Talk:Food irradiation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criticism and concerns about food irradiation <<was>> Irradiation to cover up poor food quality

'POV'- and 'fact'-requests have been added, but are diffciult to meet: Of course, already the title of this section is POV; it insinuates that radiation processing can be technically used to cover poor food quality, what is factually impossible. However, opponents to food irradiation state this repeatedly; and for this reason it is adequate to cover this topic in the main article. Quite unfortunately, opponents never provide any evidence, which can be cross-checked, for their imputation. References used in this section by opponents are not to the proven facts, but to the statements and imputations of several opponents.

Factual repudiation will never relate to the authors of such imputation. The arguments by Epstein, Hauter, Freese and others are identical to those raised against heat pasteurization of milk when it was introduced (cf. Satin, 1996, reference found in the main article). But those predictions did not become true. And it is a basically false concept to see the efforts of industries, research and business only to provide the consumer with the most worse product at an increased price.

Some of the claims of opponents are just not substantiated, even if they might relate only to the US situation: "... the lack of regulatory oversight (such as regular food processing plant inspection) necessitates irradiation". No verification is provided for this imputation; this is really POV not suitable for WIKIPEDIA. However, it might be kept to document the non-factual approach of opponents, accepting the purpose and target of the respective treatment, but selecting between equal alternatives for invested other reasons.

The comparison of heat-pasteurization to radiation processing has now been marked 'Fact|Non-neutral statement'. However, ionizing radatiation can do for solid food the same as heat processing provides for liquid food. The opponents have to provide arguments and facts for what reason they oppose one technological choice, but accept another one, both serving the identical purpose. However, to find a broad discussion of this aspect consult the reference to Satin, 1996 in the main article.

It is true and not disputed, that any available technology has been used by criminals for their profit: so processing food by ionizing radiation. Those incidences are not well documented, but well known by the interested community. You remember 'dutching'? A lot of deep-frozen shrimp from Europe had been imported to USA, but had been seized on inspection because of too high load with pathogenic microorganisms; it was returned. After some time another lot of shrimp arrived and was found to have nearly no load of any microorganism, which is impossible. Checks by the inspection authoristies found out, that the product had been intentionally irradiated in the Netherlands. Hence, the opponents coined the terminology 'dutching'.

This nice story at the same time proves that you cannot cover up poor food quality. And in this particular case, lacking microflora and too high chemical quality indices would have been a proof that something is wrong with this consignement.

As it concerns the other example of liquid egg (in the main article), this is information from the food control authorities involved. It is very valuable; however, no office would give its name for reference.

In consequence, what can we do to keep all those nuances and at the same time adhering to the principles of WIKIPEDIA? Dieter E (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this subsection to

Criticism and concerns about food irradiation

in order to make it less POV; also the text-body is being amended. Dieter E (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been activities with criminal energy, as in any commercial field also abusing food irradiation. However, there are no publications available which can be referenced here. Insiders and experts know of the long story of such attempts. Consequently, the request for facts/references (in the main article) cannot be followed. Dieter E (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

An example of criminal attempt of abuse of food irradiation, which I had reported in the main article, has been deleted; probably for the reason I could not find some traceable reference. This is one of the difficulties: those reports are not collected in the scientific literature; mostly they are reported in statements from consumer organizations. And I do not hold a collection of such reports, but consumer activists should be able to contribute. One very suggestive example I recall is 'dutching', a terminology coined by consumer activists. The story behind it was that a shipment of deep-frozen shrimp (in the 70's?), which had been seized by US import inspection, had been returned and irradiated in Holland and imported again to the US; there it was seized again for the reason that the total microbial count was by far too low for a natural product and the the chemical indices for spoilage at the same time were by far too high. This proves, abuse of radiation processing has been used by criminals; but it did not work to mask the onset of spoilage. Who can help to find references on such typical events? Dieter E (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Under 'criticism and concerns' the following sentence was deleted:

'And finally, after such experiment did not show any negative effect, the new argument and demand would be to carry out such experiments over even longer terms.'

This sentence will be restored. It is essential for the main article to show basics of science, that particular questions can never be answered because of the unappropriate structure of the question posed. This is also valid for long-term studies , where opponents to food irradiation use to state that those studies are still missing. Dieter E (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Under 'criticism and concerns' the following URL has been inserted:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19342494?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

However, it is only another LINK to an abstract for a lecture by Duncan and others, which is already referenced in our discussion of the cat-usse. It does not belong into this section, and it is not used as a reference for any statement in the main article. It will be deleted. Dieter E (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

corrections to revisions by Quinn168 as of 2009-03-09 and as of 2009-04-04 18:30

Explanations to the corrections:

1) never change a title of a printed publication; it is

Food Irradiation - A technique for preserving and improving the safety of food.

2) 'very high-enery' does not carry any information as 'ionizing' implies high-energy, ie energy high enough to cause ionization; very high energy (no hyphenation!) denotes cosmic rays etc which are not used in food irradiation.

3) Microorganisms do not 'reproduce' by sexual techniques but proliferate.

4) The new paragraph 'Despite somewhat widespread ...' is lacking any reference and, consequently deleted. The first sentence might be intended to refer to the specic US situation; however, it is not true for the worldwide situation. It is also not true tht 'over the past 50 years numerous attempts to sell irradiated food' have been unsuccessful; such attempts have been seen in US only over a period shprter than a decade!

5) The new paragraph 'Also irradiation has been studied for many years ...' is not factual. Long-term effects of the consumption of irradiated food are well-known (cf. the book by Diehl). It is true that still a very few scientists do not accept the outcome of national and international expert committees that any food irradiated at any dose is wholesome. It is true that some activist organizations still make propaganda against food irradiation using such isolated opinions. However, the discussion of this should be moved into the appropriate section of this article. This is also true for the book by Hauter & Worth, which not at all is a basic reference for side effects of irradiation on flavour, odour or texture. This aspect is even covered in ref. [1] and in Diehl's book. This paragraph is consequently deleted.

6) The remarks by Mark Worth for Public Citizen in 2005 to FDA are an isolated individual opinion; in order to make a well-balanced reference to all the many opinions submitted during FDA's rule-making procedures, it is indispensable to provide references to those other opinions and to make reference to the final decision taken by FDA and the reasonings in the final conclusions. Unless such information is provided, this particular reference is deleted.

Dieter E (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE do never change the title of a printed publication in a reference (no.1 above) to read as you wish it would read; repeated attempts to do so would be considered 'vadalism' under WIKI-rulesd. Dieter E (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

SUREBEAM corrections: It is true that the company went bankrupt: The cited newspaper article well describes their commercial and legal failures. However, mentioning that the comüpany failed for the reason that 'meat packers' did not accept the technology is false. Beyond meat packers, a number of retailers had already accepted this particlar technology and offered irradiated hamburger patties to their clients with some succes. For example, when I checked in 2003 at a supermarket at Chikago in 2003, the bins held about one third of their volume of irradiated meat; the next day all the product had gone! Please are factual with your contributions. Paragraph deleted again. Dieter E (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The news item that is used as a source disagrees with you. It mentions slow adoption by meat packers as one factor in the eventual failure of the company. Your personal observation of a supermarket in 2003 can't help us as a reference, but the published news report can. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my peronal observations cannot serve as the final proof; however,a newspaper article can be a hint, but never a proof. During IMRP2003 (International Meeting on Radiation Processing) at Chicago a number of restaurant and market operators reported that the irradiated hamburger patties sold well. Restaurants had flyer on the table informin g their customers that all their hamburgers were irradiated. And the bankrupcy of SureBeam was essentially due to criminal financial activities as the newspaper correctly reports; the irradiated patties disappeared later on from the market as the Sioux City facility of SureBeam stopped operation because of the bankrupcy. Most of the irradiated hamburgers came through this facility! Dieter E (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Having closed my WIKI-access it came suddenly back to my mind: One of the fast food chains serving exclusively irradiated hamburgers was Dairy Queen, at least until the ruin of SureBeam; I might be even able to retrieve in my files a copy of their flyer. Dieter E (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution

