Talk:Food irradiation

The RADURA-logo

The international version of the Radura logo as defined by Codex Alimentarius has all elements filled; it is only a few instances, as the USA, where the 'leaves' are not-filled. See also Google for a collection of versions and origins.

Dieter E 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following, very POV:

However, there is a big BUT in all of this. If any food needed to be irradiated consumers might want to ask what was wrong with it in the first place? Bacterial contamination for example is a sign of bad handling and storage - and there have been some notorious cases of food companies using irradiation to cover up such contamination (cases uncovered by the London Food Commission and documented in "Food Irradiation the Myth and the reality" Tony Webb and Tim Lang, Thorsons 1990) Even irradiation of spices is questionable. How did such spices get so badly contaminated that they needed this 'sterilisation'? Many attempts have been made to paint this as an approved process (see the link below) but the reality is that the technology has little use, is generally rejected by consumers, severely limited in most European and Asian and Australasian countries and - unfortunately - has more to do with the failing nuclear industry trying to find a rationale for its byproducts (and nuclear wastes) than anything to do with food safety.

Article now needs some explanation of what the controversy actually is; I don't understand it well.

The reference to Tony Web and and Tim Lang, 1990 is not appropriate; their 'pamphlet' purposefully ingnores the mainstream of science. The allegation that radiation treatment is being used as a final cleanup for otherwise filthy and spoiled food is not true. For example a spoiled fish will continue to stink after radiation sterilization; however, the health risk from pathogen microorganisms will be eliminated. The point with the reduction of the microbial load of spices is a different one: if spices have a too high content in microorganisms the food in which the spice is only an ingredient marginal by quantity can carry a load of pathogen microorganisms being a risk to the consumer and may carry a load of spoilage causing microorganisms imparing the shelf-life of the product. Furthermore, another controversy is about 'Unique Radiolytic Products' (see also below in the article) which were not yet a matter of dispute in 1990.

--Dieter E 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DNA

The following text was removed because it belongs, if anywhere, in radiation:

Ionizing radiation in sufficient doses will disrupt or destroy the chemical bonds that make up the molecules of a living thing. Some forms of radiation, such as gamma rays, have very high penetrating capabilities, and so can destroy or change crucial molecules in the body, such as those making up DNA molecules. If the DNA is disrupted it may form a cancerous cell by causing mutations to the DNA. Conversely, radiation from space and the sun (Cosmic Background Radiation), as well as background radiation from the earth is responsible for many mutations that help to drive evolution.

--Andrew 17:39, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

How many tons (or annual yields or fractions thereof) of fruit (or, e.g. how many fruit flies) does science predict need to be radicided (sp?, i.e. typical fruit irradiation dosage) before a contaminant organism survives with a heritable mutation? Anyone have information that would be needed to guesstimate an answer?

--Arved Deecke 12:28, Jul 5.2006 (UTC)

I'll have a shot at answering that question: Typical probit 9 protocoll requires statistical demonstration of 99.999968% prevention of emergence of adult fruit fly. Note that this is not sterility, but death during pupation. This means that the doses are set to a level where after irradiation of 68'000 larvae there is no emergence any adults after pupation. At doses below that you might begin to observe viable adults. Those would, however, be steril unless irradiated below 15Gy (Anastrepha Ludens) Below those 15Gy you might encounter the heritable mutations that you are asking about.

An idustrial irradiation facility can tipically hold a dose uniformity of 3 to 1 on a pallet level and will therefore overdose any but the inner say 5% of the pallet volume. Such facilities hold a repeataility of 10Gy on a one sigma level and therefore overdose by 20Gy to get statitiscal process control. A target dose for Anastrepha Ludens is therefore set at 90gy (20Gy beyond the 70Gy required by 7CFR305.56). to get down to the 15Gy required for heretable mutants we are observing an offset of 7.5 standard deviations or a probability of one pallet in 3*10^13 being treated below critical dose of 15Gy. Standard protocoll asks for a level of larvation below 0.5% to be demonstrated through inspection for a product to be viable for treatment. A pallet of mangos has 230 boxes with 1.15 fruit fly larvae on average within the pallet. Statistically 5% of these larvae will fall within the inner zone of the pallet where undertreatment would be manifested. This means that an average 0.0575 larvae will be present within the critical area of any average pallet. So the combined probability of 1/3*10^13 pallets being treated insufficiently and that pallet having larvae in the critical zone is 1.8*10^15. A pallet weighs 900kg so you could comfortably irradiate 5*10^15 tons or the anual American consumption of mango for the next 2452633232 years. And this is not even trying to stab at the probability that any given heredetable mutation might harbour darwinistic advantages over the non mutated poulation that would leading to propagation.

