PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods


KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 08:03 AM
NaturalNews) NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods, attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or replace the word "irradiated" with "pasteurized."

In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA's food irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA's plot to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated foods are NOT irradiated.


Foods that are exempt from irradiation labeling
According to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.

However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol really means -- it actually looks like a "fresh" symbol of some sort. In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This is the FDA's way to "hide" the fact that these foods have been irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun than food being irradiated...)

That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant, requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the FDA's own website (1):

Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.


How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that foods are being irradiated
As stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements, medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:

FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless consumers can visibly tell they're irradiated.

This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don't appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.

Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy metals content in foods: If consumers can't SEE the heavy metals, then they should be declared free of heavy metals!

FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as "pasteurized," not "irradiated."

This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally want irradiated foods to be labeled as "pasteurized."

And why? Because the word "pasteurized" sounds a lot more palatable to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it's a lie. Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary. When you look up "irradiated," it does not say, "See pasteurized."

But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label them all as simply being "pasteurized," keeping consumers ignorant and uninformed.

How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 64). As published in the document (2):

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to "irradiation'' (other than "pasteurized''). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term "pasteurized'' in lieu of "irradiated,'' provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term "pasteurized'' in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to the notification.

Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially begging a company to petition it to use the term "pasteurized" instead of "irradiated" as long as they both result in the food being killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it, claiming it is meeting "the needs of industry."

The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of health and medicine. The phrase "Toxic Poison" has been replaced with "Chemotherapy," for example. "Over-medicated with dangerous psychiatric drugs" has been replaced with the term, "Treatment." And the phrase, "Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals" has been replaced with the word "managed," as in "her diabetes has been managed."

So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might continue the Orwellian "Ministry of Language" propaganda put forth by the FDA?

I say we substitute the word "medicated" with "treated" and "treated" with "rewarded." That way, when a patient describes what drugs she's on, she can say, "I've been rewarded with ten different prescriptions!"

Better yet, let's replace the word "surgery" with "enhancement." So anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say they've really just had "Heart bypass enhancement!"

It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn't it? And that's what it's all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply: Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is. Control the words and you control people's ideas, and if there's one thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it's controlling words!


What the FDA really wants to accomplish
Let's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)
2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)

Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.

That pretty much sums up the FDA's intent on this whole food irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health patients. It's business as usual at the FDA.

That's why Dr. James Duke, creator of the world's largest phytochemical database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke), had this to say about the FDA's food irradiation policy:

"Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry."


Why I call this the unleashing of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
In my previous article on this issue, I've called this food irradiation agenda a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" against the food supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?

WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan's civilian population in World War II.)

Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and here's a thought experiment that will clearly demonstrate it:

Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI. They would visit your home and ask, "Why do you need a radiation machine?" And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel on commercial airlines.

If you don't believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation emitting device and see what happens...

So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it "safety?"


Irradiated food isn't altered, claims the FDA
Of course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn't altered by the radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn't alter anything, then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?

The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation isn't selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues, causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.

Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as "altering" the food because these changes aren't visible.

If it weren't such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two Y chromosomes.


Eat up, guinea pigs!
Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or 99% (or something in between). And they don't know what the long-term effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we've all been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.

I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might have been caused.

I say when you're dealing with the food supply, you should err on the side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here. This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced ignorance.

In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.

Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!

Sources:

(1) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-fdb33.html

(2) http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/fr070404.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/023956.html

Chiefnj2
08-26-2008, 08:18 AM
European Study Links Food Irradiation to Cancer
FoodProductionDaily.com 5mar03

Chemical byproducts found in irradiated ground beef and many other foods 'treated' with radiation may increase the risks of colon cancer and DNA damage in people who eat these foods, according to new studies conducted in Europe. Based on this evidence, the US-based consumer groups Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety have filed formal comments urging the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to deny five pending requests to irradiate additional food types, including ready-to-eat foods - such as packaged deli meats, frozen meals and snack foods - which currently comprise more than a third of the typical American's diet. The FDA is also considering legalising irradiation for shellfish and several other food classes.

