Jump to content

Talk:Food irradiation/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The misconceptions section has factual issues.

Compare the statements made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_radioactivity with the statements made in the Misconceptions section which state that irradiating something cannot cause the irradiated object to become radioactive. Alphas are not the only thing that can induce radioactivity. Neutrons can and are used for that very purpose. Betas and gammas can if they have enough energy.

This doesn't happen with commercially irradiated food because the sources used are gamma only and weak enough to avoid photoactivation/pair production. It's all about energy and radiation type.

I would consider URP's to be something that requires continued vigilance in food safety for irradiated food, as well as pretreatment handling. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1930.htm If the food spoiled before radiation treatment, it's still spoiled food. The article makes mention of 2-alkylcyclobutanones which could be added as a reference in the Radiolytic products and free radical section.

The security of the sources used is important, too. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency just repatriated US made Cs137 sources from Mexico that were used to sterilize screwworms. http://www.yournuclearnews.com/nnsa+recovers+radiological+material+from+mexico_119239.html The cobalt and cesium sources used to irradiate food need to be secure and properly disposed of at the end of their useful life.

66.176.38.158 (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)David

I made some changes and have some questions.
  1. You are right, I can see how the statements are to open (lacking the wide array of other particles other than alphas that can induce irradiation) and more to how you read it, easily open to misinterpretation, I hope it is easier to read and more accurate. Please advise if it is OK.
  2. I don't understand your comment about "if the food spoiled before radiation treatment, it's still spoiled food." I am confused by its relation to the surrounding sentences (how does spoiled food relate to URPs), but if it is not clear that if the food spoiled before radiation treatment, it's still spoiled food we can include it in the misconceptions section you are originally referring to. Please advise.
  3. You are right, including the security of the sources in the technology section and cost section would not be bad. Do you have any other material?
  4. I am assuming that you are commenting on whether 2abc's are toxic, or that the pages statements about URP's are to cavalier. I have exhausted my knowledge on those topics and have just left them be (in spite of the page contradicting itself) because i am not confident on how to change it. I am well aware of the quote you provided and the study that started, as well as the authors assertion that people are misinterpreting his results. There is also a lot of conflicting info on the toxicity of 2abc's, which inspired the quote you gave. Please advise. 144.188.128.6 (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The statement about spoiled food was meant as a caution. The toxins produced by spoiling organisms may not be noticed and the taste of spoilage may be covered by the radiation process.

Fish that ate algae from a reef can still give you ciguatera even if they are irradiated and free of bacteria and other pathogens. I see no government site that claims radiation of fish is for any purpose other than bacteria/virus control. The US imports most of it's shrimp, so allowing it to be irradiated improves basic sanitation in a product that could easily spoil. http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/food-poisoning/shellfish-toxins.html

Peanuts or corn irradiated that had spoiled with alfatoxin mold might still be unsafe to eat http://aem.asm.org/content/43/6/1317.full.pdf The pdf says that 10Gy was needed but the results were not cocnsistent. Clostridium bacteria that produce botulism toxins require special radiation treatment to kill. The toxin itself can be denatured by cooking above 176F, but the radiation process alone doesn't do that. I see conflicting info about whether irradiation is enough to prevent that kind of spoilage http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm says radiation doesn't, http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/risks%20of%20food%20poisoning%20from%20irradiated%20food.htm says the amount needed to kill Clostridium spores would ruin the taste of the food.

Another resistant organism is the prions that cause BSE(mad cow)/CJV/deer/elk chronic wasting diseases. Even cooking isn't enough to denature those proteins. http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/irradiation_food/ This is a nice article on what irradiation can and can't do.

Kale and heavy metals have made news lately. I don't think you'll get arsenic or thallium poisoning from eating kale, but irradiating vegetables won't remove heavy metal contamination because the type/energy of radiation is purposely under what would cause transmutation.

Radiating food has it's uses, but it's just a small part of food safety.

