse food irradiation.

Again, I propose that we stick to the format of my last edit, which is a more user-friendly, coherent, logical, and NPOV format than the current version. In my latest edit, contrary to the claims of 200.67.94.104 (who happens to be from Mexico, same country in which your irradiation business is located) I did not delete most of the newer text, but rather moved it and incorporated most of it into more appropriate sections. The parts that I did delete were redundant, misleading, or non-NPOV; and keep in mind that just because statements are cited does not make them valid. I propose that we do a full comparison of my version and the current version, and discuss each piece of text on a case by case (section by section) basis. When we come to a mutual agreement on all contested parts of the entire text, I suggest we can then request for removal of protection.MonstretM 00:28, 12 Jul 2007 (UTC)

In general I feel the protection is helpful and should not be removed upon MonstretM's recommendation only. A Wikipedia user first needs to know who approves of irradiation, under what conditions and who disapproves and why. Furthermore, if we are to include select studies in the text, we need to make sure that the summary provided in the text coincides with the conclusions of the author. This is not the case in any of the studies that MonstretM cited I was able to review. As an example MonstretM cited "Tinsley, I.J., et al. 1970. The growth, reproduction, longevity, and histopathology of rats fed gamma-irradiated carrots" summarizing the studies to backup his/her statement that:

"Several studies have also demonstrated a correlation between lowered weight gain and consumption of irradiated foods. Possible reasons are toxicity, nutritional deficits, or the animals’ sensory rejection of the irradiated foods. In several studies, rats that were fed various irradiated fruits and vegetables showed significant growth retardation[43] and significantly depressed growth rates.[44]"

When reviewing the actual publication which can be found at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/.Foodirad-v2/CDROM/fd2_img/070/070_190/070_190.html the authors conclude that

"On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process. Since a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate has been observed in the animals raised on irradiated carrots, some question is raised on the wholesomeness of irradiated carrots. This effect was more pronounced with males than with females and cannot be explained by differences in food intake. The possibility of some bacterial contamination in the irradiated carrots has not been definitely eliminated. Further experiments would thus be necessary to define the nature of this effect.

We also need to state why these studies were rejected as valid by regulators and through independend peer review. I cannot see that the scientific study is duly addressed and am missing a NPOV as may be understandable. The article also makes no mention of succesive studies that did not confirm such findings.

MonstretM's response:

First of all, when did I ever say that I should be the only one who gets to request for protection removal? Why do you think I titled the new discussion section, "Cooperative Edit"?

Secondly, the following statement you made: "We also need to state why these studies were rejected as valid by regulators and through independend peer review" does not belong to the authors of the text you quoted, and therefore it was misleading of you to put it within the quotes, therefore I moved that statement outside the quotes so that people will know that the statement is attributable to you. Also, the first statement in that block of text you quoted: "On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process." actually belongs to a separate, preceding paragraph, and if you read carefully you will note that it does not refer to irradiated fruits or vegetables. Therefore it is misleading of you to use that part of the text to try to invalidate the finding that irradiated fruits and vegetables were correlated with "depressed growth rates". The true text as it appears in the report should look like this:

"On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process.

"Since a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate has been observed in the animals raised on irradiated carrots, some question is raised as to the wholesomeness or irradiated carrots. This effect was more pronounced with males than females and cannot be explained by differences in food intakes. The possibility of some bacterial contamination in the irradiated carrots has not been definitely eliminated. Further experiments would thus be necessary to define the nature of this effect."

Therefore, what part of "Since a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate has been observed in the animals raised on irradiated carrots" is incongruous with my statement that "In several studies, rats that were fed various irradiated fruits and vegetables showed... significantly depressed growth rates[44]"?

*Note, for clarity, I did not quote the part of my statement that states "significant growth retardation[43]" as that part of the text is not related to the specific study being questioned here in this part of the discussion.

Finally, if you bother to read the entire report, you will also find that:

• “The carrots turned dark with irradiation, their intensity changing from batch to batch. At some times the irradiated product was surrounded by a jelly-like substance which smelled acid and also gave an acid reaction.”

• ”The only significant treatment effect was that observed in animals raised on the carrot rations. For both a 98-day and a 42-day growth period it was observed that the net weight gain of animals raised on the control carrot ration was greater than that observed in animals raised on the irradiated carrot rations.”

• ”For the overall treatment means, the difference in net weight gains between animals on the control and irradiated rations is significant, at the 1% level, there being no difference in growth rate between animals raised on the two irradiated rations.”

• ”It appears, then, that with male animals raised on the carrot rations, the irradiation process followed by storage results in a decrease of about 5% in the growth rate over a 42-day period.

• And just to be fair: ”During the course of the experiment occasional cans of irradiated carrots showed signs of microbial contamination. To what extent this might have influenced the overall result is not known.”

I feel that these data justify my interpretation of the study. On the other hand, I sense a deliberate attempt on your part to mislead the reader by misquoting from the study and accusing me of misinterpreting the findings of the original study.

I will comment on the rest of your discussion either tomorrow or another day. It is a shame that so much of my time is wasted trying to justify *my* edits against others who have a blatant agenda to mislead and confuse the public and deliberately abuse Wikipedia.MonstretM 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RayosMcQueen in that whenever citing a study, we should paraphrase the summary of the authors of the cited study as faithfully as possible, as anything else would qualify under the realm of original research. I do not think that your citation does justice to this principle for the following reasons:

a) you do give the impression that the second study found issues on "various fruits and vegetables" while the study explicitly ruled out any such issues on all investigated food items including prok and grain other than carrots. We can easily separate both references and avoid confusion if your intention was different to my perception. b) if the author speaks of "small but consistent decrease in growth" there is no reason to paraphrase that as "significant growth retardation" as we can easily use the original words. c) If the author concludes that "On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process" then who should have an interest in keeping this information from the reader?

I personally was unable to find a copy of the first study cited in the same sentence and can therefore not comment on it. Please let me know if you could distribute an electronic copy as RayosMcQueen suggests later in this text.

MonstretM's response: I take issue with your accusation that I am not paraphrasing the original research accurately.

in regards to point a): For the statement that, "In several studies, rats that were fed various irradiated fruits and vegetables showed significant growth retardation[43] and significantly depressed growth rates"[44]

Please note that I have referenced 2 different studies on this issue, one with data on irradiated strawberries, and another with data on irradiated carrots. Please note that strawberries are fruits, and carrots are vegetables. Therefore, I think that the usage of the general phrase "fruits and vegetables" is justified.

in regards to point b): It is the preferred style in research reporting to paraphrase when it remains true to the original source. Direct quotes should be used sparingly and only when referring to a specific piece of text whose meaning or integrity cannot be conveyed in any other way. Using too many quotes -- when paraphrasing would be just as adequate -- often disrupts the flow of a text.

I think you are either not reading carefully, or perhaps missing something. In paraphrasing the findings of this study, I have used material from the ENTIRE text without distorting any information. For example, from both the summary AND body of the study, I have provided for you direct quotes, in which the author states:

”The only significant treatment effect was that observed in animals raised on the carrot rations. For both a 98-day and a 42-day growth period it was observed that the net weight gain of animals raised on the control carrot ration was greater than that observed in animals raised on the irradiated carrot rations.”

Furthermore, the author states:

”For the overall treatment means, the difference in net weight gains between animals on the control and irradiated rations is significant.”

Therefore, based on these statements by the author, I do not know how you draw the conclusion that my paraphrasing isn't true to the study's findings. In my opinion, the phrase "significant growth retardation" is adequately justified.

in regards to point c): Please don't accuse *me* of trying to keep information from the reader. My goal is to balance this article with NPOV. There are already many statements throughout this article where it states that certain scientists and organizations have determined irradiated foods to be safe. My goal is to balance this article by not excluding useful information from studies that have also found certain irradiated foods to carry certain health risks, specifically in this case, abnormal growth.MonstretM 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion I suggest that If we are to cite this or any study, we should do it closely adhering to the original words of the author as used in the summary of the text. As to the carrots going brown, Radiation tolerance is a separate topic of discussion and is currently handled elsewhere in the article. Remember that at the time of these early studies food items were often irradiated to very high doses as scientists were still hoping that irradiation might be able to cause shelf stability rather than just shelf life extension. In the case of the carrots and other food items we should bear in mind that they were irradiated between 28 times and 56 times the current legal maximum dose for this food group so intolerance issues are neither surprising nor relevant to determining wholesomeness in the current regulatory context. GermanPina 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM's response: Yes, our reporting does have to remain true to the findings of the original research. However, no, we do not have to adhere to only the summary of the study. That is a completely arbitrary request that neither benefits the reader nor serves the purposes of truth and science. The summary section of a research report is perhaps THE LEAST important part. Most of the real value is found in the data.

Regarding the carrots, I think the solution would be to modify the text to read: "fruits and vegetables that are irradiated at high doses"MonstretM 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also unable to find a copy of the first study by Verschuuren, Van Esch and Kooy (1966), however I did find an external review by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority on the study. (see [1]) This review mentions briefly on page 51 that strawberries were irradiated to 50kGy which represents 20 times the current permitted maximum dose. According to the reviewers the study showed "Decreased growth in male rats consuming (strawberries in their) powder form. No effects on females or on animals consuming strawberry juice." On the same page there is mention of a study by Schubert et al from 1973 that fed irradiates strawberries to mice and reported no mutagenicity.