In addition, the groups urged the FDA to reconsider its past approvals of irradiation for beef, poultry, pork, eggs, fruits, vegetables, spices and other foods. This series of approvals began in 1983.

The new European studies come at a time when irradiated foods, primarily ground beef, are being made available to millions of Americans. Schoolchildren throughout the country soon could be eating irradiated ground beef, hundreds of grocery stores and restaurants, including several large chains, have begun marketing irradiated meat, and record-sized recalls have led several huge meat producers - including giants Excel and IBP - to irradiate some of their products.

"This is a moment of truth. The FDA can either preserve or gamble with the health of the American people. The choice is theirs," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "The wrong choice could have serious, unintended consequences - particularly for children and other vulnerable populations. Given the stakes, this new evidence is impossible to ignore."

The new studies call into question the long-held position of the FDA and the food industry that irradiated foods are generally safe for human consumption. But the studies confirm research published in 1998 and 2001 showing that concentrations of chemicals called 2-alkylcyclobutanones (or 2-ACBs) - which are found only in irradiated foods - caused DNA damage in human cells.

Among the new findings, 2-ACBs were shown to promote tumour development in rat colons. Also, scientists discovered that they could not adequately account for most of a dose of 2-ACBs fed to rats. While very small amounts of 2-ACBs were detected in the fat of rats, most of the chemicals could not be recovered, implying that they are either stored in other parts of the body or transformed into other compounds.

The 2-ACBs are formed when foods that contain fat are irradiated, such as beef, chicken, eggs and certain fruits - all of which can legally be irradiated and sold to consumers.

Funded by the European Union (EU), the three-year project was conducted by a team of French and German scientists from several institutions, including Germany's Federal Research Center for Nutrition and the Louis Pasteur University in France. The 200-page body of research, released in December, consists of five primary toxicity studies and several secondary studies. Published in German and French, the studies were translated into English by Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety.

The authors of the studies warned: "Caution should be exercised before any risk to consumers by exposure to these compounds is denied. Further research is required to precisely determine exposure to these substances, the precise dose-response relationship, and in particular the kinetics and metabolism of 2-ACBs in the living organism. All of this research is necessary to gain insight into the mechanisms of the toxic effects."

The findings contributed to the recent decision by the European Parliament to reject a proposal to expand the types of food that could be irradiated in the 15-nation EU. Irradiation is permitted only for spices, herbs and other seasonings, which are consumed in very small quantities and contain virtually no fat.

"If any other food additive had as much science about health risks stacked up against it, the claim that it is safe would be laughed at," said Peter Jenkins, policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety. "I trust the FDA will respect the 'caution' signs now very apparent in the scientific record and make sure irradiated food is safe before it is fed to the American public."

Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety also presented to the FDA a signed opinion of William Au, an internationally recognised toxicology expert at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Based on a review of the European studies and other research, Au warns that "consumption of irradiated food among individuals who have risk factors for colon cancer will cause increased risk for the disease," and that consumption of large amounts of irradiated foods can increase health risks in the population."

The groups also have submitted evidence of many and varied health problems in animals fed irradiated foods, including premature death, mutations and other genetic abnormalities, foetal death and other reproductive problems, immune system disorders, organ damage, stunted growth and nutritional deficiencies.