On the radiological safety issue: mobile cobalt 60 and cesium 137 sources don't need external power to do their job, but that mobility is a security risk since there are people in the world who want do harm to others for political or religious reasons. http://gizmodo.com/5875898/bed-bath--beyond-caught-selling-radioactive-tissue-boxes This was by accident. I think the source of the contamination was an old hospital Co60 source recycled into steel. http://listverse.com/2011/08/07/10-more-cases-of-deadly-radioactive-exposure/ Most of these were Co 60 and several were food irradiators that jammed and the operators bypassed safeties to clear the jam and died from exposure. 66.176.38.158 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)David

You seem to know a lot about the topic. But the more you write the more confused i am. What changes would you like to see in the article. To my knowledge it is not a common misconception that spoiled food can be successfully treated, that you can always taste if food is spoiled (this is something that is part of normal household food safety), nor that it can be used to treat prions or that it can be used to remove heavy mettle. And, in my opinion, the article does not give that impression, but i may be wrong and will agree to make changes for you even if i feel they are not necessary as long as they don't negatively impact the article. In my opinion the article illuminates that the above cases you refer to can not be handled by irradiation, though it may not explicitly call out prions (which may me an improvement) and the article does not explicitly call out every toxin (which would be a long unnecessary list), and the thought of listing every type of forgen contaminant (pesticides, heavy metals, poisonous compounds, enzymes, PH level, or small stones ... ) is horrifying, as the list will never be complete. Sorry the small stones was just for fun. That is why it is a positive list of things it can treat, with a few negatives for comprehension. Please indicate how you want the article changed and i will help. I hate to say this as it may come of as rude and you have been so nice, but this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject as stated in the header, please only indicate what issues you find. I would sincerely appreciate another set of logical eyes on this page. Especially with a critical but educated viewpoint like yours. 76.16.56.84 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I was just offering some suggestions. Money is king today. Food irradiation is practiced because it saves money. It's faster and cheaper than cooking to preserve. It's also cheaper to get rid of bacterial contamination by irradiation than to clean up the environment food is grown in (farmed shrimp imported from asian countries, veggies grown in Mexico, spinach is notoriously hard to clean). Focusing on the radiation angle misses the bigger picture. Consumers see "radiation" and complain, when the better complaint should be "why did the food become contaminated in the first place." Sorry to have made such a long post. I think you are doing a fine job here. 172.56.27.89 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)David

Danger of Free radicals

After a long absence, it is found the page about food irradiation is as silly as ever. My comments on the main page were of course removed immediately. There is some mention of changed food chemistry after irradiation. My comment was that the fact that food chemistry is NOT altered IS the main danger. It is well known that the chemistry of atoms and molecules is determined by the outermost electron shell, whereas irradiation will alter the inner electron shells, enabling uptake of chemically normal, but perturbed, atoms or molecules into the body chemistry. Palomaris (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palomaris (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have included the comments by Palomaris to demonstrate it is clearly vandalism, and to allow others to dispute his claims. I have also changed the heading of this section to be more constructive and less insulting. These perturbed atoms are called free radicals (there is a section for them) and it is proven that after the molecules are excited they can bond in different ways then they would be able to without being excited. In other words the ionisation acts as a catalyst. BTW Dieter was a published researcher and author on the topic. His word came from authority. It is behavior like yours that cost us his help.
(Palomaris here, vandalizing this ridiculous page again.  It is well known that irradiation does not change the food molecular chemistry, but that fact is the insidious fault with irradiation.  The ionized molecules behave chemically as normal, but are abnormal because their inner electron structure has been ionized, which means they behave differently in the metabolism other than chemically. They are accepted in the chemistry but they are not normal. FYI please be aware that ionization means changing the electronic structure of atoms below the outer electron shell.  The outer shell determines the chemistry.  Please prove that wrong if you can.  LOL, this page is more a joke than ever after being away from it for a long time.  LOL LOL.  Hey Dieter, are you stil there? LOL)

104.2.168.238 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Food irradiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Food irradiation Disputed tag on Impact

Everything is cited by reliable scientific sources. Please point out what exactly is disputed. Tag has been removed.

  • In the past I have found willfully incorrect or misleading information at the source you reccomend.https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/irrad/irradf
  • The message from the site is a representation of "the perspective of the food industry" from the limited perspective of the organic food lobby. As such they promote propaganda against non organic foods so that they can make more money.
  • The citations in this wiki are from hundreds independent scientists.

If you wish someone to discredit or confirm the specific information on this site please point out specific information.2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Food irradiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Issues with this article

The first issue I have with this article is the "theoretical changes" in food quality (with no details added). Many of these changes are specific to the type of radiation used and the radiation strength, and a lot of research has been done in this area which is not reflected in the article.

Secondly the section on irradiated cat food makes no sense to be included in the article. A bunch of cats were paralyzed and died, but NOT because of irradiated food? Maybe due to lack of vitamin A, but no tests were done? Is paralysis a concern when eating food processed with radiation?

Thirdly there article states that "Treatment with irradiation is known to deplete vitamin A in some foods." which is technically true, but also seen with more accepted means of food preservation, (notably milk pasteurization). Radiation pasteurization of food should be compared to heat pasteurization of food, where it compares favorable in almost all aspects.