"With global food production estimated at 4,580 metric tons, irradiated food represents about 0.01 percent of this total."

has been deleted. Unfortunately, the reference given is to a newspaper article which is not accessible/not retrievable. Furthermore your calculation or your data are false: irradiated food is estimated to be 500,000 tons, but your reference value for the global food productioon is only about 5,000 tons. Hence, irradiated food would be a hundred times the total food available. Providing trustable and traceable data about world-wide food production would be welcome here. Dieter E (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Dieter E (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE respect the facts and the terminology that microorganisms do not 'reproduce', but instead "proliferate" in a very specific manner, ie cell-division (cf. no.3 above) Dieter E (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Contributions deleted again; for reasons given already above:

"Of the total estimated annual global food production of 4.45 billion tonnes, irradiated food represents 0.01% of the global food supply. In the United States, 0.002 percent of fruit, vegetables and poultry, and 9.5% of herbs and spices are irradiated (as of 2000)."

Furthermore, a very specific US-situation is not valid for the introductory sentences of this article. Dieter E (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of a number of further changes (as of 2009-04-04 18:30), explained below:

The following text has been deleted again, for a number of reasons given below:

"Of the total estimated annual global food production of 4.45 billion tonnes, irradiated food represents 0.01% of the global food supply."

The figure ‘4.45.billion (US-american??)’ tonnes is not found in the referenced article. Instead the value of ‘241.5 mio. tonnes can be found, which is obviously by far too small. I had called already earlier for a trustworthy reference and value about the total world food production. The used reference here is on a WEB-page without an impressum. The guest-poster of this article has no full address, only an eAddress; hence his professionallity and background cannot be checked. Despite the contrary opinion by Quinn168 this is a more than sufficient, ie a valid reason to remove this piece of text.

The following text newly inserted has been deleted for the reason given below

"and because irradiation does not eradicate all pathogens, irradiation can only be used on a limited number of foods, "

This particular sentence is true in general only to a limited extend; at sufficiently high doses sterilization may be achieved; also other techniques as for example smoking do not always eradicate all pathogens and this observation is not used as any argument against smoking. Furthermore, under the subsection ‘Current US market’ this observation will not contribute to the topic. And finally, irradiation can be applied to a wide range of food for a reasonable variety of applications, for example the quarantine treatment of fresh fruits from Hawaii; and pathogens is no generally applicable argument here.

This following comment is removed here; however, the contents might be rephrased as describing the attitude and the false arguments of a large number of food distributors. The reasoning given below.

"and because relying on irradiation may provide a false sense of security and delay efforts to effectively clean up our food production."

It is a false, but historically and frequently applied argument, that any technique improving the security of our food must inevitably lead to negligence in the production and distribution. This argumentation is well documented for the compulsory heat-pasteurization of milk when it was introduced. But the argument did not prove true! The same is valid for food irradiation. And the sentence above is true quite general, using ‘MAY’. If you say ‘may’ there is no need to provide reliable evidence. It just may be, but will never occur!

The two references to one single IOWA study do not contribute to this article with respect to the title of this sub-section ‘Current US market’, the text is removed for the reasons given below.

"E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks forced regulations, and a study at the IOWA State university pointed to it that irradiation may be used to preserve flavor and quality."

Study is on cider, irradiated and consumer evaluation, abstract only. The contributed text does not describe the current situation on the US-market and how outbreaks and new regulations influenced the market. However, this is what the text pretends to present.

Also this story about Surebeam is deleted for the reasons given below.

"The last major attempt to sell new types of irradiated foods to the general public in the United States was by SureBeam Corp. of San Diego, California, USA, which manufactured irradiation equipment intended for beef products. In 2004 SureBeam filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The company said it could not work out a deal to restructure debt with its main lender, which had demanded repayment of the debt, and that the company was unable to raise additional funds. SureBeam was also caught up in an accounting dispute over how the company recorded its revenues, which deterred international customers from using SureBeam's services."

Not Surebeam has tried to sell irradiated products, but the company was very successful to convince a number of retailers and restaurant operators to products irradiated by Surebeam facilities, in particular hamburger patties processed at the facility at Sioux City. This was rather successful! Surebeam did not at all manufacture irradiation equipment intended for beef products; the company has sold a number of electron accelerators world-wide; and only this single one at Sioux City was designed to treat exclusively meat products. The bankruptcy and the accounting dispute are not at all related to food irradiation; and hence this demise need not to be mentioned for food irradiation and under this subsection about the ‘Current US market’.

Also this piece of information is not valuable to be presented here, the reasons given below.

"In the United States, 0.002 percent of fruit, vegetables and poultry, and 9.5% of herbs and spices are irradiated (as of 2000)."

First of all, the publication is of 2000 describing the situation before; meanwhile, essential aspects have changed in the US. The value 0.0002 percent is given in the original table for fruit and vegetables and for poultry each; what is not truly reflected by the citation. However, vegetables are not irradiated; there had been historically a few experimental shipments of irradiated onions from Florida to Chicago which sold well and where the usual chemical sprout inhibition was replaced by irradiation. Quite contrary the situation for fruit irradiation for quarantine purposes: a dedicated facility has opened on Hawaii, and US has made a number of agreements with states in South-East Asia for the imports of irradiated exotic fruits. Both applications are now gaining market in the US. Please consider also that such figure as the 0.0002 percent are giving a false impression: not all of the fruits produced in the US need irradiation which is only applicable for quarantine purposes. For example, fruits originating in Florida and being marketed there do not need a quarantine treatment; fruits produced there but market in the cold Northern States of the US do likewise not need the quarantine treatment; and finally apples produced in the state of Washington do not carry the fruitfly and do not need the quarantine treatment; furthermore, any fruit exported from US to Europe do not need any quarantine treatment. Consequently, an informative figure would be to give the fraction of those fruits needing quarantine treatment and being irradiated. Dieter E (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Imputation:Irradiated food led to Multiple Sclerosis

Forbes writes: "While looking into why pregnant cats on a special diet of irradiated food began to have problems with movement, including paralysis and vision, University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers found that the felines' nerve fibers had lost the fatty myelin insulation that helps signals pass along these axons." http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/03/hscout625606.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC) And here another source: http://ms.about.com/b/2009/04/06/cat-food-may-hold-the-secret-to-curing-multiple-sclerosis.htm --84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And here is what this researchers say: "Here, we show that cats fed an irradiated diet during gestation developed a severe neurologic disease resulting from extensive myelin vacuolation and subsequent demyelination.", http://www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6832.abstract?sid=932245d0-bb44-49af-b441-5990eff61b88 --84.56.253.226 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, 'FORBES' is just from hear-say, but not the original scientific publication. Furthermore, the 'FORBES' reference is not accessible without paying for it; consequently it cannot be used as a reliable reference. Furthermore, the truth of the original study is, that the researchers were not at all interested in what caused the nerveous leasions, but in the contrary, in what can contribute to to restore the functionality of those nerveous fibers. And the link to MS is only maid through the speculation, if in the case of cats the leasion might be reversed, this might become also possible in the case of human MS which is also caused by some nerveous disorder. "Here, we show ..." the researchers said in the announcement of their lecture at some scientific meeting; and this abstract is printed in the proceedings of this scientific society (see references given above). Hence, we even do not know, what the researchers presented to the conference, and we do not yet know, what they are going to publish an a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Some press release and other non-scientific publications are not sufficient in the world of science.