The groups are calling on the FDA to take several steps: refrain from legalising irradiation for any additional foods until comprehensive, published, peer-reviewed research is conducted on 2-ACBs and other toxicity risks; conduct a comprehensive analysis of the 2-ACB levels and potential risks associated with all foods the agency has approved for irradiation and has under consideration; and convene public meetings to thoroughly explore the health effects of this controversial food sterilization technology.

tiptap
08-26-2008, 08:18 AM
You have to have a permit to buy a machine that is capable of producing or supplying ionizing radiation. The process does destroy DNA. That is how the radiation destroys pathogens. I would suspect that such a process also forms free radicals. However free radical reactions are very fast and would be depleted before they reach the shelf. Note it is the free radical itself (or a compound that can form a free radical readily) that is the agent of harm. If you wanted to do this with your home vegetables (because your neighbor keeps coming over and shitting in your garden) then you could obtain an X-ray machine that provide that kind of effect and one that isn't so large as to considered industrial in its application.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 08:18 AM
Nuked Food" - The Dangers of Irradiated Food

Nuked food is the common term for irradiated food - food which is exposed to high level radiation for the purpose of sterilizing it. This high level radiation penetrates the food which, as anyone who has paid attention in chemistry knows, raises the energy level of the atoms and molecules which the food is composed of. This results in myriad "free radicals" - atoms which have lost an outer electron due to having absorbed a shot of higher energy.


And instead of being chemically neutral, such an atom has now become strongly attractive. This will break and re-arrange many chemicals bonds in the atoms, molecules and chemical compounds of the cells of the food under radiation. So much so that the cellular processes of any micro-organisms in the food are disrupted, and the micro-organisms in the food are killed.

The cells of micro-organisms live and die by exactly the same chemical laws and processes that our cells live by. And if our cells were subjected to the same radiation, they would die just as surely.

The idea is that the radiation dissipates, and things return to normal. But we have come to know and understand that free radicals form stable compounds that are different from the original chemical compounds, and that the free radicals and the altered compounds are harmful to us in many, many ways - among them a trigger for heart diseases and cancer.

The greatest danger, in my view, is the havoc such free radicals can wreak in the delicate chemistry of reproduction, when our cells, or an ova, divide and replicate - a cell or an an ovum is about the same size as a micro-organism - and in the growth and development of the embryo, when it is acutely vulnerable to any abnormalities.

Personally, I cannot understand how people can be so irresponsible to allow and apply what is such a powerful free radical creation tool that it kills all micro-organisms in the food - micro-organisms which live and die by exactly the same chemistry as we do. To me this is incomprehensible.

Here then is a calm and cogent article by an accomplished and respected Cancer research scientist, plus a few abstracts (no abstracts were available for many more papers) of animal trials done with irradiated food, as listed in the Public Archives of the National Library of Medicine.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Original Article:


George L. Tritsch, PhD
Cancer Research Scientist, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, New York State Department of Health.

I am speaking as a private citizen, and my opinions are my own, based on thirty-three years of experience since my doctorate at Cornell Medical College, Rockefeller University and, since 1959, as a cancer research scientist and biochemist at Roswell.

I am opposed to consuming irradiated food because of the abundant and convincing evidence in the refereed scientific literature that the condensation products of the free radicals formed during irradiation produce statistically significant increases in carcinogenesis, mutagenesis and cardiovascular disease in animals and man. I will not address the reported destruction of vitamins and other nutrients (what? - more nutrient deficiencies?; my comment) by irradiation because suitable supplementation of the diet can prevent the development of such potential deficiencies. However, I cannot protect myself from the carcinogenic and other harmful insults to the body placed into the food supples and I can see no tangible benefit to be traded for the possible increased incidence of malignant disease one to three decades in the future.

Irradiation works by splitting chemical bonds in molecules with high energy beams to form ions and free radicals. When sufficient critical bonds are split in organisms contaminating a food, the organism is killed. Comparable bonds are split in the food. Ions are stable; free radicals contain an unpaired electron and are inherently unstable and therefore reactive. How long free radicals remain in food treated with a given dose of radiation or the reaction products formed in a given food cannot be calculated but must be tested experimentally for each food. Different doses of radiation will produce different amounts and kinds of products.