I find this article mostly factual, but incomplete and at times misleading. Much research is done on Wikipedia, research that leads to new food policy, so accuracy and keeping bias out is important. I would like to see sections updated, clarified, and expanded upon. Food irradiation is a fascinating subject with many players and points of view; I would like to see a relatively non-biased presentation of the facts with scientific backing and proper references.

Also any research attributed to "Dr." Gary Gibbs, cannot be considered NPOV - he has an agenda and is selling a book and does not have the scientific qualifications to contribute to the food irradiation safety discussion. http://drgarygibbs.com/biography.html

In addition, reference #20, "What's wrong with food irradiation?" by Organicconsumers.org is definitely NPOV, nor are any of the assertions made grounded by scientific fact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.100.230.104 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. I remember editing that cat section a long time ago, and someone came in changed the tone of it. My original intention was merely for that section to debunk the controversy that arose when some cats died and irradiated food was blamed. Australia continues to ban irradiated cat food, and there is no scientific justification for it. I think the section is still valid, it just needs the tone changed. Dustinlull (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I did some clean up of the cat section Dustinlull (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have done my best with what limited information I have. I created the in food quality section as a placeholder for other people to add there information, as previously it was just in the "bad things about food irradiation" section. I took out the pro and con sections and moved the content into sections that are designed to talk about the points in question. As many of these where once in the con section, the scientific information that supports food irradiation often did not exist. Furthermore I intended to include the cat food ban in the misnomers section in the long run, but did not have the technical expertise to do so. Please take over as editor, as clearly you know more. 192.136.15.19 (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire article reads defensively, comparing to heat & other preservation methods

The entire Perceptions section read like propaganda designed to encourage stores to buy more irritated goods. The refrences did not even draw the same conclusions as the text they are connected to suggests. Made an attempted fix. Please help. 2602:304:415C:4B69:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Raw vs Processed debate.