MonstretM's response: As GermanPina pointed out, the specific issue for review here in this part of the discussion is "growth abnormality" and not mutagenicity, so that point is moot.MonstretM 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The review by the Australian / New Zealand government, by the way, goes on to conclude on page 50 that

• There is an established technological need to irradiate tropical fruits for the purposes of pest disinfestation;

• International scientific opinion is that irradiated food is safe when the irradiation is performed at dose levels necessary to achieve the intended technological function and, in accordance with good radiation/manufacturing practice;

• There are chemical changes in tropical fruits following irradiation (albeit limited) resulting in the formation of radiolytic products. However, these products are not always unique to irradiation and are also present following more traditional processing of food, namely, heat;

• As a form of food processing, irradiation will have some impacts on the nutrient status of tropical fruits; however, there are few indications that these impacts are any greater than other forms of food processing, especially for irradiation doses less than 10 kGy;

• The research indicates that carbohydrates, proteins, fatty acids, minerals and trace elements in tropical fruits undergo very minimal alteration during irradiation; although selected vitamins are effected following irradiation of tropical fruits;

• Overall, there are no toxicological concerns resulting from the formation of new radiolytic products following irradiation of tropical fruits. By virtue of the concept of chemiclearance and the past safety studies performed on fruits (including tropical fruits) irradiated food is considered equivalent to non irradiated food or fruits that have been treated with more conventional treatment protocols (eg heating for quara

MonstretM's response: But the keyword is "overall". That does not mean absolute. For this page to be useful to readers, it is necessary to provide information about any and all possible risks of irradiated foods, not hide them from the consumer as you would prefer. Also, most of this pro-irradiation information already exists within the article (mirroring FDA's endorsements), so I don't see the point of touting the Australia New Zealand Food Authority's additional endorsement. However, I would not object to adding some of this text provided that it is stated as the opinion or assessment of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority.MonstretM 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The common parameters of the controversal studies might be the use of very high doses, and I am not aware of any study that showed inhibitet growth or toxicological effects while irradiating the product close to the permitted maximum doses of our times. I would be very interested to hear about such studies though and will keep looking myself.RayosMcQueen 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Another example is were MonstretM cites Brownell, L.E. et al. “Growth, reproduction, mortality and pathological changes in rats fed gamma-irradiated potatoes.” Contract report No. DA-49-007-MD-581, Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General, 1959. The actual article can be found at http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/3900/4/bab4237.0001.001.txt He/she used this citation to backup the following claim:

"A diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespans for offspring"

While the authors actually concluded that:

"There was no consistent effects due to irradiation of potatoes which could be established by these cireria. There was a slightly greater mortality rate among males of the first generation fe the irradiated potato diets which was of questionable statistical significance and may be related to the poor condition of the irradited potates relative to the nonirradiated controls. Second generation males and females fed the irradiated potato diets also experienced a higher mortality rate this is attributed to genetic factors... ... The combination of a genetic and a dietary factor is implicated in causing this disease, but irradiation of the potatoes is not a factor."

In addition to the citations that MonstretM, apparantly willfully distorts in pursuit of a political agenda, there is important secondary studies and comments from peer review that contradicts the findings that would need to be included to maintain NPOV. An example here might be a citation which MonstretM used to reference the following statement:

"In one study, fifteen malnourished children who were given a diet of irradiated wheat developed polyploid cells and other cell abnormalities"

The text was later eddited into a fully refernced more neutral and adequate representation of the facts.

"The authors concluded that only the groups recieving irradiated wheat showed increased levels of polyploid cells.[47] The study was critizied in peer review as all children showed 0% polyploid cells prior to the change in diet an occurence that is extremely unusual in humans [48] During discussion with Kesavan and Sukhatme as part of a review done on behalf of the Indian Government, the co-author of the study Dr. Bhaskaram explained that a very reduced number of cells could be evaluated prior to the study, since about 75% of the cells frome these malnurished children had chromosomes which exhibited a "fuzzy" appearance and therefore were not fit for counting. After any of the three diets the levels of polyploid cells was closer to those expected in a healthy child[49]"

Frankly I think that the edit protection is doing the Wikipedia user a favor in protecting the more balanced view points that several users were able to inlcude despite MonstretM's constent edit agenda. My requirements for lifting the edit protection would be: a) starting the abstract on health issues listing the agencies and organizations endorsing food irradiation, followed by the ones opposing it. b) making an electronic copy available on those studies that are cited that can not be found on the internet to assure that the conclusions drawn in the article reasonably reflects the summary by the authors. c) explain the issues with the studies provided that did not surpass peer review and subsequent regulatory processes provide alternative opinions to those of the authors were verifiable and relevant. d) Clearly state the overwhelming scientific consensus that is available, verifiable and consistent.

Let me know what everyone's thoughts are. RayosMcQueen 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

---

---

No need to be oafish, MonstretM, we clearly have a point here. According to Wikipedia Standards, If you cite a source, then your referenced text must coincide with the overall conclusions of the author, otherwise it qualifies as an out of context citation. Maybe an example would be helpful:

MonstretM's response: No, I don't think your point applies to me, but clearly applies to your own tactics. For example, YOU are the one who originally tried to misrepresent the author's findings by deliberately misquoting text from the original study to imply that the author found no problems with ANY irradiated foods. (See above discussion about irradiated carrots.) Your accusations are totally out of line.

Again, I ask, what parts of the author's statements that "Since a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate has been observed in the animals raised on irradiated carrots" and "For the overall treatment means, the difference in net weight gains between animals on the control and irradiated rations is significant” are incongruous with my interpretation that "rats that were fed various irradiated fruits and vegetables showed... significantly depressed growth rates[44]"?

I propose that this is not a case of ideas and findings being taken out of context, but rather a case of those ideas not conforming to your agenda. MonstretM 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How would you feel if proponents of the safety of irradiated food had made the following claim "On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process" which is an exact paraphrase of an arbitrary selection of the authors text but denies the reader the insight that the researchers also looked at carrots and did find a small but consistent impact.

MonstretM's response: As I already mentioned, the relevant information in this part of the article ("Health concerns about irradiated foods") concerns any and all possible health risks of irradiated food -- information of significant value to the reader. It has already been established and documented (at least in my version of the article, please see my last revision for reference) in the section "Public perception and expert opinions" that a number of government organizations and scientists have determined irradiated foods to be safe. There is no need to repeat this message ("irradiated foods have overall been determined to be safe") throughout the sections of the article regarding the possible health risks of irradiated foods. As well as being redundant, that would tilt the article to non-NPOV. To claim that the author concluded that irradiated foods were not safe, which I did NOT do, is quite different from saying that the study found that irradiated carrots were correlated with significantly depressed growth rates, which is what I did. Therefore, I do not see at all how I misrepresented the author's findings. However, I do think that after presenting any studies' findings, different published interpretations and reviews should be presented and cited, allowing for different viewpoints, but there must not be any attempts to editorialize with the information, such as implying that "such findings represent the dominant mainstream scientific consensus," which is opinion and not NPOV.

As for your point re: "On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process."

I suggest that you need to brush up on your English. The text that you have presented above is called a direct quote and is not an example of paraphrasing. I would not have any problem of you using that quote in the section "Public perception and expert opinions" or preferably, if you had followed my advice, putting it in a new section in the article devoted to studies which have demonstrated irradiated foods as safe.MonstretM 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You may agree that such arbitary and selective quoting is no more acceptable if it advances your view on things than it is when it advances that of others. This is why Wikipedia standars suggest the following procedure with out of context citations: Out of context citations should first be tagges with the failed verification tag. then be addressed in the talk pages (which we are trying to do post mortem) and if the issue is not fixed in due time the reference should be treated as unsourced material that should be deleted if considered doubtful and harmful to the article.

MonstretM's response: I have not made any out of context citations, but you have. Maybe you should follow your own advice. MonstretM 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you interpret a publication or its underlying data differently than the author, rather than providing an accurate synthesis, review or summary, you would need to have this interpretation published outside Wikipedia first as otherwise it would qualify as original research which is also against Wikipedia policy. I understand that you feel strongly about the disadvantages of wide spread use of food irradiation, I really do, but you need to be open to the possibility that the studies that you cited are out of context and their representation distorted. Meanwhile I am committed to openly review any scientific concerns including its independent review and am open to the idea that we might find legitimate concerns in literature. Maybe we should refocus the downside of irradiation away from the scientific issues to the sociological ones, where some people may have valid concerns regarding globalization / energy usage in transport etc. If we can separate science from politics we might just be able to move on. Let me know what your thoughts are RayosMcQueen 16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM's response: To RayosMcQueen (aka Arved Deecke?): I understand that you are strongly invested in the irradiation industry and feel strongly about the dollar benefits that some people will gain by wide spread use of food irradiation, I really do, but you need to be open to the possibility that the studies that you cited are out of context and their representation distorted. Meanwhile I am committed to reviewing publicly any scientific findings regarding irradiated foods and would appreciate if you for once would put your personal agenda aside and help us preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. I do not think we should deliberately refocus attention in the article away from the scientific issues as safety is a serious concern of food irradiation. As I mentioned earlier, our goal as editors is NOT to attempt to mislead or sway the reader's opinions. There are indeed economic, social, political, and environmental issues that are tied to irradiation, and these issues have already been addressed in the article, and people are more than encouraged to add to those sections. My particular concern is to present the health risks of irradiated foods as suggested in various published scientific studies. If we can separate editorial work from your own private interests, we might just be able to move on. Let me know what your thoughts are. MonstretM 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

---

VERY CRUCIAL: Before any discussion on some specific finding in some published paper about an effect obeserved and its implications can be continued, the fundamental questions needs to be resolved, how a scientific topic can be discussed between a scientist and a layman. For example, we do not kow what the scientific background of "MonstredM" is! I would disclose my full identity and my scientific qualification immediately after MonstredM has disclosed his background. In a scientific dispute I prefer to discuss face-to-face or with 'open visor' in this battle.

Does MonstredM and do others understand the importance of experimental design, the choice of the parameters measuered and of the parameters control experimentally; is it understood what the statistical significance of a result is and how this can be compared to similar studies; is it understood that any scientific result must be repeated in a different laboratory by other investigators preferably with varying methods of analysis? If the answer is yes, the discussion here could go into further details. If not, waste of time and efforts!

Dieter E 14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What ist the 'independent scientific community' as refered to by MonstredM? Please qualify and list names of people. For example, is J.F.Diehl (author of Safety of Irradiated Food) accepted as independent? Or is Jenkins and Worth, on the payroll of an activist organisation the only 'independent' source?

Dieter E 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See endorsements: http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/epsteinsanitation.rtf MonstretM 03:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE note the motto of this publication (your reference) by Epstein and Hauter (who both are well known as opponents to food irradiation on an ideological foundation):

"Bacterial food poisoning can be readily prevented by long overdue basic sanitary measures rather than by ultrahazardous irradiation technologies."

This statement is simply false on the scientific level. Food unevitably carries microorganisms including pathogens. The residual risk exists after the best (not only the 'basic') sanitary measures have been implemented. 'Ultrahazardous' is their unfounded view. If you dispute the general safety and wholesomeness of processing food by ionizing radiation and of the general consumption of irradiated food you need to provide arguments based on sound science. NONE of such arguments has been provided until this moment. Dieter E 21:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Part 1 of cooperative edit: Proposed new section for "Current state of irradiated foods"

I suggest moving the following text from the intro into a new section, called "Current state of irradiated foods":
"Food Irradiation is currently permitted by over 40 countries and volumes are estimated to exceed 500'000 metric tons anually world wide"

Into this new section I also suggest moving the following text from the section titled "Food irradiation":
"The United States Department of Agriculture has approved the use of low-level irradiation as an alternative treatment to pesticides for fruits and vegetables that are considered hosts to a number of insect pests, including fruit flies and seed weevils. While the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has passed a motion to commit member states to implement irradiation technology for their national phytosanitary programs, the findings of recent scientific studies contributed to the European Parliament’s decision to revise a proposal to expand the types of food that can be irradiated in the European Union. Currently, the European Union only permits irradiation of dried aromatic herbs, spices, and vegetable seasonings. They are requesting more studies to be done before they will allow expansion of irradiation technology to other food items. Other countries including New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, India, and Mexico have permitted the irradiation of fresh fruits for quarantine purposes."