The kinds of bonds split in a given molecule are governed by statistical considerations. Thus, while most molecules of a given fatty acid, for example, may be split in a certain manner, other molecules of the same fatty acid will be split differently. A free radical can either combine with another free radical to form a stable compound, or it can initiate a [chemical] chain reaction by reacting with a stable molecule to form another free radical, et cetera, until the chain is terminated by the reaction of two free radicals to form a stable compound. These reactions continue long after the irradiation procedure.

I am bringing this up to give you a rationale for the vast number of new molecules that can be formed from irradiation of a single molecular species, to say nothing of a complicated mixture such as food. Furthermore, the final number and types of new molecules formed will depend on the other molecules present in the sample. Thus, free radicals originating from fats could form new compounds with proteins, nucleic acids [DNA], and so forth.
[ found at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8979/page26.html ].




Abstracts: [from the public archives of the National Library of Medicine]


1) Micronucleus test in mice fed on an irradiated diet.
Jpn J Vet Res 1989 Apr;37(2):41-7
Endoh D, Hashimoto N, Sato F, Kuwabara M.
A mutagenicity study was carried out in mice fed on a gamma-irradiated diet. As an indicator of mutagenic activity, we observed an incidence of micronuclei in erythrocytes. The average body weight of the mice fed on the diet irradiated to dose range of 400-1,000 kGy decreased, and the mice fed on the 800-1,000 kGy-irradiated diet died during the period from 8 to 14 days after the start of feeding. On the other hand, when the mutagenic activity of the irradiated diet was tested by observing occurrence of micronucleus in erythrocytes, no significant increase was recognized. These results indicated that the irradiated diet had no mutagenic activity, even though it possessed a toxic effect on the growth of mice. PMID: 2779058 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


2) Genetic effects of feeding irradiated wheat to mice.
Can J Genet Cytol 1976 Jun;18(2):231-8
Vijayalaxmi.
The effects of feeding irradiated wheat in mice on bone marrow and testis chromosomes, germ cell numbers and dominant lethal mutations were investigated. Feeding of freshly irradiated wheat resulted in significantly increased incidence of polyploid cells in bone marrow, aneuploid cells in testis, reduction in number of spermatogonia of types A, B and resting primary spermatocytes as well as a higher mutagenic index. Such a response was not observed when mice were fed stored irradiated wheat. Also there was no difference between the mice fed un-irradiated wheat and stored irradiated wheat. PMID: 990994 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


3) Chromosome studies on bone marrow cells of Chinese hamsters fed a radiosterilized diet.
Toxicology 1977 Oct;8(2):213-22
Renner HW.
Metaphase preparations of chromosomes from bone marrow cells of Chinese hamsters were examined for mutagenic effects following the feeding of a radiosterilized diet. No increase in the incidence of structural chromosomal aberrations was observed. As far as numerical aberrrations were concerned, the proportion of cells with polyploidy increased to between 4 to 5 times the control level, irrespective of the moisture content of the diet. This polyploidy effect occurred very early, being detectable within 24 h, if the diet fed had been irradiated with an absorbed dose of 4.5 - 10(6) rad. The incidence of polyploidy remained below 0.5%, however, nor did it rise with higher radiation doses. When the feeding of the irradiated diet was stopped, the proportion of polyploid cells returned to the control level within a maximum of 6 weeks. If the diet was stored (initially) for 6 weeks following irradiation before being fed to the animals no increase in the number of polyploid cells was noted. These results are not interpreted as a mutagenic effect of the irradiated diet. PMID: 929628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