And on top of all, it is not true to state, as given in the title of this new section "Irradiated food led to Multiple Sclerosis"; there is no statement found and no prove given for such finding. As a consequence, the FORBES-issue will be deleted. Dieter E (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So let me cite what is written. "Cat Food May Hold the Secret to Curing Multiple Sclerosis Monday April 6, 2009 In a weird, but true, press release from the University of Wisconson-Madison, researchers are looking into cat food for insight into multiple sclerosis. Specifically (and adding to the weirdness), pregnant cats develop a condition similar to multiple sclerosis if they eat a special diet of cat food that has been irradiated." You really think this should be swept under the table? I think this is far too important not to be mentioned. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

NOT AT ALL! However, we have not yet access to the facts and this experimental study; all we know is from hear-say as TV-reports or press releases. We are informed that the feed for the cats contained irradiated components; but there is no proof that irradiation was the cause, or whether the feed caused the leasions by some other factor independent from the fact it had been irradiated. Even about the Australian cats we have not enough reliable information; and the veterinarians I contacted have not yet any guess for the causes. And one speculation around the Wisconsin study is that pregnant cats are that different from any other living that they are the only ones which should not feed on irradiated food. And some of the scientists involved firmly declare: it is very much unlikely that this special observation will have any implication for humans eating irradiated food. This is the reason for me that it is too early to report and discuss this issue at length in the main article, which is on food irradiation and needs essentially to explain the technology. Dieter E (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another newspaper report had recently been added (see below) and is deleted now:

On March 30, 2009, a team of researchers from the University of Madison-Wisconsin proved conclusively that the consumption of irradiated foods caused classic cases of multiple sclerosis in domestic felines. www.naturalnews.com/025971.html ;   "Irradiated Foods Cause Severe Neurological Damage", Sherry Baker, Natural News, April 1, 2009].

However, only the original publication, preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, is of reference. Newspaper do never report the indispensable information of such studies: design of experiment, materials and methods, details of irradiation including dose distribution (max/min dose), control and positive-control groups. Furthermore, it is impotant to learn wether the authors were be able to reproduce their own experiments and wether an independent repetition of those experiments by an other reserch group had been successful. The issue itself together with the observation of feline ataxia is touched already in the present version of the main text and widely discussed on this talk-page.Dieter E (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV for the whole article

After the MS-issue had been added, the NPOV-tag was attached to the whole article. However, no argument is given; consequently, the reasons cannot be discussed. Unless substantial evidence is provided, the NPOV-tag is lacking justification! Dieter E (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube-Videos about cats showing diseases after eating irradiated food

If anybody wants to know, how bad cats suffer, that they even had to be euthanized as they could barely reach the toilette after getting ill because of that irradiated Orijen cat food, here are some Youtube videos about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKL7QWQVAEQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_uxnBEGFkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6PwbIlTeGI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2tLHUn1RSA and here you see in the news some dealers, cat owners and the doctor who found out about Orijen and received threats from Orijen but was nevertheless courageous enough to speak out about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kO5GsmKt24 I don't know how you feel but I am going mad about this. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What we see in the video is cats suffering; the video does not (and can never) prove that the suffering came from some irradiated feed. Hence, Youtube - by the principle - cannot be a reference for any dispute in science. The physician shown in one spot (Richard Stomps) appears not the be involved with the group of Australian veterinarians involved from the beginning in treating those affected cats and in searching for the possible causes. The assertion now is also R. Stomps received threats from Orijen; for what we have also no proof; or do you hold his affidavit? Dieter E (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch the video again, it is Dr. Georgina Childs who says she was threatend by the company if she dares to make any public statements about Orijen and the ill cats, see minute 3:10 at the video. Richard is the cat owner. --Tubesship (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct name of the veterinarian is Child; not Childs. Dieter E (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK: I have to confess I did not carefully view and listen the three Youtube-videos at full length; I only screened through them. Please excuse my negligence, and thank you for your help. And I have been in direct contact with Dr. Georgina Childs; and some information I have introduced into our article I received from her. Dieter E (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked-up a number of other Youtube-videos in the context of food irradiation; quite unfortunately, never the source of those videos is shown; consequently, to check the reliability of such reports is very difficult. Dieter E (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I wrote and asked them for about the news channel. Here is another interesting video, I would like to hear what you say about their concerns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOWGP3lchvs --84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is what a person certified in Clinical Nutritions has to say

A person who is supposed to know what she is talking about, says this about irradiated food: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOWGP3lchvs I wrote her and hope she joins this discussion here. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is just bullshit! Produced by certified physicians, who claim to be experts in 'clinical nutrition' but don't have any idea about the technology of processing food by ionizing radiation.

Their story obviously is a fake; the shown apple is not from any US-store. Fruit irradiation is permitted in the USA up to 1 kGy; for quarantine applications (fruitfly) brought to mainland US from Hawaii or from abroad, the required dose is 0.5 kGy. In order to 'sterilize' any product, a minimum dose of 25 kGy is recommended. And on top of all, any irradiated food sold in the market place must be labelled without exception. However, irradiation of apples does not make any sense, there is no useful purpose which pays.

'Free radicals' are essential for life, they occur quite naturally in the human body. And it is true, that free radicals are also created by ionizing radiation; this is one of the ways the beneficial action of radiation processing is effected.

The whole argumentation in the video (I have only seen the first few minutes, than I had to quit no longer spending my time for such nonsense) is typical for the layman referring to some half-truth and non-comprehended information.

And please note, Youtube is not at all a source of trustable and reliable scientific information; what we need is peer-reviewed papers with relevant references and a detailed section on 'materials & methods'.

You wrote her, fine! I am curious about her (the video shows two persons) contributions; and I will help to verify the scientific value of the possible arguments.Dieter E (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cat food irradiation banned in Australia

• Cat-food irradiation banned as pet theory proved

Article is quite vague. No info on whether they ruled out nutrient defficiency.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Again a newspaper report, not really trustworthy and fundamentally not the source of scientific information.

Here some arguments: Already the headline is misleading, until today nothing has been proven for the Australian cat issue. It is also not a sterilization process; for this purpose about 25 kGy would be quite enough. The AQIS did never disclose - I have explicitely inquired with them - what the scientific justification and the intented purpose for their choice of a minimum dose of 50 kGy has been. And I do not know of any sterilization process by application of ionizing radiation which is controversial. There is also no 'compelling overseas evidence' that irradiated pet food might become noxious to cats. The pet food under scrutinity is also not 'contaminated'; no one until today has pointed to any real or possible contaminant. Good to hear that as AQIS and Steritec both insist that the process of radiation processing is (not 'was') harmless. When minister Burke states he had received international reports only late last week, this is not the truth; we know since many weeks about several studies about ataxia in cats. However, scientific and trustworthy information has not yet been pubished. And minister Burke did not disclose which knew information has now become accessible to him. Or what the reasoning for his decision was.

Also the citation to Dr Child, the Australian veterinarian involved in the cat issue, is not really helpful as she demands labelling without exception. For food this is already standard according to Codex Alimentarius which is not followed by all governments. For feed (or pet food) I do not know of any country which has regulated this aspect. And obviously, AQIS mandated an irradiation treatment which needs not to be labelled.