Spontaneous mutation due to cosmic radiation in the field probably happens several times a minute across the world, so irradiation certainly won't add to the number of mutant fruitflies in any significant way.

-- Dieter E 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The removed text was correct in describing the effect of radiation to DNA, responsible for any biological effect, including insect disinfestation. Doses for this application are low; FDA set a generic dose of 500 Gy for any insect; for the Mediterranean fruit fly even 150 Gy might be acceptable providing the respective proof to FDA.

As the insects are made incapable of proliferation, there will not be any heritable mutation. The terminology of 'radicidation' is reserved to the elimination of pathogen microorganisms.

The amount of fruit irradiated for quarantine requirements is still small; one facility working on Hawaii; and a number of developing countries just establishing agreements with FDA for such imports.

NPOV

I really don't like articles that are all "he said, she said" with a paragraph for the opponents and another for the proponents. It just serves to polarize the debate. I've made it that way to get some points in there quickly, but please feel free to restructure the article. Each issue should be handled on its own in a NPOV manner. Saying “consumers are simply afraid of radiation” has certainly not come from researching opponents’ views and concerns. Also saying there is scientific evidence that irradiated food is “wholesome” is pretty poor when there is no scientific definition for wholesome. Let’s try to make this a factual NPOV article that discusses the issues to find a factual middle ground that considers the arguments from both sides, cites research and its source, and includes all the minor issues too like food labelling.

By the way, ionizing radiation is the radiation used in irradiation

Move to food irradiation?

This article is not about the (very generic) process of irradiation. I'll move it to food irradiation. --Andrew 05:50, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims

I removed several passages that made statements without a reference. If they are reinstated please supply a link so that the statement can be checked. Thanks. DV8 2XL 01:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I have found no information on this page, why the neutrality of this article is disputed and who disputes it. It would be very helpful to clarify this quickly so that any issues may be addressed. Furthermore I would like to comment that the version history of this article has been grossly truncated for some reason.

regards

Arved Deecke 15:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This article appears pro-irradiation. Views of opponents are not sufficiently described, controversy around the issue is not explained. The article is heavily biased in favor of irradiation, and hence I dispute its neutrality. Echino 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of mention of the different controversies that surround the topic and official positions are duely cited and referenced. At this point I am not aware of any scientific organization that opposes food irradiation for technical, safety or toxicological reasons, but would love to learn more, should such an organization exist. I am aware of organizations like Public Citizen, the Practical Hippie or Organic Consumers, but do not see how their opinion should offset FDA, WHO, FAO and many others. Maybe we should look at the root of the issue that these organizations have which is one of globalization, aknowledge the fact that irradiation may accelerate globalization and deal with those concerns on an ideological level rather than technical. I have also reviewed the article again and find that it duely cites its references. I have therefore removed the NPV and reference issue and suggest that those who continue to feel that this article is biased, provide good science based information.

Arved Deecke 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

The studies that the FDA chose to evaluate were not valid and were misinterpreted by the FDA. It would seem very biased to claim that food irradiation has been proven to be safe by FDA and WHO.