4) Irradiated laboratory animal diets: dominant lethal studies in the mouse.
Mutat Res 1981 Feb;80(2):333-45
Anderson D, Clapp MJ, Hodge MC, Weight TM.
In 4 separate dominant lethal experiments groups of mice of either Charles River CD1 or Alderley Park strains were fed laboratory diets (Oakes, 41B, PRD, BP nutrition rat and mouse maintenance diet No. 1). The diets were either untreated (negative control diets) or irradiated at 1, 2.5 and 5 megarad and were freshly irradiated, or stored. The animals were fed their test diets for a period of 3 weeks prior to mating. Groups of mice given a single intraperitoneal injection of 200 mg cyclophosphamide per kg body weight served as the positive controls. Freshly irradiated PRD diet fed to male mice of both strains caused an increase in early deaths in females mated to the males in week 7 and to a lesser extent in week 4. The increase due to irradiation was small by comparison with that produced by the positive control compound. The responses for the other irradiated diets showed no significant increases in early deaths although some values for Oakes diet were high. The effect of storage was examined with PRD and BPN diet on one occasion and produced conflicting results. Thus there was some evidence that irradiated PRD diet has weak mutagenic activity in the meiotic and/or pre-meiotic phase of the spermatogenic cycle which appeared to be lessened on storage; the inclusion of such a diet in toxicological studies would therefore need to be carefully considered. PMID: 7207489 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


5) The effect of ionizing irradiation on sensory changes in feed in relation to their utilization by dogs
Vet Med (Praha) 1985 Dec;30(12):739-48, [Article in Czech]
Smid K, Dvorak J, Hrusovsky J.
To evaluate the effect of ionizing radiation on sensory changes of feeds in relation to their utilization by dogs, four groups of experimental animals were formed. Two groups were fed a ration where the main component (meat feed mixture VETACAN and loose feed mixture VETAVIT) was irradiated by radioisotope Co 60 at the dose of 25 kGy/kg for the period of 90 days. In the remaining two groups a non-irradiated ration was used for the same period. For both diets, control groups of dogs were formed and the feed ration was biologically fortified by a vitamin-mineral supplement to the physiological standard. It followed from the observations that the effect of radiation caused a significant qualitative decrease in the level of energy nutrients, particularly in the protein and lipid sphere. It is assumed that the extent of damage of lipid fraction is also accompanied by deficient vitamin activity and further by significant changes of taste and aromatic properties felt by animals. Irradiation of the feed ration caused a significant 20 to 25% decrease of food intake with a subsequent decrease of live weight and deterioration of physical condition. Irradiated diets without biological fortification caused significant losses of weight from the initial value mean = 39.5 kg to mean = 35.33 kg, in comparison with the non-irradiated rations through which the live weight was stabilized, and at biological fortification positively influenced. Irradiation of the feed ration during the period of study had not caused a response of the organism displayed in changes of physiological values of body temperature and heart and respiration rates in experimental animals. Radiosterilization of feeds had not caused any significant decrease of training ability and performance of dogs. PMID: 3937317 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


6) Immune response in rats given irradiated wheat.
Br J Nutr 1978 Nov;40(3):535-41
Vijayalaxmi.
1. Rats given diets containing freshly-irradiated wheat showed significantly lower mean antibody titres to four different antigens, decreased numbers of antibody-forming cells in the spleen and rosette-forming lymphocytes as compared to rats given either unirradiated wheat or irradiated wheat stored for a period of 12 weeks. 2. The immune response in rats given 90 g protein/kg diet was essentially similar to that seen in animals given 180 g protein/kg diet. PMID: 568934 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.truehealth.org/nukedfood.html

banyon
08-26-2008, 08:19 AM
I thought you were with the lunatics who didn't want the FDA to label anything. Now you're bitching because they're not labeling enough?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 08:23 AM
I thought you were with the lunatics who didn't want the FDA to label anything. Now you're bitching because they're not labeling enough?


your assumption is way off base.

tiptap
08-26-2008, 08:26 AM
So we do have a cyclo alkene forming and those are always capable of producing free radicals. They are found as the culprits in direct fired foods (read barbecue over fire as opposed to offset of fire). So the question becomes are these substances increased or reduced compared to normal preparation of un irradiated food. In other words if I barbecue directly I will be producing such items. Am I getting a lot more than from the cooking method. And does this higher concentration offer a risk higher than the consumption risk of enteric infected foods.

banyon
08-26-2008, 08:29 AM
your assumption is way off base.