We will still have to wait until trustworthy information becomes available. Dieter E (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cats susceptible to neurological problems when fed irradiated diets From Veterinary Information Network. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found the official announcements by AQIS and added the respective information in the article. AQIS in its decision refers to scientific reports which have already been discussed here; and again, nothing haas become clear about the cause of this cat illness. Dieter E (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Side-aspects of this issue: there have been newspaper reports that the flower-bouquets which the Australian participants to the Olympics in China had received have been irradiated upon their return to Australia according to the AQIS-requirements to a minimum dose of 50 kGy. It is really questionable that the flowers survived such treatment; and no reports are available. Dieter E (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section

Significant portions of this section are written in a tone that feels condescending and too casual. The lecture-like aside about whether science can prove a negative is at best inappropriate in tone and at worst POV. I have added a cleanup tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.132.207 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinct need to discuss even in the main article a fundamental issue of science and of the theory of cognition: the absence of something cannot be proven. Now, if opponents of food irradiation frequently raise the point that the absence of any risk of consuming irradiated food over prolonged periods has not yet been proven, this statement is basically true. However, science is unable to answer such question. For such reasons, founded extrapolations must be used. For example, it is well understood that 2-ACBs are toxic if applied to the respective test system in sufficiently high concentrations. Unresolved is the question whether the traces ingested by the consumer with irradiated fat-containing food impose any hazard; but mainstream opinion of science is prresently there is no such danger. Dieter E (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to read "WHO Statement on 2-Dodecylcyclobutanone and Related Compounds"; unfortunately I could not recall the URL, but this statement should be accessible on the WEB. Dieter E (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Yes, it's easy for the opponent of any practice to claim it "hasn't been proven to be 100% safe," even if the general consensus points to safety. Yes, putting the (impossible) burden of proof on the scientific community to "completely prove" safety amounts to some highly misleading framing.

My contention is with the way this is communicated. The section begins with the statement "Concerns have been expressed...that irradiation, as a non-preventive measure, might disguise or otherwise divert attention away from poor working conditions, sanitation, and poor food-handling procedures..." and yet, later on, it is noted in the same section that "Milk heat-pasteurization is not considered to be a method "to cover up poor food quality"; consequently, food irradiation should not be accused to serve such criminal purposes." Certainly, both claims are important to note and have been properly cited. However, the 'he-said-she-said' tone, where an article criticizes an accusation made by itself, makes readers feel as if they've stumbled into somebody's message-board debate.

I agree to a certain extend to the criticism about tone and about the isolated single-voice behind it. However, we are missing the professional contribution of opponents and critics to this article! Consequently, I had to distill in many instances the arguments of opponents and the scientific evidence behind it in my own words. This will unavoidably leave traces of my expertise. Historically, this article had also contributions from fanatic opponents non respecting the rules of WIKIPEDIA; this was the reason we had a 'fresh start' after resolving such issue. Dieter E (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving on to the next paragraph:

The statement "Opponents to food irradiation and consumer activists frequently state that the final proof is missing that irradiated food is "safe" (i.e. not unwholesome)" is an acceptable statement, "Moreover, the lack of long-term studies should be a further reason not to permit food irradiation" is HIGHLY POV and should be rephrased or removed altogether.

Yes, you are quite right, this is POV. However, it is just reported as it is. These are the facts which need to be reported here. It would be the obligation of those opponents to put meat on the bones and to give trustworthy evidence and references. It is with the opponents to phrase their opinion in their own words! Dieter E (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Such questions, by the principle, cannot be answered..." and "Proving the absence of a negative is virtually impossible" are both true statements, and both are relevant to the debate, though including both does appear to belabor the point a bit. But having them immediately follow the assertion that irradiation should not be permitted makes for an incoherent article that, again, appears to be arguing with itself. I would like to rephrase such statements into "Proponents say X" or "Opponents say Y" (or similar), but would first like to reach some type of consensus with others who have contributed much to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.132.207 (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the discussion hinging on the "wholesomeness" of such foods is troubling. "Wholesomeness" is a very vague distinction which is largely rooted in opinion or public perception. A sentence or two on whether or not the general public considers irradiated food "wholesome," and why, is appropriate; however, the discussion in the article should use better-defined descriptors such as healthy/unhealthy, safe/unsafe, or possessing less/equal nutritional content. This article does not exist to determine the safety of food irradiation based on how it "sounds" to the consumer, but it does not need to provide a lengthy explanation of how science is done either. Balancing subtly POV statements from one side with equally POV statements from the other does not make an article unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.132.212 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The terminology of "wholesomeness" has been coined by a Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee in 1980; the report is available as 'anon., Wholesomeness of irradiated food, WHO, Geneva, Technical Report Series No. 659, 1981'. Consequently, this definition is not 'vague', it is not 'rooted in opinion or public perception'. Its use is now well established in science. Its meaning includes the aspects such as healthy/unhealthy, safe/unsafe, or possessing less/equal nutritional content. The statements contrasted when reporting about the criticism voiced must not been seen as NPOV versus POV. Both sides use facts from science, proven by giving the respective references. The balancing of the arguments is done by validating the reported observations and putting them in to context, finally reaching a conclusion. Dieter E (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the 'wholesomeness' aspect. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that one side of the debate was somehow NPOV. It's heartening that most arguments for either side have proper references. However, although the references can provide evidence for or against a certain position, the article itself cannot have an opinion. "The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts X" is a stronger statement than "X is correct," and I fear that many statements in this section come dangerously close to the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.132.207 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism and concerns about food irradiation"

I feel that an administrator or just an experience Wiki contributor should look over the "Criticism and concerns about food irradiation" section and much of the Wiki on food irradiation due to weasel words, lack of citations, really unprofessional and nonacademic wording. I don't feel I have to say too much. It has been discussed before but many months have passed with absolutely nothing getting done. If someone could look over the article I think they'll get what the problem is.

Regards, 71.204.173.64 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I object to tagging this section by the 'inapproprate tone' mark. What is criticized is mainly the tone of statements taken from opponents' publications and arguments. It is true that much of their arguments is really unprofessional and nonacademic, ignoring purposefully the mainstream of science. I feel not responsible to look up all their publications for the references used and to verify the effects reported from the original. During my professional carreer I have done this already in many instances. However, a discussion of this matter in detail, elucidating the contradiction in the claims of the opponents and the publications used would be far beyond any WIKI-article!

I agree, months have passed and no improvement has been reached, except a few editorial improvements and some bot-applications. What is lacking is the honest contribution from some opponent. There are scientific arguments, even if only theoretical, which must be presented with appropriate references; and only after this the rebuttal again with appropriate arguments may be possible. For example, there had been the theory that any radiation effect in food is based on the formation of 'radiotoxins'. We have a small number of scientific reports claiming to have found such substances; however, the publications of mainstream sciences make evident that those studies could not be verified and proven.

As it regards 'honest contributions from some opponent', I have made very good and promising experiences with a group of consumer cleaning their information leaflets from the most unscientific and unfounded arguments. This must also become possible here.

However, one approach to improve the readability of this section could be to clearly separate opponents' views and experts' responses.

Moreover, I do not see the 'lack of sitations'; I have collected allready references to the main arguments.

And still I hope, that someone else would help to improve the 'tone'; as an expert in the field and as one who has fought for his professional life those unfounded arguments, I would not the best contributor for a report balanced also in language. Dieter E (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style and general consensus, having a stand-alone section of criticisms and rebuttals is the worst possible solution. One is supposed to integrate the negative and positive into all sections, maintaining a NPOV. Abductive (reasoning) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments and arguments. I am not really aware of those rules of style, I just try to follow some guidance. In this case my approach could be to have still a section 'criticism and concerns', but without any rebuttal or other argumentation, with the appropriate references to the argumentation of the opponents. However, I would have to use some secondary, indirect references as the views expressed are quite scattered. I consider now to move any discussion of such arguments to the respective sub-sections of the article. Some more work, but hopefully valuable. Dieter E (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Under "00:51, 16 November 2010 Beccaviola" the tags 'citation needed' and 'verification needed' have been added. At both instances this refers to a list of negative effects reported and published in a number of separate papers. It would be hard work to retrieve those many independent references; and to my knowledge there is not yet a review publication. Some of the effects are covered in Diehl's book which appeared in 1995; others, cf. 2ACBs, became known only after 2000. Dieter E (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The following lines have just been deleted:

02:39, 13 April 2011 70.92.132.159 (talk) (53,521 bytes) (→Criticism and concerns about food irradiation: not a neutral POV, no citation, opinions, etc.) (undo) - "[Irradiation] is a total cop-out," said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch. "They don't have the resources, the authority or the political will to protect consumers from unsafe food."