In regards to the part of this text that currently reads: "the findings of recent scientific studies contributed to the European Parliament’s decision to revise a proposal to expand the types of food that can be irradiated in the European Union."
I suggest restoring my original wording of "reject" in place of "revise" as the quote from the source would support that phrasing:
"Based on European studies showing the formation of cancer-causing properties in irradiated fat, the European Union, which allows irradiation only for certain spices and dried herbs, has voted not to permit any further food irradiation until more studies have been done." (Burros, Marian. "Irradiated Beef: A Question In Lunchrooms," The New York Times, January 29, 2003.)

To the same part of text, I also propose adding "on the health risks of irradiated foods" for clarification, such that the final text reads:
"the findings of recent scientific studies on the health risks of irradiated foods contributed to the European Parliament’s decision to reject a proposal to expand the types of food that can be irradiated in the European Union."
Note that the word "risk" by definition implies potential or possibility, and not certainty. Therefore the use of the word "risk" is justified, especially in the context of the EU's interpretation of the health studies and its decision to ban further irradiation.

In regards to the part of this text that currently reads: "Other countries including New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, India, and Mexico have permitted the irradiation of fresh fruits for quarantine purposes."
I suggest restoring my original wording of "for export to the United States" in place of "for quarantine purposes" as it is fact that these fruits are being irradiated for export to the USA and my wording is less obscure than the current wording.

From the section on "Public perception and expert opinions," I suggest moving the following text into this new section:
"Many supermarkets carry irradiated food products today ranging from fresh fruit, dehydrated spices, and ground meat products while some supermarkets like Whole Foods Market will not carry the product."

But I suggest changing the text to a more truthful and representative statement on the current state of irradiated foods in the US market:
"In the United States many supermarkets carry a limited array of irradiated food products, ranging from fresh fruit, dehydrated spices, and ground meat products, while other stores such as Whole Foods Market have refused to carry irradiated foods."

From that same section on "Public perception and expert opinions," I suggest importing the following text into the new section:
"India recently exported its first shipment of mango to the U.S. by means of irradiation and despite relatively high shipping cost compared to Latin American mango, market reception was very good"

But I suggest removing the text that claims that "market reception was very good" as this is not supported in your citation. The new sentence would read as:
"India recently exported its first shipment of mangoes to the U.S. by means of irradiation despite relatively high shipping costs compared to Latin American mangoes."

The final and complete text for the new section would look like this:

Current state of food irradiation

Food Irradiation is currently permitted by over 40 countries and volumes are estimated to exceed 500'000 metric tons annually world wide[6].

The United States Department of Agriculture has approved the use of low-level irradiation as an alternative treatment to pesticides for fruits and vegetables that are considered hosts to a number of insect pests, including fruit flies and seed weevils. While the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has passed a motion to commit member states to implement irradiation technology for their national phytosanitary programs, the findings of recent scientific studies on the health risks of irradiated foods contributed to the European Parliament’s decision to reject a proposal to expand the types of food that can be irradiated in the European Union[7]. Currently, the European Union only permits irradiation of dried aromatic herbs, spices, and vegetable seasonings[8]. They are requesting more studies to be done before they will allow expansion of irradiation technology to other food items[9]. Other countries including New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, India, and Mexico have permitted the irradiation of fresh fruits for export to the United States. India recently exported its first shipment of mangoes to the U.S. by means of irradiation despite relatively high shipping costs compared to Latin American mangoes[15].

In the United States, many supermarkets carry a limited array of irradiated food products, ranging from fresh fruit[10], dehydrated spices[11] and ground meat products[12][13], while other stores such as Whole Foods Market have refused to carry irradiated foods[14].

MonstretM 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thanks for your staunch defence of the NPOV. Despite all the arguing I think the article is now much improved. MrArt 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with your edit but do not find that this first section was the major stone of contention. I think the real issue is how scientific findings used to justify opposition to irradiation are wilfully misrepresented to confuse the public. I have commented on this at length in the previous section and do request that these issues be fully addressed before we consider requesting a lift of the edit protection. RayosMcQueen 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned further up in the discussion, I think we should do this systematically, one section at a time. I only had time to work on this one section yesterday, but I will check your suggestions and contribute my input about the scientific findings soon. I agree that the health risks section is the most contentious section, and will require a lot of revision.MonstretM 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with your suggestion on reviewing all sections of the article systematically, trying to clarify public doubts about food irradiation and using recent published scientific results properly with the only objective to inform with true and confirmed data, just looking for the whole wholesomeness of food consumed by our families.GermanPina 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your point on "clarifying public doubts" and your strange statement on "whole wholesomeness of food consumed by our families". These statements demonstrate a clear agenda on your part. The point of Wikipedia is to present all the relevant information on a topic without bias and allow the reader to make their own judgments. If the majority of the public has doubts about food irradiation, it is not Wikipedia's mission to erase those doubts, and it is not your right as an editor to use Wikipedia as a medium to sway the public opinion.MonstretM 05:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose we maintain the edit protection for now as we are clearly beyond the possibility of a civilized discourse based on fact and reason. RayosMcQueen 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleary. I do not anticipate removing edit protection for another several weeks. Again, I am approaching this methodically and with commitment to NPOV, and so it will require a few weeks to address all the sly agenda-pushing dispersed throughout the text of the article. Until you can commit to NPOV, we will not get very far, although I do think we are making progress.MonstretM 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of Disputed Studies

I have generated this section to provide an organized workspace to discuss and preferibly concurr on a suitable text to do justice to the citations of studies that were disputed. I would appreciate any comment on the structure of this section. Since the studies are sometimes rather old it was not possible to obtain all publications in electronic format. I will do my best to pursue the studies, but since you MonstretM have cited these studies you most probably have copies that you could make available through the Wikipedia Document upload. I am inviting to an open discussion and hope the format is perceived as helpful. If I cited incorrectly or there are any other errors feel free to point that out or edit. RayosMcQueen 23:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a constructive way to go about this. I will see were I can help GermanPina 01:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this will be helpful. I will import some of my discussion from the above section in "Discussion of scientific studies / Copy protection" into the new section.MonstretM 03:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

---

What will be the advantage when laymen as probably MonstetM or Wenonah Hautor or others try to discuss experimental protocoll, reported data, drawn conclusion, the evaluation of microscopic slides, the statistical evaluation of tables, the principles of epidemiological research and more?

What will be the advantage of the dicussion of 'old' experiments, which could not been reproduced by other laboratories and other indepentent researchers? What will be the advantage of dicussing again publications, conclusions and final validations by expert bodies?

Dieter E 21:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Brownell, L.E. et al. “Growth, reproduction, mortality and pathological changes in rats fed gamma-irradiated potatoes.” Contract report No. DA-49-007-MD-581, Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General, 1959.

Location in electronic form

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/3900/4/bab4237.0001.001.txt

Abstract of the study

ABSTRACT For two years a colony of albino rats was fed diets of which one third contained potatoes which had been exposed to ionizing radiation for sprout inhibitiono Growth. food consumption, reproductive performance, hematologic changes, mortality, and pathologic.changes in these rats were compared with the same in animals fed a nonirradiated potato diet. The growth, reproductive performance, and pathologic changes up to 30 weeks of second- and third-generation animals were also compared with corresponding controls. Three results emerged from this studyo (1) There were no consistent effects due to irradiation of potatoes which could be established by these criteriao (2) There was a slightly greater mortality rate among males of the first generation fed the irradiated potato diets which was of questionable statistical significance and may be related to the poor condition of the irradiated potatoes relative to the nonirradiated controls. Second-generation males and females fed the irradiated potato diets also experienced a higher mortality rate but this is attributed to genetic factors. (3) An unusually high incidence of a necrotizing arteritis resembling "peri-arteritis nodosa" occurred in the first- and secondgeneration animals in this experiment~ The combination of a genetic and a dietary factor is implicated in causing this disease, but irradiation of the potatoes is not a factor. Studies are currently in progress on hypertensive vascular disease in descendants of the animals used in the above experiment. OBJECTIVE The objective of this experiment was to test the wholesomeness of irradiated potatoes using albino rats as the experimental animals.

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"A diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespans for offspring ..." Provided by MonstretM

Discussion

I will start of as a proposal here:

"A study by Tinsley, I.J., et al. 1970. is often cited by people concerned about food irradiation. The researchers studied a colony of albino rats raised on a diet including irradiated potatoes. While the authors did report a slightly greater mortality rate amongst males of the first generation fed the irradiated potato diets, they considered the difference from the control group to be of questionable statistical significance, and concluded that they found no consistent effects due to irradiation of potatoes which could be established by these criteria."

I suggested this text as it explains that this particular study participates in the ongoing controversy and accurately quotes the authors conclusions in his own words. Let me know what your thoughts are. RayosMcQueen 13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I support your proposed wording as a fair summary of the study. - MrArt 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there more input before we finalize this? I did change the text a little bit completing a fragmented senctence. MrArt, please review the document history to assure that your agreement still stands. RayosMcQueen 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't approve this text. I will submit my proposed version at a later date. Others are still welcome to comment. MonstretM 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support the text proposal because it summarized well the authors conclusions. GermanPina 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

---

Osipova, I.N. et al. “Influence of the storage and culinary treatment of irradiated potatoes on the cytogenic activity of potato extracts.” Voprosy Pitaniya (USSR), 4:54-57, 1957.

Location in electronic form

The original study is in Russian and has not been located to date. Who can help?

Abstract of the study

the reference seems to be incorrect, but I believe the abstract of the study that User:MonstretM is referring to can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=664550&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus. the article itself is in Russian.