That is a "RON PAUL!!!" Medallion on your avatar, right?

tiptap
08-26-2008, 08:39 AM
In reading the quoted materials, the article back up my comments that storage of irradiated material removes the risk significantly. You don't eat freshly irradiated food. Look at the comments about stored foods. Look at the reduction of polypoidal effects related to dose.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 08:39 AM
That is a "RON PAUL!!!" Medallion on your avatar, right?

Yes, could you link me to Dr. Pauls views on food labeling? you might be surprised.

Taco John
08-26-2008, 09:56 AM
I thought you were with the lunatics who didn't want the FDA to label anything. Now you're bitching because they're not labeling enough?



This would be your brainless take on this issue. You're just as much a shill as anyone on this board.

Taco John
08-26-2008, 10:03 AM
Yes, could you link me to Dr. Pauls views on food labeling? you might be surprised.


He's the frickin T*m C*sh of big government. Don't bother. He's not willing to examine any position unless there is a big government beauracrat with his hands on the reigns, and another panel of them to watch over that one. If you make any suggestions having to do with a better way to accomplish the same thing with less wasted dollars, he'll flip out and accuse you of being an anarchist.

He's a hopeless big government liberal.

Chiefnj2
08-26-2008, 10:32 AM
I thought you were with the lunatics who didn't want the FDA to label anything. Now you're bitching because they're not labeling enough?

There is a difference between not labelling enough and doing what the government proposes which is labelling in a misleading manner and outright false labelling.

banyon
08-26-2008, 05:28 PM
He's the frickin T*m C*sh of big government. Don't bother. He's not willing to examine any position unless there is a big government beauracrat with his hands on the reigns, and another panel of them to watch over that one. If you make any suggestions having to do with a better way to accomplish the same thing with less wasted dollars, he'll flip out and accuse you of being an anarchist.

He's a hopeless big government liberal.

This petulant whiny name-calling act is just pointless and really beneath you. You're capable of better.

Unless I'm just making fun of something, I always try to discuss the substance of the issue. If it's a conversation I've had with you recently, though, it seems it has to be in absolutes and you get emotional about it really quickly.

Back to the issue:

It was my impression from many of BEP's posts that she wanted to abolish the FDA completely and replace it with some sort of private group that would be on the honor system. I was not aware of many issues she substantially disagreed with Ron Paul on, so I assumed it was his position as well.

I tried looking around, bt there are so many websites for Paul, I am not sure which is official. In any event, I'd be happy to read whatever his position s if I'm mistaken about this.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 05:29 PM
There are many instances over people being misled in the food industry. "Organic" as certified by the USDA is one major glaring example.

Nightfyre
08-26-2008, 05:33 PM
What the FDA really wants to accomplish
Let's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)
2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)

Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.


ROFL ROFL ROFL

Fear-mongering is cute.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 09:46 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

Fear-mongering is cute.

um, ya that's it no need to look into anything a government agency says because we all know they could never lie. Pure as the driven snow your masters are.

Nightfyre
08-26-2008, 09:48 PM
um, ya that's it no need to look into anything a government agency says because we all know they could never lie. Pure as the driven snow your masters are.

ROFL Check this guy out. He thinks my master is the government. I've got news for you: I'm as libertarian as it gets. But I don't think the FDA is trying to commit genocide. Why? BECAUSE I'M NOT TOTALLY ****ING INSANE.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 09:51 PM
ROFL Check this guy out. He thinks my master is the government. I've got news for you: I'm as libertarian as it gets. But I don't think the FDA is trying to commit genocide. Why? BECAUSE I'M NOT TOTALLY ****ING INSANE.

I dunno you laugh hysterically, that is the 1st sign of dementia.

Cannibal
08-26-2008, 09:58 PM
I dunno you laugh hysterically, that is the 1st sign of dementia.

Then I guess you're going to start growing ALL of your own food and raise chickens?

Take the FDA completely out of the equation right?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 10:02 PM
Then I guess you're going to start growing ALL of your own food and raise chickens?