This subsection is an archive of the discussion about the proposed removal of the content discussed below. This is no longer live. Further comments should be made below this section. The content has been moved to this section as user JzG does not allow comment from ip users on its talk page 2602:304:415C:56C9:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Do enlighten me, which part of WP:PRIMARY do you believe to "not permit use of activist organizations in an article about a general topic." --Ne0 (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We are using a polemical source to make statements about a neutral subject. PRIMARY/SELFPUB allows use of primary self-published sources for uncontroversial facts, but the Organic Consumers' Association views on this are not uncontroversial, in fact they are highly tendentious. OCA are a trade body for the anti-science organic lobby. Their statements on GMOs, pesticides, irradiation and so on serve an agenda, they are not neutral statements of fact - and the context here is one where a neutral statement of fact is purportedly being made. Feel free to substitute a reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
OCA are a trade body for the anti-pasteurization organic farmers/movement, thus their statements on GMOs, pesticides, irradiation and so on do serve an agenda. But the same can be said for every other group or movement. Examples: FAO & WHO statements serve an agenda, Codex Alimentarius. WIPO statements serve a purpose, Intellectual property. IMF/WB statements serve a purpose, Derivatives market. etcetera. They are not neutral statements of fact, as they serve an agenda. --Ne0 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The organic lobby, including the OCA, are funding groups like US Right To Know who are the primary group actively lobbying against agricultural technology. It goes beyond having an opinion. They are engaged in an all-out war against biotechnology. OCA bankrolls USRTK, that makes them an actor in this and not a commentator. They adopt an aggressively anti-biotech stance and freely mix scientific and pseudoscientific arguments without any sign of knowing the difference - or caring. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, here is my example: The biotech lobby, including Monsanto, are funding movements like Codex Alimentarius who are the primary group actively lobbying against the sale of food made by traditional agricultural & preservation technology. It goes beyond having an opinion. They are engaged in an all-out war against homemade pesticides, and naturally probiotic foods. They adopt an aggressively anti-tradition stance and freely mix scientific and pseudoscientific arguments without any sign of knowing the difference - or caring. --Ne0 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Codex alimentarius is a standards body, not an anti-science movement. Actually I am a bit of a fan, due to their role in ensuring that I can eat in most of Europe without being wiped out by gluten. I have coeliac. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
So tell me, on what basis does this 'scientific' organization label the "eternally harmful" POPs as safe to use, and label the "traditionally used" wild probiotic cultures as harmful ? --Ne0 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't call it a scientific organisation, it's a standards body. You assert that they label an entire class of pollutant as safe to use. {{citation needed}}. "Traditionally used" is a traditionally abused category, beloved of charlatans selling snake oil. You assert that Codex Alimentarius label the entire class of probiotics as unsafe. {{citation needed}}. And do remember: science can be wrong, but is inherently self-correcting, whereas ideology does not self-correct. OCA is as likely to accept evidence of the safety of GMOs, as the Society of Homeopaths is to accept that they are confectioners not doctors. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Codex Alimentarius' Standards are NOT based on legitimate Science, they are based on Corporate funded(bankrolled) science, skewed for the purpose of profitability ...Just like how the charlatans of Human Global Warming theory sell that ocean acidification is due to Carbon Dioxide. Codex Alimentarius had pesticide guidelines that required complying countries to violate Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants by setting a maximum limit on 7 of the 12 banned Persistent Organic Pollutants. | Codex Alimentarius' Food irradiation standard mandates irradiation of raw foods, thus eliminating their naturally probiotic health effects. This includes irradiation of wild culture Yogurt, wild culture Sauerkraut, etc. | "safety of GMOs" ??? GMOs are inherently ineffective at their purpose, and dangerous for personal/environmental health.
  • GMOs manufactured to resist pests stimulate the evolution of pests, thus requiring especially deadly pesticides, and the pesticide's residues remain on the food, causing cancer, kidney failure, etc.
  • GMO 'intensive farming' practices do not conform to Crop Rotation, destroying the environment by making the land unsustainable and promoting excessive use of fertilizer
  • GMO foods are nutritionally deficient, encouraging the sale of supplements.
Obviously, no-one in their right mind will accept a product knowing that it is detrimental to their health/community. Which is why Corporations fund(bribe) scientific research. Example: Monsanto Bankrolls Codex Alimentarius standards, and FDA research. --Ne0 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah so you have appointed yourself as arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate science". I believe that concludes our discussion. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should elaborate on the subject of irradiation causing "nutritional content changes" and "loss of probiotic bacteria", to show that these theories are not neutral statements. --Ne0 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This citation only intends to indicate that the organic lobby considers the food not raw and give the reasons why this may or may not be true. It does seem possible to reword it without reference to the lobby itself, if you desire to remove the citation please do so, but please do not remove the whole topic as this is a real concern people have. I believe removing this paragraph does a great disservice to this article. Many years ago when I re-formatted this article there were two sections, one pro irradiation, and one anti. Both sides gave information that appeared to be contradictory that where well cited. The first portion of this paragraph was part of the anti section. The second part explains the scientific consensus about the similarities and differences between raw goods and those processed by irradiation. Much of this article about irradiation dispels misconceptions as there is a widespread fear of the process as well as radiation in general. Eliminating the concerns of anti irradiating groups like JzG intends to does nothing to help explain the truth, as eliminating the topic does not allow the truths on the topic to come out and for people to have a more nuanced view. Though probiotics are not fully understood or well established in medicine (to the best of my knowledge) the absence of specific bacteria may influence whether a reader of this article considers the raw term misleading. 2602:304:415C:56C9:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What it intends is immaterial. It makes a statement of opinion rendered as if it were fact, followed by a statement which is general but supported only by a primary reference to a single organisation. Per RSN, if this is a valid and significant view, it will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Truthfully though it just doesn't matter the only comments that were in support of you on the pages you mentioned we're in support because people assumed that your problem with the attribution was that it was claiming nutrient degradation. With the addition of a citation that proves this which is already found in many places in the article you have no case and should stop your edit War.2600:1008:B143:522A:3B89:80BA:6C11:9E6D (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would fix the problem but perhaps we could change the wording and include the sentence in a modified form? The paragraph could read:
Organic advocacy groups ["such as the Center for Food Safety and the Organic Consumers Association" - include names if necessary] believe that irradiated food should not be labeled as raw because the process changes the nutritional content of food. However, the degradation of vitamins caused by irradiation is similar or even less than the loss caused by other raw food preservation processes. Other processes like chilling, freezing, drying, and heating also result in some vitamin loss.
This way it's more clear that this is the position of the groups. Also, the very next sentence describes the degree of change in more detail with comparisons. I don't think this sentence is at all misleading in context. It clearly separates the advocacy point of view from other information (I assume the IAEA can be considered a reliable source for facts on this subject). I'm not sure about these specific groups cited, but it does seem that the point of view that irradiation is unhealthy or dangerous is prominent enough to be addressed in the article, as long as it's described correctly as a point of view, not undisputed fact. That seems to have been the consensus of the discussion on the RS Noticeboard. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(Coming here from RS/N). The problem then is NPOV. If this article is to discuss the views of "advocacy groups" we need a source discussing those views as such to ensure there is due weight. Providing our own commentary based on primary sources would be original research, and undue. If no other sources are discussing these views, then Wikipedia shouldn't be either. Additionally, NPOV requires (WP:PSCI), that if the views of advocacy groups are included, their false statements are explicitly and prominently called-out for what they are. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The IAEA bulletin source that was in that paragraph before it was removed addresses these advocacy groups and their claims, then counters them with other factual statements. I think this pretty directly supports their inclusion, and the inclusion of those counterarguments. It's definitely not original research, at the very least. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That's the sort of source that could be useful yes! It is a bit old. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I am fine with it in this form, stated as an opinion of the organic inductry, supported by IAEA as a third-party source, but given IP/Ne0's issues with the legitimacy of mainstream scientific bodies I suspect he will be as unhappy about that as he was with removal. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of being rude I will do it guy you are a jackass. Clearly you didn't read anything I said. I am sick of you arrogant administrators assuming that I'm a vandal just because I use an IP. You were wrong to remove the content with the discussion on going and without bringing it to this form where people who know things about the topic can discuss it. You did not make the article any better you just wasted everyone's time when you could have changed the order of two words around. Don't just delete read the article first and you understand its context. I hope I never see you here again. 2600:1008:B15E:FB5E:F8BB:2255:F76B:5463 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
And you think that helps, do you? Have you read WP:MASTODONS? Guy (Help!) 10:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
You can speak policy all day. I honestly don't care. You were unhelpful and waste of everyone's time. All you accomplished is making sure something that was already attributed in the article couldn't be confused to be attributed to someone else. To do so you try to remove content that would actually educate people. You were making Wikipedia worse. You probably do this with a lot of your changes. Most of what you do is probably ruining Wikipedia. And you know the first rule of Wikipedia ignore the rules if it makes things worse. Your lack of presence on this page would make things better and probably the whole site as well so please ignore all the rules and leave. Otherwise you could admit you're wrong and that you made a mistake and allow people like me to post on your talk page instead of having to deal with personal matters everywhere else.67.162.25.59 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I am fine with the proposed form in fact I can't even tell the difference. I don't know what everyone was arguing about. Just get it done with.2600:1008:B15E:FB5E:F8BB:2255:F76B:5463 (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Food irradiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Revising and Improving Current Food Irradiation Article