Actually I believe the correct study is this one

The year appears to have been misquoted as 1957 rather than 1975. - MrArt 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The abstract of this study reads:

"Male-rats (25--27 g) were given perorally extracts separated from potato subjected to gamma-radiation in a dose of 10 krads (test groups) and from nonirradiated tubers (controls). The extracts were introduced for a period of one week, daily in an amount of 1 ml. The male from the test groups (each numbering 8--10 animals) received extracts of the raw potato stored for 4 months after irradiation and of the potato subjected to thermal treatment (cooking) after 1 day, 1 and 4 months of its storage. The frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells was determined by the anaphase method. Altogether about 34 thous. cells (500-600 from each animal) were counted. The results testified to a significantly reduced frequency of chromosomal aberrations (bridges and fragments) occurring in the bone marrow cells of the mice which received extracts from the raw stored irradiated potato and from thermally treated freshly irradiated tubers, as compared to extracts obtained from the raw freshly irradiated potatoes. The extracts of irradiated potato cooked after 1 and 4 month of storage did not display any mutagenic properties."

The abstract can be found online at:

RayosMcQueen 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced your abstract with what I believe to be the correct one. MrArt 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Catch, thanks MrArt

OK, it might be correct, that the year of publication was wrong and is 1975 instead of 1957. However, the abstract given is NOT the original one which is in Russian! How can we trust that the translation for which no person is taking responsibility (does this MedLine??) is correct. Furtermore, the abstract can not replace the experimental information contained in the original publication. It is well known that too many authors write a correct conclusion section for their publication but are unable to reflect this in the abstract! Sometimes, abstracts contain conclusions which are not founded in the body of the publication. Consequently, if this publication is discussed at all, first provide a complete copy of the original publication to all! 83.242.63.230 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC) <<excuse me, I had not been signed-in appropriately Dieter E 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"A diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to ... chromosome damage in mammals" provided by MonstretM

Discussion

If this is indeed the correct study, then this is another miscitation that should be fixed. I would propose the following text:

"Groups opposing food irradiation based on health concerns sometimes make reference to a study by Russian scientitst Osipova, I.N. et al. linking a diet of irradiated potatoes to chromosome damage in mamals. Contrary to those allegations the authors actually conclude that the results of the cytogenetic analysis bore proof to the absence of any statistically significant difference in the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice fed on freshly irradiated potatoes in those of control animals."

Lets discuss RayosMcQueen 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Without reading the article, my interpretation of the [corrected] abstract is that storing or cooking irradiated potatoes reduces the incidence of chromosomal aberrations in rats. It appears to me that the text referencing the study is reasonable, notwithstanding RayosMcQueen's comments about how to deal with individual studies vs conclusions of scientific literature reviews - MrArt 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the citation error. For me this is actually a tough abstract to understand the authors conclusions. First off the study diet is irradiated potato extract, while the control group consumed extract from unirradiated tubers. I am not from Idahoe, but I think tubers are formed in potatos to store nutrients so the nutritional implication of this difference interests me. Secondly the statistical significance is determined between the different types of irradiated extracts only and not towards the unirradiated control. Therefore cooking or storing are the controlled parameters in the experiment rather than irradiation that was applied uniformly accross the groups where the differences were observed. There might be an interaction with irradiation, but the authors do not mention that in the abstract. I would like to know the actual conclusions of the authors, but my Russian is terrible. Who can help? Also it is interesting to note that in the study that I had mistaken for the cited one, the authors seemed to have repeated a similar experiment this time with comparable controls and studies and published the following study three years later this time clearly concluding that there was no significant difference between irradiated study group and unirradiated control group. The repeat of this study somehow suggests to me that this was an answer to an unanswered question from the first experiment. Speculation, I know.

"The anaphasic method was employed in studying the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice after feeding them on irradiated and non-irradiated potatoes. The latter were irradiated raw with gamma-rays in a dose of 10 krad and then fed to the animals for 5 days 24 hours upon irradiation in an amount of 3 g per animal to male albino mongrel mice (10 in each group), viz. in the 1st test series--raw and in the II--cooked. As controls in both series served raw or cooked non-irradiated potatoes. A total of 12 800 cells from 40 animals were counted for the presence of bridges and fragments. The results of the cytogenetic analysis bore proof to the absence of any statistically significant difference in the frequence of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice fed on freshly-irradiated potatoes and in those of control animals."

I will try to find some independend review of this study and see if we can shed some light on this. RayosMcQueen 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

---

Kesavan, P.C. and Swaminathan, M.S. “Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of irradiated substrates and food material.” Radiation Botany, 11:253-281, 1971.

Location in electronic form

not yet located. Who can help?

Abstract of the study

not yet located. Who can help?

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"In the 1960s and 1970s, several studies have suggested the cytotoxic and mutagenetic properties of irradiated food on human cells" this text was provided by MonstretM

and also later in the text:

"These findings led some public health advocates to warn that it would take several decades of public consumption and observational studies to ascertain the true carcinogenic properties of irradiated foods." this text was provided by MonstretM

Discussion

Please use this section to discuss the findings and work towards a text that represents a consensus of the group.

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

---

Bhaskaram, C., and G. Sadasivan. “Effects of feeding irradiated wheat to malnourished children.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 28: 130-135, 1975.

Location in electronic form

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Effects_of_feeding_irradiated_wheat_to_malnourished_children%2C_C_Bhaskaram%2C_and_G._Sadasivan.pdf

RayosMcQueen 16:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstract of the study

ABSTRACT Fifteen children suffering from severe protein- calorie malnutrition were divided into three groups of five each and received diets con taming either unirradiated, freshly irradiated, or stored irradiated wheat. All the children were hospitalized for a period of 6 weeks and leukocyte cultures were done initially and at intervals of 2 weeks. Children receiving freshly irradiated wheat developed polyploid cells and certain abnormal cells in increasing number as the duration of feeding increased and showed a gradual reversal to basal level of nil after withdrawal of irradiated wheat. In marked contrast, none of the children fed unirradiated diet developed any abnormal cells while children fed stored irradiated wheat showed polyploid and abnormal cells in significantly decreased numbers. Though the biological significance of polyploidy is not clear, its association with malignancy makes it imperative that the wholesomeness of irradiated wheat for human consumption be very carefully assessed. Am. J. C’lin. Nutr. 28: 1 30- 1 35, 1 975.

RayosMcQueen 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"In one study, fifteen malnourished children who were given a diet of irradiated wheat developed polyploid cells and other cell abnormalities" provided by MonstretM

Discussion

The study was critizised as part of the report on the Examination of the Results Obtained by National Institute of Nutrition(NIN), Hyderabed and Bhahba Atomic Research Centre(BARC), Bombay of their studies on the Effects of Freshly Irradiated Wheat on Lymphocytes in Vitro from Malnourished Children, the Cytology of Bone Marrow of Rats and Mice, Meiotic Chromosomes in Male Mice, Germ Cell Survival in Male Mice and Rats and Dominant Lethal Mutations in Rats and Mice. by P. C.Kesavan and P.V.Sukhatme.

The authors of the review raise the following concerns with the study:

• When interviewed by the reviewers one of the authors of the study Dr. Sadaasvian desposed that the chromosomes of these children had a "fuzzy" appearance and therefore counting the chromosnomes was almost impossible. In fact he was surprised as to how his co-author Dr. Bhaskaram could have come to the conclusion that there were no polyploid cells in the children before their being fed on irradiated wheat.

• NIN has reported that in tow childresn who were followed up after withdrawal of irradiated wheat diet, the number of polyploids and abnormal cells had considerably decreased at the end of 16 weeks and by the 24th week all the polyploid and abnormal cells had completely disapeared. This observation is very surprising in view of the fact that the thymic lymphocyts which alone respond to phytohacomoglutnin has a very long live span and therefore it is only expected that any abnormalities included in these cells would last for several years.

• That the maximum frequency of polyploid cells observed in children fed irradiated wheat is, according to the NIN, 1.8% and this frequency is well within the normal ranve of incidence of the polyploid cells in normal healthy human beings.

The comittee therefore records that the conclusion arrived at by the NIN are not sustained.

Let's discuss RayosMcQueen 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

---

Jaarma, Maire. “Studies of chemical and enzymatical changes in potato tubers and some higher plants caused by ionizing radiation, including studies on the wholesomeness of irradiated potato tubers and effects on some carbohydrates in vitro.” Biokemiska institutionen, Kungl. Universitetet I Stockholm, 1967.

Location in electronic form

not yet located. Who can help?

Abstract of the study

not yet located. Who can help?

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"In another study, a diet of irradiated potatoes led human subjects to have significantly increased haemoglobin values, which persisted even after the subjects were taken off the diet" provided by MonstretM

Discussion

Please use this section to discuss the findings and work towards a text that represents a consensus of the group.

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

---

Shaw, M.W. and Hayes, E. “Effects of irradiated sucrose on the chromosomes of human lymphocytes in vitro.” Nature, 211:1254-1255, 1966.

Location in electronic form

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Effects_of_Irradiated_Sucrose_on_the_Chromosomes_of_Human_Lymphocytes_in_Vitro._Margery%2C_Shawa_and_Hayes.pdf RayosMcQueen 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstract of the study

The study does not inlcude an abstract as such. The study did show mutations of human cells in vitro when exposed to succrose irradiated at 25kGy. Please read the complete text to form an opinion and disucss. The concluding remarks of the study are:

"Our experiments have no bearing on the question of whether point mutations are produced by irradiated sucrose. Neither do they shed light on the important question of whether foods which have been preserved by irradiation and ingested by mammals produce chromosome damage in vivo. These questions are particularly pertinent because evidence of increased mutations in Drosophila suggests that the toxic products of irradiated media can indeed pass the gastro intestinal barrier and mass human consumption of irradiated foods is being seriously considered. Feeding experiments with deer mice are now in progress in order to asess somatic damage to the chromosomes in bone marrow and germinal damage to chromosomes of testicular cells undergoing speratogenesis."

RayosMcQueen 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"In another experiment, irradiated sucrose was found to be toxic to human lymphocytes in vitro and also retarded cell division and resulted in severe chromosome damage." Provided by MonstretM

Discussion

Please use this section to discuss the findings and work towards a text that represents a consensus of the group.

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

---

Verschurren, H., G. Van Esch, and J. Van Kooy. 1966. Ninety day rat feeding study on irradiated strawberries. Food Irradiation – Quarterly International Newsletter, 7(1-2):A17-A21.

Correct name of the first azthor Verschuuren NOTE: The publication in 'Food Irradiation – Quarterly International Newsletter' of the former IFIP (International Food Irradiation Project, located at Karlsruhe, Germany) is not the original data and publication! Dieter E 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Location in electronic form

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Ninety_Day_Rat_Feeding_Study_on_Irradiated_Strawberries%2C_H.G._Verschuuren_et_G.J._Van_Esch.pdf

RayosMcQueen 15:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstract of the study

The study does not include an Abstract as such. The conclusion reads:

Over a period of 12 weeks Wistar rats received strawberries which were non-irradiated or irradiated with 500 and 5000 Krad respecteively. In one experiment the strawberries were given as a 5% "strawberry-powder" in the diet ; in the other experiment as "strawberry-juice" by stomach tube. The male rats which recieved strawberry powder irradiated with 5000 Krad showed a statistically significang growth retardation. There appears to be no reasonable explanation for this abnormality. The corresponding female rats receiving the same pwoder and rats of both sexes receiving the juice irradiated with 500 Krad showed no significant effects.