Sorry you have got to keep an NPOV when editing an article DV8 2XL 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I did. And I would be hard-pressed to say that the current version of the article is NPOV - in fact, it is very pro-irradiation. I even provided sources, yet you deleted my changes.84.231.173.52 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-edited it a bit. Note that there are sources; please read them before reverting back to an old version. Also, if the old version was written by you, please provide links to your claims about the safety of irradiation. 84.231.173.52 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not write this article. How can you remove a statmente like:"Both scientists have repeatedly asked that their work not be misinterpreted in a form that suggests that irradiated food poses any health risks to the consumer." and replace it with a loaded one like: "causes toxic health side effects such as premature death, fatal internal bleeding, cancer, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, mutations and genetic damage, organ malfunction, stunted growth and vitamin deficiencies" and claim NPOV? This is highly loaded propaganda, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. DV8 2XL 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Because those two scientists are NOT the only ones who have written on this subject, as it was implied in the older version. There are more than 400 studies, and to claim that most of them were written by these two is incorrect. I wrote that those health side effects have been suggested in the studies and provided a source where those statements can be found. How could it be POV when I'm referring to scientific studies? Your attempt to protect this pro-irradiation version is propaganda if anything.

Also, where have they "repeatedly asked that their work not be misinterpreted"? If you wish to include that statement, please do, but provide a source for your claim. You were the one who asked for sources. And if you disagree with the things I wrote, I ask you to edit them to a more neutral form, not revert back to an old version. It'll only end up in me reverting as well.

sources are: http://www.mnbeef.org/statement_to%20public%20citizen.delincee.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/99f4372/99f-4372-bkg0001-Tab-56-Delincee.pdf

• I suggest you get an account on Wikipedia, the read the rules and policies that are in place. When you have done this log on and we will get to work on this article if you want. Threats of an edit war are NOT the way things are done here. I strongly suggest you start with this page DV8 2XL 21:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read that page and other policies before, but I did create an account as you asked. I didn't threat you with an edit war, I was suggesting that you could've edited my post to a more neutral version if you thought it was not NPOV instead of reverting back, since it took some time to write it. To me, POV is when one makes a claim without any source reference.

Some of the wording in this article bothers me, since it is mostly FDA, WHO and IAEA who are saying that this is a completely safe method, yet it is made to sound like that is the consensus around the globe. I tried to mention some of the health hazards that scientific studies have shown and provided a source to keep, or should I say make it NPOV. Funeralprogression 12:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You had a valid point about the bias of the article being shaded toward the pro, however the cure for that is not 'counterbalacing' with rhetoric from the other side. Phrasing that includes lists of fuzzy terms like 'organ failure' and loaded language using the words 'feces' and 'urine' out of contex does not balance an article. Also you should know, (or you soon will,if you hang around) hit-and-run editing by folks with an agenda working from annon. I.P.s are a bit of a pest and it is sometime hard to sort out the ligitimate editors from the vandals, and yes when there is a lot of it going on maybe I react a bit too fast.

I reworked the article with NPOV in mind and took out much of the loaded wording from both sides. DV8 2XL 15:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest, that we include any reference that one might have with regards to any potential issues associated with food irradiation as long as they present sound, peer reviewed science. I would lead by good example, but I feel that Dr. Delincee's work is really the only thing out there that might qualify, and that reference is already included together with subsequent work resulting from the findings. I feel that we are dealing with not so much an issue of neutrality or bias, rather than an ideological dispute and an encyclopedia may not be the right forum for this. FDA, WHO, IAEA, USDA, FAO, CDC and many other organizations agree with the toxicological assessment of food irradiation as displayed in the article in its current, disputed form. The controversy is duly noted in the article, but that should not impact the existing overwhelming scientific content. At this point a serious encyclopedia should assume that consensus be reached and move on. I motion that the neutrality of this article be restored and if possible the article be finalized. Arved Deecke 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Doses

Added some text into the part describing the effects of different dosages, since it depends also on what type of food is being irradiated. Funeralprogression 13:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

200.67.110.198

Hi, 200.67.110.198 some good work done in Food irradiation. Do think about geting an account here it's eazy and it's free, We need editors like you. DV8 2XL 18:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have an account, My name is Arved Deecke and I apologize for having edited without being logged on. Arved Deecke 18:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Disinfest / Disinfect

There seems to be an ongoing edit-war toggling between disinfest and disinfect in the first paragraph of the article. I suggest we discuss this here to find consensus. It is my understanding that disinfestation refers to the elimination of vermins. Irradiation is suitable to disinfest against insects, spiders, mites etc. and the term disinfest seems to be justified to me in the context. Disinfect seems synonymous to sterilization and hence need not be listed separately. Please discuss this here prior to reverting the edit. Arved Deecke 19:14, 13 December 2006

• My apologies, I changed disinfest to disinfect without checking the talkpage, thinking it to be a simple typo. However, as a Med student I can contribute to this by saying that disinfect is NOT the same thing as sterilize, and so it should be considered separately:

• --Sterilize means to completely remove (ie elimination) all transmissible agents (such as bacteria, prions and viruses) from a surface or object.