02:36, 13 April 2011 70.92.132.159 (talk) (54,668 bytes) (→Criticism and concerns about food irradiation: not encyclopedic material) (undo) - "Food irradiation is a pseudo-fix," said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety in Washington, DC. "It's a way to try to come in and clean up problems that are created in the middle of the food production chain. I think it's clearly a disincentive to clean up the problems at the source."

However, those informations were introduced by opponents to food irradiation; it is the only 'original' information available about the structure of their argumentation. Quite unfortunately, no opponents to food irradiation co-operate to improve this article and to make the arguments balanced. For such reason, some original statements by opponents should be maintained. Dieter E (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A nuclear technology ?

Is food irradiation, ie processing food by ionizing radiation, really a nuclear technology?

When ionizing radiation was discovered in 1895/1896 and when after this the first proposals were made to use such emissions, nuclear technology was not yet invented. First, X-rays were discovered by Röntgen; and other types of ionizing radiation originating from nuclear disintegration (in particular alpha-radiation) from natural materials as ores were descibed. There had been proposals to use the bacteridal effect of both radiation types for a number of applications, inclding food treatment.

For such reasons, I intend to delete the tag 'nuclear technology'! Any comments? Dieter E (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, and have removed it. Judging by the other members of the category, it is for technology for nuke plants and bombs. Abductive (reasoning) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• This External Link didn't disappear; I deleted it today. Dieter E (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

General economic aspects

This question was moved from section 'nuclear technology?' to this place.

"What does "Some foods, particularly fruits and vegetables, are not available for sale on the global market unless treated to prolong shelf life for transportation. This may include radiation processing. However, this application has not yet been exploited", mean? Food was available on the global market before treatment was introduced to increase shelf life! And the application of irradiation has been exploited! Strangely worded, peculiar paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC) moved by Dieter E (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Some quite sophistic point to discuss; you state

Food was available on the global market before treatment was introduced to increase shelf life!

However, in geological times food was only available for immediate comsumption. After this a range of technologies was invented and introduced to improve shelflife, partially also to produce new kind of food: drying, salting, alcoholic fermentation, lactic fermentation, milling, heating and many more. This all was long before global market came into existence. However, after the global market is now standard, such conservation/preservation methods are indispensable to guarantee shelflife during trransport and distribution procedures. What do you think about banana from South America to be marketed in Europe? Very special technologies are established: harvesting unripe; tranport in specially designed stores on the ships; controlled atmosphere and temperature; use of ripening stimulants (burning ethylene to ethylene oxid) shortly before arrival in the harbour; displaying the nearly ripe bananas on the market place. This is only one, but a typical example, how global market depends on the availability of dedicated preservation methods. Dieter E (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

JAPAN ?

This information copied below had been inserted under the heading oif 'irradiated food in the market place'. This is the wrong place, as the banned product is not found on the marketplace.

Japan

As of 2008, importing irradiated food into Japan was illegal. http://cujtokyo.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/irradiated-food-ingredients/

The story behind is, that probably illegally irradiated products were found on the market place; any information is missing, whether this has been confirmed or not. Furthermore, this informaation is also false: Irradiation of any food what obviously includes also the import is banned in Japan. There is exclusively a single item permitted in Japan, potatoes irradiated for sprout inhibition; and this clearance is in effect since 1972. Dieter E (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Irradiated foods in the market place

I have now added some information about the market place in the European Union and a remark on the international trade. Not much information is accessible. I am not sure how the 'globalize requirement' can be fulfilled and when the respective TAG may be deleted. Dieter E (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been no further input on this topic; the respective TAG is now deleted. Dieter E (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

commercial of STS

Food Irradiation is also known as Electronic Cold-Pasteurization. (automatic LINK to www.scantechsciences.com removed)

The sentence above has been deleted. It leads to the commercial adverticements of a company producing 10 MeV electron accelerators.

It is wrong by the principle to call processing by ionizing radiation an 'electronic cold-pasteurization'. There is nothing electronic, the beneficial effect is caused by ionizing radiation no matter whether it is generated by electrons, gamma- or X-rays. Radiation processing is much more then 'pasteurization'; and even the terminology 'pasteurization' is false and misleading. By the nature of the action of ionizing radiation, ie the logarithmic reduction of micro-organisms this process is essentially different from heat-pasteurization. Even the use of 'radio-pasteurization' has been abandoned.

It is true that in the US some manufacturers of electron accelerators have tried to introduce such terminology in order to avoid the clear labelling of irradiaed food as being irradiated. Even 'pico-waved' had been proposed to hide gamma-irradiation. --Dieter E (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Dieter E (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

misleading 'pathogens'

I undid "... to destroy microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, insects or any other pathogens that ..." for the reason that 'pathogens' is misleading.

If the intention was to list pathogenic microorganisms there is no need to mention this particular kind of microorganisms explicitly as they are already covered by 'microorganisms' which include also spoilage causing as well as beneficial microorganisms.

According to my Shorter Oxford a pathogen is just a microorganism that produces disease. The effect of irradiation on parhogenic chemical compounds (for example allergenic) is still under study; there is not yet any practical apllication.

Consequently, it is not appropriate to mention this issue in the introduction; furthermore, the referenced WHO-document does not include such applications. Dieter E (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

irradiated diet is mentioned; deletion revised

22:52, 15 October 2011‎ 67.194.6.124 (talk)‎ (53,396 bytes) (→Safety, security and wholesomeness aspects: Nothing in the abstract cited mentions food irradiation. The article was about multiple sclerosis.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

I have undone this deletion; see this particular abstract below as high-lighted:

Remyelination of the CNS in multiple sclerosis is thought to be important to restore conduction and protect axons against degeneration. Yet the role that remyelination plays in clinical recovery of function remains unproven. Here, we show that cats fed an irradiated diet during gestation developed a severe neurologic disease resulting from extensive myelin vacuolation and subsequent demyelination. Despite the severe myelin degeneration, axons remained essentially intact. There was a prompt endogenous response by cells of the oligodendrocyte lineage to the demyelination, with remyelination occurring simultaneously. Cats that were returned to a normal diet recovered slowly so that by 3–4 months they were neurologically normal. Histological examination of the CNS at this point showed extensive remyelination that was especially notable in the optic nerve where almost the entire nerve was remyelinated. Biochemical analysis of the diet and tissues from affected cats showed no dietary deficiencies or toxic accumulations. Thus, although the etiology of this remarkable disease remains unknown, it shows unequivocally that where axons are preserved remyelination is the default pathway in the CNS in nonimmune-mediated demyelinating disease. Most importantly, it confirms the clinical relevance of remyelination and its ability to restore function.

irradiated diet is a food or an animal feed. Dieter E (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

many new language TAGs

Recently, many new language TAGs have been added to this article on food irradiation. Any harmonization is still lacking.

There is a fundamental need that all WIKI-contributors join in an effort to harmonize all WIKI-entries on the topic of food irradiation. I consider the version in English as the reference document. Consequently, any contribution in any language should clearly/dominantly display the advice to consult the version in English for full reference.