Take the FDA completely out of the equation right?

well no, but a complete revamp is definitely in order.

Cannibal
08-26-2008, 10:05 PM
well no, but a complete revamp is definitely in order.

I won't harp on it with you. But if you really think the FDA is trying to commit Genocide through the food supply, it would probably behoove you to take them out of the equation and start growing your own food in the backyard.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 10:11 PM
I won't harp on it with you. But if you really think the FDA is trying to commit Genocide through the food supply, it would probably behoove you to take them out of the equation and start growing your own food in the backyard.

I did not write the story, are they following the Georgia guidestones? who knows but corruption on any level should not be tolerated. Are they replacing vitamins and minerals with chemicals just for profit? or is there another reason? Are you familiar with codex alimentarius? It seems as though big pharma, the chemical companys and the fda are in collusion.

Cannibal
08-26-2008, 10:13 PM
I did not write the story, are they following the Georgia guidestones? who knows but corruption on any level should not be tolerated. Are they replacing vitamins and minerals with chemicals just for profit? or is there another reason? Are you familiar with codex alimentarius? It seems as though big pharma, the chemical companys and the fda are in collusion.

I share your concerns about the article. But it is a far cry from the FDA attempting to commit genocide. I do eat too much ground beef to. I need to change that.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 10:17 PM
I share your concerns about the article. But it is a far cry from the FDA attempting to commit genocide. I do eat too much ground beef to. I need to change that.

My main concern is sooner rather than later we may not have a choice. I believe it is our right to make our own decisions on how/what we eat. Also I don't see any good reason to regulate vitamins, minerals and supplements. Would our great nation be a better place if you had to see the doctor to get a script for Vitamin C?

Nightfyre
08-26-2008, 10:20 PM
CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY

THE SKY IS FALLING
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
JFK WAS KILLED BY THE CIA
THE ILLUMINATI
THE MASONS
etc.etc.

Cannibal
08-26-2008, 10:22 PM
My main concern is sooner rather than later we may not have a choice. I believe it is our right to make our own decisions on how/what we eat. Also I don't see any good reason to regulate vitamins, minerals and supplements. Would our great nation be a better place if you had to see the doctor to get a script for Vitamin C?

I believe in the concept of the FDA and we used to be able to trust them. But I would rather see the corruption in the FDA brought to an end, rather than deregulation. God knows what we'd be forced to eat without any regulation at all. What's that famous book about the meat packing plant? I forget, but it was truly, truly disgusting.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 10:25 PM
I believe in the concept of the FDA and we used to be able to trust them. But I would rather see the corruption in the FDA brought to an end, rather than deregulation. God knows what we'd be forced to eat without any regulation at all. What's that famous book about the meat packing plant? I forget, but it was truly, truly disgusting.

I agree, we need to clean house and bring back common sense.

HonestChieffan
08-26-2008, 10:29 PM
Much ado about nothing. Irradiation has been used for years! and no ill effects have ever been shown. More sky is falling loonies.

Ari Chi3fs
08-26-2008, 10:29 PM
yes, none of this surprises me.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS is real, btw.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2008, 10:31 PM
Much ado about nothing. Irradiation has been used for years! and no ill effects have ever been shown. More sky is falling loonies.

Thank GOD we live in a free country, you are still free to get your healthy share of cancer if you please.

banyon
08-27-2008, 08:06 AM
I believe in the concept of the FDA and we used to be able to trust them. But I would rather see the corruption in the FDA brought to an end, rather than deregulation. God knows what we'd be forced to eat without any regulation at all. What's that famous book about the meat packing plant? I forget, but it was truly, truly disgusting.

Uh, The Jungle?

Really?

Cannibal
08-27-2008, 08:45 AM
Uh, The Jungle?

Really?

Yeah, that's it, I read it in school years ago.

As stated, I support the concept of the FDA, minus any corruption involved. I do NOT support deregulation. It would only make the situation worse.