FDA: OK to zap spinach, lettuce with radiation, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 02:21 PM by Lasheic

reply to post by Zepherian

Are you kidding about european lethargy? Just check the statistics for new cars sold... I have a car, I walk less, although I still try and be active. Plus you can see it at the beach, loads of pre obesity bodies waddling all over the place, especially kids. 18 years ago it was rare to see a fat kid at the beach here, now it's commonplace.

But where's the link between this and malnutrition? Further, where is the link between this and malnutrition caused by irradiation?

Irradiated foods takes a lot, plus you're still likely going to cook them, taking even more.

Not really. The amount of nutrient loss in irradiated food is about the same as if you'd cook them using a nutrient preserving method (some cooking methods can take up to 90% of nutrients out of food). Thankfully, to get your RDA of all essential nutrients you don't typically have to exceed your recommended daily caloric intake. The amount of nutrients lost in irradiation can be made up easily by eating a slightly larger portion - which is doable even on extreme CR diets.

By far the largest nutrient killer is poor cooking methods, so it makes no sense to me that some would rail on about the nutrient loss in food when the far more important topic to discuss would be food preparation habits.

Here's a clue: Sterilization is death, you're killing the biological components of whatever your sterilizing. The problem with this logic is that the higiene which is achieved is toxic to us, because we are of the same biological matrix as the things we are steralizing. This is the conceptual failure of modern higiene. We need organic higiene practices, not kisses of death.

Ok, you're going to have to clarify here. If this relates back to an earlier post of yours regarding the separation of body and spirit - I'm going to have to leave it at that. I don't subscribe to the supernatural, miracles, spiritualism, mysticism, magic, or any of that - and even if I believed in spiritualism, there's no way that any real truth can be known about it because it cannot be independently verified or observed. It's all subjective and cannot be argued for or against in any meaningful fashion.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 02:49 PM by Lasheic

reply to post by loam

Even under the highest currently used irradiation levels, sterilization (even if that's the goal) is practically impossible - especially given the exposure time. This is why HACCP has strict guidelines for monitoring and handling of food product at nearly all steps of production.

HACCP Generic Model for Irradiated Raw Meat and Poultry

Sorry for the dry and technical read, but this is an example of HACCP guidelines intended to prevent re-contamination or a reduced existing contamination from spreading after irradiation within the factory. It also deals with a point you brought up about under/over or otherwise accidental dosages of radiation.

This will, hopefully, also put to ease some of the people who think that irradiating food will become a substitute for sanitation procedures.

I think that is still a matter of opinion.

Which is why all products which have undergone irradiation will be clearly labeled as such so that the consumer can make the decision for themselves.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 03:01 PM by TeslaandLyne

Would they irradiate the farm.. no.
So why the food.
UV can kill a lot of surface germs.

Is it X-Rays or gamma rays or a blast of some electrical wave?

Too unknown as to their methods or effects to stamp out
dirty Mexican produce.

The Illuminati Octopus is showing its power again.

Japanese food anyone to escape from this un American banquet
being served up to us by AJ's Illuminati.

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 03:27 PM by loam

Originally posted by Lasheic
HACCP Generic Model for Irradiated Raw Meat and Poultry

I'll leave aside any argument with respect to the sufficiency of any particular HACCP guideline. But regardless of what might be written there, HACCP standards aren't worth the paper they are written on without a sufficient enforcement mechanism.

See for example this article I coincidentally stumbled into while just surfing the news yesterday in the Houston Chronical:

In fact, less than 1 percent of food imported into this country undergoes even cursory FDA inspection.

Do I really need to provide additional links demonstrating the degree to which the FDA inspection process is broken-- regardless of whether it is for domestic or foreign product???

Given that reality, I'm not sure why you would think the existence of these guidelines would be reassuring.

Originally posted by Lasheic

I think that is still a matter of opinion.

Which is why all products which have undergone irradiation will be clearly labeled as such so that the consumer can make the decision for themselves.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but here too, I am skeptical.

Let's face it. FRAUD and DECEPTION are the rules, not the exceptions, in the food industry.

See for example:

Labeled correctly? Yes.

But come on now... How many consumers would realize that they took a perfectly healthy and natural food product labeled organic, replaced the good oil with an inferior one, and pumped it with sugar?

Or this:

DNA sleuths expose New York fish fraud

Up to a quarter of fish in stores and restaurants in New York City was mislabeled as a more expensive variety, according to samples collected by two U.S. teenagers and tested with modern genetic identification methods.