Some of the articles in foreign languages (where I have a limited capability) appear to be rudimentary beginnings of an informative article, sometimes initiated from some special interest (a the Russian version as a student's task).

I am not sure, how a Joint-WIKI approach may be organized. Waiting for your comments. -- Dieter E (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

DUNNING is no valuable reference!

DUNNING is no valuable reference!

10 September 2012

   (diff | hist) . . Food irradiation?; 21:33 . . (+569)? . . ?Proper Stranger (talk | contribs)? (Added cite pointing out that cooking food also causes chemical changes)

8.3 Criticism and concerns about food irradiation ….. Regarding the concern that food irradiation might cause harmful chemical changes, author Brian Dunning concludes, "Cooking, and most other food preparation techniques, cause the formation of new chemicals in dramatically higher concentrations, and this has never posed a problem. Every test ever done has found irradiated food to be safe."

The paragraph copied above has been deleted from the main article for the following reasons:

Dunning is not a fundamental reference for such statement; this is state of the art and mainstream science. Already in the main article the reference to J.F.Diehl, Safety of irradiated foods, Marcel Dekker, N.Y., 1995 (2. ed.) covers the full extent of the relevant knowledge; however, Dunning in his podcast ignores the most relevant publications.

His list of references is quite typical for the non-expert: Morrison and also Roberts are very specific publications covering only the US situation; Wilkinson is a reference guide but not at all a textbook and valuable reference for the topic; Satin is marked as first edition, but Dunning fails to refer to the most recent second edition. The FDA regulation cited by him is a particular amendment of the first and fundamental regulation of 1986. Finally, only Osterholm, a renown expert, is a valuable and basic reference.

Furthermore, Dunning’s podcast is full of errors and flaws:

Irradiation may also occur to bulk food; there are many other applications than sterilization, for the US most relevant the quarantine treatment of exotic fruits; electron irradiation is by machine sources not from beta-decay; duration of exposure depends on source strength but never on type of source; no nuclear reactions take place; food irradiation is not common in Europe but effectively banned; anthrax was never ’nuked’; there are tests which have found negative effects of irradiated food; food is naturally radioactive, mainly because of the isotope K-40.

There would be more details to prove that Dunning’s podcast is not at all a reliable reference about foo irradiation. Dieter E (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate location to discuss the finer points of Dunning's podcast. I'm sure you can comment at his blog. But I would agree that it does not quality as WP:RS. However, your point that only Osterholm is a valuable and basic reference is not appropriate. I am certain that we can find other references to support a statement that irradiated foods are safe. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is not the location to discuss Dunning's podcast. For this reason I have already submitted my comments directly; not yet made available by the editors.

The arguments given above serve only the purpose to make understandable my decision to remove this particular reference. Furthermore, Dunning is not the authority to report about the wealth of chemical changes occuring in food. Note: just doing nothing will cause the most significant chemical change: spoilage.

My point on Osterholm was exclusively that this reference is the only valuable one used by Dunning; as long as he does not explicitely refer to Diehl, 1995 this proves that he does not know the state of the art.

However, we might work to make more clear to our readers what the chemical implications are and what caused by processing food by ionizing radiation are the essentials. Dieter E (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have just amended the safety section following your suggestion and discussion.Dieter E (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Technology Belongs in Irradiation Not Food irradiation

The section and subsections on the different types of technology used to irradiate is not particularly relevant to food irradiation as it is about irradiation in general. Dosimetry is useful as some of this data is specifically food related. I suggest creating a link to irradiation to explain the process, and moving the majority of the technology section from this article, adding a caveat noting that not all irradiation uses nuclear technology.(12.168.6.143 (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC))

This comment is welcome and touches essential problems in style and content.

First of all this other article on 'irradiation' has a misleading title, it should become 'processing by ionizing radiation. This would clarify that mere illumination by (low) electromagnetic energy is not the topic of this article.

After having made such general adaptions throughout the text it would be quite appropriate to expand some of the subsection to give a full picture of this technology and its manifold applications.

I agree that after such revision some of the fundamentals of food irradiation will be covered in the new article, and that the article 'food irradiation' can be condensed afterwards. -- Dieter E (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, all of this is already covered in Sterilization which has a section called Radiation sterilization that covers the topic scientifically. I see this article as less of a scientific article and more about "teaching the controversy". Pun intended. This article should be written so that someone can form a reasonable conclusion and find all references they need to explore the topic further. As the sterilization section does a better job of explaining these topics and that topic is scientific, not cultural, legal or related to food specifically. If you want to create a separate page for this topic i would suggest posting this concern on the sterilization page.12.168.6.143 (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Your intention is appreciated; however, a very specific section on 'radiation sterilization' can never cover the full width of radiation processing, ie. processing a wide range of objects for a very wide range of purposes with a variety of ionizing radiation. Such fundamentals would find the wrong place in a very specific section on sterilization. Please - and for example - consider the technology of quarantine treatment for exotic fruits or rearing of sterile male insects.

It is true that any article on food irradiation will always call upon the opponents to have all their arguments listed and discussed. In order to pacify the dispute it is advisable to tolerate "Teaching the controversy". And undisputable, there is a fundamental difference between radiation sterilization and food irradiation: No patient in a hospital is concerned about medical products applied to him for being radiation sterilized. However, from the beginning, food irradiation was always under ideological, ethical, and other concern. Any WIKI-article cannot ignore such dispute. And of course, this dispute has reached also the scientific level as you can find peer-reviewed studies on 'radio-toxins' and other hypothetical species which speak against the use of this technology. -- Dieter E (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No doubt you are correct, and I was unclear. There are generic functions of irradiation and there are those specific to the food industry. Like you stated food specific info, and a just enough generic info to get a understanding of the article should be included, as per the recent edit. This article has far to much conflicting content though. I tried to remove some of the weasel worded language from the Australian cat case and still feel there is more information than necessary. 12.168.6.143 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also support removing that section as undue and WP:NOT#NEWS. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, maybe it can be integrated into a separate section? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'Australian cat issue' has developed from several inputs; I had tried to retrieve some reliable scientific information. Until today there is no answer to fundamental questions. It might have been really a single incident related to some single batch of imported cat food; not yet verified. And the Australian reaction is just ridiculous: cat feed may no longer be irradiated, and irradiated dog feed must be labelled 'not to feed to cats'. And please note that the Australian participants to the Beijing Olympics had to irradiate or to cook the flower bouquets upon return home. Consequently, there are too much conflicting issues, and it would be too early to remove the cat reports and replace it by the essence and evidence. -- Dieter E (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• The content wasn't merged elsewhere but was just being deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• The conttent was merged, please point to any piece of info that was left out. Redundant and repeated coments where removed though. If you have any problems please post your concerns here before making such a drastic undo. Dieter, I have tried to help you here. I think you are needed to resolve this issue 12.168.6.143 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

EU and Optional

This source is fully consistent with it not being covered by EU regulations: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This legal aspect is really difficult to follow: The EC-directive does not explictly provide the option to use the RADURA-logo; the logo is even not mentioned. However, what is not forbidden may be used! FDA of Ireland maintains the opinion that this legal possibility is to be called 'option' (in an reply to my inquiry about their leaftlet). -- Dieter E (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Consumer groups

This removal was reverted citing another section: [2]. That section also does not have reliable sources for the statement. Specifically considering the source [3] says "Some consumer groups complain that ...", this can not be generalized to all, and certainly not all around the world. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all it is true that "Some consumer gropus complain..."; in fact there are several such groups. And several direct references to information directly available from thoise groups are already implemented. Using such references, including newspaper reports, just depicts the situation exemplarily. And the readers of this article would wish to learn about those arguments. It is with those opponents and activists to provide scientific evidence and to intorduce this into this article.