Food Processing Technology Principles and Practice - Book by P.J. Fellows

Irradiation for Quality Improvement, Microbial Safety and Phytosanitation of Fresh Produce - Book by Peter A. Follett and Rivka Barkai-Golan

Food Irradiation Research and Technology - Book by Xuetong Fan and Christopher H. Sommers

Irradiation of Food Commodities: Techniques, Applications, Detection, Legislation, Safety and Consumer Opinion - Book by Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis

Journals - El Sevier, Journal of Food Quality, Trends in Food Science and Technology

Government Websites - USDA/FDA/HHS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herna327 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tone of Article

This reads like a subtle advert or PR in support of food irradiation, the tone is overall highly positive and makes many positive claims about food irradiation but provides little substantiated peer reviewed evidence for these claims. This article needs to be rewritten by an independent and unbiased expert on this topic and a message to indicate this fact should appear at the head of the article until someone does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C409:DA00:C46:736B:3A0E:E1DD (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Many, if not most, of the sources in this article are from health agency reports, from the World Health Organization as well as national and other international regulatory bodies. Their overwhelming conclusion is that food irradiation is safe and effective, so that's the what the article reflects. Are there specific sections where the tone is inappropriate, or where claims aren't properly sourced? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe so, but when I was reading the article all I could do is think "wow, was this written by a food irradiation machine salesman hoping to drum up some sales?" I am totally neutral on the subject, but I agree the tone is excessively PRO, almost desperately so, and it's annoying. Even if 9 out of 10 scientists agree that something is safe, that doesn't mean you have to spend 90% of the article enumerating all the ways it's a miracle cure, all the amazing benefits it provides, why it's actually BETTER than pre-existing methods, etc. I read this and it just strikes me "man, someone is trying really hard to convince me that irradiation is a wonderful thing and we should be using it for ALL food", which contrarily makes me kind of instinctively NOT like it. I really don't like articles trying to sell me on something, and this one is pretty bad like that. It's not about "winning" and proving "your" side is "right". It's about presenting a factual neutral article that says "some people claim/believe such a thing, while other people believe claim another thing". If 9 out of 10 scientists says its safe, say that, don't take up 9/10ths of the article overwhelming the "others" with arguments in favor. While I'm at it, what does it mean by "In 2010, 18446 tonnes of fruits and vegetables were irradiated in six countries for export quarantine control; the countries follow: Mexico (56.2%), United States (31.2%), Thailand (5.18%), Vietnam (4.63%), Australia (2.69%), and India (0.05%)"? What do these percentages mean? Is this saying that there was 18,446 tonnes of fruits and veggies irradiated, 31.2% of which were from the US? It's not immediately clear. Also, it's the statistical equivalent of weasel words to use a nice, large sounding number when to use a percentage would make it look much smaller. It sounds much more impressive to say "18,446 tonnes" than to say ".02% of total world annual production", right? What does "18,000 tonnes" actually tell the reader? Not much. How does this amount related to the amount of NON irradiated fruits and vegetables sold annually? That would tell us something useful.64.223.165.28 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Like I said before, if you think the article has issues, then you should describe the problem in terms what specific text is problematic. It's difficult to take complaints about the tone of the whole article and turn them into concrete changes. Or you could fix them yourself.
About the section on exports that you describe, I've looked at the original source, and I agree that that text could be more clear. I'll try to rewrite it to make it more apparent what the numbers refer to. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
We really want your help. To give some context to how it got this way. This article used to be in two sections. One for, and one against. I combined these sections. There are a lot of crackpots interested in this field and a majority of people follow the beliefs of these crackpots. This makes there openion relevant. This is also why there is a lot of "opponents say X is true and therefore iradiation is bad, but science says Y". If you have a way to recognize the opeinions of the opponents and explain the he counter arguments better please do so. Also much of the time Y doesn't full discount X so the opinion of X may be understated but explaining so would be original research. also about the production numbers of irradiated Foods. originally that section was talking about the numbers of irradiated Foods in reference to avoiding irradiated Foods. it was listed in pounds most likely to show how scary situation is and how you may get foods that are irradiated even if you try to avoid them Bobshmit (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Combining them was good. We don't do WP:CRITICISM sections. Per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE we represent the scientific consensus as fact, documenting any scientific dispute in proportion to its acceptance, and then discuss political debate as a separate item. Just as we do in climate change and creationism articles. Neutrality is not an equal balance between science and anti-science scaremongering. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If you are opposed to food irradiation, then I am sure it does. It accurately reflects the scientific consensus. In the same way, homeopaths think our article on homeopathy is pro-big pharma, climate change deniers think our articles on climate change are pro big whateverthefuck and creationists think our articles on evolutionary biology are written by big science.
Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. If you can provide reliable, independent, mainstream sources that support your edits, please do. The organic lobby does not qualify. They have a vested interest in scaring people about irradiated food. But I did collect a complete list of reliable independtn sources that objectively establish risk from irradiation:
 
 
 
I don't think I missed any. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Belief stated as fact

An IP is very insistent that we represent the belief that "the process changes the nutritional content of food" as fact (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_irradiation&type=revision&diff=837295862&oldid=837262233). The sources for this are two pressure groups. I am doubtful that this opinion should be included at all without reliable independent sources, but representing the obviously polemical statements of pressure groups as a statement of fact seems to me to be a pretty clear violation of WP:ATT. Guy (Help!) 06:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the citation from the industry publication that is already associated with this section.
Loaharanu, Paisan (1990). "Food irradiation: Facts or fiction?" (PDF). IAEA Bulletin (32.2): 44–48. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2014. Retrieved March 3, 2014.
I am the ip. My phones IP address is blocked right now, they seem to block whole sections on phones sometimes. There is no dispute. Food quality is changed. The change very by food type and dosage.
 17 Loaharanu, Paisan (1990). "Food irradiation: Facts or fiction?" (PDF). IAEA Bulletin (32.2): 44–48. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2014. Retrieved March 3, 2014.