Yeah, I'm not feeling all that comfy with your assurances.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by loam]

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 04:10 PM by Lasheic

reply to post by loam

Yes, I mentioned earlier that HACCP guidelines are very effective - but rely on proper supervision, inspection, and personnel. If your plants USDA official (there is at least one per shift on-sight for every Meat/Poultry/Pork plant IIRC) is lax in his/her duties, then contamination will get through. However, there is a check to this. If contamination does get out into the public but doesn't cause illness, then the plant is shut down for several weeks for a thorough investigation and sanitation - as well as subject to rather hefty fines. Multiple offenses will result in plant shutdown. If a contamination gets out to the public and it DOES cause illness - then that plant is subject to all of the above penalties as well as liable for damages and can be permanently shut down on a first offense - depending on how widespread or severe the contamination and resulting illnesses are.

So there is a strong incentive for food producing companies to keep their product sanitary and follow the HACCP guidelines. I've been to many a company meeting where a contamination was discovered in a rival's product (usually Tyson) and it got our higher ups nervous.

Here's an example of a recent shutdown after a massive contamination that ended up forcing the company to file bankruptcy.

Topps Beef Recall and Shutdown

They had to recall about a year's worth of production, offer refunds, fight lawsuits, pay fines, and through it all - couldn't make up any of those losses because their plant was shut down. They cut corners, got sloppy, and paid the price for it.

As for imports, I'm not sure what HACCP procedures (if any) there are during transport and production. I was never in Shipping and Receiving, so I didn't get any crosstraining - although we did have a strictly enforced labeling and tracking system so that we could monitor batches of even individual ingredients within the product all the way up to the store shelf in the event of a recall. This was domestic, however, so I wouldn't expect a similar system from food producers outside of the US.

Much of our product also sat in cold storage warehouses for up to a week or more pending distribution and conclusion of testing. You don't get that luxury of time when inspecting on-site. Especially fresh produce which cannot be frozen. To compound the problem, the our imports are much higher than the current FDA inspection infrastructure can handle. This means that they can't test as much product coming into the states.

Obviously not every piece of food is tested. Usually a sample batch... say... 5 out of 100 or so... are tested and if they are deemed good, then the entire batch is assumed to be good. This is done for economic reasons, and really can't be avoided. You find it in all consumer product industries. Not to mention that once tested, the product has to be disposed of. It cannot be sold or donated. So to test 100% of the product would be a colossal waste of time, money, and would leave you with no product to sell.

Anyhow, I'm not sure if the ruling will allow for irradiation of import of if it's just a domestic implementation.

Also, this isn't directed towards you - but is meant as a general addition to the thread. According to the Associated Press - the FDA didn't just swoop down and offer this ruling arbitrarily. They've been pressured for quite a while now by the GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association) to authorize irradiation - and apparently had a list of plants ready to upgrade to the procedure. It was these recent outbreaks over the last year which got the FDA's attention and got them to move on the subject.

GMA's About Us Page

Associated Press Article

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Lasheic]

reply posted on 23-8-2008 @ 04:28 PM by Lasheic

reply to post by loam

But come on now... How many consumers would realize that they took a perfectly healthy and natural food product labeled organic, replaced the good oil with an inferior one, and pumped it with sugar?

Are they? Was there some form of controversy over those products? Is that label FDA approved? I have vitamins in my cupboard that have nutritional value labels on them - but they only LOOK like proper labeling. On the bottom corner of the bottle it reads that these statements on the products benefit and contents have not been validated by the FDA. Hence, it's worthless. You'll have to give me more information on the subject before I can make a decision.

As for the fish, well, that really has nothing to do with sanitation, irradiation, HACCP, or any of that. It's just an example of someone passing off lower quality fish for a higher price. A HACCP procedure in place probably wouldn't have picked that up either - but if the fish were contaminated with pathogens it'd be a different story.

Look, I'm not trying to say that HACCP and the FDA keep our food 100% safe. It is a gamble when you go to the supermarket. The FDA and HACCP - as well as other procedures, are simply there to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible. Our food is much safer now than it was 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago thanks to these regulations and agencies. They're certainly not out to kill us, and the implementation of irradiation is just another step towards safer food.

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 01:06 PM by feydrautha

reply to post by Zepherian

not at all, there are countless sugar free alternatives (i live a sugar free life, and i love sweets, i am not deprived and am cavity free) and high fiber, whole grain products are ubiquitous...