I strongly oppose to delete the referencing of those oppinions. -- Dieter E (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Just move closer to the sources, noting that it is not all consumer groups, as is currently stated in the previous sentence, maybe says "Those consumer organizations ..." (referring to the above)? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Opponents and Activists

Thanks for the concerns about extrapolation from one single source to all activists. However, citations here are intended to give the reader exemplarily access to the arguments and to the structure of argumentation as used by opponents and by particular activists. Consequently, the references here are just to suggest further reading. It would be impossible the provide here any full list of references to any opponents' or activists' arguments. However, the very few given here and elsewhere in this article are very representative. -- 188.104.196.237 ((I had lost my login)) -- Dieter E (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't extrapolate like that from primary sources, see WP:OR. What is required is that the secondary sources say that consumer groups in general oppose it. Wikipedia is different from academic writing in that regard. Essentially, we are derivative, not innovative :) , IRWolfie- (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment; I am not really aware of those many side rules; I am a scientist.

I did not intend to state that any consumer or opponent group - even those that I do not know - use the identical arguments. For example in Germany - where I know the details - 'Bundesverband Verbraucherzentralen' practices a very differntiated discussion. And for the reaason that I cannot say 'all' as I don't know I will never make such statement. And if WIKI-rules would require that any statement which does not apply to 'all' must not be made, I would have the difficvulty to contribute. -- Dieter E (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the source should say all. Just that a source is required for saying that it's ubiquitous amongst these groups. The sources should do the deductions for us. The current secondary source available seems to limit it down to only some of the groups, not most. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to understand your concern: and I am considering a re-phrasing differentiating between general oppinions common between opponents and activists, what cannot be attributed to one single group, and using the exemplary reference to one single group only as an easily accessible example. -- Dieter E (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I have just treid a 'moderated' version of this sentence. -- Dieter E (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an improvement, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

duplicate (?) RADURA-logo

I am quite surprized about this conflict of opinions! The international RADURA-logo has filled 'leaves' as shown in the Codex Alimentarius Standard on irradiated food; the diverging US version has the empty 'leaves'. This alone would justify to depict both versions. And the general (worldwide) one should be depicted at the entry of this article; the special one is depicted where it belongs to, at the sub-chapter describing the US regulations. And the version shown first at the beginning of the article can never be the replication of a different version shown later. -- Dieter E (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Two main objections; it is virtually identical to the US image, and the text itself is misleading: "The Radura logo, used to show a food has been treated with ionizing radiation", makes it sound mandatory across the world, but it is optional in places (like Europe). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I had become annoyed when I saw the opening eye-catcher of this article being deleted. And the US-version is not the original, but a changed copy from the version of the Codex Standard. Both are virtually identical, YES, but differing in an essential detail of the design. For this reason it is quite appropriate to show the international version at top of the article, but mention that the US-regulated version is different. There are also other national versions differing in detail and even colour!

As Codex Alimentarius is only an international standard which needs to be implemented in national regulations, the use of the RADURA-logo is voluntary; it is not provided as an option in any regulation. It is not an option in the EC-directive; it is just not mentioned. Depending on some basic juridical philosophy in some countries (what is not explitly permitted must not be used AGAINST what is not regulated may be used) the RADURA-logo may be added voluntarily to the label. And the EC-directive must be nationally implemented; the food control authorities at least in Germany maintain that the logo must not be used in labelling.

As it concerns the wording, I might agree that the explanatory text under the graphic can be red as 'mandatory around the world'. For this reason I am considering a re-wording: "The international Radura logo, proposed by Codex Alimentarius to show a food has been treated with ionizing radiation". -- Dieter E (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest only keeping one of the images, the international one makes sense and dropping the other. It looks a bit odd having two near identical images, and doesn't really add anything. I think your wording here: [4] is confusing, in that, I don't know what you are trying to say. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

One aspect is quite clear: 'voluntary' requires a provision in the law, the EC-directives and the naional implementations. This principal juridical problem is difficult to explain; I tried it. Using the logo in labelling is not against the law.

The other aspect is, that during the intial drafting of this article, US-editors insited in having the legally implemented US-version of the RADURA-logo depicted.

You are right, it does not add really; but it reflects the situation:Only US has a mandatory version of this logo; the version of Codex Alimentarius has been adopted by all member states, but is not implemented. -- Dieter E (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

new graphic File:E-beam-x-ray-gamma-efficiency.jpg and File:E-beam-x-ray-gamma-efficiency.jpg

This graphics are welcome, but must be adapted and corrected!

'beta' particles are electrons with positive or negative charge, and their origin is from radioactive decay; such beta-radiation is not used in radiation processing. Consequently, delete 'beta' from this Graphic.

'X-rays' should also be supplemented by very soft energies which are used for surface treatment what can also be indicated in this graphic. -- Dieter E (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Further comment: this graphic is not on 'different radiation technologies'; instead it should be explained as 'several kinds of ionizing radiation used for radiation processing'. Thanks for your assistance. -- Dieter E (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The insert to the first graphic should clearly state that '@25 kGy' is for all three assumptions; let always a space between number and unit. Dieter E (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

EU regulations and maximum dose

Thanks for adding the reference to ANNEX III and many other improvements and additions. Before I work on the main text, I submit my views here for deteiled consideration and comments.

However, the consideration about maximum dose need to study the legal implications:

Uniformity ratio u: The wording is 'should not exceed'! This implies 'may exceed'; otherwise the wording would have been 'must not exceed'.

Furthermore, at this point the ratio of characteristic mean dose values at the expected positions (several!) of the maximum and minimum doses is considered. And as these values are a mean it implies that higher and lower values must have been observed.

In particular, this subsection of '1. DOSIMETRY' is opened by 'In some cases ...'.

The definition of 'overall average dose' is by the given integral; it does not refer to any limiting, maximum or minimum value. The underlying assumption ia a normal (Gaussian) distribution which, by definition ranges from minus infinity to plus infinity. Consequently,

EU regulation does not set any maximum dose!

As seven EU-members maintain their previous permissions for food irradiation, many at nominal doses below 10 kGy using the obsolete concept of 'overall average dose', also those permissions do not establish any maximum dose.

note also: USA is the only known country with a reasonable and factual regulation for food irradiation: first of all, permissions are granted as petitioned; a maximum dose is derived from practical considerations. Example spices (to be found in Feg.Reg.): the minimum dose to eliminate salmonella from dry spices is 8 kGy, the achievable unifirmity ratio for standard irradiation facilities is 3, consequently the maximum dose permitted is set to 24 kGy!

Dieter E (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Australian Irradiated Cat Food Ban

This reference

>>ref name="JD">Dickson, James. "Radiation meets food". Physics Today. Retrieved 22 March 2013.</ref<<

used to prove arguments that the cat food issue was not caused by high-dose irradiation is not at all on this topic; just only a survey about food irradiation.

Who knows what might have been the original and pertinent publication, originally used here? Dieter E (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, the claim of consensus seems plausible. However, I agree with you that we need something beyond a Physics Today article to back that claim up.

Maybe this sentence should be removed:

The "overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that the problem was specific to the lot, not the irradiation process" because:

And then the bullet points below that sentence merged together? Dustinlull (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite unfortunately, the consensus sentence from Dickson's publication is lacking any proof. In reality, there is no such consensus as there are no pertinent studies and, consequently, no discussion about the results. And also, the few studies available do not prove that radiation treatment was not the cause of the illness! Such statement would require that the causal reagent would have been identified, what is not the case.