No obvious influence on the blood composition could be discovered in the different groups. Histopathological investigation of the organs did not show abnormalitiies which could be connected with the administration of the irradiated strawberries. It has been clearly demonstrated that the animals which received strawberries irradiated with 500 Krad did not show any kind of toxic effects.

These results show that the preservation of strawberries by irradiation is biologically acceptable and seems therefore to be promising. It might, however, still be necessary to carry out chronic toxicity experiments. The next step to be investigated before commercialisation is wether this process is economically viable. Data on the economics will become avaialble from pilot plant work in the Netherlands during 1968.

RayosMcQueen 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"In other studies, rats that were fed various irradiated fruits and vegetables showed significant growth retardation ..." provided by MonstretM

Discussion

I see this as another case of an out of context citation. As the authors conclude that "results show that the preservation of strawberries by irradiation is biologically acceptable and seems therefore to be promising" I am sure that the additional studies the authors requested have been performed and I can do a search if the group feels this would be helpful. My proposal for a text would be:

"Opponents of food irradiation sometimes refer to a study by Verschurren, H., G. Van Esch, and J. Van Kooy. 1966. on irradiated strawberry products fed to rats suggesting that the study showed adverse results.. The researchers studied growth and blood competition of male and female rats fed with irradiated strawberry juice and strawberry powder. While the male rats which recieved strawberry powder irradiated at doses 50 times above those currently permitted by FDA showed a statistically significant growth retardation, the corresponding female rats receiving the same pwoder and rats of both sexes receiving the juice irradiated at doses five times above the permitted limit showed no significant effects. The authors of this study concluded that "These results show that the preservation of strawberries by irradiation is biologically acceptable and seems therefore to be promising. It might, however, still be necessary to carry out chronic toxicity experiments."

I am not sure if it would be appropriate to also include a comment on the fact that "In 21 CFR Part 179 [Docket No. 1999F-4372] FDA also states that it rejected this study in a scientific review stating issues with hampered food intake of the studied rats."

Lets discuss RayosMcQueen 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

---

Tinsley, I.J., et al. 1970. The growth, reproduction, longevity, and histopathology of rats fed gamma-irradiated carrots.

Location in electronic form

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/.Foodirad-v2/CDROM/fd2_img/070/070_190/070_190.html

Abstract of the study

"On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process.

Since a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate has been observed in the animals raised on irradiated carrots, some question is raised on the wholesomeness of irradiated carrots. This effect was more pronounced with males than with females and cannot be explained by differences in food intake. The possibility of some bacterial contamination in the irradiated carrots has not been definitely eliminated. Further experiments would thus be necessary to define the nature of this effect."

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"In other studies, rats that were fed various irradiated fruits and vegetables showed ... significantly depressed growth rates" provided by MonstretM

Discussion

MonstretM's response: The above text is not the full abstract, just FYI, but not very important to this discussion. However, the above quotation is an example of misquotation as RayosMcQueen altered the structure of the text. Here is the proper text:

"On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process.

"Since a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate has been observed in the animals raised on irradiated carrots, some question is raised as to the wholesomeness or irradiated carrots. This effect was more pronounced with males than females and cannot be explained by differences in food intakes. The possibility of some bacterial contamination in the irradiated carrots has not been definitely eliminated. Further experiments would thus be necessary to define the nature of this effect."

MonstretM 03:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the discussion section, if you don't mind, just to keep the page from being cluttered. If you feel that a line break is appropriate, feel free to put it in. This is Wikipedia and you can always edit against my oversights. I have included the line break in the abstract for clarity per and conciseness per your recommendation. Again we are on the Talk page so we might not need to be as orthodox as we would need to be when editing the actual text. RayosMcQueen 08:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM's response: Please do not edit or move my comments around in the discussion section. In the future, I will put them in the recommended areas.MonstretM 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

When reviewing the study, I noted two significant observations: Firstoff all food items were irradiated to very high doses of 27.9 kGy and 58.4 kGy respectively. This is 28 to 58 times the currently permitted maximum dose for carrots and it is clear that fresh vegetables will show severe tolerance issues as a result. It is furthermore not surprising that any animal fed on such overtreated food will not grow within the control group. The fact that the growth retardation was small but consistent is actually quite encouraging, although the carrots must have been appalling. Secondly it is also interesting to note that the food items were irradiated with spent fuel rods from nuclear power generation and not with cobalt 60 or cesium 137 that are currently permitted. I would like to know the implications of that fact, as conditions are clearly out of the regulated permitted processes that we are evaluating in the article. GermanPina 01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM's response: This is all editorializing on your part, and therefore has no place in the article. It is not your role as an editor to insert text to try to reassure the reader that you think irradiated food might be safe just because the current regulations have lowered the allowed doses. You are, however, allowed to post information on the current US regulations on irradiated foods, which are already included in the section on "Processes," and so new information about dosage should be posted in that section. It is also not your role as an editor to do the readers' reasoning for them. We can only present the information in NPOV. We must have faith in the readers' capacity to draw their own conclusions, which may or may not agree with your POV. Some readers might see that these foods were irradiated at high doses, and conclude that they will accept the risk of eating foods irradiated at lower doses. Other readers might read the study and observe the disturbing effects of irradiation on the foods and therefore conclude that irradiated foods are dangerous at any doses. You have to accept that Wikipedia is not your free marketing tool. You are more than welcome, however, to pay a publisher to print out your own company literature on food irradiation and distribute it among other, more appropriate channels.MonstretM 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM, we are in the Discussion part of the Talk section so no one is editing an article at this point. I feel that we can back off a little bit on the requirements until we get to the final wording. I believe that GermanPina's statments reflect intelectual curiousity more than a desire to push this in a particular direction.

Well, apparently you were wrong about that. See below.MonstretM 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So, my recommended solution is simply to modify my original statement to read: "rats that were fed carrots irradiated at high doses showed... significantly depressed growth rates"MonstretM 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please acknowledge the ambiguity of the word 'significant'. Many readers will interpret it to mean 'having or likely to have a major effect' [2] rather than the scientific, statistical meaning that was intended by the author of this study. Why not just drop the word significant, and use the original study's wording of 'small, but consistent'? MrArt 08:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My counter proposal would be "One study suggested that with rats raised on pork, peach, jam or flour rations irradiated to doses much higher than those currently permitted by existing regulation, there did not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process. The same study, however, did suggest a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate in animals raised on carrots irradiated to the same high doses, raising some questions as to the wholesomeness or irradiated carrots at such high doses." I would prefer this text as it is closer to the exact wording of the author and since the topic is important we do not need to condense unnecessarily. It also is more neutral as it includes encouraging and less encouaraging results and avoids the ambiguous word "significant" as MrArt suggested RayosMcQueen 07:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM's response: Your proposed text is not neutral, and it is not at all closer to the study's findings than my wording. Because you have such a vested interest in promoting food irradiation, I think you are confusing the term "neutral" with "less threatening to your particular POV," since it raises concerns about the health risks of irradiated food, which you are determined to marginalize. Your wording is leading, and most of the info is irrelevant to this section, which is specifically regarding the risks of irradiated food on growth patterns. I will not agree to any attempts to include inductive reasoning from the editors. Here is again what I wrote about editorializing, which has no place in a Wikipedia article:

It is not your role as an editor to insert text to try to reassure the reader that you think irradiated food might be safe just because the current regulations have lowered the allowed doses. You are, however, allowed to post information on the current US regulations on irradiated foods, which are already included in the section on "Processes," and so new information about dosage should be posted in that section. It is also not your role as an editor to do the readers' reasoning for them. We can only present the information in NPOV. We must have faith in the readers' capacity to draw their own conclusions, which may or may not agree with your POV. Some readers might see that these foods were irradiated at high doses, and conclude that they will accept the risk of eating foods irradiated at lower doses. Other readers might read the study and observe the disturbing effects of irradiation on the foods and therefore conclude that irradiated foods are dangerous at any doses. You have to accept that Wikipedia is not your free marketing tool. You are more than welcome, however, to pay a publisher to print out your own company literature on food irradiation and distribute it among other, more appropriate channels.

In regards to MrArt's objection, I think the proper solution would be to modify the text to read: "rats that were fed carrots irradiated at high doses showed... depressed growth rates that were statistically significant" MonstretM 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM, would you be able to provide justification, why your wording should supercede that of the original author of the cited study? Assuming that you can not I propose that we agree to disagree and take this to mediation and then to arbitration. RayosMcQueen 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is blatant cherry-picking to single out the one type of food that gave negative results without mentioning the other four, especially as the author of the study raised doubts about bacterial contamination. I think RayosMcQueen's proposed wording is an accurate summary. Failing that, the footnote itself should contain the full text. I don't think this needs to go to mediation / arbitration. MrArt 03:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea if the footnote mentions the author's concerns about bacterial contamination, while I propose that we use my modified version of the text for the article. And I don't think it's "blatant" anything on my part. Irradiated carrots were singled out by the author as having a significant detrimental effect on growth rate. Period. If you want to submit the other findings of this study as evidence for the safety of irradiated pork, peach, jam, and flour rations, then as I suggested twice already, you are welcome to put that information in a new section on the "Scientific studies that suggest the safety of irradiated foods". Mediation and arbitration would be fine. Maybe we'll actually get somewhere then. MonstretM 04:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems the core difference of opinion is how to structure the article. Your assumption seems to be that we have an "Issues only" section that describes only those scientific studies that suggest concerns about food irradiation, to then include another one that exclusively lists studies suggesting irradiation is safe. For me this is an inadequate way of going about this as a) We would need to include 2500+ citations of all the studies that prove irradiation to be safe to offer a balanced view. b) The reader would need to do a complete bibliographical review to get the full information. c) We would be, as MrArt put it "cherry picking" on both sides of the dispute. d) We would need to include the same studies on both sides because in all cases thusfar were we found the actual abstracts of the studies you provided, the authors concluded differently than you whish to insinuate.