"organic" is merely a fashionable marketing tool, how else could a producer charge 3 times as much for their wares and have people throw money at them for it?

organic doesnt live up to its brand promise...

organic sugar still makes you fat. but at least the cavities in your teeth will be certified organic, eh?

congrats!

your microwave is not harmful, is not changing anything but heating water molecules rapidly

many things lower the nutritional value of your food, not eating immediately upon picking it, for instance... cooking it is another example, big hairy deal.

will we see you grazing in your garden at every meal?

gloom and doom... oy.

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 01:14 PM by feydrautha

Originally posted by loam

It also happens to kill the good things. Not all microbes are bad, ya know...

I happen to think that irradiating food is a colossally stupid move. It *might* not harm you. But let's face it, no one really knows. It's not like food becomes irradiated naturally...

Good luck everyone.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by loam]

vitamins and fiber are left intact, sterilization of food is a good thing

you can get your microbes from yogurt and food you grow yourself

you do grow food, dont you?

everyone should have a garden of some kind, to ease the burden of environmental impact of the produce industry and avoid their price hikes

less demand = less transport, lower prices and farms growing other more necessary plants

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 01:28 PM by mirador

Originally posted by ghaleon12
Well it's pretty well known that red meat increases the risk for colon cancer. These are the same people that think Fluoride is good for people, just one in a list of "safe" toxins.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by ghaleon12]

Side note:

You/others might be interested in reading a book called "The China Study", written by Thomas Campbell. It's an awesome compilation of research on food/disease relations/correlations.

E.g. ones level of animal protein intake is very likely (as in 99.9% significance level) correlated on "switching on/off" certain cancer types...

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 02:22 PM by Zepherian

reply to post by feydrautha

If you did see me "grazing" from my garden it would be a sign I had forced myself to do things as they should be done

There is nothing more natural, or indeed healthy, than growing your own organic food. And the way we're going soon the grass will be a healthier alternative to the crap the industrial-food complex is coming out with.

As for the microwave, if you side by side get a meal between classic cooking and microwave, almost certainly the classic cooked will taste better, fresher. And classic cooking is already a step down from natural raw food when it comes to energy content, and I mean actual vibrational energy, not the biochemical component. Not only that but the microwave, beyond just warming water molecules, is actually breaking the links in molecules, turning food into tasteless slush not quite the same thing it was when it was put into the damn thing.

As for the Organic sugars, well, I do plan to keep brushing my teeth. Without flouride btw.

I find it ludicrous that you try and pass someone proposing natural diets as a nutjob, when the whole western world is going through a massive health crisis, a huge part of which is clearly down to an industrialised diet that the elites brainwash people to eat, via tv, meanwhile while attempting to price them out of the natural alternatives due to all the market manipulation going on.

And this is without even starting on toxic GMO's that come with their own built in pesticides... what a great idea... not.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Zepherian]

reply posted on 24-8-2008 @ 02:34 PM by Zepherian

Lasheic:

Are you kidding about european lethargy? Just check the statistics for new cars sold... I have a car, I walk less, although I still try and be active. Plus you can see it at the beach, loads of pre obesity bodies waddling all over the place, especially kids. 18 years ago it was rare to see a fat kid at the beach here, now it's commonplace.

But where's the link between this and malnutrition? Further, where is the link between this and malnutrition caused by irradiation?

I was pointing out that it's all part of a bigger nutrition and indeed lifestyle problem. Which I believe is by design. People are getting fatter because of the rise in american type fast food diets, which will malnourish a person, due to low fibre and low everything else minus carbs. Irradiation will compound the problem as it will destroy the nutritional value of food, which is part of the intended consequence imo.

Irradiated foods takes a lot, plus you're still likely going to cook them, taking even more.

Not really. The amount of nutrient loss in irradiated food is about the same as if you'd cook them using a nutrient preserving method (some cooking methods can take up to 90% of nutrients out of food). Thankfully, to get your RDA of all essential nutrients you don't typically have to exceed your recommended daily caloric intake. The amount of nutrients lost in irradiation can be made up easily by eating a slightly larger portion - which is doable even on extreme CR diets.

By far the largest nutrient killer is poor cooking methods, so it makes no sense to me that some would rail on about the nutrient loss in food when the far more important topic to discuss would be food preparation habits.

I have a feeling you're actually agreeing with me here, just wording it to appear you're not... Anyways, the effects of irradiation and bad cooking methods would be cumulative here, so we can really condemn both.

Here's a clue: Sterilization is death, you're killing the biological components of whatever your sterilizing. The problem with this logic is that the higiene which is achieved is toxic to us, because we are of the same biological matrix as the things we are steralizing. This is the conceptual failure of modern higiene. We need organic higiene practices, not kisses of death.