• --Disinfect (as I understand it from my microbiology lecturers) means to reduce the load of such agents on a surface to a very low level, ie one which is very unlikely to cause disease (eg if someone eats the thing - their immune system mops up any remaining agents). The sterilization article describes disinfecting as removing pathogens only, but I believe this to be simplistic - rather, it is the removal of the ability to produce pathology in most individuals, by reducing microorganism (and hence pathogen) load.

• --Disinfest is not a term I'm familiar with, but as long as it is not "original research", it sounds like it is separate also (as it deals with macroorganisms, if I understand you correctly, Arved. Can you vouch for it, and ideally reference it? Perhaps a page for it would be good - for example covering the removal of maggots from battlefield wounds, or blowfly larvae from under the skin.
• -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

James, according to the online dictionary of English [disinfest |http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disinfest] means "to rid of vermin" The term "Vermin" seems to include insects and rhodents but can be applied to other multicelular organisms considerd a nusance to mankind. Irradiation is specifically used in insect desinfestation and the term as such represents an important distinct usage of irradiation processing that requires mention. I will create a Wiki stub for the term disinfestation per your suggestion. Furthermore I will change disinfest to "insect disinfestation" in the article and also per your suggestion list sterilize and disinfect separately. Arved Deecke 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another issue with terminology

In the article there is a reference to "partial sterilisation." This makes about as much sense as saying someone is "partially pregnant." I don't know precisely what the editor was trying to say but it is fairly vague. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.80.123.40 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Just guessing, but maybe the point is that a large percentage of planted seeds of spices and herbs might not germinate if irradiated? -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Partial sterilization intends to communicate that although microbial count is reduced often by several logarithms for common pathogens doses required for a complete sterilization including elimination of virus pathogens or even prions is not accomplished. Partial sterilization is not an uncommon term in this context as most sterilization methods do not offer complete sterility. I did, however change the text from "partial sterilization" to "reduced microbial load" in order to accomodate for a wider spectrum of viewpoints.

Arved Deecke 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd remark

"Whenever dealing with nuclear technology, safety is a valid concern."

Safety is a valid concern with almost any technology. So what? 128.165.87.144 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates and locations of studies

I removed the redundant in-text reference to the date of a study since that information is already available in the citations. The in-text reference might also confuse the reader about the dates of all the studies cited in that paragraph. In any case, research from the 1950's is still valid and just as relevant as the more recent research, especially in light of the scant body of objective, scientific research on this subject.--MonstretM 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as relevant - in your opinion. One of those studies was conducted in the USSR, that well-known fount of objective research! I'm putting it back. MrArt 08:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of the studies. But rather than categorically disparaging the entire history of science and research conducted in the USSR, can you give me a specific reason why we should question the objectivity of this one particular study? Or is your bias based on "just your opinion"?MonstretM 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates of studies, as well as locations, are important. It's not the right of any editor to decide that research from the 1950's is still valid and just as relevant as the more recent research, especially in light of the scant body of objective - let the reader decide how much weight to give to old studies. Plus it's bogus to say that "information is available in the citations"; Wikipedia articles need to provide context, otherwise we'd just say something like "Some research as been done: <ref><ref><ref><ref>" . -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what you are reading, Mr. Broughton. Where did I say that dates of studies aren't important? Of course dates of studies are important, which is why we put them in the citations! Hellooo?