If you desire to dispute this iradation industry published publication as biased against food irradiation go ahead. There are other citations available in the article to use. I do agree that the section could be reworded better by putting the second and third sentence before the first.Bobshmit (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The reliable independent sources say that the changes are generally insignificant. Any properly balanced source discussing this would of course point this out, along with the effects of decay, but we don't have any balanced sources, we have a bit of novel synthesis claiming that Big Organic claims X (source: Big Organic claiming X), but the reality based sources say it's nothing (source: a reality-based sources saying it's nothing). In the absence of any reliable independent secondary sources describing the organic lobby's opposition to irradiation, preferably in the context of motivated reasoning and their vested interests, we should not include this short paragraph at all. In the end, the significance of "Big Organic says they should not be labelled as raw" is very, very low on any objective scale.
Incidentally I agree with them, because, for example, if you were to label irradiated milk and raw milk identically, the raw milk loons would end up playing Russian roulette with safe irradiated milk being indistinguishable from potentially deadly raw milk. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
First, it is clear that now you admit that it is not a openion but fact. So I think we are moving on to undo emphasis.
Second you should admit that you didn't read anything I wrote, called me a nut job, a sockpuppt, as well as other insults, and where wrong about all of your accusations. Not all IPs are bad. Stop using IP as an insult.
Everything you said on the top I have told you 5+ times. The paragraph does point out that the impact is minimal in the next sentence. Is the impact minimal for all usages of food irradiation, no. It is most likely minimal for the majority of products that where iradiated at the time the citation was written. The verbage in the citation is very loose and doesn't support the idea that there is never a significant impact. Also it is written by a trade publication so it is not 100% neutral and may gloss over a few things. I know there is a significant impact to vitamin (C or A I am not sure right now) when high dossages are used. So for cases of sterilization there is for sure an impact. There likely is a significant impact for leafy greens treated for fecal coloform as well as the bacteria is found in the plant and not topical. I think I remember seeing something like that in scientific litature a year after the California bean sprout and spinach outbreak 7 or so years back (the year after Jimmy John's got rid of the sprouts, God I miss that stuff). There was a push for food irradiation by the industry after.
As i have also pointed out many times. Put the second and third sentence first followed by the first. Reword a bit. Voila any concern of undo emphasis disappears. I always help people with reasonable requests. Sometimes even the partisans have points.Bobshmit (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It's an opinion. They believe it changes the nutritional content. In fact, the changes are insignificant, and there is little to no evidence that the food you buy is measurably different, as the tests will not take into account any differential degradation in nutritional value over the shelf life of the product. Based on the published evidence, an irradiated food product is likely to be nutritionally superior to a non-irradiated one when consumed because irradiated foods are preserved.
It's also plainly tendentious to say this is why they oppose labelling of irradiated foods as fresh. The tone of the articles makes it very plain that they want all irradiated foods labelled with the scariest signage they can possibly get, because (a) they hate any industrialised food processes (b) they have a vested interest in the competition.
The paragraph starts by saying that they argue this, based solely on primary references to them arguing it. It offers nutritional degradation, as the sole stated rationale, when actually their a priori position is that irradiation should be preferably illegal and if not then prominently labelled in the scariest way possible, and the objective data shows that any degradation is almost certainly nutritionally irrelevant. It doesthen offers a rebuttal again based on primary sources. We have no secondary source discussing Big Organic's opposition to labelling irradiated food as raw.
Given your determination to include it, you clearly consider this to be pretty damn significant. Can you provide any reliable independent secondary sources that actually discuss it? At this point I call WOP:UNDUE, and the paragraph should come out until there is independent evidence of significance and context. And incidentally I came here only because of my long-standing process of removing unreliable sources, so I have no skin in the game when it comes to irradiation. I don't actually care about it at all. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Again it seems like you are interpreting things a little differently. The changes are not insignificant, they are similar to other processes. The fact that there is some measurable degradation is a matter of fact according to the citation. There is no opinion. The statement that there is degradation is fact. I do not know if the organic Lobby is still advocating against food irradiation on these terms. If you want to remove the first sentence And reword the rest of the paragraph to give better detail I would be okay with that. There are only two things I have ever fought you with. The necessity of the second part of the paragraph "that there is some degradation of nutritional quality but it is similar or lesser than methods that we have available to us to perform the same task". Also that the degradation is not an opinion of the organic Lobby it is a matter of fact. Keep these two in mind when doing your editing and I will not revert.Bobshmit (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course I am interpreting, because this is drawn entirely from primary sources. If it were based on reliable independent secondary sources then we would have some indication as tot he objective significance of the changes, and some context to indicate whether this is a genuine concern or (much more likely) yet another pretext for opposing irradiation and promoting Big Organic. And that's the point: if no reliable independent secondary sources discuss this activism, it is WP:UNDUE. Really quite simple. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The citation I keep bringing up can easily be seen as a reliable secondary sources for the relivency over the concern about degderation. This was established by consensus last time around in that other page you brought this to, not by me but by other people. Unless you claim I am sockpuppting all of them this issue is settled. This is not just my openion. Thanks again for the lovely conversation.Bobshmit (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your last edit, as it's a review study so valid for a statement of the facts. My problem was using it as a rebuttal for primary sourced material. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