MonstretM's response: Your claim that there are 2500+ studies that would overwhelmingly support irradiation is dubious. Furthermore, I am aware that there are numerous problems with those studies. Perhaps we should review those studies that the FDA reviewed, and give them the same scrutiny as we are doing for the studies that I cited. That seems fair. In any case, if all the 2500+ studies came to the same conclusion, then it would not be a problem to choose a representative sample, just as I have done with the studies that found problems. An encyclopedia is not meant to be a complete textbook on a subject. Therefore, no need to "get the full information" but just enough to give the reader a good understanding. And again, I disagree with you that I have concluded anything differently from the studies' findings. The problem is that you are looking at the summaries only, while I am looking at the entire data. Most researchers would agree with me that reading only the abstracts can be misleading and often lead to erroneous conclusions, but I'm sure you know that already ;) MonstretM 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly post a few studies and post them here for discussion. Some will probably come up as we review the remaining studies that you cited, as we will be looking for other studies that confirm or refute the findings. I am not of the impression that we are putting the studies you provided under particular scrutiny, we are just making sure that the text that cites the study does not contradict the actual findings of the author and that the overall conclusion is acurately conveyed without bias either way. It may well be that researchers are interested in aspects of the study beyond the abstract, but neither you and I are researchers and Wikipedia does not accept [[original_research|original research] that was not published elsewhere first. Meanwhile the abstract contains the summary that the authors considered concise and relevant and we should respect their choice of words and content in the intrest of neutrality. As MrArt suggested your position to include only wording that furthers your viewpoint is difficult to argue. As I said we can easily get mediators to look at this if you feel that this might be helpful.RayosMcQueen 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MonstretM's response: So you are not a researcher, according to your own words. Maybe that's why you don't understand that it is encouraged and often imperative to look beyond the abstract of a scientific report for information. The abstract is nothing more than a summary. Any information contained within the pages of a published report is citable, not just information from the abstract. Your application of the term "original research" is incorrect, as is your concept of neutrality. MonstretM 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is some more information about why reading the summaries only can be misleading: http://foodirradiationinfo.org/pdf/fiandfakeresearch2.pdf

"Reporting research results only made it easier to misrepresent genuine research. This was the case with research that showed that increasing irradiation doses resulted in more fatty acids in grains which stimulated production of mould toxins. In the summary report for discussion at the symposi­um however, this research was mentioned with the remark that no clear relationship was found between the upsurge in toxin production and radiation dose (1,2). So, this remark stated the very opposite of the research findings.

"If you come across one blatant misrepresentation, then you start to wonder how many more there are in these summaries. The more so as genuine scientists exposing the hazards of irradiated food have been harassed and vilified by the rented crowd of fake scientists. Especially the research done on irradiated wheat by the National Institute of Nutrition of India in the 1970s, was most unwelcome and anything was done to discredit it." MonstretM 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I rather suggest that we title the section "Ongoing scientific discussion on the wholesomeness of irradiated foods" where we provide a full and accurate review of those studies that some feel suggest that there might have issues including citations of the original authors and secondary literature reviewing of this work.

MonstretM's response: I would like to see some of the studies that you are referencing to support your claim on the safety of irradiated foods. Since you must have read all 2500+ studies, maybe you can choose a few good ones that we can have fun reviewing together. MonstretM 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The footnote suggestion is not fair, in my viewpoint as I do not see why we should hide relevant information that did not make an arbitrary cherry pick elsewhere in the article. MrArt's preference seems to have been to include a full text similar like my proposal. You would also still need to explain to me your reasoning why your wording is should be more relevant than that of the original author.

MonstretM's response: I have carefully chosen my wording to include the most relevant information while remaining true to the author's findings. Please note that when we reference information from a material, the point is hardly ever to present a complete summary of the entire text of the source. On the other hand, it is not good to convey information out of context, but I have not done that either. So I don't see the problem with my version of the text, except that it doesn't conform to your POV. MonstretM 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MrArt that arbitration on this should be a last resort but we could get someone like the Mediation Cabal involved if people think this might be helpful. RayosMcQueen 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are to include the concern about bacterial contamination as MrArt and MonstretM suggeted I suggest the following wording:

"One study suggested that with rats raised on pork, peach, jam or flour rations irradiated to doses much higher than those currently permitted by existing regulation, there did not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process. The same study, however, did suggest a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate in animals raised on carrots irradiated to the same high doses, raising some questions as to the wholesomeness or irradiated carrots at such high doses. According to the authors the observed decrease on growth rate may also have been atributed to bacterial contamination that was observed on some of the irradiated food samples."

MonstretM's response: There are numerous problems with the above, including editorial content and additional information that is not from the author's words. So it's strange that you accuse me of changing the author's wording, when you are the one who is actually guilty of that. Let's get a mediator on this. MonstretM 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation probably makes sense. I would propose that we let this partifcular article rest for now until we have the abstracts and electronic documents of the other studies available. That way we can have several disputs mediated simultaneously. Let me know what your thought´s are. MrArt, I´d also appreciate your feedback on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayosMcQueen (talk • contribs)

OK, if it's what you both want, let's call in the mediators. Essentially this is still a content dispute and I'd rather keep it that way. Perhaps the mediators will be able to persuade everyone not to take this so personally. - MrArt 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Shall we wait until we have all studies discussed similarly? I am guessing that we will have several parallel issues. RayosMcQueen 08:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see section below - MrArt 10:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to look for additional studies performed on carrots that confirmed or refuted the authors findings. I will try to do a search. RayosMcQueen 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As for your note that the study did not use radioactive cobalt or cesium, unfortunately you have not provided any published evidence that shows that there might be any difference in effect on irradiated food between the new and older processes, and therefore we cannot include it in the article :(

MonstretM 04:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that this should not be in the article as the authors apparantly did make an effort to shield all alpha, beta, and neutron radiation. I do not think that someone suggested putting it in the article at this point and feel that there is room for such observations in the discussion section. RayosMcQueen 07:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

I moved previous comments here to the discussion section because I feel that we should start posting here if discussion indicates consensus. LEt me know in case you disagree RayosMcQueen 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Spiher (sp?), A.T. 1968. Food irradiation: An FDA report. FDA Papers, Oct

Location in electronic form

not yet located. Who can help? MonstretM, you have cited the study, so I am asusming you have read the text and can provide a copy. Please make an effort in making the cited study available electronically, to facilitate an educated discourse on the topic. RayosMcQueen 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we take one step at a time please? My life and career are not devoted to food irradiation like yours. I will see if I can upload the report, but it will take some time. MonstretM 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is important that we locate and (re-) publish these studies, to have them qualify as a verifiable source. The reason I am asking for your help is that you must have copies of these studies since you cited them. RayosMcQueen 10:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE understand, that any reference used must have the complete and correct bibliograhpic data; Furthermore, what is an 'FDA paper'; is it available at libraries (like US Congress)? Who does a reference is responsible for verifying the source, so that others can acces the original publication. Dieter E 18:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstract of the study

not yet located. Who can help?

Text referencing this study prior to edit protection

"Dogs that were fed irradiated foods weighed 11.3% less than dogs that were fed non-irradiated foods." provided by MonstretM

Discussion

Please use this section to discuss the findings and work towards a text that represents a consensus of the group.

Proposed Text referencing this study

Please use this section to propose a text using this study as citation that represents a consensus of the group.

---

Neutrality Dispute: Article contains POV pushing/Conflict of Interest editing/Editorializing

{{editprotected}} Please add NPOV dispute tag and Controversial tag to article.

Summary of POV pushing: Given the significant diversity of viewpoints that exist on both sides of this issue, I propose that certain editors' insistent usage of the term "mainstream" is inappropriate, biased, and misleading; and their usage of the term "consensus" cannot be applied in this case as by definition a consensus implies unanimity, which does not exist on this issue any more than one could say that there is a "mainstream opinion" on abortion (just because it is allowed by law) or a scientific "consensus" on global warming. There exists neither a "mainstream" view on food irradiation nor a "consensus" within the scientific community. A substantial membership of the scientific community has expressed their concerns about the long-term health risks of irradiated foods. Furthermore, there are numerous controversies surrounding food irradiation and its endorsements. These controversies should be allowed to be included in the article.

Summary of COI problem: Readers should be allowed to form their own judgments without any intervening manipulation from either corporate or special interests on Wikipedia. I don't see that manifested in the current editing. There is a demonstrated conflict of interest when the president of an irradiation company (Arved Deecke) has dominated the editing dialogue thus far and has been using this article as a free public relations tool to endorse food irradiation, mislead readers, and furthermore compromise the quality and integrity of Wikipedia.

Summary of Editorializing problem: Certain persistent editors insist on inserting non-NPOV and uncited text into the article. It is not the role of a Wikipedia editor to do the readers' reasoning for them. Rather, we should present factual information in NPOV, without leading comments. We must have faith in the readers' capacity to draw their own conclusions, which may or may not agree with the editors' POV. MonstretM 04:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The "this page has been protected due to disputes" template will already imply quite a bit, to any reader with an analytical eye. I've never been a fan of throwing a dozen template messages at the top of a page when one will do just fine. If you can provide specific examples of the problems you're referring to, or demonstrate that these problems are so pandemic as to warrant additional templating, feel free. When multiple people are generalizing and calling each other POV-pushers, it's very difficult to sort out what's what without specific evidence or claims. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel the edit protection currently serves its purpose and as we are not making significant advancements towards consensus in discussing the numerous aspects of this article with User:MonstretM, An edit war would be imminent if edit protection is lifted. It is interesting to note that User:MonstretM has suggested mediation only yesterday so this proposal now seems out of sync with a good faith approach to mediation. RayosMcQueen 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who originally requested edit protection, so of course I feel that it is serving a good purpose. But my request for the neutrality dispute tag is valid. Readers need to know that the current version of the page is non-NPOV. Several specific examples:

1. Insertion of leading wording: "Some older studies suggest that majority of the public questions the safety of irradiated foods". An editor inserted the term "older," which implies outdated, or is dismissive at the least.

I agree that we need to work on the section of consumer acceptance and would suggest we break this out in a separate converstion. Many studies were made on consumer acceptance of irradiated food and the tendency as far as I remember did show that in the U.S. acceptance increased over time so some reference of the age of the study might be warranted. This is in line with User:Luna Santin's remark. Dismissing old studies necesarily as invalid is of course not appropriate, but with opinion polls time is a factor to be considered. I can see the concern that USer:MonstretM raised, through suggesting old meaning outdated and we should address that. I will try to find a more complete bibliography on the topic and will post in a separate section. I do not think this is a pressing enough issue to raise the edit protection at this point. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Weasel text by use of direct quotation of non-NPOV statement: "While the Center of Consumer Research currently concludes that 'Although marketing is still on a small scale, sales of irradiated foods clearly demonstrates that consumers will select irradiated over non-irradiated foods when they perceive benefits, such as high quality or longer lasting produce or safer meat and poultry.'"