As an editor, I have scrupulously followed protocol by putting the dates in the citations. And by the way, research from the 1950's is just as valid and relevant as more recent research until there is ever presented reasonable cause to question the methods or data of such research. Therefore, in conforming to the practices of the scientific community, I am fully right to assume the validity and relevance of such published research and to present such information to the reader without the inclusion of redundant information that might disrupt the flow of the text or confuse/mislead the reader. Furthermore, it is entirely a matter of style as to how to present such information. For example, instead of writing, "In studies of low-dose food irradiation, a diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespan in offspring of rats, and chromosome damage in mice," it would have been just as well to write, "Consumption of irradiated foods may lead to shorter lifespans and cell damage in some mammal species" as long as I provided the citation. In fact, the latter, more fluid but informal method is commonly used in many college science textbooks. Again, the citations are key.

I've also seen many quality Wikipedia articles, in which information is presented with no textual reference at all to the original source, but with an adequate citation.MonstretM 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is clearly a difference of opinion, nothing more. One can say, in the text, "A study found", or "A study in 1950 found", or "A study in the USSR in 1950 found"; there isn't an absolute right or wrong. Saying that the information is in the citation (footnote) isn't sufficient reason to delete it from the text of the article. As always, the issue is what the reader should be most aware of.

I'm going to assert, based on my sense of the world, that (a) the older a study, in general, the less likely it is to be either the most recent, or to be good science (control group, randomization of treatment, double-blinded, etc.), and that (b) most of the editors and readers of the English Wikipedia are familiar with Western science (U.S. and Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand) and not with science (quality, regulations, peer reviews, etc.) from other countries. To the extent that those assertions are true, it's important (I believe) to flag the unexpected so that readers don't automatically give information the same weight. Is this POV or bias? I believe it is not, but simply fact. If someone were to write "The study was done in the USSR in 1950, and is therefore of questionable value", the "therefore" would be bias, and the "of questionable value" should be struck unless it was supported by citing a reliable source.

In short, I think that the opinions of other editors is needed, and rough consensus on what should and should not be in the text of the article should be the deciding factor, since this is, at its base, simply editorial judgment. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

"I'm going to assert, based on my sense of the world, that (a) the older a study, in general, the less likely it is to be either the most recent..."

I hope you realize that this is a statement of the totally obvious. However, if you are also blindly assuming or suggesting that more recent studies outweigh or replace older or preceding ones, then that is a dangerously misguided practice to be prescribing and defies both common sense as well as the norms of the scientific community. We refer to older studies, because they continually influence modern thought and knowledge, and precisely because they have withstood decades of scrutiny and the test of time. We cannot say the same of research that has been conducted within the last few years.

You wrote:

"the older a study, in general, the less likely it is to be... good science (control group, randomization of treatment, double-blinded, etc.), and that (b) most of the editors and readers of the English Wikipedia are familiar with Western science (U.S. and Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand) and not with science (quality, regulations, peer reviews, etc.) from other countries."

This statement is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous, and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the history of the sciences. All of our knowledge today, particularly in science, is built upon the foundations of preceding generations' work, regardless of their nationality. Many major contributions, in all branches of science, have been made from scientists and researchers from non-Western countries during the last century. From Russia and the USSR, for example, we have Dmitri Mendeleev, Ivan Pavlov, Nikolay Semyonov, and Pavel Cherenkov, to name but a few. They are as much a part of the "Western" school of science as Einstein and Sagan, and the idea that their country or date of work should raise a red flag is not supported by the realities of academia and modern science.

So yes, your assertions originate from bias and your claims of "unexpected" information are completely unfounded. You would be hard-pressed to find any Western scholar today who would deny that significant contributions have been made in their fields from non-Western scientists in the last century. Therefore, to say that research should be "flagged," simply because it originates from the 1950's or from a non-Western source, and to claim that "Western" research deserves to be weighted more heavily, is ethnocentrism, xenophobia, plain ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader, or all of the above. In any case, it has no place on Wikipedia.MonstretM 01:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If we were talking about the history of sciences such as chemistry or physics, I'd agree with most of your points. My mistake was to fail to make clear that we're talking about (as far as I know) medical/safety issues. One of things I do know is for fields like epidemiology, mathematical methods weren't introduced until the 20th century. I also know that DNA wasn't accurately modeled until 1953. So clearly there are studies older than these two points in time, for example, that are of interest to historians of science but not to readers looking to understand current issues and controversies.

