U.S. Accepts First Irradiated Fruit Imports

[jpak]

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2007/2007-05-02-09.asp#anchor2

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2007 (ENS) - The United States Tuesday began to accept shipments of irradiated mangoes from India, the first U.S. imports of irradiated fruit.

Irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation to disinfect, sanitize, sterilize, preserve food or to provide insect disinfestation. It serves as an alternative to other pest control methods such as fumigation and cold and heat treatments.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says irradiatede food does not become radioactive, and the nutritional value of the food is "essentially unchanged."

Irradiation was approved in 2002 as a treatment for all pests in some fruits and vegetables entering the United States. In 2006, irradiation was approved for a wider range of food products, including Indian mangoes, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA.

<more>

[Hoverflysr4]

1. About time

About time, irradiated food has been coming since the 1980's. Getting the public to accept it may still have the hurdles to clear. Hopefully this will stop many illnesses.

[irish.lambchop]

2. Then chow down hoverflysr4, by all means.

Gee, who else have I heard say how happy they were to be getting mangoes from India . . . ? Oh, that's right - bush.

[NNadir]

3. Oh MY GOD! END OF THE WORLD!!! CALL GREENPEACE!!!

HORROR!!!! HORROR!!!

Death by bacteria is preferable, since it's organic.

[peacetalksforall]

4. Buy local - eat in season. Who's going to trust the government to

tell us anything is safe - especially if it's the FDA - probably the number 1 government department sell out - to lobbyists, corporations and associations. Just like our soldiers have been told they have nothing to worry about from agent-orange and depleted uranium.

[kestrel91316]

5. Sorry. I have no interest in buying my produce from the other side

of the planet.

ESPECIALLY if it's been irradiated.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Hang on, you're a vet, aren't you?

How do you think all those disposable, sterile medical supplies got to be sterile? Or do you just give 'em a rinse and re-use them?

Your point about not wanting to eat food from a brazilion miles away is a better one. (As is the point about not trusting the FDA futher than you could spit a rhino :)).

[kestrel91316]

8. I suspect ETHYLENE OXIDE is used for the most part:

"....How do you think all those disposable, sterile medical supplies got to be sterile? Or do you just give 'em a rinse and re-use them?...."

As far as any things I clean and reuse, it's called an autoclave.

[Odin2005]

7. The scaremongering about irradiation is moronic.

Ignorant fools scream in horror, thinking it has something to do with radioactivity, even though it doesn't, and are egged on by luddite wackos. :banghead:

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Once again, getting the facts is preferable to fear and anger

<IMHO = "ON">
<warning = "pestilently pompous pontificating and sanctimonious soapbox speechifying"/>

The Wikipedia article on Food Irradiation is a very good introduction to the topic and presents the major controversies in a dispassionate, factual format.

The main concern with food irradiation is the formation of exotic and novel chemical compounds in the irradiated food. But this risk is not limited to irradiation -- even moderate cooking of starches leads to the formation of acrylamides, and the browning of any plant or animal tissue creates polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Each class of these chemicals are known to be carcinogenic and teratogenic.

So, how do you deal? Maintain as healthy a lifestyle as you can, keep up with your reading on the subject, and decide what level of risk you can accept. And don't just apply these standards to irradiated food, apply them to all areas of your life. It is far better to decide to live intelligently than to fear randomly, and the good news is that it doesn't even take much intelligence to make these choices. But in a fear-mongering society, this practice is actively discouraged. So, it may take a little bit of personal rebellion.

A long and healthy life does not depend on a perfect diet, it depends on maintaining a good diet and a strong desire to "live life to the fullest". I hate that cliché, but the sentiment is spot-on. People who have some kind of mission in life -- art, science, social reform, business, long-term projects -- tend to live longer anyway. And in the event that the very newest Peer-Reviewed Science® says it ain't so, at least you will be happier.

By the way, I don't oppose peer review, just the idea that people should replace their ability to make their own decisions with those of abstract authorities. Peer-reviewed scientific research is seldom personally valuable in isolation. Its value comes in assembling findings into conclusions and recommendations. But, sadly, Peer Review is often used as a blunderbuss rhetorical tool in flame wars rather than a means of evaluating focused research. As with any kind of "facts" you hear, there is no simple way to decide Truth and Error. You need to be able to think independently, and ideally, you should have friends who can do the same.

Besides, if you've smoked cigarettes for any length of time, you have more to worry about than a few molecules of acrylamide or radiation-modified proteins. That includes marijuana ... Da Kine can be unkind to lung tissue.

Of course, if the evidence supports the conclusion that food irradiation is an active health threat, it should be limited or discontinued. The technical term for this is biosurveillance, and it's necessary in all aspects of our health and environment. And you may want to avoid irradiated food anyway, but at least make the choice out of reason, not fear.

So eat good food, find reasons to make yourself happy, and deal with the dangers as they may come. Life is too short to live afraid.

</IMHO>

--p!
Sæpe in Errore, Nunquam in Dubio ("Often in Error, Never in Doubt")