This is a direct quote of a reputed university faculty dedicated to research on the subject. I am not sure what the issue with the wording might be. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, to say "reputed" faculty is editorializing and leading. You seem to have a bad habit of that. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Insertion of opinions within otherwise cited text: "India recently exported its first shipment of mango to the U.S. by means of irradiation and despite relatively high shipping cost compared to Latin American mango, market reception was very good." The opinion (in bold) at the end of the sentence does not originate from the referenced source.

As to the market reception of Indian mangoes, that is indeed not commented on in the cited text, and Arved Deecke or anyone else should help with getting a citation or remove the statement. A simple {fact} flag might have done the trick. The closest statement that I found comes from the Los Angeles Times:

"But the high price doesn't seem to be deterring Indian mango aficionados. Devraj Kerai, owner of Pioneer Cash & Carry, a grocery in Artesia's Little India district, says he wanted to be the first to carry Indian mangoes in the region. He received 110 cases of Kesars (12 per case) on May 11, he says, and he sold out in three hours. (Since then he has received three more shipments of Alphonsos and Kesars, pre-selling them, with a waiting list.)"

I understand this evidence is somwhat anectotal, but I also didn't find anyone saying that the mangoes are not doing well in the market place although the high price of air freight does seem to present an issue. Let's discuss. RayosMcQueen 22:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal, and if you really present all the information, which would be needed for proper context in this case, quite irrelevant to the section. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Insertion of leading wording: "Extensive research has been performed since the early 50's to determine possible health risks associated with the consumption of irradiated foods." Let's stick with facts rather than hyperbole.

There are certainly people who are of the opinion that the word extensive is appropriate in the context There might be others as well and the final version of the text might point that out, but for me this is not a strong enough issue to lift edit protection today. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And there are others who are of the opinion that there has not been enough research on this topic and that the usage of the word "extensive" is inappropriate. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Editorializing for non-NPOV: "Besides a large number of studies that showed no adverse effect of consuming irradiated food, a few studies seemed to suggest adverse results." Again, let's keep editorializing out of the article. I propose putting properly cited information in their appropriate sections.

You seem to favour a section that only states those findings that suggest issues with irradiation. I am not sure how to justify doing this without stating that there are many / some / several studies that concluded that there are no issues often contradicting earlier resarch. We need to discuss how to go about this and the edit protection provides the space to do this. User:MrArt has called your approach "blatant cherry picking" further down on this talk page and I have to agree with him. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is research that will always contradict other research. Such is the nature of science. None of the studies I have cited have been retracted by their authors, and since their research is still considered valid by many, you cannot assume to discredit them. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

6. Misleading information, and misattribution of several independent studies to a single review committee is false and dismissive: "Most of these studies were reviewed by a comittee of Indian scientists Kesavan and Sukhatme..."

Can you be more specific on what your issue is? The problem, as I see it, is that we didn't find the original study yet. We did, however, find and discuss independend review published as part of the peer review process that stated concerns with the validity of the study and it seems adequate to point that out. Mid term we need to get a copy of original study and since you have cited it you are probably the most qualified to help. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is a matter of misleading presentation. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

7. Insertion of editorial content (indicated in bold): "In a statement published in Federal Register: August 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 157) FDA agrees with the conclusions of the review article in the context of studies performed prior to 1970. However, many properly conducted studies have been performed after this review was written."

Please check #7: the comment "However, many properly conducted studies have been performed after this review was written" was actually made by FDA in that volume of the federal register when responding to a comment during the rulemaking process. The text is a direct transcript from the provided text, while I agree that we can clean this up a little to make sure it is clear what the quoted text begins and ends. The entire text reads:

"FDA agrees with the conclusions of the review article in the context of studies performed prior to 1970. However, many properly conducted studies have been performed after this review was written. As previously noted in this document, the agency finds that properly conducted animal feeding studies showed no evidence of toxicity attributable to irradiated food. On the few occasions when studies reported adverse effects, the effects were not consistently reproduced in related studies conducted with similar foods irradiated to doses equal to or higher than those for which the adverse effects were reported, as would be expected if the reported effect were a toxic effect caused by a radiolysis product (62 FR 64107 at 64112 and 64114). The comment provides no additional information that would cause the agency to change its conclusion on the safety of irradiated food." RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the statement should be attributed to FDA, keeping in mind that: 1. FDA is not the final word on food irradiation safety; 2. there was controversy surrounding FDA's review process; 3. under scrutiny, the FDA's comments are ambiguous at best; and 4. on the whole, it would constitute weasel text if included. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

8. Insertion of opinion, non-NPOV, contested, uncited information: "On the few occasions when studies reported adverse effects..." There are numerous, conflicting expert opinions on the definition of "adverse effects," and this is a controversial issue. Therefore, the claim is unverifiable.

Up to now you have provided 9 studies claiming that they suggested various issues with irradiated food. At this point we have reviewed two and found that the authors did not share your conclusions. One study on malnurished children was heavily contested in peer review and it is only fair to point out the identified weaknesses. The remaining six studies are not available yet and need to be reviewed prior to me having an opinion. I am thinking the term "few" is appropriate but this issue can easily wait for the scientific review to conclude prior to lifting the edit protection. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is flat-out wrong, and again you are attempting to mislead the discussion. As I have stated time and time again throughout this discussion: 1. My statements are supported by the findings, and 2. It is imperative AND standard research procedure to look beyond the abstracts when reporting findings. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

9. Insertion of leading, non-NPOV wording: "The disputed studies include studies by Brownell, L.E. et al..." Most studies on food irradiation have been disputed on either side of the debate.

10. Insertion of leading wording: "Brownell, L.E. et al. [44] who suggested that a diet of irradiated potatoes was linked to a shorter lifespan of offspring".

on #9 and #10: Please acknowledge that you cited Brownells work with the words "A diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespans for offspring" while the authors in the cited study actually concluded:

"ABSTRACT For two years a colony of albino rats was fed diets of which one third contained potatoes which had been exposed to ionizing radiation for sprout inhibitiono Growth. food consumption, reproductive performance, hematologic changes, mortality, and pathologic changes in these rats were compared with the same in animals fed a nonirradiated potato diet. The growth, reproductive performance, and pathologic changes up to 30 weeks of second- and third-generation animals were also compared with corresponding controls. Three results emerged from this studyo (1) There were no consistent effects due to irradiation of potatoes which could be established by these criteriao (2) There was a slightly greater mortality rate among males of the first generation fed the irradiated potato diets which was of questionable statistical significance and may be related to the poor condition of the irradiated potatoes relative to the nonirradiated controls. Second-generation males and females fed the irradiated potato diets also experienced a higher mortality rate but this is attributed to genetic factors. (3) An unusually high incidence of a necrotizing arteritis resembling "peri-arteritis nodosa" occurred in the first- and secondgeneration animals in this experiment~ The combination of a genetic and a dietary factor is implicated in causing this disease, but irradiation of the potatoes is not a factor. Studies are currently in progress on hypertensive vascular disease in descendants of the animals used in the above experiment. OBJECTIVE The objective of this experiment was to test the wholesomeness of irradiated potatoes using albino rats as the experimental animals."

I don't see how my statement contradicts the findings when the author writes, "There was a slightly greater mortality rate among males of the first generation fed the irradiated potato diets". MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of heavy weight NPOV issue that will need to be addressed prior to opening the article for editing again. Other grievances seem semantics in comparision. The same hold true for Tinsley, I.J., et al. 1970. as discussed in detail below. The two citations you provided that editors were actually able to verify to date showed that the conclusion of the authors were diametrically opposite from your interpretation. I see it as an act of good faith by the editors to actually provide text that puts your statement into perspective, rather than deleting it. If there is good science to back up your claim, then let's review it. If you feel, however, that the data should have been interpreted differently than was done by the authors of a particular study, you are required to publish this opinion elsewhere before Wikipedia. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Diametrically opposite"? That is an outright lie. You have even stated that you are not a researcher, which is exposed by the fact that you constantly insist on examining information only from within the abstract, which in addition to being foolish, is also discouraged by protocol. I invite the mediators to consider my review of the study further up in the discussion. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

11. The entire section on "Cytogenetic and cancer studies" has been vandalized and includes text moved out of order and repetitive text slanted towards non-NPOV, and lacks coherence.

Vandalization is probably an exaggeration. I would call it the collateral damage of an edit war. You are right though, the section needs work, but I prefer to do this in a mediated environment as you suggested yesterday. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

12. Insertion of leading wording: "Several studies have similarly suggested a correlation between lowered weight gain and consumption of irradiated foods." What was the editor's point in inserting the word, "similarly"?

"similarly in my viewpoint is a term that connects two paragraphs giving a flow to the text. It can easily be eliminated, though in order to not get hung up on semantics. I can see how "similarly" might suggest that the conclusions drawn on the studies might be similar and that would indeed be inapropriate. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

13. Changing of section title to non-NPOV: Editor changed section title from more descriptive and neutral (and longstanding), "Loss of trace nutrients and changes to flavor/odor/texture" to more benign sounding, "Tolerance of food items to irradiation"

I would turn this argument around. In my opinion your wording is alarmist, as doses have been set by the regulators in a way that intends to protect the consumer from adverse effects. Your wording suggests to me that irradiated product neccessarily is of poor nutritinal value and that would need to be proven as well. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Throwing loaded words around like "alarmist" and "activist" (see other parts of discussion), which are meant to belittle, dismiss, and marginalize other viewpoints, won't get us anywhere. I propose that the original title of the section is descriptive and therefore, appropriate. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

14. Insertion of leading, editorial content: "While irradiation is largely recognized as one of the treatments that is best tolerated by a largest crossection of commodities and food items, irradiation can in some cases negatively impact the flavor, odor, and texture of foods."

I am not sure how this is an out of context citation. Is your issue the large crossection of commodities when Guy Hallman speaks exclusively of fresh commodities? If that is the case then we can fix that easily. Maybe we can provide a suitable citation for vegetables and other commodities. Prof. Halman with the USDA Agricultural research center said the following in the cited text so you can see that the statement does have merit.

"But for fruits especially and fresh commodities in general,ionizing irradiation is a superior treatment to methyl bromide fumigation or any other treatment from the standpoint of preserving commodity quality. A number of fruits (e.g., mangoes, avocados, guavas, papayas, and many tropicals) do not tolerate the doses of methyl bromide necessary for quarantine purposes. Nevertheless, methyl bromide fumigation is used on fruits such as citrus where some damage (peel speckling) sometimes occurs for lack of a viable alternative treatment."