If you're saying that scientific studies, no matter when done or where published (Germany, 1938, for example; see Lysenkoism for another example) should be treated similarly, that's absurd. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the study in question here is not related to epidemiology, so that point is moot. Furthermore, the study on the cytogenetic activity of irradiated potatoes was conducted in 1957, not 1857, not 1947, not 1938. You still have not provided any compelling evidence as to why we should be doubting the merits of this one particular study.

As for your point re:Lysenkoism, we can hardly claim that scientific misconduct is attributable to any one nation or time period. For example, see John Darsee, Eric Poehlman, and http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/

But maybe you are on to something here. Yea, maybe we should be "flagging" all the studies, like those conducted under the auspices of the USDA and FDA? Oh wait a minute, we do that already. It's called using citations.

And thanks for your private message by the way. Unfortunately, I don't agree with you and I intend to continue writing -- just the way that I've been -- for truth and neutrality on Wikipedia.MonstretM 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire section on very selective studies that is in complete disregard overwhelming endorsement of food irradiation by health agencies around the world and the scientific community as such. If we are to include studies we would need to include all and not only those that comply with the specific ideological requirements of the author. As the Wikipedia is not a platform for biased opinion I suggest we define any topic around the scientifc consensus that exists first and only then giving due mention to differing opinions without pretending that they represent the scholastic view on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.106.143 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted you, however, because your new claim had no citations, vs. the old stuff, which did. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To 189.169.106.143: I suggest you heed your own advice. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for your endorsement of food irradiation. Therefore, we need to present both sides of the issue, which your edit clearly failed to accomplish. Thanks to the administrator for reverting the page to the previously edited version.MonstretM 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2ACB's and Health Concerns

These should be kept in separate sections as they are not quite the same issues. One deals with the known health risks of consuming irradiated foods while the other deals specifically with the formation of exotic chemicals in irradiated foods. Combining the two subjects into one section only obfuscates the issues. MonstretM 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and combined them back into the same section. The underlying concern of 2ACB's were always health issues with the consumer. I understand that seperating the sections creates the illusion of a bigger issue, but you might agree that wikipedia should reflect main stream scientific consensus which is that irradiated food has been demonstrated safe and adequate for human consumption. Arved Deecke 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors strive to maintain NPOV. As much as you want to believe (or want the readers to believe) otherwise, there is not a "mainstream scientific consensus" on food irradiation, given the significant amount of members in the scientific and medical community who advise against irradiating foods. See http://www.ccnr.org/food_irradiation.html

Given the significant diversity of viewpoints that exist on both sides of this issue, I propose that your usage of the term "mainstream" is very inappropriate and subjective, and your usage of the term "consensus" cannot be applied in this case as by definition a consensus implies unanimity, which does not exist on this issue any more than one could say that there is a "mainstream opinion" on abortion (just because it is allowed by law) or a scientific "consensus" on global warming.

Wikipedia policy requires that when significant opposing viewpoints exist on a topic, that both should be presented fairly, and no single opinion can be implied to represent the absolute truth or "correct" viewpoint. In order for the readers to be allowed to make their own judgments, it is important that information be presented fairly. I propose that because you continually try to impose your viewpoint that a "mainstream scientific consensus" exists on the topic of food irradiation, when it clearly doesn't, that your neutrality and motivations in editing this topic are of questionable integrity. MonstretM 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Arveed Deecke, frequent editor of the "food irradiation" page on Wikipedia, should have disclosed that he is the president and CEO of Phytosan and has a vested interest in promoting food irradiation. Once again, I note that his edits have failed to comply with NPOV policy, and I suggest that so long as he is allowed to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform to endorse food irradiation, it will be impossible to maintain the integrity of this page.

From the NY Times: "Facilities in Hawaii and Florida that treat modest quantities of produce have been the primary irradiated sources for the United States so far, but a huge Mexican irradiation facility is expected to start operation in a year. Arved Deecke, general manager of Phytosan, the company building the plant, said irradiation will be cheaper than the hot water dip, and that he plans to treat a quarter of Mexican mango exports by 2012." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/dining/02mang.html?