Ok, you're going to have to clarify here. If this relates back to an earlier post of yours regarding the separation of body and spirit - I'm going to have to leave it at that. I don't subscribe to the supernatural, miracles, spiritualism, mysticism, magic, or any of that - and even if I believed in spiritualism, there's no way that any real truth can be known about it because it cannot be independently verified or observed. It's all subjective and cannot be argued for or against in any meaningful fashion.

No, the energetic part, which I think may be related to a deeper body-spirit matrix was another point, one which is not essential to the majority of points I'm making in this thread, so feel free to ignore it. Here I was making a argumentative b-line into the issue of steralization in principle. We are, in the name of higiene, poisoning ourselves. I don't see what is unclear about the quote, to be quite frank.

Sorry for the omnislashing, I hate to use this form of forum composition, but Lasheic gave me no real option. Hope I managed to keep things as clear and succint as possible.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 10:43 AM by cornblossom

reply to post by sc2099

Thank you for this information. I intend to do some research on food irradiation because I'm not convinced that eating food that's been processed like this is good for me. I'm concerned that the nutritional value of the food will be diminished.

While researching this subject, I will avoid purchasing food which has been irradiated. I will buy produce from local farmers' markets when I can, and I will also purchase food from Whole Foods Market which does not sell food which has been irradiated.

Click Here to learn more about the quality standards at Whole Foods.

reply posted on 29-8-2008 @ 03:09 PM by UFOTECH

I have no problem irradiating meat as it is dead already. I am now growing my own greens since I do not trust others to mass produce them with the quality I am willing to pay for.

Irradiating living things kills them. It works on pests because it destroys the DNA of the pests. It will do the same to the plant and then that plant is dead plain and simply. The life force will then leave the plant and you will be consuming the dead thing. You might as well eat canned or frozen vegetables as eat an irradiated vegetable. If you are paying for a fresh vegetable it should not be irradiated in my opinion unless it is labeled as irradiated.

reply posted on 29-8-2008 @ 08:01 PM by Cyberbian

In response to badge01 from another thread which was shut down.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Which brings up a very interesting question, When you have a massive radiation source, how do you detect the presence of tiny radiation sources within the larger field of radiation, to prevent their escape. I don't think you can.

I wonder if they will bother to monitor the exiting food for stray radioactive particles. Why would they, it would only introduce liability for failure to stop any. No monitoring, no evidence that any ever escaped, no liability.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Gamma radiation, usually obtained by exposure to Cesium-137, is not particulate in nature but is composed of high-energy photons. So there's no danger of 'particulate' matter, radioactive or otherwise.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

____________________________________________

RESPONSE:

Sorry badge01 but I believe you are incorrect. Gama radiation is composed of high energy photons, Cesium-137 is not composed of photons. Photons are not particulate, Cesium-137 I assure you is a solid material and as such capable of coming in small pieces which would not be good to ingest.

The mere reading of words is not sufficient, one must endeavor to comprehend their meaning.

It was an interesting line of reasoning, and it would be a shame to see it burried by mis or dis information rapidly followed by closing of the thread. Don't you think?

You never even mentioned Cobalt-60, another fine product! Is Cobalt-60 also made from pure light?

You see I was not referring to bits of "radiation" I was referring to bits of the radiating source material. The difference is as profound as life and death.

If I were a terrorist I would welcome these plants as dirtybombs waiting for a detonation.

What better target for a truck bomb?

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 01:19 AM by Bourgeoisie

reply to post by Lasheic

I can tell the difference between "hot house tomatoes" and outdoor. There is a richer red color, a richer flavor, and a more firmer veggie. It doesn't mean there are less nutrients. Then again I can buy local grown in the store right next to the indoor grown, and sometimes I can't even tell the difference between the two. I believe the sun does play a roll, but it seems like there is an optimal or peak time to pick and eat a tomato, then it quickly goes into decline and bringing it indoors or refrigeration accelerates this decline of richness ans flavor. Still its doesn't mean there are any less nutrients.

reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 01:54 AM by Bourgeoisie

Anyone know where I can obtain a factual list of products that are or are not irradiated? I wonder if tuna stored in those foil packs are irradiated?

Also is there any factual hard science that irradiating food causes the DNA to be rearranged in food now making it harmful, along with the creation of free radicals and mysterious cancer causing chemicals? Really anything scientific and reputable besides the crap on the Internet?

reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 09:10 AM by meadowfairy

www.naturalnews.com...

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^