You have accused me of improperly paraphrasing, but you seem to be the one who is guilty of misappropriating the authors' words to change their meaning and to suit your own POV.

On a related note, I propose that there is an ethical problem presented by your writing style, whereby you do not seem to understand how to paraphrase or properly attribute directly quoted text to the original author, especially since you quote quite often and quite liberally from your sources. This is a fundamental problem that severely compromises the quality of the article and might be symptomatic of your fundamental lack of research skill. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

While I am sure that the text for this citation can be improved, I suggest this waits until a due discourse completes and consensus is reached. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

15. Insertion of uncited, inappropriately placed, editorializing content: "Industry therefore conducts careful tolerance study prior to proposing a specific treatment dose. In some cases those doses can be lower than the required dose to meet the treatment goal.

are you suggesting industry does not care about their customers products quality? Or are you suggesting that tolerated doses can not be lower than those mandated by the treatment goal? The statment should probably be flagged as {fact} and the editor should be given the opportunity to backup his claim prior to deletion. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

16. Uncited, editorial, unverifiable content: "The safety of irradiation facilities is assessed by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and the national Nuclear Regulatory Commissions. The incidents that have occurred in the past are documented by the agency and thoroughly analyzed to determine root cause and improvement potential."

If you find a citation is missing, you can always tag it first and if not addressed to you may remove it. The missing citations can easily be provided and I am sure the editor would have gladly done so upon request. I am assuming that you agree with the fact itself that NRC provides operational licenses for commercial irradiators in the U.S. , and that IAEA reviews each radiation accident that is brought to its attention thouroghly and recommends improvements RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, check the text in bold type only. It's weasel text. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

17. Vandalism: The entire section on "Mishandling of food" was inappropriately moved outside the body of the article and to the bottom, under the section for "Notes".

I agree that the mishandling of food cached by irradiation is an ongoing concern by oponents. It should therefore be discussed in the body of the text per your suggestion. I would suggest that we also provide a comment that irradiation does not mask spoilage, as people might otherwise walk away with the impression that you can irradiate rotten meat back into the supermarket shelves. As to food processors letting their guards down if E-Coli and other pathogens are eliminated in a final kill step, we should point out that irradiation processing does aleviate the processor with full regulatory compliance of all existing regulations on food safety and good manufacturing practives. We can discuss this seperately if you like. RayosMcQueen 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

18. Reviewing the past neutrality disputes raised in the discussion section of this article, you will notice that there is a legitimate history and concern of non-neutrality from previous editors. Furthermore, the prior neutrality issues were unsatisfactorily addressed. Furthermore, some of the disputes were one-sidedly "resolved" by Arved Deecke, who has a "palpable" conflict of interest in this dialogue. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Food_irradiation#Conflict_of_Interest

As suggested by User:DieterE and User:Arved Deecke we would need to look at this conflict of interest closer and disclose the individual interests that the anonymous editors including myself might have in pursuing this debate. Credit should be given for disclosing his / her real name which is more than we have chosen to do.

19/ Another editor, Dieter E, continues to use unverifiable, uncited information, and only furthers non-NPOV, specifically regarding his claim that, "The 'mainstream' of science is with WHO and not at all with some oponents and activists." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Food_irradiation#Dates_and_locations_of_studies and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Food_irradiation#Conflict_of_Interest

MonstretM 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As 100% citations on the talk page seem excessive I would like to see Wikipedia Guidline that suggests we are required to reference every statement on the talk page. On the articke itself this is a different story, but remember that deletion is only one way to handle unreferenced text. If you would like more background information prior to agreeing to a published statement in the article give the user the opportunity to supply that in a friendly, encouraging way. USer:DieterE like anyone else is trying to help by providing is insights into the topic and the personal attacks including crticism of his English skills have already raised some Wikiquette eyebrows.

Because the uncited statements are NOT helpful to the discussion. Why should I consider outlandish statements if they aren't supported anywhere? What does it contribute towards the discussion (except to confuse and mislead)? MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you've brought up some strong points, and they deserve to be addressed. A few of them, I'll take a slight run at; others, I'll leave for the people more versed in this dispute. As to (1), if the studies are actually old, it seems to make sense to indicate that -- as a better alternative, perhaps citing specific studies and years would be in order (and better sourcing, to boot). I'm inclined to agree on point (2), the statement as it currently reads seems to be a synthesis of original research, drawing conclusions which we cannot verify -- the two statements, independent of each other, may not pose a problem if we can source them. On (3), likewise, such opinions should be attributed to someone rather than stated as fact. Hopefully that sort of thinking lays a groundwork to deal with other points, and indicates the sort of philosophy I'd be approaching this with. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally a voice of reason! Phew! Thank you for your much-needed input. MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the protection notice is enough to alert readers that something is amiss. I'm glad to see discussion here - that is what will be needed to resolve the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been having the same discussion for quite awhile now, and it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere... MonstretM 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I propose to take this to the Mediation Cabal (WP:RFM requests that we attempt either the Cabal or WP:RFC before going to 'official' mediation). Please signal your acceptance by signing below: - MrArt 10:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this requirement up. Of the two, which would you find more promising in helping us reach consensus? Also could you comment on timing per my suggestion to get all studies discussed to see what other topics we will need help with? Mabe we should at least wait for MonstretM's proposal on Tinsley, I.J., et al. 1970. as he / she had suggested that he / she was in disagreement with the current proposal. RayosMcQueen 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which route to take at this point. Mediation is definitely necessary, but rather than Mediation Cabal, I might prefer to approach the Mediation Committee or the Arbitration Committee. Let me think about it. MonstretM 14:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a few more eyes on this dispute will help. MonstretM, while you're deciding, please continue to track down the cited papers in electronic form. RayosMcQueen, it would help if you could provide citations of a few of those '2500+ papers' you mentioned. Above all, let's keep the discussion focused on the content of the article. - MrArt 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

MrArt, the USDA operates the National Agricultural Library which has a Food Irradiation Wholesomeness Database including research citations from 1947 through 1997. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodirad/intro.html If you run a search with an empty search field you will find that there are 4188 studies on file that are relevant to the topic. If you search "carrots" for example you will find 87 additional studies on the wholesomeness of irradiated carrots alone. Potatoes returns 207 results.

I have of course not read most of these studies and am incapable to comment on the exact content of most of them. As user:DieterE points out, the scientific method includes a review process through peers, scientific panels, proceedings of international symposia etc. rather than through laymen like we all here probably are. Consider reading chapter 6 of "High-dose irradiation: wholesomeness of food irradiated with doses above 10 KGy, a joint FAO/IAEA/WHO study group. Geneva, Switzerland, 15-20 September 1997" for an example of one of many such reviews. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/.Foodirad-v2/CDROM/fd2_img/390/390_010/exp13818.html is another one. We can make more such reviews available if helpful.User:DieterE's reference to J.F.Diehl, Safety of Irradiated Food is probably one of the better summaries, but I am thinking this work is copyrighted and we would need to find a way to handle that. Singling out nine studies aledgedly claiming issues which may or may not withstand closer scrutiny is certainly a biased approach in displaying the situation. What are your thoughts? RayosMcQueen 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that publishing the findings of studies that have shown probable health risks of certain irradiated foods is biased, but rather honest and therefore important for the scope of a Wikipedia article on food irradiation issues. Furthermore, it is editorializing and misleading to claim that the studies that you cited demonstrate either the "wholesomeness" or "safety" of irradiated foods. What a few of the studies do show is that they found no specific issue with the specific type of irradiated food that was examined in that specific study. It would be faulty logic and misleading to make a broad statement based on those studies -- no matter if there are 100 or 1000 of them -- that "irradiated foods are safe". For example, there are currently no published studies on the irradiation effects on lettuce.

There are plenty of studies on the effect of irradiation on Lettuce. See http://www.bfa-ernaehrung.de/SEARCH/BFELEMISTW/SDF?STICHWORT_O=includes&STICHWORT=lettuce&FORM_F1L=Author%28s%29&FORM_SO=DescendRayosMcQueen 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that there are no studies on the health risks of consuming irradiated lettuce. MonstretM 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE understand and accept a scientific principle in this dispute about food irradiation: It is virtually impossible to do wholesomeness studies for any individual product at any possible dose range; such work could never be completed. For such reasons the JECFI of 1980 (printed by WHO in 1981) concluded that judgements can be only made by classes or groups of similarity. For example, if lettuce was tested and the data had been validated the conclusion needs to be that any similar products (for example rucola and other leafy vegetables) at the dose range appropriate for irradiating that product for a reasonable and justified purpose, the result can be transferred until evidence to the contrary has been provided. So, what is the argument by MonstretM on the scientific level? 83.242.63.230 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, even if you did manage to cite all "2500+ studies" it would still be misleading and false to conclude that "these studies show that irradiated foods are safe". It is also misleading to claim that a study that does not demonstrate an adverse occurrence precludes the occurrence of adverse effects in general. What a scientific study can do is demonstrate the existence or probability of an event, such as for example, smoking is linked to higher incidence of lung cancer. What a scientific study cannot do is prove that "smoking is safe, because X people did not get lung cancer in a period of 5 years". Furthermore, the very definition and application of the term "adverse" is highly subjective and inconsistent among the studies. FDA is just one opinion -- controvertible at that -- on the adverse effects of irradiated foods, and therefore their opinion must be indicated as such. Therefore, it would be ok to state that FDA has approved the use of irradiation on foods, but it would be weasel text to insert a scientifically unverifiable and non-NPOV statement that "FDA concluded that irradiated foods are safe." The major issue here is what exactly can we conclude from the entire body of studies on food irradiation. I propose that the only broad statement we can provide in NPOV and in honesty about food irradiation is that the long-term health risks of irradiated foods are still unknown. For example, see http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/99f4372/99f-4372-bkg0001-Tab-56-Delincee.pdf

Use of all other terminology such as "wholesome" and "safe" is misleading and pure conjecture, and belongs more in the realm of marketing and public relations rather than science. MonstretM 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

it would still be misleading and false to conclude that "these studies show that irradiated foods are safe". True, but it would be acceptable to say that "these studies failed to find any evidence that irradiated foods are unsafe". And then it would be incumbent on you to find a reputable source that argues that these studies are incomplete, misdirected, of too short a duration, or wahtever. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Page now unprotected

I don't have time to work on it just now, but I thought I'd let the rest of you know. - MrArt 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)