You may also do a google search on "Arveed Deecke" for more info. MonstretM 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In terms of disclosure I can not do much more than offer my real name and I might suggest you do the same. I, and others sense an agenda to slander a specific technology regardless of the data and argument that is presented, often eliminating a very mainstream scientific knowledge base which is what Wikipedia users come to expect. Granted there are some who are concerned about this technology on a scientifc level, but you will agree that none of the recent edits have eliminated a valid reference to a specific opinion expressed by you. I and others did provide additional arguments around these opinion which in terms were backed up by valid reference. I feel that this is the way it should be done. Taking this to a personal level will probably not help with the project and I suggest a cool down period to level things out and let some other people contribute. Arved Deecke 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's not personal. The conflict of interest is quite palpable; you're the CEO of an irradiation company; you've made no edits outside the subject of irradiation; and your edits have generally been to promote irradiation, though I'm sure you just consider them to be reporting sourced facts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of scientific studies

My proposal for the format of the section on scientific studies is to 1. present the findings of the studies in simple and clear, unbiased terms, and then 2. present the various interpretations in neutral POV. I think it misleads the reader to lead off this section using a non-neutral viewpoint (as was the case in the previous edits), which is why we should first present the findings without POV, and then present the reviews and criticisms of the studies. I streamlined this section in order to preserve clarity and flow. I removed text that was non-neutral, uncited, or nonessential to the point being made or to the article in general. MonstretM 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here I disagree. The Wikipedia user should hear about the majority view first and that is currently expressed by institutions like FDA, CDC, USDA, WHO, CODEX, IAEA and many others as cited on the page. The user is then entitled to learn about the whole spectrum of differing opinions to form his own. Your method targets at creating the illusion that the cocnerns are overwhelming and widely recognized and that just simply is not a valid rendition of reality. One would need to adhere to some sort of conspiracy theory to assume that all these health regulators are conspireing to knowingly push an unsafe technology. If we were to follow your suggestion and present scientific studies, we would clearly need to mention all of the 2500+ studies that did not find any adverse effects of food irradiation on consumer health, and present them jointly with the 6 or seven studies that say the contrary (if they then do, which upon closer scrutiny many do not) You will agree that such a bibliographical list is not the concise format a Wikipedia user should be able to expect. Neither is a biased selection of those few studies that fit into a specific ideological framework that you seem to adhere to.As mentioned earlier a cooldown period and input from other people should be the way to go. We can always hash this out on the talk page first and then move forward jointly Arved Deecke 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, I and other US citizens would disagree with your claim that the majority view is expressed by the FDA and other institutions. Many of these organizations do have agendas. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) mission, for example, is to promote nuclear technology, while there are well-documented conflict of interest problems within FDA. See http://www.forbes.com/home/healthcare/2005/02/24/cx_mh_0224fda.html and http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/

I might agree with you that Wikipedia should present the "majority" view before the less popular viewpoints, but I do not agree that pro-irradiation is the dominant viewpoint with either the American public or the independent scientific community. And of course the readers should be allowed to form their own judgments without any intervening manipulation from either corporate or special interests. I see that we agree on that, but I don't see that manifested at all in your editing. To claim that *I* have an agenda is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. My goal on this page is to present the facts about food irradiation in a way that is clear and neutral, but your edits have continually undermined any attempts at a straightforward and unbiased presentation.

As for the "thousands of scientific studies" that validate irradiated foods as safe, I propose that you include a paragraph with a representative sample of the studies' findings. Perhaps you can refer to the list of studies that the FDA reviewed in its decision to endorse food irradiation.

Again, I propose that we stick to the format of my last edit, which is a more user-friendly, coherent, logical, and NPOV format than the current version. In my latest edit, contrary to the claims of 200.67.94.104 (who happens to be from Mexico, same country in which your irradiation business is located) I did not delete most of the newer text, but rather moved it and incorporated most of it into more appropriate sections. The parts that I did delete were redundant, misleading, or non-NPOV; and keep in mind that just because statements are cited does not make them valid. I propose that we do a full comparison of my version and the current version, and discuss each piece of text on a case by case (section by section) basis. When we come to a mutual agreement on all contested parts of the entire text, I suggest we can then request for removal of protection.MonstretM 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Part 1 of cooperative edit: Proposed new section for "Current state of irradiated foods"