For such reasons this sub-paragraph must be re-written without the speculation about a consensus. Dieter E (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

clarifications

This section on safety is the most sensitive part of this article. Improvements by 198.29.191.149 are highly appreciated. However a few improvements remain:

In the introducing sentence we should state 'a multitude' to characterize the complexity, and 'many' is used later-on. Beneficial effects is more informative compared to modifications. It is not enough to tell that a food treated by traditional methods is changed 'drastically'. Such techniques are designed to create new food items; for comparison grain to flower to bread. In contrast, food irradiation does not aim at new products. And results cannot 'conclude', but may lead to a conclusion, here by competent expert bodies.

-- Dieter E (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

may be too technical

Who for what reason has put this MARK?

Please give at least a few examples where the content might be beyound the understanding of the common reader. Already much effort has been involved to explain any technical/scientific terminology simultaneously.

language: please note, 'may be' includes also the meaning of 'may be not'. Dieter E (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First thank you for your work on this article. It seems that in the effort to be precise the first section (and the rest of the article), has made things sound more confusing then they are. I mean this as no offence Doctor Ehlermann, but when i look back at the revisions done by you, they don't often make things less confusing. In order for a person to be able to make up there own opinion on this article what is being said needs to be clear. When I read this article (as a educated man, not in your field of study) i find the article disjointed, and the points confusingly stated. If I did not have a rigorous scientific backing, i would not be able to have any sort of openion based on this article due to contradictory statements and unnecessarily technical terms.

From the manual of style on the use of jargon in the introductory section

"Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do. When the notions named by jargon are too complex to concisely explain in a few parenthetical words, write one level down. For example, consider adding a brief background section with tags pointing to the full treatment article(s) of the prerequisite notions; this approach is practical only when the prerequisite concepts are central to the exposition of the article's main topic, and when such prerequisites aren't too numerous."

some examples are

• • Food irradiation is the process of treating food with a specific dosage of ionizing radiation
    • No explanation of what ionizing radiation is, nor is it clear why explanation was not given on its meaning
  • "short-lived and transient radicals (e.g. the hydroxy radical, the hydrogen atom and solvated electrons) "
    • transient radicals, really? almost all radicals are transient, and the term radical is not really used in the rest of the article.
  • "damage intercellular structures"
    • cellular structures is just as specific is intercellular, but why not just say "damages cells"
  • The target organism ceases all processes related to maturation or reproduction
    • the effected cells stop growing and reproducing
  • retarding enzymic action
    • self explanatory
  • inactivate foodborne pathogenic organisms
    • self explanatory
  • interrupting enzymic pathways
    • I don't even know what this means, but i can bet it is not needed in an introduction.

Also there is a sh*t load of redundant information and information that is not needed in an introduction.

For one example the mechanism of irradiation is discussed at least 3 times in three different ways (confusing to average reader)

1. The major effect of irradiation is to generate short-lived and transient radicals (e.g. the hydroxy radical, the hydrogen atom and solvated electrons) that in turn damage DNA and intercellular structures. The target organism ceases all processes related to maturation or reproduction. At high enough doses the target organism does not survive
2. This treatment slows or halts spoilage by retarding enzymic action or destroying microorganisms and it can also inactivate foodborne pathogenic organisms (reducing the risk of food borne illness).
3. Ionizing radiation affects cells and microorganisms by damaging their DNA beyond its ability to repair, breaking down cell membranes and interrupting enzymic pathways. Organisms can no longer successfully continue the process of cell division.

208.90.40.114 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments which are really welcome; however, this article is an agglomerate of pieces of a puzzle created by a multitude of contributors.

Most of your remarks just hit the point.

Being now retired, but in my active time, for any contribution I have just followed advices as you give here. Originally, I had been asked by some colleagues to help when some edit-war boosted by ideological opponents. At that time I did not dare to re-edit contributions unless indispensable. It may be the right time now to polish this article. Dieter E (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with wikipedia page for noted Food Irradiation expert Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson

A page about Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson has been created. It has been requested that any experts on his work in Food Irradiation assist by contributing to the article. Orrerysky (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

deleted sentence; not relevant

deleted sentence: "In the future this may be used to allow the shipment of foods long distances and between countries that are not currently practical due to there rapid over-ripening."

In the contrary, practical experience has shown that long distance transport cannot be alleviated with the help of treatment by ionizing radiation. Examples for strawberries in USA and France. Ripening-delay is only effective for climacterical fuits. In South Africa with banana the experience has been that irradiation in a late state of ripening on the tree may even accelerate over-ripening and decay. Other fruits as Kiwi can easily be transported around the globe without any other provision as cooling. Dieter E (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

NNPOV

The Safety, security and wholesomeness aspects (SSW) section, and the Criticism and concerns about food irradiation (CCFI) sections represent a POV fork in the article, and much of the content of both sections are not only original reserch or NNPOV, but un-sourced as well.

I recommend the following resolution. 1. Create a new sections for the chemical effects of food irradiation. Taking some content from SSW and CCFI and merging them to present the truth about the effects without the two opposing views. 2. Murge the remainder of SSW and CCFI in there current location to speak to the controversy related to food irradiation.Bobshmit (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the value of introducing new acronyms as "SSW" and "CCFI"; no reader of this article would be able to follow the terminology! And even "NNPOV": what is its meaning.

Furthermore, Bobshmit is mixing the issues: Food security covers the reliable supply of food to everybody; it is not at all related to any hazards of consuming some food.

"Criticism and concern" is an essential and relevant aspect: most of the discussions about food irradiation is not about facts, but about fears and pre-judice. However, this is an improtant actual aspect and must be covered in this article.

There is no way of 'presenting the truth'! The facts are clear and well documented. The essential problem is the validation. For example: no dispute, free radicals are formed; no study has proven they present any risk for consumption; but opponents insist that free radicals present a risk. So, what is the 'truth'? -- Dieter E (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Relax man, it looks like i just shot you :) I was just using shorthand in this area, and i am not trying to get into an epistemological debate. NNPOv is the wikipedia policy of non neutral point of view. For the other i just did not want to type "Safety, security and wholesomeness aspects" and "Criticism and concerns about food irradiation" over and over and over again in this discussion (this has nothing to do with the article), because i am lazy.

I am offering you a way to make this article better, and offering to do the work, but of course, if this is already an A class article, and you do not desire any help I will walk away.

One way the article could be made even better is if the sections had a clearer audience, and did not require the reader to read the same points in different sections (some people do not have a good memory). The article can be confusing and abrupt and hard to read in specific locations. If we had one section on the chemical changes that occur we would be giving good information to those who are interested in science. If we had a different section that talks about the potential impact of these changes (true and perceived) we could give information on health. Each section has a different audience, and neither section has an overlap.

This would do three things. It would make the article easier to manage (it would be easier to see what new content is adding value, and the gaps that are present) and more clear (No overlap of sections and removal of statements that are said multiple times) and it would place the pros next to the cons (this allows people better ability to make up there own mind).

I can show you where this is listed as a reason this article did not achieve good article status.

Like you said care must be taken not to eliminate things that are contradictory. I think that was done very well in the Cat food section. I wrote this note because I was very scared by the unsourced list that started with "Polyploidy in malnourished Indian children", and had to do research to find the truth, as there are no references to these studies or the accuracy of each. Hope you had a good new years Bobshmit (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorporate cat food section into indirect effects section

The "Impact on cats of highly irradiated food to the complete diet"section should be better incorporated into the Indirect effects/cumulative impacts of irradiation section.208.90.40.114 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Misconceptions

Most of the misconceptions are cumulative impacts. I moved them there, but it was reverted for some reason. Please move them back and look at the other improvements made in the change that was reverted (spelling citations other). I also added content back to the direct misconceptions about the direct effects. Conceder taking the content from them and revising it to fit how you want the article to sound. I desperately want to divorce myself from this article as there is so much divisiveness.192.136.15.19 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)