Comments on: Irradiated Food

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:43:45 +0000

Let me pull my physics degree off the wall here…All electromagnetic radiation (microwaves, UV, light and gamma rays) interacts with matter in little bundles called photons. The energy a photon is based only one the frequency. Gamma rays have high frequencies and micro waves have lower. Ionizing radiation are things that rip electrons off the molecule causing it to break up or combine into something else. In order to have enough energy to do that you need to be in the UV range or higher

Microwaves are far lower than UV in frequency and therefore cannnot ionize. They work because the photon bundle interacts with the whole water molecule (not the electrons which are far smaller) causing it to vibrate and thus heat your food.

Now it is true that heating can cause certain molecules to recombine when heated past a certain point but they aren’t in normal natural food. Basically if you oven cooking won’t make it carcinogenic then your microwave won’t either.

Gamma rays are so high energy that they always ionize, which is why being near a nuclear bomb is bad even if you survive the big explosion, all that ionizing radiation can cause serious cellular damage.

By: John La Puma

John La Puma — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:13:56 +0000

Definitely stomach-turning. I agree with the critics- prevention is key. If the meat industry was more sanitary in the first place, we wouldn’t have to worry about this and numerous other complications. I personally shy away from the labeled irradiated meat, and am appalled by the government’s idea of potentially allowing irradiated meat to be labeled ‘pasteurized’. A healthier (and tastier) way to help stop the growth of E.coli bacteria may lie within the recipe. With a ratio of 7.5 percent spice to 92.5 percent ground meat: clove, cinnamon, garlic, oregano and sage have been found to reduce the bacteria by 99, 80, 75, 50, and 37 percent respectively. In addition, commercially ground meat is known to carry more bacteria than meat from a single animal you grind yourself.
Source: ‘ChefMD’s Big book of Culinary Medicine’. http://www.chefmd.com/book.php

By: Stuart Buck

Stuart Buck — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:30:08 +0000

Microwaves are radiation too. So is visible light. And radio waves. Better shield your house with lead if you want food that never comes in contact with radiation.

By: BrandiMagill

BrandiMagill — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:40:44 +0000

It’s scary to think that the FDA feels that this will have no affect on humans when tests show that it alters the taste, color, and odor of the meat…how could it not lose nutritional value as well? Money, money, money that is all they care about.

By: Jen

Jen — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:24:10 +0000

Sorry for being so “talkative” on this one. It’s just a subject I happen to be really concerned about.

Ari, the language in the post includes words like “possible” effects. That seems to be what you’re looking for, and that’s what’s in the post.

Charlotte, those are eye-opening statistics. It’s scary to think about food poisoning, no doubt. I’ve had food poisoning several times in my life (a few times very severely), but in my case it’s always been from restaurants or frozen foods containing meat. (My guess with the frozen foods was they were left out and then put back by store employees.)

I agree with the post that better food processing and accountability is a better option for lowering food poisoning risks.

By: Joe Matasic

Joe Matasic — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:12:23 +0000

Ari, that sounds like the same logic that got us to where we’re at now. Drugs companies don’t worry about “potential” side effects and they don’t want anyone else to either. Tobacco only had the and according to most government still does only have the “potential” to cause cancer and other diseases. Fat, saturated fat, whatever you want “potentially” caused this or that. Never proof anywhere. But scientists, government and then corporations took it and ran. Look where that got us. We’ve screwed with/tried to improve what nature gives us so many times either with good intentions or just plain greed and plenty of times the damaging results do not show up till later.

The post is obviously meant to suggest to warn that you shouldn’t be surprised if some unintended consequences show up later that they aren’t looking for or don’t have the technology, etc.

By: Ari

Ari — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:41:28 +0000

I don’t even see what the point of these posts are if you can’t support your claims. If your goal is to just make us aware of potential (key word: potential) repercussions of irradiating food products, then that is great. Anything else is absurd given the support. These posts are frustrating.

By: charlotte

charlotte — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:08:01 +0000

Very interesting. CNN reports that 300,000 people are hospitalized and 5000 die each year of food-born illness in America. It would seem that something needs to be done. And I’m certainly NOT a fan of chemical sanitizers. I had such hopes for irradiation… sigh. Thanks for the studies – gave me a lot to think about.

By: JC

JC — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:31:46 +0000

do you know what the affect of microwaving meat / veg / milk is? does it ruin the proteins, change the fatty acid structure etc? do you have a microwave? also (off topic) what’s your stance on dairy? i notice you eat cheese, do you eat yogurt? or do you just avoid milk?

By: Jen

Jen — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:59:22 +0000

Nic, You have a point that two studies don’t tell us everything we want to know, but I don’t think they’re irrelevant by a long shot. In the first study, the cyclobutanones are determined to be a product of the irradiation of food containing fat and not inherent to the food itself or existing in the food prior to irradiation. The second tests the damaging effects of these same irradiation product substances.

It *would* be interesting and even more confirming to see a study measuring the levels of these substances in different irradiated food and then to see the results of actual damage caused by the foods themselves. Still, it’s common for substances in question to be isolated and tested in addition to their sources being used for testing (e.g. wine and resveratrol).