I suggest moving the following text from the intro into a new section, called "Current state of irradiated foods": "Food Irradiation is currently permitted by over 40 countries and volumes are estimated to exceed 500'000 metric tons anually world wide"

Into this new section I also suggest moving the following text from the section titled "Food irradiation": "The United States Department of Agriculture has approved the use of low-level irradiation as an alternative treatment to pesticides for fruits and vegetables that are considered hosts to a number of insect pests, including fruit flies and seed weevils. While the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has passed a motion to commit member states to implement irradiation technology for their national phytosanitary programs, the findings of recent scientific studies contributed to the European Parliament’s decision to revise a proposal to expand the types of food that can be irradiated in the European Union. Currently, the European Union only permits irradiation of dried aromatic herbs, spices, and vegetable seasonings. They are requesting more studies to be done before they will allow expansion of irradiation technology to other food items. Other countries including New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, India, and Mexico have permitted the irradiation of fresh fruits for quarantine purposes."

In regards to the part of this text that currently reads: "the findings of recent scientific studies contributed to the European Parliament’s decision to revise a proposal to expand the types of food that can be irradiated in the European Union." I suggest restoring my original wording of "reject" in place of "revise" as the quote from the source would support that phrasing: "Based on European studies showing the formation of cancer-causing properties in irradiated fat, the European Union, which allows irradiation only for certain spices and dried herbs, has voted not to permit any further food irradiation until more studies have been done." (Burros, Marian. "Irradiated Beef: A Question In Lunchrooms," The New York Times, January 29, 2003.)

In regards to the part of this text that currently reads: "Other countries including New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, India, and Mexico have permitted the irradiation of fresh fruits for quarantine purposes." I suggest restoring my original wording of "for export to the United States" in place of "for quarantine purposes" as it is fact that these fruits are being irradiated for export to the USA and my wording is less obscure than the current wording.

From the section on "Public perception and expert opinions," I suggest moving the following text into this new section: "Many supermarkets carry irradiated food products today ranging from fresh fruit, dehydrated spices, and ground meat products while some supermarkets like Whole Foods Market will not carry the product."

But I suggest changing the text to a more truthful and representative statement on the current state of irradiated foods in the US market: "Many supermarkets carry a limited array of irradiated food products, ranging from fresh fruit, dehydrated spices, and ground meat products, while other stores such as Whole Foods Market have refused to carry irradiated foods."

From that same section on "Public perception and expert opinions," I suggest importing the following text into the new section: "India recently exported its first shipment of mango to the U.S. by means of irradiation and despite relatively high shipping cost compared to Latin American mango, market reception was very good"

But I suggest removing the text that claims that "market reception was very good" as this is not supported in your citation. The new sentence would read as: "India recently exported its first shipment of mangoes to the U.S. by means of irradiation despite relatively high shipping costs compared to Latin American mangoes."

The final and complete text for the new section would look like this:

Current state of food irradiation

Food Irradiation is currently permitted by over 40 countries and volumes are estimated to exceed 500'000 metric tons annually world wide[6].

The United States Department of Agriculture has approved the use of low-level irradiation as an alternative treatment to pesticides for fruits and vegetables that are considered hosts to a number of insect pests, including fruit flies and seed weevils. While the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has passed a motion to commit member states to implement irradiation technology for their national phytosanitary programs, the findings of recent scientific studies contributed to the European Parliament’s decision to reject a proposal to expand the types of food that can be irradiated in the European Union[7]. Currently, the European Union only permits irradiation of dried aromatic herbs, spices, and vegetable seasonings[8]. They are requesting more studies to be done before they will allow expansion of irradiation technology to other food items[9]. Other countries including New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, India, and Mexico have permitted the irradiation of fresh fruits for export to the United States.

Many supermarkets carry a limited array of irradiated food products, ranging from fresh fruit[10], dehydrated spices[11] and ground meat products[12][13], while other stores such as Whole Foods Market have refused to carry irradiated foods[14].

India recently exported its first shipment of mangoes to the U.S. by means of irradiation despite relatively high shipping costs compared to Latin American mangoes[15].

MonstretM 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)