My only problem is that is exactly what I told you do too the first time we had this conversation. When you thought I was a crazy. I also told you to do this in this thread. You desperately need to learn how to read. Bobshmit (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Updating Food Irradiation Article

Hello,

As part of a school assignment, Chapman's Masters in Food Science students will be editing and improving this article. The following are suggested changes to the current article:

  • Plan on cleaning up the citations and shortening the overall length of the article, yet providing readers with more in-depth information of food irradiation
  • Incorporate more food products and effects throughout the article
  • Improve on the three most common forms of irradiation (gamma, UV, and e- beam)
  • Include a known advantages and disadvantages sections/subsections
  • The "History Timeline" located at the bottom of the article will be updated
  • Additional relevant pictures will be added throughout
  • "Standards & regulation" section will be cleaned up and shortened, and a "Packaging" subsection will be added:
  • An "Irradiation facilities and source transportation" section will be added

We appreciate comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism to continue improving the material in the article. Thank you! Herna327 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


Brenda and I, part of a Chapman Universities Master's of Food Science program, have just added the packaging section to the article and comments or concerns are appreciated. We are working with Ian Ramjohn, part of the Wiki-Ed team for this project.Swimmaaj (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)AJ Silva

Are you in touch with the Wiki-Ed team, or is this just someone's idea? We're not opposed to changes but large scale rewrites of an article that has been subject to long-term problematic editing makes it hard for others to review the content changes. Guy (Help!) 06:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on above mentioned school assignment

The school assignment mentioned by @Herna327: (as well as the page edit history) suggests an intent to completely rewrite the article. As much of the article has been changed by consensus, a rewrite without obtaining consensus would seem contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Comments? Jim1138 (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging other recent editors on this talk page @Swimmaaj, JzG, Alexbrn, Red Rock Canyon, and Ne0Freedom: Jim1138 (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Being WP:BOLD is fine, but edits should be discrete and clearly described so it's possible for other editors to collaborate. Alexbrn (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Previous work does not implicitly cast an article in stone, so boldly rewriting might not be undesirable; at the same time whoever undertakes the notionally improved version should realise that, especially if the proposed draft is not put up for approval in advance, s/he should not be disappointed if the replacement promptly is reversed. JonRichfield (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I second the above two comments. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the majority of this article after a edit War about 7 years ago. I am a horrible writer. I would prefer this article to be more polished. I find it appalling that we are discussing the method of the changes rather than the content of the changes. Wikipedia's administrators have grown far to statist in nature. That being said there are a few significant issues with the proposed revisions. The first and the most important one is that it introduces a POV Fork with the pro and con section. The second and third reason that this change needs to be rejected is that it removes the long-term and indirect impacts of irradiation content. These are things that would otherwise be put in Pro radiation and anti-radiation sections but are instead explained in a neutral manner. There are changes that are very good in the rewrite. In fact the majority of it is good. After reading the rewrite it seems that initially the students had very good direction and the teacher gave bad direction. I would like to bring in some of the changes a little at a time and will do the required leg work myself if needed.2600:1017:B018:895E:57CF:D460:1915:284F (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. My name is AJ Silva, and I have been a student in the Chapman University Master's program who has assisted in helping make this article better. I have just polished up the processing section to make it more clear on the main processes that are you used, along with adding a section about facilities and source transportation. If these changes do not seem fit, please comment. Swimmaaj (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)AJ Silva

  • There are some problems with the transport section. The first paragraph goes into some subsection of regulations, if you don't like this split you can completely remove the regulations section and merge it into the section that discussed the process being regulated. But it is all or nothing, one way or the other. The second goes into safety and security. The third is actually transport and therefore part of processing or treatments (how ever you want to name it). One section should encompass everything that needs to be done to irradiate food. A each sub section inside this section should detail different parts of this process, therefore ideally process and treatments should be connected. As you can probably see the packageing process should eventually go here as well.Bobshmit (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • The subject matter of this article is contentious, and people hold strong opinions on it. No-one should make extensive changes to it without discussing them on this talk page first.
  • Being a student working on an assignment does not exempt an editor from following standard practices.
  • An edit summary reading "Cleaned up ... Section and added ... section", when the edit in fact removed more material than it added, is likely to attract suspicion.
Maproom (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC) (I don't understand why the bot took three weeks to invite me to this RfC.)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Food_irradiation/Archive_4&oldid=1254535465"